So far, it is easy to see that Blizzard wants to streamline SC2 so that they have utmost control over everything. This can be seen through the omission of Chat Channels, LAN, ridiculous word Censorship, and their dedication to control map materials.

But why dont' we just step back and look at the Pros and Cons of these things?

PROS

• To win over the handful of parents who actually read the ESRB will somehow think SC2 is now more safe for their kids, and will base their decision on this to buy the game... despite all the glorified hype the game already had for 2 years.
  
• Jack Thompson Safe (not)
  
• No Bots
  
• No Spam
  
• No need to spend money for people to regulate chat channels (tho they don't do it anyway)
  
• Hardcore gamers now have a nice league to grow their penises on.
  
• Facebook integration... just so you can shoot the guy that beat you last game.
  
• Limitations able to sucker people in to pay for things that was free and working beautifully TWELVE years ago.. like they're already doing with Name Change. Is THIS the "crazy-new-spin-to-everything" they were pushing? Saw this coming MILES away.
  
• Already have 2 more expansions planned, and if this game fails hard, they can fix everything by the next game, and make people buy them. Smart.

CONS

• SC1 Fans not buying the game
  
• Many SC1 fans losing faith with Blizzard.
  
• Losing the standard as to the "best" online community system
  
• Losing to its own predecessor... again.. 12 years ago.
  
• Internet cafes and other computer game companies cannot set up a SC2 network, since each player has to have a SC2 account before being able to play.
  
• They also would require an adequate to strong internet connection.
  
• People with 2 or more computers at home can't invite friends to come and play.
  
• No Chat Channels = No Fun Chatting with random strangers = No cool encounters = 1/2 the starcraft experience gone.
  
• Starcraft 2 will now last just as long as any other console games.... because once the single player portion is done, the multiplayer will not hold up to expectations, get boring, and be neglected. All because of no chat channels, and partly because of the awful custom map popularity system.
  
• People will now NOT sit in the game they can talk about starcraft with each other...
  
• This completely and utterly alienates casual gamers.
  
• No way to discuss and just chat about anything with online gamers. Let's get this straight. We're doing this on YOUR server. It is helping YOUR business. We're helping YOU look good.
  
• New systems do not facilitate friend-making better than b.net 1 12 years ago...
  
• SC2 fans will soon realize how narrow-minded sc2 in terms of game types is and stop playing, like one of my friends ALREADY.
  
• Can't do maps with rap songs
  
• Can't cuss in anyway, altho 99% of good games have cusses.
  
• Can't publish maps with "Suicide"
  
• Can't even say normal stuffs like "Transports"
  
• No more Dodge the Rapists.
  
• Probert the probe... probly the most innocent movie map I've ever seen, was removed since there's a "sex scene".... Seriously guys... google porn for once. I doubt anyone would get offended/aroused by units pushing each other.
  
• There's nothing sexy or offending about a Medic walking against a marine. Nothing even offending about it. I think we can all agree that the medic's actual Voice is more offending than anything else due to its over-feminist
  
• Hiring excalibur's to do their evil biddings in removing genuinely fun postsMaps. This costs money, and time.
  
• Taking programmers times to patch up all the new cracks and other stuffs that people will eventually create since the original game is so constricting.
  
• Lose money to private servers.. which will inevitably be created since b.net 2 is shit and can't even provide the same fun as its predecesor... TWELVE YEARS LATER
  
• B.net 1 > B.net 2 in every single motherfucking way except for aesthetics and leagues.
  
• Still 5 map publishing limit. What if there're 10 probert the probe episodes? Welcome to B.fucked.net 2.
  
• Game Server can't even support the stuff its own editor can make it do. All because they want to control everything.
  
• You cannot use the editor if you are offline.

...
Anything else to add?
I'll make a long list, remove all the cusses, and send it out to everything..

It'd be nice to actually have some thoughtful pros/cons too.. except i'm too raged right now to think.





Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Aug 18 2010, 11:03 pm by UnholyUrine.

"To get paid by the ESRB con artists"
Um, the game publisher has to pay the ESRB to have their game rated, not the other way around.

Pros != Cons

Fix plz. ^.^

But ya, I agree. I'll still be making maps anywho.

It's a shame. Oh, well.

Not going to waste my time raging about it. Just play another game.

Didn't they already say they are adding chat rooms some time soon?

I can honestly say chat rooms were the most annoying thing in SC and I am glad they are missing. If anything they need a better way to find UMS games..something that I found missing from your list.

They gave people the ability to do great things with a RTS editor ..the game was not made to support such projects.

This is the internet we are talking about....cracks and developers fixing them is not anything new. Even if the game was less "constricting" people would still crack it and they would still patch it.

I decided to stop there because with the last 3-4 quotes I just deleted I should have just quoted your entire post and replied with everything wrong in it.

Can you explain this a little more please? If you didn't like the spam, you could just join an empty chat channel, and the non-public channels, (eg op sen, op rcdf, etc.) were more helpful and community-boosting than annoying.

My point was anyone that misses the SC chat must not remember the spam that went on. The only good thing I can see it being used for at this time is easy access to people to help test out a map. But then again as I said a new way to find UMS games would make that better. I understand the game I am making is really new and not at all polished so its very low on the list and it only has one play on it...mine. If they had a better system all maps good and bad would get to actually see players.

Now for clan-chat and all that I agree its annoying but most clans now have vent, teamspeak, steam chat, or xfire. There is a huge list of things to use that would be a lot better then chat in SC. This is not to say I wouldn't like it but I hardly think it is a big issue.

Another "con" is a map had a sex-scene and while I am sure this is very annoying to have your map banned/deleted because of this it had to be known. If they allow that then it will end up leading to SC maps where the point of the game was to show a naked chick and/or guy. The line had to be drawn somewhere and while I agree it is a bit strict on some of the things they are doing I don't argue with it because it is there for a reason.

And a con is SC fans not buying SC2...if they were fans they would have bought it the day it came out instead of crying about tiny things they don't agree with. When I first heard the game was going to be in three parts I was outraged because they fit all three into SC but after playing the long and very awesome campaign I will gladly lay another 100$ down for each of the next two if they have a collectors edition.

In WarCraft III, you had the option to "Enter chat". And you don't have to join any channel at all. The idea of joining an empty chat channel with nobody around is pointless if there's a feature where you don't have to join chat at all. On the other hand, there are just as many people in public channels as in the original StarCraft. Also, if you are in a clan, that means you also have a channel. By pressing the "Enter chat" button, you would automatically join your clan's channel.

StarCraft II will have chat rooms through a patch. People are just complaining about Battle.net 2.0's prematurity.

Also, I made friends with absolutely random players before. In-game, you have a friends list button at the right side of the screen, on the UI and above the command cards. You can add players like that. Another way is when the game ends, whether defeat or victory, you can right click a player's name at the scoreboard. You can add them, invite to party, or even block them. Something Battle.net 1.0 had lacked: permanent blocking or filing a report against a player (such as harassment). The problem about people complaining about the new Battle.net 2.0 is that they always appreciate the "classic style". It's like an old person who prefers radios or televisions than a computer with internet, with "12 years" of a classic system of what they are use to.
These "people" find problems of the newer one, and are used to the concept of the classic for twelve years. There are people who do not like change. There are people who complained about the custom games list, but think this clear: do you want one single map dominate the whole custom games list such as DotA found everywhere in the list? Or do you want the idea of popularity of maps, which all game lobbies of the same map have their own category. It's not perfect, but it filters the custom games list, allowing players to pick a map they would like to play. This idea eliminates the concept where 90% of the custom games list is the same map. Pick your poison.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Aug 18 2010, 8:54 am by KrayZee.

I feel having no bots is more of a con than a pro.
I liked having a bot monitor the channel because it used less system resources so I didn't have to sign on the real game just to talk.

KrayZee, your post made me think of something:
What if, in the Custom Games' list, all the map were still sorted by games/hour, with a Ranking system on 5 stars (and showing the number of votes).
Nothing new so far, but... in addition to that, we'd incorporate the SC1-type Custom Games' list: there'd be a little "+" on the left on the map's name which would let you see all the current lobby's custom names and the number of players that are already in the lobby.

This looks like the perfect thing, to me! O.o

Chat rooms were fucking awesome. They gave people a chance to meet new people, talk to friends, form clans (like OP SEN, a channel for mappers). Also, it's annoying to have to use another program to communicate with clan members (why many people don't use ventrillo). If you didn't like it, all you had to do is type "/j sidhfjahjzshbfj" when you joined b-net. Ta-da! No more spam.

That's why we complain. It's like giving a kid wooden building blocks to make a building out of, but then making him build on a trampoline while some other kid is jumping. Doesn't matter how many block, or how fancy those blocks are, the kid 's building is still gonna fall.

Christ.. every new post I read makes you look more and more like blizzard's bottom bitch. Snide sex references, girls in bikinis, shirtless guys, and similar content aren't anything a teenager wouldn't know about. Blizzard should be making the line at blatant nudity, porn, sex, or blatant sexual references (suck as the sc1 "strip *name*" games).

[quoteKrayZee]Also, I made friends with absolutely random players before. In-game, you have a friends list button at the right side of the screen, on the UI and above the command cards. When the game ends, whether defeat or victory, you can right click a player's name at the scoreboard. You can add them, invite to party, or even block them. Something Battle.net 1.0 had lacked: permanent blocking or file a report. The problem about people complaining about the new Battle.net 2.0 is that they always appreciate the "classic style". It's like an old person who prefers radios or televisions than a computer with internet.[/quote]
I've done this too, although it is more annoying to do so. I really do enjoy the perma blocking of users (it'll allow me to black list hackers&trolls ). Same with the file report, although something tells me that the file report won't work as well as many people hope it will. I love how easy it is to add a player as a friend.

[quoteKrayZee]These "people" find problems of the newer one, and are used to the concept of the classic for twelve years. There are people who do not like change. There are people who complained about the custom games list, but think this clear: do you want one single map dominate the whole custom games list such as DotA found everywhere in the list? Or do you want the idea of popularity of maps, which all game lobbies of the same map have their own category. It's not perfect, but it filters the custom games list, allowing players to pick a map they would like to play. This idea eliminates the concept where 90% of the custom games list is the same map.[/quote]
I like the game lobbies. Although sometimes you could see 1 map dominating the list, it was helpful to see what people named the game. If a person named his "TS M9 Pros Only", I wouldn't join because I suck at M9. At the same time, it helps that host to get good players. It also shows how popular a map really is.
When you look at the custom games list, the popularity rating for the top 15 maps are all maxed out. How the hell is that supposed to show me how popular a map really is? Is the #1 map 1.01x more popular than the 15th map? or is it 50x more popular?
Lastly, unless you host a game (which is buggy in my experience, and doesn't always get players), there is no host to ban/move players. There is no pregame meta where players can talk, the game just starts. And if the map maker allows host to start the map, many hosts don't start for reasons unknown. It makes all the other players unable to start, or to choose another game with a different host.
All in all, the SC1 battle net is better; b-net2 had a lot of potential, but blizzard never used any of it.

Edit:
That would be fucking PERFECT. Seriously... If only blizzard would do that...
Also, the option to add a marker next the the map. Like give each player the ability to give a map a tumbs down symbol if they didn't like it, so they can remember not to join it next time.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 18 2010, 9:19 am by fat_flying_pigs.

http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/540694167
If you guys are concerned about how Battle.net 2.0 should improve, go read this.

@Krayzee

Errr. No.
Battle.net 2 sucks more than battle.net 1.
Even if it is in its prematurity.

Think about it more in a corporate sense, rather than a dream. How the hell did blizzard screw this up when they delayed the game for 2 years, and had a system that worked perfectly back twelve years ago?
There is no reason for them to omit the things that I mentioned (chat channels, lan, etc.), even from the beginning of the release. That's just an excuse so that you guys keep hoping for changes.
When there ARE changes, guess what? You gotta pay for it!
Partly, it's to stop people from spamming and stuff, but it also limits the potentials of b.net so much so that it can make anyone rage.

Saying that these people do not like change just because they're conservative is completely irrelevant and partly stupid. If the changes were good, then this thread would not exist. Give me a fucking break. We all know B.net 2 has problems. Hoping that blizzard will fix it or saying that it will be fixed or that it is in its prematurity PURELY INEXCUSABLE.

Unless I am mistaken they look lan out because the mass amount of people that just copied SC to lan. Yes the game still sold a lot of copies but they saw a problem and got rid of it...it sucks yes but most people now have the internet and should buy the game themselves so I see not real problem. Only thing is if your net happens to go out and you want to play but then that also goes for tons of other games that no longer have it. Bnet1 was nice as it was a very unique thing when it first came out but it is in no way better then what we have now.

So you are complaining they gave to much freedom? They should have just cut the editor in half and released it because then all games made on it could be played without lag and some of the other problems at the moment and no one would know what could have been to complain....

Yes.

Because I agree with most of the things they have done? At least I have a stable thing I believe and post about on this you and some of the others are just complaining for nothing. You lost any and all respect I could have had for you on this matter once you agreed they gave us to much of something....yeah

Just to address this, the dedicated SC1 fangroup only makes up a very small portion of the millions of SC2 players, and the majority of the SC2 players are normal gamers, by which I mean people who play things like Xbox Live and only play with their friends, which is why Battle.net 2.0 was catered to them, and not the thirty thousand or so remaining SC1 players. Essentially, SC1 fans are a very small minority of the SC2 fans, so there's no reason to cater to them. As far as blizzard is concerned, this isn't a "con" since they would much rather sell 2 million copies of a mediocre game then sell 30,000 copies of an awsome game, at the same price of course.

@Vrael

Sadly, this is true. They will not give a fuck cause they've already sold the games to all the casual and hardcore, non mapping players.

I just don't agree with "rather selling x copies of a mediocre game than sell x copies of an awesome game".. because the game itself has all the potential to be awesome.
In fact, the game is ALREADY very awesome, they just made it suck with all the extra rules and limitations that they Added.

So generally, you're not really helping the argument that what they're doing right now is hurting/not hurting them. That's what I'm raging about.

If you want to compare, there's no reason to make the game "mediocre" just so a HANDFUL of people who actually gives a shit about the ESRB/Offensive Maps would buy the game. Moreover, (i should add this to the list), the game will fail to get new gamers into creating more content for SC2, just because the current system is complete BS.

I want to argue that everything that they're doing right now is HORRIBLY REDUNDANT, and that there's no reason why they would work so hard and do so much just to limit the freedom for the 30,000 12-year-long fans.

Pro: I like it
Con: You whine about it

Solution. Go play MW2

And what word censorship? Just turn off the damn chat filter.

The system that "worked" twelve years ago is nowhere near perfect. There are so many problems about the original Battle.net, it's not even funny. There are many, many patches that StarCraft 1 had went through, especially with added buttons on Battle.net. Battle.net 2.0 is more for convenience than a hassle. As I said, it's not perfect, but I believe it's a better system. And yes, I do have some complaints about the new Battle.net, don't think that I'm praising it all. Blizzard is trying to experiment to ease communication, and decrease annoyances. It's true that it's their first time to experiment, but at least let them try and instead you give them a fucking break. StarCraft II still came out very recently, and gradually Blizzard will patch it all up. The same applied to StarCraft 1 within the twelve years of existence.
WarCraft III's custom (UMS) maps had suffered severely for years. A lot of people love to play DotA, and it spams a list of game lobbies of the same map. Your choice to play a custom map as a player is extremely limited.
Look, even I did not like the idea where chat channels and LAN became absent. Since I had already mentioned about the custom games list, I will not talk about that one right now. I also mentioned that you can play with recent players (strangers) you had recently played with, so I will not mention that one.

• You are only allowed up to 25 friends. You are forced to remove a friend if you desire to add another. In StarCraft II, they just sit there and you don't have to remove friends because of them not logging on a lot.
  
• Typing /f l to view all 25 friends is a complete irritation. If you type /f l in a public channel, the wall of text revealing your friends online will slide up. It will slide up because of incoming text through conversations or even in-game. If you have 25 friends, you cannot view all of your friends in-game because of the limit on how many lines are available. Triggers that have text, especially errors, it will push your friends list and your conversation with a friend up. You don't have the time to read, especially if it slides up and disappears.
  
• Joining a random melee obviously does not match your skill to your opponent's. In StarCraft II, they try to divide players through leagues and divisions, then provide a matchmaking system for balance. You play with an absolute stranger that share your skill level, instead of constant rematches against the same people. A skill level that was measured from placement matches.
  
• Players who leave while the game begins. In StarCraft II, they lock players inside the game lobby they joined. They can leave by quitting StarCraft II entirely, disconnect by lag, or manually quit the match in-game. If it's a player's choice to join a game, they can leave at any time before the countdown.
  
• Idle hosts exists in the old Battle.net. When the game lobby is full in StarCraft II, the match automatically starts itself. Like the previous bullet point, you can't leave when the game lobby as it automatically started. However, on "Xbox", that problem still exists.
  
• When you have to wait for your friends to join the game you joined. Blizzard, for the sake of player convenience, took the "party" system from Xbox Live. In the party, you have your own chat window for people inside the party instead of typing /f m to everybody. On Xbox Live, players can easily communicate each other if inside a party. One player could be playing a game, while another plays another game. The idea allowed players to at least have some form of conversation between players regardless they are in the same game or not. Or even if they are not playing at all. I noticed people talk to their friends while watching a movie or a show. It's that fucking convenient. You don't even need a phone, and you can have about six people talking to each other while each individual is busy with their own situation.
  Blizzard was inspired by this, and they try to unite players. I'll create metaphor about this to real life with you and several friends. On Battle.net 2.0, all people in the "party" can enter a building at the same time. On the original Battle.net, you and your friends have to enter a building, each following the other but consumes some time. One can even deny to join. Another scenario is that in quick match, the game immediately asks all players in the party, a choice of what race to play with before joining a match. In the original StarCraft, sometimes the host starts the game early and some players forgot to pick their race.
  
• Of course many people have more than one friend on Battle.net. There are people who team up with a friend, then in another time, a different friend. Playing with Friend A, you are very competitive. That could lead you two together in the same league and division (2v2, 3v3, 4v4). Playing with Friend B, you just play for fun. Unlike playing competitively with Friend A, it leaves you and Friend B at a lower league than you are with Friend A. In StarCraft 1, there are people who blame their partner if they consecutively lose. In StarCraft II, while of course that problem exists, it is not as punishing. It helps players set a strategy they can pull off as they establish teamwork regardless of how less APM your friend has, or their style of build order.
  
• In StarCraft 1, Diablo II and WarCraft III, you cannot communicate players who are playing single player until they login multiplayer. In StarCraft II, players can be "online" on their friend's friend list. Even if they are playing single player, at least their friends know they are online.
  
• Achievements has its share of problems. Unlike Xbox Live, Blizzard is not limited to 1000 gamerscore. Achievements is nothing more but to challange players to test their limits, expand multitasking, extend their longevity, and work on absolutely different tactics instead of the player's normal play-style. In Xbox 360, there are way too many games that have useless collectibles for players to collect. In StarCraft II, Blizzard tries to have collectibles beneficial and under a quantity of 10. Achievements in StarCraft II is just to test players' motivation to finish certain tasks by a certain rule. StarCraft 1 and WarCraft III did not have achievements, and players try to make it easy for themselves as much as possible. Achievements on Xbox Live increases "farming/boosting", while true in StarCraft II, it is not as severe.
  
• Sometimes creating a game lobby, the player cannot change the settings while the lobby is finished. In StarCraft II, as host you can change the settings such as changing the map, game speed, and among other things. In StarCraft 1, you would have to quit the lobby and recreate the lobby for a different map, or changing from UMS to melee.
  
• The easiest way to communicate your friends is just "/f m". In StarCraft II, they try to take messenger style/Facebook-style where each conversation to each friend is at its own window. Sometimes typing /r can be problematic when trying to respond. Before entering a message, another friend randomly whispers and you respond to that friend instead. For the friends list system in StarCraft II, they try to reduce the habit of typing "/f l", "/f m", "/w name". (If there is one thing I would complain, is how small the conversation windows are. But of course, I can just expand the size.
  

There's a lot more, but I don't want to describe them all. There are many aspects of Battle.net 2.0 that I despise such as premium maps, but I will just deal with it. And no one said you would have to pay for changes, that's a ridiculous statement you said.