I have returned: StarCraft II

[Gryffes]

100 apm would be laughable for idra.

( any reasonable player is going to be well above ).

[Ferien]

I severely doubt Idra is only 100APM. I usually averaged between 80 and 100, my 2v2 partner was generally over 180. I consider myself an extremely slow player and its one of the things I need to work on more than anything else.

In the replays? I know one of the common complaints was that they generally show less than what other programs would. If that's not the case, then IDK, but I only average about 55, and my teammates were 15 and below, so even if it was an impersonator we were handily dealt with.

[Arnwulf]

This is an interesting read, this guy REALLY hates Battle.net:

http://www.the-ghetto.org/content/ba...-confidence?df

I would copy/ paste the whole thing it but it's super long. He makes some decent points.

Here's a small exerpt:

The Battle.net 2.0 marketing approach has been simple: “We removed [function] because of [scapegoat].” It’ll sound good to the GameStop crowd, and Starcraft players will call bullshit. Since computer gamers have a habit of organizing boycotts on the grounds of crappy box art, the mainstream will throw up their hands and say “There they go again.” And then when Blizzard releases the game, computer fans will say “We told you so.”

Look at LAN. In June of 2009, Blizzard Entertainment revealed there would be none. The reason? Blizzard wanted to give its fans a quality product.

“While this was a difficult decision for us, we felt that moving away from LAN play and directing players to our upgraded Battle.net service was the best option to ensure a quality multiplayer experience with StarCraft II and safeguard against piracy.” – Bob Colyaco, Blizzard Public Relations Representative

That’s right: Battle.net 2.0 is going to be so awesome, you won’t need LAN. May surprise you: Many months ago, I defended it.

“Eliminating the ability to play Starcraft II through a Local Area Network does not mean you won’t be able to play the game through an equivalent. You can’t cut through a Battle Report or Q&A Batch or Dustin’s Terrible Terrible Blogspot without having it drenched in e-sport. Blizzard didn’t build the game for competition, for television, simply to decide we can’t fight it out latency free. This is the sequel to gaming’s biggest spectator sport.

“What we can say is that you will have to hook into the internet to play the game. This is a piracy thing, and the Steam approach appears to be the compromise being offered by developers. Ten years ago, a CD-Key was good enough. Today, Blizzard does not want to get snakebit by another case of Garena, where hundreds of thousands play Defense of the Ancients with illegal copies of Warcraft III. My guess is that Battle.net 2.0 will emulate Steam’s product. Players looking to LAN will log into Battle.net to verify the game’s legitimacy, and then proceed to play on an emulated equivalent.

…

“If you are playing somebody through Battle.net via a local network, you will have LAN latency, and you will not be disconnected from your local game if your internet connection dies on you. There. I just eased eighty percent of the concern.”

I made a mistake. Not just assuming “There’s no way Blizzard can be that dumb.” I thought LAN was about piracy. If piracy was the concern, it wouldn’t make sense to pass up internet-authenticated LAN. But piracy is an easy target. Especially when the real reason is a laughingstock in the Western World. Already discussed it in detail: The elimination of LAN creates a world where Blizzard is the unquestioned overlord of “Starcraft II: The Sport”. Read the Terms of Service lately?

“You agree that you will not, under any circumstances…use the Service for any “e-sports” or group competition sponsored, promoted or facilitated by any commercial or non-profit entity without Blizzard’s prior written consent;” – Starcraft II Battle.net Terms of Use, Current as of May 28th

Want to run a major Starcraft II tournament? Hope you got money. Blizzard wants a cut. Yeah, Blizzard isn’t tossing lawyers at your college tournament. And why bother? Saw what happened at the University of Central Florida? Where 100 gamers showed up for a tournament and found out Battle.net could only handle twelve university network users at once? And then Battle.net crashed during the round of sixteen and threw the legitimacy of the event into question? Blizzard isn’t worried. The company set up the system so you can’t compete with them. It just sells the message: “Thanks for making Starcraft a spectator sport, fans. Now fuck off.“

That’s why your game is region-locked. Got friends in Europe? Too bad. You can’t play with them. Blizzard has international Starcraft tournaments to sell. They can’t have Germany’s Dario Wunsch (TheLittleOne) and American-in-Korea Greg Fields (IdrA) playing each other whenever they feel like it. That’ll dilute the demand for Major League Gaming’s “Europe versus America” event, brought to you by Mountain Dew: Rainbow Seizure. Your “official reason” for the omission?

“Yes, when it releases on day one, if you want to connect with your friends in the US, get the US box or if you want to play with Koreans, then get the Korean box. However if you want to get the best experience out of your game here in South East Asia, you should get the local boxset. The latency, the community, those things are going to really define the experience, and you don’t want to miss out on that.” – Kevin Yu, Blizzard Community Manager

Blizzard Entertainment eliminated LAN on an implied premise that everyone has broadband internet and latency will not be an issue. According to the company, the game is region-locked because latency will be an issue. Starcraft features an internationally-diverse competitive gaming scene. According to the company, confining them to regional servers will foster community. Can’t make this stuff up.

[Flarega]

Gotta love the

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/1222/battlenet5.jpg

Always a classic.

[Syntex]

“You agree that you will not, under any circumstances…use the Service for any “e-sports” or group competition sponsored, promoted or facilitated by any commercial or non-profit entity without Blizzard’s prior written consent;” – Starcraft II Battle.net Terms of Use, Current as of May 28th

I HOPE HOPE HOPE that is just for the beta because of NDA ect and not for the official release or they are going to get a lotta hate for that.

[Deftscythe]

Well, HDH was able to get Blizzard's permission free, right? ICCup has also been running a $100 tourney every week, I think for free with Bliz's ok.

That being said, it makes sense for Bliz to give permission away during beta as gaming betas have moved from true test to half-test, half-promo. Hearing that there was a tournament with a prize pool in the 1000s for a game in beta is a pretty sweet piece of word-of-mouth advertising for Blizzard. Once the game has been released I expect Blizzard will demand fees.

[geno]

In the replays? I know one of the common complaints was that they generally show less than what other programs would. If that's not the case, then IDK, but I only average about 55, and my teammates were 15 and below, so even if it was an impersonator we were handily dealt with.

Yeah in replays. I was 120-150 in SC:BW, friend was much higher.

As for the tourney thing: Pretty much every tourney no matter how big or small had to ask for permission for SC2, and they gave it to everyone from what it seems. But its not actually that big of a difference from BW. I know most of the larger world tourneys (like TSL) had to get permission to run back then, and there is a huge dispute forming in Korea over their tourneys for BW right now as well.

Over the last couple years, Blizzard has really started to put down some flags and stake their ground in the future of tournaments that revolve around their game. I'd like to think its for the sake of the game, making sure they can leverage their role as a central referee and sponsor to fight for continued expansion and smaller but still important issues like player's rights etc. But in all honesty, it probably does come down to money. Initially they seemed fine with it just being free and unlimited publicity, now they seem to be trying to exploit that part of the system as a continued revenue stream even beyond that point at which the majority of their audience has already purchased the game.

Who knows, we'll see where they are planning to go with this soon enough. I hope they don't fuck it up, even if the model that overtook Korea (with KeSPA as the central authority) has it's problems, it also has had the most success worldwide. If Blizzard want's to remake that model with themselves in the mix, I hope they do so gracefully and without too much moneygrabbing.

[Arnwulf]

You have to remember how much Activision is probably involved in the whole thing as well, it's not just Blizzard this time around.

[Syntex]

If Blizzard is saying yes to everyone then this is just another one of their add-on policies.

Basically a while ago in wow they redid the EULA for add-ons saying that everything made for the game was their property and they can ban any add-on they want at any time and it is all their property with no credit to the authors and there is to be no advertising.

Well despite all that peggle made an add-on for wow which advertised their game and Blizzard actually liked it.

The point I am getting at is this policy is probably there for when someone hosts a tournament or an event that is bad for Blizzard or might tarnish their reputation or something so they can shoot it down if need be.

In essence, your at their whim.

[geno]

If Blizzard is saying yes to everyone then this is just another one of their add-on policies.

Basically a while ago in wow they redid the EULA for add-ons saying that everything made for the game was their property and they can ban any add-on they want at any time and it is all their property with no credit to the authors and there is to be no advertising.

Well despite all that peggle made an add-on for wow which advertised their game and Blizzard actually liked it.

The point I am getting at is this policy is probably there for when someone hosts a tournament or an event that is bad for Blizzard or might tarnish their reputation or something so they can shoot it down if need be.

In essence, your at their whim.

Basically this. It's no secret at this point that Blizzard likes to have as much control as possible over the direction and everything else related to their products.

[Sylvrdragon]

Fairly reliable sources say that Phase 2 of Beta will begin July 1st.

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...opic_id=132635

[Thunder]

can you still get into the beta if you haven't already?

[euph]

I hope this is true. Need some sc in my life

[Syntex]

Can't wait :D

[Kaylia]

Please, make it true.

[Mathematics]

has the july 1st beta speculation been confirmed at all yet?

[Ferien]

has the july 1st beta speculation been confirmed at all yet?

Think the people who started the rumor came out and said they really had no idea.

[euph]

sadfuckingpanda.

[Sylvrdragon]

Yeah... I think it was bad info... sorry to have gotten people's hopes up. The best we have from Blizz is "Early July". So yeah...

[Hogie]

Korean net cafe's have said you will be able to play SC2 sometime Monday! Cheeeeeck it out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0rbOewa42g

Spoiler: show

I want it back too