|
On July 11 2018 11:10 10dla wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 08:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: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.
|
All i'm concerned with is when, all the other details are just the fine print.
|
On July 11 2018 03:27 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2018 07:02 MarcoJ wrote:On July 10 2018 03:21 BigFan wrote:On July 10 2018 01:49 castleeMg wrote:On July 09 2018 22:42 Gorgonoth wrote: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.
|
two v two 2 v 2 2 vs 2 two vs two 2 v two two v 2 2 vs two two vs 2
User was warned for this post
|
On July 11 2018 19:36 KameZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2018 03:27 BigFan wrote:On July 10 2018 07:02 MarcoJ wrote:On July 10 2018 03:21 BigFan wrote:On July 10 2018 01:49 castleeMg wrote:On July 09 2018 22:42 Gorgonoth wrote: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
|
Russian Federation344 Posts
I guess it will be released at the beginning of ksl group stage on 19 july, or at the end of ksl
|
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
|
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 ripped off PGTour What's your point?
|
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 14:51 wslkgmlk wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
|
On July 13 2018 06:09 StarscreamG1 wrote: Is the patch online?
dont do that pls im starting to feel sad about the "soon 1.22"
|
|
The new rating/ranking system just got posted (link above), posted my thoughts here: (you guys should give your feedback too)
https://us.battle.net/forums/en/starcraft/topic/20765967008?page=2#post-36
"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."
|
Well they took the old 1.21 patch out of sticky, so it looks like tonights the night!
|
|
On July 19 2018 05:46 Dazed. wrote: Well they took the old 1.21 patch out of sticky, so it looks like tonights the night!
They removed it for the preview to take its place, but i'd most likely say 5-7 days until release. hope im wrong
|
The S tank Will belle hard tout Reach !
|
|
United Kingdom12010 Posts
On July 19 2018 12:12 TheBrochette wrote: The S tank Will belle hard tout Reach !
I hope not. It should be like the season portraits in all their other games
|
|
|
|