EPTUI still sub-par 2 years later. Why don't we care? - Page 30
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Zokkar
Israel128 Posts
| ||
|
Sergio1992
Italy522 Posts
On February 06 2012 08:49 Falling wrote: Seems like a bad marketing strategy to me. Because all the missing features listed in this OP are features that would maintain your user base until you can get the expansion out. Without it, you're going to have a big drop-off and bad word of mouth (amongst the ums map making community for instance). With it, you generate a lot of buzz that sustains a lot of momentum. Maybe not as crucial, but think if they delayed SC2's multiplayer as a marketing strategy to get people to buy HotS. Bad idea because multiplayer is what makes gives SC2 tremendous replayablility. It's all the wrong features to delay to get people to buy an expansion. I don't know why they aren't in Wings, but I don't think it was for Machevellian reasons. problem is they don't need that momentum ,because the essential feature is the multiplayer itself; the momentum can sustain itself alone. These people who quit sc, will once again get into Starcraft when there will be some sort of innovation (call it expansion)  | ||
|
Gheed
United States972 Posts
Various multiplayer options and ability to play on any realm. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qlzDy.jpg) Server wide ladder ranking, new accounts whenever you want. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ar8Or.jpg) Ability to name your game. Also it remembers the last map you picked so you don't have to wait for a gigantic map list to load! + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/K6Y7E.jpg) A game lobby that actually has a host and doesn't auto start when the game fills up. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aH8mR.jpg) | ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
Aside from that, everything that's been said is also tremendously annoying — the visuals, the chat/social organization, the after-game stats, lack of replay sharing, lack of group/team/clan support, and most importantly: an absolutely ridiculous and dreadful game showcase/listing/joining/creating system. It's really intolerable. I'm glad people are standing up for this now, but really people needed to stand strong and stand hard against this over a year ago. It was not at all tolerable then. They had the development time to make a better system, and even the beta, or possibly even more time. | ||
|
Kamikiri
United States1319 Posts
Edit: I played custom games with friends who don't play sc2 very much, 3 of them got bored and quit after a couple hours because games past the second page don't fill. Reason i hate this battle.net the most. | ||
|
NachiMe
250 Posts
| ||
|
Inoshishi
Canada29 Posts
Really hope blizz gives this some attention and changes some of these things if not all  Also (even though it probably doesn't seem like much to most) I've really been missing the animated portraits from WC3, when u see the player in a chat room it just shows the basic avatar, but when u click on the profile it shows the portrait as animated. That really makes the portraits more enjoyable and made me want to collect some of them purely because i realized how much cooler they looked when they move. Since they're just taken from the unit portraits in game I don't think it would take much to just provide the full animation in the profiles. (maybe lag is an issue, since bnet already seems really laggy or takes quite a while to load sometimes, when browsing profiles and such but i dunno.) | ||
|
gurrpp
United States437 Posts
On February 06 2012 09:12 Sergio1992 wrote: problem is they don't need that momentum ,because the essential feature is the multiplayer itself; the momentum can sustain itself alone. These people who quit sc, will once again get into Starcraft when there will be some sort of innovation (call it expansion) If that's their plan they are very misinformed. Everyone on my friends list atm is inactive and have been since the first 3-4 weeks after retail. They all played maybe a handful of games before losing interest, and even then the only reason they picked up the game was because they saw the name starcraft and were expecting a much improved version of broodwar. I highly doubt people like them will be willing to pay full retail on a game which advertises adding a few new units and features to a game they already tried and didn't like. You can only dilute a brand so far until it becomes irrelevant. Releasing bad/unfinished games just means that no one will respect the brand anymore, which is important for a title like starcraft. Usually imo its best to assume people are incompetent before assuming they have some diabolical plan. | ||
|
CallousCarter
United Kingdom81 Posts
On February 06 2012 03:51 Roxy wrote: As a community, i dont know what more we could be doing to improve this game other than a collective hostile takeover of activision. im really not sure of the exact ownership structure of blizzard, but the market cap is 14 billion. collectively, we could purchase a 51% share, should it be available.. for a mere $7,140,000,000 http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:ATVI On February 06 2012 03:51 Roxy wrote: As a community, i dont know what more we could be doing to improve this game other than a collective hostile takeover of activision. im really not sure of the exact ownership structure of blizzard, but the market cap is 14 billion. collectively, we could purchase a 51% share, should it be available.. for a mere $7,140,000,000 http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:ATVI What the hell would that do? Activision isn't the problem. Blizzard just fucked up. I see the same thing on bioware forums where people with no idea about the decision making procedures involved in the companies blame anything they don't like on evil EA corporate idiots and praise bioware for anything they like. To be honest as a squeal to BW, SC2 is a dissapointment. It failed to improve on it in any meaningful way. The big changes were getting rid of annoyances which were cause by technical limitations and updating the graphics to the a 3d engine. Unfortunately the annoyances such as the number of units in control group limit, bad pathfinding, no automining, no building hotkeys had given the game depth and in SC2 they weren't replaced by any new mechanics. So we are left with a game that is still hard as nails and completely devoid of any long term appeal for casual players but now there are less factors to differentiate between the pro players who do dedicate vast amounts of time to the game. The graphics aren't a big improvement either, sure BWs graphics are very dated but they have charm and nostalgic value, SC" on the other hand just looks like a mediocre fps, its art style is pretty generic and it is no longer technically cutting edge. Then we have things that have actually got worse. Bnet 2.0 is undoubtedly worse than Bnet1.0, it's slow and clunky and lacking a ton of features which were present in a system designed well over a decade ago. There's no lan mode, and the ladder system is overly complex, overly obfuscated and completely fails to do what it was designed for, i.e appeal to casual players and pros. Many pros prefer custom games with team-mates/friends and ladder anxiety amongst casuals is well documented. The only reason the esports scene around SC2 has grown is because the foreign RTS community could not compete with the Koreans. The buzz around a new squeal after over a decade and a blizzard title at that generated interest from viewers and many players/figures in esports jumped at the chance for a fresh start and level playing field. Unfortunately the figure of people actually playing SC2 is diminishing quite quickly and that is slowly leading to less viewers for tournaments. This hasn't yet led to less interest from sponsors and companies but if this trend continues it will do and i fear for organisations like MLG and GOMTV who have a big stake in SC2s success. One of the problems is Blizzard doesn't care about esports enough. Part of the reason BW flourish is because Blizzard stop caring about it and let the community take full control. However with SC2 they're in this awkward middle where they want to keep control over the scene to a certain degree and want to reap some of the revenue esports can generate but they don't want to fully commit to making SC2 work as an esport like Riot (mainly former blizzard employees) is doing with LoL or valve presumably with Dota2. I'm not trying to call the scene dead but i believe it is in decline. Of course there's still two expansions to go which could completely revitalise the community and generate huge interest in sc2 again. However they have to be good. I think the unit design looks innovative and engaging which is a huge plus, however i hope they bring with it revamped and simplified rating system because ladder just doesn't work on a multitude of levels. Without improving Bnet2.0 and ladder I can't see any longevity in SC2. Just like any other sport or esport SC2 needs an active playing community to make it as an industry. | ||
|
J.E.G.
United States389 Posts
| ||
|
Khenra
Netherlands885 Posts
I've been thinking of starting again as a different race, but the fact that I need to learn builds for all 3 different matchups before getting started has prevented me from doing so. Definitely not buying HotS until this shit is fixed. | ||
|
craz3d
Bulgaria856 Posts
On February 06 2012 10:26 CallousCarter wrote: What the hell would that do? Activision isn't the problem. Blizzard just fucked up. I see the same thing on bioware forums where people with no idea about the decision making procedures involved in the companies blame anything they don't like on evil EA corporate idiots and praise bioware for anything they like. To be honest as a squeal to BW, SC2 is a dissapointment. It failed to improve on it in any meaningful way. The big changes were getting rid of annoyances which were cause by technical limitations and updating the graphics to the a 3d engine. Unfortunately the annoyances such as the number of units in control group limit, bad pathfinding, no automining, no building hotkeys had given the game depth and in SC2 they weren't replaced by any new mechanics. So we are left with a game that is still hard as nails and completely devoid of any long term appeal for casual players but now there are less factors to differentiate between the pro players who do dedicate vast amounts of time to the game. The graphics aren't a big improvement either, sure BWs graphics are very dated but they have charm and nostalgic value, SC" on the other hand just looks like a mediocre fps, its art style is pretty generic and it is no longer technically cutting edge. Then we have things that have actually got worse. Bnet 2.0 is undoubtedly worse than Bnet1.0, it's slow and clunky and lacking a ton of features which were present in a system designed well over a decade ago. There's no lan mode, and the ladder system is overly complex, overly obfuscated and completely fails to do what it was designed for, i.e appeal to casual players and pros. Many pros prefer custom games with team-mates/friends and ladder anxiety amongst casuals is well documented. The only reason the esports scene around SC2 has grown is because the foreign RTS community could not compete with the Koreans. The buzz around a new squeal after over a decade and a blizzard title at that generated interest from viewers and many players/figures in esports jumped at the chance for a fresh start and level playing field. Unfortunately the figure of people actually playing SC2 is diminishing quite quickly and that is slowly leading to less viewers for tournaments. This hasn't yet led to less interest from sponsors and companies but if this trend continues it will do and i fear for organisations like MLG and GOMTV who have a big stake in SC2s success. One of the problems is Blizzard doesn't care about esports enough. Part of the reason BW flourish is because Blizzard stop caring about it and let the community take full control. However with SC2 they're in this awkward middle where they want to keep control over the scene to a certain degree and want to reap some of the revenue esports can generate but they don't want to fully commit to making SC2 work as an esport like Riot (mainly former blizzard employees) is doing with LoL or valve presumably with Dota2. I'm not trying to call the scene dead but i believe it is in decline. Of course there's still two expansions to go which could completely revitalise the community and generate huge interest in sc2 again. However they have to be good. I think the unit design looks innovative and engaging which is a huge plus, however i hope they bring with it revamped and simplified rating system because ladder just doesn't work on a multitude of levels. Without improving Bnet2.0 and ladder I can't see any longevity in SC2. Just like any other sport or esport SC2 needs an active playing community to make it as an industry. We might sit around reminiscing about the good old times and how Blizzard didn't learn anything from BW's success, but looking at it from a different perspective, they took the parts vital for making money. Think about it: how did BW make so many Blizzard fans for life? It was the competitive aspect of it. You can't argue that SC2 is not a competitive game, where it stands next to its older brother is another question altogether. My point is: Blizzard is doing their best to promote the game as a both an e-sport and a casual game. The casual aspect will ensure more sales, while the sport/competitive aspect ensures long term committal to the game (at least until the next reincarnation of the game comes along). Making the game as competitive as BW would lead to less sales and less people playing in the long term, thereby leading to less loyal/fanatical fans. Of course, none of this excuses the pile of steaming shit that is Bnet 2.0. | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On February 06 2012 13:30 craz3d wrote: We might sit around reminiscing about the good old times and how Blizzard didn't learn anything from BW's success, but looking at it from a different perspective, they took the parts vital for making money. Think about it: how did BW make so many Blizzard fans for life? It was the competitive aspect of it. You can't argue that SC2 is not a competitive game, where it stands next to its older brother is another question altogether. My point is: Blizzard is doing their best to promote the game as a both an e-sport and a casual game. The casual aspect will ensure more sales, while the sport/competitive aspect ensures long term committal to the game (at least until the next reincarnation of the game comes along). Making the game as competitive as BW would lead to less sales and less people playing in the long term, thereby leading to less loyal/fanatical fans. Of course, none of this excuses the pile of steaming shit that is Bnet 2.0. I'm sorry, are you telling me that having an entire country devoted to the brutally competitive game that was BW was bad for sales? Also, check some sales figures. SC2 is not selling or being played NEARLY as well or as often as BW. They're forgoing sales in favor of skimming money off of tournaments this time around. It's a hilariously short sighted business strategy but the suits up top aren't interested in long term growth and they certainly have no love for esports. | ||
|
magnaflow
Canada1521 Posts
Edit: These are from the US forums. If anyone has the time to go through the EU forums we may be able to find a few more http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/3229033487#1 This is the most recent blue post that I could find regarding anything to do with Bnet. It discusses the name change service. Note the date 9/21/11 http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2830983472#9 This topic discusses the shared replays feature. this was back in July. Typical response of "we would like to do this, no timeline" 7/17/11 http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2548785767?page=10#198 This topic has been locked, but there is a blue post that relates to shared replay services. Another typical response 5/20/11 http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/1866386981#10 This post is about chat channels. Obviously they have been implemented but I just wanted to point out that Lylirra was asking us for feedback. 1/11/2011 http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/628080361?page=2#26 This post relates to using community maps for ladder. Apparently blizzard wasn't opposed to doing this. Looks like we're still waitng for that update 9/23/2010 http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/375110613#10 Another post about shared replays, another typical response. 8/12/2010 http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/248296366#9 Here we are being asked to share some ideas and give some feedback. which we have been doing since this date 8/23/2010 http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/189279348#7 Another topic about shared replays, another typical response 7/30/2010 (thats along time ago) After going through the blue post archive a 2nd time I did find a couple more threads, none of them really talked about much though and mainly stuck to the "this is something we want to do, don't have a time line yet" type of response. Basically Blizzard has said very little about battle net since release, and the only information we have been given is "we're working on it" Feel free to add these links to the OP. | ||
|
JackDT
724 Posts
In terms of the custom map interface, they seem to think the problem is purely map mobility and it just needs the right tweak to fix it. Increasing mobility is tiny bit better, but it doesn't solve the problem. If you want to play a game currently considered at the top of the list (ignoring the issue that great maps are not there right now), the system works. If you want to play any particular game not in the top list, it's impossible to get it going. At best you get people from Fun or Not who don't want to be there. If you don't have a specific game in mind but are just exploring for something new and interesting, there's no option here either. I think a lot of players are like this, 'Ooh, what's that? That looks interesting...' But if you pick a particular game you never get it going. If you Fun or Not you probably up in something you don't want to play. But if you could simply see a list of open lobbies and choose a game you could express a 'soft preference' for it and have a blast. The magic is that is that this solves your problem and the problem of the group above. There is a big difference in mindset between exploring open lobbies and mashing Fun or Not and getting thrown into something. | ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
And why do so many people seem to think the esports aspect of SC2 is something Activision-Blizzard actually cares about? You realize it's not very profitable for them, right? Esports is great and it's awesome that people enjoy watching SC2, but the fact is they don't make very much money off it and SC2 is still magnitudes less popular than many (most?) of their other major titles. It sucks, but it's true. What do you think the sales are? 3 million? What were the latest Call of Duty's sales? And the one before that? And keep in mind that CoD games take far less time to develop, don't require constant attention (re-balancing and the likes), and can be put on the market relatively back-to-back. And then there's WoW, where they get a monthly subscription fee on top of original sales. TL;DR: SC2 isn't that profitable nor is it a big deal to Acti-Blizz. I'm sure they think the whole esports thing is cool, but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter than much. Stop pretending they don't know what they're doing and they're stupid for not focusing on the game. | ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
On February 06 2012 13:38 Klondikebar wrote: I'm sorry, are you telling me that having an entire country devoted to the brutally competitive game that was BW was bad for sales? Also, check some sales figures. SC2 is not selling or being played NEARLY as well or as often as BW. They're forgoing sales in favor of skimming money off of tournaments this time around. It's a hilariously short sighted business strategy but the suits up top aren't interested in long term growth and they certainly have no love for esports. When BW came out, gaming was niche and tiny. Gaming today is nothing even remotely similar to then -- it's a massive, mainstream hobby enjoyed by huge numbers of people. And the games that sell best? They're casual. Long-term growth is cool, but they have no guarantee SC2 will actually lead to that in any meaningful way nor should they. And even if it does expand to have long-term appeal, that doesn't necessarily mean it's good for Blizzard. BW's sales are are at low end-of-cycle prices and don't net them anywhere near as much money as sales of new games. Similarly, selling a new CoD game every year and making billions is a far better plan than making one hardcore CoD and putting a sequel out in 10 years. SC1 sold 9m copies in it's full lifespan, with half of those in Korea. What this means is: 1. They didn't sell most of those copies for $60. (They probably sold the majority of them for under $30 to be honest, if even that.) 2. For 10 years, it wasn't very profitable. On the other hand they have games like WoW, which sold more than that and had monthly fees, or CoD which sells 3/4 of that in 24 hours at a $60 price, and which they put out every year. So really, you have SC1 selling 9m in 10 years and CoD selling 35m in 5, and those 35m are at twice or 3 times the price of SC. Yep.. it's all about the money. | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
On February 06 2012 14:54 hmunkey wrote: BW and WC3 did not have good interfaces despite what you keep saying. Sorry. And why do so many people seem to think the esports aspect of SC2 is something Activision-Blizzard actually cares about? You realize it's not very profitable for them, right? Esports is great and it's awesome that people enjoy watching SC2, but the fact is they don't make very much money off it and SC2 is still magnitudes less popular than many (most?) of their other major titles. It sucks, but it's true. What do you think the sales are? 3 million? What were the latest Call of Duty's sales? And the one before that? And keep in mind that CoD games take far less time to develop, don't require constant attention (re-balancing and the likes), and can be put on the market relatively back-to-back. And then there's WoW, where they get a monthly subscription fee on top of original sales. TL;DR: SC2 isn't that profitable nor is it a big deal to Acti-Blizz. I'm sure they think the whole esports thing is cool, but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter than much. Stop pretending they don't know what they're doing and they're stupid for not focusing on the game. I don't think a single claim you did in this post actually is true... how did you even achieve to do that. | ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
On February 06 2012 15:12 Integra wrote: I don't think a single claim you did in this post actually is true... how did you even achieve to do that. Hmm, what's not true? Other than the first part of course, because that's simply my opinion. Afaik everything else was pretty accurate unless you can show me otherwise. What are SC2's sales figures/active players? What about the same for CoD or WoW? How much does CoD cost compared to SC2 and how long does it take for a new one to come out? And does SC2 have a subscription fee to offset long-term costs? Pretty sure I'm right buddy... | ||
|
SoniC_eu
Denmark1008 Posts
On February 06 2012 15:16 hmunkey wrote: Hmm, what's not true? Other than the first part of course, because that's simply my opinion. Afaik everything else was pretty accurate unless you can show me otherwise. What are SC2's sales figures/active players? What about the same for CoD or WoW? How much does CoD cost compared to SC2 and how long does it take for a new one to come out? And does SC2 have a subscription fee to offset long-term costs? Pretty sure I'm right buddy... Well if you are sooo right, why do u even wanna discuss with us mere mortals? lol | ||
| ||
