|
On May 23 2010 07:13 Wolfpox wrote:
What a ridiculous bunch of unappreciative ignorance.
Unappreciative? Last time I checked Blizzard wasn't paying us to play the game. I do not appreciate anything they do. I pay for it. We will all buy this game and we have a right to complain, no - a REQUIREMENT - to complain. Excuse us for wanting the primary interface for playing SC2 to not suck. Or we could all sit quietly on our hands, give Blizzard $60, and thank them for a pile of crap. After all, we wouldn't want to be unappreciative!
|
They're spending way too much time on adding trash features to battle.net like facebook, achievements, zillions of leagues and other useless crap. I agree OP.
I don't think anyone cares about all the other flashy crap, we just want fast queues and lagless games. Don't bog down your servers with USELESS crap.
|
On May 23 2010 07:18 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +-a generalized replays database, on which you could find every ladder game from the best divisions. This is actually something they have planned for their Proleague division. Assuming the pay or prestige is high, I can see it working. If not, I think pros are gonna be reluctant to have ALL their replays public. While I resent his comment about pulling wings off butterflies (come on, what has that got to do with wanting LAN man  ? I've always like Browder but that was just offensive), I really don't think you can blame him for 99% of the battle.net direction. As far as I understand it, that's a separate team and they don't really interact THAT much.
yeah well, i really hope everything is not his fault and i might have been too agresive (mainly cz i'm not even able to play a single game ejejeje full of errors)
But you pointed out many key features that are lacking and who should we blame then ?
I honestly don't understand who is taking the decisions, in W3 they made a lot of great implementations (i loved the tournament system & clan) and now they are downgrading it a lot.
If they want to do somekind of facebook integration then let us make pages with tournaments INSIDE BNET 2.0 just like facebook events... that would be AWESOME, but without giving away our privacy.
|
Original Blizzcon presentation of Battle.net 2.0
Part 1: + Show Spoiler +
Part 2: + Show Spoiler +
Back then I was sceptical, now I've tested it out and I'm convinced it is the wrong approach.
They seem to legitimize all these restrictive mechanics with wanting to "protect" us from being "assaulted" by chat that's irrelevant to us as a person and the communities we've bonded to.
What happens though, for me atleast, is that when I log on to bnet 2.0 I feel isolated. They brag about the "always connected" experience, but i've never felt so disconnected in an online game as when I'm outside of a match in sc2. Lurking in chat channels, and occationally joining in on discussions that should catch my interest between random strangers is something I've appreciated a lot in all Blizzard titles.
Also, I want there to be a barrier between my gaming life and my real life. When I log on I want to be known as my chosen identity in each respective game. I do not want people to think of my real name when they see me log on. I want to be my avatar to others. Blizzard seem to be enforcing a blurred line between real life identity and online identity, which is actually something I take offense to. It's far too intrusive. I can't understand this being anything other than a marketing approach to bring new people into games that otherwise wouldn't give it a thought.
As of right now I feel Blizzard is trying to police us as consumers far too much, causing too much harm by trying to "shield" us from any kind of experience that they fear could potentially scare consumers away from their product. The marketing approach is also far too intrusive and somewhat disrespectfull towards the consumers privacy.
|
My biggest problems with the new battle.net:
-no chat channels
-the league system is absolutely retarded
Still, I like the new battle.net infinitely more than the old one. For me, the matchmaking makes up for anything else that they fucked up.
|
Don't want to compare apples to oranges; but somebody did bring up HoN.
- S2 Games is a speck of dirt compared to Blizz and the money they rake in; HoN still costs $30, even after release (lifetime subscription, like their other games)
- They have, since the beginning of the beta, supported IRC-like chat (could be IRC itself).
- They have, since the beginning of the beta, supported developers. By that i mean, they allowed people to pimp their tools on their forums, break apart the game, write model viewers, etc.
- They made a good map into a damn solid game. I didn't play in awhile but I still check it out every now and then, I see they add new heroes, they send out emails to subscribers telling them whats up, etc.
They probably had to get the beta testers to pay early to support the game and the servers. That's how popular the game has gotten. Their downtime throughout all this has been minimal, and they had (I was part of it for awhile but I got bored) a separate testing team of people interested to test beta patches before they were released, to make sure nothing fucks up.
Like I said, I don't want to compare apples to oranges. We will see if Blizz actually does something with bnet2. So far, the servers going down and everything doesn't look too good. Not for a company that can host truckloads of servers for WoW.
And I preordered both so :/
|
I think the only thing that bugs me about bnet2.0 is the fact that there are no channels. Channels are what made the sc:bw scene what it is today (at least in the americas and in europe).
|
Nice post Jinro, it started bringing back a ton of nostalgia.
Which come to think of it, I believe should have been Blizzard's main focal point with battle.net 2.0; nostalgia. Because lets face it, old battle.net felt so barebone yet so functional. There was a reason it was one of the most successful online gaming gateways.
All blizzard had to do was take old battle.net, keep everything the same except implement matchmaking, an easy to roam indepth ladder system (unlike the piece of shit we have now), and the party system. Leave the battle.net interface exactly the same except enable a way for users to browse custom games while having the chat still visible (think Diablo 2 but better...because this is fucking battle.net 2.0) and any game they create/join their party of friends will just come with them.
I couldn't believe the delay imposed for battle.net 2.0. I thought they would add a ton of new features, like integrated streams; accessible directly on battle.net 2.0 with reliable servers. Or a huge database for great replays; rather than having them scattered across the community. You know, stuff to make SC2 a more successful e-sport.
You can tell the quality is being hindered by profit. Blizzard is focusing on a bunch of gimmicks (achievements, portraits, facebook feature, the stupid graphs at the score screen? I wouldn't be surprised if they announce an option to streamline your xbox live buddies to your friends list, too) rather than fixing the gimped service. Battle.net 2.0 is more of a downgrade than an upgrade.
|
On May 23 2010 07:29 afiddy wrote:
I think the only thing that bugs me about bnet2.0 is the fact that there are no channels. Channels are what made the sc:bw scene what it is today (at least in the americas and in europe).
Yeah the first thing I was puzzled about when I got my beta key was "Where are the channels?" I had to go to IRC to have someone tell me there are none...
|
Facebook integration is a joke -- we're all agreed. What offends me the most though, is that it's so obnoxiously intrusive. It's big, it's in your face and there's no 'not noticing' it. It's a giant ad that you can't help but be annoyed by. What I've noticed is that Americans in general are far more tolerant of this sort of thing than Europeans, because they've built up a higher tolerance for this level of monetization. Take the UFC for example, there's ads flashing on screen DURING the fights, there's the Harley Davidson "prep point", there's a stream of ads in between fights, there's this PPV's flavor of the week Goldberg shilling ("this PPV is being brought to you by shit-bag, another shitty piece of shit...bag), etc, etc. People just paid $50 for the PPV only to be subjected to this level of commercialization? How about "this PPV is being brought to you, by you and your $50! Maybe I'm going off on a tangent, but if I fucking pay for something, it's not being brought to me by anything other than my fucking wallet. Facebook is just the first step.
|
On May 23 2010 05:45 FrozenArbiter wrote:This is something that people have hoping for so long, but I think it's becoming increasingly clear that they just fucked up. Badly. Really, really, really badly.
I agree with FA in this one. SAme as lots of users. I think 2.0 is not living up the hype. No chat rooms, no lobbies, and now, facebook?
|
If it aint broke dont fix, the WC3 TFT battlenet was overall such a quality thing apart from some issues but every system has those. If they could just take the interface and overall features from warcraft 3 and then add in a lan latency that was all what needed to be done in those 5 years of development.
|
I agree with the fail integration of facebook, and the lack of decent features. Even if the matchmaking is bad, I really like it.
|
I understand the achievement system, just like WoW, someone who invested a lot of time into those achievements, is less likely to hack since he put so much time and effort into the game, that getting banned would basically kill all that work.
On a marketing PoV, its great, people get addicted to it. As a WoW achievement whore, I value some of those achievements and I would hate to switch mains after putting so much effort into one character (Lucky me, I just love my guy). I currently look forward to the SC2 achievements, but I do agree with some points... Facebook, really...?
|
On May 23 2010 06:57 ymirheim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2010 06:52 Necrosjef wrote:On May 23 2010 06:47 PokePill wrote:On May 23 2010 05:45 FrozenArbiter wrote:Unless they are holding a lot back. This is something that people have hoping for so long, but I think it's becoming increasingly clear that they just fucked up. Badly. Really, really, really badly. I agree completely. They are not holding anything back. What we have right now is pretty much what we're going to have at launch. You want clans? LAN? Chat channels? Tournaments? Lower latency? Chat commands? Rankings? Buy our expansion back, we didn't have time to do that in the last 7 years. Yeah I agree with this. Its definitely a bit of fool's hope for the ones who are saying things like "it will be in release". I've been in alot of betas and what you get in beta is whats in release. The product will be going Gold in about a month which means there won't be a lot of changes made to it after that. I reckon the product we see in beta phase 2 (if there is one) will be the finished article. Going gold means very little when most of the functionality we are talking about has to do with battlenet which is a server/service framework and only loosely related to the game. Also the fact that the game is connected to battlenet also means that going gold has very little definitive impact on what can be done afterwards. The game is going to patch instantly when you install it on release date anyway.
I hate people like you. Your blatantly fanboy and blatantly stupid. Even though you think your intelligent and try to appear intelligent. I hate people who say 'its only beta'... or 'its only alpha'........ what you see is what you get most of the time... in basically any beta ever made for any game.
I won't go to town flaming you... but if chat rooms were so easy to implement they should be in the beta. Unless there is absolutely no functionality.... even chat rooms need to be beta tested so that if 100 people click 'add friend' at the same time... you make sure no bad things happen.
The only reason they would with-hold chat rooms for release is to make you forget about the 10 other things they didn't do that they should have.... but they can point and say 'hey look we added chat rooms!@!@!@'.
Seriously the only reason they even made battlenet 2.0 was to make you pay for maps. That's it. B.net 2.0 isn't half as good as B.net 1.0 but they will keep at it because they want you to pay.
|
Oh and another thing...
Division names:
To me, Blizz did this just to confuse us when ranking ourselves against others.
With division numbers you knew that being #1 in Platinium division 189 meant nothing because the #1 in Plat Div 1 to 10 had at least 500 points above you.
This is just another way to make competitive gaming less competitive and i don't understand why blizzard is doing this. What keeps any game alive is a competitive enviroment!! SCBW and CStrike, both of them have are at least 10 years old and people still playing them and generating income (not mainly monetary, but in terms of marketing).
I'm so confused with Blizz decisions about SC2 / Bnet 2.0
|
FrozenArbiter, that's probably the best post I've read yet. Sums up all my concerns better than I could. I hope some blizzard employee comes across that.
|
On May 23 2010 07:28 NeonGenesis wrote:Original Blizzcon presentation of Battle.net 2.0 Part 1: + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWukqOA76ck Part 2: + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVofETBQSUk Back then I was sceptical, now I've tested it out and I'm convinced it is the wrong approach. They seem to legitimize all these restrictive mechanics with wanting to "protect" us from being "assaulted" by chat that's irrelevant to us as a person and the communities we've bonded to. What happens though, for me atleast, is that when I log on to bnet 2.0 I feel isolated. They brag about the "always connected" experience, but i've never felt so disconnected in an online game as when I'm outside of a match in sc2. Lurking in chat channels, and occationally joining in on discussions that should catch my interest between random strangers is something I've appreciated a lot in all Blizzard titles. Also, I want there to be a barrier between my gaming life and my real life. When I log on I want to be known as my chosen identity in each respective game. I do not want people to think of my real name when they see me log on. I want to be my avatar to others. Blizzard seem to be enforcing a blurred line between real life identity and online identity, which is actually something I take offense to. It's far too intrusive. I can't understand this being anything other than a marketing approach to bring new people into games that otherwise wouldn't give it a thought. As of right now I feel Blizzard is trying to police us as consumers far too much, causing too much harm by trying to "shield" us from any kind of experience that they fear could potentially scare consumers away from their product. The marketing approach is also far too intrusive and somewhat disrespectfull towards the consumers privacy.
ugh, if chat actually got axed (i'd never seen those vids before, looks like it actually got the boot) then i agree completely
how insulting that in the video the guy says that it is hard to use a public chat a clan chat and a IM chat at the same time
honestly it is like they are trying to protect small children from a harsh and threatening world that is public interaction
|
On May 23 2010 07:21 Dragonsven wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2010 07:13 Wolfpox wrote:
What a ridiculous bunch of unappreciative ignorance. Unappreciative? Last time I checked Blizzard wasn't paying us to play the game. I do not appreciate anything they do. I pay for it. We will all buy this game and we have a right to complain, no - a REQUIREMENT - to complain. Excuse us for wanting the primary interface for playing SC2 to not suck. Or we could all sit quietly on our hands, give Blizzard $60, and thank them for a pile of crap. After all, we wouldn't want to be unappreciative!
I'm surprised you've survived this long in life if you think SC2's "primary interface" is difficult or inconvenient. I managed to do everything I wanted immediately without issues -- seemed like common sense stuff. It all worked pretty good considering it's beta.
You're like a bratty kid who throws a hissyfit and threatens to kill himself every time his parents don't do what he wants. In reality, your bitching means absolutely nothing to anybody except yourself. Do you think Blizzard takes your rage seriously? You're like a clown for god's sake. If you at least acted like a rational human being who can weigh positives and negatives and come to a balanced conclusion, perhaps it would be worth paying attention to your ramblings. Exaggerating and throwing hissyfits only proves that your opinion is invalid.
Also, here's a fun fact: You're still going to buy the game, so it doesn't matter if they listen to you or not, does it?  This is especially true if you pre-ordered it! HA ha ha ha. I haven't paid anything for this game yet but Battle.net seems like a decent set up. I prefer the way that Steam runs in the background, but this will do just fine.
EDIT:
Also, they didn't include all of the features because they don't want everyone wasting their time chatting like idiots. They don't have to choose between one of the other, either... They have different teams working on different aspects.
|
I have a sick suggestion.
How about instead of telling my im favored they just show the league and points of the opponent!
I guess that would violate the warm feeling of being highly ranked in division 155.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
