New Ranking System and More Coming with Patch 1.22.0
The world’s most competitive 1v1 game demands an equally rigorous ranking system, so Blizzard Entertainment is proud to unveil details on Patch 1.22.0—the largest content update yet for StarCraft: Remastered. On top of a revamped ranking system, Patch 1.22.0 will introduce the Seasons tab, where players can view detailed stats about their competitive performance, and an upgraded Collections tab where they can access all the cosmetics they’ve acquired.
Players familiar with StarCraft II will feel right at home climbing the new ladder. After completing five matches as unranked competitors, players are assigned a rank, and will progress on the ladder based on their wins and losses. Player ratings are tracked after each match, and competitors earn new portrait borders for each rank they achieve. StarCraft is a game of consequences, so competitors should give it their all—demotion is possible, regardless of the highest rank achieved.
I really like they try to improve ladder. I've lost a lot of motivation to play it due to lack of games for non-koreans, maybe this will somehow compensate that.
On June 15 2018 22:28 kogeT wrote: I really like they try to improve ladder. I've lost a lot of motivation to play it due to lack of games for non-koreans, maybe this will somehow compensate that.
Have you been in direct contact with Blizzard? If so, have you told them that people want to racepick?
Was also hoping for the 2v2 ladder, that would be better than a 1v1 ladder revamp imo... havent played for a while, but a 2v2 ladder would definitely change that
On June 16 2018 01:27 EndingLife wrote: So is the patch out, or is this just an announcement? If this is just an announcement, any word when the patch will be released?
Grant used the wording "around the corner" so I'm guessing at the end of the month. Btw, no mention of gateway merging
If you reasd this, Grant, blizzard can gladly contact Iccup via myself in order to negotiate marketing rights for the iccup style ranking system, graphics and so on. /sarcasm.
But to be totally fair, your rank icons are very close to 100% copy of the fish ranking system which was modelled after iccup rankings.
So, wirhout sarcasm: this looks like a blatant ripoff.
On June 16 2018 07:54 Cele wrote: If you read this, Grant, blizzard can gladly contact Iccup via myself in order to negotiate marketing rights for the iccup style ranking system, graphics and so on. /sarcasm.
LOL! I LOL'ED IN REAL! :D (sry caps, but i had to xD)
On June 16 2018 07:54 Cele wrote: If you reasd this, Grant, blizzard can gladly contact Iccup via myself in order to negotiate marketing rights for the iccup style ranking system, graphics and so on. /sarcasm.
But to be totally fair, your rank icons are very close to 100% copy of the fish ranking system which was modelled after iccup rankings.
So, wirhout sarcasm: this looks like a blatant ripoff.
And iCCup is a blatant rip off of PGT, so where are you going with this?
On June 16 2018 07:54 Cele wrote: If you reasd this, Grant, blizzard can gladly contact Iccup via myself in order to negotiate marketing rights for the iccup style ranking system, graphics and so on. /sarcasm.
But to be totally fair, your rank icons are very close to 100% copy of the fish ranking system which was modelled after iccup rankings.
So, wirhout sarcasm: this looks like a blatant ripoff.
And iCCup is a blatant rip off of PGT, so where are you going with this?
Which was a blatant rip off of game-i if I recall correctly
On June 16 2018 07:54 Cele wrote: If you reasd this, Grant, blizzard can gladly contact Iccup via myself in order to negotiate marketing rights for the iccup style ranking system, graphics and so on. /sarcasm.
But to be totally fair, your rank icons are very close to 100% copy of the fish ranking system which was modelled after iccup rankings.
So, wirhout sarcasm: this looks like a blatant ripoff.
And iCCup is a blatant rip off of PGT, so where are you going with this?
True. I didn't wanna make it a history lesson tho. We can have a fine argument who blizzard is ripping off without permission if you wanna do that (;
On June 16 2018 07:54 Cele wrote: If you reasd this, Grant, blizzard can gladly contact Iccup via myself in order to negotiate marketing rights for the iccup style ranking system, graphics and so on. /sarcasm.
But to be totally fair, your rank icons are very close to 100% copy of the fish ranking system which was modelled after iccup rankings.
So, wirhout sarcasm: this looks like a blatant ripoff.
to think that you can ripoff a ranking system A to F ... is silly in the firstplace, its a universal ranking systems like its used in american schools nothing you can ripoff from iccup mate..
:o Btw, the old ladder used to be points system. Private servers like fish and brain used points system, but then that time iccup had more competitive players(amateurs practicing hard core to qualify for courage and become semipro). Also, even progamers used random nicknames to practice there, and they loved MOTW(map of the week) system and were able to play different types of maps to practice.
I personally think iccup influenced the Korean server, and they decided to switch to grade rank system.
So Happy with this Update!! For all the people that whine about Blizzard abandoning the scene, Its so refreshing to see updates like this that take alot (not all of course) of quality feedback from the community. The one thing that confuses me is the S grade. Like why doesnt it stop at A??
WGTour in the early 2000s I believe was the first to deploy the ABC rank systems. Except they used numerical ranks within each letter rather than the +/- which only went from A-D. For example you would start at D6 and work your way up.. D5,D4,D3 etc until entering C6 and so on.
PGTour which opened in the mid 2000s was first to utilize the +/- system currently used by iCcup and the deceased Fish server from my recollection.
MOTW also came from WGTour and was very popular. History is cool
What confused me a little was when he talked about ranked match-making. It sounded like he said that at one point the match-making was global, meaning you could be paired with a player from any server (probably to reduce queue times). But this was abandoned because of bad TR.
I'll make sure to ask "from?" every time in my ranked matches. It's not only friendly, but interesting. That's something I didn't even realize I missed from iCCup (or wherever it originated from, historians ) -- country codes next to stats.
Anyway, I'm really happy for Brood War. Live long and prosper and shine on, you crazy diamond.
On June 16 2018 08:04 Ty2 wrote: upwards facing ramp hype
We'll see whether the implementation is any good or not, flexibility, editor compatibility and backwards compatibility with old maps and all that… It's easy to put together some video snippets like that. All those maps seem to be original makes and very simply structured as far as ramps go (even though there are still some sprites used in certain spots). For the promo tourney of the initial SC:R release they just patched up the buggy ramps and bridges of CD, FS etc. with some custom sprites. Actually putting together a working ramp system that can retain complete compatibility and flexibility and still look good is a completely different beast. I'll remain skeptical until I've actually used it to do something productive. That being said, it would be pretty simple and even improve flexibility if ramps where just variably be textured, that is, tiles from the ramp section of a tileset palette would not have a fixed texture sprite any more but instead analyzed with regards to surrounding terrain types and properties and transition angles and then filled algorithmically with varying ramp textures and appropriate blends around the edges. I doubt that's within the scope of what they actually want to sell us on though.
There's gotta be a better way for you to express yourself. Or at least provide an actual argument behind your post. no expectations in blizzard and still disappointed way to go
shit company
Thanks in advance for your cooperation, some warning person
No race picking, no 2v2 ladder, launcher still required unless usage of workarounds, couple of stupid bugs, which made the game not exactly playable
what's promised:
shite nobody needs in order to play the game, advertised in some super hype manner. i'm not impressed.
I thought the "no expectations, still let down, the company is shit" expressed that quite well without wasting too much space.
On June 16 2018 07:54 Cele wrote: If you reasd this, Grant, blizzard can gladly contact Iccup via myself in order to negotiate marketing rights for the iccup style ranking system, graphics and so on. /sarcasm.
But to be totally fair, your rank icons are very close to 100% copy of the fish ranking system which was modelled after iccup rankings.
So, wirhout sarcasm: this looks like a blatant ripoff.
Which was ripped off of PGTour ranking... when does PGTour get the credit? But in all honesty, even though they took the idea from previous private ladder servers, we should let it go, the letter rankings are a good idea so just let blizzard use it. If everything good in this world was "patented" we would make very little progress forwards.
On June 16 2018 21:34 mishimaBeef wrote: is backwards compatibility even that important? how long would it take to rebuild FS from scratch for example?
First of, all of the legacy maps from the Kespa era, in fact about any map from before 2017, would need some significant updates to fix bugs and grave editing errors, improve balance and just general streamlining. So that's an issue we have to face anyway. The problem is not so much about "recreating FS from scratch" as it is "completely rework several dozens (at least) legacy maps", each of which would probably take several hours. The question is whether it could be rebuild from scratch at all, being true to the original, using Blizzard's newly devised ramp concept. FS probably can, given that it only uses the most basic ramps. Something like La Mancha is probably within the scope as well (or the whole concept would be dead on arrival to even the most ignorant player). But what about maps using more more derived ramp types, such as Polaris Rhapsody (current ramps suck though)? What about In the Way of an Eddy? Frogstar World B? Dies Iræ? A bad implementation would have problems even with some very basic diviations, as for example found on Roadkill or Kiseyras. And in how far are terrain bugs gonna be fixed in the process? Custom ramps of any kind are for the most part not something that is holding map makers back currently.
I would not expect them to mess with the current hacked ramps. Just add a new way to make better looking ones. So all old maps will be just fine and we can update them manually if we want to.
I think they will just add some more prefab fixed width ramps and map makers will continue to make hacked tile ramps, but with more tiles to choose from they will still look better.
On June 16 2018 23:33 xehcechbsky wrote: I would not expect them to mess with the current hacked ramps. Just add a new way to make better looking ones. So all old maps will be just fine and we can update them manually if we want to.
I think they will just add some more prefab fixed width ramps and map makers will continue to make hacked tile ramps, but with more tiles to choose from they will still look better.
If there are more tiles to chose from, that is. That depends on the implementation. If in deed the ramps are provided in the format of simple, pre-textured tiles, at least we can expect some proper terrain level transitions (unless some one really screwed up big time). And calling manual tile editing "hacking" is also exagerated. It is in fact a much simpler editing mode than isometric editing, for example. Any "hacky" part in it was done by map editor creators if anything, not by actual map makers.
Happy to see the continuous work on the game, and the new event they're arranging - love it! :D
Can any Blizzard employee comment on the lack of dots in nicks, though? It's been mentioned at several occasions on battle.net forums and here on tl.net for roughly a month now (I think). I know it's not the most pressing issue, of course, but would of course be nice to know whether it's permanent to f.ex. avoid urls in nicks. Or if it's just a bug that will get fixed sometime in the future when you've gotten to it on the priority list?
It's cosmetic and not the most important, I understand that. But some form of information would be helpful (at some point). And if the issue I comment is unclear, it's that we cannot use dots (".") in our nicknames. We've tested it several times for several people on several servers. The problem still persists.
Alternative source for you - basically, every Blizzard game is going down for 1 hour. This isn't a remastered specific thing but Blizzard may be taking the opportunity to push out the 1.22 patch as well.
With that being said, don't be surprised if we have 1 hour of Bnet maintenance without 1.22 as well. They're pushing out massive patch for WoW on the 17th and it could just be preparation work for that.
wheres 2v2 matchmaking why isnt this one of the highest priorities ? it would make the community the happiest imo. is the blizzard team incapable of making this happen? it seems like it at this point with their vague statements on any team matchmaking...
On July 09 2018 19:43 castleeMg wrote: wheres 2v2 matchmaking why isnt this one of the highest priorities ? it would make the community the happiest imo. is the blizzard team incapable of making this happen? it seems like it at this point with their vague statements on any team matchmaking...
They said server saturation is an issue before, if the eastern/western server population is between 1k-2k players, then maybe they are concerned about not having enough people. I wonder if this fear is real, But a 2v2 ladder would definetly be fun
i would really like that blizzard would implement a "penalty free" leaving system if the TR and Latency are shitty as fuck... i keep ALT+QQing games because TR8 L2 is just unplayable, please blizzard give me at least 30 secs to decide if i want to play that damn game or not t_t...
On July 09 2018 19:43 castleeMg wrote: wheres 2v2 matchmaking why isnt this one of the highest priorities ? it would make the community the happiest imo. is the blizzard team incapable of making this happen? it seems like it at this point with their vague statements on any team matchmaking...
They said server saturation is an issue before, if the eastern/western server population is between 1k-2k players, then maybe they are concerned about not having enough people. I wonder if this fear is real, But a 2v2 ladder would definetly be fun
Honestly if this is their view it’s pretty unacceptable. Iccup still has an active 2v2 ladder with sub 100 players online. It’s very hard to get games there yes but it was very easy to play 2v2 ladder prior to remastered and the server was around 400-500 average at that time. Even if they’re worried about not having enough saturation, can’t they at least trial it and test it out? I mean I know I’m whining like a baby at this point but how can iccup have a working 2v2 system for 12+ years with a small admin team compared to a multi billion dollar company who seems like they don’t even have a blueprint ready for it yet? It makes no sense and is complete incompetence on their part... I know this is not a constructive post but I really want to express how I feel on this portion of remastered
On July 09 2018 19:43 castleeMg wrote: wheres 2v2 matchmaking why isnt this one of the highest priorities ? it would make the community the happiest imo. is the blizzard team incapable of making this happen? it seems like it at this point with their vague statements on any team matchmaking...
They said server saturation is an issue before, if the eastern/western server population is between 1k-2k players, then maybe they are concerned about not having enough people. I wonder if this fear is real, But a 2v2 ladder would definetly be fun
Honestly if this is their view it’s pretty unacceptable. Iccup still has an active 2v2 ladder with sub 100 players online. It’s very hard to get games there yes but it was very easy to play 2v2 ladder prior to remastered and the server was around 400-500 average at that time. Even if they’re worried about not having enough saturation, can’t they at least trial it and test it out? I mean I know I’m whining like a baby at this point but how can iccup have a working 2v2 system for 12+ years with a small admin team compared to a multi billion dollar company who seems like they don’t even have a blueprint ready for it yet? It makes no sense and is complete incompetence on their part... I know this is not a constructive post but I really want to express how I feel on this portion of remastered
I personally think it's a fair point that you're making. They did say 2v2 is coming this year, but we're over halfway through already. In a little over a month, remastered would've been out for a full year yet there are still issues plaguing the game. It's pretty sad to see and from what the looks of it, the dev team is not concentrating just on RM which is why they released that WCIII patch with balance fixes a while back...
Are you saying it is acceptable for blizzard to be very vague about team matchmaking even though it was promised "sometime" in 2018? Another thing is that if 2v2 matchmaking was announced everyone would start at the same MMR (I'm assuming) and there would be an influx of players due to it being new, I'm sure that those numbers would eventually decrease after the initial hype wears off but there would be no shortage of players trying to participate in team matchmaking upon release
EDIT: just something else i wanted to tag on to that post and i might piss some people off. but i just want to say how i feel about playing remastered in its entirety from release in fall of last year. i think its clear to many people that remastered is not of the same quality as most of blizzards other titles. corners were cut severely for whatever reason and the patches are very scarce and arguably downgrading the game (i could play vs most koreans without lag in NOV/DEC, now i cant match with any koreans)
another hidden issue that many of you may not know about, i posted this on blizzards forums and no1 responded its when messaging friends and using /r. half of the time it doesn't work and im not sure many of you know. i've tested it out watching my friends stream and using /f m to communicate with him. only about 50-75% of the messages are actually recieved. im sure you guys have seen "Error: Failed to make initial server connection (Error 2:1). (Failed to make initial server connection (Error 2:1))" when using /r or /w to talk to somebody. it means for whatever reason your message is not sent. however when using /f m it may show you that your message sent properly but your friend is not seeing the actual message. ive tested this over a week to make sure i was right... im not sure if im just silly and missing something, or if this is happening to everyone....
On July 10 2018 05:57 castleeMg wrote: Are you saying it is acceptable for blizzard to be very vague about team matchmaking even though it was promised "sometime" in 2018? Another thing is that if 2v2 matchmaking was announced everyone would start at the same MMR (I'm assuming) and there would be an influx of players due to it being new, I'm sure that those numbers would eventually decrease after the initial hype wears off but there would be no shortage of players trying to participate in team matchmaking upon release
Pretty much. Blizzard's approach to RM has been unacceptable from my perspective. The fact that key features are still missing this far along is pretty bad. I don't think there's a plausible excuse for it. I was hopeful when I wrote that RM blog in Feb that we'll start to see better progress on RM issues.
On July 10 2018 05:57 castleeMg wrote: Are you saying it is acceptable for blizzard to be very vague about team matchmaking even though it was promised "sometime" in 2018? Another thing is that if 2v2 matchmaking was announced everyone would start at the same MMR (I'm assuming) and there would be an influx of players due to it being new, I'm sure that those numbers would eventually decrease after the initial hype wears off but there would be no shortage of players trying to participate in team matchmaking upon release
worst case scenario, they tried and failed and then refine the system-- either by going the lobby route or tinkering with the MM further.
On July 10 2018 05:57 castleeMg wrote: Are you saying it is acceptable for blizzard to be very vague about team matchmaking even though it was promised "sometime" in 2018? Another thing is that if 2v2 matchmaking was announced everyone would start at the same MMR (I'm assuming) and there would be an influx of players due to it being new, I'm sure that those numbers would eventually decrease after the initial hype wears off but there would be no shortage of players trying to participate in team matchmaking upon release
Pretty much. Blizzard's approach to RM has been unacceptable from my perspective. The fact that key features are still missing this far along is pretty bad. I don't think there's a plausible excuse for it. I was hopeful when I wrote that RM blog in Feb that we'll start to see better progress on RM issues.
Just trying to understand where your coming from, what key features for you are missing besides 2v2 ladder? Personally I am happy that the matchmaking is fine (at my mmr of course) most of my games are TR16+ with the occasional Peruvian. I think the new patch will be cool, new Iccup ranks are appreciated. Blizzard supporting the KSL is huge as well, AFAIK It is the first Blizzard sponsored Broodwar Tourney open to ALL players, even foreigners. That said I understand the frustration people have with the 2v2 ladder delay, Barring a unforseen reason Blizzard has, I think the delay is unwarranted. But, they did promise it, so lets keep waiting for it even if it is a longer wait then we want.
On July 09 2018 19:43 castleeMg wrote: wheres 2v2 matchmaking why isnt this one of the highest priorities ? it would make the community the happiest imo. is the blizzard team incapable of making this happen? it seems like it at this point with their vague statements on any team matchmaking...
They said server saturation is an issue before, if the eastern/western server population is between 1k-2k players, then maybe they are concerned about not having enough people. I wonder if this fear is real, But a 2v2 ladder would definetly be fun
Honestly if this is their view it’s pretty unacceptable. Iccup still has an active 2v2 ladder with sub 100 players online. It’s very hard to get games there yes but it was very easy to play 2v2 ladder prior to remastered and the server was around 400-500 average at that time. Even if they’re worried about not having enough saturation, can’t they at least trial it and test it out? I mean I know I’m whining like a baby at this point but how can iccup have a working 2v2 system for 12+ years with a small admin team compared to a multi billion dollar company who seems like they don’t even have a blueprint ready for it yet? It makes no sense and is complete incompetence on their part... I know this is not a constructive post but I really want to express how I feel on this portion of remastered
I personally think it's a fair point that you're making. They did say 2v2 is coming this year, but we're over halfway through already. In a little over a month, remastered would've been out for a full year yet there are still issues plaguing the game. It's pretty sad to see and from what the looks of it, the dev team is not concentrating just on RM which is why they released that WCIII patch with balance fixes a while back...
i am not sure thats true. Usually the structure of devs in those companies are based on projects. You have a core dev team for the project and maybe some jumpers. I am still convinced that the active devs on SC:R are passionate about it, but we rather see a typical different attachment to Starcraft between the devs and the marketing people. And dont forget, SC:R has made the most part of its revenue within the initial release. For a short-sighted profit maximization there would actually be no need to give more support with patches. Since in long-term you are screwing a loyal fanbase over I guess some management people decided to still invest the bare minimum to have ANY development, so the community is not 100% against Blizzard. I would rather love to have a roadmap thats executed fast and than we have a finished product, while blizzard can user their devs on other projects.
On July 09 2018 19:43 castleeMg wrote: wheres 2v2 matchmaking why isnt this one of the highest priorities ? it would make the community the happiest imo. is the blizzard team incapable of making this happen? it seems like it at this point with their vague statements on any team matchmaking...
They said server saturation is an issue before, if the eastern/western server population is between 1k-2k players, then maybe they are concerned about not having enough people. I wonder if this fear is real, But a 2v2 ladder would definetly be fun
Honestly if this is their view it’s pretty unacceptable. Iccup still has an active 2v2 ladder with sub 100 players online. It’s very hard to get games there yes but it was very easy to play 2v2 ladder prior to remastered and the server was around 400-500 average at that time. Even if they’re worried about not having enough saturation, can’t they at least trial it and test it out? I mean I know I’m whining like a baby at this point but how can iccup have a working 2v2 system for 12+ years with a small admin team compared to a multi billion dollar company who seems like they don’t even have a blueprint ready for it yet? It makes no sense and is complete incompetence on their part... I know this is not a constructive post but I really want to express how I feel on this portion of remastered
I personally think it's a fair point that you're making. They did say 2v2 is coming this year, but we're over halfway through already. In a little over a month, remastered would've been out for a full year yet there are still issues plaguing the game. It's pretty sad to see and from what the looks of it, the dev team is not concentrating just on RM which is why they released that WCIII patch with balance fixes a while back...
i am not sure thats true. Usually the structure of devs in those companies are based on projects. You have a core dev team for the project and maybe some jumpers. I am still convinced that the active devs on SC:R are passionate about it, but we rather see a typical different attachment to Starcraft between the devs and the marketing people. And dont forget, SC:R has made the most part of its revenue within the initial release. For a short-sighted profit maximization there would actually be no need to give more support with patches. Since in long-term you are screwing a loyal fanbase over I guess some management people decided to still invest the bare minimum to have ANY development, so the community is not 100% against Blizzard. I would rather love to have a roadmap thats executed fast and than we have a finished product, while blizzard can user their devs on other projects.
Yeah, they are worried about profit. Thats why they have people working on Warcraft 3, because thats were the money is. They dont do 2v2 Matchmaking because its insane in Peer-to-Peer. Every 1v1 Peer-to-Peer game has its problem. Make that 2v2 and you are in for a nightmare. And when its released and it doesnt work 100%, the backlash is going to be insane
I dont buy it. Lobby 2v2 would work just fine and thats always an option, and why would backlash be insane? they can already prioritize for latency, korean 2v2 should work just fine, american etc, the backlash if there is one, will be subdued to the randoms with bad connection or a small local area. They will suffer lag/longer ques.
The reality i think is that they dont have the staff to work quickly on this.
On July 10 2018 10:47 Dazed. wrote: I dont buy it. Lobby 2v2 would work just fine and thats always an option, and why would backlash be insane? they can already prioritize for latency, korean 2v2 should work just fine, american etc, the backlash if there is one, will be subdued to the randoms with bad connection or a small local area. They will suffer lag/longer ques.
The reality i think is that they dont have the staff to work quickly on this.
Well then don't promise on things you can't deliver..?
On July 10 2018 10:47 Dazed. wrote: I dont buy it. Lobby 2v2 would work just fine and thats always an option, and why would backlash be insane? they can already prioritize for latency, korean 2v2 should work just fine, american etc, the backlash if there is one, will be subdued to the randoms with bad connection or a small local area. They will suffer lag/longer ques.
The reality i think is that they dont have the staff to work quickly on this.
Well then don't promise on things you can't deliver..?
They never gave a date just said they're working on it. They never promised anything at all.
On July 10 2018 10:47 Dazed. wrote: I dont buy it. Lobby 2v2 would work just fine and thats always an option, and why would backlash be insane? they can already prioritize for latency, korean 2v2 should work just fine, american etc, the backlash if there is one, will be subdued to the randoms with bad connection or a small local area. They will suffer lag/longer ques.
The reality i think is that they dont have the staff to work quickly on this.
Well then don't promise on things you can't deliver..?
They never gave a date just said they're working on it. They never promised anything at all.
Didn't they already say before launch team matchmaking would be part of the game? I certainly remember reading some stuff about it and in the screen mockups it also seemed pretty clear there would be team ladder. Either way, I'd say they def made no attempt whatsoever to lower ppls expectations (more like the opposite).
We're now already like 1 year after launch and it seems development has been rather slow (in general) and it doesn't seem like its coming anything soon. By the time it will be done (if ever), 90% of the people that were looking forward to it probably will never even try it anymore. That's just a shame.
On July 10 2018 10:47 Dazed. wrote: I dont buy it. Lobby 2v2 would work just fine and thats always an option, and why would backlash be insane? they can already prioritize for latency, korean 2v2 should work just fine, american etc, the backlash if there is one, will be subdued to the randoms with bad connection or a small local area. They will suffer lag/longer ques.
The reality i think is that they dont have the staff to work quickly on this.
Well then don't promise on things you can't deliver..?
They never gave a date just said they're working on it. They never promised anything at all.
Wtf?? They promised solo matchmaking and team matchmaking as part of the release.
If their excuse for no 2v2 matchmaking is a low population, than that's the saddest joke I have heard in a while. Do they truly expect people to wait for 1+ year(s)? The population was there when the game shipped. Don't punish your players for shipping a beta. Release 2v2 MM, if it ends up as a dead que, well tough shit, but at least give us what you promised!
yeah honestly,i dont even think the game is in a better state,all i care about is ladder and if you click that MM as 2400 mmr player u will never find a good oponent or match koreans,except if you are using vpn (like i do) but what if tomorrow vpn stop working,i dont get it cuz i was playing tr20 L1 or TR16 games vs them..
On July 10 2018 05:57 castleeMg wrote: another hidden issue that many of you may not know about, i posted this on blizzards forums and no1 responded its when messaging friends and using /r. half of the time it doesn't work and im not sure many of you know. i've tested it out watching my friends stream and using /f m to communicate with him. only about 50-75% of the messages are actually recieved. im sure you guys have seen "Error: Failed to make initial server connection (Error 2:1). (Failed to make initial server connection (Error 2:1))" when using /r or /w to talk to somebody. it means for whatever reason your message is not sent. however when using /f m it may show you that your message sent properly but your friend is not seeing the actual message. ive tested this over a week to make sure i was right... im not sure if im just silly and missing something, or if this is happening to everyone....
That's mental man, way to create confusion and seriously disrupt communication obviously... as for 2v2 matchmaking/ladder, it just reminds me of diablo 3 pvp. A promise the company makes to get $, but then doesn't really care to actually deliver. It's not on Grant who seems like a cool guy and likely in a difficult position, but i'll just call it a blizzard thing. Guy who dodged buying SC:R and feels good about it, I think that was a good decision. I uninstalled it.
On July 10 2018 05:57 castleeMg wrote: another hidden issue that many of you may not know about, i posted this on blizzards forums and no1 responded its when messaging friends and using /r. half of the time it doesn't work and im not sure many of you know. i've tested it out watching my friends stream and using /f m to communicate with him. only about 50-75% of the messages are actually recieved. im sure you guys have seen "Error: Failed to make initial server connection (Error 2:1). (Failed to make initial server connection (Error 2:1))" when using /r or /w to talk to somebody. it means for whatever reason your message is not sent. however when using /f m it may show you that your message sent properly but your friend is not seeing the actual message. ive tested this over a week to make sure i was right... im not sure if im just silly and missing something, or if this is happening to everyone....
That's mental man, way to create confusion and seriously disrupt communication obviously... as for 2v2 matchmaking/ladder, it just reminds me of diablo 3 pvp. A promise the company makes to get $, but then doesn't really care to actually deliver. It's not on Grant who seems like a cool guy and likely in a difficult position, but i'll just call it a blizzard thing. Guy who dodged buying SC:R and feels good about it, I think that was a good decision. I uninstalled it.
Well, this just sounds bitter. Because it is bitter. Im bitter too, to be honest. They're even thinking about hosting a developer tournament, like what? How about you complete the game you promised a year ago, then we can all celebrate as one happy family. Call me old fashioned but I think you party when the work is done!
BUT: You should of bought scr, and you should play it. As much as we all got screwed over-- especially very top level players and 2v2 players -- for the average 1v1 player the experience actually is really really solid, better than iccup. It took a long time to get there...and it screwed over those aforementioned groups, but hey.
Qikz why are you so quick to side with blizzard, what do you owe them? They did promise team matchmaking that’s why I’m crying about it, so don’t tell me they didn’t promise anything when it was clearly promised multiple times early on this year. Now it seems like they don’t want to talk about it
Didn't they say they plan to have 2v2 ladder out some time this year? The dev team is small and has unfilled job openings so I don't know why so many people want to abuse them for the slow progress. They clearly want to finish the features that affect the majority of the playerbase first, like a 1v1 ladder with ranks and regular resets, instead of pushing out a bunch of half baked solutions for everything that just piss everyone off. There isn't some Blizzard conspiracy against 2v2 players.
On July 09 2018 19:43 castleeMg wrote: wheres 2v2 matchmaking why isnt this one of the highest priorities ? it would make the community the happiest imo. is the blizzard team incapable of making this happen? it seems like it at this point with their vague statements on any team matchmaking...
They said server saturation is an issue before, if the eastern/western server population is between 1k-2k players, then maybe they are concerned about not having enough people. I wonder if this fear is real, But a 2v2 ladder would definetly be fun
Honestly if this is their view it’s pretty unacceptable. Iccup still has an active 2v2 ladder with sub 100 players online. It’s very hard to get games there yes but it was very easy to play 2v2 ladder prior to remastered and the server was around 400-500 average at that time. Even if they’re worried about not having enough saturation, can’t they at least trial it and test it out? I mean I know I’m whining like a baby at this point but how can iccup have a working 2v2 system for 12+ years with a small admin team compared to a multi billion dollar company who seems like they don’t even have a blueprint ready for it yet? It makes no sense and is complete incompetence on their part... I know this is not a constructive post but I really want to express how I feel on this portion of remastered
I personally think it's a fair point that you're making. They did say 2v2 is coming this year, but we're over halfway through already. In a little over a month, remastered would've been out for a full year yet there are still issues plaguing the game. It's pretty sad to see and from what the looks of it, the dev team is not concentrating just on RM which is why they released that WCIII patch with balance fixes a while back...
i am not sure thats true. Usually the structure of devs in those companies are based on projects. You have a core dev team for the project and maybe some jumpers. I am still convinced that the active devs on SC:R are passionate about it, but we rather see a typical different attachment to Starcraft between the devs and the marketing people. And dont forget, SC:R has made the most part of its revenue within the initial release. For a short-sighted profit maximization there would actually be no need to give more support with patches. Since in long-term you are screwing a loyal fanbase over I guess some management people decided to still invest the bare minimum to have ANY development, so the community is not 100% against Blizzard. I would rather love to have a roadmap thats executed fast and than we have a finished product, while blizzard can user their devs on other projects.
Maybe there are jumpers? I have no clue because I have no insight into how Blizzard does things. I don't doubt that the devs are great and passionate people, but it's already been almost a year since and we have issues with the game still.
Doesn't matter if most of their revenue was from initial release, they shouldn't have released such a buggy shitty remastered then. It's quite sad that people think this is actually acceptable. I have no clue what happened to the video game industry in the last decade, but from reading around, this looks like the new norm where devs release an unfinished product and keep patching it constantly.
For the record, I'm not blaming the devs, it's clearly an upper level decision to release RM in a poor state and it's more than likely they are overworked and managing multiple titles. Much like you said, a roadmap is needed so that people know what's being worked on etc...
On July 10 2018 09:29 10dla wrote: They dont do 2v2 Matchmaking because its insane in Peer-to-Peer. Every 1v1 Peer-to-Peer game has its problem. Make that 2v2 and you are in for a nightmare. And when its released and it doesnt work 100%, the backlash is going to be insane
It's fine.People have been playing that mode and 3v3 for 20 years. The problem is now there is not enough population to support it.These features needed to be there at release.
On July 10 2018 09:29 10dla wrote: They dont do 2v2 Matchmaking because its insane in Peer-to-Peer. Every 1v1 Peer-to-Peer game has its problem. Make that 2v2 and you are in for a nightmare. And when its released and it doesnt work 100%, the backlash is going to be insane
It's fine.People have been playing that mode and 3v3 for 20 years. The problem is now there is not enough population to support it.These features needed to be there at release.
The population now is unarguably higher than it was before remastered, if it could sustain itself on iccup with 400 people, it can sustain itself now...
On July 10 2018 09:29 10dla wrote: They dont do 2v2 Matchmaking because its insane in Peer-to-Peer. Every 1v1 Peer-to-Peer game has its problem. Make that 2v2 and you are in for a nightmare. And when its released and it doesnt work 100%, the backlash is going to be insane
It's fine.People have been playing that mode and 3v3 for 20 years. The problem is now there is not enough population to support it.These features needed to be there at release.
That wasnt with Matchmaking nor was it with a new version of the game. And for some reason people are no longer capable of creating 2v2 and so on by themself. Not sure why. And "It works fine". Yeah i bet iccup never had any problems with lag. NEVER! The Iccup guys should really sell their flawless netcode. They might be millionairs by now. Especially when every modern peer to peer game has lag issues
On July 10 2018 09:29 10dla wrote: They dont do 2v2 Matchmaking because its insane in Peer-to-Peer. Every 1v1 Peer-to-Peer game has its problem. Make that 2v2 and you are in for a nightmare. And when its released and it doesnt work 100%, the backlash is going to be insane
It's fine.People have been playing that mode and 3v3 for 20 years. The problem is now there is not enough population to support it.These features needed to be there at release.
The population now is unarguably higher than it was before remastered, if it could sustain itself on iccup with 400 people, it can sustain itself now...
If you don't mind playing teams 300 MMR above or below you then sure but you can't argue that wait times will not be way more than in 1v1.Also because there are 4 players and longer wait times this means there is an increased chance of one or more players being AFK either alt-tabbed, toilet, whatever at start of game - ruining the game.
On July 10 2018 09:29 10dla wrote: They dont do 2v2 Matchmaking because its insane in Peer-to-Peer. Every 1v1 Peer-to-Peer game has its problem. Make that 2v2 and you are in for a nightmare. And when its released and it doesnt work 100%, the backlash is going to be insane
It's fine.People have been playing that mode and 3v3 for 20 years. The problem is now there is not enough population to support it.These features needed to be there at release.
That wasnt with Matchmaking nor was it with a new version of the game. And for some reason people are no longer capable of creating 2v2 and so on by themself. Not sure why. And "It works fine". Yeah i bet iccup never had any problems with lag. NEVER! The Iccup guys should really sell their flawless netcode. They might be millionairs by now. Especially when every modern peer to peer game has lag issues
In what fucking world is fine= perfect? Please. Grow up.
People dont host lobby 2v2 because theres no inherent stable rank to give out/verify at a glance, or at least not one thats very catchy. 2v2 2000-2400 mmr Join now!!
@Variance: Sure, thats an issue, but when did bw have low variance? At any rank you could get crushed or crush a guy on iccup, the experience is not wholly dissimilar in MM today. Even with equally skilled players, many of my practice games turn into blow outs. I'm not that worried because of a bit of variance. Que times could be a bitch, but as I said earlier, they can do always do lobby 2v2. With letter grades the scene can actually re-establish to some extent. Theres really no reason it shouldnt be workable other than incompetence. Ya'll are negative nancies.
On July 09 2018 19:43 castleeMg wrote: wheres 2v2 matchmaking why isnt this one of the highest priorities ? it would make the community the happiest imo. is the blizzard team incapable of making this happen? it seems like it at this point with their vague statements on any team matchmaking...
They said server saturation is an issue before, if the eastern/western server population is between 1k-2k players, then maybe they are concerned about not having enough people. I wonder if this fear is real, But a 2v2 ladder would definetly be fun
Honestly if this is their view it’s pretty unacceptable. Iccup still has an active 2v2 ladder with sub 100 players online. It’s very hard to get games there yes but it was very easy to play 2v2 ladder prior to remastered and the server was around 400-500 average at that time. Even if they’re worried about not having enough saturation, can’t they at least trial it and test it out? I mean I know I’m whining like a baby at this point but how can iccup have a working 2v2 system for 12+ years with a small admin team compared to a multi billion dollar company who seems like they don’t even have a blueprint ready for it yet? It makes no sense and is complete incompetence on their part... I know this is not a constructive post but I really want to express how I feel on this portion of remastered
I personally think it's a fair point that you're making. They did say 2v2 is coming this year, but we're over halfway through already. In a little over a month, remastered would've been out for a full year yet there are still issues plaguing the game. It's pretty sad to see and from what the looks of it, the dev team is not concentrating just on RM which is why they released that WCIII patch with balance fixes a while back...
i am not sure thats true. Usually the structure of devs in those companies are based on projects. You have a core dev team for the project and maybe some jumpers. I am still convinced that the active devs on SC:R are passionate about it, but we rather see a typical different attachment to Starcraft between the devs and the marketing people. And dont forget, SC:R has made the most part of its revenue within the initial release. For a short-sighted profit maximization there would actually be no need to give more support with patches. Since in long-term you are screwing a loyal fanbase over I guess some management people decided to still invest the bare minimum to have ANY development, so the community is not 100% against Blizzard. I would rather love to have a roadmap thats executed fast and than we have a finished product, while blizzard can user their devs on other projects.
Maybe there are jumpers? I have no clue because I have no insight into how Blizzard does things. I don't doubt that the devs are great and passionate people, but it's already been almost a year since and we have issues with the game still.
Doesn't matter if most of their revenue was from initial release, they shouldn't have released such a buggy shitty remastered then. It's quite sad that people think this is actually acceptable. I have no clue what happened to the video game industry in the last decade, but from reading around, this looks like the new norm where devs release an unfinished product and keep patching it constantly.
For the record, I'm not blaming the devs, it's clearly an upper level decision to release RM in a poor state and it's more than likely they are overworked and managing multiple titles. Much like you said, a roadmap is needed so that people know what's being worked on etc...
I agree, the "ship first and patch later" approach has a bad effect on how the audience views/experiences the game and the companies images. I hope the industry will take another approach in the future.
On July 09 2018 19:43 castleeMg wrote: wheres 2v2 matchmaking why isnt this one of the highest priorities ? it would make the community the happiest imo. is the blizzard team incapable of making this happen? it seems like it at this point with their vague statements on any team matchmaking...
They said server saturation is an issue before, if the eastern/western server population is between 1k-2k players, then maybe they are concerned about not having enough people. I wonder if this fear is real, But a 2v2 ladder would definetly be fun
Honestly if this is their view it’s pretty unacceptable. Iccup still has an active 2v2 ladder with sub 100 players online. It’s very hard to get games there yes but it was very easy to play 2v2 ladder prior to remastered and the server was around 400-500 average at that time. Even if they’re worried about not having enough saturation, can’t they at least trial it and test it out? I mean I know I’m whining like a baby at this point but how can iccup have a working 2v2 system for 12+ years with a small admin team compared to a multi billion dollar company who seems like they don’t even have a blueprint ready for it yet? It makes no sense and is complete incompetence on their part... I know this is not a constructive post but I really want to express how I feel on this portion of remastered
I personally think it's a fair point that you're making. They did say 2v2 is coming this year, but we're over halfway through already. In a little over a month, remastered would've been out for a full year yet there are still issues plaguing the game. It's pretty sad to see and from what the looks of it, the dev team is not concentrating just on RM which is why they released that WCIII patch with balance fixes a while back...
i am not sure thats true. Usually the structure of devs in those companies are based on projects. You have a core dev team for the project and maybe some jumpers. I am still convinced that the active devs on SC:R are passionate about it, but we rather see a typical different attachment to Starcraft between the devs and the marketing people. And dont forget, SC:R has made the most part of its revenue within the initial release. For a short-sighted profit maximization there would actually be no need to give more support with patches. Since in long-term you are screwing a loyal fanbase over I guess some management people decided to still invest the bare minimum to have ANY development, so the community is not 100% against Blizzard. I would rather love to have a roadmap thats executed fast and than we have a finished product, while blizzard can user their devs on other projects.
Maybe there are jumpers? I have no clue because I have no insight into how Blizzard does things. I don't doubt that the devs are great and passionate people, but it's already been almost a year since and we have issues with the game still.
Doesn't matter if most of their revenue was from initial release, they shouldn't have released such a buggy shitty remastered then. It's quite sad that people think this is actually acceptable. I have no clue what happened to the video game industry in the last decade, but from reading around, this looks like the new norm where devs release an unfinished product and keep patching it constantly.
For the record, I'm not blaming the devs, it's clearly an upper level decision to release RM in a poor state and it's more than likely they are overworked and managing multiple titles. Much like you said, a roadmap is needed so that people know what's being worked on etc...
I agree, the "ship first and patch later" approach has a bad effect on how the audience views/experiences the game and the companies images. I hope the industry will take another approach in the future.
Yeah, thats why all that buggy trash on steam like pubg and h1z1 (BlessMMO anyone?) is just so unpopular. Because people have high standards. Starcraft Remastered was not that bad on release
On June 16 2018 07:54 Cele wrote: If you reasd this, Grant, blizzard can gladly contact Iccup via myself in order to negotiate marketing rights for the iccup style ranking system, graphics and so on. /sarcasm.
But to be totally fair, your rank icons are very close to 100% copy of the fish ranking system which was modelled after iccup rankings.
So, wirhout sarcasm: this looks like a blatant ripoff.
On July 12 2018 01:25 mishimaBeef wrote: if 3v3 and 4v4 is implemented it will be interesting to see what is done with maps... pretty much the only maps played thus far are bgh and hunters
I've been working on a bunch of 6 and 8-player 128x128 maps lately for exactly this reason, there should be some variety in ladder maps for 3v3/4v4 and currently there's only Hunters. I posted some of my new maps a while ago in another thread (view post here), right now I've probably got another 8-10 new maps that I haven't released yet.
On July 12 2018 01:25 mishimaBeef wrote: if 3v3 and 4v4 is implemented it will be interesting to see what is done with maps... pretty much the only maps played thus far are bgh and hunters
I've been working on a bunch of 6 and 8-player 128x128 maps lately for exactly this reason, there should be some variety in ladder maps for 3v3/4v4 and currently there's only Hunters. I posted some of my new maps a while ago in another thread (view post here), right now I've probably got another 8-10 new maps that I haven't released yet.
I like those maps. Hunters, tbh, isnt even a good map, its a surprise it monopolized 3v3/4v4 for so long.
"I think each rank should have + and - subranks (like on ICCup/PGT) so players don't feel like they're eternally stuck in 1 rank.
By adding subranks players can actually feel like they're improving.. so there's more sense of progress and the ratings reflect our skill lvl way more accurately."
So patch 1.22 will release when SC open series finish. It will finish in this week. I am happy and I participate in this tornament at last stage. I am SCRVN.
i find it a little odd that they're not saying much in an official post about what date the patch actually comes out.... makes me think its actually going to be a lot longer than anticipated by most people... but we'll see
On July 25 2018 08:27 S.I. wrote: Ya, they won't magically update themselves. And the edited maps will then only be compatible with 1.22+
Yeah makes sense. Was curious if perhaps the update was done in such a way that it just replaced existing assets.
Existing custom ramps are put together out of bits and pieces of cliffs, doodads, and so on. There isn't really a good way of automatically replacing those, plus any change to the terrain may change ramp width and pathing regions which may change the way the map is played.
On July 25 2018 08:27 S.I. wrote: Ya, they won't magically update themselves. And the edited maps will then only be compatible with 1.22+
Yeah makes sense. Was curious if perhaps the update was done in such a way that it just replaced existing assets.
Existing custom ramps are put together out of bits and pieces of cliffs, doodads, and so on. There isn't really a good way of automatically replacing those, plus any change to the terrain may change ramp width and pathing regions which may change the way the map is played.
Yeah makes complete sense why the ramps just need to be replaced.