|
On May 23 2010 22:10 leser wrote:
so i'm emo if i don't like the current state of bnet and i'm not gonna buy the game because i don't like what they did with the community system?
wow, your view on emo is pretty distorted.
it's not just you specifically i'm just responding to yours cos it's the most recent in a long line of unreasonable whining. no one is saying you have to like how bnet is functioning right now. i'm just saying that there's a lot of kneejerk reactions going off in the many threads about this. do you really think blizzard is gonna ship a game that drops everyone from their matches?
|
I have to agree, I like how Heroes of newerth set up their interface and game system.
Simple and easy but still very operational.
|
On May 23 2010 22:10 Tinithor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2010 22:03 Fizban140 wrote:
I really have to question FrozenArbiters reading comprehension, pulling quotes and then divining out some meaning that was never there.
Dustin Browder isn't saying that people who want LAN are evil butterfly killers, blizzard is just trying to prevent smurfing and from the context their way of doing that is making one ID and one server only for your game.
Oh and all the stuff people want are the easy fixes, building a whole new online network from the ground up takes a lot of time and effort, adding a chat room takes a day.
Another day of doom and gloom and TL.net, is SC2 officially the worst thing ever yet? Ah the classic "Blizzard knows best" blind fan post. Well you believe that all you want but everything they've done during this beta and indeed ever since SC:BW says otherwise really. Dustin's answer was indeed talking about removing smurfing but what does that have to do with LAN functionality? He's clearly brushing past the real question cause they don't have a good answer. They want to avoid piracy obviously and thats fine but they could make a work around to that and still have LAN (which is VITAL for live tournaments...) but they just ignore it cause they don't care about anything as competetive as that.
Where did I say Blizzard knows best? I never said that at all. I do agree though that people need to have more trust in Blizzard, they are one of the best game developers in the world, I think they can handle this. Feedback is important but when it devolved into whiny, raging e-bitching nothing productive happens.
Also Blizzard has shown many times how committed they are to this game as a competitive game. They balance it around the top players and take feedback from competitive players.
They do have a real answer to the question of the no LAN, pirating. I don't agree with it at all, but that is the reason. They want to make money off the game and PC games are highly pirated (anywhere between 40-60 percent of players for some games) so you can't entirely blame them for not having it.
|
Marshall Islands104 Posts
Well, I guess I'll reiterate what many have said when I say that I totally agree with Jinro in just about everything he said.
I do sort of wonder if Blizzard is delaying a bunch of features just to launch the game faster. That does seem weird, though, because some things like chat channels/global stats don't seem hard to implement (Gibybo managed to do it and even create a pretty slick site to boot). Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about though....I have no experience in creating gaming servers so maybe it's way harder than I think.
I guess I'm just kind of ranting now, but I really think that implementing these bnet features would actually be good for Blizzard. They would make more money in the long run. Global stats, for instance--if you don't want to scare off the casual, just don't make it a big button. Make it an "out of the way" feature so you at least have it for the many people who DO want to know their actual rank.
On a final note, I don't believe that bnet 2 is unsalvageable by any means. Blizzard is an awesome company and will respond to what the fans want. I really do believe that they will also see that including these features will actually make them more money too. There is way too much money already riding on Starcraft 2 for them to not do what is absolutely best for the game. It just might take a while. Big companies cannot always move quickly, and it would not surprise me at all if many of these features are actually included eventually. It's just unfortunate about the "eventually."
|
On May 23 2010 22:16 Doc Daneeka wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2010 22:10 leser wrote:
so i'm emo if i don't like the current state of bnet and i'm not gonna buy the game because i don't like what they did with the community system?
wow, your view on emo is pretty distorted. it's not just you specifically i'm just responding to yours cos it's the most recent in a long line of unreasonable whining. no one is saying you have to like how bnet is functioning right now. i'm just saying that there's a lot of kneejerk reactions going off in the many threads about this. do you really think blizzard is gonna ship a game that drops everyone from their matches?
no but we believe/know that blizzard will ship a game that cant fulfill the very basic needs of the players. be it chat,lan or a simple realm selection.
the focus is just switching back on it since
a) the huge bnet fuckup keeps players from playing and thus talking over balance
b) the removal of the normal "add friend" showed what a lonely place this so called multiplayer platform is more then ever before and
c) the shipping date is coming closer and closer. and nothing has changed. and all we got is "yaya we dont care we know better" and "yaya maybe in a future patch/expansion or never" answers.
|
Perhaps the sc2pro mod could do something about it...
With a TL chat channel as the first thing you see when u log on, maybe even having your b.net account connected with your TL acc.
One can always dream...
In peru a social movement was started by local farmers when the police system was corrupt and out of function. The farmers organized "Rondas" where people took rounds doing the safe keeping job that the Police was supposed to do.
These organizations grew bigger, followed the peoples will and solved civil suits etc.
They even became a voice the state had to respect and the farmers autonomy was increased, their life qualites improved.
Resistance isn't futile. It's our right when there is wrong.
We must stand up for our indigenous rights (as sc1 players), resist imperialism.
I believe in Starcraft 2.
Not because of Blizzard but because of the people.
|
Jesus this is getting ridiculous, SC2 isn't some sort of social movement and Blizzard isn't an oppressive dictator. I think people need to take a step back and remember that this is a video game, and it is in beta. I wonder how long until there is a petition.
|
I like this thread.
I agree with almost all of it. I am at the point where I want a unified voice to express our frustration at how few of our needs are met by bnet 2.0
In the past when addressing lan, they used the "vocal minority" excuse and made it sound like no one really cares. Whether they believe that or not, I don't want them to do it for every single thing on the long list of gripes we have with bnet.
I'd love to visit TL one day and see a news article on concisely stating the flaws with bnet 2.0 in addition to where Blizzard went wrong, and why they went wrong: developing things we have said repeatedly we dont want, ignoring us on features we have very passionately clamored for, disregarding us as if they know better when it's pretty clear right now they don't
I don't know who is actually in charge of Bnet 2.0 design, but they are reaching GFWL level of fail
|
Marshall Islands104 Posts
I was thinking some more and I think it's worth mentioning that we have gotten some things we have asked for.
For instance the UDP is allowing people to play with less lag - or so I hear. Even Artosis asked for Ultra's to knock over force fields, and he got it pretty much the very next day.
I do think that this belongs in this thread. Blizzard listens (just ask some of the many who have visited Blizzard). It just takes some time.
|
Wouldn't it be nice if TL.net / GG.net / Ygosu and other starcraft/e-sport sites joined up and created an open letter with suggestions / improvements to battle.net 2.0 aswell as its current flaws. Add polls taken by the community to solidify the arguments.
It is quite clear that the balance team of SC2 reads TL.net, however the Battle.net 2.0 team seems to be completely oblivious to any sort of feedback given by the community.
Something bigger than a forum post on TL.net needs to happen to wake these guys up.
|
On May 23 2010 22:31 Jayde wrote:
I was thinking some more and I think it's worth mentioning that we have gotten some things we have asked for.
For instance the UDP is allowing people to play with less lag - or so I hear. Even Artosis asked for Ultra's to knock over force fields, and he got it pretty much the very next day.
I do think that this belongs in this thread. Blizzard listens (just ask some of the many who have visited Blizzard). It just takes some time.
They have certainly shown that they do listen to the community when it comes to actual ingame content. However when it comes to the stuff around the game (read: b.net 2.0) they seem less keen on doing what the community actually wants, at least the more competetive community.
|
at this point i would honestly rather have sc bnet back. just fix the blank list, spruce it up a bit, and we're good to go.
having to add everyone just to play a private custom game is such a huge pain in the ass and it doesn't even work right (no 2 player maps if party has 3+ people).
|
On May 23 2010 22:18 Solitary wrote:
I have to agree, I like how Heroes of newerth set up their interface and game system.
Simple and easy but still very operational.
I've seen a few people saying the HoN interface is a very good one. I'd like to second this and just say that the HoN interface chat channel system isn't the greatest however it is very easy to host games for 10 players and connectivity is very good. They also have regularly upwards of 50k players online.
I bet it didn't take S2 games 2 years or however long it took Blizzard to make battle.net 2 and the HoN interface even in beta was much better than battle.net 2.0 is at the moment. Got to bear in mind aswell that S2 had a shoe string budget for HoN and battle.net 2.0 is probably the most expensive product Blizzard have made. Good example of how to make something cheap simple and functional vs something expensive complicated and broken.
I think the main thing we should be trying to get across to Blizzard is that their priorities for battle.net 2.0 are just wrong. What the customer wants and what Blizzard is doing simply don't tie up....at all.
|
On May 23 2010 21:06 BillyMole wrote:
Let me refine my above post a moment, because this actually all makes sense if you stuff yourself into a businessperson's head. REMEMBER : most modern businesspeople only care about short term gains, NOT long term stability.
Working from the businessperson's head, everything that the development team does is focused on the target market. Their target market is not us, it is the new generation of gamers (the same ones that bought 10+ million copies of WoW). All their actions are focused on marketing their product to this target market, and thus they have to give them what they want.
What does this target market want?
- They want to feel like they accomplish something when they log in. Gogo league system and achievements.
- They only want to play with the few people they feel comfortable with, and they want to be able to share their accomplishments with these people, who are probably family members and coworkers. Ok, add the RealID system, and integrate Facebook.
- They don't want to be hassled by spam or trolls. Cue the removal of chatrooms, and let's also make it nearly impossible to add friends if you don't know their e-mail address.
That's pretty much what they want in a nutshell. Now, what do they not care at all about?
- They don't care about improving their performance, so long as they feel good about themselves. Ok, we don't have to waste effort with Online Replays, and we also don't need those Tournaments that WC3 had.
- They already hang out with their RealID friends, so let's not waste any time implementing Clan features. Those are only for the crazies anyway. And while we're at it, their friends are all close by geographically. Let's go ahead and region lock the game, so we don't need to support global networking, or even try to minimize the lag (though there wasn't any left anyway).
If we view it from the businessperson perspective, and focus everything on the target market, you can clearly see how everything in Jinro's post is either a waste of effort, or actively contrary to their goals.
You might ask, why aren't they focusing on us, the competitive gamers? Well, three reasons. First, there are a lot fewer of us. Second, they know that we're guaranteed money anyway. They know that they can mangle SC2 all they want, we'll still buy it because we've been waiting so long, and loved SC1 so much. And last, to them the competitive scene either plays on hacked servers (ICCUP), or is in Korea under kespa. Either way, it brings them no money, and thus are not to be bothered with.
Pretty much summed it up. Why would they waste time implementing a bunch of features only 1% of the people who buy the game would actively use or care about, it's not good business sense.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On May 23 2010 22:03 Fizban140 wrote:
Dustin Browder isn't saying that people who want LAN are evil butterfly killers, blizzard is just trying to prevent smurfing and from the context their way of doing that is making one ID and one server only for your game.
Oh and all the stuff people want are the easy fixes, building a whole new online network from the ground up takes a lot of time and effort, adding a chat room takes a day.
Another day of doom and gloom and TL.net, is SC2 officially the worst thing ever yet?
He gets asked about LAN, doesn't have a real answer, and goes on to talk about pulling wings off butterflies. I know full well that he isn't directly saying if you want LAN = you are a butterfly killer, but he doesn't have an answer so he switches the topic.
It's all bullshit.
And no, SC2 isn't the worst thing ever - the game is awesome. Bnet 2.0 is a piece of shit, however.
On May 23 2010 22:56 Wargizmo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2010 21:06 BillyMole wrote:
Let me refine my above post a moment, because this actually all makes sense if you stuff yourself into a businessperson's head. REMEMBER : most modern businesspeople only care about short term gains, NOT long term stability.
Working from the businessperson's head, everything that the development team does is focused on the target market. Their target market is not us, it is the new generation of gamers (the same ones that bought 10+ million copies of WoW). All their actions are focused on marketing their product to this target market, and thus they have to give them what they want.
What does this target market want?
- They want to feel like they accomplish something when they log in. Gogo league system and achievements.
- They only want to play with the few people they feel comfortable with, and they want to be able to share their accomplishments with these people, who are probably family members and coworkers. Ok, add the RealID system, and integrate Facebook.
- They don't want to be hassled by spam or trolls. Cue the removal of chatrooms, and let's also make it nearly impossible to add friends if you don't know their e-mail address.
That's pretty much what they want in a nutshell. Now, what do they not care at all about?
- They don't care about improving their performance, so long as they feel good about themselves. Ok, we don't have to waste effort with Online Replays, and we also don't need those Tournaments that WC3 had.
- They already hang out with their RealID friends, so let's not waste any time implementing Clan features. Those are only for the crazies anyway. And while we're at it, their friends are all close by geographically. Let's go ahead and region lock the game, so we don't need to support global networking, or even try to minimize the lag (though there wasn't any left anyway).
If we view it from the businessperson perspective, and focus everything on the target market, you can clearly see how everything in Jinro's post is either a waste of effort, or actively contrary to their goals.
You might ask, why aren't they focusing on us, the competitive gamers? Well, three reasons. First, there are a lot fewer of us. Second, they know that we're guaranteed money anyway. They know that they can mangle SC2 all they want, we'll still buy it because we've been waiting so long, and loved SC1 so much. And last, to them the competitive scene either plays on hacked servers (ICCUP), or is in Korea under kespa. Either way, it brings them no money, and thus are not to be bothered with. Pretty much summed it up. Why would they waste time implementing a bunch of features only 1% of the people who buy the game would actively use or care about, it's not good business sense.
I think the 1% number is wrong - do you really think all the people with like 5 posts who have posted in this thread are part of the hardcore old-guard that have played SC1 since release? I think far more casuals care than they think.
And wasn't it blizzard who said something along the lines of a casual is just a hardcore player waiting to happen? Something like that anyway.
The absolute casuals, the ones who will play the single player and maybe 2-3 games on bnet and move on to the next game, what sense would it make to cater to them when they won't be around to enjoy the features anyway?
|
Actually the reason Dustin Browder does not want to answer directly why they don't want LAN support is simply because it does not sound very well from a marketing point of view. Everyone at blizzard knows that they don't want LAN support because as long as all gaming must be done through their servers you cannot copy the game, you have to buy it and they got full control over content and users so that they are free to ban hackers etc.
Blizzard will say stuff like that it is for our experience because while there is a shred of truth in things like anti smurfing, no lan is for their benefit. Although on this one I got to admit that if I worked at blizzard I would had done the same thing. As a developer these days you really have to do stuff this way.
This is the reason why there is no LAN support and will never be LAN support, no matter what Browder says. I am afraid that unlike some of the other things that are missing, the lack of LAN is just a matter of welcome to the current times. MMO's, steam, x-box live etc. The PC market was being hit badly by piracy to the point where the consoles were taking over the entire market. The developers have realized that through online functions like steam they can get around it without keys and securom's and stuff that just gets broken eventually anyway.
LAN is dead, and it is not an sc2 issue, it is dead for gaming overall.
|
On May 23 2010 22:57 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2010 22:03 Fizban140 wrote:
Dustin Browder isn't saying that people who want LAN are evil butterfly killers, blizzard is just trying to prevent smurfing and from the context their way of doing that is making one ID and one server only for your game.
Oh and all the stuff people want are the easy fixes, building a whole new online network from the ground up takes a lot of time and effort, adding a chat room takes a day.
Another day of doom and gloom and TL.net, is SC2 officially the worst thing ever yet? He gets asked about LAN, doesn't have a real answer, and goes on to talk about pulling wings off butterflies. I know full well that he isn't directly saying if you want LAN = you are a butterfly killer, but he doesn't have an answer so he switches the topic. It's all bullshit. And no, SC2 isn't the worst thing ever - the game is awesome. Bnet 2.0 is a piece of shit, however.
The battlenet 2 UI and the replay system is oddly very far away from something as feature packed and convenient as HoN's UI and replay system...
Really, they should just take that design and shamelessly steal it...battlenet 2 feels worse than battlenet 1 in some respects and the replay system is pretty sparse. Obviously its a step up from SC1...but SC1 also came out in 1998.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On May 23 2010 23:02 ymirheim wrote:
Actually the reason Dustin Browder does not want to answer directly why they don't want LAN support is simply because it does not sound very well from a marketing point of view. Everyone at blizzard knows that they don't want LAN support because as long as all gaming must be done through their servers you cannot copy the game, you have to buy it and they got full control over content and users so that they are free to ban hackers etc.
Blizzard will say stuff like that it is for our experience because while there is a shred of truth in things like anti smurfing, no lan is for their benefit. Although on this one I got to admit that if I worked at blizzard I would had done the same thing. As a developer these days you really have to do stuff this way.
This is the reason why there is no LAN support and will never be LAN support, no matter what Browder says. I am afraid that unlike some of the other things that are missing, the lack of LAN is just a matter of welcome to the current times. MMO's, steam, x-box live etc. The PC market was being hit badly by piracy to the point where the consoles were taking over the entire market. The developers have realized that through online functions like steam they can get around it without keys and securom's and stuff that just gets broken eventually anyway.
LAN is dead, and it is not an sc2 issue, it is dead for gaming overall.
Ok, so tell me why we can't have LAN that you have to first authenticate the game on bnet  ? So, login to bnet, then in the custom game browser you can pick "LAN" and join games thare hosted on your Local Area Network.
It's pretty stupid how you can't even host LAN events for SC2 now, since they apparently have a limit to how many connections can come from 1 IP....
|
On May 23 2010 23:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2010 23:02 ymirheim wrote:
Actually the reason Dustin Browder does not want to answer directly why they don't want LAN support is simply because it does not sound very well from a marketing point of view. Everyone at blizzard knows that they don't want LAN support because as long as all gaming must be done through their servers you cannot copy the game, you have to buy it and they got full control over content and users so that they are free to ban hackers etc.
Blizzard will say stuff like that it is for our experience because while there is a shred of truth in things like anti smurfing, no lan is for their benefit. Although on this one I got to admit that if I worked at blizzard I would had done the same thing. As a developer these days you really have to do stuff this way.
This is the reason why there is no LAN support and will never be LAN support, no matter what Browder says. I am afraid that unlike some of the other things that are missing, the lack of LAN is just a matter of welcome to the current times. MMO's, steam, x-box live etc. The PC market was being hit badly by piracy to the point where the consoles were taking over the entire market. The developers have realized that through online functions like steam they can get around it without keys and securom's and stuff that just gets broken eventually anyway.
LAN is dead, and it is not an sc2 issue, it is dead for gaming overall. Ok, so tell me why we can't have LAN that you have to first authenticate the game on bnet ? So, login to bnet, then in the custom game browser you can pick "LAN" and join games thare hosted on your Local Area Network. It's pretty stupid how you can't even host LAN events for SC2 now, since they apparently have a limit to how many connections can come from 1 IP....
Most likely nothing but legal issues. That and they already seem to be quite overwhelmed with their current load of programming and design.
|
On May 23 2010 23:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2010 23:02 ymirheim wrote:
Actually the reason Dustin Browder does not want to answer directly why they don't want LAN support is simply because it does not sound very well from a marketing point of view. Everyone at blizzard knows that they don't want LAN support because as long as all gaming must be done through their servers you cannot copy the game, you have to buy it and they got full control over content and users so that they are free to ban hackers etc.
Blizzard will say stuff like that it is for our experience because while there is a shred of truth in things like anti smurfing, no lan is for their benefit. Although on this one I got to admit that if I worked at blizzard I would had done the same thing. As a developer these days you really have to do stuff this way.
This is the reason why there is no LAN support and will never be LAN support, no matter what Browder says. I am afraid that unlike some of the other things that are missing, the lack of LAN is just a matter of welcome to the current times. MMO's, steam, x-box live etc. The PC market was being hit badly by piracy to the point where the consoles were taking over the entire market. The developers have realized that through online functions like steam they can get around it without keys and securom's and stuff that just gets broken eventually anyway.
LAN is dead, and it is not an sc2 issue, it is dead for gaming overall. Ok, so tell me why we can't have LAN that you have to first authenticate the game on bnet ? So, login to bnet, then in the custom game browser you can pick "LAN" and join games thare hosted on your Local Area Network. It's pretty stupid how you can't even host LAN events for SC2 now, since they apparently have a limit to how many connections can come from 1 IP....
I guess that's because Blizzard wants Battle.net to be the new leading platform for onlinegaming and selling.
Steam prooved, that those platforms can be extemely powerful economy wise, and Blizzard just wants to follow this trend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
