EPTthread about the same thing with suggestions, pictures etc. added to the OP
SC2 and the ghost-town effect - Page 15
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Gjorg
22 Posts
thread about the same thing with suggestions, pictures etc. added to the OP | ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On March 06 2012 19:56 Coeus1 wrote: This is what I hate about all gaming communities. Full of ungrateful pricks who think even their mom would design better games. Blizz games are amazing! Of course you teenagers who have never designed or produced real games can not appreciate anything, you are just simple consumers who whine about everything. Blizz did create a good bnet - TWICE. Both the bnet of broodwar and the bnet of warcraft 3 were way superior to bnet 0.2 of starcraft 2. | ||
|
SCVonSteroids
Canada11 Posts
I started thinking about this when they started implementing "Paid" services in WoW. Like paid character name changes, or server transfers. My first thoughts about this was "Doesn't Blizzard already make enough money to NOT have to resort to these things?" Not to mention this inadvertantly brought the end of WoW since those who had the extra funds just transfered to the more populated servers while everyone else was left with dead servers and nobody to interact with. I mean your already paying 20- or so odd dollars a MONTH just to be allowed to play their games; that you've already paid for, as well as another 60$ every 6 months for a new expansion. I understand server maintenance and such so I suppose a monthly fee CAN be argued. Then I picked up SC2. Obvioulsy after only having played for two months, my only exposure to how Blizzard dealt with balance was with the Ghost nerf. From what I read on the subject there seemed to be so many better ways to go about nerfing said unit, but did Blizzard actually listen? No. I also have to agree with everyone who says that 2.0 was really ruined in a way that it doesn't even come close to the caliber of its predecessor. There's no clans, no group replays, barely any chat functions. It's safe to say SC2, aside from it's exterior community, is practically an anti-social platform. I mean what's more fun than to have a couple of your friends analyze a replay of a game you just lost on ladder? Or in a custom game? Sure we have streams now-a-days but not all of us have the luxury of being able to do so. This isn't a complaint, this is fact. This leads me to my final thought on the subject, which sort of compliments my first statement. Does Blizzard actually listen to what we have to say? Do they just pretend; or respond ever so slightly just to apease the masses so they keep playing their games? I feel as though a company I've grown to love as a kid, has crumbled under what has brought so many other corporations down, Greed. And TWO expansions for SC2?? REALLY? :\ Have fun balancing this one Blizzard. | ||
|
zuperketla
Norway212 Posts
| ||
|
IronMan3
31 Posts
I just haven't seen anything from Blizzard that will reassure me they will improve it. | ||
|
DMKraft
476 Posts
| ||
|
Tonttu
Finland606 Posts
On March 06 2012 21:21 Lizarb wrote: Clans (including clan tags AND a clan chat channel), group replay viewing. Some basic starter channels like general looking for group / looking for team (or clan) could also help people show that there are other people online. I agree with everything and chat moderation to clan channels at least. And proper chat so you can actually read older messages in active chat channel (as it goes to bottom when new message is posted) Bnet is now hurting casual players so much that it really needs to be fixed.. There is like near to zero interaction with other players in Bnet 2.0 (other than clans and teams that are made before sc2.. yet it is still sometimes a pain in the ass without proper tools). I just want a reply from Blizzard about this situation. Blizzard is going to fail big time if they don't fix bnet in HotS or earlier. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
| ||
|
shinyA
United States473 Posts
In SC2, I sign on and am greeted by emptiness. I immediately see some pointless and out of date news article by Blizzard. I then have to click open my friends list and am given no real information about what their doing. I can't just say hi to everyone, I could use the broadcast thing but no one uses that and it's no where near the same as /f m since for someone to respond to me they have to open up their friends list, scroll to find me, then right click my name and click chat which opens a new window and then they can talk to me. Any social aspect of SC2 is so much harder to use and it's just not there. In BW I was immediately engaged and promoted to talk to people and have fun. Most of the people i know in BW would literally have their comp on 24/7 running BW, or if not that they would have stealthbot on ( a program that would log you onto bnet to be able to chat ). Like, you guys don't understand how big a part of just idling and talking in chat channels was of BW. That's how you got games 90% of the time. Everything promoted social activity which resulted in people wanting to just stay on b.net all the time. Just thinking of certain channels brings back memories. When I think of op hyo- I remember when I just started getting into competiive bw and it was big step for me going into there and playing games non stop with koreans. Then there were channels to chat like tl-west, x17, and tot) where there were literally always people just hanging out and talking, and most of the time you could find people looking for 1v1's or doing UMS's. And that's not mentioning the multiple different teams that I was in over the years, each with a channel that brings up different memories of different people. There's so much more I could talk about lol, for those of you who don't understand why bnet1 was so much better than bnet2 ... I feel sorry for you  | ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
On March 06 2012 21:50 SCVonSteroids wrote:I hate to say this, and obviously it's just my opinion, but I think Blizzard just doesn't care about its games anymore. I started thinking about this when they started implementing "Paid" services in WoW. Like paid character name changes, or server transfers. My first thoughts about this was "Doesn't Blizzard already make enough money to NOT have to resort to these things?" Not to mention this inadvertantly brought the end of WoW since those who had the extra funds just transfered to the more populated servers while everyone else was left with dead servers and nobody to interact with. I mean your already paying 20- or so odd dollars a MONTH just to be allowed to play their games; that you've already paid for, as well as another 60$ every 6 months for a new expansion. I understand server maintenance and such so I suppose a monthly fee CAN be argued. Bobby Kotick is hardly the kind of guy who goes "no its ok, we won't monetise this". Considering he's on record stating that he's only really interested in making franchises which can be exploited year after year and make them hundreds of millions in revenue, ideally on every platform at once, I'm not entirely sure why you're surprised with stuff like that. That said I doubt that mindset is the same in the balance team working on SC2. I mean...they get paid for the continuing development of SC2. Regardless of company policy regarding game franchises its not like they want to set out and deliberately sabotage their own work. They want everyone to come back for the two sequels after all. Why drive away the same people who are going to help hype your next release? Then I picked up SC2. Obvioulsy after only having played for two months, my only exposure to how Blizzard dealt with balance was with the Ghost nerf. From what I read on the subject there seemed to be so many better ways to go about nerfing said unit, but did Blizzard actually listen? No. "What needs balancing" tends to be based on tournament performances and statistics among the pro players; not on people complaining. No idea how they decide HOW to balance it though. I don't think its fair to compare balance to these kind of things though. These are feature requests, things people want added that won't actually effect the game itself but will make the process of playing more enjoyable. Balance changes are much more difficult to assess and crowdsourcing for ideas isn't always the best idea. Case in point: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/3424794806?page=1 Guy complaining about cannon rushing in team games being "too common" and asking Blizzard to fix it. His OP has been edited now but you can see from the early replies and discussion that his first idea was to make a forge require a gateway. I'm fairly certain that anyone who posted a thread like that on HERE would be laughed off the forums. Even over there the vast majority of replies are along the lines of "stop being such a bad player then". So listening to those kind of "balance" suggestions probably isn't the best way to go forward. I'm not saying whether the Ghost change was the best way to do it or not (personally I'd have been inclined towards...35+15 or something); but just assuming things would be good if the balance team listened to "the community" isn't necessarily true. | ||
|
SCVonSteroids
Canada11 Posts
If you just look at how long Blizzard hypes games before their actual release would explain probably half of the sales they get. Also take into account ALL the Blizzard fanboys who will try ANYTHING this company comes out with, even if it looks bad. Hell, they could start hyping an MMO game about ponys and people would probably buy it upon release. (I think you understand my point here.) Blizzard seems to only be good at hyping stuff nowadays. I don't really know who Bobby Kotick is, but from your explanation of the guy, he's a, excuse the language, fucking douchebag. When your aim is only to make money, you'll eventually fall flat on your face, or at the least be hated by a large amount of people. Greed is good? Please... The balance issue wasn't brought up in an attempt to cry about the Ghost nerf. It was brought up to show how Blizzard really cares about its games and how they disregard public opinion. Top level players clearly gave their opinions on this nerf, so you can't tell me that they base their decisions off what pros think. Though I wholeheartedly believe that listening so some "noob" about something they find hard to play against, isn't a good reason to nerf something, but ignoring a player who's put a lot of time and effort into perfecting the game isn't very much of a good thing either. From the looks of it they just said "Ok here's what we plan to do, and there's nothing you can do about it." Why have all the games they released before gone with only a single price-tag, yet now they feel they must continuously make their consumers waste, and waste, and waste...? It's almost as bad as that joke of a game CoD. Sure it's a good FPS, but do they really need a new one twice a year? Call me ignorant for not knowing all the facts behind the company we all used to love, but the way they're going, there won't be much of a company left to love when people get tired of wasting their money every few months just to stay up to date with everyone else. This was my main concern on my first post, and will remain so until Blizzard starts taking care of its games like they used to, instead of using them as cash cows like they did with WoW. Sorry but flashy graphics and months of hypeing doesn't cut it for me. And rest assured, I'm not the only one with this point of view. | ||
|
Sphen5117
United States413 Posts
On March 06 2012 01:57 liberal wrote: I don't quite understand what you think blizzard has done wrong. There are team games, there are chat channels, both staple and self-created, you can set up custom obs matches, custom ums games... What exactly is missing that is needed? You can't compare the gameplay, because an MMO and an RTS aren't even in the same category. You should install WC3 for a day. Then spend the next week pondering why Blizzard downgraded their UI for SC2. | ||
|
R3DT1D3
285 Posts
On March 06 2012 04:52 Charger wrote: I'm not sure what point you were trying to make about golf not requiring 2 people to play so I'll let you clarify before I respond. But saying amateur golfers don't play to get better is your own personal opinion and probably very wrong - there are likely MANY amateur players who play to get better (and have fun). Which is the same as starcraft, you play to get better (and have fun). If it wasn't fun at all you wouldn't bother to get any better at it. My point is that getting you're blurring the skill aspect of playing SC2/Golf when they imply entirely different experiences. The most common form of playing SC2 is to get better and improve in skill at some basic level. The most common form of Golf is an excuse to be outside and drink with your buddies. Most people don't go to a golf course to play alone and improve their ability while most SC2 players do exactly that on ladder. If I wanted to enjoy a "golf" experience, I either use tools I already have on my computer or I play a more inherently social game. People want to turn SC2 into a social game and I don't see it being that beneficial given the level of maturity in a large audience (stream chat for example). I guess I see SC2 more like Chess where the focus is competition and to socialize would not be taking the game seriously in which case I'd rather go play the game version of "golf." | ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
On March 07 2012 00:38 SCVonSteroids wrote: I don't really know who Bobby Kotick is, but from your explanation of the guy, he's a, excuse the language, fucking douchebag. When your aim is only to make money, you'll eventually fall flat on your face, or at the least be hated by a large amount of people. Greed is good? Please... ... Why have all the games they released before gone with only a single price-tag, yet now they feel they must continuously make their consumers waste, and waste, and waste...? It's almost as bad as that joke of a game CoD. Sure it's a good FPS, but do they really need a new one twice a year? Call me ignorant for not knowing all the facts behind the company we all used to love, but the way they're going, there won't be much of a company left to love when people get tired of wasting their money every few months just to stay up to date with everyone else. This was my main concern on my first post, and will remain so until Blizzard starts taking care of its games like they used to, instead of using them as cash cows like they did with WoW. Sorry but flashy graphics and months of hypeing doesn't cut it for me. And rest assured, I'm not the only one with this point of view. He's kinda important to the whole "money grabbing" idea about Blizzard because he's CEO of Activision-Blizzard. Blizzard isn't just Blizzard anymore, its a subsidiary of Activision-Blizzard. Your comment about Call of Duty was actually kinda funny because its the same guy in charge, Bobby Kotick. He's ultimately the one responsible for the CoD sequels ad infinitum as well as the milking of World of Warcraft. Effectively its all the same company. Technically they're separate entities with separate management but they're both subsidiaries of the holding company Activision-Blizzard, run by Mr. Kotick. Useful links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kotick http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008/11/activision-if-we-cant-run-a-game-into-the-ground-we-dont-want-it.ars http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008/11/activision-financials-show-reliance-on-wow-gh-cash-cows.ars Top level players clearly gave their opinions on this nerf, so you can't tell me that they base their decisions off what pros think. You misunderstand me, they base what to change on tournament results and showings. So if GSL Code S is just all Terran they look to see why that is and see if its due to something being too strong. However they don't base how they change it on any "outsider's" opinion. | ||
|
SCVonSteroids
Canada11 Posts
Much thanks to you for clarifying who Mr. Kotick is and what he does. All the more reason for me to hate the bastard for what he's doing to our favorite games then. Excuse me if I didn't understand you correctly. I'm just stating my opinion and that of many others on how Blizzard just doesn't seem to give a damn anymore. To blindly look at tournament results and say "Oh this race is OP" has to be the dumbest thing this company could do. Maybe these players (who just happened to be Terrans let's say) worked very hard to get those tournament spots. Getting in Code S is, most certainly, not an easy feat, no matter WHAT race you play. I feel this conversation can't go any further unfortunately, thanks for your input man, I always love criticism on my ideas and opinions. You taught me today that Blizzard actually IS a sellout company, as sad as that makes me feel. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On March 06 2012 01:57 liberal wrote: I don't quite understand what you think blizzard has done wrong. There are team games, there are chat channels, both staple and self-created, you can set up custom obs matches, custom ums games... What exactly is missing that is needed? You can't compare the gameplay, because an MMO and an RTS aren't even in the same category. The original battle.net threw you into chat conversations by default. Lots of friendships were created by chance. Also, they don't allow group replay watching, or group creation/management. | ||
|
TheV
Brazil107 Posts
On March 06 2012 04:58 Charger wrote: I'm not worried about you and me, we've already found the holy grail of communities and information. I'm worried about the new people to Starcraft who have no idea how big it is and where all this great stuff can be found. There is little to no interaction on bnet 2.0 so it's highly unlikely that the new people take the step we eventually took and find TL, reddit, etc. Without my friend telling me about TL I still wouldn't know it exists. This does make sense. | ||
|
Mirosuu
England283 Posts
I mean, the only gripe I have is being blocked from typing more than 2 messages in quick succession (kind of a sucky thing when you type messages numerously and quickly from all those years in IM clients). Other than that, it's perfectly fine. The chat channels issue isn't as big as people make it out to be, I don't think, because the chat channels I am a part of, open immediately as I log in. This is no different to brood war. You can have conversations, you can find new channels and you can have conversation. I prefer this system over BW, mainly because it removes a lot of the menial tasks of having to find a player to play on iCCup ladder and you can worry more about just playing the game you bought. I think theres just a fine line between automating certain tasks in games and allowing the user to do those tasks themselves. My reason for this is that most people just want to play, not be bogged down by lots of silly little tasks in order to just play a game. With BW, you have to log in, then spam whisper a bunch of people from the chat channel in hope that you get someone who wants to play against you, and then you have to go through creating the games and setting it up yourself. SC2 and B.net 2.0 does all of this for you, by way of matchmaking (which, for the 98% of people is perfectly fine). SC2 does a nice job of automation of things in the UI that you don't have to repeatedly do all the time. The custom games stuff does need improvements, but that is one of my only gripes with the platform at the moment. | ||
|
Dalavita
Sweden1113 Posts
On March 06 2012 22:12 shinyA wrote: I remember in BW, I'd sign on and immediately I'd join a channel where I'd normally hang out and see a bunch of people I know. I would see people talking over my friends list to eachother which would make me want to talk to them / join the conversation. I could easily just do /f l to see a simple and easy+fast to read list of exactly whcih of my friends were online, what games they were in, and what channels they were in. I could /f m to talk across my entire friends list and say hi to everyone and immediately be in a conversation. In SC2, I sign on and am greeted by emptiness. I immediately see some pointless and out of date news article by Blizzard. I then have to click open my friends list and am given no real information about what their doing. I can't just say hi to everyone, I could use the broadcast thing but no one uses that and it's no where near the same as /f m since for someone to respond to me they have to open up their friends list, scroll to find me, then right click my name and click chat which opens a new window and then they can talk to me. Any social aspect of SC2 is so much harder to use and it's just not there. In BW I was immediately engaged and promoted to talk to people and have fun. Most of the people i know in BW would literally have their comp on 24/7 running BW, or if not that they would have stealthbot on ( a program that would log you onto bnet to be able to chat ). Like, you guys don't understand how big a part of just idling and talking in chat channels was of BW. That's how you got games 90% of the time. Everything promoted social activity which resulted in people wanting to just stay on b.net all the time. Just thinking of certain channels brings back memories. When I think of op hyo- I remember when I just started getting into competiive bw and it was big step for me going into there and playing games non stop with koreans. Then there were channels to chat like tl-west, x17, and tot) where there were literally always people just hanging out and talking, and most of the time you could find people looking for 1v1's or doing UMS's. And that's not mentioning the multiple different teams that I was in over the years, each with a channel that brings up different memories of different people. There's so much more I could talk about lol, for those of you who don't understand why bnet1 was so much better than bnet2 ... I feel sorry for you Holy shit. Reading this I just realized that Blizzard is painting an accurate picture of the future dystopian society we're all going to live in. | ||
|
RTSDealer
286 Posts
WC3 BattleNet was something - loved it's custom games system (paired with Garena). Blizzard should start emulating Valve with what they are doing with Dota 2's features. Dota 2's system blows BattleNet 2.0 out of the water. | ||
| ||
