Battle.net 2.0 Concerns - StarCraft Legacy - Page 3

On June 12 2010 04:11 Madkipz wrote:


wait what? there has been multiple turnaments during the beta uptime. WHAT ARE YOU SMOKEING, just because blizzard wants a piece of the turnament cake does not mean it should come at the cost of chat channels, cross realm accounts and Lan. A solid foundation for gamers and hardcore pros to play on is better than an unstreamed community event, held by blizzard.

People are up in arms because they where initially presented with a bnet 2.0 that had chat channels and expected it to be in the finished product, infact Dustin claimed they could implement it within a day or two.

Your basically saying: Blizzard have said they will implement it eventually.

What you forget is that your oppinion in the matter counts for shit. Rather than stand stubbornly on your own you should as a consumer follow the hardcore communty, you need to thread the bridge towards a greater divine where your voice is one of thousands so the matter builds up vocal support rather than simply being something the "hardcore elitists want."

As a consumer, if you want a perfect game you will have to complain or they will keep half assing it untill the world riots in disbelief.

On June 12 2010 07:35 Dionyseus wrote:
I haven't finished reading the article but what I've read so far appears well written, however I just came across something I strongly disagree with and it's your solution to the identifier problem. I hate the idea of allowing your character name to be copied by whoever, not only does it destroy the feeling of uniqueness but it makes things confusing when you aren't sure who exactly it is that you are playing against, or even who the players are in a replay.

The solution I support is one in which there's just a unique character name, no identifier. It solves all the problems listed above. Yes I realize that this creates the problem of not being able to call yourself Superman once someone has taken the name, but that's a finder's keepers looser's weepers situation which I find fair, if you badly want to name your character Superman then you should get the name before anyone else does.

And all this talk about us being 0.1% of community... the threads about bnet 2.0 have like 200,000 views. That's still a lot even if it's non-unique viewers. Also, we're the ones who keep buying blizzard products for years to come; not the guy who buys it once and then goes back to xbox.

On June 13 2010 10:18 telfire wrote:


Thanks for proving my point and demonstrating how unrealistic the mindset of you guys really is.

200,000 is about 0.02% of the community, assuming that 200,000 is actually 200,000 (more like 25k tops) and assuming Bliz sells 10 million copies (I honestly believe they'll sell twice that, easy).

You got me, I was wrong. The group of people crying about chat is not even remotely close to the 0.1% I guesstimated.

On June 13 2010 11:24 telfire wrote:
Unrealistic is the widespread expectation that chat and other minor features should be implemented before release, and the generally selfish attitude of almost every post I've seen about Battle.net 2. If you're truly just making suggestions, that's fine I guess, but that is certainly not the tone of the majority of posts.

Also, it seems a bit odd to be continuing to "make suggestions" at this point (considering those suggestions are the same ones voiced repeatedly, we all have seen them, if you think Bliz hasn't you're crazy). Blizzard has made clear statements to nearly every problem anyone has cited with Battle.net (with the exception of LAN, and I will say no LAN is a real shame, but nothing to boycott an amazing game over). They said they are going to fix it. So why are people still complaining about it? Everything they can do, they've done. They let us know they're working on the stuff.

On June 13 2010 11:24 telfire wrote:I realize private/clan chat rooms would definitely be an exception to this, and I do think chat should be added eventually, I just recognize that it's not a top priority or nearly as big a deal as people make it out to be. It's not as simple as "chat should be added". You have to weigh it against what they would spend their time on instead. Chat or tournaments? Chat or a stable network that doesn't crash all the time?

When you say "it's not as big of a deal as people make it out to be" I can see your point. As you can notice in one of my previous posts, I elude to the theory that if a person who complains about chat channels finally gets it so that chat channels comes before tournaments, but later realizes they would rather have tournaments... is this something they would truly be happy with? I understand the response to this would be mixed, but I think that the average person doesn't realize that to gain progress in one feature, it will ultimately pull resources from another one.

On June 14 2010 02:09 StarStruck wrote:
So you rehashed all the important info you found and put it in one place.

I would get straight to the point though. As a beat writer you should never beat around the bush. That and your article is way too wordy. I would tone it down a bit. On the bright side, you give the developers something easier for them to look at.

On June 11 2010 16:09 telfire wrote:
While I understand that these are features a lot of people want, no one seems to understand that MOST people do not care about these features. That doesn't mean you should be ignored but it does mean they have more pressing concerns they should deal with first. No matter what order they choose to do things in people are going to complain.

Personally I'm quite glad gameplay comes first to them. Gameplay is more important than Battle.net by a massively wide margin, absolutely no question. If you disagree with that statement, fine, don't buy the game. Most people buy a game for the game itself, not social networking features. And make no mistake, the things people want -- chatting and clans -- are just as much "social networking" as the Facebook integration (which for the record probably didn't take a single developer more than 1 day to implement).

Bottom line: Stuff takes time to make, Blizzard can either use that time and wait to release the game a few more years, or they can release it now and continue to work on it over the next few years. Personally I prefer the ladder. People seem to think there's some mystical 3rd option of get the fairies to use their pixie dust and magically add these features to Battle.net, but that simply isn't reality. Stuff takes time. End of story.

We waited 10 years, and I'm not waiting 10 more because something like 0.1% of the people who are going to buy it want chat. You will get your chat and clans. It just isn't their first priority, and I agree with that decision.

Perhaps a corporate license version of the game can be created by Blizzard, and it could be sold to organizers and companies running major tournaments. This version of the game could include the LAN functionality while disabling Battle.net functionality and features in all forms. The risk of software pirates getting ahold of this corporate license version and duplicating it is valid. However, they would be prevented from interacting with the mainstream of users. There is very little a user can do with a LAN-only game. If a LAN-based option continues to be excluded, there may be adverse affects to the development of e-sports.

The Achilles heel with the direction of Battle.net 2.0 is Blizzard's responsibility to deliver dependable service for tournament play. If this is possible, then the removal of LAN can be justified. The results are currently looking grim, and they are leading to speculation that the competitive scene will suffer. Time will tell the effectiveness of Battle.net. Recently, players have been reporting very positive experiences with Battle.net 2.0 in LAN-like settings, using the "always connected" experience. Further optimization is planned for beta patches, release, and beyond.