On June 01 2010 21:42 Archerofaiur wrote: People argueing about hardcore vs casual gamers are missing the point. Almost everyone wants chat channels OR at the very least sees nothing wrong with them. WOW the most casual Blizzard game on the planet has chat channels. The BNET forums are raging about no chat rooms. It is not that Blizzard is catering to the casual gamer. I suspect that many are falling back to that old arguement because its been used so much on this site before :p
But that is not the reason. The reason is money.
We are subject to risks associated with the collaborative online features in our games, such as World of Warcraft 's online chat feature, which allows consumers to post narrative comment, in real time, that is visible to other players. Despite our efforts to restrict inappropriate consumer content, from time to time objectionable and offensive consumer content may be posted to a World of Warcraft gaming site or the sites of other games or game services, such as Battle.net, with online chat features or game forums which allow consumers to post comments. We may be subject to lawsuits, governmental regulation or restrictions, and consumer backlash (including decreased sales and harmed reputation), as a result of consumers posting offensive content, any of which could harm our operating results.
lol, any lawsuit based on that would be won by Blizzard easily. ISPs, Server hosters, and forum hosters are all not responsible for the non endorsed content of their service. Otherwise some random dude could post something on TL and we would be responsible for it. Same goes for Battle.net. It would be an easy win.
Lets look at the facts
Fact 1: Activision views chat features as a significant investment risk factor.
Fact 2: Starcraft 2 will not feature chat channels.
Fact 3: At some point in the future chat rooms devoted to specific subjects may be implemented.
Which is half of what I was saying 2-3 pages ago that people were flipping out about. A lot of people here that work in mid-to-large companies know far too well about Risk Management. For better or worse it's the mantra that a lot of firms use in their development. All things being equal, it would take a lot of resources to mitigate the potential risks of public chat channels.
All things are not equal in this case, and it's really important for there to be chat channels, but it's a non-trivial add in this case.
It wouldn't take "a lot of resources to mitigate the potential risks of public chat channels". It would take a single splash screen that says "ERSB RATING MAY NOT APPLY TO ONLINE PLAY" and bam, you're done.
Except Single Player is online play now. Which basically nullifies this.
On June 01 2010 21:42 Archerofaiur wrote: People argueing about hardcore vs casual gamers are missing the point. Almost everyone wants chat channels OR at the very least sees nothing wrong with them. WOW the most casual Blizzard game on the planet has chat channels. The BNET forums are raging about no chat rooms. It is not that Blizzard is catering to the casual gamer. I suspect that many are falling back to that old arguement because its been used so much on this site before :p
But that is not the reason. The reason is money.
We are subject to risks associated with the collaborative online features in our games, such as World of Warcraft 's online chat feature, which allows consumers to post narrative comment, in real time, that is visible to other players. Despite our efforts to restrict inappropriate consumer content, from time to time objectionable and offensive consumer content may be posted to a World of Warcraft gaming site or the sites of other games or game services, such as Battle.net, with online chat features or game forums which allow consumers to post comments. We may be subject to lawsuits, governmental regulation or restrictions, and consumer backlash (including decreased sales and harmed reputation), as a result of consumers posting offensive content, any of which could harm our operating results.
lol, any lawsuit based on that would be won by Blizzard easily. ISPs, Server hosters, and forum hosters are all not responsible for the non endorsed content of their service. Otherwise some random dude could post something on TL and we would be responsible for it. Same goes for Battle.net. It would be an easy win.
Lets look at the facts
Fact 1: Activision views chat features as a significant investment risk factor.
Fact 2: Starcraft 2 will not feature chat channels.
Fact 3: At some point in the future chat rooms devoted to specific subjects may be implemented.
Which is half of what I was saying 2-3 pages ago that people were flipping out about. A lot of people here that work in mid-to-large companies know far too well about Risk Management. For better or worse it's the mantra that a lot of firms use in their development. All things being equal, it would take a lot of resources to mitigate the potential risks of public chat channels.
All things are not equal in this case, and it's really important for there to be chat channels, but it's a non-trivial add in this case.
It wouldn't take "a lot of resources to mitigate the potential risks of public chat channels". It would take a single splash screen that says "ERSB RATING MAY NOT APPLY TO ONLINE PLAY" and bam, you're done.
Except Single Player is online play now. Which basically nullifies this.
Not in the least if they keep multiplayer section distinct from the single player section.
There is no reason not to believe that Blizzard has made a genuine design mistake regarding the antipication of chat rooms and alike while building or brain-storming battle.net 2.0.
Why?
Well first of all, just following the trend of various online games today, they are all incorporating matchmaking systems, archievements, ladders and so forth which are all borrowed and expanded on by the previous console games, which introduced achievements and the whole get a game quick phenomenon. Surely, getting caught up in this web 2.0, social media / console / casual gamer storm is quite easy for a company today, because stockholders are tauting your ears full of shit like marketing segments, business models, consumer needs and innovations and so on.
Remember, Battle.net 2.0 is NOT just for Starcraft 2 in mind, it is, as others have said, a uniform platform to launch from for ALL current and future Blizzard games in development. This is interesting in different ways, because it begs the question of specific title customization, to tailor to a specific need of a specific game.
BUT!
They should´ve known better ! The Starcraft community is so large and so vocal about what they want, right?... Well sure, but rememeber, they've been really focused at balancing the game, polishing it artwise, storywise, all those things, and essentially have not given their BETA allowance to incorporate social interactions, at least not initially. This, I believe is to make sure people are testing the matchmaking system, testing the BALANCE, testing things like latency and achievements while playin the game constantly.
They are now aware of how much a deal tailored specifics to a title is, or maybe they were aware of it all along, and this would certaintly correlate with the choice of NOT implementing normal public chat rooms but instead doing a more and possible creative way of giving us chat functionality. We have very very sparse details, but it's coming. Have patience..
You might feel lonely in the beta right now, but in the long run, steps will be taken to ensure you won't The BETA was never intended to operate as a fully fledged retail game, hence the idea of a BETA, yet alot of people grief about the lack of ESPORTS managements and societal functionality.. Wait for it and you SHALL be blessed
On June 01 2010 12:50 dcttr66 wrote: there's really nothing you can say that can dispute the fact that a regular chat channel is obsolete.
A good contender for dumbest statement these past few days.
That dumbest statement is accepted as pretty much fact in the game industry.
Honestly, game industry can go fuck themselves and their standards. In decade they made only two strategy games that lasted more than two years and have active fan base of adequate size. And both of this games are coincidently use battle.net 1.0
And in the present decade, there will be two more RTSs that will blow the ones you are referring to out of the water. They will be SC2, WC4. And they will use bnet 2.0. (just to be clear: i'm referring to sales and Average Concurrent Users. Not e-sport, quality of the game, or player-satisfaction.)
It's irrelevant cause nobody knows what bnet 2.0 is gonna be in the end, not even blizzard. Maybe it will have these crucial features we ask for, who knows?
And where's game industry, besides blizzard? Game industry doesn't have credibility when it comes to multiplayer aspect. Today they throw away dedicated servers and chat channels, cause "nobody needs them" in their opinion and tomorrow they promise to put them back. The point being, something being accepted as fact by the industry has close to zero relevance in this discussion.
Btw, C&C4 has public chat channels and you join them immediately after launching game. That's a fact.
On June 01 2010 12:59 Mora wrote:
On June 01 2010 12:41 Archerofaiur wrote:
On June 01 2010 12:36 Mora wrote:
On June 01 2010 12:22 Archerofaiur wrote: [quote]
HA
Also anyone thinking that this is just a hardcore issue should really check the BNET forums...
Do you understand what kind of numers we're dealing with?
Blizzard has gone the facebook route. They've decided that trying to draw your friends in through facebook - which has a user base of over 400 million users, of which 200 million log on in any given day has more potential for consumer attraction than general chat.
And they're right.
Anyone who looks up Starcraft on the bnet forums is a considered a border-line hardcore player. Anyone who plays anything outside of single player and games vs AI is considered a border-line harcore player. These people do not care about chat.
Their whole design screams of this kind of perspective: Their ranking/leaderboard system, lack-of-chat, achievements, segregation by region, distance from korean e-sport, facebook integration, etc.
I hope they're wrong and that taking this course of action bites them in the ass. Anecdotal opinion found here on teamliquid has shown me no evidence how they'd be wrong though.
Your quoting facebooks numbers and farmville and such yes. But all those people will not play SC2. If you want accurate numbers you can start by quoting user bases on any RTS. And you calling the BNET forums a hardcore site is laughable.
i didn't say that the bnet forums is hardcore, i said that developers consider anyone who goes to a games forum a hardcore player.
hardcore players' definition of 'hardcore' is developed through comparison between themselves and other players. Developers' definition is founded on long-term data analysis and identification of general use trends.
Anyone who has a level 80 character in World of Warcraft is considered a hardcore player (by developers). This is why their end-game content went through a huge shift between the original wow and it's expansions: only 1% of their userbase ever got to experience their end-game content (Molten Core).
I don't know what to tell you. The vast majority of people who buy RTS games play only the single player, and many of those don't even finish it.
So you wanna tell us that Battle.net is for hardcore players only, since it's used only by people who play in multiplayer (aka hardcore players by your definition) ? With this logic you can justify removal of Battle.net itself, cause clearly vast majority of people, those who play single player only, won't care. Something wrong with this logic, don't you think?
Look, i have two points that i am basing my opinion on: 4 years of experience in the RTS game industry, learning popular developer opinion and position; and Blizzard's actions.
If Blizzard thought that battle.net (1.0 design) was adequate for the casual user, they would have kept in features like chat over more trendy/popular ones like facebook integration. Hell, if they thought there were benefits to having both features in the game, they would have done that. But they didn't.
I am offering an explanation as to why they are behaving this way. My explanation is just my personal opinion, again, based off of my personal experience with the developer - and more importantly - corporate side of the game industry.
Am i right? Who knows. I thought they were going to put in chat, so i clearly am not experienced enough to predict the maneuverings of their company. So the question is why aren't they including chat?
Aside from the reasons i gave, do you have any insight as to why they are betraying their hardcore following so severely? As to why they are so flippant towards us (as seen in the interview?)
Because they are wrong in their understanding of player's needs. What's wrong with this thought? They are human, and human tend to make mistake and are prone to misconceptions and misunderstandings. Blizzard made mistake, that's all to that. They thought chat channels were useless cause they were unusable because of spam, not realizing that it was one of the most important features of BW longevity phenomenon. And we, BW players, know better then they what made us stick to the game for so long.
Why should Blizzard value you playing their game for 11 years (or however long you've played it) with a total contribution to their purses of $60-80?
Unless you know anything about game development, i'm going to have to argue that what we 'accept as fact' has some validity. Games are getting more popular, not less. How many GDC conferences have you attended? Game design courses taken? Statistics analysis on player psychology and need-satisfaction? Post-mortems on the industries most successful games (WoW, Starcraft, Halo, GTA, etc.)
You're trying to tell me that the most successful game company in the world doesn't know what they're doing compared to someone who has played [one of their games] for a few years. Do you realize how ignorant this sounds?
Because that 11 years of devotion and goodwill towards the company has metastasized into the largest recurrent billing game in history, pulling in far more profit than the gross box sales of whatever RTS you spend a year developing in a single month.
Might be worth considering.
You're trying to tell me that if Starcraft didn't have public chat channels that WoW would not be the highest grossing video game of all time?
Show me your math. My interest is piqued.
I don't think anyone was saying that. And I just registered an account to reply to your excruciatingly arrogant posts.
The notion that you, or any other developer, has 'insider information' based on conferences attended or statistics analysed that might elevate their opinion or knowledge well above anyone else is absurd. If this information held the value you have assigned to it every game would be a AAA bestseller.
The influence of longstanding fans of Blizzards games should not be understated, and hardcore gamers have ensured the popularity of the first game in this series in an entire region.
On June 02 2010 01:36 MasterFischer wrote: Guys, honestly, calm down, please?
There is no reason not to believe that Blizzard has made a genuine design mistake regarding the antipication of chat rooms and alike while building or brain-storming battle.net 2.0.
Why?
Well first of all, just following the trend of various online games today, they are all incorporating matchmaking systems, archievements, ladders and so forth which are all borrowed and expanded on by the previous console games, which introduced achievements and the whole get a game quick phenomenon. Surely, getting caught up in this web 2.0, social media / console / casual gamer storm is quite easy for a company today, because stockholders are tauting your ears full of shit like marketing segments, business models, consumer needs and innovations and so on.
Remember, Battle.net 2.0 is NOT just for Starcraft 2 in mind, it is, as others have said, a uniform platform to launch from for ALL current and future Blizzard games in development. This is interesting in different ways, because it begs the question of specific title customization, to tailor to a specific need of a specific game.
BUT!
They should´ve known better ! The Starcraft community is so large and so vocal about what they want, right?... Well sure, but rememeber, they've been really focused at balancing the game, polishing it artwise, storywise, all those things, and essentially have not given their BETA allowance to incorporate social interactions, at least not initially. This, I believe is to make sure people are testing the matchmaking system, testing the BALANCE, testing things like latency and achievements while playin the game constantly.
They are now aware of how much a deal tailored specifics to a title is, or maybe they were aware of it all along, and this would certaintly correlate with the choice of NOT implementing normal public chat rooms but instead doing a more and possible creative way of giving us chat functionality. We have very very sparse details, but it's coming. Have patience..
You might feel lonely in the beta right now, but in the long run, steps will be taken to ensure you won't The BETA was never intended to operate as a fully fledged retail game, hence the idea of a BETA, yet alot of people grief about the lack of ESPORTS managements and societal functionality.. Wait for it and you SHALL be blessed
Here's the thing: Bnet 2.0's problems aren't exclusive to these 3 issues. People hadn't been complaining because Custom games weren't out, but now that it is, we can see that the problem with the system is much deeper than that. The match making, the lack of game names, lack of lobby customization, the Search, the 'Show More', the RealID system (once you're out of a game with someone, how are you supposed to contact them if they're not on your friends list, and how can you add them without their email or BOTH parts of their id?), etc. Blizzard did Battle.net 2.0 wrong. And it's not because it's a beta; it's not very buggy and the secondary features people want can be added/removed later, but the core, game finding, is just poorly designed.
If SC2 were a car, Bnet2.0 are pentagon shaped wheels. Eventually you can get to what you want, but it won't be easy, and it won't be as efficient or intuitive as it should be.
EDIT: I'm seriously curious about adding a friend. I met a buddy in Battlecraft Armageddon but I didn't get his email address in time and since I don't know his entire identifier, I can't add him as a friend. /w didn't work in game. How can I contact him? Where are you Foxtrot?
On June 02 2010 01:56 Jibba wrote: If SC2 were a car, Bnet2.0 are pentagon shaped wheels. Eventually you can get to what you want, but it won't be easy, and it won't be as efficient or intuitive as it should be.
On June 02 2010 01:56 Jibba wrote: If SC2 were a car, Bnet2.0 are pentagon shaped wheels. Eventually you can get to what you want, but it won't be easy, and it won't be as efficient or intuitive as it should be.
Not if your destination is a LAN, or a different region.
On June 02 2010 01:36 MasterFischer wrote: Guys, honestly, calm down, please?
There is no reason not to believe that Blizzard has made a genuine design mistake regarding the antipication of chat rooms and alike while building or brain-storming battle.net 2.0.
Why?
Well first of all, just following the trend of various online games today, they are all incorporating matchmaking systems, archievements, ladders and so forth which are all borrowed and expanded on by the previous console games, which introduced achievements and the whole get a game quick phenomenon. Surely, getting caught up in this web 2.0, social media / console / casual gamer storm is quite easy for a company today, because stockholders are tauting your ears full of shit like marketing segments, business models, consumer needs and innovations and so on.
Remember, Battle.net 2.0 is NOT just for Starcraft 2 in mind, it is, as others have said, a uniform platform to launch from for ALL current and future Blizzard games in development. This is interesting in different ways, because it begs the question of specific title customization, to tailor to a specific need of a specific game.
BUT!
They should´ve known better ! The Starcraft community is so large and so vocal about what they want, right?... Well sure, but rememeber, they've been really focused at balancing the game, polishing it artwise, storywise, all those things, and essentially have not given their BETA allowance to incorporate social interactions, at least not initially. This, I believe is to make sure people are testing the matchmaking system, testing the BALANCE, testing things like latency and achievements while playin the game constantly.
They are now aware of how much a deal tailored specifics to a title is, or maybe they were aware of it all along, and this would certaintly correlate with the choice of NOT implementing normal public chat rooms but instead doing a more and possible creative way of giving us chat functionality. We have very very sparse details, but it's coming. Have patience..
You might feel lonely in the beta right now, but in the long run, steps will be taken to ensure you won't The BETA was never intended to operate as a fully fledged retail game, hence the idea of a BETA, yet alot of people grief about the lack of ESPORTS managements and societal functionality.. Wait for it and you SHALL be blessed
Here's the thing: Bnet 2.0's problems aren't exclusive to these 3 issues. People hadn't been complaining because Custom games weren't out, but now that it is, we can see that the problem with the system is much deeper than that. The match making, the lack of game names, lack of lobby customization, the Search, the 'Show More', the RealID system (once you're out of a game with someone, how are you supposed to contact them if they're not on your friends list, and how can you add them without their email or BOTH parts of their id?), etc. Blizzard did Battle.net 2.0 wrong. And it's not because it's a beta; it's not very buggy and the secondary features people want can be added/removed later, but the core, game finding, is just poorly designed.
If SC2 were a car, Bnet2.0 are pentagon shaped wheels. Eventually you can get to what you want, but it won't be easy, and it won't be as efficient or intuitive as it should be.
EDIT: I'm seriously curious about adding a friend. I met a buddy in Battlecraft Armageddon but I didn't get his email address in time and since I don't know his entire identifier, I can't add him as a friend. /w didn't work in game. How can I contact him? Where are you Foxtrot?
Actually, you can do this. Open your match history and find that Battlecraft Armageddon game. Go to it, and that'll open the score screen from that game. Find his name there, right click on it, and there will be an add as friend option. You should then be able to message him through the friend panel. It's unbearably cumbersome, but it is possible to add people you played a game with before.
If that happened before the wipe and you can't access previous games, you're SOL. It's impossible to add someone that you didn't play a game with unless you know their e-mail.
On June 02 2010 01:56 Jibba wrote: If SC2 were a car, Bnet2.0 are pentagon shaped wheels. Eventually you can get to what you want, but it won't be easy, and it won't be as efficient or intuitive as it should be.
Not if your destination is a LAN, or a different region.
No, those are just things like air bags and seatbelts. You won't necessarily die without them, but you might.
On June 02 2010 01:36 MasterFischer wrote: Guys, honestly, calm down, please?
There is no reason not to believe that Blizzard has made a genuine design mistake regarding the antipication of chat rooms and alike while building or brain-storming battle.net 2.0.
Why?
Well first of all, just following the trend of various online games today, they are all incorporating matchmaking systems, archievements, ladders and so forth which are all borrowed and expanded on by the previous console games, which introduced achievements and the whole get a game quick phenomenon. Surely, getting caught up in this web 2.0, social media / console / casual gamer storm is quite easy for a company today, because stockholders are tauting your ears full of shit like marketing segments, business models, consumer needs and innovations and so on.
Remember, Battle.net 2.0 is NOT just for Starcraft 2 in mind, it is, as others have said, a uniform platform to launch from for ALL current and future Blizzard games in development. This is interesting in different ways, because it begs the question of specific title customization, to tailor to a specific need of a specific game.
BUT!
They should´ve known better ! The Starcraft community is so large and so vocal about what they want, right?... Well sure, but rememeber, they've been really focused at balancing the game, polishing it artwise, storywise, all those things, and essentially have not given their BETA allowance to incorporate social interactions, at least not initially. This, I believe is to make sure people are testing the matchmaking system, testing the BALANCE, testing things like latency and achievements while playin the game constantly.
They are now aware of how much a deal tailored specifics to a title is, or maybe they were aware of it all along, and this would certaintly correlate with the choice of NOT implementing normal public chat rooms but instead doing a more and possible creative way of giving us chat functionality. We have very very sparse details, but it's coming. Have patience..
You might feel lonely in the beta right now, but in the long run, steps will be taken to ensure you won't The BETA was never intended to operate as a fully fledged retail game, hence the idea of a BETA, yet alot of people grief about the lack of ESPORTS managements and societal functionality.. Wait for it and you SHALL be blessed
Here's the thing: Bnet 2.0's problems aren't exclusive to these 3 issues. People hadn't been complaining because Custom games weren't out, but now that it is, we can see that the problem with the system is much deeper than that. The match making, the lack of game names, lack of lobby customization, the Search, the 'Show More', the RealID system (once you're out of a game with someone, how are you supposed to contact them if they're not on your friends list, and how can you add them without their email or BOTH parts of their id?), etc. Blizzard did Battle.net 2.0 wrong. And it's not because it's a beta; it's not very buggy and the secondary features people want can be added/removed later, but the core, game finding, is just poorly designed.
If SC2 were a car, Bnet2.0 are pentagon shaped wheels. Eventually you can get to what you want, but it won't be easy, and it won't be as efficient or intuitive as it should be.
EDIT: I'm seriously curious about adding a friend. I met a buddy in Battlecraft Armageddon but I didn't get his email address in time and since I don't know his entire identifier, I can't add him as a friend. /w didn't work in game. How can I contact him? Where are you Foxtrot?
Actually, you can do this. Open your match history and find that Battlecraft Armageddon game. Go to it, and that'll open the score screen from that game. Find his name there, right click on it, and there will be an add as friend option. You should then be able to message him through the friend panel. It's unbearably cumbersome, but it is possible to add people you played a game with before.
If that happened before the wipe and you can't access previous games, you're SOL. It's impossible to add someone that you didn't play a game with unless you know their e-mail.
Thanks for this, but BCA score screens don't load. It always says "Unable to load score screen" so will it show up in match history? I'll check when I get home.
The blue response regarding cross-realm play is completely ridiculous. Yes, the average player won't care anyway, but as he already said, the auto-matchmaking system would be matching you against players in your region anyway. The competitive gamers DO care, and frequently try to set up practice matches or showmatches with players from other regions. Is there some latency? Sure there is, though I'll be totally unsurprised if someone makes a launcher in a few months that fixes it, just like with SC1. There's so much fluff in Bnet 2.0 that I am positive there are plenty of ways to optimize.
Basically, what he's saying is that since the non-competitive players won't care about it, they're just going to disallow it. Awesome. Better make some good friends in other regions so you can borrow accounts for tournaments then, unless you really enjoy spending a lot of extra money for multiple copies of the same game.
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.
The game is GOOD and FUN... Its battle.net 0.2 that is bad :'(... People are posting here because they are worried that the new and errr "improved" battle.net will turn the game down. And yes i know that even if you do decide to add chat channels it wont take 1sec because there is like 2389472398489 things that will need to be added / changed / working.
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.
Would you please explain to me how the facebook 24 page thread, which had a 8 page continuation thread fits into your explanation here on how Blizzard gives popular threads "attention"?
No offense intended.
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.
U really do want to see? Oh, thats not a problem http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=25172038055&sid=5010 just spend a 25 minutes of UR precios time and watch the video in the thread`s top. It`s a good accumulation of what we all want and why we do so.
To be honest, the kittens distracted me tons while watching that video. ^^
EDIT: Ah, well I see you've already got it in the OP. This is a bit more visible, though...
EU forums are really been banned to ground , including me.
No he doesn't, he feeds energy off banning trolls and closing posts and saying: "Please send your feedback to betafeedback@blizzard.com", knowing that Blizzard will never listen to their most loyal customers.
I There are timelines that need to be kept, there might be priorities that you don't understand,
I think this might be the craziest thing of all. This is the first time I have EVER seen a Blizzard member talk about deadines in my long long history of following Blizzard.
"When its ready" my necktie!* BNET 0.2 is anything but ready.
I'm totally new here and only mediocre at playing starcraft but I've been lurking these forums for some time and thought this would be a nice starting post.
I wanted to think about what could be the reasons behind A-B(Activison-Blizzards) decicions and not rant about what is wrong. Here goes.
Do you remember that CoD:MW2 had this very same debate around it when we were told about that it will not have dedicated servers, mod support etc. CoD:MW1 had had a fairly good gaming scene around the world and the scene was eagerly awaiting for the next game. Then Activison came and just totally ruined the game for them. Still, it was one of the best selling games ever, totaling over 1 billion dollars by January 18, 2010.
That might be one of the reasons why A-B is not really concerned about the scene's opinions. "That game made a truck load of money without the scene. Why couldn't we do the same with SC 2. SC 1 was just as popular as MW1". The problem with this logic is that SC2 is RTS game which haven't yet become as mainstream as FPS games. Maybe A-B is trying to change that?
Then the facebook thing: Achivements are very popular. They are an easy way to compare yourself to other players. They give you a sense of accomplishment. You can boast to your friends with them. And this is where facebook kicks in. A-B might be making somekind of a addon that allows you to show your achievements in your FB. This would also make SC 2 much more known to people who don't play games.
But the intention of adding private channels(Am I correct?) shows that A-B is not going to totally destroy the scene. Public channels on the other hand are not really important for the real pro scene because it uses other mediums for communicating and A-B doesn't see that they would cater their other audience (casual gamers) either.
So if we take out the real pro gamers and the casual gamers what is left? We are left. The people who still play SC 1. People who will probably never become pros, but who are still far more better than the average gamer. We are the ones who would like to have chat channels and all the other stuff. This group is not very big if compared to the base of users A-B is apparently trying to get to play the game. This group is not too visible either if compared to the "real" progaming scene in Korea. These might also be some of the reasons why A-B is ignoring us when thinking of the interface desing.
Bottom line, we are insignificant to A-B from PoV of making money. This all based on assumption that A-B is trying to make a RTS for the masses which seems very likely to me considering all they've done.
i don't get why people dislike the frank pearce interview. i don't like bnet 2.0 at all. however, he was straight with us. why complain that he's not sugarcoating things? PR garbage misleads people and forces us to interpret bad news in different ways. it's like some people want to be lied to/manipulated. he told us what they plan on doing. barring him being wrong, i would think this makes it easier for us to better consider our relationship with blizzard as individual customers.
Hey, I was wondering if someone who has an EU account could do me a favor. I'm out of beta keys and I wanted to communicate an important message to Xordiah in this thread.
Could someone copy pasta this message into this thread please
[quote] On the last point, I saw some concerns in this thread that you guys are afraid that a map that is published maybe five months after release but is really good will never get any attention. I don't really share this concern, because of the awesome sites out there that will start promoting good content. I mean, even today, when map publishing is still doing its first steps and while there is still quite a bit of work ahead of us, I have seen so many great maps that are featured on sc2mapster, on TL.net and many other community websites. There will always be a map making community like the Hiveworkshop were map makers will find support. And though all these sites, through the forums, through casters like Husky and especially through word of mouth good maps will be spotlighted and players will find them and make them popular. If a map is good, make a youtube video of it and it will spread if players think it is cool. : ) [/quote]
Hi Xordiah. This is Half from the US forums over yonder and first I'd just like to thank you for opening communications a bit on this issue. I think that's always a step in the right direction.
I agree on you're idea that players demanding the ability to name games could be the result of a conservative viewpoint thats really shrouded in nostalgia, and that theirs much to be improved on that system.
In many ways, the inability to name games takes away very little. Assuming the friends list is fixed to allow direct in game ID input, most features of the traditional custom game system is intact.
However, there are two very crucial issues that are not. One of them you've partially addressed. However, I think leaving a flaw in the system in the hopes that it will not be a problem is the wrong direction.
By ommitting any additional customization features to selectively implemented on a case by case basis, you're really hurting the development of many custom games. DoTA wasn't the only game to use such a feature. Everything from other AoS like Tide of Blood, games like Footman Frenzy, to even a wide array of TDs, such as the classic Zoatar td would make use of such a feature.
Even in the current map pool, a lot of maps would benefit from such a feature, in one specific instance, a game "templar wars". Though it's still has a lot of bugs, the game features four different playstyles, including Deathmatch, Control, Survival, and Team Deathmatch.
My suggestion would be to allow maps to feature a "expand menu". Upon clicking it, variations of the map alloted by the author would expand beneath the name. You could selectively join a game, or double clicking on the name would simply put you in a random one.
The other concern, possibly more important, is the idea that the current Popularity system is "fine". I'll certainly concede that the "best" maps will always make it to the top. Though many map makers would probably wouldn't admit it the truth is, a simple, bug free, and easy to learn game like Battle-Craft Armegeddon in all likelihood is the best game, in comparison to the heavily conceptual and often buggy heavily technical maps that are usually favored by mapmakers.
But that isn't the issue. The issue is that the custom games have traditionally afforded the user a vast library of maps to choose from. And while alternative maps may not fill the screen, if I wanted to play something that heavily unique, but maybe not as streamlined as the mainstream maps of DoTA or Footmen Frenzy etc, I could. If I wanted to play Rune TD instead of Green Circle TD, all I had to do was host it.
And it would fill, regardless of the obscurity, within a few minutes. I won't argue that objectively, these maps could be regarded as "better designed" as a game, but they often revolve around extremely unique
-and refreshing-
themes. Often after a lot of rounds of the best games, I might want to bust out something new I found on the internet, or an old and forgotten favorite and the current system completely prevents one from doing this. If I wanted to play an obscure game that was once popular...lets say I wanted to fire up battlecraft for a quick fun round in 2012, when the custom game is dominated by all kinds of fancy maps, I couldn't. Because an unpopular map simply does not fill. A year old map simply will never fill.
Not only that, but it also makes the map-making process a extremely exclusive circle. While perhaps the best of the best may come out of page 37 from popularity alone, a vast array of creative and fun maps will not. In addition, if I just wanted to make a map "for fun", and some of the best maps that were made were made this way, I would be heavily discouraged because as soon as I finished, I would need to spend weeks popularizing it simply to play a single, random, game with it on battle.net.
This isn't a problem to be ignored. Ignoring this means ignoring one of the most fundamental and awesome, defining functions of previous Battle.net custom games. The ability for a user to create his own map, and play it, no strings attached. By removing this feature from b-net 2.0 custom games, you've essentially made the Galaxy Editor a dysfunctional unreal editor. One that stratifies users as "players" or "creators". That stratification shouldn't exist. B-net 2.0 should keep the system that allows a user to simply find or make a map, host it, and have it fill up. Sure, it won't fill up as fast as Dota. But it will fill up, from curiosity alone. On the other hand, you can wait hours hosting a unheard of map in b-net 2.0, and nobody will play it.
The current system doesn't completely prevent that, but it discourages if heavily. Even removing the "show more" button with a scroll bar would help. Additional features which should be implemented would be that all maps are sorted based on time, though the popularity bar still exists. Every time a new game is created, the game is put back on top. The end result is for popular maps, they would remain constantly near the top, but would not constantly dominate it. Nobody would struggle to find DoTA, due to the volume of games made, it would remain near the top. But as soon as a new game, even one completely unheard of is made, it would also start near the top (with a zero popularity rating, warning users "try at your own risk). That would help immensely.
EPT
The BETA was never intended to operate as a fully fledged retail game, hence the idea of a BETA, yet alot of people grief about the lack of ESPORTS managements and societal functionality.. Wait for it and you SHALL be blessed 
