EPTBNet2.0 Will Harm Custom Content - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Wr3k
Canada2533 Posts
| ||
|
theqat
United States2856 Posts
On May 24 2010 10:11 Roflhaxx wrote: If you are talking about the language filter then you are wrong, because you CAN turn it off in options?.. No; when you publish a map it will force you to rename it if it has "God" or whatever in the name | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
On May 24 2010 09:34 IskatuMesk wrote: There is no greater time than the present to make right your wrongs. To say to yourself, "Yeah, I fucked up", suck it in and move forward. Dragging along this dead weight hurts us all for every step forward when what Blizzard needs to do is change. The refusal to change and accept that they've done something wrong will hurt us all more than you can possibly imagine if the game goes into release with limitations like these. That's what I find amazing over anything else. I have never seen Blizzard so reluctant to change something as they've been with Starcraft 2. With this game, it seems like Blizzard doesn't want to change ANYTHING despite numerous statements to the contrary. It's almost comical to listen to Dustin Browder say "we're willing to remove and add units if necessary" when anyone with a brain knows that the SC2 team would rather eat their first-born child than remove a unit. It's also very bad too, as the game has numerous flaws that Blizzard refuses to change for any reason. The gameplay is fun, but needs more depth. The sound/voice sucks, the map editor needs a better UI, Bnet 0.5 is ABYSMAL for reasons already stated multiple times. It's just so flawed right now. And what makes it worse is that I'm positive that it wouldn't take more than a few months to fix if Blizzard was actually WILLING to make the call to do it. Better voices and sounds could be made in a week. Gameplay wouldn't take long to fix as the "Project Micro" thread showed that it's actually very easy to implement SC1-style micro. The only problem is revamping Bnet, but I would honestly take WC3's Bnet with the way things are now. It's certainly better than the "WE MUST CONTROL EVERYTHING" disaster we have right now. | ||
|
Thyem
19 Posts
Hopefully the right person at Blizzard reads this post because whats the point in having the options of the map editor/creator if you cant publish your stuff? | ||
|
Stripe
United States67 Posts
It's almost comical to listen to Dustin Browder say "we're willing to remove and add units if necessary" when anyone with a brain knows that the SC2 team would rather eat their first-born child than remove a unit. Lurkers, Firebat, Soul Hunter, Cobra, etc. | ||
|
briann
United States121 Posts
Edit: also they should add some type of system where after your maps get played a certain amount of times ( or another goal is met ) you can then store more+ larger maps | ||
|
Islandsnake
United States679 Posts
 I hope blizzard reads this and everyone else supports this thread.I agree 100% with everything you said <3 | ||
|
IskatuMesk
Canada969 Posts
On May 24 2010 10:09 theqat wrote: There's no way that the 20MB limit will be in place in retail (unless someone can produce some confirmation from Blizzard). Just like the 5-win achievements and the limit on friend adding methods, it's a temporary thing. Definitely something they'll be upgrading during June Of this I do not doubt... but we do not know what the real limits will be. Frankly, any limit on the number of maps is absurd when you cannot locally host them. I do not think 120mb limit would be reasonable for now unless it was for maps hosted on the market (p2p transfer has always been slow on blizzard's services), but something like 30-40mb a map max would be nice for most small projects. Most Starcraft 1 mods without voice acting or custom music still exceed 20mb. | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
They were willing when the game is still in alpha. They certainly aren't willing to do it now that the game is in beta depsite their statements that they would. | ||
|
Ack1027
United States7873 Posts
| ||
|
powerhorse
United States15 Posts
For what its worth, I'd like to confirm this bit: I know there are two different teams at play here, and the battle.net team is in dire need of being fired all-in and rebuilt from the ground up. Blizzard made a serious blunder with the staffing of the battle.net 2.0 team, and an even more serious one by not scrapping the work they'd done and starting over before it was too late. | ||
|
theqat
United States2856 Posts
| ||
|
clickrush
Switzerland3257 Posts
if they now implement the basic, missing features of the WC3 battle.net. then everyone will be happy. | ||
|
Nightmarjoo
United States3360 Posts
| ||
|
SwiftBunny
Canada134 Posts
At least they aren't making you Submit your free map, wait for someone at blizzard to APPROVE your map for online play ? "To protect" Children etc/Moral Police. Blizzard largely died to me when Vivendi merged with Activision. (Quality has plummeted In WoW, The beta so far..) | ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
| ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
I am a Casual Player. I spend every waking moment of every day contributing to an overall overarching gameplan of modmaking and custom content, or working on my novel. I have been producing custom projects for 10 years. ... You are not a casual player. If "every waking moment of every day" revolves around gaming, you are not casual in any way with regard to your gaming habit. There is a lot of room between "casual" and "professional". In terms of gaming, that room is generally called "hardcore". As for the substance of your rant, about the only thing I agree with you on is the censorship issue. That, and maybe game naming (though I think the issue can be alleviated in other ways without being abuseable). Blizzard owns the servers. Which means that they are the ones responsible for creating the space for storing your maps to be used in multiplayer. Do you honestly expect Blizzard to offer unlimited, or even Google-level, storage space for your maps? Be reasonable here. We're talking about potentially millions of players. Even with just 5 million players, that's 95TB of storage. Storage that has to be networked, backed up, and so forth. And you expect this to be higher? For free? Remember: Battle.Net is a free service. Maybe they should allow you to pay a bi-monthly fee for more space. Furthermore, if you were allowed to just point to a random map on your harddisk and let other people join your game, God only knows what you would be able to do with that. One hopes that SC2 is a reasonably protected environment, but imagine if you could hack someone's machine through a clever use of the scripting system. Making Battle.Net a vector for hacking someone's machine isn't a good idea, even if they can ban you should they find out about it. Lastly, you've forgotten about the marketplace support. If you make a total conversion, Blizzard will allow you to sell it. At which point, since it's making Blizzard money, I'm sure you won't have to deal with it taking up too much memory and so forth. Blizzard does not want SC2 relegated to a cloistered group of the HardCore. They want casuals, not people like you, real-life casual players to be playing this game in 5-10 years, like they have with WoW. Having an environment that they can control is a fundamental part of that. Why do you think things like the iPhone and iPad work? Because they're closed environments, steadfastly and rigorously controlled by Apple. They were willing when the game is still in alpha. They certainly aren't willing to do it now that the game is in beta depsite their statements that they would. They never said that they would add and remove units at the first sign of any issue. They said that, if the situation warranted it, they would do so. Thus far, in their estimation, the current situation does not warrant it. | ||
|
404.Delirium
United States1190 Posts
Really enjoyed the read. Nice to see the creative expert side of SC2 and where it stands. "Zergling Blood with G-- Darwin?" | ||
|
Disastorm
United States922 Posts
Also, their decision of their architecture of bnet and lack of local hosting doesnt really seem to have a basis in the casual gamer argument anyhow. I dont think anyone can say what blizard is thinking with alot of their bnet 2 ideas, since basically everone on the planet thinks they are the worst ideas in the history of mankind. If the company wasn't blizzard and the game wasn't starcraft 2, the game would sell probably nonexistant number of copies and the entire company probably would collapse if they had Blizzard's Battle.net 2 team. However, one good thing is that we don't have to feel bad about using third party patches to do stuff bnet2 doesnt let us do, since Blizzard obviously knows that everyone hates their system (and if they don't then they are way too ignorant) and refuses to change it, so by logic that means they want us to use third party systems. | ||
|
MamiyaOtaru
United States1687 Posts
Perhaps more dear to SC players is the (slim) possibility of Project Resurrection bringing their models to SC2. This would also be too big and not workable as things are now. The file size limits (whatever they end up being) are really unfortunate | ||
| ||
