|
On June 01 2010 00:49 MasterFischer wrote:
Why do people insist on spouting incorrect information?
THERE WILL BE CHAT CHANNELS, just not in the beta, is that so incredibly hard to understand or do I have to draw you a fucking picture?
I think you missed the part where what sparked all this rage is Frank Pearce aka the VP of Blizzard saying there would be no chat channels, and asking "do you really want chatrooms"?
If he's not legit as a Blizzard rep., then I don't know who is.
|
On June 01 2010 00:49 MasterFischer wrote:
Why do people insist on spouting incorrect information?
I just read the Interview on the first page. Am I supposed to magically know that he was lying or the translation is wrong?
On June 01 2010 00:49 MasterFischer wrote:
THERE WILL BE CHAT CHANNELS, just not in the beta, is that so incredibly hard to understand or do I have to draw you a fucking picture?
And NOTHING has been said... even hinted at premium fees like making chat channels or something else a buying requirements. Stop making shit up.
Yes, it is hard for me to understand from the first page interview, that there will be chat rooms, just not in the beta. It really is.
|
What do you think they'll say if the shitstorm causes them to put in chat channels?
1) We messed up and will listen to the community better, or
2) We were always gonna put in chat channels we did nothing wrong (despite all interviews to the contrary).
|
On June 01 2010 00:49 MasterFischer wrote:
This is from the DEV twitter chat.
Why do people insist on spouting incorrect information?
THERE WILL BE CHAT CHANNELS, just not in the beta, is that so incredibly hard to understand or do I have to draw you a fucking picture?
And NOTHING has been said... even hinted at premium fees like making chat channels or something else a buying requirements. Stop making shit up.
see the OP where the guy from blizzard says otherwise. Do i need to draw YOU a fucking picture?
|
On June 01 2010 01:01 Lollersauce wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2010 00:49 MasterFischer wrote:
Why do people insist on spouting incorrect information?
THERE WILL BE CHAT CHANNELS, just not in the beta, is that so incredibly hard to understand or do I have to draw you a fucking picture? I think you missed the part where what sparked all this rage is Frank Pearce aka the VP of Blizzard saying there would be no chat channels, and asking "do you really want chatrooms"? If he's not legit as a Blizzard rep., then I don't know who is.
The issue is that in a casual interview you might put things flippantly that don't translate well to word-by-word consideration. They've clearly said they have plans for chat channels, but not all kinds of chat channels. They're unlikely to make public chat channels, and they're not having chat channels for release. But there will be chat channels, if for nothing else than for clans and groups, but it's not clear what a "group" is. It's conceivable, but not confirmed in any way, that there could likewise be chat channels for tournaments, which is a central component of the complaint in the first place.
Watch the video, he says "how much english do you really need to kick someone's ass?" Is he REALLY saying that they never considered the issues of the language barrier and completely 100% believe that you don't need to communicate with people to play SC2? No of course not. They made a weighed decision, and he's joking around a little bit with his answer. Clearly though the roused mob is not looking for nuance in the interview and instead rallying around the literal answer.
|
true. that answer was after the first question. and "organize chat channels" is something to be aware.
Chat channels is simple. is a YES or NO question. why organize? the community always organize by themselves. i will search for husky video because i still don´t have idea why would they organize the chat channels. maybe because is so 2000´s
|
On June 01 2010 01:09 Kacas wrote:
true. that answer was after the first question. and "organize chat channels" is something to be aware.
Chat channels is simple. is a YES or NO question. why organize? the community always organize by themselves. i will search for husky video because i still don´t have idea why would they organize the chat channels. maybe because is so 2000´s
I'd suspect that part of the issue is the moderation. In newer games, they have to put staff in charge of policing and watching for abuse. If 30 year olds start using SC2 chat channels to seduce underage kids, that's a MASSIVE PR issue. It flies in BW because it's in the past and not in the limelight, I'd imagine. But for a new service for potentially millions of users, it's a massive issue. They'd have to bring a lot more staff onboard to handle disputes. Just think of WoW and all the reporting that goes on there.
I'm sure they also did some studies and found that most people will just log onto the chat and then go to a private channel to communicate with friends. They figure they can support that method of communication while avoiding the pitfalls and dangers of supporting public chat channels.
I'm not saying the choice is right, I'm just saying the choice has rationale that people aren't considering in the least. It's not like they just chose to flip the community the bird.
|
edit: sorry but how does one "bump" a poll?
Tried "quoting" it but that didn't seem to work...
|
On June 01 2010 01:06 Takkara wrote:
Watch the video, he says "how much english do you really need to kick someone's ass?" Is he REALLY saying that they never considered the issues of the language barrier and completely 100% believe that you don't need to communicate with people to play SC2? No of course not. They made a weighed decision, and he's joking around a little bit with his answer. Clearly though the roused mob is not looking for nuance in the interview and instead rallying around the literal answer.
Do I really need to repost the "technology's just not there yet" poster?
They're taking out gateway selection so you have to buy the game twice or three times to play on different zones, another thing pretty plainly stated by Frank Pearce.. This is a giant step back from pretty much every RTS so far. And it makes absolutely no sense with all their talk about a "united community" and PR bullshit about Crapple.net 2.0
The reality of Crapple.net 2.0 is a community divided more than ever before in an online RTS, and gimped communication options in general, that's discounting the map publishing model / custom game handling.
The rage is 100% justified, even considering whatever damage control they could be doing implementing chatrooms "after release". Yeah, because chat rooms are probably super hard to implement and totally not needed for the community to coordinate and organize events, must patch that in later because we developers know what people want - not.
Blizzard is just failing on pretty much all counts as far as their downgrade to Bnet 1.0 is concerned. SC2 is a pretty damn good game, supported by a terrible platform.
|
On June 01 2010 01:13 Takkara wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2010 01:09 Kacas wrote:
true. that answer was after the first question. and "organize chat channels" is something to be aware.
Chat channels is simple. is a YES or NO question. why organize? the community always organize by themselves. i will search for husky video because i still don´t have idea why would they organize the chat channels. maybe because is so 2000´s I'd suspect that part of the issue is the moderation. In newer games, they have to put staff in charge of policing and watching for abuse. If 30 year olds start using SC2 chat channels to seduce underage kids, that's a MASSIVE PR issue. It flies in BW because it's in the past and not in the limelight, I'd imagine. But for a new service for potentially millions of users, it's a massive issue. They'd have to bring a lot more staff onboard to handle disputes. Just think of WoW and all the reporting that goes on there. I'm sure they also did some studies and found that most people will just log onto the chat and then go to a private channel to communicate with friends. They figure they can support that method of communication while avoiding the pitfalls and dangers of supporting public chat channels. I'm not saying the choice is right, I'm just saying the choice has rationale that people aren't considering in the least. It's not like they just chose to flip the community the bird.
So Pedophiles are to blame now an not Blizzard being stupid? O.o
|
On June 01 2010 01:19 GodIsNotHere wrote:
So Pedophiles are to blame now an not Blizzard being stupid? O.o
They're an awfully convenient excuse for all sorts of BS these days aren't they?
|
On June 01 2010 01:20 Lollersauce wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2010 01:19 GodIsNotHere wrote:
So Pedophiles are to blame now an not Blizzard being stupid? O.o They're an awfully convenient excuse for all sorts of BS these days aren't they?
Lol I know its so damn random too. "Oh its not Blizzards fault their trying to protect the children" Really?? thats your excuse you came up with??
|
On June 01 2010 01:19 GodIsNotHere wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2010 01:13 Takkara wrote:On June 01 2010 01:09 Kacas wrote:
true. that answer was after the first question. and "organize chat channels" is something to be aware.
Chat channels is simple. is a YES or NO question. why organize? the community always organize by themselves. i will search for husky video because i still don´t have idea why would they organize the chat channels. maybe because is so 2000´s I'd suspect that part of the issue is the moderation. In newer games, they have to put staff in charge of policing and watching for abuse. If 30 year olds start using SC2 chat channels to seduce underage kids, that's a MASSIVE PR issue. It flies in BW because it's in the past and not in the limelight, I'd imagine. But for a new service for potentially millions of users, it's a massive issue. They'd have to bring a lot more staff onboard to handle disputes. Just think of WoW and all the reporting that goes on there. I'm sure they also did some studies and found that most people will just log onto the chat and then go to a private channel to communicate with friends. They figure they can support that method of communication while avoiding the pitfalls and dangers of supporting public chat channels. I'm not saying the choice is right, I'm just saying the choice has rationale that people aren't considering in the least. It's not like they just chose to flip the community the bird. So Pedophiles are to blame now an not Blizzard being stupid? O.o
I'm saying there are legitimate design considerations that went into this decision. Nobody is looking for them, and it's ridiculous. People really think that Blizzard's decision to not include chat was really to just say "fuck you" to the community. They weighed the decision and made the one they thought was best for everyone.
They were wrong in this instance, so talk about that. Don't talk about how evil Activision is, or how malicious Blizzard is being. That's not it at all. They made a design decision and it's a poor one. Stop questioning the motives and question the decision. Too many people are crossing the line WAY too far. Raging out is just getting stupid, and it's making TL so obnoxious to read for the last week or so.
|
On June 01 2010 01:24 Takkara wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2010 01:19 GodIsNotHere wrote:On June 01 2010 01:13 Takkara wrote:On June 01 2010 01:09 Kacas wrote:
true. that answer was after the first question. and "organize chat channels" is something to be aware.
Chat channels is simple. is a YES or NO question. why organize? the community always organize by themselves. i will search for husky video because i still don´t have idea why would they organize the chat channels. maybe because is so 2000´s I'd suspect that part of the issue is the moderation. In newer games, they have to put staff in charge of policing and watching for abuse. If 30 year olds start using SC2 chat channels to seduce underage kids, that's a MASSIVE PR issue. It flies in BW because it's in the past and not in the limelight, I'd imagine. But for a new service for potentially millions of users, it's a massive issue. They'd have to bring a lot more staff onboard to handle disputes. Just think of WoW and all the reporting that goes on there. I'm sure they also did some studies and found that most people will just log onto the chat and then go to a private channel to communicate with friends. They figure they can support that method of communication while avoiding the pitfalls and dangers of supporting public chat channels. I'm not saying the choice is right, I'm just saying the choice has rationale that people aren't considering in the least. It's not like they just chose to flip the community the bird. So Pedophiles are to blame now an not Blizzard being stupid? O.o I'm saying there are legitimate design considerations that went into this decision. Nobody is looking for them, and it's ridiculous. People really think that Blizzard's decision to not include chat was really to just say "fuck you" to the community. They weighed the decision and made the one they thought was best for everyone. They were wrong in this instance, so talk about that. Don't talk about how evil Activision is, or how malicious Blizzard is being. That's not it at all. They made a design decision and it's a poor one. Stop questioning the motives and question the decision. Too many people are crossing the line WAY too far. Raging out is just getting stupid, and it's making TL so obnoxious to read for the last week or so.
Maybe people are just a little upset that something that delayed the game for 2 years because it was suppose to be so damn amazing of an interface turned out to be a downgrade from the original? Its hard to argue people should not get angry when they have so many reasons to do so, also Activision isn't Evil? Lol
|
Let's be clear, the choices made are not the best, but why is this so hard to understand how things work?
Cross-region Limiting. It's not like this came out of nowhere. They're integrating SC2 into the same Battle.net system that ALL games will use. So, it's should be fair to understand that they'll use the same infrastructure they have already built. This is the same infrastructure that WoW is integrated into. WoW is region-limited. There is an EU client, a RU client, an asian client, a US client. You can't play different regions with a single WoW account. This has existed for a long time. Battle.net 2 does not exist in a vaccumn. It uses the same systems. Therefore they make the decisions that make the best outcomes for all interfaces. It's not necessarily right, but it's not hard to understand the origin of this outcome.
Chat channels. Again. There's no basis for the creation of chat channel when you consider integration across products. Adding BNet2.0 chat channels into WoW or similar products wouldn't make sense because there is no "lobby" in those games. So, they likely figured that they could find another way around the issue. They were totally wrong. It doesn't work. But it DOES make sense in the context of what they were doing. They were trying to find a BNet2.0 platform that works the best for Diablo3, SC2, WoW, and the unannounced MMO. They want the platform to extend to them all, so you can't add features to one game without adding them to all games. Chat channels is one such example.
People think this is such a moneygrab, like they made the decision to limit cross-region support JUST to make people buy extra clients. It's NOT true. It's just the same decision people had to make for WoW so they figured it would be the same answer for SC2. The way the BW community coalesced it doesn't make sense with SC2. BUT ITS AN INNOCENT DESIGN MISTAKE!
All this Activision garbage. All this "money grab" garbage. The entire Husky rant. All of it is so over-the-top melodramatic that it's sickening. There should be chat channels, there should be a cross-region support for SC2, but it's not hard to see why they made the decisions they made. It really isn't.
There are many mistakes in BNet2.0 but it's not because Blizzard or Activision is evil. That's another issue, for another day.
|
On June 01 2010 01:03 starcraft911 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2010 00:49 MasterFischer wrote:
This is from the DEV twitter chat.
Why do people insist on spouting incorrect information?
THERE WILL BE CHAT CHANNELS, just not in the beta, is that so incredibly hard to understand or do I have to draw you a fucking picture?
And NOTHING has been said... even hinted at premium fees like making chat channels or something else a buying requirements. Stop making shit up. see the OP where the guy from blizzard says otherwise. Do i need to draw YOU a fucking picture?
They way I see this interview is pretty much inconclusive because it seems so obvious that a communication mismatch between the dev guys and this guy is happening.. since he doesn't have a clue.
Why would our boy Frankie, disregard, and completely tell a different story than was previously told by EVERYONE of the dev team at blizzard?
1) The interview got mis-translated/miscommunicated, and/or a slip-up by him that does not correlate with the rest of the dev team..
2) He doesn't know what's going on and what's not, it's not uncommon in business to have a little, albeit, embarrasing misalighment between the tech and dev guys(Browder, sigaty, metzen etc) and the management/business guys (Frank Pirece, rob pardo etc)
And also, who would you trust the most with this kind of info? The dev guys who lastly said its GONNA HAPPEN, or this guy whos probaly just had a bad morning and didnt get laid...?
I know who I'd vote for..
and lastly, even the battle.net forum guys CONFIRM that the DEV TWITTER chat is geniune and STILL on track.. meaning, chat rooms ARE happening... so pretty please with sugar on the fucking top.. CALM THE FUCK DOWN, wait and see.. before you go mouthing off in rage.. 
Thanks
|
On June 01 2010 01:46 Takkara wrote:
Cross-region Limiting. It's not like this came out of nowhere. They're integrating SC2 into the same Battle.net system that ALL games will use. So, it's should be fair to understand that they'll use the same infrastructure they have already built. This is the same infrastructure that WoW is integrated into. WoW is region-limited. There is an EU client, a RU client, an asian client, a US client. You can't play different regions with a single WoW account. This has existed for a long time. Battle.net 2 does not exist in a vaccumn. It uses the same systems. Therefore they make the decisions that make the best outcomes for all interfaces. It's not necessarily right, but it's not hard to understand the origin of this outcome.
It makes sense for a MMO. It doesn't make sense at all for a RTS. It's completely idiotic to try and grow oranges on a pear tree. Now if you would kindly shut the .... up and stop wasting space trying to justify retarded decisions. Such intense white knighting for Blizzard is pretty strange, unless of course you're paid to do so.
Besides, people can already play on different zones in beta, and there is absolutely no harm in implementing a gateway selector. They are just saying fuck you to the SC community, and asking them to buy more copies of the game.
|
On June 01 2010 01:46 Takkara wrote:
Let's be clear, the choices made are not the best, but why is this so hard to understand how things work?
Cross-region Limiting. It's not like this came out of nowhere. They're integrating SC2 into the same Battle.net system that ALL games will use. So, it's should be fair to understand that they'll use the same infrastructure they have already built. This is the same infrastructure that WoW is integrated into. WoW is region-limited. There is an EU client, a RU client, an asian client, a US client. You can't play different regions with a single WoW account. This has existed for a long time. Battle.net 2 does not exist in a vaccumn. It uses the same systems. Therefore they make the decisions that make the best outcomes for all interfaces. It's not necessarily right, but it's not hard to understand the origin of this outcome.
Chat channels. Again. There's no basis for the creation of chat channel when you consider integration across products. Adding BNet2.0 chat channels into WoW or similar products wouldn't make sense because there is no "lobby" in those games. So, they likely figured that they could find another way around the issue. They were totally wrong. It doesn't work. But it DOES make sense in the context of what they were doing. They were trying to find a BNet2.0 platform that works the best for Diablo3, SC2, WoW, and the unannounced MMO. They want the platform to extend to them all, so you can't add features to one game without adding them to all games. Chat channels is one such example.
People think this is such a moneygrab, like they made the decision to limit cross-region support JUST to make people buy extra clients. It's NOT true. It's just the same decision people had to make for WoW so they figured it would be the same answer for SC2. The way the BW community coalesced it doesn't make sense with SC2. BUT ITS AN INNOCENT DESIGN MISTAKE!
All this Activision garbage. All this "money grab" garbage. The entire Husky rant. All of it is so over-the-top melodramatic that it's sickening. There should be chat channels, there should be a cross-region support for SC2, but it's not hard to see why they made the decisions they made. It really isn't.
There are many mistakes in BNet2.0 but it's not because Blizzard or Activision is evil. That's another issue, for another day.
Lol Fuck WoW, each game should have its own independent platform, the idea that we must conform to their needs is ridiculous.
|
Blues respond. Possibly the biggest Blue response I have every seen on any topic...ever. And I would know.
From german forum (google translate)
To my knowledge, our thoughts are behind all that we do not want any unguided chat rooms, the sink quickly into chaos.
There should be chat features for focused discussions, but advanced functionality to it will most likely not until the start creating the game.
...
We currently can not go into more detail and give definitive answers to specific questions such as these.
Everything else would degenerate into more speculation on my side, what really helps you not continue.
I can assure you, however, that it is not our intention to take you to the fun on Battle.net by limiting social interaction. We want you can always be with the community and your friends in contact. This should, however, be regulated through lanes and putting all the players together in a chat room is not my opinion, this vision needs.
From english (EU) forum
I have been watching these threads quite a bit over the week-end and I have to agree more with some of the replies than with the OP of this thread. Rage is not good. Rage makes the forums look like a spam-fest and rage makes us want to ignore players or even ban them, because their tone just gets out of hand. Rage makes players create 50 different threads on the same subject, whereas we prefer to have feedback bundled in one place.
What we do want to see and keep seeing from you is your feedback. We want to know if you do not agree with something, this never changes. What we do not want is players raging and just making unfounded accusations and crying doomsday because at the moment there is something missing that they feel is vital. Please do take a step back before raging - is this something that can be fixed? Do you still enjoy the game itself? Please give your feedback and give us the benefit of the doubt that we do want your game experience to be fun. Please always continue to give us your feedback, when you feel that there is something that you just can not live without. Please always continue to do so without rage and in a civil manner.
...
Not on topic though. 
If there is a hot topic on something, we definitely want players to post and to discuss it. For sure, if there is a thread about a topic that reaches thousands of views and posts it catches our attention faster. This is in fact a signal, that a lot of players are concerned about this topic - it catches the attention and it is very likely to be passed on in our feedback reports.
What I wanted to bring up though was, that while having a lot of players have a very strong opinion about something is a good thing, it is a very bad thing if they are not able to communicate this in a constructive manner. Yes, post about things you don't like but help us change them and tell us why you don't like it or how you would like it. This does not mean that everything can be implemented exactly the way you wish for and it does not mean that we will definitely be able to implement it for launch or even shortly after launch - but a lot of players giving us their point of view on a subject gives us the possibility of bringing this up in an informed manner and also giving us the possibility of taking some good quotes out of these threads.
If we have 50 threads on the same topic, 80% of these are just one-liners saying that this is so terrible and we are a bad company (btw.. 77,2% of statistics are made up on the spot - thanks for the laugh Carighan), then it is hard to find the constructive ones that actually give us the information that we need and just makes us waste a lot of our time for moderation of forums that we could have used a lot better in compiling the feedback.
Just one thing I want to keep pointing out, it has been said before and I always keep saying it - we are on your side.  We want to make a game we enjoy and you enjoy. There are timelines that need to be kept, there might be priorities that you don't understand, but in the end, if there is something that is important to you be sure that we will be passing it on. If you rage - you will lose your voice on these forums and you will be one less person fighting for what you want, if you post in a mannered way, we get a lot more out of you as a beta tester.
/end wall of text!
....
Remember, Battle.net 2.0 is work in progress. What a lot of players don't read in the rage is the part where Frank Pearce is talking about Clan chat and Groups chat. That is definitely being worked on. If you check back to our last Twitter dev chat, there was the same question (http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=23767157319&sid=3000):
"We do have plans for chat channels. Specifically, we want to organize chat channels around users' interests so you know what types of conversations you are going to get into when you join a channel. This feature is not something that will be in for beta. Currently we plan to do this feature in a patch after the game launches. "
...
Hehe.. we do ask for your opinion. That is what this forum is for, that is what the beta test if for and we have pulled quite a few things out of these forums. Sometimes getting involved in discussions does change the course of the discussion though. Just now we just wanted to jump in, because it just turned too emotional and this usually leads to a lot of flaming and insulting which is something we don't want to see on the forums.
...
You mean the thread where you were just talking about how you won't use it but it doesn't hurt you either and you're just mad because of the priorities? That feedback was passed on, but just please note that the Facebook integration in its current form, is a lot simpler to implement than most of you would believe.
....
By the way, something that might have come off wrong when explaining this. We don't want/need a wall of text from every single player. If you just want to show your support, than posting just a small confirmation that this is what you feel as well is totally valid. But please make sure that this is not posted in an insulting manner.
...
To be honest, the kittens distracted me tons while watching that video. ^^
Source
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=25170778216&pageNo=1&sid=5010#4
|
On June 01 2010 01:51 Lollersauce wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2010 01:46 Takkara wrote:
Cross-region Limiting. It's not like this came out of nowhere. They're integrating SC2 into the same Battle.net system that ALL games will use. So, it's should be fair to understand that they'll use the same infrastructure they have already built. This is the same infrastructure that WoW is integrated into. WoW is region-limited. There is an EU client, a RU client, an asian client, a US client. You can't play different regions with a single WoW account. This has existed for a long time. Battle.net 2 does not exist in a vaccumn. It uses the same systems. Therefore they make the decisions that make the best outcomes for all interfaces. It's not necessarily right, but it's not hard to understand the origin of this outcome. It makes sense for a MMO. It doesn't make sense at all for a RTS. It's completely idiotic to try and grow oranges on a pear tree. Now if you would kindly shut the .... up and stop wasting space trying to justify retarded decisions. Such intense white knighting for Blizzard is pretty strange, unless of course you're paid to do so. Besides, people can already play on different zones in beta, and there is absolutely no harm in implementing a gateway selector. They are just saying fuck you to the SC community, and asking them to buy more copies of the game.
It's not a justification. It's an EXPLANATION. People are constantly saying "I have no idea why Blizz would do this?!" "What sense does any of this makes?!" "This must be Activision doing this as a money grab forcing this on Blizzard!". All of that is so laughably stupid that it's just outrageous.
There's a legitimate reason why Blizzard chose to do things this way. Now that they and we know this platform is not suitable for the needs of SC2 its up to them to respond properly to their mistake. But for people to be so flabberagsted at a completely obvious decision given what BNet2.0 is and how it's integrated across all products is just stupid. It's clear why they did this. It's not right, but it's clear. So people can kindly "shut the .... up" about why Blizzard is evil, say their piece about why chat channels should be in and stop there.
Edit for Blizzard putting it better than I could:
Please do take a step back before raging - is this something that can be fixed? Do you still enjoy the game itself? Please give your feedback and give us the benefit of the doubt that we do want your game experience to be fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
