|
I... ugh... I had hoped the posts I read were not true but all hope has faded it seems. First a C&C guy and now a Microsoft guy... with two of the most important positions in the game.
Heaven have mercy upon us.
Unfortunately no one I know in Blizzard really has the kind of power to make a difference, and what I know of the situation is sketchy and rumors at best. I have heard though that none of this is a result of Activision.
|
Its strange, because I initially thought that the map publishing feature was going to be for maps that people wanted to make money off of, and custom maps could just be created like they used to be on bnet 1.0. I now know this is not the case and I am quite baffled at.... well everything.
I sincerely hope that they revert to bnet 1.0 for the initial SC2 release and spend the next year or however long leading up to the expansion working on bnet 2.0 to make it truly polished. Chat channels, solid map publishing abilities (none of this 10MB limit, 5 slots, 20MB total space garbage), working friends lists and various other things that absolutely NEED to be in place to make the game a success. I dont know if they realize it or not, but SC2's success greatly depends on battle.nets ability to give us everything we need and expect.
|
I'm glad you're addressing many large problems with Bnet's progression in a clear and detailed manner, iskatumesk. When I heard there was a limit to the number of maps one could create, I was worried but I assumed that most people don't create more than 5 real quality maps. (To a map creator I see how this is a severe problem though, and for that I'm sorry it turned out this way) But limiting the size of the map really gets to me. I got really excited when I first heard about Battle.net 2.0, but over time it's been uncovered as an incredibly destructive creation. Destructive to player creativity.
I believe that Blizzard has gone over the top with control in regards to Starcraft II. I could understand them wanting a hand in every league or tournament, as much as I hated the notion of no LAN play. But they keep taking more and more from their customers that now gamers can't even design maps that fulfill their artistic desires. And players can't even break apart adventure style maps or whatever into Part 1, Part 2, etc because they're limited to 5 maps. It makes sense that games hosted by Blizzard need a size limit, but honestly I'd prefer the SC1 download-this-map-from-another-player method over Battle.net 2.0's method.
This is plain wrong. Custom game design has kept SC1 and WC3 (disregarding melee play) alive. If WC3 had to rely solely on Blizzard's maps, I guarantee players would get sick of Worm War real fast. Our creativity is stifled, and without LAN we can't even play our projects with friends. All because Blizzard wants to be the controller of every move we make.
With respect to gaming, nothing hurts me more than a GREAT game company losing focus. This is a perfect example, of a company putting control over creativity. You're killing yourself Blizzard, and you're killing us too.
|
Blizzard doesn't accept criticism about their gaming directions! All we can do is pray they don't mess up so bad we never see a flash vs jaedong in sc2. . .looks grim though.
|
Well, this sucks. I never really took a liking to the original WC3 game when I bought it, however, it was the custom maps that kept me at the game for way longer than I would have paid attention to it.
I'm still hoping (perhaps foolishly), that maybe, just maybe, on release the map publishing system might be fixed.
Still, if it isn't, I sincerely doubt any amount of petitioning is gonna change things. Calling for a boycott isn't likely to work either, since people aren't likely to forgo the game just for the sake of custom maps.
It's like finding the car of your dreams, but in a color you absolutely hate. Petitioning the manufacturer probably won't help, and you don't want to NOT have the car just because of the color. Solution : Find somewhere or someone to re-paint the car.
Probably the best thing to do now is try to find some kind of workaround to the problem. I'm not intimately familiar with the inner workings of battle.net 2.0, or the map editing system, but I'm hoping that this thread could yield some viable workarounds.
Just my opinion.
|
About the size limitation:
I do understand that it is a LIMITATION. And unfortunately, while limiting people can spawn innovation, sometimes it does also stamp out great ideas.
But, the way that Blizzard is going about distributing maps makes the old way of doing it unthinkable. You can download uploaded maps ANYTIME YOU WISH.
This means that in order for you to locally host, you would literally have to turn your computer into a server, or people wouldn't be able to get your map if they didn't already have it. Blizzard provides a way to download maps at will, including custom maps (it was how I was getting a bunch of maps without joining before the custom problems starting going up).
This makes things very convenient. It's the benefit, you can download maps without having to connect to a host. This means the potential for more consistent download speeds without putting stress on the user networks.
However, it also has it's drawbacks, as has been noted in OP. Hopefully Blizzard will wise up and increase server/bandwidth capacity to facilitate larger/longer downloads. That's about the only fix without having to refactor their map distribution system.
It still baffles me that companies today DO NOT cater to ALL USERS. It was a main point made in my Software Engineering class, and a very valid one. If you want your software to be used by many users, you need to give them what they desire.
And really, casual/hardcore does not fit in this discussion. I would better say that these custom map problems are suited for more advanced users, versus less advanced users. However, if anyone wants my look on the casual/hardcore idea, it's not so much about time spent but rather about one's mindset and dedication to gaming. Someone can spend hours on a game and do nothing other than waste time, and someone else can better their skills at a game and analyze it in the same amount of time.
|
Professor Oak @#$% when he heard you beat the elite 4
|
On May 24 2010 12:32 RageOverdose wrote:
But, the way that Blizzard is going about distributing maps makes the old way of doing it unthinkable.
When I first heard of the system I assumed it was an optional system to use in tandem with existing local hosting. This is how the system would best function, giving you the benefits of both worlds and the choice of either distribution method.
However, it also has it's drawbacks, as has been noted in OP. Hopefully Blizzard will wise up and increase server/bandwidth capacity to facilitate larger/longer downloads. That's about the only fix without having to refactor their map distribution system.
It is not that I desire the marketplace to vanish entirely, for it has many uses and could be quite viable. But at the same time, for Blizzard to possibly hope to facilitate wc3-level content they must be prepared to pay a hefty bandwidth bill. An unnecessary bill if they simply stuck to what worked and stopped trying to re-invent the internet.
Local hosting must return for this to turn out good. Not just for us developers, but for all users.
It still baffles me that companies today DO NOT cater to ALL USERS. It was a main point made in my Software Engineering class, and a very valid one. If you want your software to be used by many users, you need to give them what they desire.
Blizzard's logo is so powerful that more than half of sc2's sales will be based on word of mouth alone. If EA was making sc2 and it turned out exactly like it looks like right now, make no mistake - it would flop as hard as RA3 and C&C3 did.
|
Blizzard's logo is so powerful that more than half of sc2's sales will be based on word of mouth alone. If EA was making sc2 and it turned out exactly like it looks like right now, make no mistake - it would flop as hard as RA3 and C&C3 did.
Thing is, I don't believe it will end up just as it is now.
They've already overhauled the interface twice, and have added significant changes. I mean, we don't know what is going to happen. They may even delay the game. Maybe things will be changed as the game sits in consumers' hands as well, but I think that the beta will start to see some huge changes from here on out. In fact, I expected this kind of instability, because Blizzard needs this kind of strain so they don't make a product that will just break at release. If they're being too lax, well that sucks, but I'm sure they have software engineers staring, tweaking, and writing for a full day's work time. A beta is DEFINED as software tested by users in THE FIELD. Alphas are user tested in the development offices. I had an argument with someone over the issues people had with the Halo Reach beta, and he couldn't even realize that calling a beta a failure made no sense, because if a beta points out the flaws of your system, then that is a successful beta.
What is bad is just when the developers decide not to properly fix the problems. But we can't assess that until closer to release time.
However, do not mistake me for being perfectly optimistic here; I'm actually very worried too. But I also know that a lot can happen in June too.
But that may be digressing from the Custom Content problem too. That may not be flawed systems really, the system may be fine, just the idea doesn't quite make sense. I agree local and Blizzard options are probably best, assuming they could even fit local into their architecture, which I have no real reason to believe why it couldn't.
|
Saw the title of the post and went, "hmh, interesting". Saw the topic poster and went, "definite read- yay ethos!". Finished reading the OP and wanted to QFT but decided that might be a tad overboard to quote such a massive (yet incredibly well-crafted) OP.
But yeah, I completely agree, and what frustrates me most is that imo, many of the basic concepts behind Bnet 2.0 and map publishing and etc are actually big advancements from WC3 and other games/networks. However, as you've pointed out, the implementation is so terrible in so many ways, that I rather fear it may scare others and even Blizzard away from attempting such improvements entirely. And for this, I appreciate your post and concerns yet more for you targeted the specific issues quite well.
As well, if you really did have any role in the new layout of the Data Editor, I lavish all praise possible upon you. The new Data Editor layout may not cover for other complete and total crap like the cliff level limits and all that you've pointed out... but it is the single biggest improvement from WC3's editor to SC2's editor so far (yes, I am aware of the numerous other "improvements").
|
I really hope they loosen up the choker on the editor, this is just too bad, i really like the beta editor, i cant wait for the official release and see all that is in there.. but if they turn around and shut the door right in my face with this publishing crap we gonna have to find ourselves some private servers and nice little cracked apps so we can enjoy our 90$ game as we should.
|
On May 24 2010 13:00 RageOverdose wrote:Show nested quote +
Blizzard's logo is so powerful that more than half of sc2's sales will be based on word of mouth alone. If EA was making sc2 and it turned out exactly like it looks like right now, make no mistake - it would flop as hard as RA3 and C&C3 did.
Thing is, I don't believe it will end up just as it is now.
I have no doubt that there will be change, for this is beta and there are yet two expansions to be had. But we know not what change, for all we know their next big plan is Twitter merging and nothing that really helps us. Who knows how far they will delay chat rooms and online replays.
It takes a lot of complaining to really get things in motion, and it takes awareness. Luckily, I'm really good at complaining.
|
While many of the posts in this thread are nicely worded, a bunch of them are just big overreactions which are fueled by overreactions of other people.
And as for small size limitations are there because its beta, they just want to test the system out.
Lack of local hosting is a shame of course, but maybe it will get implemented at some point? Did anyone from blizzard made a statement on this?
And as for prioritizing things like facebook integration over chatrooms the answer i think is simple:
They limit features that would obviously be popular and implement the ones that they suspect wouldn't be as popular, that way they can "force" the beta testers to test them out properly, it is beta after all.
I'm often over optimistic about these things but guys, come on, its blizzard... It's not going to be as bad as most of you think a month or two after the game is released.
Anyways... entertaining topic, i literally lol'd or facepalm'd (and both at the same time) at some points made in this thread.
|
It would be nice if they had both the original local hosting system and the publishing system in place. Local hosting allows you to manage your collection of large and absurd custom maps and distribute them to players in your games (which you should be able to name and password, of course), but the publishing system is convenient since it allows players who have no custom maps to quickly obtain the most popular ones and host them immediately without having to go download map packs. The system could be improved by permanently publishing the most-placed custom maps, including those which exceed limits. The worst case scenario is that the map patcher we were using to play custom maps before Patch 13 will come back to stay.
As for the ESRB and filters, I don't see why they're taking this approach. They could easily get a T rating with a "Experience may change online" tag under it like every other online game does.
|
On May 24 2010 13:14 Skvid wrote:
While many of the posts in this thread are nicely worded, a bunch of them are just big overreactions which are fueled by overreactions of other people.
I like over reaction. It's a word that rolls well off the tongue and makes me smile.
And as for small size limitations are there because its beta, they just want to test the system out.
This is more than likely, my concern is that arbitrary limits, especially on the number of maps and the censorship, will remain on release.
Lack of local hosting is a shame of course, but maybe it will get implemented at some point? Did anyone from blizzard made a statement on this?
I have heard no indication of Blizzard even considering it, or even knowing that it's a feature we desire. I am trying to change this... but I have no hope.
And as for prioritizing things like facebook integration over chatrooms the answer i think is simple:
They limit features that would obviously be popular and implement the ones that they suspect wouldn't be as popular, that way they can "force" the beta testers to test them out properly, it is beta after all.
One could presume this is true as well, but without a real statement on the matter we are left to guesswork with our own devices.
However.
The decision to remove chat rooms and online replays from a beta test concerns me furthermore. It is possible that they are confident enough in their design that they can implement the system without any big problems, but I doubt they were expecting the massive netcode issues in patch 13 otherwise they wouldn't have released it as-is and rendered the game largely unplayable. Development is about problem solving, everything needs to be tested. It seems unlikely to me that they would forego adding these features simply on the desire to test facebook functionality instead, for chat rooms and replays are far more fundamental and core-based elements. Facebook seems like something that should be tacked on post-release, just like many companies make a big post-release patch to tack on extra stuff.
No, I cannot guess what is going through their minds with these decisions. The more I think about it and the more I hear about it the more concerned I become. I am accustomed to companies making blunders but this seems far too extreme for it to be planned out.
I'm often over optimistic about these things but guys, come on, its blizzard... It's not going to be as bad as most of you think a month or two after the game is released.
To me, Blizzard is just an average company. Their major talent is long gone. What drives them now is money and the lust for more money. No, that is not fully true - the Cataclysm team is producing a lot of nice stuff and I look forward to Diablo 3 as well, but those are what little I know of them. No LAN in Diablo 3 will insta-fuck modders because unlike sc2, d2's data is pure server-side and so will be d3's. This is fatal to diablo modders, of which there are many even today.
I do not allow myself to have hope for the business mind works in ways I cannot predict nor control. I hope for the best but I must always make plans for when it all comes crashing down. Thus, if it all works out, I'll be pleasantly surprised and can do what it is I desire. If not, I lose nothing.
|
Just wow, I thought before Bnet would be saved by custom games, but the limits placed on you guys seems to beyond insane. I don't even think it's possible for blizzard to fix this before launch or even 2 years after anymore.
|
Props to the initial post - it contains well reasoned argument which I hope gets to blizzard in some way.
|
On May 24 2010 13:31 OneWhoIsMany wrote:
Just wow, I thought before Bnet would be saved by custom games, but the limits placed on you guys seems to beyond insane. I don't even think it's possible for blizzard to fix this before launch or even 2 years after anymore.
The only things that kept Starcraft alivein my opinion is custom games and Starcraft as an esport in korea. Without lan and this limitation, I find it hard to believe that sc2 will stay alive for long in its current state.
|
having only a few maps at a time is completely awesome. just make a few sick maps.
|
The fact you have to download maps off blizzards servers is the problem with map size.
There is no reason they couldn't incorporate a system like war3 that let you download off people inside the game and I don't really understand why they don't.
I don't mean get rid of map publishing or uploading to blizzard servers, but when you join a custom game on a map you don't have, instead of all having to all download it from blizzard servers split the load with people who already have the map if bandwidth is an issue.
About storage... let's assume there are 1million maps created for sc2 and the average 10MB each... that's only 10TB of data storage, which in this day and age is nothing. Hell I have 6TB of storage on my home PC (yeah yeah, server storage is different but it's still nothing.)
...
also the naming thing is retarded
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://gaming.freedomblogging.com/files/2009/08/blizzcon-vid230.jpg)
