SC:L Article - Battle.net 2.0 Concerns

[Kimera757]

What? Why!?

How the HELL is a better tournament setup a higher priority than better overall communication between players across the board?

Different strokes...

[DemolitionSquid]

Different strokes...

I call shenanigans.

[Kimera757]

Well this isn't an unrealistic demand. But we also have a direct quote from a blue saying it should be a beta only thing to force people to use real-ID to test the system.

I know I've read that before, but could you post the link?

It doesn't say that in the forum post (in fact, there's no blue post at all) and doesn't say that in the Real ID FAQ, either.

I call shenanigans.

You know, I found being invited into 2v2 games by SCL members in the beta to be a little annoying, mainly due to not using the AMM. So you'd have some really good person on a team with a really lame person (eg myself), and that wasn't a whole lot of fun for me. Probably not much fun for the partner who had to keep rescuing me either.

Meanwhile I could happily play dozens of 1v1 quick matches per day (incidentally, something I would not do in StarCraft I). And if I rank well enough to get into a divisional tournament, great. I'd enjoy that.

I hardly ever used StarCraft I chat and the fuss is completely passing me by.

[TheRabidDeer]

Let's say you were given two specific options about chat rooms for example.

• The first option involves chat channels coming out exactly 2 months after the release of Starcraft II.
• The second option is to delay StarCraft II for exactly 2 months.

If these two lines are completely true, what would you rather do?

To be honest, if it is 2 months... I would say delay the game. I think that chat is important enough that not having it will actually hinder the game to a great extent. Two months of no chat after the release of the game is a LOT of time, especially since its the earliest live phase of the game. Usually chat is full of questions and ideas and people looking to play other people (to get used to the game or for other reasons) during the starting months. These starting months are a big building process that leads into the later stages of the games life.

[protoswarrior]

I was in the BETA for 2 months, and I agree with TRD that I'd rather have a delay of 2 months and have an important feature like group chat implemented than having to wait for that lengthy period of time for it to materialize. In 2 months I went from Silver (my actual skill) to top Gold (again, actual skill level). I worked hard and achieved that, but that's just an analogy to demonstrate how long the 2 months are in game time.

[TheRabidDeer]

Not only is it a long time, its a long time in the strong beginning phases of the game when a huge bulk of the people start playing. The most recent example I can think of that I personally experienced, is in WoW (not a perfect example as they are different types of games, but WoW is hugely reliant on chat). If you start playing a new character or class, you can walk into a city and ask hundreds of people a question about that class, asking for tips or other things. And most of the time, you will get a response full of helpful advice. Even aside from asking for help, the social aspect is a rather huge part of the game. Part of the reason that I personally kept playing it for so long is because of that odd social chat experience... arguing in trade chat or talking with friends that are in the guild or talking with friends that werent in the guild. There are even people that play WoW purely to chat.

Then enter SC2, where chat does not exist. It feels extremely lonely, and a lot of people just dont feel like logging in to play the game purely because they nearly have to segment themselves from their friends to play. These first couple months that it is out is where all those people that pre-ordered or believe in the games success based on past blizzard games or friends of people that are playing or people that just buy it for the hype... they wont have chat for X number of months? They cant ask for tips, argue balance, rant after a loss, gloat about a victory, or just talk to basically anybody but people they already know? And this is acceptable? I dont think it is.

I watched the video in this thread about a tour of Blizzard studios:
http://sclegacy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5028

I watched it to the end. Outside of Blizzard's HQ lies a statue of an orc riding his wolf with several plaques on the ground encircling it. They state, very clearly, what Blizzard has been doing since the beginning. They have been doing it exceedingly well, and Blizzard is hugely respected for what they have done. But, so far, with B.net 2.0 they seem to be forgetting what they are great for.

What do the plaques say?

"Dedicated to creating the most epic entertainment experiences... ever."
"Think globally"
"Lead responsibly"
"Learn and grow"
"Embrace your inner geek"
"Commit to quality"
"Gameplay first"

This is the embodiment of Blizzard Entertainment. This IS Blizzard. B.net 2.0 is anything BUT Blizzard.

It is not an epic experience, it is a confined space that feels desperately lonely. It does not think globally, it restricts you to your region and only your region. It has done anything but grow or correct its past mistakes. It is not high quality as it is lacking in so many features. Finally, releasing the game with its features as they are right now, is irresponsible and puts money ahead of gameplay.

Anyway, its 3AM and I am kinda rambling but after seeing the video and those plaques kinda made me want to say this. I was going to put it in the video thread, but I dont want to derail it and have ANOTHER b.net 2.0 thread going.

Starcraft 2 is a fantastic quality game that has everything that makes Blizzard a great company in it, but for now, Battle.net is not.

[n00bonicPlague]

My biggest thing is that they are being very ambiguous about what Bnet 2.0 is and isn't gonna have. We've laid out what we KNOW we NEED, thanks to over a decade of experience hosting fan-made tournies that Blizzard had nothing to do with other than making the game. But, whenever we ask Blizzard what it's gonna have, they're just like, "Oh, we don't wanna spoil it, but trust us it'll be nice."

In all honesty, that's not gonna cut it. They need to be as open with their development of Bnet as they are with their games — if not vastly more so. I'm confident that the last thing Blizzard or its fans want is to have this huge gaudy release of Bnet 2.0, only to realize that they did EVERYTHING WRONG and have to start from scratch.

So, I'm just gonna buy the game, play through the campaign, and hold off on the Bnet "experience" until they get things right. If Blizzard as a whole wants to make any money off of custom games and tournaments, they're gonna have to tighten up their act, because, as of right now, messing with that side of Bnet is just not worth the effort.

[ArcherofAiur]

"Think Globally"

HA



...a.

[n00bonicPlague]

On that note Archer, it's like I said before: I find it odd that their push for being always connected has thus far led to more splitting up than one would think it should. However, also like I said before: we will just have to wait and see.

[Gifted]

Gifted I hate to break it to you but tournaments have been happening throughout beta. Actually funny thing Husky released a video about it and do you know what he said was vital for tournaments?

Chat channels.

Activision has been a very solid resource for them to pull from and the information they've pulled has influenced their decisions,

cough

Regarding Tournaments happening since beginning of beta, these are outside resource tournaments that have nothing to do with Blizzard themselves putting in Tournament functionality. If you go back to Blizzcon 2009 B.net panel and listen to it again, you'll remember that the ENTIRE REASON for divisions is so that at the end of the "season" there would be division tournaments to find out division champions... allowing those to fight it out for league champions. This actually gives divisions a reason to exist. If you take this and look at community feedback, it's obvious that people are overall mad at divisions for MANY reasons, one of which is the fact that they have no real reason right now other than making casual players feel fluffy.

They also (either there or blue post, can't remember) talk about how this will enable other tournament formats outside of end of season formats to enjoy playing in a more competitive feel.

(This is different than the ability for high level players to not be able to judge themselves due to the limitations of divisions, We address that quite well in the editorial though so no need to drill me on that, I'm essentially on the same page as you guys)

Regarding Husky's video, I have a lot of respect for it but unfortunately if you listen to some of his arguments you will find them incomplete. For example, chat channels he approaches like they don't exist and won't ever exist. If I remember correctly, he talks as if the only way to use channels would be through clans which is incorrect. By him talking about the issue with limited information, he'll give an incomplete answer.

While he talks very well about the concerns about meeting up with people and the pain of organizing it through email, he could have just created an IRC channel, setup a skype tree, offer for people to share/create AIM or MSN accounts with their upcoming opponents, offered to find a forum section/post, etc. He's creating and managing a tournament external of Blizzard, while I can understand the frustration of trying to set it up via email, it's obvious that the complaints he has regarding micromanagement exists cause of the tools he chose to use externally as well. Anyone wanting to join the tournament can hook up to an IRC chat channel for example, and would have achieved the EXACT SAME results as a channel inside the game with a slightly reduced convenience factor. (Which is still dramatically more so than email) Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it's his fault that it had to be this inconvient, but he knew the moment he made the tournament that chat channels within Blizzard did not exist yet, he can't blame Blizzard for the stress of how he managed a tournament outside of their game.

Does it suck that it had to come to this because Blizzard was testing real.id's at the time, hell yes it does.
Does it suck that the implementation of Chat channels would have resolved this? yes it does.
Does it suck that this is an issue that was put into place by Blizzard months and months ago and it came down to a point they didn't have any resources that could implement it as of March/April in a form they were happy with? Yes it does. But they simply don't have the resources or time to fix it before release, and yes it sucks. What I see as a concern is a community that will blindly say "I WANT THIS NOW!" and not realize that it could be at a trade of another thing the community has been requesting. The only reason I asked "if you had a choice" is because I'm curious of community thoughts on that matter.

Side note: Archer, I'll restate it that I agree with you on a different vital point, they BETTER fix the ID/privacy issues before beta ends though, don't take this subject into the chat channels issue, cause they're completely separate things.

We are subject to risks associated with the collaborative online features in our games, such as World of Warcraft 's online chat feature, which allows consumers to post narrative comment, in real time, that is visible to other players. Despite our efforts to restrict inappropriate consumer content, from time to time objectionable and offensive consumer content may be posted to a World of Warcraft gaming site or the sites of other games or game services, such as Battle.net, with online chat features or game forums which allow consumers to post comments. We may be subject to lawsuits, governmental regulation or restrictions, and consumer backlash (including decreased sales and harmed reputation), as a result of consumers posting offensive content, any of which could harm our operating results.
http://investor.activision.com/secfi...047469-10-1649

Now, regarding that quote you pulled from the risk portion of a document sent to Blizzard investors. It's ironic as it's a good thing and you are trying to twist public opinion to a bad thing. This is PURELY groupthink manipulation at it's finest and I'll call you out on it directly.

This is not a reason for the DELAY of chat channels, this is confirmation of a risk that will exist WHEN chat channels are implemented. What this means is that chat channels WILL be implemented and the investors need to be aware of the risks that could exist from that. Take time and investigate the risk portions of investor documents for any other game that involves chat between players, you will find the same basic paragraphs in every one of their risk sections. This is someone finding a nugget and not understanding it, you sending it on when you do not understanding what you are quoting and utilizing on the fact that much of the rest of the community would not understand it likewise. You are creating rage for no good reason here, and I hate to break it to you, ever time I see you post that quote I facepalm for you buddy, you are much more intellectual than this. It's like pouring acid on your hand when you don't know what acid is... the only one getting burned in the end is you for not knowing what you're doing but trying to blame it on something that doesn't exist. (This is not to say any of your other sources, such as blue posts, are not valid, many of those bring up good points you can support, just this one paragraph really shreds the credibility of your argument every time you use it against people who actually KNOW why that paragraph exists.)

What? Why!?

How the HELL is a better tournament setup a higher priority than better overall communication between players across the board?

Because you assume that anything that's done by the community is Blizzard based. I stated it better above this quote, but there is currently NO tournament setup created for the Blizzard portion of the functionality. In other words, they have no "reason" to want to become number 1-8, other than the fact that you are 1-8. This isn't saying your opinion is poor (no where near), just explaining it further since you asked why.

To be honest, if it is 2 months... I would say delay the game. I think that chat is important enough that not having it will actually hinder the game to a great extent. Two months of no chat after the release of the game is a LOT of time, especially since its the earliest live phase of the game. Usually chat is full of questions and ideas and people looking to play other people (to get used to the game or for other reasons) during the starting months. These starting months are a big building process that leads into the later stages of the games life.

Interesting thought, I'll tell you this much, in beta I provided the most answers to questions from within the games, not afterwards. And in thinking of my time playing WC3 and SC1, that was the case there. If I ever did go into a chatroom after the game, it was a 1 on 1 thing that could be utilized with the IM system. (Just sharing my expirience) Also, this scenario that you and I are approaching could involve two drastically different experiences/results. If they fix the ID problem, or if they don't. Just some thoughts to constructively proceed.

I was in the BETA for 2 months, and I agree with TRD that I'd rather have a delay of 2 months and have an important feature like group chat implemented than having to wait for that lengthy period of time for it to materialize. In 2 months I went from Silver (my actual skill) to top Gold (again, actual skill level). I worked hard and achieved that, but that's just an analogy to demonstrate how long the 2 months are in game time.

But the question is, will 2 months be a massive time in the scope of 12 years. Again, you can say that you'd still rather delay 2 months, nothing wrong with that, just wanna see your thoughts if you expand the scope of your thoughts, how they would change or not.

"Think Globally"

HA

*smirks* One of the cut lines from our editorial remarked how Greg Canessa was setting the expectations of B.net to strive to be a premiere "world-class online gaming experience" while providing an incomplete "region-class online gaming experience".

It still rings true (As of right now), but doesn't necessarily provide a constructive tone for conversation, they still hit the points with the revision though... so I'm not complaining