EPTState of BattleNET 0.2 after 1.2 Patch (0.1.2 :d) - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Grummler
Germany743 Posts
| ||
|
Bellygareth
France512 Posts
Posts like "it's bad lol" are useless, and posts saying "I can do that in 1 h" are even more useless. If you wan't to criticise you should probably try to say things like "I'd like this feature added, or this could be changed as such". | ||
|
Inex
Bulgaria443 Posts
| ||
|
Ryndika
1489 Posts
| ||
|
DarQraven
Netherlands553 Posts
On January 17 2011 18:30 Bellygareth wrote: All the so called programmaters in this thread obviously never have worked in a AAA game. It takes time to deliver fully functionning features guys. Posts like "it's bad lol" are useless, and posts saying "I can do that in 1 h" are even more useless. If you wan't to criticise you should probably try to say things like "I'd like this feature added, or this could be changed as such". You're about 10 pages late. No one denies that corporate production brings along a lot of overhead. However, there is a limit to what is acceptable. When we are talking about adding an entire new unit, the timeframe of 7 months since beta is acceptable. However, a decent chat room? A search form for maps? That stuff is copy-paste material if anything, and indeed, can be written by a single professional programmer within the week - at most. Add some time to bounce the fixes back and forth from creative team to the directors and you've got a a three week delay at most. One week of testing (after all, this is a simple search form...) and boom. Patch within the month, and that's assuming Blizzard has only one programmer. Even worse is that it took SEVEN MONTHS for them to change one integer value: the custom game countdown. Seven months. The first complaint thread about this dates back to July 2010 and not a single usability expert would argue that the 30 second countdown is actually a good thing. If the bureaucracy and overhead at Blizzard have grown so bad that this is a timeframe we should find acceptable for changing one number that doesn't even affect gameplay, there is every reason to complain. -- Personally, I don't believe this is the case at all. No company is THAT slow. Which points me to my conclusion: The Bnet2.0 team has some misguided vision of how things should turn out in the end, when everything is complete, and that we will see the merits of the system when it's finished. As such, they are reluctant to change anything at all, because it might mess with their grand master plan. In other words, they do not want to change shit because they think they know better. That's the only logical conclusion I can draw from this. | ||
|
Nizaris
Belgium2230 Posts
Custom game browser is worthless i gave up playing them because ppl logout when they see i'm diamond or i logout when i see they are bronze and it's their first game ever. Bnet 0.2 is soo much fail, but i guess that's what happens when u get an xbox retard to design your UI. i can't wait for some1 to hack sc2 and make their own bnet. that mockup was great i would give anything for bnet to look like that. | ||
|
IkeScurvy
United States36 Posts
| ||
|
LeSioN
United States325 Posts
In other words, they do not want to change shit because they think they know better. That's the only logical conclusion I can draw from this. obviously they think they know better and the fact that YOU think YOU know better is just retarted. this is their baby. their not a bunch of slick suit cavemen bumbling around going derrrrrrrrp lets make it useless and like an ipod. if a new game came out now not associated with blizzard and presented their online experince with something similar to bnet 1i would expect that game to be free. i dont want to have to snipe "jons moms a whore get in HEre!!!11!" with my mouse as it goes wizzing down the list only to accedently join a dota game where i ruin everyones day because i die in the first 5 min. i would prefeer to say oh look greentd maybe ill show some nubs whats up. nahhh ill scroll down and see if theres anything new and interesting to try. bnet 2.0 is much more civilized. the reason for them going so slow in my opinion is they want to take little steps and see how it settles with the community. the chat rooms that i hang out in have a blizzard employee just sitting in listening 80% of the time+ Show Spoiler + his name is sugus and i told him to suck my dick, thinking he was a bot. he was not | ||
|
DarQraven
Netherlands553 Posts
On January 17 2011 21:26 LeSioN wrote: i did not play broodwar. i played warcraft. and battlenet 2.0 is far better when it comes to chat. the new instances(of channels) are not a problem at all. just a small enough chat room to meet new people or fit your clan and some others. why do u want more than 50 people in a chat room? so you can practice speed trolling? yes the chat windows can be integrated better. but the fact that they minimize and alert u when someone is replying is so fucking usefull. i usually sit in the zerg strat and 1v1 channels and i am constantly invited to observe games. heck yesterday a small gold-bronze tournament broke out and we had someone casting it. just by hanging out in the chat for an hour. things dont look and feel like old bnet. the quirks of it are missed sometimes by me. but for a new player, bnet 2.0 is far superior. obviously they think they know better and the fact that YOU think YOU know better is just retarted. this is their baby. their not a bunch of slick suit cavemen bumbling around going derrrrrrrrp lets make it useless and like an ipod. if a new game came out now not associated with blizzard and presented their online experince with something similar to bnet 1i would expect that game to be free. i dont want to have to snipe "jons moms a whore get in HEre!!!11!" with my mouse as it goes wizzing down the list only to accedently join a dota game where i ruin everyones day because i die in the first 5 min. i would prefeer to say oh look greentd maybe ill show some nubs whats up. nahhh ill scroll down and see if theres anything new and interesting to try. bnet 2.0 is much more civilized. the reason for them going so slow in my opinion is they want to take little steps and see how it settles with the community. the chat rooms that i hang out in have a blizzard employee just sitting in listening 80% of the time+ Show Spoiler + his name is sugus and i told him to suck my dick, thinking he was a bot. he was not I guess I am "retarted" then, but yes - I do know better in this case, for one very simple reason: I am the user. I am the one that is supposed to operate that system and pay them for it, and they are supposed to tailor that system to my needs. Such is the very simple premise of design - you design for users, not for yourself. Once you do, you alienate your customers and fail as a designer/engineer. I am not alone in this complaint, and in fact, even when you view this from a purely objective standpoint - design theory - the system is still shit. You could point out all kinds of interaction design flaws that have nothing to do with my preferences and are objectively and universally deemed bad design. Flaws such as: - not having simple, crucial information available (availability of matches, skill level of certain matches, connection quality). - a very convoluted way of accomplishing simple tasks (map switches, joining matches at your level, notifying others of your lobby's purpose, finding populated matches with certain parameters, etc.) - one bad click leading to 40+ seconds of time to fix (joining wrong match - autostart countdown, cannot leave) - add to list as necessary. This has nothing to do with them knowing better and us just being whiny assholes. There are literally no circumstances whatsoever under which a user would prefer any of these situations I described - therefore it's bad design, therefore, they are wrong. Also I would like to point out, as many others before me have done already, that the Bnet team is separate from the SC2 team. Nobody cares if SC2 is their baby or if they make good gameplay - these are different people and they have screwed up. Try and imagine, for a minute, if SC2 didn't ship with Bnet2.0 (so we wouldn't be forced into using it) and the service was available as a stand-alone. Instead, we could use the matchmaking from any other game, as we pleased. Would anyone in their right mind pick the current state of Bnet 2.0 over other alternatives? | ||
|
Shana
Indonesia1814 Posts
| ||
|
Lon-ami
Spain15 Posts
Why, because it's bugged as hell? No, because the source of the bug. I don't know how many people around here has programming knowledge, but well. 18 hours. What's special about that number? let's see: 18*60*60 = 64,800 In programming we have classes, types of data. That shows they used a "Integer" type, used for small whole numbers, which has a limit: 64,800. They should have used "Long Integer", used for large whole numbers. An EPIC FAIL usual on programming newbies, only that now those newbies seem to be working for Blizzard. Still, there's a bright side to this. Now, the popularity system rotates maps, and you can always find something new. Blizzard did a good job, /facepalm that they did it accidentally. | ||
|
RoyalCheese
Czech Republic745 Posts
On January 17 2011 22:40 Lon-ami wrote: @ new popularity system: It makes me cry. Why, because it's bugged as hell? No, because the source of the bug. I don't know how many people around here has programming knowledge, but well. 18 hours. What's special about that number? let's see: 18*60*60 = 64,800 In programming we have classes, types of data. That shows they used a "Integer" type, used for small whole numbers, which has a limit: 64,800. They should have used "Long Integer", used for large whole numbers. An EPIC FAIL usual on programming newbies, only that now those newbies seem to be working for Blizzard. Still, there's a bright side to this. Now, the popularity system rotates maps, and you can always find something new. Blizzard did a good job, /facepalm that they did it accidentally. do you really think that they set the time to 18 hours just because they don't know there are 32bit long integers? If you think that you're smarter the blizzard developers then think again...it was obviously by design. Also it's not called a small int but short int and it's max value is 2^16, therefore it has not 64800 limit. | ||
|
Lon-ami
Spain15 Posts
On January 17 2011 22:52 RoyalCheese wrote: do you really think that they set the time to 18 hours just because they don't know there are 32bit long integers? If you think that you're smarter the blizzard developers then think again...it was obviously by design. Also it's not called a small int but short int and it's max value is 2^16, therefore it has not 64800 limit. Do you really think it wouldn't be a "bug" if they had not addressed it as so and fixed it like 2 days ago? If you think Blizzard developers are perfect then think again... you're obviously an ignorant. Edit: Here's the link: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/1869410024 /pwned | ||
|
RoyalCheese
Czech Republic745 Posts
On January 17 2011 23:11 Lon-ami wrote: Do you really think it wouldn't be a "bug" if they had not addressed it as so and fixed it like 2 days ago? If you think Blizzard developers are perfect then think again... you're obviously an ignorant. Edit: Here's the link: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/1869410024 /pwned The link you posted says nothing about 18 hours anywhere. Also, please keep the "/pwned" attitude to yourself. | ||
|
Lon-ami
Spain15 Posts
On January 17 2011 23:19 RoyalCheese wrote: The link you posted says nothing about 18 hours anywhere. Also, please keep the "/pwned" attitude to yourself. The link I posted says it's a bug, which means it's not obviously by design. I didn't say anywhere that link had info to that. As for 18h thing, use C++ for a while and you'll notice it by yourself. "/pwned" is a rude answer to a rude attitude. | ||
|
branflakes14
2082 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On January 17 2011 20:58 IkeScurvy wrote: You guys should probably stop mentioning consoles in a negative way, it just makes you sound like elitist jerks. The system they have in place right now is just a bad system. It doesn't matter what the previous job of the designer is. It's just a bad system. They bring up consoles because the chief designer of Battle.net 0.2 is a console designer. I don't think it's a coincidence that the system looks like it should be navigated with a controller. He did what he knows, but Blizzard should've known better, especially after all the shit Infinity Ward took for dumbing down MW2's interface. | ||
|
MichaelJLowell
United States610 Posts
| ||
|
osten
Sweden316 Posts
On January 15 2011 10:48 RoyalCheese wrote: Sigh. Whine more. We asked for chat channels and they implemented them. They showed they care and will to improve battle.net so why can't you just make a civilized post like a sane person without wanna be hilarious picture? Preferably on battle.net forums where blizzard stuff can read them. Is that what you think happened....? You think blizzard are "trying their hardest"? Well if you played warcraft 2, starcraft, warcraft 3, diablo or any other battle.net game you would know that they are not "trying their hardest", they have instead very deliberately taken a position where they can implement just exactly what we need and nothing else. This is so they can make more money. All these removed features, and all the added unnessecary features all have the focus of making them more cash. "Always connected" more like "Always paying customer". It's not the right way of combatting software counterfeiting, and that has not been a problem for them before either. Something has changed within blizzard. You must feel it too...? In wow now you can pay for the game, then pay for three expansions, then pay to transfer a character, pay to make him look differently, pay to change race, pay to change sex, pay to be able to check auctions on your phone........ I don't remember these things from diablo. And no, it's not called progress. Greed. What if we could chose gateway like we always have been able to before? What if the system was open and people could make clients for chatting outside of the game on your phone? What if custom games could be played, I for one had a lot of fun with that in wc3, now it's unplayable. What if we could create and moderate clans? What if we could view advanced statistics about almost every aspect of our games online? What if we could play in tournaments? What if we could see at which place in the world we are? Well... then we'd have all the things wc3 had. I think it's insane that when they remove features some of you guys say wooow they are trying so hard oh man it is so hard for blizzard. Nope., they are greedy. Ok rant over. | ||
|
mrdx
Vietnam1555 Posts
On January 17 2011 21:58 DarQraven wrote: I guess I am "retarted" then, but yes - I do know better in this case, for one very simple reason: I am the user. I am the one that is supposed to operate that system and pay them for it, and they are supposed to tailor that system to my needs. Such is the very simple premise of design - you design for users, not for yourself. Once you do, you alienate your customers and fail as a designer/engineer. I am not alone in this complaint, and in fact, even when you view this from a purely objective standpoint - design theory - the system is still shit. You could point out all kinds of interaction design flaws that have nothing to do with my preferences and are objectively and universally deemed bad design. Flaws such as: - not having simple, crucial information available (availability of matches, skill level of certain matches, connection quality). - a very convoluted way of accomplishing simple tasks (map switches, joining matches at your level, notifying others of your lobby's purpose, finding populated matches with certain parameters, etc.) - one bad click leading to 40+ seconds of time to fix (joining wrong match - autostart countdown, cannot leave) - add to list as necessary. This has nothing to do with them knowing better and us just being whiny assholes. There are literally no circumstances whatsoever under which a user would prefer any of these situations I described - therefore it's bad design, therefore, they are wrong. Also I would like to point out, as many others before me have done already, that the Bnet team is separate from the SC2 team. Nobody cares if SC2 is their baby or if they make good gameplay - these are different people and they have screwed up. Try and imagine, for a minute, if SC2 didn't ship with Bnet2.0 (so we wouldn't be forced into using it) and the service was available as a stand-alone. Instead, we could use the matchmaking from any other game, as we pleased. Would anyone in their right mind pick the current state of Bnet 2.0 over other alternatives? Complete agree with you. I'm working in UI development and I have to say that Battle.net 2 is a rare case of complete usability failure, considering the size of the project and the expertise that dev team of such a giant game dev (supposedly) has. What is surprising is that it doesn't take an usability expert to point out that Battle.net sucks. An average user/gamer can easily point out at least a few shortcomings of the interface after spending some hours on it. It boggles my mind how the guys at Blizzard didn't seem to realize so. Or maybe there's some internal politics within Activasion Blizzard that we don't know (like bureaucracy or power influence of some sort)... I don't know, can't understand it really. | ||
| ||
