EPTHonestly I feel it could just as easily be Blizz, being Blizz, but at least thats food for thought
-Solace
The state of Battle.net 2.0 - Page 27
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
Honestly I feel it could just as easily be Blizz, being Blizz, but at least thats food for thought -Solace | ||
|
Baarn
United States2702 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On May 25 2010 04:18 bakesale wrote: The latency argument is worthless anyway, since what are you supposed to do if you travel to another country? For example, this year, 10/12 months I am in the US, and the other two I'm in Europe. I am on a US server, but if latency was an issue, wouldn't it be better for me to select EU servers while traveling? If this were the case, it's a disservice to the customer to lock them in to their initial region's servers. I also have played the beta on US servers while in the EU, and the latency is fine. Also, with this wonderful Facebook integration, I have RL friends, that will assumedly be showing up in Bnet as a Facebook friend also, registered on the EU Bnet servers that I won't be able to play with. Great. At this point I'd even be happy with a web 2.0 micropayment to be able to log in to different regional servers. It's better than not playing on these other servers at all (or being forced to buy another copy of the game, which I know a lot of people will resort to). I just played my 5 placement games and a 2v2 on Asia, and there was NO LAG. The latency was really quite fine. In a division with Garimto btw, holla~~ | ||
|
Necrosjef
United Kingdom530 Posts
| ||
|
CowGoMoo
United States428 Posts
On May 25 2010 06:23 Necrosjef wrote: I was told the inbuilt latency to battle.net was 500ms. Not sure if any truth in that but if that was true you would only really experience lagg when playing Europe vs Australia for example which is around 750ms. 500ms? holy mother of zeus, WC3 was 250 and I think SC2 is supposed to be about 125. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On May 25 2010 06:23 Necrosjef wrote: I was told the inbuilt latency to battle.net was 500ms. Not sure if any truth in that but if that was true you would only really experience lagg when playing Europe vs Australia for example which is around 750ms. I think that's some outdated information, it was 250 for a long time then halved down to 125. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
| ||
|
DrakanSilva
Chile932 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i49.tinypic.com/280uud5.jpg) | ||
|
EverDawn
Sweden91 Posts
On May 25 2010 04:17 Niteo wrote: Exactly. You can tell SC2 as a product and battle.net 2.0 as a service are targeting two completely different markets. And it is going to fail for SC2. Any ideas on how to get the message out? We have 3 different topics on TL expressing everyone's distaste for the direction of battle.net 2.0. Two topics discussing battle.net 2.0 in general (with FrozenArbiter's professional insight), and one topic discussing how it will harm custom content (with IskatuMesk's custom content experience). If we were to combine all these topics and try to reach out to the general public then maybe we can get Blizzard to open their eyes. Where do we go to? The battle.net forums have completely evolved from a decade ago; fanboyism runs rampant there and very few old fans still post there anymore. They'll basically eat up whatever shit blizzard cranks out. There is that rock and battle.net 2.0 comparison picture that we could try to digg up. Does blizzard pay attention to twitter or facebook? We could try to get a change battle.net 2.0 group up. Any good ideas? I actully have been reading a lot of these post, but I'm so new t othis scene that I don't feel I have anything smart enugh to say, but this is one thing I've been thinking about a lot. IF the community here really is that disssatisfied, can we not make a effort in some other way then our own forums to change Blizzards mind? A ironic facebook group comes to mind, signing a petition is a nother? And, this might have been ksed before, but is all this content TL produces also posted on the Blizz forums? Thanks TL for being great, I'm also worried, beacuse if SC2 dosn't live up to the legacy, I'll will never get the chanse to be aprt of the jorney I missed with SC1  | ||
|
Renaissance
Canada273 Posts
On May 25 2010 06:47 Drakan wrote: found this on a brazilian forum lolol I followed the iPhone template: ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/kQk61.jpg) http://digg.com/pc_games/Stone_40_000_BC_vs_Battle_net_2_0_2010 Digg it up | ||
|
Renaissance
Canada273 Posts
| ||
|
DrakanSilva
Chile932 Posts
CHAT http://forum.hangarnet.com.br/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=21863 | ||
|
Raydog
United States632 Posts
| ||
|
Blackhawk13
United States442 Posts
i wish they would just fix the terrible flaws and designs in the wc3 interface (i.e not being able to read chat while trying to join custom games etc) and just perfect on that design.. ohwell | ||
|
{ToT}ColmA
Japan3260 Posts
| ||
|
hejakev
Sweden518 Posts
On May 23 2010 06:10 lew wrote: I wrote this on the beta forum (bad written, I know): Dear blizzard, I am sure you heard about ICCUP before. It's a starcraft 1 server with great and simple futures. People from Korea, Europe and Asia are all playing on the same server and everything is working perfectly. One thing is not that good about it: it's not noobfriendly. Blizzard fixed the not-noob friendliness with leagues, which is the only thing that battlenet 2 does better then ICCUP. Battlenet 2 is lacking a lot of very simple features which ICCUP has and which are NEEDED for starcraft 2 to become an ESPORTS game. The feautures: - channels - decent friend adding system (now it is ridicilous, the system pre-patch 13 was better) - a global ranking (remove the divisions please) - lan What you are doing now is: - dividing people between different servers - making tournaments almost impossible with the current friend system and with no-lan - making it impossible for people to check how well / bad they are doing compared to the rest of the world (ranking) - making it impossible to play with people from other continents - making battlenet a lonely place Why is ICCUP - capable to add people to 1 global server? - capable to add chat channels without a single problem? - capable to make a global ranking? Almost everyone at the teamliquid forums is asking for these futures and you keep on being stubborn. These features are so simple and still they are missing from battlenet. I know that you think that some of these features have disadvantages, but that doesn't take away that they are NEEDED if you want sc2 to be an ESPORTS game. I understand that making 1 global server is hard, but things like chatchannels, a decent friend-adding system and a global ranking are not that hard to implement. I also understand that this is BETA, but aren't these things so simple that they should be in the BETA already? You're a very literate Belgian | ||
|
divinesage
Singapore649 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States6539 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.novopc.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/keyboard.jpg) See this, Canessa? We're not console gamers. We all have one of these. This is how we play our games. I understand that on Xbox Live, chat rooms make no sense because you don't chat with these, you use microphones. It's not helpful to have a Vent channel with 40 people in it, so why have chat channels on XBL? XBL conveniently lacks brick and mortar RTS games, but right now one of those is Battle.net 2.0's only title. When you're on regular Battle.net, you're in one of two places. You're either playing in a game, or you're in a chat channel with the community. Tournaments, clans, clan wars, a place to meet people, to talk about the game, RIGHT INSIDE Battle.net itself. It really contributes to longevity. You can pop out of the game you just finished and find yourself in a channel with friends and friends of friends dicking around. You're really excited about the game you just played, and you think it was awesome. On Battle.net: You host the replay and watch it together. On battle.net 2.0: You boot up your Livestream or ustream account to stream the replay. Your friends alt-tab and open up their browsers to watch your stream (even Livestream and ustream have built-in chat rooms). Battle.net goes down for maintenance and you wrack your brains out trying to read the Chinese characters on the offline launcher you downloaded so you can show your friends the replay, then you just ALT+F4 everything and load up Pokerstars. Later you email your friends the replay file so they can watch it by themselves, but none of them gives a fuck anymore. It's a strategy game. Replays are a lot easier to deal with in RTS games than FPS demos or RPG replays. You already have them in SC2 at release, even though they weren't in SC1 at release. They need to be online. We've had online replays for a long time. Promising them after release so they can go the way of WC3 online replays - bullshit. Modern games (go to open-source games if your favorite commercial game doesn't have this) use competent netcode. This means that people with modern (i.e., broadband) Internet connections can enjoy LAN latency or "unlagged" play. Games without such clever programming elements have LAN play so that you at least have perfect latency when you're playing your $5000 match at WCG or killing time with your friends at a Bay Area LANevermind. I have no doubt that the utmost effort put in by the Battle.net team to excise anything that could be cracked and turned into pirate (private) servers will only further motivate the Chinese or Russians to produce some actually worthwhile medium for playing this great RTS. If you can't even include Battle.net authentication LAN play (I log in to Battle.net to activate LAN play) then you can authenticate someone else's fucking credit card. You have squeezed and squeezed and drawn all the fun out from online gaming. By the way, where are basic chat commands? Do I have to go back to the picture of the keyboard? Do they assume that people will only use the MOUSE to send messages to other players because they are masturbating with the other hand in order to extract some amount of fun from their miserable gaming service? Antihack? We'll see how well they do about banning offenders in the future. SC2 is an RTS. It's not an MMORPG. If you want to add persistent elements, it's fine, but only as long as you don't pretend they take the place of elements of Battle.net and modern games that any competent studio can put together. That is, including kindergarten achievements (that unlock DECALS and AVATARS REALLY!? Are you sure you know what an RTS game is about?) and calling it the Battle.net 2.0 experience does nothing more than equate the Battle.net 2.0 experience with being drowned in anal fetus corpses. They aren't harmful; lots of people think they're neat, but you're using them to strip basic features and mislead your fans (who have largely been guaranteed sales just because of BW's prestige) so they buy your World of Faceboxlivesoft cunt excrete. Unacceptable. The idea of a persistent character in an RTS game should NEVER supersede fundamental elements that make games fun. If you don't know what those are, you really didn't look hard enough at how you handled the original Battle.net. Xbox Live is full of titles from different studios. Battle.net 2.0 only has one studio. Canessa stated that this allowed a tighter integration of Blizzard games with Battle.net. What he meant was that they could scrap LAN and everything we're used to and charge you for your own content. It might work, and they might all retire before developing WoW 2, but if it doesn't, it's because of this short-sighted bullshit that sabotages how successful SC2 can be. Matchmaking is great, you can always line up a game even if the trash in clan x17 is dodging you because you hit C+ on iCCup. However, the divisions just treat us like children. Overall rankings (just call up the players' hidden MMR?) and a totally transparent ladder - and names that aren't Warpgate Tango Foxtrot. Gateway selection. I have friends in Europe and Asia. I want to play with them. Or is all this talk about Battle.net 2.0 being about esports which is about community just a butt plug for the shareholders? I'm surely not paying $180 for WoL if I even pay $60 to get into just one server. And no, I'm not a freeloader. People have shown that the latency is fine by having multiple beta accounts. If latency is the problem, then disallow people from matchmaking across servers. After you let me play on Asia, fix custom games and chat channels so I don't have to do hell knows what just to cheese someone I met from iCCup or TL or some other part of the Internet that actually knows how to support a Starcraft community. What are you trying to do, region-code Battle.net 2.0 like it's a DVD? What are we to you, pigs? A custom games browser shouldn't be some sterile roster of forget it. As far as map publishing, modding, and local map hosting... I can't say anything comparable to the expertise of IskatuMesk. A couple of these problems are all related to the way B.net 2.0 handles traffic. Specifically, LAN latency, online replays, local hosting of maps are all ostensibly impractical (I'm only but so educated in networking) because everybody connects to Battle.net servers for games. This is great because some people for whatever reason have trouble forwarding ports on their network. Simply append a second netcode mode which is client to client so that we can have online replays and better custom games. Most of the things so far are basic things that we would expect. Things we might like include clan support and tournament support. Real clans, too, not more XBL-derived inanity. Not just future patch -> never. What am I supposed to believe? You've promised Facebook and achievements on release. I already have my own achievements. They're called cheese the fuck out of my fr I had some really elegant ways of articulating some of these points, but they were arrived at during hypnagogia and I can't remember them anymore. The profanity is pejorative and light-hearted. My attitude is serious. In summary, jury rig online replays, chat channels, chat commands, and gateway selection immediately or it's just a risible travesty. Make some improvements over the original and we'll talk about microtransactions. Stop salivating because I said that and add the damn channels. Dustin Browder, you have not disappointed me. Has Battle.net 2.0? I'll know whether it has disappointed me when I see a version of it that isn't blatantly some sort of April Fools' joke. | ||
|
bakesale
United States187 Posts
On May 23 2010 07:00 FrozenArbiter wrote: LAN Will not be in the game. It seems that they have even given up on the idea of having a LAN-through-bnet where you would have to authenticate your game before playing on LAN. Their reasons for this have been stupid excuses along the lines of people who want LAN being evil fly-wing-pulling bastards*:, but I guess it's probably piracy related. Piracy issue: letting the terrorists win. No matter what, people will get this from piratebay (or whatever), with a program to circumvent any security Blizzard puts in. They will install the game and play on third-party servers. They will do this whether or not LAN capability is in the game. The rest of us, those who pay for the game and do everything as we should, will not have basic LAN capability that has been in, literally, every Blizzard RTS since Warcraft I (and I, probably what you would classify as a "casual" gamer, have used LAN in literally every Blizzard RTS since WCI). Authenticating with Bnet upon program launch would be acceptable. Also, I fail to see how LAN will be allowing people to "beat up on noobs." | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On May 25 2010 07:59 Drakan wrote: :O is this image real ? CHAT http://forum.hangarnet.com.br/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=21863 Can you rehost somewhere? You have to login to see it. On May 25 2010 15:49 bakesale wrote: Piracy issue: letting the terrorists win. No matter what, people will get this from piratebay (or whatever), with a program to circumvent any security Blizzard puts in. They will install the game and play on third-party servers. They will do this whether or not LAN capability is in the game. The rest of us, those who pay for the game and do everything as we should, will not have basic LAN capability that has been in, literally, every Blizzard RTS since Warcraft I (and I, probably what you would classify as a "casual" gamer, have used LAN in literally every Blizzard RTS since WCI). Authenticating with Bnet upon program launch would be acceptable. Also, I fail to see how LAN will be allowing people to "beat up on noobs." Yeah, couldn't agree with you more. | ||
| ||
