EPTHotS UI Update - Page 13
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
Thadorus
Canada136 Posts
| ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
Probably because they're planning on doing a complete overhaul of the Oracle and not necessarily due to any UI changes. And by the way, as good as the new UI looks, it still looks like a WIP and will probably go through some polish before being released. | ||
|
StreetWise
United States594 Posts
![[image loading]](http://bnetcmsus-a.akamaihd.net/cms/content_folder_media/L0WENI0U9HFX1350606257037.jpg?v=0) you will see numbers by the portrait. Could this be levels similar to WC3? If so, I hope they use the current match making system, but the pre 1.14 WC3 rank system. | ||
|
PardonYou
United States1360 Posts
On October 21 2012 07:15 StreetWise wrote: + Show Spoiler + Looking over the list of changes, it looks like possibly they might be implementing the WC3 ladder system. If you look at this picture: you will see numbers by the portrait. Could this be levels similar to WC3? If so, I hope they use the current match making system, but the pre 1.14 WC3 rank system.I thought it was their rank, of course if that were true they'd need to add leagues somehow. | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On October 20 2012 19:50 paralleluniverse wrote: Where in the post does it say anything about ladder anxiety? It doesn't. The closest it gets is saying that having the matchmaker push people towards a 50% win ratio "doesn't feel good". But guess what, that hasn't changed, the matchmaker still pushes people towards a 50% win ratio. So if this was the real reason for removing losses, why are they suddenly coming back? The link I quoted to you contained this, from a blue post on the SEA forums, from around the Spring of 2011. Relevant parts highlighted: We had a pretty strong rationale for removing losses from the records of players below Master's League. Essentially, prior to that level of play, the losses you've sustained aren't particularly meaningful. Please allow me to explain: Let's say that you're new to StarCraft II and you play (and lose) a ton of games. You've racked up dozens of losses and a handful of wins, and things look grim. Instead of giving up, you get better, learn effective strategies, and you start playing much more skillfully. Pretty rapidly, the matchmaking system starts pitting you against tougher opponents - but because of the very nature of the matchmaking system, and even though you're making progress and facing tougher opponents, your win/loss rate stays at around 50%. In a scenario like this, it means that your wins will probably never surpass your losses, even though you've become a better player and your wins have become more meaningful than those early losses. Even for someone who starts pretty strong, win/loss numbers should still settle around 50/50 anyway. That doesn't feel good, but worse, those numbers also don't accurately reflect your current level of skill or progress anyway. Now, back to your post: Stats are back because the REAL reason they were removed, the "pressure" of laddering, is fixed by having unranked play. It was about ladder anxiety and the fact playing the ladder can hurt people's feelings. And this was obvious all along, despite their transparent attempts to scapegoat the win ratio as being meaningless. They've been perfectly up-front that loss counts and loss ratios make people feel bad. They've also been up-front that they're meaningless. They are COMPLETELY meaningless with a good matchmaking system except at the high and low end of the scale because deviations from 50% are nothing more than a historical record of where one's been since the last reset. I'm not sure why you're so keen to find a conspiracy here. When they rolled out Battle.net 2.0 in 2009 at Blizzcon, they were very clear right then that they weren't showing MMRs because they wanted to reward playing more than improvement. That message was crystal clear. Nobody thought that removing losses was for any reason other than (a) keeping people from feeling bad in lower leagues and (b) because the win/loss ratio don't tell you anything useful. Those two reasons are interrelated. That's why they always talk about both in the same sentences. Not only is the moderation argument a terrible one, I agree it's not enough reason from a product quality standpoint to avoid having chat channels in a game. However, you have to admit that the VP of customer service (whoever that is) at Blizzard probably looks at the problem differently than you do. As I pointed out in the post to which you were responding, chat channels were obviously a different issue than the stuff which project management and staffing would have affected. Not sure why you didn't get that from my post, since I was explicit about it. | ||
|
Scootaloo SC2
United States122 Posts
I dunno, I just shake my head and wonder why software creators don't give options to their users instead of stripping away features and such. | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On October 21 2012 09:30 Scootaloo SC2 wrote: What I don't get, in regards to the original removal of losses, is why they removed the choice of showing them My guess is that it's just work they didn't find they had time to do. | ||
|
phodacbiet
United States1740 Posts
On October 21 2012 09:38 Lysenko wrote: My guess is that it's just work they didn't find they had time to do. Yah, they are busy adding in different types of destructible debris. | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On October 21 2012 11:55 phodacbiet wrote: Yah, they are busy adding in different types of destructible debris. I laughed, but in reality it's not the same people doing the work! | ||
|
StreetWise
United States594 Posts
On October 21 2012 11:56 Lysenko wrote: I laughed, but in reality it's not the same people doing the work! Keep in mind, it takes a much longer time to clean up a mess than it does to actually make one. | ||
|
SoniC_eu
Denmark1008 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 21 2012 21:57 StreetWise wrote: Keep in mind, it takes a much longer time to clean up a mess than it does to actually make one. True point. Designing slick, useful UI is an iterative process and takes time. You can't just build a really good UI, you need to make a good one, let people use it, see how they use it and then refine. It takes a ton of time and years to get right. It also requires really good feed back that goes beyond, make it better. I like the new design. Now, if only they will let me run chrome in it as well. I think the main reason that the UI has been lack luster for so long is simply Blizzard was releasing other games. If you think about it, UI programmers(yes, there are people who specialize in this, look at Apple) were likely working on the other two major releases and were unable to refine the WoL UI as much at Blizzard would have liked to. Sadly, unlike Riot and Valve, Blizzard's income is based on sales of new games, rather than a online store, or skins and champions. | ||
|
See.Blue
United States2673 Posts
| ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On October 21 2012 09:30 Scootaloo SC2 wrote: What I don't get, in regards to the original removal of losses, is why they removed the choice of showing them. Probably because one could get flamed if one disables the losses display (like 'Bro, are you afraid to show you losses? Lulz.') Or because people think that the loss count has something to do with their performance while in reality it only tells how good the match making works. Or because people have this fantasy of needing >50% win ratio which could lead to quitting the game if one fears that one is not able to keep a current 51% ratio. On October 21 2012 22:29 SoniC_eu wrote: Activision PUMP MORE MONEY into BLIZZ plz. You are killing sc2! I guess they dont care, as long as they can sell something and gain a profit. Its just painful to watch such a epic game get worse and worse, all in the name of profit. It's not just money or size of the teams. Blizzard is willing to make the beta as long as required instead of targeting a certain launch date to grab the money. The expansion, in earlier days released about a year after the original game, is now over two years due. They don't just sell out the franchise to make fast profit. Look at the development of Wol: - They brought a graphics option for indirect shadows even though this only affects campaign settings. - They added an option for antialiasing which required changes in the 3D engine. - They created new low-textures to allow for better detail on low settings. That means, after purchase, high-end user get better graphics (with indirect shadows) as well as low-end users (with the new textures) and mid-range users (who now can afford to use antialiasing which is way faster than antialiasing forced through the driver.) Blizzard supports SC2, with no expansion required to buy and no monthly fee to pay. | ||
|
stichtom
Italy695 Posts
Basically there is a levels'system and you need to be level 20 or whatever to play ranked games (similiar to lol). What di u think ? I hope blizzard is going to do something like that since they're adding levels | ||
|
Diceman45
United States27 Posts
On October 21 2012 07:15 StreetWise wrote: Looking over the list of changes, it looks like possibly they might be implementing the WC3 ladder system. If you look at this picture: you will see numbers by the portrait. Could this be levels similar to WC3? If so, I hope they use the current match making system, but the pre 1.14 WC3 rank system. It's their rank on 1v1 ladder. look at the borders on the portraits and you'll notice it's the same colors as Bronze - Diamond League. Although I could be wrong. | ||
|
Moipster
United Kingdom9 Posts
On October 22 2012 08:07 Diceman45 wrote: It's their rank on 1v1 ladder. look at the borders on the portraits and you'll notice it's the same colors as Bronze - Diamond League. Although I could be wrong. well that does sound quite logical, either way, its a great improvement to either have a new level system or easily access peoples 1v1 ranks, both sound quite cool. | ||
|
Thalandros
Netherlands1151 Posts
| ||
|
Ahli
Germany355 Posts
On October 22 2012 08:33 Thalandros wrote: This is crazily cool and what we've all been waiting for: One question though, or suggestion, I'd like to see it zerg based like WOL right now is terran based, and maybe that you can switch between the looks? Wouldbe wicked. The HotS beta contains that option in the options menu, but changing it to Zerg has no effect atm. So I guess that they might alter a few things for that like the borders of the popup windows like the ladder or stats window. Maybe it's changing the color scheme for the glassy looking bottom social panel... we will see... | ||
|
Ace1123
Philippines1187 Posts
| ||
| ||
