EPT
Why I Hate Battle.net 2.0 - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
kajeus
United States679 Posts
| ||
|
Jaug
Sweden249 Posts
On May 24 2010 03:06 im a roc wrote: 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 agree with you. You make some good points in your post. I would have loved if blizzard had developed wc3 bnet a little further and used that. I can't see any positives with bnet 2 compared to the old one tbh. Some key concepts have been slaughtered like open chat channels, friends system and global ladder. | ||
|
Tef
Sweden443 Posts
On May 24 2010 04:21 im a roc wrote: Alright, you clearly didn't read it. I explicitly stated that I am not discussing any of the current bugs in the system. I am fully confidant that they will all be worked out by release. I think that even without bugs it wouldn't be a good service. You really need to read and understand before posting. So why did you write the following? I’m not completely sure what all of the rest of you have been experiencing since the patch, but I can effectively no longer play the game. I can’t start a ladder match without the game crashing.. | ||
|
Niteo
United States28 Posts
Anyone that hasn't seen the presentation in the OP should definitely do so. Thank you for posting that TC. You can tell the battle.net 2.0 team has no experience with why the old battle.net was successful and why so many people still continue to play Blizzard's old titles. I am going to go out on a limb and say that without the way the old battle.net was, none of Blizzard's games would have been as successful as they were. Yea achievements can be addicting, but belonging to a social community is more addicting. I did a lot of chatting on my SC:BW days and because of that I was on battle.net more frequently. On battle.net 2.0 I hop on for a game or two and log off because I have no reason to stay logged on anymore. Online PC gaming has been around for years. A niche has developed. Since then every single online PC gaming infrastructure has followed the desires of that niche, for good reasons. Things like tracking statistics, chat rooms, etc. Your statistics linked to your specific account WAS your achievement. In-depth statistic tracking was always a cornerstone for online pc gaming. And that was what helped make online pc gaming addicting; the social aspect. And that is what made battle.net so successful; it was a service that helped develop the niche. Online console gaming was a new concept that would require a new infrastructure (no doubt implemented because of the success of online pc gaming); leading to a brand new online niche. You couldn't use chat rooms because you didn't have a keyboard. So you had to resort to clever party systems and messaging services. Basically the community experience was in the hands of the developer; players would pray developers had half the brain to implement what was necessary (and my experience is from being a huge online console gaming supporter back when xbox live was just a concept for regular xbox). But there was one problem; very little statistic tracking. I mean how can you possibly link statistics from a single player game to an online account? Thus, achievements were born. And achievements helped link together the online console gaming community and give it that staying power that online pc gaming has been enjoying for years. The reason I discuss online pc gaming and online console gaming is because consoles are marketed for the casual gamer, and pc gaming has always been for the more hardcore gamer. Battle.net 2.0 is blatantly based off of Xbox live, an infrastructure that was designed for the casual gamer; an infrastructure that was years behind online pc gaming. How is a PC gaming niche supposed to survive in a console gaming environment? Its a step backwards for online pc gaming. Its like the creator now being told what's best for them by the created. Its like taking a bunch of polar bears and making them live in the woods behind your house because a bunch of people that know nothing about ecology just assume its "better for them". It's wrong. | ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
On May 24 2010 04:13 kajeus wrote: You mean the WC3 that's ridiculously popular and still played by professional gamers around the world? :-/ Because stupid people prefer graphics over gameplay? (OT) Just because SCII itself is a good game (this is not necessarily my opinion) doesn't mean the online user interface should fall short of standards. Blizzard will make BNET2.0 much better by July 27th, but the beta version could have been much much better. | ||
|
im a roc
United States745 Posts
On May 24 2010 04:44 Tef wrote: So why did you write the following? Finishing the quote, I said: On May 24 2010 04:21 im a roc wrote:This has really brought me to question the viability of SC2 as a product by mid-summer, as well as the stability of the entire philosophy of modern day Activision Blizzard.
All of the recent technical bugs just made me realize that even without the bugs I wouldn't like the current system. I tried to show what exactly my full thought line of thought, but I can see that that sentence might be a bit strangely worded. What I meant to say was that all of the patch 13 problems made me think about the service overall, which is when I came to all of the conclusions that I go over in the first post. Sorry if that was a bit ambiguous, but I did write it pretty quickly. | ||
|
im a roc
United States745 Posts
On May 24 2010 04:44 Niteo wrote:You can tell the battle.net 2.0 team has no experience with why the old battle.net was successful and why so many people still continue to play Blizzard's old titles. I am going to go out on a limb and say that without the way the old battle.net was, none of Blizzard's games would have been as successful as they were. Nice post overall, but just addressing this section, I couldn't agree more. I think that Blizzard was one of the first companies to bundle free online multiplayer functionality into their games back with Diablo/WC2/SC, which made their games huge successes. I think that Battle.net is probably what kept the tiny Blizzard Entertainment of 1995-98 afloat. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
Honestly, getting 10 points for winning a game is ridiculous, but it's just beta. The issue is that we'll run into yet another achievement system which is completely meaningless and serves as a time sink. People who like grinding in games like runescape will have a blast with that. They'll be horrible but they'll have a lot of points. "Oh, this player has completed the campaign on easy mode! 10 points!" "10 wins in a row above 1000 ELO! Congratulations! You got lucky and didn't run into an awesome player. 10 points!" Instead of taking a few things and doing them well, they're doing a lot of things and doing them poorly, and they leave out some VERY important things. The good: -Ability to rewind in replays and all the good statistics tools -A semi-decent friend-chat and party chat system -Cool infos after the game is over (Graphs, BO's, etc.) The bad: -*Inability to watch replays with other people (And blizz said they had no plans to change that) -*Inability to make public games with names -*No lobby or chatrooms -The achievement system is a complete waste of human ressources that does NOTHING good for the game -They're making it impossible to properly navigate in the terrible ladder system that's probably amongst the "top 3 worst ladder systems ever invented by men who are supposedly capable of critical thinking" *: All of these issues should be taken care of already. At the very least, they shouldve taken priority over this ridiculous joke that is Facebook integration. One thing that worries me although this may be completely unfounded is that, currently battle.net 1.0's servers basically never go down or very rarely... I'm thinking it's because of how simple it is, it's probably run on a handful of Pentium II's or whatever =P... I just hope we won't get day-long maintenances on a weekly basis because of the server stress since the servers need to handle a massive load and there are memory leaks caused by whatever crazy useless functionality they're going to add in order to get more 12-year-olds to buy the game. Anyway, I'm just worried in general. Nothing wrong with a simple and stable UI without all that blingbling imo. | ||
|
Decko
United States150 Posts
One thing that bothers is how Blizzard views their customers from a psychological aspect. They're essentially pandering to our egos trying to bolster our confidence by removing the copper league. Frankly, I think it's stupid, and I would hope that most people don't lose confidence in life over a video game. The Diamond league is such a stupid invention, and was as I predicted. They just renamed the leagues, made each one worse, and diamond the new high end league. I think with the introduction of the pro league that might mitigate some of the issues, then again, we'll have to see how it functions. I do agree the favoritism in matches is broken, I've been 15th in platinum and after I played someone that was favored found out they were 4th in the gold league, I don't understand that what so ever. Either way, I don't agree with you that Battle.net 2.0 is ruining the experience for me, yes I can't chat with people very easily and I have to basically use mIRC. But over all, the game is still fun and highly addictive. To close, if anything the recent balancing issues have made me question Blizzard, not their interface and web system. | ||
|
Xyik
Canada728 Posts
If two players agree to play a certain map for points - I say let them. If two players want to play for ladder points - I say let them. Impose a limit of bo1, bo3 bo5 between two players for ladder points once a week. I'm sure blizzard can monitor the ladder enough to see people abuse this. Or are they too lazy / can't think of a solution other than making everything random? Oh and the problem with the ladder isn't that there are too many leagues / too few leagues or that the leagues are too similar. It's that there can be AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU WNAT in any league. Impose a limit of ppl that can be admitted into diamond or platinum league, like 1000 / 2000 players each. To get in, you have to usurp an opponent in that league. THIS will ensure the best players are platinum / diamond and not just anybody. Of course, lower leagues will not have a limit. Also, make divisions more competitive. Make them win-loss ratio based. So someone who has 1800 ELO gold with a 50-12 record will be in division 3 and someone with 1850 ELO gold with a 50-40 record will be in division 15th or something. | ||
|
HalfAmazing
Netherlands402 Posts
| ||
|
AyJay
1515 Posts
On May 24 2010 03:09 jamesr12 wrote: wall of text... NEED PICTURES Indeed | ||
|
InfiniteIce
United States794 Posts
Because it shows that Blizzard is condescending, thinks that the majority of its customers are not only noobs, but emotionally disturbed noobs who will cut themselves if they find out how bad they truly are. Does Blizzard really think that it knows progaming better than the progamers? Look how the whole KESPA ordeal turned out.. They just gave away the best kind of publicity you can get (free, self-propagating publicity that requires no maintenance whatsoever) because they wanted to show they had the balls to take on KESPA? Does Blizzard truly think it can be successful without the fans, the gamers? My name is federal agent Jack Bauer, and I hate battle.net 2.(4). Additionally: On May 24 2010 05:38 Xyik wrote: Can someone honestly and accurately explain to me - why blizzard has no plans to let friends watch replays together? As well as why they want to make all games / leagues random and anonymous. For example, WHY you HAVE to play random maps in their map pool, WHY you HAVE to play random opponents. I thought blizzard wanted to REMOVE random elements. If two players agree to play a certain map for points - I say let them. If two players want to play for ladder points - I say let them. Impose a limit of bo1, bo3 bo5 between two players for ladder points once a week. I'm sure blizzard can monitor the ladder enough to see people abuse this. Or are they too lazy / can't think of a solution other than making everything random? Oh and the problem with the ladder isn't that there are too many leagues / too few leagues or that the leagues are too similar. It's that there can be AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU WNAT in any league. Impose a limit of ppl that can be admitted into diamond or platinum league, like 1000 / 2000 players each. To get in, you have to usurp an opponent in that league. THIS will ensure the best players are platinum / diamond and not just anybody. Of course, lower leagues will not have a limit. Also, make divisions more competitive. Make them win-loss ratio based. So someone who has 1800 ELO gold with a 50-12 record will be in division 3 and someone with 1850 ELO gold with a 50-40 record will be in division 15th or something. Every single point in this post makes absolute sense. Seriously,.. | ||
|
im a roc
United States745 Posts
Happy now? | ||
|
Sent
United States120 Posts
On May 24 2010 03:09 ReachTheSky wrote: mods please relocate this to blogs as this really has no relevance in being in this section ;/ Also very few good arguments were made at all. | ||
|
InfiniteIce
United States794 Posts
I plainly disagree and so would many of the people in this thread, I think it's fair to say. Want to back your statement up with counter-claims, or just spray 'n' pray, making claims and hoping one of 'em hits somewhere vital? Comeon... | ||
|
im a roc
United States745 Posts
I'd love any criticism or feedback that you can give me to help me refine my own views and opinions, but it is much easier to get your points across in some other format than a single line saying that you disagree. | ||
|
daz
Canada643 Posts
On May 24 2010 04:14 Darkren wrote: 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 Yet it was still better than what we have now. Hence the problem. | ||
|
Chewie
Denmark708 Posts
On May 24 2010 03:57 Rodiel wrote: ![[image loading]](http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/1298/n1019347999302934985503.jpg) User was temp banned for this post. Lol | ||
|
Sent
United States120 Posts
On May 24 2010 06:47 InfiniteIce wrote: I plainly disagree and so would many of the people in this thread, I think it's fair to say. Want to back your statement up with counter-claims, or just spray 'n' pray, making claims and hoping one of 'em hits somewhere vital? Comeon... Alrighty. Here's what I think in total, sorry for not explaining it all right off the bat: First off, the ELO system. This frustrates me for a few reasons. ELO has been used for a long time, at least since the 60s. I don't see how you can blame BNet 2.0 for using it. Also saying that you are favored or not could when you aren't could be a bug, but in the end you win or you don't. On that note their aren't enough players to even give a good analysis of their laddering and ELO system. So far it seems to work fine, the only set backs of course is the player pool and that cannot be blamed on Blizzard or BNet or ELO. Yes it will obviously favor you playing more games. No way a system can place you on the top of a ladder after playing 5-20 games. No system can. In the platinum (now diamond) league, however, there is no reason to hide information like an overall rank from the players. Yes perhaps one valid point here, but if they lauch as is, to me it's a super minor. It's an annoyance, not game breaking. There are sites that aggregate everyone already so you can see all of Platinum. They also probably named the divisions so no one would believe that Diamond #1 is higher up than Diamond #25. To make up for the shortcomings of the ranking and matchmaking system, Blizzard stuck in an achievement system. 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. LAN support, clan systems, chat channels, gone. Three of the most important aspects of a successful online gaming service are just missing, and Blizzard has explicitly stated that they have no intention of putting them back in any recognizable format that we’re familiar with. It's been ten years since the first game and for small get togethers, too bad no LAN. I really haven't been to a LAN in the past few years that didn't have so sort of internet for everyone there anyway. For me LAN is a non issue, but that's just FOR ME. Blizzard isn't so stupid that in very large live tournaments there will be no LAN option specifically for that purpose (It obviously would die in Korea within a week). As for chat channels, well I'd love to have those too, but right now forums and ventrilo work fine...for now. ----------------------------------------------------- Besides the Patch 13 mishaps, the game is pretty amazing for the giant mountain of anticipation they had to climb. Also you have to remember that Blizzard is not just catering to the TeamLiquid hardcore, but also every casuals who last played SC when they were 10. The HDH finals just gathered 23k viewers! I can't see BNet 2.0 as such an epic failure. | ||
| ||
