| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Sent
United States120 Posts
Facebook integration sucks. On Weapon of Choice they said if FB email is the same as your BNet email it automatically logs you in no choice which is fucked up. I deleted my Facebook a couple months ago, but that's the biggest issue I would have with BNet is Facebook. Oh and yes chat channels as second biggest  | ||
|
Afterhours
United States125 Posts
| ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
On May 24 2010 07:11 Afterhours wrote: How long did it take for Starcraft to get where it is now? I suggest keeping the same patience in mind for SC2 and Bnet 2.0. Just my 2 cents. starcraft had chatrooms!  | ||
|
infecteddna
Slovenia243 Posts
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 Battle.net 1.0: - Replay hosting - /f add - /f list | ||
|
Mastermind
Canada7096 Posts
On May 24 2010 07:10 Sent wrote: P.S Facebook integration sucks. On Weapon of Choice they said if FB email is the same as your BNet email it automatically logs you in no choice which is fucked up. I deleted my face book a couple months ago, but that's the biggest issue I would have with BNet is Facebook. Yes, this really bothers me. I had someone add me via facebook without giving out my permission for bnet to even touch my facebook account. I feel like my privacy has just been completely violated. | ||
|
Afterhours
United States125 Posts
Why is there such a huge fuss over chatrooms? We have so many other spectrums of communication, that we didnt have back when SC first came up, that I really dont see them as a requirement for this project to be successful. While I can understand that chat rooms were always great to have, they're not a necessity to make this community or game great. -shrugs- | ||
|
im a roc
United States745 Posts
On May 24 2010 07:04 Sent wrote: Alrighty. Here's what I think in total, sorry for not explaining it all right off the bat: 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. I'm certainly not going to question the mathematical accuracy of the ELO system. As you said it has been used for a long time and can be very accurate. You seem to just skim over the favored system, while I think this is one of the most important issues right now. Wether or not you are favored could be a difference of 20 points. A lot of 20 point games can add up to a huge difference over time. This would be great if the system was accurate, but as I explained there are often scenarios in which both players are favored over each other. Not very cleanly implemented. I don't really know what kind of an affect increased number of players would have on the system would have, so I can't speak to that. 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. I have no idea what rank you fall under, but I know that almost everyone in the top league is mad about this. If you're one of the best of the best but you can't find out just how exactly you're ranked, it is extremely frustrating. 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. Achievements are too often used as a cover up for lack of quality. If there's no competitive motivation in a game, they can just throw in achievements and all casual gamers will be happy. I am not a casual gamer, however, so I find this unacceptable that Blizzard is following in the tracks of so many other game developers now catering to the casual masses. I'm not as confidant that there will be tournament LAN support. Given the entire fiasco with KeSPA, it's pretty clear that Blizzard wants to have complete control over the tournament scene in SC2. | ||
|
FraCuS
United States1072 Posts
dont listen to those low post idiots. its clearly they are not smart enough to take their time to read. i wonder how old are they and do they still read books with pictures in them? like a level 2 scholastic book? lol. User was warned for this post | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
|
InfiniteIce
United States794 Posts
On May 24 2010 04:01 Dawme 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 The problem with this being in SC1 is minimal. What major online gaming experience does Blizzard have when they release SC1? None. The problem with this being in SC2 is major. You're supposed to learn from these things so that they don't happen again...It's not as if this is the first game Blizzard's ever made. We're +12 years after SC1 was released, yet SC2 is still plagued with the same shit? I KNOW you can see the flaw with this. Similarly: On May 24 2010 07:11 Afterhours wrote: How long did it take for Starcraft to get where it is now? I suggest keeping the same patience in mind for SC2 and Bnet 2.0. Just my 2 cents. Yes, how long did it take for SC to get where it is now? Did the time just disappear when they started SC2? Technology is great because it INCLUDES ALL THE OLD USEFUL THINGS, AND DOES AWAY WITH USELESS ONES...technology is supposed to build on itself...it's always supposed to be a compendium of previous knowledge and uses, improved. With that in mind, this shouldn't be called Battle.Net 2.0, it should be called BNet 0.25 Alpha, at best... But to be a bit snarky, I think BattleBook or FaceBattle 0.1 would be more appropriate. | ||
|
Afterhours
United States125 Posts
Achievements are too often used as a cover up for lack of quality. If there's no competitive motivation in a game, they can just throw in achievements and all casual gamers will be happy. I am not a casual gamer, however, so I find this unacceptable that Blizzard is following in the tracks of so many other game developers now catering to the casual masses. I fail to see how you're upset that Blizzard is supporting players of all play skill, be it with achievements or not. I understand that hardcore dont give a crap about achievements. I dont. I think they're a waste of space, but im not going find it "unacceptable" that blizzard would do this. This game is made for more than the hardcore in mind. They're a company. A company with a very LARGE customer base, even though the majority is the casual WoW drones. Before I even touched SC2 beta, I wanted to play it at a very serious, and competitive level, and I havnt lost that focus as we continue through the beta. Even with the Facebook crap. Blizzard can, and will add features to 2.0 over the next couple years. I wouldnt be surprised if they added chat rooms, Clan support, etc. No LAN is still bullcrap IMO, but w/e. We've got a long way to go. Sit tight. | ||
|
InfiniteIce
United States794 Posts
On May 24 2010 07:30 Afterhours wrote: Blizzard can, and will add features to 2.0 over the next couple years. I wouldnt be surprised if they added chat rooms, Clan support, etc. No LAN is still bullcrap IMO, but w/e. We've got a long way to go. Sit tight. If we've got such a long way to go in adding things that already existed in "Battle.net 1.0"... Why the hell is it being labeled as a new revision, an improved version, "BATTLE.NET 2.0"? When they finally catch back up to adding the things that were in regular old bnet, then it'll just be BNet 1.0. When they surpass and improve upon the existing model, we can call it bnet 2.0. Contrary to what Blizzard and a lot of people seem to think, version numbers have a huge significance in coding and development. This isn't BNet 2.0 by any form, and that's my problem with it all. They're calling it this OMG BNET 2.0, AWESOME, when it doesn't even approach the utility people got out of Bnet in the first place. It's not an improvement. It's a downgrade from ye olde BNet of lore. It's not Bnet 2.0. And that's just not how technology progresses, and not how upgrades work, by their very nature.. They already have the code for battle.net, channels, clans, LAN mode, etc. The game changed, how a LAN works, though, has not. They already have the code, they don't even have to write it. All they need to do is just make small adaptations to it. Ignoring the outcries of the beta testers whose opinions they assured were most critical and would be taken into serious thought and consideration, by removing features we all know and love, and BEG blizzard to keep around... ...it's not just laziness ("hey let's just delete this code instead of changing it a bit to work in this game")...it's certainly not ignorance (Blizzard owns the code. End of story, they have it, and know how it would work and could be implemented)...it's just stupidity. Blizzard's lost touch with its market base, and were it any other company without the recent astronomical success of WoW, that's exactly how a company ends up failing right after it gets big, gets a little fame and recognition. The tl;dr version (of my own post!) : Blizzard: "People absolutely loved LAN play, chat channels, clans, watching replays with friends, etc. Let's scrap that shit. We know better than them". | ||
|
Colts-500
United States13 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On May 24 2010 07:04 Sent wrote: 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. It's not a failure. It's a massive let down of a UI with a great game. On May 24 2010 07:44 Colts-500 wrote: i agree about the freind system but all the other stuff i dont really care bout cause if you dont like them dont use the feature or dont buy the game at all i dont know what your crying about but if you dont like the leagues system well get over it or dont buy the game sheesh Don't care about the features I don't like and I won't use em. I just feel that they're wasting their time programming them and having to fix all the little problems that'll come along with them. They should spend that time making it possible to watch replays with a friend for instance. If you don't see the value of that, then your opinion isn't very important in general. The "don't buy the game" squad is getting quite annoying here. I think it's quite legitimate to complain about bnet2.0. I really like THE GAME but it's lacking on some key functionalities due to battlenet 2.0 being so lackluster. If you have an ounce of judgement, stop telling people not to buy the game just because they don't like parts of the UI. | ||
|
Destro
Netherlands1206 Posts
anyone want to be my friend??!? | ||
|
Pufftrees
2449 Posts
On May 24 2010 07:44 Colts-500 wrote: i dont know what your crying about but if you dont like the leagues system well get over it or dont buy the game sheesh Yea and play the other superbly balanced RTS with a global gaming impact instead. People are crying because between the SC2 and BNET joint team effort, the sc2 game is close to flawless (for a beta) but the BNET team has shit all over it. We've been bitching since patch 1.. but now at patch 13 its come to a head because they are ignoring standard key features we clearly shouldn't have to demand. | ||
|
Afterhours
United States125 Posts
The tl;dr version (of my own post!) : Blizzard: "People absolutely loved LAN play, chat channels, clans, watching replays with friends, etc. Let's scrap that shit. We know better than them". Maybe the do. -shrugs- Time will tell. Complaining about it on TL isnt gonna do much. | ||
|
aka_star
United Kingdom1546 Posts
| ||
|
Afterhours
United States125 Posts
On May 24 2010 07:50 Destro wrote: this is going to sound really sappy... but without chat channels you really can't MAKE friends. just play with existing ones... anyone want to be my friend??!? Oh pick me! =D | ||
|
Colts-500
United States13 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
PiGosaur Cup
RSL Revival
Classic vs Creator
Cure vs TriGGeR
Kung Fu Cup
GuMiho vs MaNa
herO vs ShoWTimE
Classic vs TBD
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
herO vs Gerald
ByuN vs SHIN
Kung Fu Cup
Cure vs Reynor
IPSL
ZZZero vs rasowy
Napoleon vs KameZerg
BSL 21
Tarson vs Julia
Doodle vs OldBoy
eOnzErG vs WolFix
StRyKeR vs Aeternum
Sparkling Tuna Cup
RSL Revival
Reynor vs sOs
Maru vs Ryung
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
