|
On May 24 2010 13:15 oBlade wrote:
As far as I can see, we are all going to buy WoL legitimately at release and after we get frustrated with Blizzard's ineptitude, we end up playing on whatever the Russians or Chinese will have cracked (despite Blizzard's holding back of LAN, which alienated us to begin with).
Sounds about right yes.
|
There are ALOT of well thought out posts here on teamliquid that i really agree with and think Blizzard should read and take action based on them. However i know for certain that they won't and will not (at least in regards to Bnet2.0) because they do not HAVE to.
Just go look around the Battlenet forums for a few minutes. The level of stupidity there is fucking oppressing. Anyone with half a brain is instantly driven away the instant they post anything that isn't a 1 line bullshit troll post by the hordes of zombie consumer retards.
THESE are the people that blizzard cares about. These are the people Blizzard is making their game for and these are the people that will give Blizzard their money regardless. And let me tell you there are a fuckton more of them than us so... No blizzard does not give a shit at all about this competetive aspect of this game. They do not CARE about the actual fans. We might as well give up cause all of these long time fans of Starcraft have just been swept under the rug.
|
currently i dont see myself purchasing the game as is. i know many will, but to be frank ive already had friends cancel their pre orders because of the problems listed in the op.
no chat channels, cant watch replays online with friends, ladder is a boring joke, list goes on and on.
im just so bored and sick of blizzard, they made wow into a giant shit fest with arena and 25 man raids and all this bs, and sc2 so far hasnt impressed me that much. i like the game and i enjoy playing it with friends, but theres so many things that is missing.
|
I guess we have to let it go at some point, cause they could just not give us any games and close theyr doors... why dont they? cause its theyr JOB, they proly didnt choose this career to give nerds a reason to live but to make a living out of it. Proly 98% of guys working over there have simply noooo control on the game whatsoever and are not willing to drop the job cause he fears for how you will survive those voidrays, and the other 2% proly answer to the boss called `` $money$`` This is just life happening to something with high demand.
|
Gaming has never been a 'hardcore' hobby. Starcraft was never 'hardcore', a group in the community of players made it as such, and it's been very successful.
I am no fan of Bnet 2.0, but I don't hate it either. I'm sure they'll eventually add some form of chat function, and if not, then we've got forums such as this one, it's not as good but it'll do.
I imagine the ladder system will be reset every once in a while to allow people to get back up into the ladder instead of making a vain attempt at trying to win 500 times so he gets to the #1 spot. Maybe once every month?
And as others have said, you're not forced to use the Facebook integration, nor can your friends find out your facebook info.
what you're playing right now is the game that you will have in July
First phase of the beta ends soon, you mean, I don't think everything will get fixed, but they quite clearly know about it and will fix it sometime. Sooner preferably :\
|
On May 24 2010 13:26 Shrewmy wrote:
I imagine the ladder system will be reset every once in a while to allow people to get back up into the ladder instead of making a vain attempt at trying to win 500 times so he gets to the #1 spot. Maybe once every month?
Yea, it's in the new patch "help/guide/tutorial" thing, on one of the tabs. It says the will reset ladder at least seasonally to level the playing field again. Just to confirm
|
On May 24 2010 03:58 Leeoku wrote:
guys chill. this is why there is a beta for stuff like this
You need to read joolz's thread.
Just because it's beta doesn't mean it'll get magically fixed when the game is released. Also, release is TWO MONTHS AWAY. Bnet 2.0 still has SO many glitches and other shitty/nonexistent functions that really really needs changing.
The "it's only beta" argument worked like...2-3 months ago. Now, it's too late for it to "only be beta."
|
On May 24 2010 03:06 im a roc wrote:
I believe that the quality of StarCraft 2 as a game is unimpeachable. I won’t speak to balance right now, as the development team still has a few months before release, but they have created a genuinely interesting set of game mechanics along with widely varied and diverse races that interact in a way that can keep someone interested in the game for years. There are constantly new strategies popping up that can revolutionize the way a certain match-up must be played. The game is fun. The game is interesting. The game has every potential to become just as big a success as its predecessor, if not even more so, unless Battle.net 2.0 keeps dragging it down. Greg Canessa has single handily brought about all of the technical flaws that make people question the potential of the game being a successful product.
I’m disenchanted. The Blizzard that I knew in my childhood that was incapable of producing an inferior product no longer exists. Battle.net 2.0 has proven to be unsuccessful at every turn. I would be completely satisfied if they just rolled back the entire system to the technologies of the original Battle.net with an easily accessible global ladder, chat channels, clan systems, and a matchmaking system that certainly had fewer complaints than this new garbage we need to put up with. I’m enraged. I had higher expectations than they delivered for, and I don’t believe that they can fix the service before release. Truly a letdown.
Oh, and by the way: Facebook Integration.
Need I say more?
i think these 2 paragraphs sum up my thoughts on this whole situation perfectly... i think as a GAME SC2 has potential to be as good as, possibly better than, sc1...
B.Net 2.0 as a concept, and from the initial ideas i saw posted on the bliz forums, could (should?) have been absolutely fantastic... bringing all the best bits from steam/xbox live/b.net 1.0 together to create some fatastic experience for gamers... instead we have, well, this... yes it's all pretty and everything, but seriously, it's functionality is seriously lacking
Blizzard, please fix!!!
|
it was copper to plat
now bronze to diamond
|
lol Facebook integration ftw. But they did put in /dnd mode so thats one step forward. I really dislike everything about bnet 2.0, the nonexistence of chatrooms and ranking system is really wack.
For those that said that this is just a beta, a lot of games fuctioned much better than this during beta. Heroes of Newerth comes to mind.
|
I dislike:
-Not having any chat channels. It feels like there is absolutely no community at all. Come on Blizzard, you can do better.
-Not having any clan support.
-Not being able to see a 'holistic' ladder.
|
On May 24 2010 04:14 Darkren wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2010 04:01 Dawme wrote:
Please stop with the "there is a beta for stuff like this" crap, it's WRONG. The beta as we know it ends in 7 days, what you're playing right now is the game that you will have in July, minus the drop stuff I hope. It has already been announced that we won't have chat channels, we won't have a good ladder, we won't have a real friends system, etc... this beta is here to make small adjustments be it technical or balance related and it's here ESPECIALLY to market and pre hype the game, like Blizzard does since a few games now. There won't be any revolutions between now and July. Yes and after realese there will be all those things you mentionned. Some of u guys look like such assholes on the internet it's incredible. Sc also had a shitty ladder, shitty battlenet, no clansm unbalanced gameplay, cheap abuses and bugs, no replays at its realese guess what happened with it now
Ok, so we need to back track to 1998 instead of learning from what features and systems that have been working over the years? Just because a 12 year old game had flaws at release doesnt mean a game released today should have 12 year old flaws aswell.
|
Ok, so we need to back track to 1998 instead of learning from what features and systems that have been working over the years? Just because a 12 year old game had flaws at release doesnt mean a game released today should have 12 year old flaws aswell.
Why can't people see that SC's popularity was largely the product of timing, good luck, and the fans who FORCED those features work? Those were the days of Web 1.0 where the Internet was mostly for nerds, and doing shit on PC took some know-how. The simple fact that nerds love shit that isn't user-friendly because it makes them feel superior is a huge part of why SC1's difficulty (in both gameplay and interface) grew to be so loved. There's nothing wrong with that, but you can't expect a modern sequel to repeat the process. Chat channels were a nightmare for new players and and overall it felt like the learning curve to even get into the multiplayer was sky high, not to mention playing the game itself. "It worked" because of a culture and a circumstance -- it's just fortunate for them that this culture embraced every kind of technical challenge.
Now times have changed. Just as Web 2.0 has arrived, so has Bnet 2.0. They don't want to cater to the Web 1.0 insider-knowledge paradigm; they don't want the game to shut out new gamers who don't have the same tolerance for guesswork and learning curves. This may feel like a betrayal to all those noble nerds whose identities became intertwined with mastering the various 1.0 systems, but it's just the necessary step. What I'm saying is that the new Battle.net would "work" just as well as the old one if it had a similar culture surrounding it -- if people wanted to embrace the nuances, gimmicks, and challenges of the system it would be the same situation, and years later we would complain if they changed it again. The old system isn't inherently "better", it's just better suited to that culture. That's my two cents about the superiority of one to the other, anyway.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On May 24 2010 19:34 Wolfpox wrote:Show nested quote +Ok, so we need to back track to 1998 instead of learning from what features and systems that have been working over the years? Just because a 12 year old game had flaws at release doesnt mean a game released today should have 12 year old flaws aswell. Why can't people see that SC's popularity was largely the product of timing, good luck, and the fans who FORCED those features work? Those were the days of Web 1.0 where the Internet was mostly for nerds, and doing shit on PC took some know-how. The simple fact that nerds love shit that isn't user-friendly because it makes them feel superior is a huge part of why SC1's difficulty (in both gameplay and interface) grew to be so loved. There's nothing wrong with that, but you can't expect a modern sequel to repeat the process. Chat channels were a nightmare for new players and and overall it felt like the learning curve to even get into the multiplayer was sky high, not to mention playing the game itself. "It worked" because of a culture and a circumstance -- it's just fortunate for them that this culture embraced every kind of technical challenge. Now times have changed. Just as Web 2.0 has arrived, so has Bnet 2.0. They don't want to cater to the Web 1.0 insider-knowledge paradigm; they don't want the game to shut out new gamers who don't have the same tolerance for guesswork and learning curves. This may feel like a betrayal to all those noble nerds whose identities became intertwined with mastering the various 1.0 systems, but it's just the necessary step. What I'm saying is that the new Battle.net would "work" just as well as the old one if it had a similar culture surrounding it -- if people wanted to embrace the nuances, gimmicks, and challenges of the system it would be the same situation, and years later we would complain if they changed it again. The old system isn't inherently "better", it's just better suited to that culture. That's my two cents about the superiority of one to the other, anyway.
There are no new nuances, Battle.net 2.0 is not "different" it's WORSE.
It doesn't have "different" features, it has LESS features.
Chat channels: NO
Online replays: NO
Overall ladder rankings: NO
Cross server playability: NO
Clan Support: NO
Customizable hotkeys: NO
Automated Tournaments: NO
Chat commands: NO
What do we get instead?
Facebook: YES
Fucking awesome trade off if you ask me.
WC3 had an Auto-match-maker so let's not even mention that as a new feature.
If I want to message someone in game, I HAVE TO USE MY MOUSE. I have. to. use. my. mouse.
Do you have any idea how RETARDED this is? I could send whisper commands with my keyboard in fucking WARCRAFT 2.
Chat channels were a nightmare to get into in SC1? So the solution is to remove them completely, and replace them with nothing? HOW IS THAT A SOLUTION?
"Yeah, it's pretty hard to learn how to use the internet, let's scrap all computers"?
So many times I've seen people come on ICCUP, and have some fairly simple questions, ask them in the public chat and have someone reply within 15 seconds. On bnet 2.0, good luck with that. If you don't have friends playing the game before you start, you are on your fucking own.
Battle.net 2.0 is a god damn desert, with the AMM as its sole oasis.
|
On May 24 2010 19:34 Wolfpox wrote:Show nested quote +Ok, so we need to back track to 1998 instead of learning from what features and systems that have been working over the years? Just because a 12 year old game had flaws at release doesnt mean a game released today should have 12 year old flaws aswell. Why can't people see that SC's popularity was largely the product of timing, good luck, and the fans who FORCED those features work? Those were the days of Web 1.0 where the Internet was mostly for nerds, and doing shit on PC took some know-how. The simple fact that nerds love shit that isn't user-friendly because it makes them feel superior is a huge part of why SC1's difficulty (in both gameplay and interface) grew to be so loved. There's nothing wrong with that, but you can't expect a modern sequel to repeat the process. Chat channels were a nightmare for new players and and overall it felt like the learning curve to even get into the multiplayer was sky high, not to mention playing the game itself. "It worked" because of a culture and a circumstance -- it's just fortunate for them that this culture embraced every kind of technical challenge. Now times have changed. Just as Web 2.0 has arrived, so has Bnet 2.0. They don't want to cater to the Web 1.0 insider-knowledge paradigm; they don't want the game to shut out new gamers who don't have the same tolerance for guesswork and learning curves. This may feel like a betrayal to all those noble nerds whose identities became intertwined with mastering the various 1.0 systems, but it's just the necessary step. What I'm saying is that the new Battle.net would "work" just as well as the old one if it had a similar culture surrounding it -- if people wanted to embrace the nuances, gimmicks, and challenges of the system it would be the same situation, and years later we would complain if they changed it again. The old system isn't inherently "better", it's just better suited to that culture. That's my two cents about the superiority of one to the other, anyway.
Oh yes, chat channels and clan functionality are oh so complicated for new players to learn... Oh and so is local map hosting, that was obviously the most difficult and innaccessible thing in the universe for players... Oh wait.
|
On May 24 2010 03:32 Tef wrote:
Did you even read the TL staff message?
We get it - Bnet is having some problems. Please stop making threads about it.
TL is getting littered with these low quality (whine/hate/imbalance) posts nowadays. Maybe I am used to the old BW forum standard.
I assume the staff message refers to posts talking about issues like "I cannot join custom games because its broken after patch 13"
"bnet is laggy"
Issues that everyone agrees (including blizzard) are issues and that need to discussion here.
|
Sorry to ask here... but are there any ways for me to provide feedback to blizzard?
I have waited for SC2 for like... 7 years? And I don't really want this to happen. The whole release date thingy is so un-blizzard like, the Blizzard I remember is the one keep delaying games so games will be near to perfect when they are released.
Maybe we can do something.... as a community and hopefully Blizzard will listen to us.
|
On May 24 2010 20:00 HaFnium wrote:
Sorry to ask here... but are there any ways for me to provide feedback to blizzard?
I have waited for SC2 for like... 7 years? And I don't really want this to happen. The whole release date thingy is so un-blizzard like, the Blizzard I remember is the one keep delaying games so games will be near to perfect when they are released.
Maybe we can do something.... as a community and hopefully Blizzard will listen to us.
Try the Beta Forums
|
Totally agree with OP, I think we have all spent equal or more time in the channels and clan wars and that stuff than actually playing, and it is a big part of what made the game so complete and addictive.
|
On May 24 2010 20:03 im a roc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2010 20:00 HaFnium wrote:
Sorry to ask here... but are there any ways for me to provide feedback to blizzard?
I have waited for SC2 for like... 7 years? And I don't really want this to happen. The whole release date thingy is so un-blizzard like, the Blizzard I remember is the one keep delaying games so games will be near to perfect when they are released.
Maybe we can do something.... as a community and hopefully Blizzard will listen to us. Try the Beta Forums
An idea: organize to create one big thread on the feedback forums to get the message across.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
