|
United Arab Emirates333 Posts
Heres my story, hope it helps.
Im 23, i work and i live in a place where gamers aren't too many. That place is UAE, dubai. Yes i do have friends, alot of them, but none of them play games. I am the only gamer between my friends, let alone pc gamer. I bought wc3 and FT without knowing anyone and i made a boat load of friends there. That is why i kept playing it. I know some of you are saying yeah but leave the community thing to other sources, facebook and what not. If that is the case, that means i will not have ONE friend and i will start and end my sc2 career alone. I don't want that, and i don't want to have to invest time in MIRC channels, forums and what have you just to make friends to ADD on facebook to then add to my friend's list in game. This is preposterous.
Sincerely, lonely gamer.
|
On the topic of Frank Pearces 'No plans for specific chat rooms' line, that doesn't gel with what Dustin Browder said in an earlier interview with inStarcraft.de on 8th May:
http://starcraft2.ingame.de/sc2cl/?m=article&s=1034&id=102427&p=1
Well, we're working on the chat channels but the reason they are delayed is that we have something, which we think is much better than what we had in the original games. In the original games the chat channels were used by some of our users but they were largely misused just for spam. It was kind of a mess that they weren't focused on only one particular topic. While we definitely feel the fans sort of enthusiasm to get them back, we don't want those chat channels back. We feel like those chat channels were not a huge success for us and we can do them much better. So we will be looking into chat channels down the road that are more focused on specific topics, that are better organized around different social structures. We could certainly just jam the old channels back in but we didn't feel like those were a huge success for us. But we really want this thing back, just much more interesting than before. So we're definitely working on it and we definitely hear the users' complains, but we think we can do better down the road.
(on page 2)
Either the channels got canned somewhere between these interviews or Frank Pearce has got his facts wrong, I suspect the latter. There's also a chance, I guess, that he just answered the question badly.
I know this isn't the most pressing issue, cross-server and limited user-maps are much bigger fish to fry, but Blizzard seem to have their wires crossed here.
|
On May 30 2010 00:38 MarwanBaki wrote:
Heres my story, hope it helps.
Im 23, i work and i live in a place where gamers aren't too many. That place is UAE, dubai. Yes i do have friends, alot of them, but none of them play games. I am the only gamer between my friends, let alone pc gamer. I bought wc3 and FT without knowing anyone and i made a boat load of friends there. That is why i kept playing it. I know some of you are saying yeah but leave the community thing to other sources, facebook and what not. If that is the case, that means i will not have ONE friend and i will start and end my sc2 career alone. I don't want that, and i don't want to have to invest time in MIRC channels, forums and what have you just to make friends to ADD on facebook to then add to my friend's list in game. This is preposterous.
Sincerely, lonely gamer.
We feel you man. We are doing everything we can to get Blizzard to notice.
Poll: Would you give SC2 a one star amazon rating to protest BNET?Yes (6508) 83% No (1331) 17% 7839 total votes Your vote: Would you give SC2 a one star amazon rating to protest BNET? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
|
The only reason I really want to buy the game at this point is for the single player campaign which is very sad given that we're dealing with the successor of the best game ever.
Honestly, Facebook integration before chat channels/online replays/regional freedom/LAN and whatever is just an outright joke.
And then the kick in the face is them saying they care for the development of E-Sports more than profits. Just a bunch of bullshit. Really sad to see what Blizzard has become.
|
On May 29 2010 23:44 onasteak wrote:
What irks me is that there has been no clear explanation of the logic, or lack thereof, behind the decision to remove cross realm play. As it stands now, it seems like Blizzard wants us to pay twice for the same product, just to connect to different servers. It just does not make sense, and smells of a money-grubbing decision if you ask me, and I'm just going to assume so unless they clear things up.
Don't exaggerate the no chat channels problem, there will be avenues to chat, but the cross realm play decision is the true problem that will segregate the SC2 communities and it would not be the global game that WC3 used to be.
Whats unexplained? They want you to buy the game twice, thats the only reason. Thats the honest answer, and I dont care if they say something else because it will just be to delude people.
|
On May 29 2010 04:49 Fogul wrote:
The tone of this interview is weird.
I agree, it seems like a joke ... but it seems that's real from what others are saying which makes me sacred.
|
On May 29 2010 04:02 Archerofaiur wrote:
And since it worked when EA put DRM in SPORE
What exactly happened with SPORE? I thought it still has some annoying DRM (and just like everyone I heard a bunch of horror stories about it :o).
|
On May 30 2010 00:41 leveller wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2010 23:44 onasteak wrote:
What irks me is that there has been no clear explanation of the logic, or lack thereof, behind the decision to remove cross realm play. As it stands now, it seems like Blizzard wants us to pay twice for the same product, just to connect to different servers. It just does not make sense, and smells of a money-grubbing decision if you ask me, and I'm just going to assume so unless they clear things up.
Don't exaggerate the no chat channels problem, there will be avenues to chat, but the cross realm play decision is the true problem that will segregate the SC2 communities and it would not be the global game that WC3 used to be. Whats unexplained? They want you to buy the game twice, thats the only reason. Thats the honest answer, and I dont care if they say something else because it will just be to delude people.
Yeah that's the easy answer, and the most blatant one, but seeing as how Blizzard is coming up with lots of fancy reasons why they don't want to incorporate some functions into BNet2.0, you'd think that they would have a good answer to this question too.. but it's just flat answers like No. Yes you need 2 accounts. Which is utterly disappointing and I hope it gets lots of coverage so that they know how much they're damaging their reputation and the community.
I hate to jump to assumptions but it seems like Blizzard is just trying to milk money. So much for the credibility that it has built up over the years as a community centric gaming company.
|
so basically you need to buy 9xtimes Sc2 to have the full experience (whole single player campaign and being able to play in all regions) or am I misinformed?
|
This is the first time I actually thought, maybe I shouldn't buy this Game. If this is how multiplayer is going to be, I don't think I want to participate in the 'new and improved' Battle.Net experience.
The stubbornness Blizzard is displaying and hinting to features as pay to rename your character. Or pay to have your stats reset displays no respect to the fans. Count me in for one pre-order canceled.
Beta is probably the best experience I'm going to get from this game.12 Years in the making and already a disappointment before launch. Beta has been fun though, thanks for the nice demo Blizz and good luck selling this game.
|
On May 30 2010 00:48 QualmSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2010 04:02 Archerofaiur wrote:
And since it worked when EA put DRM in SPORE
What exactly happened with SPORE? I thought it still has some annoying DRM (and just like everyone I heard a bunch of horror stories about it :o).
To my understanding they changed the checking from constant survielance with a program installed on your computer to a one time check if you bought the game.
|
On May 29 2010 22:33 Captain Peabody wrote:Show nested quote +Nope. No plans for specific chat rooms at this time. You'll be able to open up chats direct with your friends, and when we add clans and groups there'll be chats for your clans and groups, but no specific plans for chat rooms right now. Do you really want chat rooms? A few days ago, someone posted a thread where he pointed out that the public chat channel system in Bnet was basically a huge mess and a failure. In that thread, everyone immediately cried foul and pointed out that all they really wanted were private clan chat channels, which is the only place people hung out anyway. Now, Frank Pearce has confirmed that there will be private clan chat channels, but there will not be public chat channels...and everyone is baying for his blood. To be fair, perhaps they meant merely private chat channels that were not clan-related. But most of the examples people brought up were clan chat channels. Bashiok also recently posted basically that to the best of his knowledge nothing has changed in this regard, and what Browder and Sigaty said about a month ago still holds true...namely, that while they have no plans for chat rooms a la Bnet, they're planning to create a more topical, focused discussion groups with moderation. See: Show nested quote +Chris Sigaty said:
One of the biggest features that I'd like to see get in as soon as possible that won't be in there for launch is Groups. Groups is a concept of creating an entity like a map-making community so they can chat with each other and hang out. I don't have a date on that yet. It's past the tournament patch but its definitely one of the earlier features we'd like to see. Whether it happens in the patch or it happens in Expansion One, I don't know yet. There's a huge list of stuff on the Battle.net side that we really want to have happen but we don't have dates on it. Beyond that you're talking about actual constructions different than a group-like clan, I don't even have dates on that stuff, for now. I don't think that's in right now for the tournament patch. So...no public chat channels, but the equivalent of clan chat channels post launch, and so-called "groups" that are basically focused, moderated chat rooms, also post-launch. I fail to understand the utter rage this is creating.
Thank goodness, some clear thinking in this sea of rage. I was thinking exactly same thing and you put it in far better words than i would. 
I agree with cross-realm play problem for tournament players/organizers/casters and it is an issue that Blizzard must be constantly reminded of with constructive feedback.
On the other hand, I don't know why ladder is a problem for people, i find it quite great. With far more users playing after launch, matchmaking will find more players closer to your skill level, than it finds now. Smurfing is now a non-issue, so when you actually get an opponent, most of the time it will be someone you can compete against, which is huge. Divisions are decent too, the only people that could argue for realm-based rankings are people at the very top, the most competitive ones. This issue could be solved by adding single Professionals division, which size would be 1000 or 0.001% of total player pool. For lower divisions, i find current division system better, since you can relate better to "i'm rank 50 diamond player", than to "i'm 45,634 out of 1,056,356" (that's personal preference, i'm sure some of you feel differently).
As for inviting someone to custom game, they said that identifier invitation is only removed temporarily so people would test facebook and real id invitation features. I'm sure you can understand that, since it's beta for testing after all. Surely, they will return some type of invitation feature before launch that doesn't require you to expose your email or other personal data.
Mapmakers who are concerned about current limits surely don't believe that these limits are final? They can be easily modified by Blizzard and probably will be in due time, so I doubt that you should make it sound like mapmakers are doomed and there's no hope for any professional UMS. They took time to create this insanely awesome galaxy editor for you, so i'm pretty sure they have plans on making your creations publishable.
Battle.net does seem a bit underwhelming at the moment, but it's a project which will be in development for years to come, so i'm quite optimistic and expect loads more features along the way. For launch, i will be pleased enough if it doesn't lag and opponents i find through matchmaking are close to my skill level for maximum fun for both sides.
|
hello my name is John and i removed chat channels, lan suppot, across realm , and etc cause i really want to make more money just having customers buying different clients and in that way maximize profit of my company, when in the end is all that matters the preservation of the company no matter how much we say we care for the community. Sorry guys , best luck next time.
|
On May 30 2010 00:53 Jusciax wrote:
I agree with cross-realm play problem for tournament players/organizers/casters and it is an issue that Blizzard must be constantly reminded of with constructive feedback.
There is no constructive feedback required here. It's a very simple concept.
On May 30 2010 00:53 Jusciax wrote:Battle.net does seem a bit underwhelming at the moment, but it's a project which will be in development for years to come, so i'm quite optimistic and expect loads more features along the way. For launch, i will be pleased enough if it doesn't lag and opponents i find through matchmaking are close to my skill level for maximum fun for both sides.
It has been in development for several years already and they have a system that has been in use for over a decade. They've taken several steps back instead of building on what was good system to begin with.
EDIT:quotes fixed
|
On May 30 2010 00:53 Jusciax wrote:
As for inviting someone to custom game, they said that identifier invitation is only removed temporarily so people would test facebook and real id invitation features.
Mapmakers who are concerned about current limits surely don't believe that these limits are final? They can be easily modified by Blizzard and probably will be in due time,
See this a perfect example of the naive optimism that got us here in the first place. Jusciax you are convinced that blizzard has said they they will reinstall the identifier soon. Blizzard has actually not said that. But your mind has some how convinced itself that they did.
Your also absolutly sure that the limits on map makers will be removed. Why? Because you think so?
|
On May 30 2010 00:53 Jusciax wrote:
For lower divisions, i find current division system better, since you can relate better to "i'm rank 50 diamond player", than to "i'm 45,634 out of 1,056,356" (that's personal preference, i'm sure some of you feel differently).
There could also be (and I'm sure this's been suggested before), an option that defaults to off, and when turned on, shows your rank out of all players. It can even still tell you your silver/gold whatever rank and division. Other things like a well made search feature and being able to filter by player activity or by any stat they've got on a player would be nice. And this wouldn't effect the players who are fine with the current way the rankings are shown since they won't go out of their way, at least initially, to switch modes.
...oh and I voted yes on the "Direction Bnet 2.0 is taking" poll because my brain tricked me.
|
I don't understand how they can be so ignorant to what the community obviously want. I feel really worried about SC2s future after reading the original post.
|
On May 30 2010 01:07 DrPepperPro wrote:
...oh and I voted yes on the "Direction Bnet 2.0 is taking" poll because my brain tricked me.
Its ok we just hit over 4000 voters for that poll. Still 94% against. Keep up the good work people.
If you havnt definatly take the two polls at the bottom of the OP
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128014
|
No lan means no game...
Blizzard will lose thousands of players simply because there is no lan.
|
On May 30 2010 00:40 Darkong wrote:On the topic of Frank Pearces 'No plans for specific chat rooms' line, that doesn't gel with what Dustin Browder said in an earlier interview with inStarcraft.de on 8th May: http://starcraft2.ingame.de/sc2cl/?m=article&s=1034&id=102427&p=1Show nested quote +Well, we're working on the chat channels but the reason they are delayed is that we have something, which we think is much better than what we had in the original games. In the original games the chat channels were used by some of our users but they were largely misused just for spam. It was kind of a mess that they weren't focused on only one particular topic. While we definitely feel the fans sort of enthusiasm to get them back, we don't want those chat channels back. We feel like those chat channels were not a huge success for us and we can do them much better. So we will be looking into chat channels down the road that are more focused on specific topics, that are better organized around different social structures. We could certainly just jam the old channels back in but we didn't feel like those were a huge success for us. But we really want this thing back, just much more interesting than before. So we're definitely working on it and we definitely hear the users' complains, but we think we can do better down the road. (on page 2) Either the channels got canned somewhere between these interviews or Frank Pearce has got his facts wrong, I suspect the latter. There's also a chance, I guess, that he just answered the question badly. I know this isn't the most pressing issue, cross-server and limited user-maps are much bigger fish to fry, but Blizzard seem to have their wires crossed here.
Step back a minute and read it again and you'll realize they are saying almost exactly the same thing.
Frank Pierce bluntly said public chat channels won't exist and they'll look at implementing friends and clan chat.
Browder says public chats were misused and poorly implemented and they don't won't go back to that. Instead they will implement a new form and one of the probable ideas is a chat room based on specific group interests.
They are both saying global chat won't exist and they only differ on how strongly they believe other forms of chat will exist. Pierce used weaker committal words than Browder and he was more flippant with his response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
