EPTWhy would Blizzard care about a very large percentage of its customer base?
when has blizzard ever let a decision be left up to majority vote?
Blzizard does waht it wants done if people like it good if they dont too bad
MPQ Modding Shutdown Petition - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Forikorder
Canada8840 Posts
when has blizzard ever let a decision be left up to majority vote? Blzizard does waht it wants done if people like it good if they dont too bad | ||
|
trbot
Canada142 Posts
On July 27 2012 11:29 Forikorder wrote: when has blizzard ever let a decision be left up to majority vote? Blzizard does waht it wants done if people like it good if they dont too bad A defeatist attitude doesn't do much to help here. | ||
|
Forikorder
Canada8840 Posts
On July 27 2012 11:30 trbot wrote: A defeatist attitude doesn't do much to help here. you can only suffer defeat if you were in a battle since theres no way to actually influence Blizzards opinion at all we can neither win nor lose we can only accept what blizzard plans to do and get on with our lives, not that our lives will be any different because of a minor change | ||
|
willoc
Canada1530 Posts
Sorry to say, but I am for them not allowing MPQ modding. | ||
|
trbot
Canada142 Posts
On July 27 2012 11:32 Forikorder wrote: you can only suffer defeat if you were in a battle since theres no way to actually influence Blizzards opinion at all we can neither win nor lose we can only accept what blizzard plans to do and get on with our lives, not that our lives will be any different because of a minor change In the last few patch notes released by Blizzard (and at every Blizzcon and interview), they've made a point of explicitly telling us that they are listening in the usual channels for player comments. It's fairly obvious that they are trying to maintain their image as a company that cares about its players. I don't see a solid reason for this cynicism. It's not like Blizzard will blindly give up and stop giving a hoot about their customer base. | ||
|
PacGamer
United States14 Posts
On July 27 2012 11:36 trbot wrote: In the last few patch notes released by Blizzard (and at every Blizzcon and interview), they've made a point of explicitly telling us that they are listening in the usual channels for player comments. It's fairly obvious that they are trying to maintain their image as a company that cares about its players. I don't see a solid reason for this cynicism. It's not like Blizzard will blindly give up and stop giving a hoot about their customer base. Diablo 3. | ||
|
Hoon
Brazil891 Posts
On July 27 2012 11:34 willoc wrote: These mods are not worth the security risks and integrity risks of SC2. Are there hacks out there that use them? Probably. Will it stop hacks? No. Will it make certain hacks more difficult to use/implement. Yes. Will it abolish the disadvantage that some mods give (like the stronger color mod) against people who don't use mods. Yes. (I know what you're saying, I should use a mod too. But that would force everyone to use the mod no?) Sorry to say, but I am for them not allowing MPQ modding. It's not much about hacks, it's about copyrights. Blizzard does not like when people mess with their files, which is stated in the ToS of every Blizzard game. That's why they released the map editor, API, WoW addons, etc., so players can "customize" their game without going into the game folder. If the whole community asked for lan and didn't get it, it will be impossible to get MPQ editing with peitions, which is prihibited in their official forums and hated by their CMs. I'm not for nor against MPQ editing, since I never used those customizations, but I have no problem with people doing so. But we have to embrace reality. Blizzard is stubborn and will never change their terms. | ||
|
Forikorder
Canada8840 Posts
On July 27 2012 11:36 trbot wrote: In the last few patch notes released by Blizzard (and at every Blizzcon and interview), they've made a point of explicitly telling us that they are listening in the usual channels for player comments. It's fairly obvious that they are trying to maintain their image as a company that cares about its players. I don't see a solid reason for this cynicism. It's not like Blizzard will blindly give up and stop giving a hoot about their customer base. while they do listen to the palyer base thats just so they know what problems people are having and get an idea on what to improve (like map pool) even if the entire community whines about something in a match up there not going to change it if they dont think its neccesary (like the 1/1/1 for instance, as far as i know they never nerfed it despite every toss on the planet whining it was unstoppable) wining gets people no where, pointing out facts using evidence does so if youd like to use facts and evidence to offer a very good reason why the mods are neccesary for SC2 to survive then you might get Blizz's attention | ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
 | ||
|
trbot
Canada142 Posts
On July 27 2012 11:42 Forikorder wrote: while they do listen to the palyer base thats just so they know what problems people are having and get an idea on what to improve (like map pool) even if the entire community whines about something in a match up there not going to change it if they dont think its neccesary (like the 1/1/1 for instance, as far as i know they never nerfed it despite every toss on the planet whining it was unstoppable) wining gets people no where, pointing out facts using evidence does so if youd like to use facts and evidence to offer a very good reason why the mods are neccesary for SC2 to survive then you might get Blizz's attention Protosses weren't all whining about 1/1/1 in any way that was unexpected. Blizzard is used to this happening after BW and SC2 beta. There is a necessary inertia to avoid overpatching, and they're always dancing on that line. To use a hesitance to act as an argument that Blizz. doesn't care seems a bit silly. | ||
|
Assirra
Belgium4169 Posts
People find a way to add cool stuff more and more stuff comes in place, some which is questionable (changing colors for units can have a serious advantage for making units stand out) Blizzard simply shuts it down completely People are angry. I don't want to rain on your parade but the best you can hope for if they implement stuff like stronger team color themselves. | ||
|
CaptainCharisma
New Zealand808 Posts
On July 27 2012 11:27 trbot wrote: It's not a sign of weakness, it's a sign of frustration. For lack of a kinder way to say this, it's hard arguing with someone who poses such weak and chaotic arguments. You lack focus. Among other things, this tells me that you're young. Why would Blizzard care about a large percentage of its customer base? Is that seriously your question? Even if you believe (for no reason whatsoever) that 90% of people don't mod, you can't even discount the 10% of colourblind players. Last time I checked, a 10% drop in a company's value can trigger a panic. I don't think you're seriously going to argue that Blizzard doesn't care about 10% of its revenue. The fact that you say "coding system" tells me that you know nothing about programming. I, however, am finishing a masters in theoretical computer science, already having bachelors' in computer science and pure mathematics. I can tell you with 100% certainty that the inability to make this change (i.e., were this petition to see success) will have 0% impact on their ability to make progress. I have problems with your analogies because they're irrelevant. Blizzard is bound by its shareholders and its bottom line. It doesn't need a moral compass or a constitutional obligation. If a large fraction of its user base is annoyed by its decisions, it will fail. Even if I accept your premise that you're in the majority, I've already argued that even 10% (already accounted for by my colourblind kin) is too much to discount. As for the issue of cost, I've already argued that progress will not be halted or even substantially stalled at the cost of fine-tuning the MPQ file check (e.g., to compute an MD5 signature on part of the file, rather than the whole file, or by computing it only during installation, as opposed to on every startup--a feat that would be prohibitively computationally expensive, by the way). I've also argued that the only touted benefit to this MPQ file validation is a hoax, since hackers will easily be able to continue with or without the ability to modify MPQ files. If you still disagree with these points, I find it hard to believe you're arguing from a position where you understand what you're saying. Same thing right back at you. You don't address the major points in my arguments with logic. Now that I know you are a comp sci guy, it now becomes clear why you have such a hard time with arguments about "fairness" and government responsibilities vs corporate. It is clearly not your area of expertise. Believe me, I find responding to your posts as frustrating as you do mine. You are right in that I have no idea about what these changes are doing at the programming level. It may be a complete waste of time for all I know. However, I am assuming Blizzard is making the change because it has at least some sort of benefit, whether or not people know what that is yet, or are wrong about it. I am assuming the people who work at Blizzard have qualifications similar if not better (most likely) than yours. I find it likely that Blizzard has some sort of rational basis for its decisions. My arguments draw on this logic. You said " It seems to me like a reasonable thing that most people will believe is fair (if you pysicially can't see the red one). It almost seems like the benefit is greater than the cost.." Now you say " Blizzard is bound by its shareholders and its bottom line. It doesn't need a moral compass or a constitutional obligation. If a large fraction of its user base is annoyed by its decisions, it will fail. Even if I accept your premise that you're in the majority, I've already argued that even 10% (already accounted for by my colourblind kin) is too much to discount." Why are you making arguments about fairness when you acknowledge that Blizzard is only bound by its shareholders and its bottom line. Recognizing you have failed on the fairness front (because as you said, Blizzard doesn't need a moral compass - I'm glad you agree with me on that), you seem to claim that the, let's say 10% of people who use mods (a very high estimate considering the amount of casual players who have probably never even heard of TL) being disgruntled is enough, from a profit perspective, for Blizzard to revert these changes. Well guess what, Blizzard wants to go ahead with the changes. They've probably crunched the numbers and disagree with you. So, which line do you want to take? The only avenue you seem to have left open is that these changes affect nothing other than stopping mods, which I could not verify. My question then is, why has Blizzard invested time money and effort into making them. | ||
|
Ralethon
United States141 Posts
1. Would it be possible to use these sorts of mod to enhance the shimmer of an invisible unit to make it more visible? Or to make the dust particles from a burrow moving unit luminous or otherwise more noticeble? 2. What is it about the patch that prevents these mods form being allowed/working and could there be an alternitve was to achieve the same mod results? Do the MPQ achives contain textures and meshes? 3. Has Blizzard stated that the changes are designed to target this type of modding? Im aware that hackers will always find a way to bypass security; what im curious about is the reasoning or technical reason for this change. I also understand that these mods provide enjoyment to a great many people. | ||
|
joeyhusky
United States13 Posts
| ||
|
ReaperX
Hong Kong1758 Posts
| ||
|
Teliko
Ireland1044 Posts
On July 27 2012 12:03 Ralethon wrote: I have a few questions before i decide where i stand on this issue. 1. Would it be possible to use these sorts of mod to enhance the shimmer of an invisible unit to make it more visible? Or to make the dust particles from a burrow moving unit luminous or otherwise more noticeble? 2. What is it about the patch that prevents these mods form being allowed/working and could there be an alternitve was to achieve the same mod results? Do the MPQ achives contain textures and meshes? 3. Has Blizzard stated that the changes are designed to target this type of modding? Im aware that hackers will always find a way to bypass security; what im curious about is the reasoning or technical reason for this change. I also understand that these mods provide enjoyment to a great many people. 1. Yes, but it's complicated. You can increase the size of the shimmering, but It's not the kind of thing you can just share, it would need a detailed tutorial, and even then, a lot of people would just end up breaking their games. I'm in no doubt that there's next to no one using such an exploit or even that many would know how to in the first place. The ratio of people using an exploit like that compared to people using maphacks is probably something like 1:10,000 2. All things that need to be modified are files within the MPQ archive. If the archive autorepairs itself at the first sign of alteration, this would become impossible. But of course nothing is definite until the patch is released, but as it currently stands, there is no alternative. 3. No. | ||
|
Blackhawk13
United States442 Posts
Edit: Also, to anyone who is hesitant to sign due to it including your address, city, etc., you can just put a " . " in these fields and it will still accept your sign. | ||
|
trbot
Canada142 Posts
On July 27 2012 11:56 CaptainCharisma wrote: Same thing right back at you. You don't address the major points in my arguments with logic. Now that I know you are a comp sci guy, it now becomes clear why you have such a hard time with arguments about "fairness" and government responsibilities vs corporate. It is clearly not your area of expertise. Believe me, I find responding to your posts as frustrating as you do mine. I've actually been careful to address every point you made, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about. No one has yet expressed a problem with my arguments. However, half a dozen people have expressed that you appear to have no idea what you're talking about, that you're making incoherent arguments, and so on. Arguing that I don't respond logically is just silly, since high level theory has drilled nothing into me more strongly than pure, unabated logic and reason. When was the last time you wrote a 50 page mathematical proof? I finished one last December, and I'm writing another right now. Something tells me that you're in the minority, having trouble grasping my points. On a side-note, I have a fairly good understanding of the corporate world and government (having worked at several fortune500 companies, and having studied economics, ethics in government and professional practice alongside CS at one of the world's top 10 schools for CS), so I wouldn't toss those claims around arbitrarily. There's a fundamental difference between my frustration and yours. I understand what I'm talking about, and you're waxing sophistic from ignorance, playing the devil's advocate in an e-penis measuring contest with no end. On July 27 2012 11:56 CaptainCharisma wrote: You are right in that I have no idea about what these changes are doing at the programming level. It may be a complete waste of time for all I know. However, I am assuming Blizzard is making the change because it has at least some sort of benefit, whether or not people know what that is yet, or are wrong about it. I am assuming the people who work at Blizzard have qualifications similar if not better (most likely) than yours. I find it likely that Blizzard has some sort of rational basis for its decisions. My arguments draw on this logic. You're making an appeal to authority, and it makes no sense. That's not logic. It's actually a classical logical fallacy. Google it. It presupposes that experience will lead Blizzard's programmers to make the right decision. However, ignoring the logical fallacy, the real issue is that you fail to understand how trivial a change this is, and it has turned your argument into mush. You're saying "this is an important change, and they would have thought through this carefully, and they're successful so they probably know what they are doing, so I trust them." In reality, some programmer was working on the installer after his boss said "we want to allow users to play SC2 faster while they're installing, just like we do for Diablo 3," and while figuring out how he could make it happen, he had to make a few dozen mundane decisions. That he would run some MD5 hash on each MPQ file to verify that it had downloaded properly before running the game was one of those mundane decisions. Implementing this hash checking took him 1 hour. Implementing it a different way that wouldn't prevent modding would take him a similar amount of time. (He's a smart guy.) I've already mentioned alternative methods of accomplishing this programmer's goal in a previous post. You're making a strategic mountain out of a trivial decision with simple alternatives. On July 27 2012 11:56 CaptainCharisma wrote: You said " It seems to me like a reasonable thing that most people will believe is fair (if you pysicially can't see the red one). It almost seems like the benefit is greater than the cost.." Now you say " Blizzard is bound by its shareholders and its bottom line. It doesn't need a moral compass or a constitutional obligation. If a large fraction of its user base is annoyed by its decisions, it will fail. Even if I accept your premise that you're in the majority, I've already argued that even 10% (already accounted for by my colourblind kin) is too much to discount." Why are you making arguments about fairness when you acknowledge that Blizzard is only bound by its shareholders and its bottom line. Recognizing you have failed on the fairness front (because as you said, Blizzard doesn't need a moral compass - I'm glad you agree with me on that), you seem to claim that the, let's say 10% of people who use mods (a very high estimate considering the amount of casual players who have probably never even heard of TL) being disgruntled is enough, from a profit perspective, for Blizzard to revert these changes. Well guess what, Blizzard wants to go ahead with the changes. They've probably crunched the numbers and disagree with you. So, which line do you want to take? The only avenue you seem to have left open is that these changes affect nothing other than stopping mods, which I could not verify. My question then is, why has Blizzard invested time money and effort into making them. I responded in terms of fairness because you invoked fairness. (I like to speak in terms people understand most easily. If you speak in terms of fairness, it seems a fair bet that you want a response that explains how some other alternative is equally fair.) There are valid arguments to be made in favour of accommodating red-green colourblindness whether you come at it from the perspective of morality and social obligation, or from a monetarily driven capitalism. If I were to choose my own path, it would be the latter. In the long run, if Blizzard fails to respond to the desires of its customer base, it will fail. You say 10% is a high estimate, but I feel like it's probably higher. Until someone makes an argument that is backed with statistics (unlikely), there's no point in arguing this. This thread in our argument leads to a dead end, since we differ in our opinions. I believe mods are common, and that more noise is to come from, e.g., colourblind folks, if Blizzard nixes mods and doesn't provide a legitimate alternative to STC. Yet again, you appeal to authority, and the argument is ridiculous. You're saying "Blizzard has probably thought of everything, and every decision their programmers and designers make is well thought out." It's frustrating to try to explain to a non computer scientist how these kinds of accidental consequences can, and do, occur every day when programmers work on a large project. Suffice it to say that it's much more likely that this is an unintended consequence of a new development in their installer which has several simple alternatives that do not have the effect of nullifying mods. | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1077 Posts
On July 27 2012 08:37 Tppz! wrote: I do not agree at all. Its ok to loose those things if it gives Blizzard a chance to hunt cheaters/hackers etc. Also mpq modding isnt allowed by Blizz ToS I think the reason the op posted the thread is that it won't stop cheaters/hackers - just the benign mods | ||
|
Caltu
60 Posts
Any form of moding that can have affect on your game in any sense is a bad road to leave open. My main example is World Of Warcraft WoW has had 3rd party content forever, and its affected the game in both development and playability. The developers have had to make content around the mods. "Deadly boss mods" alerts the player to incoming abilities and other effects that they need to respond to. Blizzard have had to make encounters exponentially more difficult over the years to counteract the modding. Any form of modding I think needs to be stopped. Where would it stop if all content producers knew of this? Warning lights for common timings of pushes ect? Personally I think this is a good road to go down for Blizzard [Even tho Dark Protoss Is bloody cool] | ||
| ||
