EPTBattle.net 2.0 rumours - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
GearitUP
United States337 Posts
| ||
|
Spartan
United States2030 Posts
| ||
|
AdunToridas
Germany380 Posts
Actually, I don't know how they think they could manage that. If there's a possibility to play in the network, you can play over Hamachi or VPN. I'm somehow a little bit confused  | ||
|
Eatme
Switzerland3919 Posts
| ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
On December 17 2008 04:03 AdunToridas wrote: How are the things at the moment? I thought releasing SC2 as a trilogy would eliminate monthly costs for Battle.Net..... Actually, I don't know how they think they could manage that. If there's a possibility to play in the network, you can play over Hamachi or VPN. I'm somehow a little bit confused Blizzard has said that the plan for BattleNet is still being finalized, They have never claimed that it would have a monthly fee OR that they would have ads in the game. This is speculation and rumours from various players and websites. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On December 17 2008 05:42 Eatme wrote: I soo want separeted game counts for ladder and melee games as in SC/BW. Feels so do or die to be forced to play ladder and if you dont you cant keep track of your games at all. Also might get some newbies to stay and not get scared away by ladder play. I assume there is a reason why most of us play melee and tvb on bnet and not ums when playing pubbies. This is true, however what is even more true is that here is where all of the moneymappers belong. Also having an automatcher makes ladder games a lot less personal and random team ladders make it even easier to just join a game and play without being serious about it. The old moneymappers will now play mostly in the 4v4/3v3 RT ladders and if you care about stats and want to relax just smurf. This is a good thing since it will extinguish the moneymapping ideal currently running in a lot of people. | ||
|
Lefnui
United States753 Posts
This is a stupid idea entirely. There's nothing wrong with a player wishing to make a new account. In Warcraft III where this matching system already exists players constantly create them. The only people that complain are the absolutely pathetic players. | ||
|
garmule2
United States376 Posts
- that 'newbies' should somehow be protected from 'vets' who are 'smurfing'. Who cares? Jesus? Like vets really want to spend their time doing this, or there's so many smurfs stomping newbies that nobody can play. So ridiculous! - that newbies 'getting stomped' makes them not want to play RTS multiplayer. Newbies never had a problem getting into RTS multiplayer before, and, if they did, then they probably aren't in the RTS multiplayer demographic. Think about it. If 'getting stomped' a few times makes someone cry and quit, wouldn't they be happier playing the Sims? - that AMM for anything other than melee/ladder is a good thing. It's not. Half the fun of Bnet is the ability to find the perfect kind of game you want to play from the list of games, being able to chat before the game starts, and being able to QUIT before a game starts if I don't like it. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On December 17 2008 06:02 garmule2 wrote: - that newbies 'getting stomped' makes them not want to play RTS multiplayer. Newbies never had a problem getting into RTS multiplayer before, and, if they did, then they probably aren't in the RTS multiplayer demographic. Think about it. If 'getting stomped' a few times makes someone cry and quit, wouldn't they be happier playing the Sims? You know the best solution to this? Let them play 3v3 and 4v4 random team ladder!!!! All smurfing problems gone since they will still have 3/4 retards! No, really, that is true, RT is a huge noobmagnet, in wc3 there are more 2v2 games played than 1v1 games in total, and then you can add the 3v3 and 4v4 on top of that. | ||
|
SlickR12345
Macedonia408 Posts
Hope the editor can support up to 16 players though, so I/map makers can make some cool interesting maps. | ||
|
BlasiuS
United States2405 Posts
Having a random anonymous nobody on your team gives you someone to yell/swear/make obscenities at when things go wrong, and soothes the wounded pride of the collective RTS masses. Klockan3 is right, kids play 1v1, get stomped, and find it easier to play on 2v2/3v3/4v4 random team ladder. Just look at the ladder games: http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/reports/last-week/Azeroth/w3xp-reports-game-type-usage.shtml Only 21.42% of games are 1v1 games. Random Team ladder games combine for a total of (24.38 % + 17.69 % + 12.14 %) = 54.21%, over half of all ladder games. | ||
|
Proposal
United States1310 Posts
| ||
|
siggy
United States39 Posts
| ||
|
shavingcream66
United States1219 Posts
On July 24 2008 11:36 riotjune wrote: They better do something about the empty gamelist screen lag. yes please | ||
|
shavingcream66
United States1219 Posts
| ||
|
the.dude
United States16 Posts
On December 17 2008 08:11 BlasiuS wrote: wrong, people flock to 2v2/3v3/4v4/etc. because angst-ridden prepubescent kids can't take the pressure of having the entire success of the game depend on themselves alone. Having a random anonymous nobody on your team gives you someone to yell/swear/make obscenities at when things go wrong, and soothes the wounded pride of the collective RTS masses. Klockan3 is right, kids play 1v1, get stomped, and find it easier to play on 2v2/3v3/4v4 random team ladder. Just look at the ladder games: http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/reports/last-week/Azeroth/w3xp-reports-game-type-usage.shtml Only 21.42% of games are 1v1 games. Random Team ladder games combine for a total of (24.38 % + 17.69 % + 12.14 %) = 54.21%, over half of all ladder games. using stats that haven't been updated in 3 years makes this pertinent. | ||
|
AdunToridas
Germany380 Posts
On December 17 2008 16:56 shavingcream66 wrote: also, fastest map possible should be the only ladder map allowed. Oh, and an inscreen chat window like the one found in Steam would be nice so I don't have to /f m anymore I think Steam has several Multiplayer applications which are amazing, nice user profiles, an ingame instant messaging window with contact list, joining your friends game by clicking a button near his name, that sort of stuff would be really nice. | ||
|
kerr0r
Norway319 Posts
On December 17 2008 13:22 siggy wrote: why does blizzard need us to pay for b.net? Who says they do? Didn't you notice the post saying: They have never claimed that it would have a monthly fee OR that they would have ads in the game. This is speculation and rumours from various players and websites | ||
|
Lefnui
United States753 Posts
On December 17 2008 17:26 the.dude wrote: using stats that haven't been updated in 3 years makes this pertinent. Those statistics would probably be the same today, at least for US East and US West. He's right, there are far more Random Team and DotA games than solo and that is because of the low difficulty. Solo is far more difficult and so most newbs would rather avoid it. | ||
|
Eatme
Switzerland3919 Posts
On December 17 2008 13:22 siggy wrote: why does blizzard need us to pay for b.net? they got 10$/mo coming at them from the 10 million WoW players in the world. i dont know about a matchmaking system like halo3, part of the fun in gaming is stomping noobs and being able to show off the skill you worked so hard to obtain. The reason i quit halo3 is because whenever i wanted to play i would have to play against people at or above my skill lvl, and i didnt always feel like trying that hard. sometimes i just felt like chilling out and racking up some kills. Thats is another reason why I want win/loss stats for non laddergames. So you get something back for just fooling around and you can bash (or get bashed) random people. Otherwise you'll have to make a smurf that will face good players in just 3-5games or so and you prettymuch have to find games from friends or in channels since not many people play random pubbie 1:1 games. Atleast that was the feeling I got when I played WC3 but maybe that has changed. Really hard to just play for fun and not caring about ladderrating ect when there are no real options but ladder play. | ||
| ||
