|
Setting up a tournament in Bnet 1.0:
"Hey guys, go to ****************** and we will set up the games.
Setting up a tournament in Bnet 2.0
"Hey guys, I need all of your facebook accounts as friends or emails. *300+ clicks later* Ok, now I have all of you. Wait, I cannot be in every game. Why don't I find someone on my friends list to host? Ok... (scroll down for a minute) found him! Ok, now send him the emails of the two people. Ok, now he adds them. Invites them. Game starts. Yes! Ok... umm... when is the game done? Nope, don't see them back in the non-existant channel. Let me keep on scrolling through my 300 person friends list to see when it's done... ok. Round two!"
And when it's over:
"Damn, ok, now who do I delete?"
I feel sorry for these guys.
|
On May 28 2010 14:11 Karok wrote:
The "public" channels I mention would be player-moderated channels that are open for public.
So you could have:
#genericglobalblizzchannel <- this is unmoderated and a pile of poo on bnet1.0
#Team-Liquid <- this is a player-moderated channel on bnet 2.0 the moderators get their mod power for that specific channel linked to their account so they get their mod power everytime they rejoin. The mods have the power to grant someone else mod powers and take them away aswell as to kick, temp-ban and perm-ban someone. This channel is listed in the /list and everyone can see and join it.
#Team-Liquid-SomeTourney <- This is another player-moderated channel on bnet2.0 but this one is private. Players can be invited into the channel by a mod and it's closed off from public.
see, its not that hard.
What you're describing is good, but it's not the channel system we have with bnet 1.0. I have nothing against what you're suggesting. At the moment #Team-Liquid isn't listed on /list and not everybody knows about it. This is a good suggestion and I applaud you for being constructive. You have just helped to identify one of the shortcomings in the old system and I'm sure Blizzard would love to hear your input. 
On May 28 2010 14:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Old system: Channels, some of which had spam.
New system: No channels at all.
That's NOT something *new*. That's a step backwards. I agree with you and Blizzard that it would be nice to fix the fact that there was spam in channels. The solution is not to let the spammers win by shutting down channels and only allowing this Facebook/ friend list nonsense.
It would be more accurate to say
Old system: Channels with spam, and users running to private channels to seek shelter.
New system: NOT OUT YET
Don't think that what we have now in the BETA is "something better" that Blizzard has said they're releasing AFTER LAUNCH.
|
That's a big "if". Do you have some kind of insight that I don't? Where did they say they're replacing anything with Facebook integration? All signs point to it being just a supplement.
So far, Blizzard has removed some of the basic functions that used to be in the game, among those are chat channels. As well, we don't have friend functions such as /f a, /f l, /w, /f m, etc. All such were fundamental to the game experience.
You can make the argument for, "oh, this game is in the beta stage; they don't want us to be talking!" But regardless, they should be testing out the things they want to have in the final game. If they truly didn't want us to talk in the beta, they wouldn't have microphone capability or the new instant messenger. They are testing the instant messenger and other functions because those are the things they wish to see in the final product. In my eyes, the statement that "all signs point to Facebook integration being just a supplement" is not true. What signs? All I see right now is the exact opposite, and it's speculation to believe that "/f a and /f m functions will be included on release"
The things currently in the beta are things we should be most expecting to be in the final product of the game. Placing blind faith in Blizzard, "oh I'm sure they'll fix this, I'm sure they'll have a novel idea to replace chat channels, etc." is speculation and if Blizzard had an idea, they would probably have already been testing it in the beta.
I don't believe there is any current idea that can replace the simplicity and usefulness of chat channels. The argument that finding quality chat channels is too difficult is a good one, and I agree with it completely. Either Blizzard should moderate the channels with cd-key banning capabilities, or public channels should be removed altogether, or some other alternative that makes it easier for users to find good chat channels.
|
On May 28 2010 14:17 Subversive wrote:
Here's how you do it. You click that tab on the main screen called 'Channels'. A list of channels comes up. Then what you do is you pick one. Alot aren't private as you assert. So now you're in a channel. Now you can talk to people. Seriously, why are you obstinately making these points? Private channels are not:
impossible to enter.
impossible to find.
an elitist group where new players can't join.
I'm sure you are correct to an extent, but again, the problem still persists. What are these channels? I don't know of any in BW or WCIII, simply due to my ignorance of their existence. Again, how do I find them? Why would anyone in this seemingly random "OP [clan name]" want to talk to someone like me?
The channel list that you mentioned for SC2 bnet could be made. However, making them privately/individually moderated would cut out spam but reassert "elitism". Making them general/Blizzard moderated would possibly open them up to spam again.
EDIT: my post went up after several posts were made in the interim. While they bring up good points, I still do not agree with the overall tone that private channels are "easy to find"--I stand by my opinion.
|
The fact that bnet 1.0 does not have that would not mean that it shouldn't have already been implemented in bnet 2.0. You know, 1.0 should < 2.0.
|
On May 28 2010 14:04 Subversive wrote:
Here's how you do it. You click that tab on the main screen called 'Channels'. A list of channels comes up. Then what you do is you pick one. Alot aren't private as you assert. So now you're in a channel. Now you can talk to people. Seriously, why are you obstinately making these points?
What's funny is that's exactly what I did when I was enterting the channels that I was screenshotting. What non-private channels are you refering to exactly? "Night Elf Tree Of Life"? Empty. The WCG channels that nobody can join? -.-"
On May 28 2010 14:04 Subversive wrote:
Private channels are not:
impossible to enter.
impossible to find.
an elitist group where new players can't join.
To the average battle.net user, they are all those things and more.
Try starcraft. Aren't we talking about starcraft here not warcraft? And no I disagree. I am a new starcraft player. This wasn't my experience. Stop saying you speak for every new user. Go log onto iccup right this second and tell me that every clan channel is full of rude people who are elitist or you can't even join the channel. Post screen-shots. Then come back and show us how rude they all were. Even better, join my clan channel op [ta]. It's full of nice people and it's unrestricted.
On May 28 2010 14:04 Subversive wrote:
As for saying 'they're working on something that will be better' - well why don't you make this thread when that something better is known? Because right now the thread is like this:
Heaps of people telling you they disagree.
You saying "No you're all wrong I have faith in Blizzard"
Because it isn't helpful to anybody nor does it make for good community discussion to complain about things because we don't have all our instant-gratification features we want before the game has even launched.
On the other hand it is helpful to defend it? So let me get this straight. Complaining isn't good for community discussion but if we're objective here you've created a huge debate thread where heaps of people are complaining. I see.
Edit:
On May 28 2010 14:24 ComradeDover wrote:
It would be more accurate to say
Old system: Channels with spam, and users running to private channels to seek shelter.
New system: NOT OUT YET
Don't think that what we have now in the BETA is "something better" that Blizzard has said they're releasing AFTER LAUNCH.
Ok so why does this thread exist? You;ve made you point. You have faith in Blizzard to address these issues. Others have either agree or disagreed. But why did you make the post in the first place if when people disagree with you your best rejoinder is "New system: NOT OUT YET". So what is there to discuss seeing as you're effectively saying you only wish to discuss this after the new system is out and people shouldn't complain?
|
On May 28 2010 13:18 a176 wrote:
OP, you don't like spam?
post your email here so we can add you to our friends list then.
I love this post, basically summarises why OP's argument about chat channels is pretty useless.
I have really enjoyed clan chat channels on Bnet1.0 for so many years, and all that bnet2.0 is bringing is disappointment.
|
I think you're forgetting the fact that it would be awesome to just have a TL sc2 channel where people can meet up who might not know each other in advance. It'd great to be able to play some UMS or team games with people who you know are competent and who you can make a stable group with. Plus if they are a TL user, they must be a cool dude as well ofc.
|
we need to modernize TL as well, who needs these spam filled forums full of fucktards. Let's just keep the PM parts and we can all talk to eachother from there!
I'll go as far to say as the lack of chat channels and online replay viewing might be what keeps me from playing this game. I really like playing it but it sucks black pornstar dick to not have a channel with friends/friends of friends/acquaintances to meet with between games and chat/brag/whatever.
|
On May 28 2010 14:21 LosingID8 wrote:
why are people acting as if it's impossible to find a private channel on bnet...
If it weren't, would people loiter around making pathetic attempts at conversation in public channels (as illustrated in the screenshots)?
On May 28 2010 14:21 LosingID8 wrote:
-you play a gg vs a guy with a clan tag and ask him what channel he hangs out in
And then he doesn't tell you, or you find out that his private clan channel is either restricted to clan members only, or his clan channel is dead/empty, or you get kicked the minute you join ("Who's this nub? *kick*").
If you manage to actually find out where he hangs out and get accepted into his group of friends, then great! But this isn't the typical battle.net experience.
On May 28 2010 14:23 Uranium wrote:
You left out all the custom clan channels or the ability to simply tell a group of people "hey go meet in channel pwn3d" and voila u have an instant discussion that people can leave or join at will. No need to invite them to a party or whatever.
Yes the "TFT USA" main channels were spammed hard but there were still many custom/private channels in which people "in-the-know" would meet to talk.
I WANT MY CHANNELS BACK
You're missing my point. What about those that aren't "in-the-know"? Running away from public channels doesn't change the fact that they're broken and in need of fixing.
|
On May 28 2010 14:19 ComradeDover wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2010 14:01 Motiva wrote:
I would take chat channels over other functionality, because with a good chat channel system, a friends list isn't a big deal. If we're all in the same chatroom(s) (HoN did this right imo) and the other things are all nice, but for me the biggest joy outside of -actually playing- is not achievements, or the ladder, anything else I can think of. The biggest enjoyment is derived from the community. Chat channels act as an amazing catalyst for any niche community that wishes to, or finds reason to emerge. The OP seems to have a problem with public channels, and I don't think those are important in the least, but to essentially force partying and limit chat invite-only chat instances is to seriously hinder the ability for niche community to form. Plenty come to mind... Theoretically you're right, but in reality the screenshots show something entirely different. HoN absolutely doesn't do it right as someone in this thread has already pointed out that they were only used for trash talking after the game. Lastly, don't confuse what we have now with the final product. Show nested quote +On May 28 2010 14:01 Motiva wrote:
Another issue with this system is that there was no reason to change it. Battle.net was home to countless communities full of people who never happened to need to contact eachother outside of the game. Now, with the removal of chat rooms, not only is blizzard slowing the formation of niche communities, they're also breaking countless ties people have made through these niche communities. I know that there are countless people I've spent years playing d1/sc/d2/wc3 and never needed to contact them outside of game. As such, I will likely never talk to those people again... The screenshots are enough of a reason to change it.
What is wrong with you? Who died and made you the empirical dictator of necessity? lol.
Theoretically I'm correct, but because you took some arbitrary screen shots that you feel encompass your experience I'm wrong? Please... You must be a new test model from troll.com
Also, I'll never understand the logic of the people defending the idea that because some people weren't dedicated enough to assimilate themselves into whatever niche community they desired, that we're better off just blindly accepting something of which we know nothing of from a company that is in the proccess of going through the least organized and least impressive beta in their company history? lol, Whatever, I have figure blizzard will get it right eventually. How is this an excuse for getting it wrong now? lol. Oh wait, really? No way, this isn't beta man, get outta 'ere.
If it ain't broken don't fix it, and if it's broken, atleast fix it. LOL What exactly do you expect to achieve here?
and because someone else pointed out that X experience occurs in a HoN chat enviorment does nothing to prove/disprove the functionality of their chat system across a wide range of experiences, because I'll tell you, My experience was very different, as I got to associate with all sorts fo cool people in Teamliquid's private chatroom. In a game I would have known no one in.
Also, If chat channels were only used for talking shit after a game, Then how come I had so many conversations, and why weren't most people waiting until AFTER the game to talk shit... Is Talking shit in-game exlcuded from this crisis? We could just ban chatting PERIOD since your tender lil carebear ears prolly shouldn't be up this late anyway.
|
I think public channels that you start in by default aren't useful, as the OP points out, but that doesn't change the option for developing meaningful channels.
Imagine you had channels called:
PvT diamond practice meetup.
or
ZvT strategy discussion.
and that because of the method of joining, the people who joined actually gave a shit about the topics?
Whoa. Suddenly shit got crazy.
|
ComradeDover: Do you think that bnet channels without spam would be an effective solution? If so, certainly you realize why, thanks to the differences between sc2's bnet and bw's bnet, the chat channels of old would work just fine. If not, you can even assume that there are precreated channels sorted by interests, locations, skill, gametypes, and that these channels will be available for joining on the home page of the new bnet. I don't see how this system could honestly be improved, and the fact that blizzard isn't telling us what they are coming out (And also they aren't simply making some improvements to the chat channel thing, they are creating something totally new.) with is very worrisome
Also, on ICCUP there was a list of all channels. They were poorly named (since no one wants to type /j op Templars of Twilight, and experiences from actual bnet probably caused almost no one to actually use the list, but it was there. With better labeling and a better interface it would be basically a perfect system I think
|
ComradeDover:
What about those that aren't "in-the-know"?
Multiple people have explained, in detail, how to find private channels. (See last post on page 6.)
Make some fucking friends, or stop whining about how hard it is to locate these channels.
The basic, public channels need to be spam-filtered, sure. Or if they want to remove some default public channels (because fixing spam is too monumental a task for Blizzard), they should at least keep in private channels as a function, so you can still meet up with a group of friends or a clan or whatever, just like everyone (except for you, apparently) did with the other Blizzard games.
YOU don't need to use the channels if you don't want to. Other people still want to use them. You might as well be saying, "Well, I'm a Protoss player, but I don't really use air units... let's just take them out. I won't mind."
|
And then he doesn't tell you, or you find out that his private clan channel is either restricted to clan members only, or his clan channel is dead/empty, or you get kicked the minute you join ("Who's this nub? *kick*").
This is not the experience of the average battle.net user. People are more friendly than you think. First of all, I've never heard of a channel being "restricted" to clan members only, and second of all, most channels don't arbitrarily ban visitors. Maybe this is how it was on WC3 or something, but definitely not on Broodwar.
|
IRC -- good if you use IRC, not really if you don't
People spamming their channel in the public channels -- I thought we were trying to get rid of spam? And am I really inclined to join a channel that is spammed to hell?
You play someone on ladder and they invite you -- possibly, but I don't count on this happening. This hasn't happened once to me since playing Broodwar (2005?)
You see someone with a cheerful during Proleague that says "Come to op SomeKoreanBS on USWest!!!" -- again, possibly, but if you don't watch/haven't heard of Proleague (many people who enjoy SC may also know little about the pro scene)
OR, you make your own, for your own group of friends. -- if they are already your friends, you don't really need a channel, as the broadcast/IM/whatever you normally use works fine. Otherwise, this seems to the the best option
there are lots of ways to find channels:
-you play a gg vs a guy with a clan tag and ask him what channel he hangs out in -- possibly, but what if his name is GameOn, 1231asdfasdfs, or JustAnotherLoss?
-you play a team game with random pubs and had fun. as the game is ending you tell them to join whatever channel you want for regame -- probably the best option, but as you've probably experienced, many players don't talk to glhf, glgg, etc. I'm dubious of how well this would work on a large scale...maybe, maybe not
-you mutual /f a someone you've played a few games with and you /whois to find what channel they idle in -- most of my friends I play with idle in ad hoc channels. I'd imagine many players idle in clan channels, but just as many idle in random/default ones too. This is very hit or miss--could yield good results, many not, but is not as effective as I believe a channel system should be.
On May 28 2010 14:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Multiple people have explained, in detail, how to find private channels. (See last post on page 6.)
Make some fucking friends, or stop whining about how hard it is to locate these channels.
I'm sure once any competent person figures it out once, it will be easy from then on. But the focus is really trying to get them acclimated for the first time, which seems to be a challenge. I know it took me a decent time to even find out what "OP" channels were. You could claim incompetence on my part, but I was an average bnet user, and is bound to happen.
I have a friend that I frequently play with on SC2, and (you'll have to take my word on this one) he is a competent individual, though not quite as familiar with the computer. If I just set him loose on SC (i.e. I am not there to help him out), I **guarantee** you he will not be able to find these channels that you speak of, simply because he is not familiar with the "bowels of the internet" (pardon my liberal expression), and he has hardly even heard of TeamLiquid. And let's say I wasn't there to help him around--it would be completely up to Blizzard's organization and presentation of channels left to guide him, then.
|
On May 28 2010 14:25 Superiorwolf wrote:
So far, Blizzard has removed some of the basic functions that used to be in the game, among those are chat channels. As well, we don't have friend functions such as /f a, /f l, /w, /f m, etc. All such were fundamental to the game experience.
They haven't removed anything. They're building the system from the ground up, which is exactly what needs to be done.
On May 28 2010 14:25 Superiorwolf wrote:
You can make the argument for, "oh, this game is in the beta stage; they don't want us to be talking!" But regardless, they should be testing out the things they want to have in the final game. If they truly didn't want us to talk in the beta, they wouldn't have microphone capability or the new instant messenger. They are testing the instant messenger and other functions because those are the things they wish to see in the final product. In my eyes, the statement that "all signs point to Facebook integration being just a supplement" is not true. What signs? All I see right now is the exact opposite, and it's speculation to believe that "/f a and /f m functions will be included on release"
The microphone feature and the instant-messenger feature are both new. Chat channels, at least in the sense that we know them, are not new. Why would we test them?
As for the signs, I would point to the interviews I've quoted. It's spelled out in plain English, with no assumptions required.
On May 28 2010 14:25 Superiorwolf wrote:
The things currently in the beta are things we should be most expecting to be in the final product of the game. Placing blind faith in Blizzard, "oh I'm sure they'll fix this, I'm sure they'll have a novel idea to replace chat channels, etc." is speculation and if Blizzard had an idea, they would probably have already been testing it in the beta.
That's silly. And the faith isn't blind. They said they were going to do something and I expect them to deliver. Unless you mean to imply that they're lying, in which case we might as well take things like the release date and patch notes with a grain of salt as well.
On May 28 2010 14:25 Superiorwolf wrote:
I don't believe there is any current idea that can replace the simplicity and usefulness of chat channels. The argument that finding quality chat channels is too difficult is a good one, and I agree with it completely. Either Blizzard should moderate the channels with cd-key banning capabilities, or public channels should be removed altogether, or some other alternative that makes it easier for users to find good chat channels.
I do believe that there's a current idea that can replace the old channels. In your suggestion you meantion "some other alternative". I think that's what they're working on at the moment.
On May 28 2010 14:26 Karok wrote:
The fact that bnet 1.0 does not have that would not mean that it shouldn't have already been implemented in bnet 2.0. You know, 1.0 should < 2.0.
This might be a valid point if bnet 2.0 were actually released instead of in a beta stage. I hate to repeat it over and over again, but people seem to be under the impression that what we have now is what we'll be stuck with, when there's no reason to believe that.
On May 28 2010 14:26 Subversive wrote:
Try starcraft. Aren't we talking about starcraft here not warcraft?
If you actually looked at the screenshots, you'd notice that all but two of the channels I've screenshot are Brood War channels. Unless you have some kind of problem with me using a WarCraft client to take the screenshots.
On May 28 2010 14:26 Subversive wrote:
And no I disagree. I am a new starcraft player. This wasn't my experience. Stop saying you speak for every new user. Go log onto iccup right this second and tell me that every clan channel is full of rude people who are elitist or you can't even join the channel. Post screen-shots. Then come back and show us how rude they all were. Even better, join my clan channel op [ta]. It's full of nice people and it's unrestricted.
The ICCup experience is just "D-/D/D+ PYTHON GOGO!!1!" over and over again. If you have your own little clan chat sancturary, then good for you! But that means you're probably not as new you claim to be.
On May 28 2010 14:26 Subversive wrote:On the other hand it is helpful to defend it? So let me get this straight. Complaining isn't good for community discussion but if we're objective here you've created a huge debate thread where heaps of people are complaining. I see.
What exactly am I defending? I'm not sure even you know what you're talking about here.
On May 28 2010 14:26 Subversive wrote:
Ok so why does this thread exist? You;ve made you point. You have faith in Blizzard to address these issues. Others have either agree or disagreed. But why did you make the post in the first place if when people disagree with you your best rejoinder is "New system: NOT OUT YET". So what is there to discuss seeing as you're effectively saying you only wish to discuss this after the new system is out and people shouldn't complain?
This thread exists to help inform people who are complaining about channels. I don't think they really understand what they're asking for. After the new system is out I'll make a new thread, but hopefully this one will cut down on the complaining taking place between now and release.
|
The problem is the current system sucks, in fact we haven't had a very good system all of beta. This means what whatever solution to chat/chat rooms/chat channels end up happening will be completely untested and without community feedback on release, which is very scary that we may have to wait for a patch to get a good, organized chat system.
|
On May 28 2010 14:39 ComradeDover wrote:
The ICCup experience is just "D-/D/D+ PYTHON GOGO!!1!" over and over again. If you have your own little clan chat sancturary, then good for you! But that means you're probably not as new you claim to be.
Will you please stop using this as an argument. It is not legit. Anyone who tries even half as hard as you are trying in this thread to defend your ideas can find somewhere to go. I know because when I came back to SC I looked, and I found.
If you look, it will be there. If you don't look, you'll QQ and wonder where everyone is.
|
CA10828 Posts
On May 28 2010 14:29 ComradeDover wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2010 14:21 LosingID8 wrote:
why are people acting as if it's impossible to find a private channel on bnet... If it weren't, would people loiter around making pathetic attempts at conversation in public channels (as illustrated in the screenshots)? Show nested quote +On May 28 2010 14:21 LosingID8 wrote:
-you play a gg vs a guy with a clan tag and ask him what channel he hangs out in And then he doesn't tell you, or you find out that his private clan channel is either restricted to clan members only, or his clan channel is dead/empty, or you get kicked the minute you join ("Who's this nub? *kick*"). If you manage to actually find out where he hangs out and get accepted into his group of friends, then great! But this isn't the typical battle.net experience.
if he doesn't tell you, who cares? join another game and you'll probably play another guy with a clan tag. rinse and repeat.
i've never seen ANYONE kicked out of a clan channel for not having the clan tag if they were invited by a clan member. maybe you could get kicked if you're annoying, but if thats the case you don't deserve to be in a private channel.
sounds like there are many of us here who have had the "atypical" bnet experience. why is that? it's because most people who play on bnet play a few games (<10), get raped by more skilled players and then don't touch multiplayer for a while. if you really cared about finding a better/more skilled community you simply have to get better yourself. i'm not saying you need to become B rank or even D rank skill. you just have to be able to PLAY without other pubs being frustrated having you as their ally and i can guarantee if you play even just 50 games (most likely less) at a decent level you will find out a channel if you actively seek one out.
On May 28 2010 14:37 hofodomo wrote:Show nested quote +
IRC -- good if you use IRC, not really if you don't
People spamming their channel in the public channels -- I thought we were trying to get rid of spam? And am I really inclined to join a channel that is spammed to hell?
You play someone on ladder and they invite you -- possibly, but I don't count on this happening. This hasn't happened once to me since playing Broodwar (2005?)
You see someone with a cheerful during Proleague that says "Come to op SomeKoreanBS on USWest!!!" -- again, possibly, but if you don't watch/haven't heard of Proleague (many people who enjoy SC may also know little about the pro scene)
OR, you make your own, for your own group of friends. -- if they are already your friends, you don't really need a channel, as the broadcast/IM/whatever you normally use works fine. Otherwise, this seems to the the best option
Show nested quote +
there are lots of ways to find channels:
-you play a gg vs a guy with a clan tag and ask him what channel he hangs out in -- possibly, but what if his name is GameOn, 1231asdfasdfs, or JustAnotherLoss?
-you play a team game with random pubs and had fun. as the game is ending you tell them to join whatever channel you want for regame -- probably the best option, but as you've probably experienced, many players don't talk to glhf, glgg, etc. I'm dubious of how well this would work on a large scale...maybe, maybe not
-you mutual /f a someone you've played a few games with and you /whois to find what channel they idle in -- most of my friends I play with idle in ad hoc channels. I'd imagine many players idle in clan channels, but just as many idle in random/default ones too. This is very hit or miss--could yield good results, many not, but is not as effective as I believe a channel system should be.
the guy doesn't even have to have a clan tag. i was referring to clan channels in that specific example but so what if his name is "gameon"? i've had stupid non-clan names like T-REX-ATTACK and JoeGuy1234 (100% my real accounts on useast) and i stayed in non-clan-specific private channels.
my point is that there isn't just "public" and "clan" channels. if you are into BGH then you've heard of marlboro and )v( as channels where better-than-average players hang out and play with each other, both 3v3 innies as well as 3v3pubsmashes. it isn't hard to find these things out if you actively are looking for a channel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
