SC:L Article - Battle.net 2.0 Concerns

[newcomplex]

What?


Oh and as far as me having "idealized blizzard" lord knows i have never been critical of Blizzard before

Keep in mind this was your original post I responded to.

View Post
Keep in mind we still dont know whether the "comprehensive address" is

"Yah....were going to keep doing the same thing but how about some nice PR responces instead"

OR

"Were sorry. Here is your real BNET 2.0"

You posited a ultimatum. Either Blizzard implemented a unrealistic list of demands in 49 days, or anything else they said would be PR garbage.

That isn't constructive, that isn't realistic. Its certainly idealized. The truth is far more complex, and constructive criticism needs to be more complex.


And you've also sofar compared to b-net 2.0 to the greatest single ecological disaster in the History of Man and physical violence against women. srsly. A bit of perspective please?

[ArcherofAiur]

Either Blizzard implemented a unrealistic list of demands in 49 days,

How, pray tell, are things like "make it so I dont have to give out my email to friend someone" and "make it so I dont have to pay 60 dollars to play someone in another country" unrealistic demands?

[newcomplex]

How, pray tell, are things like "make it so I dont have to give out my email to friend someone"

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.

This should be for testing purposes only. Check out the RealID FAQ for all information on this feature:

http://eu.battle.net/realid/faq.html

Edit: Replacing is with "should be" until I confirmed with developpeurs about what is planned for the StarCraft II Friends as mentioned in the FAQ. ;P

http://forums.battle.net/thread.html...Id=25026323292



She could be wrong. But you have no evidence of that. And i'll take her word over your assumption.


As for cross region play, thats for blizz to answer :/.

[n00bonicPlague]

The article was incredible — good structure, lots of information. There were even some issues that I hadn't been aware of at all. Now we're just waiting on their comprehensive response. Then and only then should we unleash the beast.

Speaking of the beast, great to have you back Demo.

Hidden Content:

[spychi]

Like our BP friends in the gulf coast, Blizzard needs to fix this.

Now.

Now or delay the game! Archer knows what he is saying and I can guarantee that the community would split in half if there was a poll about delaying the game because of the shitty battle.net

And you've also sofar compared to b-net 2.0 to the greatest single ecological disaster in the History of Man and physical violence against women. srsly. A bit of perspective please?

you realize that if they release the game with such lack of features while they will claim that they will add them in the future half of them won't get implemented in the future at all
so it's now or probably never, we need to demand from them to do things we want not the other way
StarCraft 2 is a big project no doubt and it have been hyped from the start, so it's sales will not affect only Blizzard but the whole market and mostly in a bad way.

[Todie]

Actually, I do remember seeing it in the article. It's right here:

ahh.. right. but that was needlessly subtle :P

[Gifted]

Now or delay the game! Archer knows what he is saying and I can guarantee that the community would split in half if there was a poll about delaying the game because of the shitty battle.net

Spychi, I have a sincere question that I want you to think about before responding immediately.

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? I know that's it's a grand simplification of your concerns, as I know much of your concerns stem from the lack of cross-region play and other such features but I'd like you to consider the above choice. What happens if delaying the game does not change the time line when the features you desire will come? Would you like to delay it anyway?

Remember, the multiplayer is done with some balancing that will happen over the course of years (Just like StarCraft: Brood Wars) The features that are frustrating regard to Battle.net, and this is the second project they have created that is based on a content patch scope (besides World of WarCraft) and the content patches for WoW has taken a game that was released in it's basic form and changed it's interface and in-game features to limits unimaginable when the game was first released. Over time the features that we need in battle.net to make it a satisfying experience for us will come.

The community voicing it's concerns over features (From this point forward) will only change the priority in the queue which it resides, it does not speed up the process of implementing it.

I'd like to also quote a relevant section in the editorial for re-reading.

Within the community, the restricted discussion is most readily apparent across the various fan sites and community boards. We've all observed the flavor of the week posts, where Poster A finds an imbalanced, missing, or incomplete feature and the entire community works itself up into a frenzy; Posters B through Z agree, or "/sign", and we all sit around congratulating ourselves on our amazing deductive abilities while subsequently faulting Blizzard for their lack of intelligence. Rarely, does anything constructive result from this process and all too often does it repeat itself. While nuggets of important information can likely be found in these posts, the manner in which they are created and the cycle they perpetuate does not help the community and does not help the development of StarCraft II.

I'm not saying don't talk about it, as many of the other parts I did not quote reference ways to take it to a constructive level... just remember what needs to be done to be constructive on our end as well.

[ArcherofAiur]

You know Gifted in my short time on this earth I have learned a couple very important lessons. One of them is that companies ALWAYS do things faster when their is money on the line.


Which kinda goes back to our stupid analogy again.

Remember, the multiplayer is done with some balancing that will happen over the course of years (Just like StarCraft: Brood Wars) The features that are frustrating regard to Battle.net, and this is the second project they have created that is based on a content patch scope (besides World of WarCraft) and the content patches for WoW has taken a game that was released in it's basic form and changed it's interface and in-game features to limits unimaginable when the game was first released. Over time the features that we need in battle.net to make it a satisfying experience for us will come.

No no no no no no no no. Features like being able to communicate with fellow gamers and add friends without giving out your email address and play someone from another country are basic features, not "extra content". Especially when they were present 10 years ago and in every Blizzard game since.

[spychi]

Spychi, I have a sincere question that I want you to think about before responding immediately.

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 they will add everything that was mentioned in the article than I can wait two months more
if only chat box, than they should change their tech programmers

[Gifted]

one line for another, the above two choices archer, which would you choose?

EDIT: You changed your one line response to much more with an edit, give me a time to respond to the second part. (EDIT2, after reading) Alright, regarding things like chat channels were the "features" I was referring to. Regarding real.ids and their overuse of them, I _COMPLETELY_ agree with you and know they have an opportunity to resolve that in Phase 2 of testing. There is a blue quote out there I can't find right now that says part of the reason they went to this *ahem* underdeveloped naming convention was to encourage more testing of the real.id platform so it was thouroughly tested. If that quote is 100% correct, then we may see a solution that would work well and we can hope for. Unfortunately, until Phase 2 happens we won't know how to feel about that. When I saw that blue post it gave me the hope to at least consider them resolving the hot concern, especially after I saw that they were doing enough database work that would require people to not post on the forums.

They originally planned to have the forums open the entire downtime... SOMETHING changed that required them to change that plan and reshift the database as a whole. Regarding that one, patience will show us what will happen.