EPTBNet2.0 Will Harm Custom Content - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
opticalza
New Zealand188 Posts
| ||
|
I_Love_Bacon
United States5765 Posts
On May 24 2010 10:55 Stripe wrote: I think a lot of this thread is over reaction. We have absolutely no idea what the final cap is going to be. Try distributing a 50 MB map to 10 other people when hosting a UMS map and you'll quickly realize why BNET hosting is necessary in SC2. With the clear distinction being at the moment the map sizes are nowhere near 50mb. I'm not saying the old way was perfect. But as opposed to limiting the size and bandwidth being the issue. For a lot of people they'd go to custom sites that designed them and people would have the newest version hosted on filefront or something. That worked perfectly fine for me as far as I was concerned. And Bolas, I understand your point, but if Blizzard as a company and their big picture is money (as it should be) but miss the mark on making a game we can enjoy, that's acceptable to US? They wont care, but we will. The fans will ultimately suffer, even if their stockholders don't. Some people might not realize they can't use flash on their iPad, but I sure as shit bet some people realize they suddenly can't use sites they use to. Same thing will happen in SC2 if map making is taken care of poorly. Some people might not now how or why the maps aren't as good as they can/should be; but they'll still be able to tell it's not as fun. | ||
|
ayababa
Australia347 Posts
On May 24 2010 10:11 Stripe wrote: I remember downloading locally hosted maps in SC and WC3 that's only several MB. The download could be really slow especially if there were other people downloading at the same time. I dread to think how long it would take to get a full house trying to distribute a 120 MB map. Downloading it from Blizzard servers solves this, but as you mentioned the bandwidth is pretty high. I believe he said he distributed this particular 120mb map off battle.net through AIM?? ... any way I read the complete post. and it is very very true. spot on!. My first thoughts on bnet.2.0 was that i liked it cos it was new and shiny... but its slowly turning into a pile of shit. My main problem is no game names.. im mean.. that just sucks ... i dont play no rush games.. but to no be able to specify these kidns of things in the game name is so bad. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
There is also a huge question of how this database of maps will be displayed if i can't search for it categorically then fucking gg. | ||
|
USn
United States376 Posts
On May 24 2010 10:33 NicolBolas wrote: For free? Remember: Battle.Net is a free service. I'm pretty sure they intend battle.net to be extremely profitable. It's not just a matchmaking and social service, it's a store. They want to monetize absolutely every aspect of sc2, but they can't do that without control from the center. Unfortunately all these activities are 1000 times better the way they were... | ||
|
IskatuMesk
Canada969 Posts
On May 24 2010 11:22 ayababa wrote: I believe he said he distributed this particular 120mb map off battle.net through AIM?? The developer edition of the map was 120mb, but the b.net limit at the time was 4mb. I stripped all of the custom assets out of the map and placed them in a self-executing mpq file, which was what I sent to my friends over AIM. I then hosted the stripped-down version of the map, which was still over 1mb, on battle.net The map called for files that were present in the memory thanks to the external executable. A clever backdoor. | ||
|
ikarigendo
United States99 Posts
| ||
|
IskatuMesk
Canada969 Posts
The information is out there and within their grasp. It is up to them whether or not they choose to use it. | ||
|
BigDatez
Canada434 Posts
IF the map sizes were too large, it woudl take people LITERALLY an hour to download a SINGLE MAP with custom stuff, hence there are MODS where you can have alot more CUSTOM CONTENT. You're FAILING to realise that the reason they're doing this now, and in WC3 is to reduce load times....... | ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
On May 24 2010 11:40 BigDates wrote: i HIGHLYYYYYYYYYYYYY doubt you've taken the time to realise that: IF the map sizes were too large, it woudl take people LITERALLY an hour to download a SINGLE MAP with custom stuff, hence there are MODS where you can have alot more CUSTOM CONTENT. You're FAILING to realise that the reason they're doing this now, and in WC3 is to reduce load times....... Ughhh...yeah you don't know who the OP is, trust me he knows all there is to know about custom content. | ||
|
Buzz Lightyear
United States24 Posts
@everyone else: the terms "Casual" and "Hardcore" are complete horseshit. Perhaps the oldest members of this community, or gaming in general, will remember a time when gaming was mostly on old computers, and the "Casual" games invaded via Atari and the NES. The "Casual" players, whose playing consisted of inserting quarters into local arcade Pac-Man, Asteroids and Donkey Kong machines were now playing these games at home, while the true "Hardcore" players had their (at the time) fancy computers. Now, we have the "Hardcore" consoles Xbox360 and PS3, and the "Casual" Wii. Someone who plays Tetris on their phone for an hour every day of their life is, in my book, a real Hardcore gamer. | ||
|
I_Love_Bacon
United States5765 Posts
On May 24 2010 11:40 BigDates wrote: i HIGHLYYYYYYYYYYYYY doubt you've taken the time to realise that: IF the map sizes were too large, it woudl take people LITERALLY an hour to download a SINGLE MAP with custom stuff, hence there are MODS where you can have alot more CUSTOM CONTENT. You're FAILING to realise that the reason they're doing this now, and in WC3 is to reduce load times....... So it's to protect us from our own stupidity? Who takes hours to download 100mb? If you do, you probably lag, so don't try and play SC2 with me anyways. Load times are something you should be prepared for. It's not like random melee maps are going to be large and messing up competitions because of load times. And further, this has more to do with limitations Blizzard is setting up because of their own setup; not something that "just is". | ||
|
Shade692003
Canada702 Posts
On May 24 2010 11:40 BigDates wrote: i HIGHLYYYYYYYYYYYYY doubt you've taken the time to realise that: IF the map sizes were too large, it woudl take people LITERALLY an hour to download a SINGLE MAP with custom stuff, hence there are MODS where you can have alot more CUSTOM CONTENT. You're FAILING to realise that the reason they're doing this now, and in WC3 is to reduce load times....... YEAH i LOVE to write RANDOM words in ALL CAPS | ||
|
Blinn
United Kingdom68 Posts
I tried to make a thread like this on the battle.net feedback forum and it got deleted so I guess I'll show my support here. Another point I brought up was the problem of searching- if you search for the map Water Wheel you can find it with "Water" but not "Wheel". That's ridiculous to me. Also, due to the word filter we can't play "Garden of God" we have to play... "The Garden"  edit: and another thing!! you can't have the same name of maps on both US and EU- I tried to publish my 3 sc1 remakes on europe and had to use different names because I was just told they weren't available with no more feedback from the editor. | ||
|
IskatuMesk
Canada969 Posts
On May 24 2010 11:40 BigDates wrote: IF the map sizes were too large ... hence there are MODS where you can have alot more CUSTOM CONTENT. You're FAILING to realise that the reason they're doing this now, and in WC3 is to reduce load times....... Um. What do load times have to do with map sizes? And... you do realize that Battle.net treats maps and mods as nearly the exact same thing, right? Oh, and they are both restricted to the exact same limit. Did you read the OP? | ||
|
Niteo
United States28 Posts
If battle.net 2.0 remains the same after the month downtime I will not be purchasing SC2. Even if I don't want to play the ladder anymore, the custom games implementation is such a half assed clusterfuck and UMS maps were what had me coming back to SC1 after ladder became stale for me. Maybe I will purchase it if some other 3rd party private option aside from battle.net 2.0 is available. I'd rather play a free to play competitive game like LoL than pay for a downgrade online experience like battle.net 2.0. Shame too, because SC2 is a great game. Plus, I think it is a huge problem that things are starting to be compared to Apple. If that is anymore reason to abandon ship then I don't know what is. Do you seriously think a lot of these young casual target markets (the reason for changing SC2's rating to T from SC1's M) even understand build order concepts? | ||
|
cSc
49 Posts
| ||
|
shlomo
258 Posts
![[image loading]](http://gaming.freedomblogging.com/files/2009/08/blizzcon-vid230.jpg) http://www.facebook.com/gcanessa (lol facebook integration) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=5329535 (some background) | ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
The size limit is absurd. The censoring is absurd. Especially when you see some of the words on the list... things like "white," "master," etc are apparently naughty. So I guess if you want to have a map called "Tower Master" or something you can't. Honestly I hate all the bullshit Blizzard is doing with this and I can't help but wonder if it's activision fucking them up | ||
|
Ideas
United States8148 Posts
| ||
| ||
