|
Canada2480 Posts
times have changed, but that doesn't mean they[Blizzard] dont give a shit about us fans as a community
they do don't give a shit
simply by making BattleNet 2.0 this crappy while not putting things that could be put in maybe...a day (chat)
by making SC2 this noob friendly and this boring to watch(for someone who watched korean SC at least)(except when watching TLO)
by not helping KesPA at all in regards to the Intellectual property problem
by hiring Greg Kanessa
since WoW, Blizzard have shown they are now like any other game design studio, a money hungry entity trying to make a game that will sell, not a good game
|
On May 25 2010 09:07 swanized wrote:Show nested quote +times have changed, but that doesn't mean they[Blizzard] dont give a shit about us fans as a community they do don't give a shit simply by making BattleNet 2.0 this crappy while not putting things that could be put in maybe...a day (chat) by making SC2 this noob friendly and this boring to watch(for someone who watched korean SC at least)(except when watching TLO) by not helping KesPA at all in regards to the Intellectual property problem by hiring Greg Kanessa since WoW, Blizzard have shown they are now like any other game design studio, a money hungry entity trying to make a game that will sell, not a good game
Yes it's all Blizzard's fault with Kespa /sarcasm
|
On May 25 2010 07:09 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2010 03:46 MasterFischer wrote:http://www.sk-gaming.com/content/29480-Dustin_Browder_talks_SC2_againhttp://sclegacy.com/news/23-sc2/687-instarcraftde-interviews-dustin-browder(...) We also continue to polish a lot of UI elements that you guys aren’t seeing today(...). We’ve got improved profile functionality, we’ve got lots of little tweaks and fixes across Battle.net to sort of bring it up to speed. Once we go live we have patches planned in the future for things like tournament support, for things like obviously chat channels, lots and lots of little features to happen after we go live as well. We’re sorta viewing Battle.net as sort of a more of a living service in StarCraft II.(...) Guys please, how many more times must you rage over the lack of something that BLIZZARD has repeatedly stated that there WILL be and there ARE working on, you're just not seeing everything right now that battle.net 2.0 has to offer... I simply cannot understand all this sudden hatred towards Blizzard. You should pay them some respect, times have changed, but that doesn't mean they dont give a shit about us fans as a community. Sure we got facebook integration... How did that in any way surprise you? Any game released today practically follows in the footsteps of the web 2.0 generation.. it's just the times man... go with the flow and deal with it... we will have all the cool shit down the road.. in the meantime.. the beta is primarily aimed at balance and tweaks INSIDE the game itself, and not into battle.net There's three reasons why that doesn't appease us: 1) Why can't Blizzard just put chat channels in NOW rather than after release? It goes against Blizzard's philosophy of "it's done when it's done", and it gives a bad first impression to first-time players. I was turned off from Dawn of War 2 because of its online service and how empty it was without chat channels. I wouldn't be surprised if it happened with SC2 as well for some players. 2) There's no guarantee that Blizzard will add chat channels at all. Remember WC3 and online replays? 3) Blizzard promises something much better, but so far all of their "much better" alternatives have been universally worse than their Bnet 1.0 counterparts. That doesn't give us much faith.
I wouldn't be nearly as irritated with Blizzard and their supposed "Triple Plus Plus Uber Brand New Super Deluxe Chat Channels" that they keep saying are so much better than the old ones if they would just tell us what some of their plans are. All they've said is that the old channels were hard to manage so they've got a great new system that they won't implement in release. Dumb. At least give us the old ones until you have something worked out, and tell the community about what the new plans are for the new system.
|
You all seem to think battlenet is there for our enjoyment. Of course that's what they're selling to us but the primary goal is piracy control and preventing game reselling. Achievements, ladders and so on are only the smoke screen that will make us accept online single player game or no lan multiplayer. The smoke screen only needs to be as thick as to hide the main goal.
So yes, we lack all these feature that would achieve the officially stated goals of battlenet, but rest assured that it won't lack the features required to achieve its real goal.
Cark
|
There was nothing wrong with b.net 1.0. At least nothing wrong with the interface. There's no need to reinvent the wheel. All I need are chat channels, a friend list, and a profile that shows my record. They cant even give us channels. In my book this is a HUGE step backwards.
|
On May 25 2010 12:31 cark wrote:
You all seem to think battlenet is there for our enjoyment. Of course that's what they're selling to us but the primary goal is piracy control and preventing game reselling. Achievements, ladders and so on are only the smoke screen that will make us accept online single player game or no lan multiplayer. The smoke screen only needs to be as thick as to hide the main goal.
So yes, we lack all these feature that would achieve the officially stated goals of battlenet, but rest assured that it won't lack the features required to achieve its real goal.
Cark
I don't see how the lack of chat channels limits piracy.
|
On May 25 2010 12:42 fathead wrote:I don't see how the lack of chat channels limits piracy.
That's my point, why should they put chat channels in while their lack doesn't limit piracy ?
(tho I think these will eventually be added some way or another, there just is no rush)
Cark
|
|
|
Putting my neck out here. InfiniteIce is obviously not trolling, what kind of policy is this?
Can someone please explain to me why Blizzard would silence someone for informing their customers about a contract they have to sign in order to use their product? I'm studying law in Europe, and I believe that if enough people complain about this it could cause legal problems for Blizzard. I believe that's the reason why they're banning their customers from exchaning meaningful information.
This potential customer of Blizzard, was informing fellow potential customers of a contact they will sign in the future. The content of this contract is irrelevant, as far as I know spreading the contents of a contract on a forum for people who have already signed that contract is perfectly legal. I'm sure Blizzard have the legal right to call that "trolling" and ban them from the information forum open to their customers, but companies do have ethical obligations to their customers.
If enough people complain about this contract and Blizzard's attempt at silencing their customers, I can imagine that it could constitute a lawsuit. TL.net can do anything they want, but I'm surprised that they aren't picking the users' side.
|
On May 25 2010 18:46 Perfect Balance wrote:
If enough people complain about this contract and Blizzard's attempt at silencing their customers, I can imagine that it could constitute a lawsuit.
I'm interested in how in your world that would constitute for a lawsuit. You don't have to agree with the EULA, or ToS, by just not buying the product.
No one if forcing you to this, I really don't see how you would have a case.
|
On May 25 2010 18:50 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2010 18:46 Perfect Balance wrote:
If enough people complain about this contract and Blizzard's attempt at silencing their customers, I can imagine that it could constitute a lawsuit. I'm interested in how in your world that would constitute for a lawsuit. You don't have to agree with the EULA, or ToS, by just not buying the product. No one if forcing you to this, I really don't see how you would have a case.
If a company actively works to prevent its customers from reading a contract they will sign or have signed, it does. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you need to register on Blizzards website and sign the contract to be on that forum. Not that it's a prerequisite for my concern.
|
yeah pretty much just gonna keep playing BW, i agree with your points about 2.0 being a sack of droopingly fetish-pleasing ballbag
|
On May 25 2010 18:59 Perfect Balance wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2010 18:50 Eury wrote:On May 25 2010 18:46 Perfect Balance wrote:
If enough people complain about this contract and Blizzard's attempt at silencing their customers, I can imagine that it could constitute a lawsuit. I'm interested in how in your world that would constitute for a lawsuit. You don't have to agree with the EULA, or ToS, by just not buying the product. No one if forcing you to this, I really don't see how you would have a case. If a company actively works to prevent its customers from reading a contract they will sign or have signed, it does. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you need to register on Blizzards website and sign the contract to be on that forum. Not that it's a prerequisite for my concern.
How is Blizzard trying to hide the terms of service or the EULA?
You need to accept the EULA/ToS whenever you install and start the game for the first time. If you don't agree with those terms you can get a refund instead.
|
On May 24 2010 04:38 Cade)Flayer wrote:
WC3 BNet:
- Clans
- Chat channels
- Excellent ladder system (at release, it got ruined years later unfortunately probably by the same people doing BNet 2.0)
- Can save custom games and come back to them later
- Can join any regions server with 1 cdkey
- Can make and name custom games rather than them just being anonymous
- LAN
- Can stream ingame (ie you can watch live games in real time in the game client, this feature is possible because of LAN capability)
BNet 2.0:
- Facebook integration
I didn't play wc3, can anyone tell me the difference between it's bnet at the beginning and what it was changed into?
|
On May 25 2010 01:59 FrozenArbiter wrote:
They said the single player was too big to put into one game, not battle.net.
True, but they have also said they plan to update the game/service like they do with World of Warcraft, with large content downloads and continued support. They kept releasing new maps, features and even entirely new units into WC3 years after release, and I think they take pride in how well they support their products after release. I see no reason to doubt that.
Blizzard could put most of those features into the game TOMORROW if they wanted to
Cross server playability? You know that the only thing you need to change to connect to a different server with any version of SC2, is replace a tiny .sc2data or whatever file in your SC2 directory.
The only thing that stops anyone from playing multiple servers is that each account is locked to 1 region. THERE IS NO PHYSICAL PROBLEM.
Couldn't you make the argument that allowing people to switch servers would open the doorway to massive migrations of players from one server to another? And wouldn't this would mean a failure to truly stress test each region by itself? I realize it's not a time issue, but it may be a testing issue.
Custom hotkeys? There were hacked together solutions for editing hotkeys a few days after the beta was released. People say the Facebook intergration probably took a weekend for 2 interns, well, I'm pretty sure a basic custom hotkey solution would be just as easy.
Custom hotkeys have always been basic for PC games so I totally agree that it would be easy. But rather than having custom hotkeys, they obviously want to ask people and figure out some good "standard options" while they have the chance in Beta. Why not? That way when the game is released they'll have a good idea what people use, and thus make it simpler for new players. If they never open up customization I'll be surprised -- I can only assume they are withholding it for the sake of encouraging feedback and suggestions.
Overall ladder rankings - yes it's about the divisions, sort of. Divisions are fine, but we need an OVERALL view. Let's say I'm #1 in division 14 (I think that's where I was before last reset), I want to be able to see what that makes me on the entire server, without having to go to a 3rd party site like www.starcraftrankings.comThe proleague is, as far as I understand, invite only and I'm sure it will be great, but if I was a competitive but not top 0.0001% player, I'd be pissed. Which, depending on how seriously I end up playing this game, is precisely what I might be.
I agree that the division system is lame as it is, for exactly the reasons you mention, but I also think that having one massive ladder is psychologically too intimidating. It's great for those few who manage to get to the top, but if you think of the promise of getting a high rank as a "carrot-and-stick" incentive to keep going, it's just not worth it for the average player. Leagues is a great idea in my opinion, but creating new divisions in order to limit the number of people you're pitted against is also a problem since it ruins the achievement. I think each League should have 3-5 divisions at the most, and at that point just expand the lists rather than making new divisions, while at the same time enabling and encouraging the top players from each division to test their skills against each other. This could be done in a number of ways.
Since I do honestly think that Blizzard is onto something interesting with leagues and divisions, I'm going to give them time to make it more interesting as it goes along, since it's a rather complicated and important balancing act to make the ladder feel right for both the regular newcomers and the hardcore vets.
Online replays for WC3: Promised since 2003. How's that one coming Blizzard? Not at all you say? Well fuck you then.
Unlike WC3 however, SC2 is being designed with e-sports in mind down the road, so I think it's more likely that they'll follow through with this around the same time that they get the Proleague, tournaments, clans and e-sports going. At the beginning it would make sense to focus on more immediate and prominent aspects, though, don't you agree?
I would really wager that Blizzard will release a series of major updates to Battle.net with certain themes, such as "Social", "E-sports", "Map editor", etc. and really focus on one aspect at a time, after launch, so that they can market (read: hype) each update and also guide the attention of more casual fans to things that they're doing, rather than scattering various updates together here and there with little fanfare. These big updates will almost be marketed as if they're "mini-expansions" and can be tested by people who opt in.
Clan Support has indeed been promised, but it makes you wonder - what have they been doing with Bnet 2.0? Have they really spent all this time to create a product that is FAR inferior to Bnet 1.0?
The fact that Blizzard set a solid release date and didn't just say "It's done when it's done" tells me that somebody made a hard decision to release the game as "incomplete" with the full knowledge that they'll still implement the same features they always planned to have, with the same timetable that they planned to do it before, except now the game is going to be live in the mean time. If you had to choose between having the unfinished game now, or the complete game a year later, which would you rather have? I'd rather have the unfinished one now. (And yes, that is very likely the choice that Blizzard had to make.)
I trusted Blizzard, but what they have done with Battle.net 2.0 so far has seriously eroded that trust. I will not say anything stupid like "I'm not buying it", because I'd buy it just to play single player even if it didn't even have LAN, but I am saddened by this development =/
If you could learn to sympathize with the choices and challenges of Blizzard, perhaps your sadness would turn into something constructive and more optimistic. It's not ideal, but I thought it was going to be common knowledge that the "Full Game" is only going to be after the whole "Trilogy" is released, and Battle.net is part of that. It will continue to evolve until after the whole trilogy is out, I can pretty much guarantee you that.
|
Don't forget BNet also has to work for Diablo 3? And why would someone think of a lawsuit? Only in America...
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Couldn't you make the argument that allowing people to switch servers would open the doorway to massive migrations of players from one server to another? And wouldn't this would mean a failure to truly stress test each region by itself? I realize it's not a time issue, but it may be a testing issue.
Region lock is fine for beta, region lock is not fine once the product has been released, yet they have said it will be there for the foreseeable future.
Unlike WC3 however, SC2 is being designed with e-sports in mind down the road, so I think it's more likely that they'll follow through with this around the same time that they get the Proleague, tournaments, clans and e-sports going. At the beginning it would make sense to focus on more immediate and prominent aspects, though, don't you agree?
I would, but they aren't doing that. They are implementing facebook. Seriously, if they had the choice between implementing chat channels and online replays, sure, chat channels everytime. But they aren't giving us even the basics :/
If you could learn to sympathize with the choices and challenges of Blizzard, perhaps your sadness would turn into something constructive and more optimistic. It's not ideal, but I thought it was going to be common knowledge that the "Full Game" is only going to be after the whole "Trilogy" is released, and Battle.net is part of that. It will continue to evolve until after the whole trilogy is out, I can pretty much guarantee you that.
There's a difference between "not the full game" and "barely playable" tho.
On May 25 2010 19:04 Spidinko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2010 04:38 Cade)Flayer wrote:
WC3 BNet:
- Clans
- Chat channels
- Excellent ladder system (at release, it got ruined years later unfortunately probably by the same people doing BNet 2.0)
- Can save custom games and come back to them later
- Can join any regions server with 1 cdkey
- Can make and name custom games rather than them just being anonymous
- LAN
- Can stream ingame (ie you can watch live games in real time in the game client, this feature is possible because of LAN capability)
BNet 2.0:
- Facebook integration I didn't play wc3, can anyone tell me the difference between it's bnet at the beginning and what it was changed into?
Eh, the in-game streaming in WC3 isn't a Blizzard product, it's a 3rd party tool.
Anyway, I think when WC3 was new it didn't have clan support or automated tournaments, and the automated matchmaking system was different. Some people like the new system, some people don't - I'm not sure what the details are exactly.
I don't think there were many other huge changes as far as features goes tho.
|
TBH, I think the Facebook interaction is kind of overrated in how much actual development time it takes. All it does is pull your friends' email addresses to see if any of them are battle.net email addresses with SC2 attached, and then sends them a RealID request if so. Aside from the interface elements, I'm pretty confident I could have put together the same thing in half a day's work, and I haven't done any real programming in months.
Not to say that they shouldn't be spending development time on more important things, I just don't think the Facebook interaction is really an indication of "they're spending development time on stuff we don't care about."
|
@ FA:
The difference between the old WC3 AMM and the new one is:
The old one really represented your skill level. If you were level 12 and you played an opponent with lv 16 you knew he's better.
The game punished more for losses. You lost as many points for a loss as you gained for a win.
You couldn't mass games and reach lv 35. You'd still be stuck on your lv 12 with 305-305 record instead of how it is now with some ridiculous lv 50.
Edit: just to clarify some more: If you won vs a higher ranked opponent, you received of course more points than you would have vs a similarly skilled opponent. Same goes for losses. If you were lv 12 and lost to a lv 9 you lost more points than if it had been a lv 13 for exemple.
When your win ratio went up so did your level.
If I remember correctly, it also match you better vs similarly skilled opponents. If you were lv 12 you'd face ppl around lv 9-15. Very very rarely <9 and >16.
The main issue with that AMM was the search time. When the pros climbed way up higher into the 25+'s or 30's they seldom had opponents.
They searched for hours to find a suitable opponent to play. I'm talking 3h+ here for 1 single 1v1 game.
Take it as you may, IMO that system was a lot better than the grind we have now in TFT.
More on WC3:
The retail battle.net had almost everything in it. I think the only things that weren't implemented on time were Tourneys. Later on they added some more commands.
edit2: Yeah FA you're right, clans were implemented like 3-4 months after launch, cause I still remeber ppl with accounts like [WoG]Shady etc instead of Shady WoG
Right now I'd sell my soul to have WC3's B.net for SC2 instead of B.net 2.0
The only thing they improved upon is the /time command and the animated UI. Now you have a watch in your bottom right corner. In WC3 you had to type in /time, to check the time every time.
The Animated UI probably wasted a few days of my life overall the time I played. You wasted 3s every time you want to join a custom game, just to see some chains moving up and down.
|
On May 24 2010 07:04 Sent wrote:
There are achievements in every game nowadays and I don't see why you would expect there not to be in this one. Also all the of achievements don't require anything other than playing multiplayer and the single player. It has zero effect on your gameplay. It doesn't require you to "Win in under 4 minutes" or anything like that.
Hogging up my screen for 10-15 seconds for every achievement I get is really really annoying. I want a way to disable this pointless shit that I don't want to see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
