|
On December 06 2010 12:26 imarriedacow wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 06 2010 12:10 my0s wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 11:52 imarriedacow wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 06 2010 11:35 my0s wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 11:30 449 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 06 2010 11:25 my0s wrote:
There is nothing "wrong" with it. This is simply a discussion on style and implementation. I think that is a perfect way to add a PM style chat functionality so you may do other things if you wish. But lacks the feel of traditional chat rooms imo. Its all taste I suppose, but I feel just having the current style and not making a standard chat area seems incomplete. There are plenty of things wrong with chat channels. No time stamps and no functionality. (eg. moderation, basic commands to add/remove/ignore/view player stats,ect This is a very good point. And a perfect example of why I said I have not used it personally, so well thought out relevant information about the details I have missed can be brought into the discussion. Not some over generic reason to discredit the simple idea of not being able to comprehend the visual installment of the chat. Another indication that neither of you two actually tried out the new chatrooms. Private passworded channels have been promised to be in the works. You can add players by inviting them to the channel. You can also easily ignore any players by right clicking on their name, then blocking communication. You can view player stats the exact same way. So that leaves with time stamps in your argument, a minor feature that can easily be added in the future. Again, it makes you look very ignorant if you don't bother to even study the topic you created. Not only that, quoting false information makes you lose even more credibility. Something that is promised to come in the future has no bearing on it being in the current version, nor does it have anything to do with actually using the system as it would not be there anyway. Ignoring players does not equal moderation controls either. Player stats I assume work as they do in party chat, so yes that seems like it would not be an issue at all, I just did not go so far as to nit pick that one out of the bunch. So basically, stated to be coming later or not, most of his points remain. Furthermore, I quoted his post and said these are good points in terms of how to correctly discuss things that are not in the OP since I have not had time look into some of it yet. Never did I quote them as fact or true, just that they were good discussion points. If they are untrue people, such as yourself, are welcome to point that out. Creating a topic to discuss something does not require you to be an expert or well versed on the topic, merely willing to discuss it. So should information be wrong, which nothing I have posted so far seems to be, they can be brought up and corrected. Hopefully without the child-like attacking. Also, my biggest issue, AND THE POINT OF ME STARTING THE DISCUSSION, is the style in which they added chat, and thats all that was talked about in the OP. Which I honestly to not need to use to understand, there are pictures, and its a pretty simple concept. And this argument is getting old. I will be editing the original post in a moment to better allow for constructive conversation and avoid some of these dead-end points people are trying to bring into this conversation with almost zero relevancy. Then allow me to give you some advice on how to manage your time a little more wisely when you are trying to construct a well thought out argument. If functionality was indeed another "perfect example of why you said you have not used it personally", then instead of spending two minutes to draw your pretty picture on paint, you could've used those two minutes to actually get familiar with the topic. Also, if you had not accepted them as fact or true yet, then why would you cite it as a perfect example of why you have not used them? Quoting information and using it as evidence for your argument before you verify the validity of it is one of the biggest mistakes you can do. If you wanted to keep the topic solely focused on the visual presentation of the chat channels, then you should've never quoted that guy in the first place. By quoting him, you're consciously expanding the discussion to include functionality as well. Which of course gives us the permission to either accept or refute that argument. Again, my argument in the end is that the whole reason this PTR testing has been set up is to receive feedback. If you honestly think you have a valid point, then you should let Blizzard know. If the change is not implemented, then obviously not enough people felt the same way you do. Simple enough? And if all you wanted was feedback on your idea on the forums here, well, I guess you can see for yourself how well received your ideas have been.
Again at work and not able to be on the PTR even if I wanted to. Also, again, nothing that I talked about personally really depends on the details of the system, but the visual way it was produced.
Does that mean people cant discuss other particulars of the chat system? No? I never claimed them to be facts, but good points. Which they were. All but one of them seems to still hold up, in which the one that did not I freely agreed with you.
And aside from the few people who are trying to start arguments over non-relevant issues, yes this thread seems fine. Plenty of people discussing what they like or dislike about the new system in this thread in between attempts to flame and de-rail. Which is why I am just going to let our little back and forth die here with this response. As I feel I have more than defended and explained everything you are complaining about multiple times.
|
On December 06 2010 11:52 imarriedacow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2010 11:35 my0s wrote:On December 06 2010 11:30 449 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 06 2010 11:25 my0s wrote:
There is nothing "wrong" with it. This is simply a discussion on style and implementation. I think that is a perfect way to add a PM style chat functionality so you may do other things if you wish. But lacks the feel of traditional chat rooms imo. Its all taste I suppose, but I feel just having the current style and not making a standard chat area seems incomplete. There are plenty of things wrong with chat channels. No time stamps and no functionality. (eg. moderation, basic commands to add/remove/ignore/view player stats,ect This is a very good point. And a perfect example of why I said I have not used it personally, so well thought out relevant information about the details I have missed can be brought into the discussion. Not some over generic reason to discredit the simple idea of not being able to comprehend the visual installment of the chat. Another indication that neither of you two actually tried out the new chatrooms. Moderated channels have been promised to be in the works. You can add players by inviting them to the channel. You can also easily ignore any players by right clicking on their name, then blocking communication. You can view player stats the exact same way. So that leaves with time stamps in your argument, a minor feature that can easily be added in the future. Again, it makes you look very ignorant if you don't bother to even study the topic you created. Not only that, quoting false information makes you lose even more credibility. EDIT: I would like to also add that this is implemented into PTR instead of globally for a reason. It's to receive feedback from the community, that way they can improve it further before releasing it to the masses. This is in no way a fair representation of what things are exactly going to be like in the future. You want things done a different way? Then let Blizzard know. If enough people feel the same way, they will listen.
Did you even try them? Seems like you are really defending them blindly and thinking the chatroom system is fine as long as they add timestamps.
The basic chat commands he mentioned was probably just examples, point being there is just no reason to leave out fucking basic chat commands that's been in blizzard games since 1998, I mean seriously it's 2010 now and I can't write /msg nick.id to pm someone during a game and I can't view someone's stats without clicking through a ton of battle.net menus in his profile.
Not saying people can't or shouldn't be happy because chatrooms are finally here in some form, but people just shouldn't praise them and yelling WOW CHATROOMS ARE FANTASTIC.
Because they're not, they're so basic they fit in perfectly well with the rest of battle.net 2..0.
And aside from the few people who are trying to start arguments over non-relevant issues, yes this thread seems fine.
There was already another thread on this named with a pretty similar name and it was like 3-4 pages, so everything in this thread has basically been said 20 times already.
|
Fair enough, I have no intention of derailing this topic. Then let me address your main point directly.
Compare your idea with the current one. What, in your opinion, are the biggest differences? Because the only difference I can see is that your chatrooms take up the full screen. The current chatroom setup already allows for resizing. So if they allow the resizing to become full size, then how does that make it any different than your idea? Not only that, it would allow users the flexibility to customize how they want their chatrooms to look like.
Is that really your point then? That you just want them to implement more flexible resizing options? Because I really don't see any other difference than that. If that's not true, please point out specific differences.
|
I think I like the idea of having tabs for multiple chat rooms. Also, having a larger screen does feel cleaner...
However, the way they have it right now has some potential too. We'll see how Blizzard refines this feature. =D
|
On December 06 2010 10:58 Tin_Foil wrote:
It fits the look of bnet, works fine, and is generally awesome. Will be a great addition restoration to the game.
Some mod options would be nice, but you can make private channels, so don't invite idiots I guess.
|
Yes, I have tried them out. Quite extensively, in fact. Did you test them out?
I mean seriously it's 2010 now and I can't write /msg nick.id to pm someone during a game and I can't view someone's stats without clicking through a ton of battle.net menus in his profile
"-- Added in-game chat bar command to whisper to other players. Using the /w command will pop up an auto-complete list which includes: friends, party members, chat channels, and other players within your current game." - http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/1213111662
Is that not exactly what you are talking about? You can even have the entire chatroom up ingame if you do so desire. Was that feature around in 1998? What basic chat commands exactly are missing from the current setup? Seems to me like you really haven't actually tried them out before you started to (again, like others in this topic) give out false information.
EDIT: I would also like to add, how does right clicking on somebody's name, then clicking on "view profile" to see their stats constitute as a "ton of clicks"? That's literally two clicks.
|
United States655 Posts
I don't understand all the 'disappointment' with the chat features. They look fine and they do what they are supposed to do. What else can you ask -- is it supposed to wash your car or something? My personal opinion is that rather than whine about the chat feature people should just be glad that Blizzard is investing so much support in a game that people have already completely paid for. What other company would invest in this much support for a game without subscription fees?
|
On December 06 2010 12:42 imarriedacow wrote:
Fair enough, I have no intention of derailing this topic. Then let me address your main point directly.
Compare your idea with the current one. What, in your opinion, are the biggest differences? Because the only difference I can see is that your chatrooms take up the full screen. The current chatroom setup already allows for resizing. So if they allow the resizing to become full size, then how does that make it any different than your idea? Not only that, it would allow users the flexibility to customize how they want their chatrooms to look like.
Is that really your point then? That you just want them to implement more flexible resizing options? Because I really don't see any other difference than that. If that's not true, please point out specific differences.
Short answer, not all that much on paper.
Longer answer, style and preference. So for one, I like the idea of it being a solid (non-transparent) screen to have as a chat / community area. One that feels polished and really well done, feels like it was created for chat. Similar to the older classic chat systems in past blizzard games. One thing this does, is separate chat rooms, and PMs very cleanly. Which I really like, I feel its easier to navigate and mentally separate, again clean is the term that comes to mind.
Secondly, I feel its a better default then the default now. For someone of mine, or classic, taste, you basically have to resize the chatroom windows now to look more like a chatroom and less like a PM. Changing it to a classic style gives that great visual look, while allowing to keep the current option of moving a selected chat into a PM box and resize to your liking should you be doing another task. Or perhaps you want to resize 2 or 3 chats to all be on the screen at once and not have to tab through them. Seems like a very powerful tool, but not something that should be defaulted to.
The main issue which may just be my preference. Is Blizzard has always had a long standing reputation for always doing things above and beyond expectation, delivering an amazing and polished product. This specific addition very much feels like an afterthought, and falls below Blizzards standard. Perhaps it was their intention to create it this way out of design and not apathy, but in my opinion its how it came across. And I've heard others express the same, so it sounded like a perfect discussion topic.
All in all, its mostly preference and opinion. With a dash of expectation.
|
The lack of timestamps is a bit disappointing. Hopefully they add it soon (even with an option for those who don't like it).
From a few of the screenies I saw it looks like you can continue to post in chat while in game? This could be awesome, 2 chat members flame each other, agree to a grudge match, and a few observers go join the game. Those observers could then post what's happening in the game to the chat room so everyone else can follow along.
|
On December 06 2010 13:04 ZoomDog wrote:
From a few of the screenies I saw it looks like you can continue to post in chat while in game? This could be awesome, 2 chat members flame each other, agree to a grudge match, and a few observers go join the game. Those observers could then post what's happening in the game to the chat room so everyone else can follow along.
True, and a definite plus to the new system! But I still don't see why both options cant exist. Which would please everyone, and show off the power and customization power of bnet 2.0
|
On December 06 2010 13:02 GagnarTheUnruly wrote:
I don't understand all the 'disappointment' with the chat features. They look fine and they do what they are supposed to do. What else can you ask -- is it supposed to wash your car or something? My personal opinion is that rather than whine about the chat feature people should just be glad that Blizzard is investing so much support in a game that people have already completely paid for. What other company would invest in this much support for a game without subscription fees?
In answer to that question, look no further than their past games, WC3 in particular.
As to why you're feeling this way, it seems that most of the people assume that all Blizzards games should be WoW-esque after WoW and forget that Blizzard should continue to support their games regardless (they also need to sell the next two expansions). Chat channels should have been a basic utility in any multiplayer game, but they've held it off for so long (don't make it sound like it's our privilege to have chat channels now, they should have been included from the very beginning), and now their design seems to hint at it being an afterthought rather than a refined feature. Like I've said before, the functionality is there, whether the presentation was worth waiting so long for is another thing and is up for argument.
As the poster said above me, B.net 2.0 is supposed to be a new, revolutionary multiplayer platform for all of Blizzard's new games, and having only "basic" features doesn't cut it.
|
i actually kinda like the way its integrated in
just hoping i can have it auto load a tl channel every time i log in and im set
|
just been messing around on the test server.
The chat channels are integrated great, it is awesome that you can OBS games and still be talking in teamliquid chat at the same time. Everyone who was just on now was loving that feature.
The spam is annoying at first.. but actually it isn't horrible. It keeps people from scrolling the screen so fast you can't keep up. less mindless typing, more meaningful typing. If they didn't change that I'd be fine.
I said it on the first page, not sure what "ground breaking b.net 2.0" features people were expecting. I'm sure all the little details will be added in. Personally, I like it and the integration and already in just 2 hours of being on the test server getting that b.net socialization going again was great, obsing games, bs'ing with people, it is going to really detract from the ladder cause everyone is going to be talking/obsing instead of playing though. Maybe that is why chat channels weren't in the game at the start, they wanted people playing not talking.
|
I didnt like the chatrooms at first but when I think about it, it's pretty nice. You can be in more than 1 channel at once (compared to one in bw or wc3), and you can chat while in game. Plus by having a separate chat window, you can browse profiles, replays, or whatever you want without having to reload every time you switch page.
We got chat channels guys, it'll all that matters. Give it time and I bet you'll get used to it and the current chat interface won't be an issue anymore.
|
I don't know, it seems to me that Blizzard omits these kinds of things, and then when they finally implement them they can get away with not putting 100% effort into the design and people will defend them by going "oh but we finally got chat channels, they work, we can't complain".
That I think is the foundation of your problem.
What happens is this: you see that the chat channel window is not fullscreen. And you use this as evidence of Blizzard "not putting 100% effort into the design." The problem is that it is not evidence of that.
What Blizzard has done physically with their chat boxes is a valid design choice even if you personally do not like it. It is not evidence of lack of effort. Lack of effort would be to simply do exactly what WC3 or SC1 did.
Now, lack of effort may be seen in other things (the general unpolished nature of the feature, like windows not remembering their original position, etc). But the physical design of the window is not part of this. It's simply something that you personally do not like.
The fundamental problem with your post is that you confuse what you personally don't like with objectively bad or thoughtless design.
I personally like chat channels this way. I think it's a great design. Not only does it allow features that WC3/SC1 never had, like chatting while in game (observing) and being in multiple chatrooms, chat doesn't dominate the screen. For me with my 25" screen, I rather like not having to take up the entire surface for chatting in a single chatroom.
This isn't blind defense; this is a reasoned argument.
|
I completely agree with you. Blizzard is being super lazy with the chat rooms. Like someone else had said in another thread, the chat rooms should be the main focus of battle.net and the first thing you interact with when you log in.
I love your MS paint job and I would love it if Blizzard made the chat channels have their own button at the top taskbar and also make them fullscreen like you suggest. Obviously we can manually make the chat boxes large, but they should be large by default. It's annoying to have to drag the corners outwards every time you join a chat.
|
Multiple small windows gets my vote. Myself and my screen can handle more than one window at a time. My grandma prefers one big full-screened window, but then she doesn't play SC.
|
On December 07 2010 06:44 Smackzilla wrote:
Multiple small windows gets my vote. Myself and my screen can handle more than one window at a time. My grandma prefers one big full-screened window, but then she doesn't play SC.
Haha. I would just prefer a bigger chat window so I can read more content. If messages get sent too fast and you're in a small window, they fly up the window before you can read them.
|
I really like the way chat channels work in the PTR. Wouldn't want it to go fullscreen, that just seems like a waste of screen real estate. I usually keep the chat in a tiny box in the corner. I only need to see the past few messages, and I can scroll up if I missed something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
