Why B.NET 2.0 could ruin SC2

[Khanzure]

SC2 wins. Here's why:

1. Gameplay is FAST and FUN and EXCITING, once you get the hang of it.

2. Getting the hang of it is tough in beta, yes, but in retail the learning curve will be vastly milder due to single player and, more importantly, a large player base which will allow the league system to function properly.

3. Hard counters are fine. Once you reach a certain level of skill (I'm almost there...sort of...) it becomes a matter of trying to outwit your opponent, of anticipating what he'll get and what he thinks you'll get and what he thinks you think he thinks you'll get. You have to pick your fights, and you can't simply out-dance if you're out-countered like you often could in SC1, but I have faith in the hard counter system to both be very stimulating at the normal-player level and compelling to watch at the elite-player level.

4. I repeat: gameplay is FAST and FUN and EXCITING. I've played every major RTS since War2, and I've never played one as exciting as SC2.

But B.NET 2.0 could ruin it all. Here's why:

1. I log in and FEEL LONELY. Loneliness won't help you push copies, Blizz! Chat needs to be at the center of the client, both with people I know AND people I don't know. The beta community is really suffering right now. The forums are the only place we have to communicate as a community. Give us public chat ASAP, and keep it around for retail. Half the fun of RTS is chilling out between games and shooting the shizz with other gamers.

2. I love Facebook. It's an amazingly useful social tool, and I don't know how I ever did without it. But the last thing I want is another Facebook where the only people on it are my gamer nerd friends, and that's what B.NET 2.0 feels like. SC2 is a game, not real life. We want to log in, play, and maybe chat a little. We want strong guild features, we DON'T want Real ID. It's useless, it's unnecessary, it's feature bloat.

3. It's unintuitive. In order to check the profile of someone I just played I have to go to my recent matches, click the match, add them to friends, open friends, right click them, and view profile. In B.NET 1.0 it was one motion: /profile ferrisbueller.

So Blizz:

Why are you taking steps backward for all the simple, bread-and-butter features that make B.NET what it is? Why are you choosing to threaten the success of SC2, which is a freakin fantastic game, with a poorly thought out attempt to clone Facebook? This is a really awful platform, and nearly all your beta testers agree. Yes, I know the social tab is not out yet, NO, that doesn't make me feel better. I fear it will just be more garbage feature bloat, when what we really want you to do is this:

Seriously reconsider the direction in which you are taking B.NET. You are NOT going to be Facebook, because RTS=/=IRL. Once you accept that fact, hopefully you can shrug off all the money you've spent on B.NET 2.0, scrap it, and give us something far closer to B.NET 1.0. Do not fluck up this awesome game with a clunky, bloated, backwards platform.

To the nay-sayers: I realize it's beta, I realize the social tab is greyed out, but I am speaking now because after seeing what B.NET 2.0 is, I don't have any faith in what it will be if we all stay quiet.





Helpful input from the thread:

I wish there was a simple, clear and concise chat box where I could input commands like on wow. Something like /inv, or /w, or anything like that.

Now I guess we can HOPE there will be chats for clans.

+1

B.net 2.0 really really really has to have strong guild functionality, based around a basic guild chat channel. I hope Blizz knows this.

While i love this game,Blizzard has to realize that Community is what will make or break the game.

I wish at the very least they would explain their ideas.

A lot of the new features of battle.net 2.0 would be perfectly fine and even wanted if they were done in addition to a chat-based UI for social/communication features and open chat channels.

[Kinaesthesia]

+1

[Lazz]

I agree with you. This game is incredible, and has incredible potential, and Battle.NET 2.0 doesn't look like it's going to cut it. There need to be public chat rooms, as well as numerous game-relevant features (like lower latency, reconnecting after drop, etc...) that games like Heroes of Newerth have.

[Symphonic]

I actually really like the new battle.net, but wish that chat rooms still existed. Also, I don't like that I have to type in someone's identifier to friend them, sometimes it's too late to get that part of information from someone and now you will never see them again.

[Kodiak]

This is just my 2 cents but there are buttons i dont have access to in B.net.

For instance theres a social icon that i cant click on yet but can hover over.

I dont know why blizzard wouldn't enable these things but they havent.

Also on the real id thing I'll prolly wont use it either.

[Pjdell]

I agree with you. This game is incredible, and has incredible potential, and Battle.NET 2.0 doesn't look like it's going to cut it. There need to be public chat rooms, as well as numerous game-relevant features (like lower latency, reconnecting after drop, etc...) that games like Heroes of Newerth have.

Reconnecting after drop would fail besides in 3v3 and 4v4...

And to the original post. I disagree that bnet is going to ruin the game. I do think they need to add chatrooms like they had in the old one but other than that i think the new bnet is great. I can't wait to see everything implemented but i like how it is currently. Sure there are some things they need to add and fix but its definitely not going to ruin SC2.

I prefer to just click one button and play a game very quickly... i never really liked chatting but once in a while. My favorite part is the ranking system, it makes it so anyone can enjoy the game right away and you don't have to get roflstomped 1000 times before you get any skills.

[Wretched]

Havn't played much yet, but I do agree.

the game just feels empty without being able to chat to people between matches, especially since this is beta and only a handful of people are playing, so there can be longer queue times to find a match.

I'm all for the Real-ID stuff though, and having a starcraft 2 friends list a long side that, but there are a number of tweaks that need to be adhered to, like simplifying the ability to add friends (as SC2 friends) clearly adding some1 as a Real ID friend would need to take some communication between the 2 people.

Channels(Chat Rooms), since there is a greyed out 'social' tab i'm thinking it's safe to say this tab will include something like this, where we can venture to, join some default channels, join our own, create clans etc.

I was really hoping this to be in teh beta though, to test, hopefully in a future patch once they have most of the bug/balance fixes out too.

[Wizbeski]

I wish there was a simple, clear and concise chat box where I could input commands like on wow. Something like /inv, or /w, or anything like that.

Right now I log in, and I have no idea how to contact people :X

EDIT: Except the add friend stuff and whatnot, but yeah, I'm really guessing the chat features are coming soon.

[Unsuspected]

Chat channels (public, private, and clan) are an important feature, imho. Also you should be able to /f add people with typing their identifier.

[Mbojangles]

I agree with you, but I think this should be in the feedback forum

[Khanzure]

Reconnecting after drop would fail besides in 3v3 and 4v4...

And to the original post. I disagree that bnet is going to ruin the game. I do think they need to add chatrooms like they had in the old one but other than that i think the new bnet is great. I can't wait to see everything implemented but i like how it is currently. Sure there are some things they need to add and fix but its definitely not going to ruin SC2.

I prefer to just click one button and play a game very quickly... i never really liked chatting but once in a while. My favorite part is the ranking system, it makes it so anyone can enjoy the game right away and you don't have to get roflstomped 1000 times before you get any skills.

I agree that the new league system has a LOT of potential. There are some other really great features too, like the replay interface. Most of the game-related stuff is great. My despair is for the social functions.

[Saccora]

I would like to disagree. I love BNet 2. I think the center chat of BNet 1 was nothing but Clan Spam anyways. It is like trade chat in WoW.

Also I am not sure what you mean by you need to add people to see there profile. I can access most profiles without adding.

[Khanzure]

I wish there was a simple, clear and concise chat box where I could input commands like on wow. Something like /inv, or /w, or anything like that.

+1

EDIT: Except the add friend stuff and whatnot, but yeah, I'm really guessing the chat features are coming soon.

This is what worries me:

Q u o t e:
Q : Is there plans to release public chat channels? Also, if you do release it, how will you fight against spams and profanity?
A : Battle.net 2.0 will not support open chat channels. We will take actions to the reported spams, profanity and rude behaviors with the new Report Player functionality.



Taken from http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=23425588844&sid=5000&pageNo=1

[Sonanko]

I really find chat lobbies to be hugely overrated, personally. I don't feel lonely and once your friends get the retail edition, you likely won't either. Also, you can always add people to your friends list if you really need to chat with someone that bad.

[Colrath]

Lets complain about social aspect of the game, when the social tab is disabled. +1

[Khanzure]

I would like to disagree. I love BNet 2. I think the center chat of BNet 1 was nothing but Clan Spam anyways. It is like trade chat in WoW.

I totally understand where you are coming from. Chat channels should absolutely be optional (you should have to manually join them), but they should be there and be obvious, for those of us who do want them.

Also I am not sure what you mean by you need to add people to see there profile. I can access most profiles without adding.

Maybe I just haven't figured that out yet, which in itself worries me, because I'm probably the average gamer in terms of figuring things out.

[Wizbeski]

Then there may be closed chat channels.

Guild chat channels, friends list chat channel (people who have similar friend on their list get to chat), custom created chat channels you can join.

[Leviathon]

Lets complain about social aspect of the game, when the social tab is disabled. +1

You do realize it's been stated in a interview that there will be no open chats right? Now I guess we can HOPE there will be chats for clans.

[Colrath]

I totally understand where you are coming from. Chat channels should absolutely be optional (you should have to manually join them), but they should be there and be obvious, for those of us who do want them.

Maybe I just haven't figured that out yet, which in itself worries me, because I'm probably the average gamer in terms of figuring things out.

It's hard to navigate an unfinished menu, let's wait to test/judge these types of things when the time comes to actually do so.

[Dreuel]

The beta’s a huge deal for Battle.net 2.0. How’s the infrastructure that you’re allowing people to use coped with the stress so far?

Dustin Browder: We’ve surviving the stress just fine. We’ve added a bunch of new keys this last week and we’ve got our concurrency up much higher than it was before. We’re receiving a lot of feedback about usability which we’re going to try to address in a content patch at some point during the beta, to get some more features and functionality out to the fans based on their experience.

Once that patch comes, we might just have a better idea of where they're headed by release.

[Dreuel]

3. It's unintuitive. In order to check the profile of someone I just played I have to go to my recent matches, click the match, add them to friends, open friends, right click them, and view profile. In B.NET 1.0 it was one motion: /profile ferrisbueller.

Browder also said in that same interview that that little dance annoyed him personally, and that a much nicer fix was in the works.

[Khanzure]

Browder also said in that same interview that that little dance annoyed him personally, and that a much nicer fix was in the works.

Good! I sincerely hope Blizz listens to us on these issues.

[Andross]

we DON'T want Real ID. It's useless, it's unnecessary, it's feature bloat.
I disagree, I really like being able to keep track of my friends and chat with them if they are on WoW or D3 or w/e it would be.

Now I would like chat channels, private one's at the very least and clans + clan channels.

[Zaq]

Bnet 2.0 is absolutely terrible.

[Peterpants]

+1

[Gabtraf]

Hm... looking forward to see what is inside that social tab, I wonder if we are able to at least enter one open chat channel, although it should be optional to go inside an open chat channel. If not then I'll be a dull boy..

[Lykos]

This is something I posted in the original SC2 forums. It basically defines how epic the new Battle.net 2.0 may be.

I've been thinking about this for a while. They say open chat channels are gone as we know them. Now playing World of WarCraft, one thing I learned is that you could make channels in that game. And if you made it, you was completely in charge of it. SC1 bnet wasn't like that. You had to Op youName to control it.

Now there must be a real time group chat system in SC2 so people who like melee games or people who like custom games can socialize and discuss what they are going to do. Getting a PM (personal message) from one guy or starting a partying won't be sufficient enough to correlate on a large scale the will of a group that may constantly be joining afterwards or leaving or coming back or whatever.

So I think Blizzard will have a closed chat channel system. You can make a channel and control it just like bnet only better. Oh better yet, the term "Facebook" has been tossed around in how this will work. That actually has even greater potential.

Imagine a group forming a page for everyone to join. They could post news, events a mailing system perhaps so you don't just have to mail one person. A wall for a history of stuff to be shown that persists even after log out. AND BETTER YET, it's own group chat system that lets everyone who is a part of that page communicate in real time on a 1 to many chat system. Imagine The possibilities here with your own clan type little setup. If they can remold the Facebook type system into what Battle.net 2.0 needs, we'll have more than we ever realized we can have.

Perhaps even internal tournaments and rank listings you could set up inside of it. Showing how well others are doing. Posting replays to it afterwards. Blizzard are you reading this. Have I read your thoughts or are you now trying to read mines? This is what we need!

To add to that. I suppose there will be some sort of chat lobby but in new form.

[Oroku]

Hi. We're here to test the gameplay for bugs and provide data for balancing. Pretty sure Blizzard doesn't need people to test out a chatroom.

[Dreuel]

This is something I posted in the original SC2 forums. It basically defines how epic the new Battle.net 2.0 may be.

I get the impression from what they talked about at Blizzcon that that's exactly what they have in mind.

[Stratosspear]

SC2 wins. Here's why:

1. Gameplay is FAST and FUN and EXCITING, once you get the hang of it.

2. Getting the hang of it is tough in beta, yes, but in retail the learning curve will be vastly milder due to single player and, more importantly, a large player base which will allow the league system to function properly.

3. Hard counters are fine. Once you reach a certain level of skill (I'm almost there...sort of...) it becomes a matter of trying to outwit your opponent, of anticipating what he'll get and what he thinks you'll get and what he thinks you think he thinks you'll get. You have to pick your fights, and you can't simply out-dance if you're out-countered like you often could in SC1, but I have faith in the hard counter system to both be very stimulating at the normal-player level and compelling to watch at the elite-player level.

4. I repeat: gameplay is FAST and FUN and EXCITING. I've played every major RTS since War2, and I've never played one as exciting as SC2.

But B.NET 2.0 could ruin it all. Here's why:

1. I log in and FEEL LONELY. Loneliness won't help you push copies, Blizz! Chat needs to be at the center of the client, both with people I know AND people I don't know. The beta community is really suffering right now. The forums are the only place we have to communicate as a community. Give us public chat ASAP, and keep it around for retail. Half the fun of RTS is chilling out between games and shooting the shizz with other gamers.

2. I love Facebook. It's an amazingly useful social tool, and I don't know how I ever did without it. But the last thing I want is another Facebook where the only people on it are my gamer nerd friends, and that's what B.NET 2.0 feels like. SC2 is a game, not real life. We want to log in, play, and maybe chat a little. We want strong guild features, we DON'T want Real ID. It's useless, it's unnecessary, it's feature bloat.

3. It's unintuitive. In order to check the profile of someone I just played I have to go to my recent matches, click the match, add them to friends, open friends, right click them, and view profile. In B.NET 1.0 it was one motion: /profile ferrisbueller.

So Blizz:

Why are you taking steps backward for all the simple, bread-and-butter features that make B.NET what it is? Why are you choosing to threaten the success of SC2, which is a freakin fantastic game, with a poorly thought out attempt to clone Facebook? This is a really awful platform, and nearly all your beta testers agree. Yes, I know the social tab is not out yet, NO, that doesn't make me feel better. I fear it will just be more garbage feature bloat, when what we really want you to do is this:

Seriously reconsider the direction in which you are taking B.NET. You are NOT going to be Facebook, because RTS=/=IRL. Once you accept that fact, hopefully you can shrug off all the money you've spent on B.NET 2.0, scrap it, and give us something far closer to B.NET 1.0. Do not fluck up this awesome game with a clunky, bloated, backwards platform.

To the nay-sayers: I realize it's beta, I realize the social tab is greyed out, but I am speaking now because after seeing what B.NET 2.0 is, I don't have any faith in what it will be if we all stay quiet.

There are still many features of Battle.net 2.0 that aren't added. Just look at all the grayed-out tabs. This has been said time and time and time and time again. Please do some forum searches.

[Golgo]

SC2 wins. Here's why:

1. Gameplay is FAST and FUN and EXCITING, once you get the hang of it.

2. Getting the hang of it is tough in beta, yes, but in retail the learning curve will be vastly milder due to single player and, more importantly, a large player base which will allow the league system to function properly.

3. Hard counters are fine. Once you reach a certain level of skill (I'm almost there...sort of...) it becomes a matter of trying to outwit your opponent, of anticipating what he'll get and what he thinks you'll get and what he thinks you think he thinks you'll get. You have to pick your fights, and you can't simply out-dance if you're out-countered like you often could in SC1, but I have faith in the hard counter system to both be very stimulating at the normal-player level and compelling to watch at the elite-player level.

4. I repeat: gameplay is FAST and FUN and EXCITING. I've played every major RTS since War2, and I've never played one as exciting as SC2.

But B.NET 2.0 could ruin it all. Here's why:

1. I log in and FEEL LONELY. Loneliness won't help you push copies, Blizz! Chat needs to be at the center of the client, both with people I know AND people I don't know. The beta community is really suffering right now. The forums are the only place we have to communicate as a community. Give us public chat ASAP, and keep it around for retail. Half the fun of RTS is chilling out between games and shooting the shizz with other gamers.

2. I love Facebook. It's an amazingly useful social tool, and I don't know how I ever did without it. But the last thing I want is another Facebook where the only people on it are my gamer nerd friends, and that's what B.NET 2.0 feels like. SC2 is a game, not real life. We want to log in, play, and maybe chat a little. We want strong guild features, we DON'T want Real ID. It's useless, it's unnecessary, it's feature bloat.

3. It's unintuitive. In order to check the profile of someone I just played I have to go to my recent matches, click the match, add them to friends, open friends, right click them, and view profile. In B.NET 1.0 it was one motion: /profile ferrisbueller.

So Blizz:

Why are you taking steps backward for all the simple, bread-and-butter features that make B.NET what it is? Why are you choosing to threaten the success of SC2, which is a freakin fantastic game, with a poorly thought out attempt to clone Facebook? This is a really awful platform, and nearly all your beta testers agree. Yes, I know the social tab is not out yet, NO, that doesn't make me feel better. I fear it will just be more garbage feature bloat, when what we really want you to do is this:

Seriously reconsider the direction in which you are taking B.NET. You are NOT going to be Facebook, because RTS=/=IRL. Once you accept that fact, hopefully you can shrug off all the money you've spent on B.NET 2.0, scrap it, and give us something far closer to B.NET 1.0. Do not fluck up this awesome game with a clunky, bloated, backwards platform.

To the nay-sayers: I realize it's beta, I realize the social tab is greyed out, but I am speaking now because after seeing what B.NET 2.0 is, I don't have any faith in what it will be if we all stay quiet.

+10 I really hope blizz listens. last interview gave me scares..

[Dragoon]

+1

[Constantine]

Nice OP

Hadn't thought of some of the topics but I'm sold

[Hunteromega]

+1

Also, on top of everything you just said, Blizzard has plans to lock our clients into playing with people only from the region we purchased the game in. Let's say you live in Sweden and have friends in North America - you're going to have to choose between playing with other Europeans or your American buddies. That, or buy the game twice, and build your profile twice.

http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=23425552475&sid=5000&pageNo=2

[Xav]

100% agreed. At this point I assume SC2 will be pushed back, again, while they revamp Battle.net 2.0. Right now BNet2 isn't a blizzard-worthy production. It needs to be, and they typically wait till things are 'perfect' to release them.

I'm really really hoping.

[Anon]

Lets complain about social aspect of the game, when the social tab is disabled. +1

Did you just +1 yourself?

and yes,we will complain,this is a feature that should''ve been readily available,yet Blizzard is claiming it won't be there at all.

Besides that,Blizzard has not tried to reassure anyone by saying what exactly WILL be in the social tab.

While i love this game,Blizzard has to realize that Community is what will make or break the game.Solo play has been turned down already by their removal of LAN and forcing people to log even for single player,yet the actual online features are subpar. If players can't speak to each other how will they speak about things in real time and get reasonable times for responses? How will people talk about things such as custom maps that don't even belong in discussion here?

I want to think theres no chat channels,so we are forced to discuss game mechanics here so Blizzard can scan it for patches,but since Blizzard has already claimed there won't be channels it's reassuring AGAINST being calm.

[Zeroping]

I like the new battle.net 2.0 but also realize that many features are still being worked on. I don't care for default public chat channels... they are just full of kids spouting profanities on battle.net 1 in SC1. I wouldn't mind if they put them in as an option for those who want to 'opt-in' though.

I like the match-matching, leagues and divisions but i'm looking forward to when they tighten up the search algorithms. It's easy to get a game without a lot of hassle. I think they learned a good lesson from the consoles in how easy it is to get a game and how popular they've become.

I would like to see the ability to re-connect after being disconnected. This was easily implemented by the HoN team, which is a much smaller dev. studio than Blizzard.

It should also be much easier to look-up other player's profiles (instead of having to add them as a friend). Would be especially nice when a game is about to start (during load screen).

But again, they are adding new features so I'll wait to see...

[Hulkbot]

I agree. I'm very annoyed that people are voicing against you being concerned about this. There are many points for and against Blizzard's ultimate steps so it's valid for someone who wants chat to be incorporated to do their part to tip them in the desired direction.

We have no idea what the social tab will incorporate especially since Blizzard officially stated there would be no chat channels.

I wish at the very least they would explain their idea.

[Ozo]

signed

[Darkmankill]

Chat channels (public, private, and clan) are an important feature, imho. Also you should be able to /f add people with typing their identifier.

[Baked]

omfg i miss b.net 1.0 chat!!!!! its what made blizz xtra entertaining!!!! It would also help with new beta members and such to find team mates for arranged teams. Most deffiantly would help on being able to share advice to counters and such faster.

[Qiin]

1. No Lan Latency for a game without Lan Capabilities = FAIL

2. No chat channels = FAIL

3. 1+2 = EPIC FAIL!

[Khanzure]

There are still many features of Battle.net 2.0 that aren't added. Just look at all the grayed-out tabs. This has been said time and time and time and time again. Please do some forum searches.

Did I not clearly address why greyed-out tabs and promises of "soon(TM) things will be better!" do not satisfy me? I have been following b.net 2.0 news since it was announced and I realize it's incomplete right now. My worry is that in its complete version, it won't be much better.

=/

[Lykos]

Did I not clearly address why greyed-out tabs and promises of "soon(TM) things will be better!" do not satisfy me? I have been following b.net 2.0 news since it was announced and I realize it's incomplete right now. My worry is that in its complete version, it won't be much better.

=/

All of these worries are highly inconsequential. Blizzard knows what they are doing, and it wouldn't be call the social tab if you couldn't communicate on an effective social level.

[Eloderung]

Battlefacebook.net 2.0 is the #1 worst feature in SC2 right now, and if it is not fixed it will end up significantly hurting SC2 in the short term and the long run, not to mention every single b.net 2.0 blizzard game that follows.

I don't care that a "social" tab is coming. If that tab is the only place we can communicate as easily as we could in b.net 1.0, then it's already a failure. We need essential but simple features found in b.net 1.0 such as a chat-based friends/messaging UI (if we choose to use it), the ability to initiate whispers and conversations from chat, the ability to look at the profiles and whisper people who aren't our friends, the ability to look up somebody's identifier, and many many other features from b.net 1.0.

Don't take away all of the features that made battle.net 1.0 so iconic. This includes public chat channels and the chat-based UI. Keep the poorly-done facebook clone messaging system if you want, just allow us to chat with people through the UI on this online, social game.


All of these worries are highly inconsequential. Blizzard knows what they are doing, and it wouldn't be call the social tab if you couldn't communicate on an effective social level.

Clearly the greyed-out social tab will magically allow us to use slash-commands once again to talk with other people. Clearly the greyed-out social tab will help immensely when we don't have access to the social tab, such as in-game and in custom game chat lobbies.

"It's a beta, things will magically fix itself" was the mantra of several failed games of the past, including Hellgate: London which was designed by several former blizzard employees.

Stop saying it's a beta. You. Are. Going. To. Ruin. This. Game.

[Stratosspear]

Battlefacebook.net 2.0 is the #1 worst feature in SC2 right now, and if it is not fixed it will end up significantly hurting SC2 in the short term and the long run, not to mention every single b.net 2.0 blizzard game that follows.

I don't care that a "social" tab is coming. If that tab is the only place we can communicate as easily as we could in b.net 1.0, then it's already a failure. We need essential but simple features found in b.net 1.0 such as a chat-based friends/messaging UI (if we choose to use it), the ability to initiate whispers and conversations from chat, the ability to look at the profiles and whisper people who aren't our friends, the ability to look up somebody's identifier, and many many other features from b.net 1.0.

Don't take away all of the features that made battle.net 1.0 so iconic. This includes public chat channels and the chat-based UI. Keep the poorly-done facebook clone messaging system if you want, just allow us to chat with people through the UI on this online, social game.



Clearly the greyed-out social tab will magically allow us to use slash-commands once again to talk with other people. Clearly the greyed-out social tab will help immensely when we don't have access to the social tab, such as in-game and in custom game chat lobbies.

"It's a beta, things will magically fix itself" was the mantra of several failed games of the past, including Hellgate: London which was designed by several former blizzard employees.

Stop saying it's a beta. You. Are. Going. To. Ruin. This. Game.

Yes, those grayed-out tabs CAN magically allow us to do all of those things. Again, it's been said multiple times that most of Battle.net's features are NOT implemented yet. Let them implement what they are going to before you criticize it. For all you know they could've been planning to add this all in for months before you guys started complaining.

[Rivfader]

I agree 100% with the OP.

Blizzard you absolutely have to add chat channels. I have no idea why you have not. Especially for beta. How am I supposed to get custom games going with people without there being channels? Obviously none of my real life friends got beta keys yet. So I stare at a blank screen and cannot chat with other testers in a channel/lobby or try to make custom games to test things out.

It does not feel like battle.net at all.

[Dreuel]

Stop saying it's a beta. You. Are. Going. To. Ruin. This. Game.

Before you see an implementation, all you can really do is talk goals. What do you want from the system? The problem with all these threads about open chat channels is that they conflate the problem (wanting to meet new people and having no great way to do that in the current game) with one of many possible solutions (wide open chat channels.)

[Khanzure]

Yes, those grayed-out tabs CAN magically allow us to do all of those things. Again, it's been said multiple times that most of Battle.net's features are NOT implemented yet. Let them implement what they are going to before you criticize it. For all you know they could've been planning to add this all in for months before you guys started complaining.

What worries me is what Blizz has already said about chat functions--notably, they stated that there will not be public chat. Other than that, they've actually said very little. It's likely that most of the social functionality of b.net 2.0 is already up and running, just not well enough to be implemented yet. At the very least, Blizz has already decided what they want to include in terms of social functionality. If their plans are in the same vein as what is already present in b.net 2.0, then they have failed. We must make it clear that they have failed NOW so that they can fix it before release, not just wait around and hope for the best. Speaking up is what the beta is all about. I hate the argument that we should fold our hands, sit quietly in the corner, and be good little fanboys (and girls).

I want this game to be great, and I know b.net 2.0 needs to be great in order for that to happen. Right now, it isn't.

[Facktion]

I agree with all these points, particularly about the need for public chat. Its absence is clearly felt.

[Captinhammer]

I agree with all that has been said here. It's not bugging me right now, but when custom games start and I DON'T want to play the DoTA esque game that will take over the UMS (...speculation, but it's undeniable that a lot of people love DoTA, and it's hyper popular on WC3 to the point that other customs don't exist) then I need a chat channel to ask if people wanna play a TD, or any other custom game. (Mad props to the first person who makes a game like Pyramid Escape).

And even if a particular custom game doesn't overpower everything else, It'd still be nice to have a place to see if anyone wants to play a certain custom game, or get feedback on a game that I've made without some rediculous right click, add friend, message, more, remove friend system. I like to keep my /f list filled with REAL life friends, or guys that I think are just really cool, not every guy on B-Net to try to get some custom game variety.

That said, SC2 is an amazing game and it'll function well either way, but a few chat channels could go a long way.

Edit: An above poster made an excelent point. Open chat channels are not the only way of acheiving what people want. For example, all of my worries would be satisfied with just a basic box that I can type /f m into or whatever, and a sort of "notify me if custom game _____ is created" thing. I'm not sure if that's even possible (given that every map is a new game), but I think about a year or two ago Blizzard mentioned something about B.Net having some sort of similar functionality to that with the custom games.

OR they could just make some chat channels. Or they could suprise me with something awesome, which is what Blizzard does best after all.

[Spacefish]

/signed
chat channels ARE the community, I dont want to have to log into forums to be able to find people I dont know to set up custom games and discuss strats.

[Eloderung]

Before you see an implementation, all you can really do is talk goals. What do you want from the system? The problem with all these threads about open chat channels is that they conflate the problem (wanting to meet new people and having no great way to do that in the current game) with one of many possible solutions (wide open chat channels.)

What do the customers want?

See WarIII battle.net.

Combine the most popular features of that with battle.net 2.0, and you'll have a much-improved and superior online matchmaking platform.

Yes, those grayed-out tabs CAN magically allow us to do all of those things. Again, it's been said multiple times that most of Battle.net's features are NOT implemented yet. Let them implement what they are going to before you criticize it. For all you know they could've been planning to add this all in for months before you guys started complaining.

Not when blizzard has explicitly stated otherwise that said features are not coming.

[Dreuel]

What do the customers want?

See WarIII battle.net.

That's an implementation, not a goal. What benefits do you want to get from using the system? If the previous battle.net implementation addressed them, explain what your goals were and how it met them.

Edit: You're going to get something different from War III's battle.net. That's guaranteed. Sorry. So don't just point at it and say "I want that," or you may get something worse because you'll be ignored.

[Normz]

+1 not having open chat channels does bother me.. They should not be mandatory but players should have the option to do so. Battle.net 2.0 just looks like a wow launcher to me ; /

[Normz]

also, allowing open chat channels would make it much much easier to find 2v2 partners. I wouldnt have to waste my time posting a thread here when not everyone even knows these forums exist.

[Eloderung]

That's an implementation, not a goal. What benefits do you want to get from using the system? If the previous battle.net implementation addressed them, explain what your goals were and how it met them.


I thought that was pretty obvious.

Problems and Solutions

Problem: Battle.net 2.0 is barren and lifeless. The bustling community that greets every online blizzard player in Starcraft, WarII b.net edition, Diablo I, Diablo II, WarIII, and WoW is nowhere to be found in Starcraft II / on Battle.net.

Solution: With one click, let a user jump right into the community. I.e., in WarIII, you could press a button and instantly be put into a chat room with random users, or you could skip that and go straight into games or specific private chat channels if you were not a fan of chat.

Problem: If you don't have any friends from previous Blizzard games, you're alone on Starcraft II.

Solution: Public socialization areas, i.e., open chat channels. In RTS games, especially in melee, people tend not to have time to chat much while playing a match. If you don't provide a venue to discuss stuff outside of games, people are not likely to meet new online buddies to put on their friends list.

Problem: Ability to easily talk to people.

Solution: Private messages were possible in every previous online Blizzard through chat slash commands. /w Eloderung hi would send me the message hi - that's all that was required. You did not need to know a person's full account name. You did not need to befriend a person before chatting with them (what if your friends list is full?). You did not need to play a game with a person before you could friend them.

Problem: Very difficult to see profiles of anyone.

Solution: again, any sort of profile browser or /slash command would fix this, just like the previous versions of battle.net.

Problem: New battle.net 2.0 social features extremely difficult to use for long-time customers.

Solution: Add old features from battle.net 1.0 to use in conjunction with battle.net 2.0 social features if players wish.

Most of these solutions were present in every single previous blizzard title to date. Every single one. Blizzard is alienating a very, very, very large portion of its playerbase (all of its loyal fans) by not catering to them.

[Melphys]

Ya I don't like bnet 2.0 right now. I don't see whats so good about it and it also doesn't even have a reconnect on DC'd game feature which is the no1 thing I really want.

[Dreuel]

I thought that was pretty obvious.

Good post, particularly your statement of the problems. There's not a single problem you stated that can't be solved without open chat channels, though. (Defining, for the sake of argument, an "open" chat channel as being a channel that a new player account can join before playing any games or adding any friends.)

[Psiwolf]

Good post, particularly your statement of the problems. There's not a single problem you stated that can't be solved without open chat channels, though. (Defining, for the sake of argument, an "open" chat channel as being a channel that a new player account can join before playing any games or adding any friends.)

Ok, you've intrigued me.

Solve the problems outlined in his post without using open chat channels.

[Eloderung]

Good post, particularly your statement of the problems. There's not a single problem you stated that can't be solved without open chat channels, though. (Defining, for the sake of argument, an "open" chat channel as being a channel that a new player account can join before playing any games or adding any friends.)

Which is why a lot of people are suggesting the tried-and-true solutions of original battle.net to fix problems found in battle.net 2.0.

A lot of the new features of battle.net 2.0 would be perfectly fine and even wanted if they were done in addition to a chat-based UI for social/communication features and open chat channels. For example, I would have loved to have the score screen functionality in WarIII or SCI, and I would have loved to have IM-like conversation tabs for some of those longer conversations with RL friends. Just not at the expense of the simplicity and robustness found in the simple slash commands of original battle.net, such as /whisper or /w eloderung Hey, good luck in your next game!, /friends list or /f l to see which of my friends are online in my current chat window, /profile eloderung to see the profile of myself or anyone else I wanted, or /w MyLastOpponent wow, you really caught me off-guard with that last nuke, good game!.

Point is, all of the above is possible... sort of... in battle.net 2.0, but it requires jumping through several annoying and unnecessary loops. And, as a long-time blizzard veteran who has played SCI, D2, WarIII, and WoW, it was really disconcerting to log into battle.net 2.0 and find that these universal chat commands - these slash commands that I have used in one form or another for the past 12 years on Blizzard games - do not work.

This is the first Blizzard game that has not felt like a Blizzard game online.

[Kat]

Mostly agree. I don't think BNET is going to 'kill' SC2, really... Because SC2 is that good of a game.

However there are somethings that must happen.

1.) Clan Interface - There needs to be some sort of clan UI in SC2. Its a big part of the community, it servers a different role than a friends list, and it helps players get better by playing in a wider group of individuals. Having no clan interface in SC2 would be like having no guild interface in WoW, unacceptable and nearly unimaginable.

2.) Streamlined profile/friends - The whole system of adding friends and viewing other's stats and profiles just feel clunky and awkward. There has got to be a more effective way of doing things. The system as it stands right now is confusing and hard to use.

3.) More clarity and transparency about the ladder system - Battlenet needs to spell out in every way how the ladder system works. It needs to tell us exactly how points are assigned, how players become favored or not, how to move up and down from one ladder to the next, etc. The more people understand the mechanics of the ladder system, the more likely they are to enjoy it. The fact that people are sitting around scratching their heads thinking "i've been rank 1 in copper all week, so why am i not being bumped up to bronze...?" shows us a pretty significant flaw in the explanation of the system as a whole.

4.) Some sort of group chat function. These could be public and private chat channels, or something else even. But there needs to be a better way to communicate with other players. Now, im not sure what tricks they have up their sleeves with the social tab, but it would be nice for them to share some more information with us.

--

Other than that the service is very good. I never get connection or latency problems (which occurred nearly every time i tried to join a game over the old battlenet). I feel like im generally being matched up with players around my skill level or higher (which is good). And i'm enjoying my time with the system. For all the things that BNET2 needs, it has some very nice features as well.

[Dreuel]

OK.

I posted some thoughts about how they might address these issues without open chat channels in this feedback thread (which I'd encourage you to read and add to) but since I was focusing on goals and not solutions there, I'll add some more.

http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=23710861465&sid=5000

First, what's an open chat channel? You could define it a few ways.

* I'm interpreting most of the discussion to center around an auto-joined global chat channel that's there for everyone, like in earlier versions of battle.net.

* However, if getting rid of spam is the issue, a chat channel you can see on a list and join manually is probably also a likely source of spam.

* A chat channel to which any person can be invited by a current member would probably not qualify as an open chat channel.

Basically, I argue that you can't necessarily tell the difference between a chat channel that's automatically generated from information about you and your social network and a completely open chat channel.

Here are some ways that the game could automatically create non-open chat channels that would probably give a better social experience than the previous battle.net chat channels:

* Chat channels generated based on your ranking, for talking to people with similar skill levels.

* Chat channels generated based on your play history, for example to let avid 2v2 random players talk to each other, or for discussion of topics related to playing Zerg for players who have played Zerg a lot.

* Chat channels based on your friends lists. For example, I sign on and add two other real life friends who are playing the game. Maybe I've added a few friends from other types of channels or random people I've met in games. The system could generate something that looks to me like a chat channel in which I can talk to friends of friends, friends of friends of friends, etc.

* A related idea to that third one would be something that's not quite a chat channel but works a little bit like one, in which your chat is auto-broadcasted to chat windows of people who are connected closely enough to you. Everyone's chat window might cover a different set of people, so no two people would see the same channel membership. If someone at the edge of your network were having a conversation with someone outside your network, that might be a little confusing -- not sure if there's a good way to address that.

All of these things can happen without having to know the people with whom you'll be talking in advance, and none is an open chat channel.

[Dreuel]

Which is why a lot of people are suggesting the tried-and-true solutions of original battle.net to fix problems found in battle.net 2.0.

The purpose in eliminating completely open chat channels is to reduce the need for active, labor-intensive moderation of those channels by Blizzard employees. That may not be your goal, but it's absolutely one of theirs, and solutions that address your needs and theirs are inherently better than the "tried and true" solutions that fail on that count.

Edit: Kat.swordfish -- I agree completely.

[Eloderung]

Here are some ways that the game could automatically create non-open chat channels that would probably give a better social experience than the previous battle.net chat channels:

* Chat channels generated based on your ranking, for talking to people with similar skill levels.

Segregation works as well online as it does in the real world.

In other words, it's a terrible idea.

Blizzard has also never segregated its community in the past, so for them to implement such a feature for chat would be a big step in the wrong direction for the gaming company that created the definition of "Casual Gamer" in the RTS and MMO genres.

* Chat channels generated based on your play history, for example to let avid 2v2 random players talk to each other, or for discussion of topics related to playing Zerg for players who have played Zerg a lot.

What if I'm a 2v2 player who's looking to get into 1v1? Why can't I simply choose whether I want to talk about 1v1 or 2v2, like I can in SCI, D2, WarIII, WarII, and D1 for pertinent topics in those communities?

* Chat channels based on your friends lists. For example, I sign on and add two other real life friends who are playing the game. Maybe I've added a few friends from other types of channels or random people I've met in games. The system could generate something that looks to me like a chat channel in which I can talk to friends of friends, friends of friends of friends, etc.

No, this isn't facebook.

Also, if you do not come into battle.net with friends previously, you would not be able to meet any online buddies. This is one of the problems I, and many others, have explicitly listed.

By putting in something like this you're also admitting that SC2's system of encouraging socializing is terrible, and that people are required to have friends from prior Blizzard games with superior social functions, such as WoW, SCI, D2, War3, War2, or DI.

* A related idea to that third one would be something that's not quite a chat channel but works a little bit like one, in which your chat is auto-broadcasted to chat windows of people who are connected closely enough to you. Everyone's chat window might cover a different set of people, so no two people would see the same channel membership. If someone at the edge of your network were having a conversation with someone outside your network, that might be a little confusing -- not sure if there's a good way to address that.

This was present in all previous version of battle.net, and it is present in Starcraft II right now.

In previous versions, /f msg <Hey, insert message here!>

In SC2, open friends window, insert new message into your wall status, hit enter. Oh, and hope you're not inside a game, because I don't believe this will work unless you're actually in the battle.net 2.0 lobby directly.

All of these things can happen without having to know the people with whom you'll be talking in advance, and none is an open chat channel.

You addressed not a single problem listed.

The purpose in eliminating completely open chat channels is to reduce the need for active, labor-intensive moderation of those channels by Blizzard employees. That may not be your goal, but it's absolutely one of theirs, and solutions that address your needs and theirs are inherently better than the "tried and true" solutions that fail on that count.

A better idea is to charge $10 a month to play and connect to Starcraft II.

Next best idea is to just give the community open chat channels, because that is what they want.

The only reason spam exists on WoW is because selling gold and illegal items is worth the $30 spent per cd key ban. The only reason spam exists on battle.net 1.0 is because you can make unlimited numbers of accounts with one cd key, and third party programs can connect to battle.net 1.0.

There is a "report spam" feature in Starcraft II. That, combined with one account = one cd key, meaning repeated spamming will result in $50 out of your pocket and your entire blizzard account, will mean that spam will be significantly less.

Also, blizzard still provides content updates to SCI/D2/etc. years after release even though those games are not new and do not generate revenue.

Could it be that *gasp* Blizzard in the past cared about providing high-quality game experiences to its customers, even if it cost them some profit?

[Dreuel]

Segregation works as well online as it does in the real world.

In other words, it's a terrible idea.

It's not segregating the community if that's one of many ways that they help people get in contact with each other.

Look at it this way, if I had one of several "channels" that featured people I knew were near my skill level, that's where I'd look for a 2v2 partner. I'm not going to waste the time of someone I don't know who's two leagues up, because I'd just lose them games and upset them.

If that's the *only* way to talk to people, yeah, it would be ugly, but it's just one possible way that would be part of a bigger picture.

No, this isn't facebook.

Facebook doesn't have a chat feature remotely like what I described, so what I described isn't Facebook either. That said, having people validate contacts used to build ad-hoc chat channels is an excellent way to keep signal up and noise down -- in other words keep spammers out.

You addressed not a single problem listed.

You're on crack.

Problem: Battle.net 2.0 is barren and lifeless. The bustling community that greets every online blizzard player in Starcraft, WarII b.net edition, Diablo I, Diablo II, WarIII, and WoW is nowhere to be found in Starcraft II / on Battle.net.

Addressed.

Problem: If you don't have any friends from previous Blizzard games, you're alone on Starcraft II.

Addressed.

Problem: Ability to easily talk to people.

Addressed.

Problem: Very difficult to see profiles of anyone.

Problem: New battle.net 2.0 social features extremely difficult to use for long-time customers.

Didn't address these because the current implementation will not resemble what's going to be in there at release, and Dustin Browder is on the record saying they're going to address these problems well before beta is over.

Edit: consolidated my three responses into one post.

[Eloderung]

It's not segregating the community if that's one of many ways that they help people get in contact with each other.

Look at it this way, if I had one of several "channels" that featured people I knew were near my skill level, that's where I'd look for a 2v2 partner. I'm not going to waste the time of someone I don't know who's two leagues up, because I'd just lose them games and upset them.

If that's the *only* way to talk to people, yeah, it would be ugly, but it's just one possible way that would be part of a bigger picture.

Or you could just do what Battle.net 1.0 did.

Copper League Discussion channel.
Gold League Discussion channel.
etc.

and open chat channels.

You're proposing forced online segregation. That is NOT what people want.

* A related idea to that third one would be something that's not quite a chat channel but works a little bit like one, in which your chat is auto-broadcasted to chat windows of people who are connected closely enough to you. Everyone's chat window might cover a different set of people, so no two people would see the same channel membership. If someone at the edge of your network were having a conversation with someone outside your network, that might be a little confusing -- not sure if there's a good way to address that.


Facebook doesn't have a chat feature remotely like what I described, so what I described isn't Facebook either. That said, having people validate contacts used to build ad-hoc chat channels is an excellent way to keep signal up and noise down -- in other words keep spammers out.


I post something to my wall.

That chat is auto-broadcasted to chat windows of people who are connected closely enough to me (my friends). Everyone's chat window might cover a different set of people (my friend's friends are not my own friends), so no two people would see the same channel membership.

[Dreuel]

I post something to my wall.

Facebook wall posts are neither guaranteed to be displayed to other people on their news feed, nor are they necessarily displayed in real time. It's not designed to hold a conversation, any more than these forums are, and it's not chat.

[Captinhammer]

Words

All of these things can happen without having to know the people with whom you'll be talking in advance, and none is an open chat channel.

I like the theory behind this, but upon implementation it might not work so well. For example, lets say they made a chat channel for custom games. Just a chat channel so that people can talk to other people interested in playing custom games. This would probably turn into the new "open" chat channel for spam. Spammers would come in and probably be ignored like any other

If you're suggesting FORCED segregation, as in, a guy that hasn't played zerg 2v2 couldn't get into the zerg 2v2 channel then that is an appallingly bad idea for three reasons:

1. If you're joining a channel like that it's often because you want to LEARN about how best to play those matches, new players would get annoyed at not being able to join and ask a few questions before going in.
2. Spam bots would find their way in. In this case it'd be a simple matter of the spam bot joining the required amount of games to join the channel.
3. It would either create such a ridiculous amount of separation that each channel is incredibly small, or not separate anyone at all leaving you with open chat channels anyways.

I don't mind the chat channels for friends though, but that still doesn't solve the problem of "person x wants to find people for game y" which is probably about 90% of the non-spam stuff that happens in any Battle.net 1.0 channel.

That's what I want. A way for person x to find y people who, similar to person x want to play game z. (Ok so the y in there was somewhat unnecessary but you get the point). Chat channels are a simple way of achieving this. But I'm open to other suggestions, but when suggesting other stuff you need to consider the other problems stated in this thread.

Edit: Ah, I misinterpreted the whole segregation thing. Either way, the spammers would get into the bronze and copper leagues easily.

[Khanzure]

I don't understand all the concern about spamming. The whole reason there is spamming in b.net 1.0 is because accounts are totally free to create. In b.net 2.0 that's not the case--you'd have to buy a copy of the game in order to put a spam bot online. No one is going to be willing to do that, because it will just get banned right away and there is not nearly the same money-making potential as there is in WoW (where losing a few accounts to bans is just part of the cost of doing business for the gold sellers).

What are Blizz's plans for integrating b.net 1.0 and 2.0, if any? Does anyone know?

[Bobreeda]

This is a mere beta version. Didn't bashiok say that he wanted us "Chuckleheads" to play the game instead of talk?

I agree with you, but i wouldn't worry atm. I assure you public chat channels will be implemented after the beta.

[Psiwolf]

This is a mere beta version. Didn't bashiok say that he wanted us "Chuckleheads" to play the game instead of talk?

I agree with you, but i wouldn't worry atm. I assure you public chat channels will be implemented after the beta.

If they're worried about us talking instead of playing the game, that doesn't say much for the game.

Just sayin'

[Greyhame]

If they're worried about us talking instead of playing the game, that doesn't say much for the game.

Just sayin'

It's says nothing about the game, but it does say what their goals are with the current phase of the beta testing, which is testing gameplay. If they wanted to test social features they'd be enabled.

[Liar]

I think the benefits of REAL ID aren't being addressed: you can talk to players across all blizzard games. Who is this targeted to? Not the SC2 community, but the WoW community. This will allow WoW players to essentially wait around (as so much of WoW involves) while playing in SC2. As an aside, it allows a significantly enhanced communication to IRL friends.

I think that while the other concerns are valid, REAL ID is a useful feature and doesn't need to be changed. Not everyone will use it, but it isn't hurting the ones that don't and is beneficial to people who are.

[Eloderung]

It's says nothing about the game, but it does say what their goals are with the current phase of the beta testing, which is testing gameplay. If they wanted to test social features they'd be enabled.

No, if beta testers would rather chat in chat channels than play the beta, it DOES say something about the game.

[Psiwolf]

It's says nothing about the game, but it does say what their goals are with the current phase of the beta testing, which is testing gameplay. If they wanted to test social features they'd be enabled.

Funny thing about that... WoW and Diablo II both had chat capabilities in Beta. I could talk to other players about how "I noticed such and such. Would you mind helping me duplicate this?". The chat actually facilitated beta testing.

It does say something about the game. By beta, the game should at least be compelling enough for people to want to, I don't know, play and test it. The only real issues that should make it to a beta release are minor bugs and balance issues.

I don't know how many times I've wanted to discontinue the Beta (and I've only been in it for five days!), but I keep getting back on that horse. That's generally a bad sign since the Betas for Diablo II and WoW were good enough to hook me in and make me buy the game (and I was originally not even considering buying WoW at all!) and play them both for years.

The current state of SC is such that I'm strongly considering not buying it once the beta is over, but I'm also willing to give it a chance to improve over the course of the beta. If I can see it starting to pair me with copper/bronze more often and silver/gold/platinum less often, that will be a plus. If I start to see more social features like full fledged chat capability, that will be a BIG plus. Right now, the social features are either too prohibitive (profiles, f lists) or non-existent (chat, slash commands, clans).

B.net 1.0 was good enough that I used it for seven years (1997-2004) and the only thing that got me away from it was the WoW Beta.

It's hard for me to put my finger on any one thing, but SC2 just doesn't have that hook that SC1, D2 and WoW did.

[Dreuel]

Funny thing about that... WoW and Diablo II both had chat capabilities in Beta. I could talk to other players about how "I noticed such and such. Would you mind helping me duplicate this?". The chat actually facilitated beta testing.

I think the issue is that the game itself is a lot farther along in development than the new battle.net. (In fact, battle.net 2.0 already caused a significant delay in the start of SC2 beta.) If anything, what's probably going on here is that the battle.net plans are *very* ambitious and it's taking a lot of work to get it to the level of polish it needs to be at to get it in our hands.

They've already talked about continuing to patch in new features after SC2's release. I suspect they're going to ship with a deliberately incomplete feature set, though, just because there's a limit to how much that development can hold up the game.

[BeL]

Great post.

[Psiwolf]

I think the issue is that the game itself is a lot farther along in development than the new battle.net. (In fact, battle.net 2.0 already caused a significant delay in the start of SC2 beta.) If anything, what's probably going on here is that the battle.net plans are *very* ambitious and it's taking a lot of work to get it to the level of polish it needs to be at to get it in our hands.

They've already talked about continuing to patch in new features after SC2's release. I suspect they're going to ship with a deliberately incomplete feature set, though, just because there's a limit to how much that development can hold up the game.

Yeah, I can definitely agree with that. Feature creep is a very ugly thing.

Like I said, I'll give it time. I've got WoW until SC2 and B.net 2.0 are polished enough, I guess.

[Insane]

Looking at their Battle.net BlizzCon 09' Panel, Battle.net is definitely is what is holding SC2 back right now. Single player is apparently nearly complete, and Rob Pardo said that the chat channel replacement wouldn't be at launch but would appear shortly afterwards for the concerned.

[Bobreeda]

Looking at their Battle.net BlizzCon 09' Panel, Battle.net is definitely is what is holding SC2 back right now. Single player is apparently nearly complete, and Rob Pardo said that the chat channel replacement wouldn't be at launch but would appear shortly afterwards for the concerned.

see? no need to judge the entire future of this game when it is less then a month into beta.

But i still think you guys should keep posting. Constructive critisism is what Blizzard needs at this phase in the game.

[Eloderung]

see? no need to judge the entire future of this game when it is less then a month into beta.

Considering we're 30% through the beta test already, I'm sure that's a major reason as to why so many people are concerned. In most blizzard betas (this is my 4th one to date), the first three weeks are typically a major source of content patches and various testing pushes.

We're not judging the rest of this game's future. We're trying to tell blizzard how to improve it as best they can before launch. If so many beta testers are going to raise these concerns, with the knowledge that its a beta test and things may improve before launch, how do you think the community at large will react to the same issues if they're launched and still missing?

[Insane]

Considering we're 30% through the beta test already,

Source? Less than a month of testing, and Blizzard is AIMING for around three months, 30% sounds like a random statistic.

[Eloderung]

Source? Less than a month of testing, and Blizzard is AIMING for around three months, 30% sounds like a random statistic.

3 weeks + a few days out of 12 weeks is a bit under 30%.

From my past experience, blizzard is actually pretty dead-on when it comes to beta test durations, and they have aimed for a three month beta test as you said. Plus they're focusing solely on balance, and not other things like battle.net 2.0, achievements, and Galaxy, so it's reasonable to assume that the beta test will be on the short side rather than the 5+ months usually seen for WoW expansions.

[Greyhame]

No, if beta testers would rather chat in chat channels than play the beta, it DOES say something about the game.

That people are too focused on chatting and not that the point of the beta testing actually is?

[Dreuel]

They've stated they're shooting for a first-half 2010 release with a launch-day patch, which means beta would end sometime between now and June 30th. They also have the option to delay the game again if it's really not quite there at that point, plus they can patch in features after release.

It's quite possible that key battle.net features won't be there on launch day (in fact they seemed to say that the chat replacement features wouldn't be), but also Dustin Browder in his recent interview took note of the comments on social features on the forums and said there would be a significant patch before the end of beta that would add more features, plus another patch at launch day in addition to what will come after that.

Point being that, while not everyone will necessarily be happy with what they implement, there is more coming before release and the many comments about this have been noticed.

Edit: I remember another blue commenting that it was possible we might see the editor late in the beta. Can't recall the source of that though.