Starcraft 2 Chat Rooms

For those who haven't had time to check it out yet, myself included

On December 06 2010 10:54 VonLego wrote:
I was also taken aback by the fact that channels took place in a box and not a full screen as shown in your mspaint. Then I realized that it doesn't really matter, and if it does really matter then you can literally drag the box to take up the room you desire and it would look exactly like your image.

Seems like you're making mountains out of mole hills. We're finally getting chat channels and you're upset that it is an overlay instead of a replacement for the other menus? Personally I'm glad I can check out profiles (etc) while chatting.

I repeat: At first I shared your distaste for the way they look. After a moment or two I realized that in practice it is actually better (or even identical if you so choose). Attacking the quality w/o actually looking at the channels yourself is shortsighted. You even pulled the "A-word" card.

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.

On December 06 2010 11:28 awu25 wrote:
a new shirt came out, I haven't bought it yet, but from the pictures it doesn't look that good
I propose that they add more colors to make it look better

do you see the problem with the example i just gave?
go test it first before complaining about it

and to your point about making a better setup in 2 minutes in paint
drawing a chat setup does not equal coding/testing/releasing a new chat setup

On December 06 2010 11:30 449 wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

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

On December 06 2010 11:35 my0s wrote:


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.

On December 06 2010 11:52 imarriedacow wrote:



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 click on their name, then blocking communication. You can also 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.

On December 06 2010 12:03 numLoCK wrote:
Regarding the current system, I really dislike having to resize the window every time I come out of a game and what to use the chat.
I would prefer if it was just a set area of the screen or if it at least stayed the same size for when I come out of games.

On December 06 2010 10:46 my0s wrote:
For those who haven't had time to check it out yet, myself included tbh...

On December 06 2010 11:52 imarriedacow wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +


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.

On December 06 2010 11:21 KillerDucky wrote:
What's wrong with this:

On December 06 2010 12:09 Srule wrote:
You don't have time to long into the patch server but you have time redesign the chat feature and make a detailed post about it on TL. Ya, you must have lots of things to do tbh.

Plz, spend three seconds testing it yourself before you complain about it...

On December 06 2010 12:20 IntoTheEmo wrote:
I think people are too blinded by Blizzard adding chat channels after so long that they have forgotten what Blizzard is truly capable of.

To me it looks like a resized friend's list with a text box to the left. The presentation is way off, functionality is there yes, but Blizzard is (supposedly) always pushing for detail and quality, pretty disappointed that after many months (and years of game development), WC3 chat channels, even D2 absolutely beat these new channels hands down.

Think it should be on the main tab, and clicking on it switches the entire screen to a chat panel, you can always queue for games and then reclick on the tab. And I don't know, adding cool stuff like league icon/rank next to names would be nice too.

Also, WC3 had those profile portraits with animations, what happened to those in SC2?

On December 06 2010 12:10 my0s wrote:


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.

On December 06 2010 12:25 floor exercise wrote:


I can't say what I was expecting exactly, but this seemed like such a huge letdown. After all this time it really was just the messenger window with other people in it. I mean yeah it's a chat room and it's public, that's kind of what we asked for. But they always talk about how they take their time to do things right and make sure they are great. This literally could have been done like the week after launch by some intern, there's nothing about its implementation that tells me they slaved over this for months.

I can't complain too loud because like I said, I had no idea what I wanted from it, and we did kind of get what we wanted, but I was thinking it would have been a bit more than this.

Overall bnet2 is better with it than without, but the service is still only reaching the basic standards that I and many others set for what bnet should be doing.

On December 06 2010 12:26 imarriedacow wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

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.

On December 06 2010 11:52 imarriedacow wrote:



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.

And aside from the few people who are trying to start arguments over non-relevant issues, yes this thread seems fine.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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".

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.