Support NeoGAF

[Zzoram]

Battle.net 2 is actually quite a wreck. Only the matchmaking and ELO system is improved over the Warcraft III Battle.net. Compared to Warcraft III, Starcraft II puts tighter restrictions on custom map publishing (5 maps per account total, 20MB global size limit, 10MB individual map limit) and the custom match host/rank system makes new versions of popular maps get buried at the bottom of the list.

This is bad because the best map creators are limited to 5 actively hosted maps at any moment. The size limit also seems to be a way to suppress custom content to allow for the sale of DLC.

How do we get the games media to actually push Blizzard on this subject? These restrictions will ensure that Starcraft II never develops as good a custom map community as Warcraft III.

 

[maniac-kun]

just noticed the first tower defence maps are online but you cant play them at the moment

 

[-COOLIO-]

Lorewise it makes no sense for them to become archons since DTs use Void energies and HTs use templar/khalai energies.

They don't hate each other after Brood War. There's some mistrust and occasional hater but that's it.

"LOL you used your psi storm! youre useless now!"

"god, that DT is such a HATER"

 

[coamithra]

The Queen - LOST

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJCwPAsNSy4

:lol

It actually makes me mad thinking how Blizzard, with a previously impeccable record when it comes to game design, can keep a such a stupid flaw like this in their game.

 

[theMrCravens]

It actually makes me mad thinking how Blizzard, with a previously impeccable record when it comes to game design, can keep a such a stupid flaw like this in their game.

What are the pros thoughts on the spawn larva thing ?

 

[Procarbine]

It actually makes me mad thinking how Blizzard, with a previously impeccable record when it comes to game design, can keep a such a stupid flaw like this in their game.

???????????????????

 

[Ri'Orius]

It does not even need to exist as a building. It has no upgrades it is just a "tech that is a building", it should be a tech. At least then their existence cannot be scouted before they are even made. Take Banshee's for example, you see a starport but it does not mean cloaked Banshee are on the way, it could be a number of things so even if detection is gotten in prep you are not screwed. Plus Banshee do fine even when visible, another bonus.

I really do not understand why it is a building, that should remain a zerg thing. However at least the zerg buildings have upgrades on them.

Scoutability is probably one of the primary reasons it's a separate building. Also, there's the fact that DTs are produced from a gateway: if you just needed to research the tech, then you could build DTs almost immediately even if your entire main goes down.

What units are unlocked by researching tech? I don't believe there are any. It would be weird to do so.

Finally, I feel relatively certain that the Dark Shrine will be getting some upgrades or researchables in a later expansion. 'Twould only make sense.

(oh, and if you see a Starport with a Tech Lab, you can be pretty darn sure Banshees are coming)

 

[F#A#Oo]

Is online working now?

 

[ZealousD]

Lore wise, this wouldn't be possible.

Since DT and HT hate eachother.

What? The HT's and DT's became friendly after Tassadar sacrificed himself on Aiur. The entire Protoss civilization is on Shakuras now.

And let's not forget, in Brood War, you got the tech for DT's FROM the Templar Archives.

 

[fanboi]

What? The HT's and DT's became friendly after Tassadar sacrificed himself on Aiur. The entire Protoss civilization is on Shakuras now.

Well... it was like 10 years ago I finished it... Soooorry!

 

[fanboi]

It actually makes me mad thinking how Blizzard, with a previously impeccable record when it comes to game design, can keep a such a stupid flaw like this in their game.

wat

 

[Deadly]

Is online working now?

I played a couple of games and seems to be working better at least. This was in 2v2.

 

[Aesthet1c]

Finally made it through my 5 placement matches and got ranked as 27th place in Diamond using Random. I absolutely do not belong here. Just so glad that Blizzard has a way of getting demoted down leagues if you don't belong. :lol

I know your pain man.. I was in bronze before, and now I'm plat. I think there needs to be a better algorithm than "how many games can you win out of 5".

I think a cool system would be more placement matches, and have you play against a few people of each rank, so if you stomp 2 bronze players, you now play silver players, if you stomp them you go to gold, and if you lose in gold that is where you are placed. Something along those lines..

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Are the HDH final matches between IdrA and WhiteRa online yet? I can't seem to find them...

 

[F#A#Oo]

I played a couple of games and seems to be working better at least. This was in 2v2.

Ah well will try later....

 

[Confused101]

My brother has been texting me about his 3v3s and he hasn't had any lockups. Looks like it's been fixed but I'll see for myself when I get home.

 

[Milabrega]

Battle.net 2 is actually quite a wreck. Only the matchmaking and ELO system is improved over the Warcraft III Battle.net. Compared to Warcraft III, Starcraft II puts tighter restrictions on custom map publishing (5 maps per account total, 20MB global size limit, 10MB individual map limit) and the custom match host/rank system makes new versions of popular maps get buried at the bottom of the list.

This is bad because the best map creators are limited to 5 actively hosted maps at any moment. The size limit also seems to be a way to suppress custom content to allow for the sale of DLC.

How do we get the games media to actually push Blizzard on this subject? These restrictions will ensure that Starcraft II never develops as good a custom map community as Warcraft III.

Great post. Right now I'm indifferent to the current state of bnet2.0 operating under the assumption that's its a joint beta for both a new platform bnet2.0 and new game. You are a Gaf member, so I am surprised you have any expectations of gaming media, let alone them actually pushing a line of questioning that would be more than a keighly style hype man PR regurgitation, especially a PC developer, and one of Blizzard's fame no less. Content DLC would be the straw that breaks the Camel's back though and by furthering the restrictions on this platform, we can all see this coming.

 

[Ri'Orius]

I know your pain man.. I was in bronze before, and now I'm plat. I think there needs to be a better algorithm than "how many games can you win out of 5".

I think a cool system would be more placement matches, and have you play against a few people of each rank, so if you stomp 2 bronze players, you now play silver players, if you stomp them you go to gold, and if you lose in gold that is where you are placed. Something along those lines..

...do you have any idea how their system works at the moment?

It does put you against people of various skill levels, from what I understand. It's not just "if you beat five schmucks you go to plat," it's more reasonable than that.

The real problem is that after a server reset, the system doesn't know how good anyone is. It takes some time for the algorithm to figure out where to put people, but it does pretty well in general.

 

[mcrae]

...do you have any idea how their system works at the moment?

It does put you against people of various skill levels, from what I understand. It's not just "if you beat five schmucks you go to plat," it's more reasonable than that.

The real problem is that after a server reset, the system doesn't know how good anyone is. It takes some time for the algorithm to figure out where to put people, but it does pretty well in general.

i believe it takes into account the way you win, if you decimate the other player, # of bases, APM, etc etc. not just win/loss

 

[thestopsign]

...do you have any idea how their system works at the moment?

It does put you against people of various skill levels, from what I understand. It's not just "if you beat five schmucks you go to plat," it's more reasonable than that.

The real problem is that after a server reset, the system doesn't know how good anyone is. It takes some time for the algorithm to figure out where to put people, but it does pretty well in general.

Yeah, my first placement rounds I faced obviously bad people, then lost to the one decent guy I played. Then after this wipe, I played against all really hard guys, close battles, and when I looked at their profiles after they were often Gold or Platinum guys. Both times I went 4-1, the first time I went to Bronze, this time I went to Diamond. Do I belong in Diamond? Hell no, but I don't blame the placement system for that. It obviously takes into account extraneous circumstances and other stats to keep balance.

 

[fanboi]

What I have read in the beta forums, you can meet anyone right now, the priority is to get you to play games... not to get you to play against the one in you skill level.

This according to blue poster in beta forum (was a couple of weeks ago)

 

[-COOLIO-]

ya i havnt been getting any lock ups. man, i really want to play a gaf 4v4 sometime.

how do we add each other on the new system?

 

[Zzoram]

So this "Playtime Expires 23/06/2010" thing is pissing me off. When logging in today, it said that "Playtime has been added".

What the hell? This is OBVIOUSLY a subscription tracker that they're testing in Battle.net for Starcraft II. WHAT THE HELL?

 

[Minsc]

Battle.net 2 is actually quite a wreck. Only the matchmaking and ELO system is improved over the Warcraft III Battle.net. Compared to Warcraft III, Starcraft II puts tighter restrictions on custom map publishing (5 maps per account total, 20MB global size limit, 10MB individual map limit) and the custom match host/rank system makes new versions of popular maps get buried at the bottom of the list.

This is bad because the best map creators are limited to 5 actively hosted maps at any moment. The size limit also seems to be a way to suppress custom content to allow for the sale of DLC.

How do we get the games media to actually push Blizzard on this subject? These restrictions will ensure that Starcraft II never develops as good a custom map community as Warcraft III.

Beta. I wouldn't worry too much, Blizzard's pointed out the engine's versatility multiple times, and even demo it in their retail campaign, by including a playable shooter arcade cabinet created from the map editor.

There's nothing I've read from any admin/blizzard staff to indicate they intend to limit the content created, so all those issues should go away in time.

So this "Playtime Expires 23/06/2010" thing is pissing me off. When logging in today, it said that "Playtime has been added".

What the hell? This is OBVIOUSLY a subscription tracker that they're testing in Battle.net for Starcraft II. WHAT THE HELL?

The game does have subscription modes for other countries, this should not be news...

 

[-COOLIO-]

So this "Playtime Expires 23/06/2010" thing is pissing me off. When logging in today, it said that "Playtime has been added".

What the hell? This is OBVIOUSLY a subscription tracker that they're testing in Battle.net for Starcraft II. WHAT THE HELL?

ya, nothing good can come of that

 

[Zzoram]

Beta. I wouldn't worry too much, Blizzard's pointed out the engine's versatility multiple times, and even demo it in their retail campaign, by including a playable shooter arcade cabinet created from the map editor.

There's nothing I've read from any admin/blizzard staff to indicate they intend to limit the content created, so all those issues should go away in time.

Limiting the number and size of maps one account can create is a strong indicator that they plan on gimping free features. Warcraft III didn't have those limits.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

So this "Playtime Expires 23/06/2010" thing is pissing me off. When logging in today, it said that "Playtime has been added".

What the hell? This is OBVIOUSLY a subscription tracker that they're testing in Battle.net for Starcraft II. WHAT THE HELL?

Yeah that really disturbs me too... If they start requiring and charging for a subscription to play Starcraft 2 online I won't be there, no matter how good the game is.

 

[Minsc]

Limiting the number and size of maps one account can create is a strong indicator that they plan on gimping free features. Warcraft III didn't have those limits.

How do you know the limits are going to carry over to the retail game and aren't just in the Beta, that would make more sense, as the Beta's been limited in many other areas for example, until just recently the # of players.

Yeah that really disturbs me too... If they start requiring and charging for a subscription to play Starcraft 2 online I won't be there, no matter how good the game is.

They have already announced that they are charging for subscriptions for certain countries.

 

[Zzoram]

Yet nobody in the game press is questioning any of the things Blizzard is doing to limit the player in Starcraft II, the biggest PC game this year. Why talk about no dedicated servers in MW2 but ignore all these disturbing elements in Starcraft II?

 

[Zzoram]

How do you know the limits are going to carry over to the retail game and aren't just in the Beta, that would make more sense, as the Beta's been limited in many other areas for example, until just recently the # of players.



They have already announced that they are charging for subscriptions for certain countries.

They haven't said anything about removing those limits. In fact, they didn't even tell us about those limits, they were discovered by excited map makers that had their hopes dashed by what they found in the publishing system. The fact that Blizzard isn't talking about it is a strong indicator that they plan to leave these limits in.

 

[Won]

Yet nobody in the game press is questioning any of the things Blizzard is doing to limit the player in Starcraft II, the biggest PC game this year. Why talk about no dedicated servers in MW2 but ignore all these disturbing elements in Starcraft II?

Beta.

 

[Paper Tiger]

ya i havnt been getting any lock ups. man, i really want to play a gaf 4v4 sometime.

how do we add each other on the new system?

I approve of this GAF 4v4 idea - would be a lot of fun. Plus, I need to get SC2 out of my system before finals begin.

 

[V_Arnold]

Limiting the number and size of maps one account can create is a strong indicator that they plan on gimping free features. Warcraft III didn't have those limits.

But it is still their game, so it should be their call.
Obviously, they plan on keeping this game up for a very long time. They might intend to keep Starcraft II a game which will be still StarCraft II a year later, not "THE GAME WHERE YOU PLAY ON HACKED SERVERS WITH ALTERNATE GAMEMODES AND A LOT OF TD VARIANTS".

Custom map numbers can be easily pumped up to 15-20, and that is a reasonable amount, as it is better to have a less, but balanced maps out there to play on.

 

[Sloegr]

How do you know the limits are going to carry over to the retail game and aren't just in the Beta, that would make more sense, as the Beta's been limited in many other areas for example, until just recently the # of players.

I'd hope that's the case as well, but that's the kind of info that I'd hope they'd communicate to the community. A few sentences in the Situation Report about the current limits and how they would not extend beyond beta would have been plenty to ease fears. I'd like to believe this was just an oversight, but I doubt it.

 

[Minsc]

Yet nobody in the game press is questioning any of the things Blizzard is doing to limit the player in Starcraft II, the biggest PC game this year. Why talk about no dedicated servers in MW2 but ignore all these disturbing elements in Starcraft II?

You mean kinda like how the current Battle.net servers are so horribly supported?

I think the whole LAN/Battle.net issues has by no means been ignored, and is infact one of the biggest PitA things to read about aside from the "1/3 a game" non-sense.

They haven't said anything about removing those limits. In fact, they didn't even tell us about those limits, they were discovered by excited map makers that had their hopes dashed by what they found in the publishing system. The fact that Blizzard isn't talking about it is a strong indicator that they plan to leave these limits in.

What's with all this paranoia all of a sudden? Is this coming from somewhere? Why are we so quick to hang Blizzard, without even letting them address these things, as if they have some horrible track record?

Don't you think in time some moderator on Blizzard's form will address this? I'd at least wait until the second or third retail patch before deciding what Blizzard secretly plans to do.

 

[NIN90]

But it is still their game, so it should be their call.
Obviously, they plan on keeping this game up for a very long time. They might intend to keep Starcraft II a game which will be still StarCraft II a year later, not "THE GAME WHERE YOU PLAY ON HACKED SERVERS WITH ALTERNATE GAMEMODES AND A LOT OF TD VARIANTS".

Custom map numbers can be easily pumped up to 15-20, and that is a reasonable amount, as it is better to have a less, but balanced maps out there to play on.

Oh come on. You can still play CS the way people played it 8 years ago.

 

[F#A#Oo]

If Blizzard make SC2 pay-to-play they can fuck right off...

 

[Snow]

They´re not making battle.net subscription based. There is a blue post somewhere about the expiring thing being something for other regions, not EU and NA. Can´t find the post atm though.

[edit]
Ok, hey doesn't say explicitly which countries it is, but they announced it for regions like South America a few weeks ago, so that message is probably testing the system used there

June 21st is a placeholder text file I think. It's to test the timed account stuff that will be going in for some countries.

http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=25026324408&sid=5000&pageNo=2#23

 

[Zzoram]

They´re not making battle.net subscription based. There is a blue post somewhere about the expiring thing being something for other regions, not EU and NA. Can´t find the post atm though.

In what regions do they think a pay-to-play RTS will work?

 

[DaveKap]

When they described all the guidelines around map publishing and then pushed it live with no "Host Custom Map" option (aka: hosting a map you save on your hard drive and p2p to other players, not via publishing) I was the first one on the horn about how this is a terrible move yadda yadda blah blah.

Then when I was ready to write an entire article about it on my buddy's game site, I realized this is a beta and Blizz might just need to test their publishing service in order to stress it rather than allow folks to use alternate services (such as a possible Host Custom Map service.) I realized this because that's the only reason RealID is the only way to add folks w/o first meeting them in-game. They wanted to stress test RealID. They aren't actually leaving the naming system as is and hopefully they won't leave the publishing system as is either.

Besides when you really think about it, it's incredibly asinine of Blizzard to want to exclusively store all playable maps on their own servers which cost money for both storage and bandwidth. As full on paranoid as I originally was, even I find it hard to believe Blizzard would be dumb enough to hinder themselves monetarily over such a simple thing as map control; especially when, pre-release, there is already a hack in place to play any map you have on your hard drive with other folks.

So yeah, I'm not writing any articles until I see Gold.

Concerning the playtime topic: LAN centers. Easy as that. You guys do realize that LAN centers are hot shit in other countries, yeah? I highly suspect the subscription battle.net service is for those LAN centers the same way Valve has a whole set of code on Steam for LAN centers that nobody sees on their home version. I was also concerned about this but they know they're dead in the water if they ever tried to actually pull that kind of thing on us over-privileged first-world countries.

 

[V_Arnold]

Oh come on. You can still play CS the way people played it 8 years ago.

Really? I go on to find servers, and I find a bunch of russian servers with gravity set on ultra low, and with scouts only, then I go somewhere where 10+ ads pop up, and there are QUAKE sounds everywhere.

Then I fire up Team Fortress 2, and half of the servers in players speak a non-english language I cant understand, other half has speed upgrade, everything runs like it is a fu*** marathon. On other servers, everything always crits.

I have both games up here in my shelf, but I cant enjoy them if all servers differ in minor/major things.

I like how StarCraft II has been a centralized experience so far. Matchmaking, same stuff, same client, same sounds. Same gameplay!

 

[Won]

In what regions do they think a pay-to-play RTS will work?

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/..._Subscription_Option_For_Emerging_Markets.php

 

[Snow]

In what regions do they think a pay-to-play RTS will work?

South America, apparently. Though you still have the option of paying full price and no fees after that in that region, it seems.

 

[Sloegr]

What's with all this paranoia all of a sudden? Is this coming from somewhere? Why are we so quick to hang Blizzard, without even letting them address these things, as if they have some horrible track record?

Don't you think in time some moderator on Blizzard's form will address this? I'd at least wait until the second or third retail patch before deciding what Blizzard secretly plans to do.

I'm not being paranoid nor am I particularly worried. Based on Blizzard's apparent desire to gain more control over the online experience (removing LAN, segmenting online play by region) I am simply stating what I expect to be the case. I expect them to limit user maps in some fashion, just not as strictly as the beta currently does.

Frankly, I'd be happy to be wrong, even though UMS isn't all that big a deal to me. I'd be even happier if they reintroduced LAN and allowed users from any region to play custom games together.

 

[-COOLIO-]

If Blizzard make SC2 pay-to-play they can fuck right off...

tbh, same here

they already had to compete with my hatred of giving activision any money.

if it's play to play im out

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Really? I go on to find servers, and I find a bunch of russian servers with gravity set on ultra low, and with scouts only, then I go somewhere where 10+ ads pop up, and there are QUAKE sounds everywhere.

Then I fire up Team Fortress 2, and half of the servers in players speak a non-english language I cant understand, other half has speed upgrade, everything runs like it is a fu*** marathon. On other servers, everything always crits.

I have both games up here in my shelf, but I cant enjoy them if all servers differ in minor/major things.

I like how StarCraft II has been a centralized experience so far. Matchmaking, same stuff, same client, same sounds. Same gameplay!

What region do you live in? I haven't played Counterstrike in ages, but I have no trouble whatsoever finding normal TF2 servers here in Seattle or nearby.

 

[Bisonian]

In what regions do they think a pay-to-play RTS will work?

The plan is to either pay the equivalent of $59 for an unlimited copy like we will, or to buy a month to month copy for 1/3rd that price and pay a monthly fee if you want to keep going. They are adding features not taking them away. You can find this information out all over the place with a very simple and quick google search. It's been posted multiple times in this thread. It's old news at this point, and it's not nearly as nefarious as you seemingly want it to be.

As for the map publishing, you keep comparing it to WC3 but WC3 never hosted your maps server-side. It would make perfect sense to have a small test server to store beta files, and thus they have the limits up. You saying this is the way it will be in the final build is just as valid as me saying that you'll be able to store 37,000 maps in the final and when you do you get rewarded with a giant magical pony in real life. It's pointless. Take a deep breath, stop drinking the kool-aid, and wait for some concrete word on retail before you flip out off the deep end.

What has the gaming world come to when we can't even give Blizzard of all companies some sort of benefit of the doubt? The company that released years of free Map of the Weeks for SC1 and WC3, and is still to this day releasing content updates and patches for SC1 and D2. Insanity has overcome this thread I tell you.

 

[Zzoram]

Really? I go on to find servers, and I find a bunch of russian servers with gravity set on ultra low, and with scouts only, then I go somewhere where 10+ ads pop up, and there are QUAKE sounds everywhere.

Then I fire up Team Fortress 2, and half of the servers in players speak a non-english language I cant understand, other half has speed upgrade, everything runs like it is a fu*** marathon. On other servers, everything always crits.

I have both games up here in my shelf, but I cant enjoy them if all servers differ in minor/major things.

I like how StarCraft II has been a centralized experience so far. Matchmaking, same stuff, same client, same sounds. Same gameplay!

Apparently you've never played Warcraft III. There is a massive custom map community, but if you want to play the base game, just use matchmaking instead of looking at custom games (which are meant to be custom games!).

 

[ZealousD]

So I decided to go through the placement matches in 4v4 for some change of pace after 1v1.

One thing that's definitely clear is that win/loss ratio is weighted much more heavily than individual performance. I only managed to go 1W:4L, but in every single case, I was the top player on my team and always in the Top 3. In the case where we won, I was the top player in the game by a long shot. But I got placed into the Silver league. Rather frustrating.

 

[Manabanana]

So is bnet just completely unusable right now? I haven't been on since the patch (since it was down every time I tried to play), and the only two matches I tried to play were dropped.