EPTThe state of Battle.net 2.0 - Page 21
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Froadac
United States6733 Posts
| ||
|
Renaissance
Canada273 Posts
| ||
|
Blind Fremen
United States37 Posts
| ||
|
ivirj
Mexico79 Posts
1274643380346 http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/9819/1274643380346.jpg ![[image loading]](http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/9819/1274643380346.jpg) In case it dosnt work the first time | ||
|
Toxi78
966 Posts
when you disconnect 10 times in a row and you keep seeing "You have left the game!" you rly wanna punch a fucking moron from xbox live in the face and tell him THAT UR FAGGOT SHITNET0.2 DISCONNECTED ME NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND | ||
|
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
On May 24 2010 04:57 ivirj wrote: C:\Users\sams\Pictures\1274643380346.jpg ಠ_ಠ | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On May 24 2010 03:21 Nebulis wrote: Bnet 2.0 actual status makes a lot of sense to me. Let's imagine you are Bnet 2.0 Lead designer. You want to make it a platform for competitive gaming, and why not esports. What are you going to put in it ? -> Chat channels ? Yes, must have for tournaments at leat -> Clan system ? Of course, those are the roots of competition -> Advanced tournament system ? Yes, that's the first step to esports -> LAN mode ? there wont be any esports possible ithout that Etc etc. Now imagine you want to create a platform which goal is to attract as many casual gamers as possible, especially those playing on console systems and not PC yet, or playing on Blizzard games other than RTS (like WoW players). What are you gonna implement into Bnet 2.0 ? -> Chat channels ? Nope, casuals will never use them. Having a friends list is enough. -> Clan system ? Nope, casuals will never use them. They aren't playing for competition but for fun. -> Advanced tournament system ? see above -> LAN mode ? LAN is for hardcore gamers. Casuals play from home, and dont move from it. And since pretty much everyone has a broadband connection nowadays, no reasons to implement it. That's it for the competitive side. Now for the casual side : -> Facebook friends list ? Yes, best way to attract casuals who arent playing PC yet -> Soft ranking system which doesnt show how bad you are to the rest of the world ? Yes, casuals dont play for competition. The recent change to Copper league goes to the same way - no matter how bad you are, you are still good enough to be in Silver league. No frustation guaranteed in SC2 ! -> Priority to mods and custom games/heroes available in custom games : best way to attract casuals through DotA and others mods -> Novice maps, achievements everywhere, play coop vs AI : totally casual gamers oriented. Achievements specifically appeal console players As a conclusion, BNet 2.0 is perfect as it is. It's just purely oriented towards casual gaming and not competitive play/esports. Ok, so, I don't actually agree. Look at WoW - I'm sure tonnes of casuals in that game joined guilds (clans). WoW also had chat channels (I say had because I dunno what the current status is). And casuals like LAN, just for different reasons. | ||
|
Renaissance
Canada273 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kQk61.jpg) Please digg this, we need to get the word out before any more damage is done: http://digg.com/pc_games/Stone_40_000_BC_vs_Battle_net_2_0_2010 | ||
|
LightYears
39 Posts
On May 24 2010 05:00 FrozenArbiter wrote: Ok, so, I don't actually agree. Look at WoW - I'm sure tonnes of casuals in that game joined guilds (clans). WoW also had chat channels (I say had because I dunno what the current status is). And casuals like LAN, just for different reasons. It is great to see you share the same thoughts as what I posted on page 20. The quoted poster is saying how Blizzard acts. Unfortunetly it is likely that Blizzard became more greedy and wants to gain money by attracting those that never touched a strategy game. And that they focused so much on attracting casuals that they didnt do the obvious to add these features. | ||
|
zizzefex
Canada34 Posts
On May 24 2010 02:35 travis wrote: eh they already have our money we are all going to buy it and it probably will sell more copies now that they've introduced stupid shit like facebook integration and they certainly will make more money selling maps and other features/addons They don't have all our money. I certainly will not buy SC2 if battle.net 2.0 remains as is. Unlike other fanboys I actually preferred playing other games than SC1 and WC3 because they were actually much better than SC1 and WC3. But usually those games had terrible (and I mean really terrible) matchmaking systems and noone could deny Battle.net was by far the best matchmaking system known to any competitive game (BY FAAAAAR). Even new games that came out last year still don't have as good a matchmaking system as the wc3 battle.net. That is not the case with Bnet 2.0 and SC2. I know better games will come out that will be better than SC2 (yes I know this is blasphemy but it's true)... but I still consider buying SC2 because of how good the original battle.net was compared to any other matchmaking. If Bnet 2.0 remains as is... like it appears it will be.... Activision won't have my money. In fact I will never buy a Activision game again, because after WoW, it appears they have completely lost touch with their consumers and just want to screw you over and over again much as possible like EA (I will never buy a EA game again either). | ||
|
ivirj
Mexico79 Posts
| ||
|
Nebulis
3 Posts
Ok, so, I don't actually agree. Look at WoW - I'm sure tonnes of casuals in that game joined guilds (clans). WoW also had chat channels (I say had because I dunno what the current status is). And casuals like LAN, just for different reasons. WoW is a bit of a specific case, as it came with built-in guilds and chat channels, simply because every other MMO has it (mainly because MMO wouldnt massive without at least some sort of way of communication between players). WoW guilds are pretty different from RTS clans. It's common for guilds to have several dozen/hundred of players, a good part of them being borderline active. Also there isn't any kind of competition between a large majority of guilds. Their primary role is social gathering, while clans imo always retain the small of competition. Actually WoW was oriented towards hardcore players at the very beginning, stuff like achievements didnt come until very late. | ||
|
Dionyseus
United States2068 Posts
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?sid=5000&topicId=25026564212&pageNo=1 | ||
|
Tinithor
United States1552 Posts
On May 24 2010 03:38 ymirheim wrote: I take it you are another one of those who missed blizzard saying that they did not change the buddy system at all, they just disabled parts for this particular patch. You ARE going to be able to add players by their username in the finished game. I find it funny how you think that that excuse is the truth. ITs very obvious that it was merely a MASSIVE oversight on their part when they removed the identifiers and they just didn't bother to fix it. Hopefully they will now that theres been a bajillion people complain about it but who knows , this is blizzard were talking about. | ||
|
epik640x
United States1134 Posts
Where the game just freezes at a certain point? | ||
|
ymirheim
Sweden300 Posts
On May 24 2010 06:02 Nebulis wrote: WoW is a bit of a specific case, as it came with built-in guilds and chat channels, simply because every other MMO has it (mainly because MMO wouldnt massive without at least some sort of way of communication between players). WoW guilds are pretty different from RTS clans. It's common for guilds to have several dozen/hundred of players, a good part of them being borderline active. Also there isn't any kind of competition between a large majority of guilds. Their primary role is social gathering, while clans imo always retain the small of competition. Actually WoW was oriented towards hardcore players at the very beginning, stuff like achievements didnt come until very late. Actually if anything WoW is the very evidence that blizzard cares about its customers. You pointed out something that is quite right, back when I played it it was really really hardcore. Any end game content was reserved to anyone who could put in seven raid nights a week. I have not myself been playing the game through all of the expansions because I did not have the free time to spend on mmo's but I got plenty of friends who play it and obviously blizzard retuned the game in the first expansion to make it more accessible for a lot more people. Because they listened to the community. They realized that only a single digit percent of the players actually wanted the really really hard and time consuming stuff. Then just as people started complaining that all the content were now too easy they went ahead in the third expansion and added hard modes and stuff like that on top of it to give more challenges to those few people who wanted really hard stuff, despite the fact that those people were a very small percentage of the player base. Whatever the reasons be for why bnet 2.0 currently lacks so much, I am not prepared to jump on the "omg blizzard just wants money train". But I really want to hear from blizzard what they plan on doing for the e-sports side of things. I want to hear straight up whether or not they are adding clan and tournament functionality and how it is going to work and when it is going to be put in. I am not fussed really if it is not in the retail until after a patch or two because I reckon they want to reach out to as many players as possible first but I really want a timeline from them. | ||
|
Santriel
Belgium33 Posts
The number one error of blizzard is thinking the same kiddies who play WoW are going to be the ones playing SC2, thus everything has been made to be retard-pointNclick-friendly. Many of the people currently playing SC2 are long-term hardcore blizzard customers (I mean damn... I started with warcraft ONE). They might suck-in a few of the kiddies with facebook integration and flashy, horribly laggy *wheee blue stars* flash menus but there's no fooling us older players (I'm still confused how a godamn 3-layered WELCOME SCREEN manages to choke up a modern computer....) What I don't understand is why so many fanboys rush to blizzards defense ? Are you guys really f*kin retarded or what ? That thing essentially took 7 full years to be coded and not only is it grossly inferior to the previous version, EVERYTHING useful has been removed and replaced by gimmicky crap only 12 years olds can think are "cool". I for one am not spending 60$ (well, €) for a game that won't, if ever, be enjoyable until maybe 2 or 3 years (let's not forget the add-on rip-offs that are coming too). | ||
|
Necrosjef
United Kingdom530 Posts
On May 24 2010 08:00 Santriel wrote: What I don't understand is why so many fanboys rush to blizzards defense ? Are you guys really f*kin retarded or what ? That thing essentially took 7 full years to be coded and not only is it grossly inferior to the previous version, EVERYTHING useful has been removed and replaced by gimmicky crap only 12 years olds can think are "cool". This is really the reason why I made this post on TL and not on the official SC2 beta forums. There are just too many fanboys and trolls who really very very thick (the guys who played WoW, had like 200 days playtime and became 'the best player' only when everyone else quit the game). Sadly though from what Blizzard is doing and responses I am reading here, it does indeed appear that the opinion of the casual noob is more important than the opinion of experienced player. Blizzard did promise that SC2 was going to be a platform for competitive gaming, that appears to have been a big lie though. Things like removal of LAN and the lack of a clan system just seem to be really horrific oversights. Things like chat aren't hugely important it just makes things more difficult. I really fail to see though how it is going to be possible to conduct big tournaments on Battle.net 2.0 without having LAN. Doesn't matter how stable they make it you will never get LAN latency performance on a WAN network....ever. I'm just hugely disappointed though, since I made this original post is been a couple of days and reading the responses from everyone else now really just confirms everything I said and really hammers the nail home that its not a bad dream, that SC2 might only be a shadow of what BW was and its just a damn shame after waiting so many years for it, only to see it butchered by a bunch of WoW faggots. | ||
|
Perfect Balance
Norway131 Posts
its not a bad dream, that SC2 might only be a shadow of what BW was and its just a damn shame after waiting so many years for it, only to see it butchered by a bunch of WoW faggots. Necrosjef, I understand your frustration, and I think this is a great thread. You've got a lot of people here who agree with you. Blizzard are getting rid of their old fans and trying to draw in the 11-20 year-olds that spend money on "premium bonus" maps and chase "achievements". A new generation of consumer idiots, completely void of any critical thinking, or regard for the contents of their (parents) wallet. Facebook integration happened in a patch in the beta, in a split second. What happened? Instead of turning the car around when they sensed that they were moving in the wrong direction, they stepped on the pedal and drove all the way to cashville | ||
|
Stripe
United States67 Posts
Unfortunately for the hardcore userbase of TL, casual users have much more influence than you guys and that's the way it should be. It's not just about money either, but satisfying a larger number of people. To the TC, you're jumping to a conclusion about the future of SC2 way to fast. Accurate predictions like these are really hard to make. Don't buy SC2 at release and check back 6 months after several patches; the existence of a thriving competitive scene may end up surprising you. No need to get so angry and lash out on "WoW faggots." | ||
| ||
