EPTSC2 is a semi-F2P - good or bad? - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
MiQ
Canada312 Posts
| ||
|
CycoDude
United States326 Posts
| ||
|
rd
United States2586 Posts
On November 10 2013 21:32 Creager wrote: I fear for the modest and polite chatting going on in most games... Occasional BM is okay, but with f2p trolls and assholes soon joining in on team games I don't feel this is going to a very pleasant thing to play anymore. Gotta resume my 1v1 career, then. EU must be vastly different from NA, because the majority of chatting that goes on, most especially in public channels and team games are cesspools of BM and trolling. Even if it weren't the case, people have no current disincentive not to BM/troll, and to be honest, the last thing SC2 needs is behavior enforcement aka summoner tribunal... On November 11 2013 02:06 eScaper-tsunami wrote: I think this is a smart move from Blizzard. Promoting the game without hurting existing players is always good. Going to full f2p will most likely piss off people who paid for account(s). Remember globalization of the servers and how many people ranted how their accounts were disappearing etc.? Ya, it's probably wise to avoid that. Fuck them, let them quit if it makes them so mad (they won't quit btw, they'll be over it in a week). The net result of a larger player base would still be more beneficial than leaving the game as it currently stands. | ||
|
Existor
Russian Federation4295 Posts
Want to remind that Starbow will also be free, same as entire game except 1v1 ladder. Team ladder yoou still can play in free version when Spawned (aka in group with player with full SC2) | ||
|
EJK
United States1302 Posts
On January 20 2014 06:04 Existor wrote: Bumping thread because of incoming patch. Want to remind that Starbow will also be free, same as entire game except 1v1 ladder. Team ladder yoou still can play in free version when Spawned (aka in group with player with full SC2) seems a bit much that I paid 40$ just to play a broken mmr decay ladder system now | ||
|
Existor
Russian Federation4295 Posts
On January 20 2014 11:24 Smurfett3 wrote: seems a bit much that I paid 40$ just to play a broken mmr decay ladder system now You also pay for campaign with professinally done CGI and sometimes fun missions, not only for multiplayer. | ||
|
exKid
United Kingdom118 Posts
| ||
|
Nerevar
547 Posts
On January 21 2014 05:01 exKid wrote: Just a note on the hacking/cheating, considering some previous comments. While locking out 1v1 by charging keeps hackers/smurfs at bay, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 are now fair game. I know not a lot of people take teams seriously like 1v1, but a lot of people still play team games and this could be bad news. All it takes is one legit person to spawn someone up and the spawned player, who is on a free account, is free to hack all day long... Maybe they could update their Terms of Service to give the possibility of banning anyone who colludes with hackers by spawning them up. | ||
|
Existor
Russian Federation4295 Posts
On January 21 2014 05:09 Nerevar wrote: Maybe they could update their Terms of Service to give the possibility of banning anyone who colludes with hackers by spawning them up. The most sad thing is that they don't actively ban and react to all the current maphackers, that exist now | ||
|
Ctone23
United States1839 Posts
| ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On January 21 2014 05:16 Ctone23 wrote: I'm really disappointed that free-users can't join chat channels. Doesn't make any sense to me at all. How are they suppose to learn and get better if they can't chat in the game client? It's akin to a youngster refusing to shake hands after a hard fought little league game. It's childish and whoever made that decision at Blizzard should really get over the fact the higher-brass chose to make part of the game free to play. I've just seen that, WTF? Are they afraid of spam or something? | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On January 21 2014 05:16 Ctone23 wrote: I'm really disappointed that free-users can't join chat channels. Doesn't make any sense to me at all. How are they suppose to learn and get better if they can't chat in the game client? It's akin to a youngster refusing to shake hands after a hard fought little league game. It's childish and whoever made that decision at Blizzard should really get over the fact the higher-brass chose to make part of the game free to play. It was probably to prevent a surge of flaming and trolling and flooding in the chat channels. At least now you can report the account, but Blizzard just wouldn't be able to defend themselves from unlimited free trolling accounts. | ||
|
HeavenResign
United States702 Posts
On January 21 2014 05:23 Sapphire.lux wrote: I've just seen that, WTF? Are they afraid of spam or something? Yeah I think it's actually because there's not much of a chat interface to ban individuals (aside from group creators/officers, right?) they want to avoid people abusing the fact that getting banned from bnet isn't a big deal (since blizz hasn't monetized sc2 online so there's no rank or money at stake). I agree it's silly because it's a side effect of other things (having a poor chat channel system, having no way to monetize sc2 multiplayer) but I don't think it has anything to do with the little league analogy. | ||
|
Liman
Serbia681 Posts
and it popularize sc2 | ||
|
Ctone23
United States1839 Posts
On January 21 2014 05:25 ZenithM wrote: It was probably to prevent a surge of flaming and trolling and flooding in the chat channels. At least now you can report the account, but Blizzard just wouldn't be able to defend themselves from unlimited free trolling accounts. I see your point, but I would argue that the volume of chat in the channels at the present time is non-existent. A lot of the arcade games are difficult and not something you can click play and have a great time. I guess I just see a lot of random people joining games, not being able to chat in a game channel, who don't have the slightest clue how to play. On January 21 2014 05:27 HeavenResign wrote: but I don't think it has anything to do with the little league analogy. It's a reference to someone refusing to give up a battle that is already lost. Just seems silly to hold back communication of all things. "You can play my game but you can't chat in game channels because I SAID SO bew hew" Give me a break. | ||
|
Existor
Russian Federation4295 Posts
not being able to chat in a game channel, who don't have the slightest clue how to play. Do you see the difference between Chat channels and ingame/lobby chat? | ||
|
Ctone23
United States1839 Posts
On January 21 2014 05:52 Existor wrote: Do you see the difference between Chat channels and ingame/lobby chat? Of course. The ingame lobby isn't exactly a place to relax and converse, though. I just think it's silly, but hey, I bought the game when it came out so I guess it isn't worth getting worked up over. | ||
|
HeavenResign
United States702 Posts
On January 21 2014 05:44 Ctone23 wrote: I see your point, but I would argue that the volume of chat in the channels at the present time is non-existent. A lot of the arcade games are difficult and not something you can click play and have a great time. I guess I just see a lot of random people joining games, not being able to chat in a game channel, who don't have the slightest clue how to play. It's a reference to someone refusing to give up a battle that is already lost. Just seems silly to hold back communication of all things. "You can play my game but you can't chat in game channels because I SAID SO bew hew" Give me a break. I was pretty polite about it, and I understand the point you were making, I just fundamentally disagree with analyzing this change based on the individual temperaments of programmers/developers when there are clear practical reasons this was done (whether they are the right reasons or not), and it makes psycho-analytic assumptions such as programmers don't want people playing their game to be happy, or they "gave up", or they did it as some pot shot against "the brass?". It just seems very far-reaching. Sorry if you thought I was/am giving you a hard time. | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19202 Posts
| ||
|
Ctone23
United States1839 Posts
On January 21 2014 06:06 HeavenResign wrote: I was pretty polite about it, and I understand the point you were making, I just fundamentally disagree with analyzing this change based on the individual temperaments of programmers/developers when there are clear practical reasons this was done (whether they are the right reasons or not), and it makes psycho-analytic assumptions such as programmers don't want people playing their game to be happy, or they "gave up", or they did it as some pot shot against "the brass?". It just seems very far-reaching. Sorry if you thought I was/am giving you a hard time. Not at all. I didn't mean to come off as rude. I think in a perfect world, your analysis would be spot on. I don't really think that malicious intent was involved, but I couldn't help but poke a jab or two at them. It seems discriminatory but they obviously don't want the entire game to be free. I give them a lot of credit for making the arcade free, but yea, no offense meant towards you. | ||
| ||
