Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (100 users) | |
|
| Wingit United Kingdom. March 07 2012 03:05. Posts 2 | Profile # |
Rather than come in and say pretty much everything that has already been said, I just want to show my support by moving the counter up for posts in this thread by +1.
Blizzard does usually respond to enough protest  |
|
|
| Kurr Canada. March 07 2012 03:08. Posts 2183 | Profile Blog # |
This thread always makes me sad.
Just reminds me how big a failure SC2 was for me. I have barely played it beyond the single player and some 4v4, and I pretty much never log in (no point really). I still log on to WC3 sometimes for custom games (tower defenses and obs games)... I played BW for a couple of years for custom games as well. Even with being more of a custom game player, I played more ladder in WC3 because the stat tracking made me want to. I liked checking random profiles. In SC2, your stats are hidden AND the tracks for icons are hidden several clicks away... a small detail that ruined it for me. I know it sounds ridiculous, but you click on your profile in WC3 and everything is there; it makes me want to play more. In SC2, it's just a different feel. The icons don't look good; the simple style in WC3 was just better (plus chat channels to actually see them).
2 years later, I still don't understand how a company can take a winning formula and destroy it as badly as Blizzard has done. Add on to it; fine. But they bent it over and violated it instead.
It's impossible to disagree with this thread essentially. Everyone knows it, except Blizzard it seems.Last edit: 2012-03-07 03:09:13 |
| | （╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻ | ┻━┻ ︵╰(°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ |
|
|
| Taktik Poland. March 07 2012 03:12. Posts 388 | Profile # |
I will steal this
Rather than come in and say pretty much everything that has already been said, I just want to show my support by moving the counter up for posts in this thread by +1.
Blizzard does usually respond to enough protest
|
| |
|
| Treehead March 07 2012 03:19. Posts 998 | Profile Blog # |
Having written all that, I think I'm starting to see why the chat features are going away.
When I think back on wow's history, I remember we used to have a lot of freedom in how we treated others. You could (and still can, though its harder to do it meaningfully) kill someone very low level and "camp" them. You could be as much of a good guy or a jerk to others in your guild as you wanted (though, for obvious social reasons, these "jerky" types of guilds didn't last). You could kill another player or /wave. But people complained - not that they shouldn't be able to do these things, but that other people shouldn't have been able to alter their game experience. This is the reason these features keep getting cut out - lately whenever Blizzard gives two people a means to interact, they will get complaints if they don't like the way the interactions are headed (with WoW, this should've been expected and ignored, but it wasn't).
So now, when they want to add the potential to chat, to see other players, to meet new people - they have to ask themselves "could something bad happen to the player during these interactions?" and the answer is always "yes". But then, they reason, won't they come back and complain if bad things do happen? This line of reasoning (I'm willing to bet) is why they won't give you the stuff you should be able to have - they're afraid that if they give you a length of rope you'll hang yourself with it, and then cause a customer service issue asking why the rope they gave you was so "hang-able". Of course, this line of reasoning is ridiculous (with no chat, there's no people to do you wrong, but there's also just no people, hence the complaint behind this thread)... but I'm guessing that's the reason. |
|
|
| Piledriver United States. March 07 2012 04:40. Posts 771 | Profile Blog # |
On March 07 2012 03:19 Treehead wrote:
Having written all that, I think I'm starting to see why the chat features are going away.
When I think back on wow's history, I remember we used to have a lot of freedom in how we treated others. You could (and still can, though its harder to do it meaningfully) kill someone very low level and "camp" them. You could be as much of a good guy or a jerk to others in your guild as you wanted (though, for obvious social reasons, these "jerky" types of guilds didn't last). You could kill another player or /wave. But people complained - not that they shouldn't be able to do these things, but that other people shouldn't have been able to alter their game experience. This is the reason these features keep getting cut out - lately whenever Blizzard gives two people a means to interact, they will get complaints if they don't like the way the interactions are headed (with WoW, this should've been expected and ignored, but it wasn't).
So now, when they want to add the potential to chat, to see other players, to meet new people - they have to ask themselves "could something bad happen to the player during these interactions?" and the answer is always "yes". But then, they reason, won't they come back and complain if bad things do happen? This line of reasoning (I'm willing to bet) is why they won't give you the stuff you should be able to have - they're afraid that if they give you a length of rope you'll hang yourself with it, and then cause a customer service issue asking why the rope they gave you was so "hang-able". Of course, this line of reasoning is ridiculous (with no chat, there's no people to do you wrong, but there's also just no people, hence the complaint behind this thread)... but I'm guessing that's the reason.
Griefing low level players is not "interaction". Its just trolling where the low level players have no control over what happens to them. Imagine a scenario where you're on TL.net, and I could just keep deleting your posts over and over again (every time you post), and you have no control because you joined TL 5 months after me and have half my posts. Thats exactly what griefing was. It just wasted new players time. I levelled my first character the hard way on a PvP server towards the end of Vanilla wow, and I would be literally mortified everytime I went to Stranglethorn Vale. Usually after I got killed the first couple of times, I would just log out and come back the next day, hoping that I wouldn't get griefed another day.
While the rest of your post makes sense, your first half is totally counterproductive, and IMO reinforces why controls should exist in the first place. |
| | On June 21 2010 01:51 KiWiKaKi wrote: Your ego is too high in relation to the number of base you use- Kiwikaki on Naniwa's ego :D. |  |
|
|
| Chessz United States. March 07 2012 04:44. Posts 505 | Profile # |
On March 07 2012 03:19 Treehead wrote:
Having written all that, I think I'm starting to see why the chat features are going away.
When I think back on wow's history, I remember we used to have a lot of freedom in how we treated others. You could (and still can, though its harder to do it meaningfully) kill someone very low level and "camp" them. You could be as much of a good guy or a jerk to others in your guild as you wanted (though, for obvious social reasons, these "jerky" types of guilds didn't last). You could kill another player or /wave. But people complained - not that they shouldn't be able to do these things, but that other people shouldn't have been able to alter their game experience. This is the reason these features keep getting cut out - lately whenever Blizzard gives two people a means to interact, they will get complaints if they don't like the way the interactions are headed (with WoW, this should've been expected and ignored, but it wasn't).
So now, when they want to add the potential to chat, to see other players, to meet new people - they have to ask themselves "could something bad happen to the player during these interactions?" and the answer is always "yes". But then, they reason, won't they come back and complain if bad things do happen? This line of reasoning (I'm willing to bet) is why they won't give you the stuff you should be able to have - they're afraid that if they give you a length of rope you'll hang yourself with it, and then cause a customer service issue asking why the rope they gave you was so "hang-able". Of course, this line of reasoning is ridiculous (with no chat, there's no people to do you wrong, but there's also just no people, hence the complaint behind this thread)... but I'm guessing that's the reason.
I understand this logic but it's still completely idiotic. Did people really complain about that stuff in WoW? (I played several years starting with vanilla). I know that world PVP could cause problems in some starting areas, but thats much less common cause of battlegrounds, and I miss it a lot even if sometimes it was borderline griefing, for my faction/guild it was some of the funnest times ever as a social gaming experience.
With any kind of online experience (games or otherwise), you risk "anonymous" interactions that could be good or bad. The good ones usually outweigh the bad though, and in 1.0 you could just /squelch trolls or BM and that was the end of it. Funny thing is, I've actually ignored/blocked WAY more people in Sc2 than I ever did in War3 because the current setup actually *encourages* in-game and post-game BM, because everything seems autonomous and disconnected from eachother that theres no reason not to BM someone (In fact, you can still send messages to a person you're ignoring. Everyone has experienced the ignore/unignore trash talk BM and it's retarded). It's not like the two players exit their game to a chatroom, where one could brag or talk about their results to an audience, etc. (And, with hundreds of meaningless divisions, there's no way you were better than another person, and with no bo3 option there's no way to control or encourage any kind of manner through all these one-time interactions.)
I'm trying to come up with a good analogy but it's difficult because the premise is so stupid..Last edit: 2012-03-07 04:49:01 |
|
|
| Dental Floss United States. March 07 2012 04:50. Posts 974 | Profile # |
| Fundamentally the problem is that Blizzard is trying to tell people how they should use their product. The correct way to design ANYTHING is to listen first, and then design a product that people want. |
| | President of the Kim Tae Gyun fanclub! |  |
|
|
| godly-cheese United States. March 07 2012 04:59. Posts 67 | Profile # |
On March 07 2012 04:50 Dental Floss wrote:
Fundamentally the problem is that Blizzard is trying to tell people how they should use their product. The correct way to design ANYTHING is to listen first, and then design a product that people want.
The customer is ALWAYS right!  |
| |
|
| I)enyo Turkey. March 07 2012 05:02. Posts 2 | Profile # |
On March 07 2012 03:05 Wingit wrote:Rather than come in and say pretty much everything that has already been said, I just want to show my support by moving the counter up for posts in this thread by +1. Blizzard does usually respond to enough protest
It will be very hard for Blizzard to respond to this act. Because the cat is out of bag this time.
The real intention of Blizzard is not to make Bnet a social gathering place. Because if Bnet becomes a social hub WoW players start to quit WoW subscriptions and come into Bnet. Look at this:
WoW makes 1.8 billion $ each year from subscriptions. (10,000,000 x $15 x 12)
Bnet games must sell 30 million copies each year to match WoW.
WoW's 1 year revenue > (all-time SC2 sales + all-time D3 sales)
Blizzard tries to prevent this from happening. Because they know what makes people still play WoW is it's social aspects. If Bnet becomes a social center then they cannot stop the exodus from WoW. |
|
|
| Shockk Germany. March 07 2012 05:23. Posts 2267 | Profile Blog # |
On March 07 2012 05:02 I)enyo wrote:
Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 03:05 Wingit wrote:Rather than come in and say pretty much everything that has already been said, I just want to show my support by moving the counter up for posts in this thread by +1. Blizzard does usually respond to enough protest
It will be very hard for Blizzard to respond to this act. Because the cat is out of bag this time. The real intention of Blizzard is not to make Bnet a social gathering place. Because if Bnet becomes a social hub WoW players start to quit WoW subscriptions and come into Bnet. Look at this: WoW makes 1.8 billion $ each year from subscriptions. (10,000,000 x $15 x 12) Bnet games must sell 30 million copies each year to match WoW. WoW's 1 year revenue > (all-time SC2 sales + all-time D3 sales) Blizzard tries to prevent this from happening. Because they know what makes people still play WoW is it's social aspects. If Bnet becomes a social center then they cannot stop the exodus from WoW.
Your math is off regarding the income, as it's not 100% profit, and a substantial part of those subscriptions (mostly the asian ones) go for much, much less than 15$ or 10€.
Also, WoW's losing subs anyway because of the game's age and transition to more short-lived content for short-term subscribers. Blizzard deserves a lot of criticism for some of their business decisions but that's no reason to start with conspiracy theories. WoW and SC2/D3 have vastly different business models and target different target audiences; claiming Blizzard stunts development in order to protect WoW players numbers is very far-fetched.Last edit: 2012-03-07 05:23:53 |
|
|
| Holy_AT Austria. March 07 2012 05:28. Posts 679 | Profile # |
I also think that blizzard is not really putting effort in the games besides the addon and after that nothing will happen for a long time again but the most important balance changes.
The thing is that blizzard is not getting money besides the initial sales.
I ask myself if there is a statistic on how many playsers are playing 2 or more hours ladder a week from all game copies that have been sold. I bet the percentage is rather slim ...
And I bet that the sales on the addon will be slim too.
The community is not in the game but in the forums or in stream chats, most of the people have quit playing and there have been many opportunities to make things better.
SC II could have also been the opportunity to widen the game to a more casual audience by making it casual friendly while maintaining a high skill ceiling for professional players. All of my friends that bought SC II tried out multiplayer and stopped after a few games becuase they were frustrated and it was not fun to them.
Me myself I enjoy watching streams more then playing the game itself, and when I play its custom 4vs4 most of the time because the games are simply more fun. I also miss chat channels in the game and I have to say that I really agree with OP when he says that you feel alone in Bnet2.0. If you dont have any RL freinds, its hard to find someone our casually meet up someone you like to start a chat about something or disuss or rant about something.
and thumbs up for the OP for that marvelous post |
| |
|
| YaShock Hungary. March 07 2012 05:45. Posts 118 | Profile Blog # |
On March 07 2012 04:59 godly-cheese wrote:
Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 04:50 Dental Floss wrote:
Fundamentally the problem is that Blizzard is trying to tell people how they should use their product. The correct way to design ANYTHING is to listen first, and then design a product that people want.
The customer is ALWAYS right!
Actually that's number 1 rule. Never make a game you like, always make a game your customers like. Blizzard knows that BW and W3 fans dislike SC2's changes, they do very well. Why are they still sticking to this new design? Well, they think it attracts beginners, they think that 12 years old kids will play more because they can't see how many times they have lost... That's just pathetic. |
|
|
| LlamaNamedOsama United States. March 07 2012 05:48. Posts 1570 | Profile Blog # |
| The length/compilation of this thread, reddit threads, and battle.net threads gives me hope that Blizzard might finally notice and realize that they need to do something about this. |
| | Dario Wünsch: I guess...Creator...met his maker *sunglasses* |  |
|
|
| Shockk Germany. March 07 2012 06:11. Posts 2267 | Profile Blog # |
On March 07 2012 05:45 YaShock wrote:
Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 04:59 godly-cheese wrote:
On March 07 2012 04:50 Dental Floss wrote:
Fundamentally the problem is that Blizzard is trying to tell people how they should use their product. The correct way to design ANYTHING is to listen first, and then design a product that people want.
The customer is ALWAYS right!
Actually that's number 1 rule. Never make a game you like, always make a game your customers like
That's not correct; be careful with what you wish for.
A designer who's not creating a game he himself enjoys will never create a great product. The greatest games in history have come from passionate, driven designers intent on creating their vision of a good game and not just fulfilling the wishes of their target audience. That's the difference between, say, StarCraft 1 and Modern Warfare 3. With developers intent on pleasing their customers and nothing more, we'd never have seen the original StarCraft or Diablo games.
Also, listening to the customers is important - but that's it. Listening. Meditating on their feedback. Maybe implementing it. Some of the greatest blunders in gaming (both in releases and in patches) have come from companies actually implementing what their gamers wanted instead of what they needed. It's a bit like with art: You become a fan of an artist because you enjoy their work - but they're not (exclusively) working for you, but instead intent on creating their own thing.
Now I'm not saying Blizzard should ignore feedback; obviously not, or I wouldn't have started this thread in the first place. The thing is, the state the new Battle.Net is in has nothing to do with a skewed developer <-> customer relationship but instead is rooted in a shift in business strategy and target demographic. We're not having these issues because Blizzard has stopped listening to their customers; we're here because our concerns no longer matter in the greater scheme of things for the suits ultimately presiding over all decisions.
Last edit: 2012-03-07 06:14:47 |
|
|
| -MoOsE- United States. March 07 2012 07:16. Posts 232 | Profile # |
Ok really, why don't we have this in sc2
http://i.imgur.com/rXORv.jpg
This would help so much for so little. If blizz wants to get into esports more this year. please just do this for sc2 |
| | The King in the North Fighting |
|
|
| CherubDown United States. March 07 2012 08:05. Posts 171 | Profile # | |
|
|
| blackone Spain. March 07 2012 08:09. Posts 1127 | Profile # |
On March 06 2012 08:27 Shockk wrote:
Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 06:26 blackone wrote:
I know the title is more the intro to a whine thread than an actual question, but I personally don't care because all I want from the SC2 UI is to give me an appropriate opponent at the click of a button, and it does that better than any game I ever played.
Thanks for the bump! Try to work on your social skills, though.
How am I supposed to respond to passive-aggressive pseudo-questions? |
| | "Daybreak, Protoss map." - "Why?" - "All map Protoss map." - MarineKing |  |
|
|
| Shockk Germany. March 07 2012 08:12. Posts 2267 | Profile Blog # |
On March 07 2012 08:09 blackone wrote:
Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 08:27 Shockk wrote:
On March 06 2012 06:26 blackone wrote:
I know the title is more the intro to a whine thread than an actual question, but I personally don't care because all I want from the SC2 UI is to give me an appropriate opponent at the click of a button, and it does that better than any game I ever played.
Thanks for the bump! Try to work on your social skills, though.
How am I supposed to respond to passive-aggressive pseudo-questions?
Well, maybe by reflecting on the quality of your posts, and reconsidering why you thought it appropriate to call a 70+ page discussion filled with concept art, videos, interviews and ongoing support across servers, leagues and continents a "whine thread". |
|
|
 Thylacine Sweden. March 07 2012 08:19. Posts 882 | Profile # |
On March 07 2012 08:12 Shockk wrote:
Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 08:09 blackone wrote:
On March 06 2012 08:27 Shockk wrote:
On March 06 2012 06:26 blackone wrote:
I know the title is more the intro to a whine thread than an actual question, but I personally don't care because all I want from the SC2 UI is to give me an appropriate opponent at the click of a button, and it does that better than any game I ever played.
Thanks for the bump! Try to work on your social skills, though.
How am I supposed to respond to passive-aggressive pseudo-questions?
Well, maybe by reflecting on the quality of your posts, and reconsidering why you thought it appropriate to call a 70+ page discussion filled with concept art, videos, interviews and ongoing support across servers, leagues and continents a "whine thread".
Either hes trolling or working for blizzard, obviously.Last edit: 2012-03-07 08:19:57 |
| | What you're looking at could be the end of a particularly terrifying nightmare. It isn't. It's the beginning. Introducing Mr. John Valentine, air traveler. His destination: the Twilight Zone... |  |
|
|
| zachMEISTER United States. March 07 2012 08:21. Posts 573 | Profile # |
Is that because the D3 BNet looks horrible as well? |
| | psillypsybic! |  |
|
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 Next | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
