On June 11 2010 04:14 Takkara wrote: Auto-Matchmaking,
No supporting evidence eh. Tell me, how do you know the automatchmaking is better? By what measure are you judging this? I see no way you could possibly make a claim like that (beyond anecdotal) especially since Blizzard has not released info on how the match making actually works.
On June 11 2010 04:14 Takkara wrote: Spectating,
I will give you this. BNET 2.0's spectating is better than BNET 1.0. Now you have to tell me, is that worth lan, chat channels, clan, a good custom map system, cross realm play, etc...?
On June 11 2010 04:14 Takkara wrote: and the new Map Editing/Publishing system
No. It is not. Warcraft 3s is far better. I remember logging on and seeing the custom game system and it took me all of 4 seconds before I realized the obvious problems. My immediate responce (and I quote) "What????"
Which was coincidentally the same responce when they took away the ability to friend people you knew on forums.
See you talk about all these good ideas and how its just the implementation thats bad. Hat eot break it to you but the implementation is whats in the game! Its what you actually have to play at the end of the day. It doesnt matter if the idea of taking away unique identifiers is nice cause than multiple people can play as tassadar. Its a nice idea sure but not when you have to use facebook to add your friends because of it.
You talk about all these little "tweaks" they can do and how the "foundation" is great. In fact you even go so far as to list them. + Show Spoiler +
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.
Well guess what, those little "tweaks" you just mentioned are more drastic changes to BNET 0.2 than we have seen the entire beta. So no I dont think "The system can easily be put in a place".
On June 11 2010 04:55 sword_siege wrote: 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.
You are right of course. Takkara was able to find 1 improvement going from a 10 year olds system to BNET 2.0. I stand corrected. Now he just needs to prove to me that improved spectating is worth the trail of destruction thats been left in the wake.
On June 11 2010 07:02 Archerofaiur wrote: See you talk about all these good ideas and how its just the implementation thats bad. Well guess what? The implementation is whats in the game! It doesnt matter if the idea of taking away unique identifiers is nice cause than multiple people can play as tassadar. Its a nice idea sure but not when you have to use facebook to add your friends because of it.
I don't see how necessarily taking away unique identifiers is a good idea. The reason I'm even trying to draw a distinction is this:
When you look at something like the map publishing system. You say, "Huh, when they introduced this at Blizzcon it sounded amazing. An App Store for maps? A way for people to sell maps and distribute them easily to the end user? A way to get recognized and stand out from the crowd for supplying excellence. This is gonna be great!" Then you saw it in game and went "Holy crap this is set-up all wrong. This is terrible. This does nothing you'd want it to."
In that case, the idea is good, the implementation is bad. And the implementation in this case is fixable, because the idea (map publishing) is good. Roughly, the idea is the architecture, and the implementation is the details. Implementations are very fixable, ideas much harder so.
So, like I said, when you look at something like region-locking, it never sounded good. There's no way to salvage that architecture. There's no way to fix that idea. It's not a small fix. It's not about fixing up the window dressing like you could in some ways with the map publishing bugs/bad features. The good news is that the precedent is getting closer to being there to allow it. They just announced in WoW that they'll allow rated battlegrounds to go region-wide in the next expansion, where they were previously bound by arbitrary battlegroup boundaries. So you get NA-wide battles. Unfortunately, you still cannot go from NA to EU or to the Asia servers. Since the two games will likely share the same BNet backbone, this is slightly comforting news. It hopefully shows they can adjust this system, and hopefully can offer us a solution in the moderate term to go xregion.
That's why something like map-publishing is a good idea that needs tweaking, and xregion/chat is a bad idea that will need a big overhaul to get into the game.
PS - I'd be interested to hear why you don't think this is the most sophisticated matchmaking system they've ever introduced into their RTS games. They've taken all the lessons they've learned over numerous iterations of matchmaking and put it into SC2. People complain that it's too easy to get into Diamond, but that's not a problem with the matchmaking, that's a problem with the ranking system. Overall it still matches people up correctly with the level of player that it should to make that person feel challenged but not discouraged.
I just went to the SC2 website to check what Blizzard had said about Battle.net 2.0 on the features. Too my surprise at the bottom of the page it says:
"The images on this page depict features that are currently in development, and should not be considered final."
I find this interesting because no other feature page has that statement on the bottom of it. Maybe its a sign of things to come? By law they would be required to put that statement in if they were changing the battle.net? s.52 of the trades practice act states that organisations cannot mislead in form such as advertising...
Focusing on some of the positives of Battle.net 2.0 the ability to join a game as a group has got to be one of the most refreshing and time saving devices for those of us that couldn't host games in War 3 or SC:BW.
Also, I'm not sure if anyone remembers SC vanilla but I believe there was a time before replays even existed. Blizzard added that feature later as they enhanced Battle.net. Putting that in perspective I have high hopes for Battle.net 2.0
On June 11 2010 10:51 sword_siege wrote: Focusing on some of the positives of Battle.net 2.0 the ability to join a game as a group has got to be one of the most refreshing and time saving devices for those of us that couldn't host games in War 3 or SC:BW.
Also, I'm not sure if anyone remembers SC vanilla but I believe there was a time before replays even existed. Blizzard added that feature later as they enhanced Battle.net. Putting that in perspective I have high hopes for Battle.net 2.0
You cant really compare SC with SC2. SC was made to suit the gamers. SC2 is made to suit the investors. Im just glad I realized this before I bought the game.
SC2GDF I think, just so we don't fragment discussion across multiple forums in case the reset happens soon after. Also while we obviously wanted to let everyone know before hand we were aware and working on something to address the major concerns, plans have kind of changed. We came to the conclusion that just throwing out a huge post that goes over everything would really dilute the conversation and make it difficult to hold a dialogue on any one concern. Everyone would just be replying to whatever issue they felt was most important, or detailing out a response to every thing in one reply. (And then good luck to me to try to reply to any of it.) So we'll be taking a more natural forum response approach to keep all the various concerns focused so we can discuss each more easily. Anyway. Soon. ish. Hopefully. -Bashiok
After 2 full weeks since this shitstorm happened ..
Blizzard never gave any official statements. there was one unofficial statement that they are going to address these issues "soon". and we all know the Blizzard's "soon" is roughly equivalent to 3-4 years ..
On June 11 2010 11:25 Archerofaiur wrote: Adding to OP
What a milquetoast, cowardly response from Blizzard. Instead of manning up and addressing the points the community has (they've only been summarized a dozen different times on major SC2 websites and news aggregates), they release say-nothing PR bullshit and hope we're content.
There's an example of how Blizzard respects its player base. If you're still a blind, Bnet 2.0/Blizzard supporter after this debacle you're probably suffering from Battered Wife Syndrome. I don't know how anyone can not be seriously jaded, unless you think you're unaffected by any of the lack of features the community wants.
Long time Blizzard fan. I don't like the bull shit politics which are now behind their game. Ten years ago with this many people yelling about this, they would have fixed it. Now they just push us off...
Just realize that it isn't Blizzard - it's Blactivision. Keep that in mind at all times and you'll understand every single business move they're making. This is BUSINESS now to them. It isn't about giving US, fans, what we want. If it suits their business model then they may acquiesce, but if not, they truly don't give a fuck.
On June 11 2010 10:02 Qiin wrote: I just went to the SC2 website to check what Blizzard had said about Battle.net 2.0 on the features. Too my surprise at the bottom of the page it says:
"The images on this page depict features that are currently in development, and should not be considered final."
I find this interesting because no other feature page has that statement on the bottom of it. Maybe its a sign of things to come? By law they would be required to put that statement in if they were changing the battle.net? s.52 of the trades practice act states that organisations cannot mislead in form such as advertising...
Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act is Australian legislation Though I would think there would be something similar in the US and your argument would apply the same ...
On June 11 2010 13:52 FallenWraith wrote: Long time Blizzard fan. I don't like the bull shit politics which are now behind their game. Ten years ago with this many people yelling about this, they would have fixed it. Now they just push us off...
RIP the Blizzard of Old
10 years ago you had no voice like you do now. You did not sway development nearly as much as you think you may have. Please regale me with a tale of how 10 years ago people who complained about stuff made Blizzard change games really fast.
On June 11 2010 13:52 FallenWraith wrote: Long time Blizzard fan. I don't like the bull shit politics which are now behind their game. Ten years ago with this many people yelling about this, they would have fixed it. Now they just push us off...
RIP the Blizzard of Old
10 years ago you had no voice like you do now. You did not sway development nearly as much as you think you may have. Please regale me with a tale of how 10 years ago people who complained about stuff made Blizzard change games really fast.
Are you talking about Starcraft Alpha?
Blizzard Entertainment began planning development on StarCraft in 1995, shortly after the beginning of development for Diablo.[36] Using the Warcraft II game engine as a base, StarCraft made its debut at E3 1996. The version of the game displayed, assembled by the team's lead programmer Bob Fitch, received a rather weak response from the convention and was criticized by many for being "Warcraft in space."[37] As a consequence the entire project was overhauled, bringing the focus onto creating three distinct species. Bill Roper, one of the game's producers, stated this would be a major departure from the Warcraft approach, comparing its two equal sides to those of chess and stating that StarCraft would allow players to "develop very unique strategies based on which species [is being played], and will require [players] to think of different strategies to combat the other two species."[38] In early 1997, the new version of StarCraft was unveiled, receiving a far more positive response.
On June 11 2010 13:52 FallenWraith wrote: Long time Blizzard fan. I don't like the bull shit politics which are now behind their game. Ten years ago with this many people yelling about this, they would have fixed it. Now they just push us off...
RIP the Blizzard of Old
10 years ago you had no voice like you do now. You did not sway development nearly as much as you think you may have. Please regale me with a tale of how 10 years ago people who complained about stuff made Blizzard change games really fast.
Blizzard Entertainment began planning development on StarCraft in 1995, shortly after the beginning of development for Diablo.[36] Using the Warcraft II game engine as a base, StarCraft made its debut at E3 1996. The version of the game displayed, assembled by the team's lead programmer Bob Fitch, received a rather weak response from the convention and was criticized by many for being "Warcraft in space."[37] As a consequence the entire project was overhauled, bringing the focus onto creating three distinct species. Bill Roper, one of the game's producers, stated this would be a major departure from the Warcraft approach, comparing its two equal sides to those of chess and stating that StarCraft would allow players to "develop very unique strategies based on which species [is being played], and will require [players] to think of different strategies to combat the other two species."[38] In early 1997, the new version of StarCraft was unveiled, receiving a far more positive response.
So, 1 year after they started development and another whole year before they would even offer a preview, they decided to make a unique engine for a game that shared an engine with another hit game of theirs and was criticized at major electronic conventions for just that.
It's not even remotely the same as the situation we find now. That's a pre-pre-alpha build of a game. That's the game at the point of introduction. Remember when SC2 was unveiled. That's like saying, at that meeting, everyone in the crowd went "That game looks terrible." You can bet everything you own, that if that would've happened, they would've overhauled it at that point as well.
I'm asking for stories where right before release or in release people complained about X or Y feature and Blizzard just dropped everything to add it to the game "for the gamers". There's this completely mistaken notion that in the past you could just phone Blizzard up and ask them to put something in the game for you and they'd happily oblige. Personally, I feel it was the opposite. Blizzard has been more open and transparent in the last few years than they EVER were in the past. Blizzard has always been incredibly notorious for "knowing best." They release their games when they want to in the manner they want to. They didn't answer to players on the forums about design nearly as often as they do now, nor were there even avenues to communicate with players as consistently like there are now. The SC Legacy article touches on this as well, or maybe it was the other article linked. About how Blizz didn't really care about fansites until a few years ago.
It's not like Blizzard in the past was this shining beacon of transparency. It's just that we didn't have this inflated sense of entitlement that Blizzard had to answer our every beck and call. We just took what they gave us, made the most out of it we could, and evaluated what we had. That's not to say we shouldn't communicate now in the way we are able to, but there's no evidence that Blizzard in the past was any more receptive to suggestion than they are now.
On June 11 2010 07:25 Takkara wrote: The good news is that the precedent is getting closer to being there to allow it. They just announced in WoW that they'll allow rated battlegrounds to go region-wide in the next expansion, where they were previously bound by arbitrary battlegroup boundaries. So you get NA-wide battles. Unfortunately, you still cannot go from NA to EU or to the Asia servers.
This just made me laugh. Takkara the precedent existed ten years ago to play asian servers. Jezz man your like a walking Blizzard PR machine :p
PS - I'd be interested to hear why you don't think this is the most sophisticated matchmaking system they've ever introduced into their RTS games. They've taken all the lessons they've learned over numerous iterations of matchmaking and put it into SC2.
Yah what are those "lessons" how is BNET's 2.0's matchmaking better? Im not saying it isnt but you have provided absolutly no evidence it is. You are just going on blind faith that Blizzard cna do no evil. Which is kind of the running theme in your posts.
On June 11 2010 10:51 sword_siege wrote: Focusing on some of the positives of Battle.net 2.0 the ability to join a game as a group has got to be one of the most refreshing and time saving devices for those of us that couldn't host games in War 3 or SC:BW.
On June 11 2010 13:52 FallenWraith wrote: Long time Blizzard fan. I don't like the bull shit politics which are now behind their game. Ten years ago with this many people yelling about this, they would have fixed it. Now they just push us off...
RIP the Blizzard of Old
10 years ago you had no voice like you do now. You did not sway development nearly as much as you think you may have. Please regale me with a tale of how 10 years ago people who complained about stuff made Blizzard change games really fast.
How sad is it when you have Blizzard fans saying that 10 years ago Blizzard did not listen to the community? Like serously how far has blizzard fallen. The company used to define itself by the very thing your denying.
On June 11 2010 13:52 FallenWraith wrote: Long time Blizzard fan. I don't like the bull shit politics which are now behind their game. Ten years ago with this many people yelling about this, they would have fixed it. Now they just push us off...
RIP the Blizzard of Old
10 years ago you had no voice like you do now. You did not sway development nearly as much as you think you may have. Please regale me with a tale of how 10 years ago people who complained about stuff made Blizzard change games really fast.
Are you talking about Starcraft Alpha?
Blizzard Entertainment began planning development on StarCraft in 1995, shortly after the beginning of development for Diablo.[36] Using the Warcraft II game engine as a base, StarCraft made its debut at E3 1996. The version of the game displayed, assembled by the team's lead programmer Bob Fitch, received a rather weak response from the convention and was criticized by many for being "Warcraft in space."[37] As a consequence the entire project was overhauled, bringing the focus onto creating three distinct species. Bill Roper, one of the game's producers, stated this would be a major departure from the Warcraft approach, comparing its two equal sides to those of chess and stating that StarCraft would allow players to "develop very unique strategies based on which species [is being played], and will require [players] to think of different strategies to combat the other two species."[38] In early 1997, the new version of StarCraft was unveiled, receiving a far more positive response.
So, 1 year after they started development and another whole year before they would even offer a preview, they decided to make a unique engine for a game that shared an engine with another hit game of theirs and was criticized at major electronic conventions for just that.
It's not even remotely the same as the situation we find now. That's a pre-pre-alpha build of a game. That's the game at the point of introduction. Remember when SC2 was unveiled. That's like saying, at that meeting, everyone in the crowd went "That game looks terrible." You can bet everything you own, that if that would've happened, they would've overhauled it at that point as well.
They remade the entire freaking engine because of community feedback! How is that NOT listening to the fans? And for the record all of these complaints were present when BNET 2.0 was first unvieled.
We are at a point where 94% of die hard fans have BNET 0.2 and they wont even do things like add general chat channels or make it so you can play someone in another country (without first charging an extra $60). You tell me which sounds harder.
SC2GDF I think, just so we don't fragment discussion across multiple forums in case the reset happens soon after. Also while we obviously wanted to let everyone know before hand we were aware and working on something to address the major concerns, plans have kind of changed. We came to the conclusion that just throwing out a huge post that goes over everything would really dilute the conversation and make it difficult to hold a dialogue on any one concern. Everyone would just be replying to whatever issue they felt was most important, or detailing out a response to every thing in one reply. (And then good luck to me to try to reply to any of it.) So we'll be taking a more natural forum response approach to keep all the various concerns focused so we can discuss each more easily. Anyway. Soon. ish. Hopefully. -Bashiok
Wow....Blizzard sucks at PR. This guy is horrible. Saying one thing, and doing another is just what the community wants to see out of Blizzard right now... My god, you think they would have just done it already instead just posting how they are delaying feedback. It's like Blizzard just doesn't care anymore.
On June 11 2010 11:25 Archerofaiur wrote: Adding to OP
SC2GDF I think, just so we don't fragment discussion across multiple forums in case the reset happens soon after. Also while we obviously wanted to let everyone know before hand we were aware and working on something to address the major concerns, plans have kind of changed. We came to the conclusion that just throwing out a huge post that goes over everything would really dilute the conversation and make it difficult to hold a dialogue on any one concern. Everyone would just be replying to whatever issue they felt was most important, or detailing out a response to every thing in one reply. (And then good luck to me to try to reply to any of it.) So we'll be taking a more natural forum response approach to keep all the various concerns focused so we can discuss each more easily. Anyway. Soon. ish. Hopefully. -Bashiok
Wow....Blizzard sucks at PR. This guy is horrible. Saying one thing, and doing another is just what the community wants to see out of Blizzard right now... My god, you think they would have just done it already instead just posting how they are delaying feedback. It's like Blizzard just doesn't care anymore.
Wait, what..? How is Blizzard saying "We don't wanna swamp you with one big post, so instead we're gonna reply to each of your concerns one by one" contradict anything they've said so far?
Wouldn't you be happier knowing they wont post 'one big behemoth' and watching the ragers rage about what particular issue each rager thinks is so infuriating..
So, roughly speaking, you'd prefer if they did what they said they were originally going to do: throw one big post at you, instead of having a dialog with the community..?
We don't have any plans to take down the beta forums during the downtime. -Bashiok
June 10th 2010
we will be wiping the database within the next day or two to help with our internal development process. This means that all characters will be wiped, and without access to the beta to create new characters, posting on these beta forums will no longer be possible. -Bashiok
And anyone who thinks these same kinds of plan changes can't be applied to promised battlenet features (chat, xrealm) well....
EPT
Though I would think there would be something similar in the US and your argument would apply the same ...
