| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Illuminaire
Germany11 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.the-ghetto.org/content/pictures/battlenet5.jpg) Found this somewhere else,I had to share it with you =) Battle.net 2.0 is a serious step backwards and nothing like the "amazing fully integrated online" experience they announced when they postponed the release of SC2 last year(because of B.net 2.0!). | ||
|
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
On June 10 2010 03:02 Illuminaire wrote: Found this somewhere else,I had to share it with you =) Battle.net 2.0 is a serious step backwards and nothing like the "amazing fully integrated online" experience they announced when they postponed the release of SC2 last year(because of B.net 2.0!). It was posted just like 2-3 pages back. And then it was posted a number of pages before that. And before that. And before that. For the record, it's kinda funny but incredibly dishonest. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On June 09 2010 22:27 Madkipz wrote: wasnt this the blue posted as a "bug" that would be fixed? No, the bug in question was that you couldn't go from Platinum to Diamond at all. It has already been fixed. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
The game still needs to be balanced in some areas (and when these get balanced, new issues will arise of course, so it'll be a looooong way before it's perfect) Absolutely. The game isn't perfect, Battle.Net isn't perfect. But you know what? We'll try to get there. And yes, we definitely need you all to get there, with all the feedback you can provide. We'll do our best because we don't want to let you down. This is an amazing company and it keeps surprising me. Several months ago I tried an unfinished version of one of the localized clients. It was good, indeed. But that was it. Just good. I recently tried a more polished version of the same client and all I could think was "... Wow, this is amazing". Just when I thought that the localized version was good, I was blown away by the attention to details that was put in that version. And I'm confident that the same thing will happen again and again, at release, at every content patch, and so on. Just bear with us, because we definitely didn't forget our "Commit to quality" core value. -Zhydaris On June 10 2010 03:38 Takkara wrote: + Show Spoiler + On June 10 2010 03:02 Illuminaire wrote: Found this somewhere else,I had to share it with you =) Battle.net 2.0 is a serious step backwards and nothing like the "amazing fully integrated online" experience they announced when they postponed the release of SC2 last year(because of B.net 2.0!). For the record, it's kinda funny but incredibly dishonest. Im looking at it and all of it looks pretty spot on. Dont know what your talking about. | ||
|
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
On June 10 2010 23:26 Archerofaiur wrote: Im looking at it and all of it looks pretty spot on. Dont know what your talking about. Selectively not including information (even if the included information is true) is just as dishonest as lying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking | ||
|
Drakkart
80 Posts
On June 09 2010 21:37 abrasion wrote: When do Blizzard plan to properly address the concerns? actually i believe they have diffrent plans, otherwise they wouldn't be in a totally wrong direction right now. Though they had to react to the outcry, the disasterous interview their pr did, caused. If they would really want to adress the issues they should delay the product untill bnet is in reasonable condition. didn't heard of that since so maybe betaphase 2 is going to reveal more - some progress maybe - i doubt it. Don't get me wrong i would love to see some progress but as far as i judge the development done on Sc2 i think that is more like activision doing the game than blizzard. glad to get convinced otherwise | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On June 11 2010 00:33 Takkara wrote: Selectively not including information (even if the included information is true) is just as dishonest as lying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking LOL Cherry Picking! Like they selectively just picked the bad parts about BNET 0.2 and picked all the good parts about rocks. Do me a favor Takkara. Tell me one thing that BNET 2.0 does better than the previous version. And dont you dare say achivements. Warcraft 3 had those and those icons were actually animated. | ||
|
GodIsNotHere
Canada395 Posts
On June 11 2010 03:46 Archerofaiur wrote: LOL Cherry Picking! Like they selectively just picked the bad parts about BNET 0.2 and picked all the good parts about rocks. Do me a favor Takkara. Tell me one thing that BNET 2.0 does better than the previous version. And dont you dare say achivements. Warcraft 3 had those and those icons were actually animated. Yeah seriously, they can go on and on about how its "Not perfect" when its fact its worse then the original version from 10 years ago... Oh "Were only human an make mistakes too!" Really so no one at all figured that maybe just MAYBE the community might want basic features from the original Bnet? I'm not sure if this shows people being stupid or just so out of touch with the community its scary but ether way we are the ones who get screwed in the end. Oh also it does have something better then the original Bnet..... FACEBOOK!!! Rawr!.. God I hate Facebook lol. Next thing you know they'll leave out chat an add in some stupid Twitter integration. | ||
|
Senx
Sweden5901 Posts
| ||
|
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
On June 11 2010 03:46 Archerofaiur wrote: LOL Cherry Picking! Like they selectively just picked the bad parts about BNET 0.2 and picked all the good parts about rocks. Do me a favor Takkara. Tell me one thing that BNET 2.0 does better than the previous version. And dont you dare say achivements. Warcraft 3 had those and those icons were actually animated. Auto-Matchmaking, Spectating, and the new Map Editing/Publishing system are better than any previous iteration of any Blizzard RTS. And, a lot better than the rock's, too. You can't matchmake across regions, but the auto matching system is still the best they've ever made. You can't host shared replays, but the spectating system is a trillion times better than in any previous version of a Blizzard RTS, and the Map Editor is practically a game unto itself. You could charge $60 just for the map editor, publishing system, and the UMS portion of Starcraft and it wouldn't be a rip-off. There will be endless amazing content coming out of that system. I mean we can do these little stone mashups with anything. Just take 3 things missing from something you hate, and 1 think present that you hate most. Now take a rock. Amazingly in 99.99% of cases those same 3 things are missing from the rock and the thing you hate has just one tiny thing you hate that the rock doesn't have. I get that it's a joke. That's why I said it's funny, but incredibly dishonest. And it is. BNet/SC2 has major flaws, but it also has some really cool parts. I know you're better than this, so stop being so needlessly provocative and just be honest. | ||
|
Mutaahh
Netherlands859 Posts
On June 10 2010 23:26 Archerofaiur wrote: New info from the Blues on their "Commitment to quality" and BNET. Adding to OP. Im looking at it and all of it looks pretty spot on. Dont know what your talking about. Blizzard is going for the easy win, making crap at first, then patch it to a wonderful world, which everyone likes. Now they know how to please us, and sure they will. You all got fooled by Blizzard magic once again. And slowly they will take over the INTERNETZZZ | ||
|
DTown
United States428 Posts
On June 11 2010 04:14 Takkara wrote: Auto-Matchmaking, Spectating, and the new Map Editing/Publishing system are better than any previous iteration of any Blizzard RTS. And, a lot better than the rock's, too. You can't matchmake across regions, but the auto matching system is still the best they've ever made. You can't host shared replays, but the spectating system is a trillion times better than in any previous version of a Blizzard RTS, and the Map Editor is practically a game unto itself. You could charge $60 just for the map editor, publishing system, and the UMS portion of Starcraft and it wouldn't be a rip-off. There will be endless amazing content coming out of that system. I mean we can do these little stone mashups with anything. Just take 3 things missing from something you hate, and 1 think present that you hate most. Now take a rock. Amazingly in 99.99% of cases those same 3 things are missing from the rock and the thing you hate has just one tiny thing you hate that the rock doesn't have. I get that it's a joke. That's why I said it's funny, but incredibly dishonest. And it is. BNet/SC2 has major flaws, but it also has some really cool parts. I know you're better than this, so stop being so needlessly provocative and just be honest. You do realize most map publishers absolutely hate the custom map publishing system, right? The popularity thing makes it impossible to release new and/or unknown maps to the community, and results in map authors manually creating and leaving 100 games on their own just to bump the game up the list. dumb. | ||
|
GodIsNotHere
Canada395 Posts
| ||
|
Sandrosuperstar
Sweden525 Posts
On June 11 2010 04:14 Takkara wrote: Auto-Matchmaking, Spectating, and the new Map Editing/Publishing system are better than any previous iteration of any Blizzard RTS. And, a lot better than the rock's, too. You can't matchmake across regions, but the auto matching system is still the best they've ever made. You can't host shared replays, but the spectating system is a trillion times better than in any previous version of a Blizzard RTS, and the Map Editor is practically a game unto itself. You could charge $60 just for the map editor, publishing system, and the UMS portion of Starcraft and it wouldn't be a rip-off. There will be endless amazing content coming out of that system. I mean we can do these little stone mashups with anything. Just take 3 things missing from something you hate, and 1 think present that you hate most. Now take a rock. Amazingly in 99.99% of cases those same 3 things are missing from the rock and the thing you hate has just one tiny thing you hate that the rock doesn't have. I get that it's a joke. That's why I said it's funny, but incredibly dishonest. And it is. BNet/SC2 has major flaws, but it also has some really cool parts. I know you're better than this, so stop being so needlessly provocative and just be honest. but the map-publishing is actually quite bad ATM, just saying...  not to talk about the hosting problems. | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
On June 11 2010 04:22 DTown wrote: You do realize most map publishers absolutely hate the custom map publishing system, right? The popularity thing makes it impossible to release new and/or unknown maps to the community, and results in map authors manually creating and leaving 100 games on their own just to bump the game up the list. dumb. Speaking as a mapmaker myself, I agree that the map publishing system is very bad. I could go on about what's wrong with it, but I feel that this post explains it much better than I could have. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=127066 | ||
|
Toran7
United States160 Posts
| ||
|
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
On June 11 2010 04:27 Spawkuring wrote: Speaking as a mapmaker myself, I agree that the map publishing system is very bad. I could go on about what's wrong with it, but I feel that this post explains it much better than I could have. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=127066 Is the map publishing idea bad? Or is the current implementation of it bad? It's a hugely important distinction. Blizzard made the Map Editor as wildly powerful as it is and made the Map Publishing system to SUPPORT projects like DotA. Why would they persist with a configuration that prevents such things from ever being created? Seriously. Stop to think. What benefit does Blizzard get to kill custom content? Zero. In fact, they get negative benefit. So it's in their financial, professional, and personal interest to fix the system til it works right. Now, in other areas, this "it's beta zomg" doesn't work. The idea of region locking is bad, as well as the implementation. The idea of IM chat isn't bad, but without public-accessible channels is terrible. But The idea of map publishing is good, I'd contend, but the implementation is lagging badly. Seriously throwing the baby with the bathwater is no different than taking Patch 1 of SC2 and saying "omg, look at the imbalance, this game is garbage, it should never be released." | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
On June 11 2010 04:35 Takkara wrote: Is the map publishing idea bad? Or is the current implementation of it bad? It's a hugely important distinction. Blizzard made the Map Editor as wildly powerful as it is and made the Map Publishing system to SUPPORT projects like DotA. Why would they persist with a configuration that prevents such things from ever being created? Seriously. Stop to think. What benefit does Blizzard get to kill custom content? Zero. In fact, they get negative benefit. So it's in their financial, professional, and personal interest to fix the system til it works right. Now, in other areas, this "it's beta zomg" doesn't work. The idea of region locking is bad, as well as the implementation. The idea of IM chat isn't bad, but without public-accessible channels is terrible. But The idea of map publishing is good, I'd contend, but the implementation is lagging badly. Seriously throwing the baby with the bathwater is no different than taking Patch 1 of SC2 and saying "omg, look at the imbalance, this game is garbage, it should never be released." Implementation is the whole point of it. I don't care about ideas, but rather if it works or not. If it doesn't work, scrap it, or replace it with something that actually works until it can be replaced with something better. Right now the old custom game system is being removed in favor of a much inferior system, and that lowers the game quality for both Blizzard and the players, so of course we're going to complain. And let's not forget that Blizzard is bad with deadlines. We have to scream loud because in Blizzard terms, we might have to wait up to years for issues to get fixed. | ||
|
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
On June 11 2010 04:44 Spawkuring wrote: Implementation is the whole point of it. I don't care about ideas, but rather if it works or not. If it doesn't work, scrap it, or replace it with something that actually works until it can be replaced with something better. Right now the old custom game system is being removed in favor of a much inferior system, and that lowers the game quality for both Blizzard and the players, so of course we're going to complain. And let's not forget that Blizzard is bad with deadlines. We have to scream loud because in Blizzard terms, we might have to wait up to years for issues to get fixed. Yeah, and there's tons of things within the context of the current system you can do to fix that. They could make versioning more seamless so that people playing old version of the map get upgraded automatically to the new version. They could add better filters so that popularity is not the main driver so that new maps have a chance to be found. User popularity ratings. Raise the amount of space that's granted for maps so there can be custom assets in popular maps. Increase the number of maps that can be uploaded into the system. I'm pretty sure most of those updates are totally doable without overhauling the system. They fit neatly into the construct of the system they have in place without having to go back to the system of exteriorly downloading maps, putting them into your maps folder, and passing them virally. That's what I mean about the idea. The system they have in place will be great when they make the tweaks to it that support the community better. Changes they will DESPERATELY want to make, because it's something they've been bragging about since they announced BNet2.0. Of all the things we need, that's one of the ones that's almost a slam dunk. It's gonna be fixed. That's not to say the feedback and complaining isn't good. It's actually necessary. It's required. That way Blizzard knows how to tailor the system to the community of mapmakers. The other things we've talked about in this thread though? Those are major foundational architecture changes. The fundamental design principles of the other systems are just wrong. It's a heavy lift to get Blizzard on board with the other changes. Which is why I say the map editor/publishing/playing system is cool. The system can easily be put in a place where it'll be one of the cornerstones of SC2's longevity. | ||
|
sword_siege
United States624 Posts
Archerofaiur, you're bordering on marginalizing your opinion when you can't be objective. Do you honestly think there isn't one thing better in Battle.net 2.0 than Battle.net 1.0? I understand you get a boost by seeing your thread get traffic on TL but in my mind you risk being called incredulous with a statement like that. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Classic vs GgMaChine
Rogue vs Maru
WardiTV Invitational
Percival vs Shameless
ByuN vs YoungYakov
IPSL
Ret vs Art_Of_Turtle
Radley vs TBD
BSL
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
herO vs TriGGeR
NightMare vs Solar
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL
IPSL
eOnzErG vs TBD
G5 vs Nesh
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
