EPTIt's been several months and I don't know why Blizzard has not addressed some MAJOR issues with Bnet. They should also re-use existing interfaces/systems if it has been working and keeping games like SC and WC3 alive to this very day.
BNet2.0 Will Harm Custom Content - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
IrT4nkz
229 Posts
It's been several months and I don't know why Blizzard has not addressed some MAJOR issues with Bnet. They should also re-use existing interfaces/systems if it has been working and keeping games like SC and WC3 alive to this very day. | ||
|
D-Lite
United Kingdom223 Posts
| ||
|
Railxp
Hong Kong1313 Posts
I hope blizzard reads everything you write, IskatuMesk. /signed | ||
|
BladeRunner
United States407 Posts
I mean look at this.. it's pretty incredible IMO Maybe they're planning to do it completely differently come release.. They can't get approved for a certain rating beforehand or something? I mean surely they must have a list of priorities and stuff like disabling censorship for user created maps must be pretty low.. | ||
|
LolnoobInsanity
United States183 Posts
Also, the opinions and wants of the people who go on that site, are probably (on average) less insightful than the opinions/wants of the people on this site. So by not posting this argument there, you are both not making it known to blizzard devs, but you're also allowing them to think that the opinions of the Battle.net forums are the opinions of all sc fans. | ||
|
CynanMachae
Canada1459 Posts
Yea, looks really bad... << | ||
|
omninmo
2349 Posts
| ||
|
Grend
1600 Posts
EDIT: I just had to make another comment. This is too retarded to be true. I just seriously cannot believe that this will be the way described in the OP. Blizzard arent stupid enough to do this. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On May 24 2010 13:59 BladeRunner wrote: I really respect the OP and I think he has valid concerns.. I just wonder, perhaps some of these limitations are because it's beta? I mean look at this.. it's pretty incredible IMO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5zL_7GD3sA Maybe they're planning to do it completely differently come release.. They can't get approved for a certain rating beforehand or something? I mean surely they must have a list of priorities and stuff like disabling censorship for user created maps must be pretty low.. It is an awesome video and I had to laugh at the obvious reference with "Would you like to know more?", BUT dont you think it does NOT make sense to test something you are not planning to release? The current state of Battlenet 2.0 is sooooo buggy that it doesnt really seem to work for many players AND its handling is cumbersome to say the least. Not having chat channels and such basics, which people have complained about for months *should* be a no-brainer to integrate, but they are doing "important" stuff first, like adding Facebook integration or requiring everyone to get yet another fake e-mail (or more if You are Day[9]) to have your privacy respected. I can grudgingly live with requiring my e-mail to log in, but requiring such things for contacting me in Battlenet is a joke. Someone has been smoking weed and watched the Matrix AND thought that would be a good idea for our future. I have to agree 110% with the OP. | ||
|
InfiniteIce
United States794 Posts
[QUOTE]On May 24 2010 14:30 Grend wrote: This seems like an incredibly bad system. I can only hope that something will change in release and I think it will. The reason why is that Blizzard has been talking alot about the way they would allow people to sell good map projects through Battle.net 2.0 And a 10 mb project will never be worth paying for at all imo. EDIT: I just had to make another comment. This is too retarded to be true. I just seriously cannot believe that this will be the way described in the OP. Blizzard arent stupid enough to do this.[/QUOTE] Two words in reply to your EDIT: FaceBook.Integration. | ||
|
Navi
5286 Posts
I really hope blizzard pays attention to these gems on TL, if they do they could make their game way better. | ||
|
Three
Japan278 Posts
On May 24 2010 09:50 verrater wrote: man, is there anything that will be actually good in sc2? Only the game atm | ||
|
Bael
Australia49 Posts
Concordantly, those mapmakers who do excel above and beyond the masses will be encouraged to refine and perfect the maps they have uploaded rather than building big mess of different ones. The size issue could be Blizzard's way of encouraging smaller 'demo' style maps that showcase various features of the SC engine, with the possibility of granting the most popular demos increased space and bandwidth with which to host the 'full' version of the map. Just a thought from a different perspective. | ||
|
DrakanSilva
Chile932 Posts
really awesome custom maps going on there. | ||
|
rackdude
United States882 Posts
On May 24 2010 15:29 Bael wrote: Playing devil's advocate for a moment, does it seem reasonable to suspect that with such a restriction on the number of maps available to upload and host, that the quality of these maps will invariably be very high? With no room to host the 4 millionth version of a tower defense spinoff, it seems like Blizzard are encouraging every player who uses Battle.Net to have a crack at the editor and see what they can come up with, rather than relying on a select few mapmakers to provide the bulk of entertainment. And that's why they made the map editor so ridiculous and have no tech support. I'm sorry, they did make it for the big modder to make epic custom games, and now they cannot post them. Something is wrong with this idea but I cannot seem to pinpoint what it is. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5956 Posts
On May 24 2010 09:34 IskatuMesk wrote: - The editor censors whatever Battle.net censors and refuses uploads. "Suicide", "God", and "Blow" are amongst the words that - even if only contained in editor-related strings - will prevent you from ever playing your map online. I don't even have the words to express how risible this is. As people have noted, their own game is more provocative than the standard they have with the worthless censor. Why stretch it to maps? Are we going to have to pay extra money to have access to mature rated custom map content? Is this really SC2 or are they putting us on? | ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
On May 24 2010 09:50 redmarine wrote: They prevent maps from being published that contain censored words. Somehow Blizzard decided that Africa was one of them. What the heck? Is Black and White still contained? I remember i couldnt write White-Ra because it got censored | ||
|
DrivE
United States2554 Posts
On May 24 2010 15:42 Geo.Rion wrote: Is Black and White still contained? I remember i couldnt write White-Ra because it got censored Why would they censor black, white, Africa, etc... This makes no sense by Blizzard. O_O I mean I would understand if they censor bad/swear words, but these are basic common words. | ||
|
PanzerDragoon
United States822 Posts
On May 24 2010 10:03 Azarkon wrote: Isn't impressive? BNET 2.0 is one of the worst things that's happened to RTS games. Unless everything we're seeing right now is going to be completely revamped upon release, it's a clear win for Corporate America(tm) and a clear loss for gamers. Honestly, outside the ranking system and auto-matching based on rank, which isn't even that good (ICCUP showed how to do it right, already), what has BNET 2.0 added that is actually meaningful and useful? All I see are more and more attempts to control the community and the players, while distracting them with such "Microsoft 2.0" concepts like achievements and Facebook integration. I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something and it's all part of a grand plan that has yet to be unveiled, and which will make believers out of us all. But at this point I'm starting to doubt it. ICCUP is actually a terrible ladder, because people constantly smurf it, and it drives tons of new players away. I mean the ranking is good but there isn't any true matchmaking. | ||
|
IskatuMesk
Canada969 Posts
On May 24 2010 15:29 Bael wrote: Playing devil's advocate for a moment, does it seem reasonable to suspect that with such a restriction on the number of maps available to upload and host, that the quality of these maps will invariably be very high? With no room to host the 4 millionth version of a tower defense spinoff, it seems like Blizzard are encouraging every player who uses Battle.Net to have a crack at the editor and see what they can come up with, rather than relying on a select few mapmakers to provide the bulk of entertainment. Concordantly, those mapmakers who do excel above and beyond the masses will be encouraged to refine and perfect the maps they have uploaded rather than building big mess of different ones. The size issue could be Blizzard's way of encouraging smaller 'demo' style maps that showcase various features of the SC engine, with the possibility of granting the most popular demos increased space and bandwidth with which to host the 'full' version of the map. Just a thought from a different perspective. That is one way of looking at it but consider this - The majority of the high-end modders I know personally have already expressed distaste to the editor and battle.net and many of them are not even buying the game now. This turns away modders and inhibits growth. Those who stay may produce higher quality content over time but ultimately the net loss is far greater because the pool is smaller. Consider diablo 2, for example. This is an exceptionally difficult game to mod, and because of that, while there are many true modders (in comparison to wc3), production lives have been long and only a few of the mods (such as Median) have reached that sweet spot of playability. Because the community remains minute and tight knit there is not much opportunity for a new guy (like me!) to break in. Even though there is lots of resources and such to learn, and a lot of power at your disposal, the learning curve is immense and harrowing for the frail of mind. Additionally, speaking from the perspective of a melee mapper, the 5 map limit is fatal to expanding my map pool for FFA games. I believe your view would fit best if the marketplace was a feature optional in addition to local hosting. That way, the marketplace CAN be restricted and thus encourage users to post only their best content, while you can locally host everything else to your heart's content. | ||
| ||
