|
Anything unusual in the new patch ? Anything broken , anything worse ?
We'll ignore the good thing for this thread, they're welcome (noted well, 30 sec fix ...etc) , but the point is, as i explained in a superwall of text on around page 10 i think , that there's a virtual focal point when the bad things overcome the good things , you guess what comes if the focal point is reached or worse even passed , as a bottleneck component ; bnet is crippling the whole experience , in the end making the game's good side a little bit of irrevalant or usless.
Discuss , but i got my observings as well.
Critical Bugs still present:
-Alt Tab IN bug , takes very long to maximize application , it may be responsible for those countless "dropped" reports.
- SP Memory leak (affects Alt Tab times) , general resource hog , bad cleaning , bad memory management.
- Very Laggy editor , even on high end systems (bad code , takes so much time loading everything , it checks for every file in realtime if it is present on the HDD, also the data editor performance is a bit slow)
1.2 Notices:
- "You have voice chat disabled" appears periodically without reason (without clicking ex. cedilla (default)
-The popularity system is screwed up even more.
- The SHOW MORE button is the whole source of broken popularity system , displaying by hours alone will not fix it completely.
I tried to do a "show more" video to tell you the agony and annoyances it causes , i just didn't finishd with editing software so i might upload that later , it's just for proof of how it's like. Who the hell would scroll down and click the button 30 times to reach the bottom come on, nobody , or at least very rarely. This is a BIAS taken from the console world , this is a very basic example of crappy mobile/console attitude and design , this show more button must go AWAY.
Just for letting you guys know , i do have good enouh system and i have it stable than ever , it's not a 3000$ build , but it's well enough for any current game (pure graphics perf doesn't matter for stability, as i don't need more since i have 19' LCD @ 1280x1024)
My Sys Specs: (custom build of course)
Win7 x64 ultimate
NOD 32 Antivirus 4.0
CPU: Intel Q9300 2.5ghz stock
GPU: Sapphire ATI Radeon HD4870 512MB
PSU: Enermax 620W Liberty DXX
APU: Asus Xonar D1 PCI
HDD: Western Digital Caviar Black 1000GB 64MB cache SATA3 (WD1002FAEX)
RAM: 6GB - Corsair Dominator 1066mhz DDR2 CL5
MOBO: Gigabyte P35-DS4 rev2.1 Bios-F14
KEY: MS SideWinder X4
MAU: MS SideWinderTM (latest, similar to X5)
SND: Logitech X-540 5.1 Sorround System
Settings Tweaks:
- No Pagefile (HDD virtual memory disabled)
- No Readyboot (not readyboost) - a kind of prefetcher working at boot*
- No Superfetch
- UAC disabled
Registery Tweaks:
-optimized memory management
-Prefetcher disabled
Service Tweaks:
- Homegroup Disabled
- Win Defender disabled
- Win Firewall disabled
- Win Search disabled (all indexing)
- Win Update disabled (manual updates every month)
For starters, that's how it's like in 1.2 , in an image explanation , a new bug.
(okay that's just playing fool , but the image is just for exposing these bugs , it says 1000 words)
![[image loading]](http://www.shrani.si/f/27/VI/A6NA2Dq/sc2-bnetfail2.gif)
As you can see , the green popularity bar is bugged , now pretty much everything is "very popular/max"
UPDATE:
![[image loading]](http://www.shrani.si/f/2S/jE/4L8TiRon/bnetpopbarupd.gif)
And the infamous show more button , this is the kind of style console and mobile platforms have , this has no place to be here, not just because of style or convenienve or type of design , it's also making bias in the whole custom game system , judging by the fact of "who would always scroll to the bottom , who would take 2 minutes each time he opens a join custom game menu , the map browser always resets and never retains the scroll , it's retaining it's output as "per display/specific menu"(currently WHATEVER can reset it, any other window in bnet you go it will reset the results in the "not-yet-scroll");
- it's not "per session"(as long as the game runs/resets when you close the application) or "per gamestate/gamemode/ can't find the correct standard word for this"(as long as you in the bnet menus [ex gamemodes: MP, SP , Bnet Menu, ... whatever things does the developer group into)
---------- [uploading image]
Update @ image taking longer than expected , should be working very soon.
Also below link , i've taken the screenshots from the EU SC2 beta forums which you can see how blizzard behaved then and also the clues from what people were talking about , yeah , they're were questioning the same things we're at them today. That was 2/3 year ago , march-june 2010.
http://stewox2.shrani.si/?BNET 2-0
Notice: Please bear with my "hate" for consoles (fixed some words out now), it's just a writting style , im not english either so , but i always had nintendo consoles if you must know , it's just , i have 2 mindsets , when we're on consoles talk about that , but SC2 is on PC and we're talking PCs currently , so i don't want this mixup, what works on consoles doesn't mean it works on PC, greg canessa is just inexperienced he thinks facebook and steam and xbox live and psn and bnet are all same kind , same kind of service , he's clearly not qualified to produce an AAA PC game service , it's not a service , they market it as such , it's an interface with underlayer servers whatever , a few menus sticked together , for example Company of Heroes multiplayer interface is like 10 times bigger than current bnet and has no fancy names , of services and bla bla special talent , Relic just made it , it's an interface , you don't need to have some console wiseguy talking about how it's "special" , what special talent do you need , you just need pure programmers to make the features , anybody can do the look , that's what a 20 year old can do with photoshop , plus , you need network engineers and server specialists for the interface to be interconnected and fluid , the network guys keep the service running , they could switch to a lower-end version for emergencies if a lot of servers fail or something breaks or whatever , upon and/or after that you only need the maintenance guys , and a news poster for example. This is what core gamers need , the design/looks/esthetical doesn't matter as long as you have the features you need , it's all a part of what they want for casual people to get into, But anyways I think blizzard thought if they get a dedicated bnet team it would be better because the core devs wouldn't be clear of one aspect of the game , but this made a side effect , they thought a service doesn't require so much programming expertise or they thought a high-level scripting would be enough , so i guess , bnet 1.0 was done by the programmers and probably everybody helped with the interface , blizzard wasn't as tiered and dedicated back then so probably there wasn't such a big art team but im sure they would do better than the current bnet team , features aspect of bnet 1.0 clearly states that core programmers made it , as i mentioned they got a simple interface up with some photoshop editing , wasn't anything special or anything overly-shiny , but it worked , it was what the gamers wanted and an interface doesn't need to shine, i always lost my self in new interfaces , older were always more convenient and handy because they were probably thought up by programmers who placed
Now in 2.0 programmers didn't placed the buttons and ui and windows , so , it's more of a "user friendly" BS , but the older stuff worked , programmers have that practise and they know what's a good system and you have everything clearly shown to you.
As Blizzard said in one of the interviews , they still didnt' fill 10 positions on the bnet team , but they did 50 over the span of a year or so (frogot the links) I don't know what special talent "game service" requires , but he admitted that the core team from the game's teams has had to do some help for bnet , you need network engineers for the service as well , it's really not a special talent , with that they probably mean "service designers" as some guys who "transform" the intefrace into a "more accessible/ user friendly service" which in the industry are people who make photoshop UIs , they have no idea about the whole underlayer, and of course , blizzard realized this , they can't hire anybody who's a "im making a game service" because most of that unadvanced stuff is on mobiles / handhelds / casual / online , those are only very high-level scripting languages which a 15 old can learn in a year. So in the end they really have a hard time finding "experts on game services" , there are very little who stay only making a service while not programming anything else because that's only a side project for most , the today's AAA services are made by those who make the whole thing , core highly skilled programmers.
Plus , services aren't even AAA (just maybe steam , yeah but some people hate it because it's killing PC independence from 3rd party apps that cause naggs and stability issues), Quake Live is good , but ID uses that to employ rookies and trains them , they don't use DOOM4 devs to work on Quake Live (Q3E)
The point is , the interface is made by those who make the game , they know what's the best design , they're maybe gamers them selfs (or were they) but that's probably what's going around with bnet.
As we come to the point one again , the bnet team lead is a console guy, he has no idea what features are standard to the PC in the first place, blizzard tells him what to do on a schedule , he has no self experience with it. Poor guy , we all bash him , yeah welcome to the PC world i guess , this is not some kiddo's RROD zapper
-----
Please don't rate my images, it's for the bugs only , i know to an adult they look stupid with funny 4-chan cliche but also classic ironies , i wasn't devoting like an awful load of time to it so i just thought up what i had in mind at the moment, it might not be as funny for some.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
Fully agreed, why Blizzard can't make normal multiplayer interface, like in any other RTS game? They're trying a lot new things, and many of them are fail
|
Why can't they do it like in WC3 except just show how many slots have been made/filled whatever.
|
because they hired the guy who designed xbox live to design battle.net 2.0
nothing can be done.
unless they fire him and scrap the entire interface.
|
after getting 18 hours played it resets to 0 its kinda funny
cause it makes the maps rotate lol flawed system but still is better than the first one lol
|
It might not be perfect but it shows us that they are trying. I kinda like BNet the way it is. Can it be improved more, yes, I think so. But so far, i'm a satisfied customer.
|
Hmm, they should add a search function for the join games too (Besides create custom game) That way its a lot easier to find the type of games I want to join.
Custom game still needs a lot of work.
|
Ya I couldn't find the games I was looking for, such a silly system. And now some maps that used to be fine crash my game, but I don't know if the patch caused that or what.
The hours thing is an alright idea, though, considering some games have longer playtime and thus fewer games will be played. But as is the system is messing stuff up like crazy.
|
only problem really is custom games + popularity system and even then whatever 95% of all UMS's are complete garbage-try-hard maps IMO. Everything else including matchmaking is fine unless you're a 12 year old that likes whining and making stupid gifs
|
I wish the chat channels were back to the way they used to be, i hate reading in small boxes and scrolling up/down
|
They need a search function, and they also need the join screen to default to the map you last played. Just another of the great bnet 1.0 features they failed to implement (just press alt-j enter and you're back in the same game).
The way it rotates now, the most popular map goes over the reset threshold so often that it's a pain to find. It might be on page one one minute and page 19 the next, then back to page 5 the next time you click join. I fail to see the point of a popularity system that makes the most popular map difficult to find. If they implement a search function, the any flaws in the popularity system will be insignificant (at least compared to how major they are now).
EDIT: I don't actually know the maps are going over the reset threshold every few minutes. It could just be their script doesn't work, and incidentally the order is basically random. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and assumed that while they are beyond stupid when it comes to ideas, they actually have programmers that can occasionally code properly.
|
But that's just one of many ... i could make some more pics .. to provide a thought maybe some didn't noticed some stuff or wasn't annoying.
I also want to point out that these the "hours" popups are kind of ... you know crappy flash code , they don't register a hit if your mouse points on , they only register movement. (you can't leave the mouse alone and scroll)
- They could leave both systems and make a freaking option for every user how he wishes to display popularity (what it's now it's a forcefull system but well some defend this as good for no-bias against different types of maps)
-In Create Custom Game menu there is also no option to show ALL , that means , you really can't creat every custom game you have downloaded imo/afaik ... i got a look at it again , it appears that "all cusom + blizzards" are in "Popular" > but you know what , YOU have a SHOW MORE button again.
It is really not confirmed if "Popular" has all the maps you downloaded. Probably not, but if yes , it's still a bug.
This is freaking amazing , bnet is so bugged that some bugs seem to open up alternatives , virtually fixing other bugs. lol
|
On January 15 2011 09:50 Teivospylol wrote:
only problem really is custom games + popularity system and even then whatever 95% of all UMS's are complete garbage-try-hard maps IMO. Everything else including matchmaking is fine unless you're a 12 year old that likes whining and making stupid gifs
do you think im going to devote half a day trying to improve into super cool , that's just my go at it , i didnt' do gifs or anything like this before , use photoshop but i am not a pro.
That's that if you would guessed it , which it's not this time , where did i said that i made the image?
|
I don't know if people from America/Europe realise this but the SEA version of sc2 has a region switch button on the log in page that lets us choose between USA and SEA battle.net.
![[image loading]](http://members.iinet.net.au/~realwastaken/regions.png)
They have already written the code for this to work and yet competitive players still have to buy 3-4 copies of the damn game to play on other regions.
I'm honestly surprised more people aren't getting pissed off about this - I consider it pretty fucking unacceptable. And its only going to get more ridiculous when people need to buy 3 copies of each expansion.
|
On January 15 2011 09:44 razboi wrote:
It might not be perfect but it shows us that they are trying. I kinda like BNet the way it is. Can it be improved more, yes, I think so. But so far, i'm a satisfied customer.
Are you kidding me? It might not be perfect but it shows us that they are trying. Are you KIDDING ME?
Yes, for a startup company, or maybe an amateur game design company or hell, maybe even Valve in their early days of Steam, but BLIZZARD. Oh the almighty BLIZZARD, the same people we gave 7 years to make a sequel game. Who rake in more money than EA and Activision COMBINED.
What on earth were they thinking? Who designed this custom game fail?
Fire Greg Cannessa please, fire him now. Do you realize how much you're all been gipped?
I can make you a masters league in 5 minutes. Write a PHP code to filter all to 10% of players, design a new icon, and voila, a completely new feature called masters league is upon us! All hail masters league!
None of the features they've come up with are ACTUALLY useful.
Where is the categorization? Where is the search in custom games? Why didn't they look at Warcraft 3 and think to themselves, hmm maybe there might be a tug of war or a ship battle custom game. Why weren't they included in categories? Why aren't there categories!?
Porn websites have better categorization than Starcraft 2 custom games. Why can't I click, tug of war, and look at a list of tug of war games? Or click Dota and look at a list of Dota games? Instead the only thing I can do is filter with 5 settings. That's great, the rest of the games on B.net are just custom.
Why is there even a "faster" filter??? Can't they get into poeple's heads and TELL them that Starcraft IS this fast. There is no slow, normal, fast setting. THIS IS STARCRAFT. They on the bloody earth did they keep this arcane feature from 12 years ago?
Why is the custom game browser one of the simplest, mundane and useless features ever to graze the earth?
On the other hand, Why can't I see people's ping!??! Another stupid dumbass blunder.
Blizzard is the Apple of gaming, except Blizzard actually make shitty games but the mass fanboys can't really see it through their thick glasses. They lather on EXTREMELY large budgets to make up for their losses in talent to produce an extremely well polished mediocre game.
If not for the asians playing Multiplayer keeping Starcraft 2 alive, it would've been tossed away like no other.
|
On January 15 2011 10:13 7th-Real wrote:I don't know if people from America/Europe realise this but the SEA version of sc2 has a region switch button on the log in page that lets us choose between USA and SEA battle.net. They have already written the code for this to work and yet competitive players still have to buy 3-4 copies of the damn game to play on other regions. I'm honestly surprised more people aren't getting pissed off about this - I consider it pretty fucking unacceptable. And its only going to get more ridiculous when people need to buy 3 copies of each expansion.
Well, at least i don't think they're ducking for the claim that they're doing that for added profit. What's way worse is the popularity system that killed the potentially insanely awesome custom community. I've read up on some of the custom game developers and many are angry and dissapointed for wasting so much time learning the editor just to realize that their map never can get popular in this system.
I dunno if this even fits for this forum but that's what annoys me with bnet, and the fact that bliz has a policy to never comment on the popularity system is just added salt in the wound.
|
No. Not really.
User was warned for this post
|
On January 15 2011 10:13 7th-Real wrote:I don't know if people from America/Europe realise this but the SEA version of sc2 has a region switch button on the log in page that lets us choose between USA and SEA battle.net. They have already written the code for this to work and yet competitive players still have to buy 3-4 copies of the damn game to play on other regions. I'm honestly surprised more people aren't getting pissed off about this - I consider it pretty fucking unacceptable. And its only going to get more ridiculous when people need to buy 3 copies of each expansion.
True, that get's very annoying when you're in EU but want to participate in an NA tournament ... Also, I think there used to be multiple character for one account previously. That was good becuase then you could have one character for each race. That meant that if you were high ranked as one, you woulden't get too tough enemies as your weaker race.
|
On January 15 2011 10:13 7th-Real wrote:I don't know if people from America/Europe realise this but the SEA version of sc2 has a region switch button on the log in page that lets us choose between USA and SEA battle.net. They have already written the code for this to work and yet competitive players still have to buy 3-4 copies of the damn game to play on other regions. I'm honestly surprised more people aren't getting pissed off about this - I consider it pretty fucking unacceptable. And its only going to get more ridiculous when people need to buy 3 copies of each expansion.
That has been there since the featured was activated for us SEA users (about 3 months ago now I think) - just do a search and you'll find about 5 or 6 threads with people's thoughts about it. There has certainly been a lot of angst already.
So far I am still very unimpressed with Bnet 2.0 - the main problem being that chat (in all of the forms, channels, in game, the IM system) is just ridiculous. It's almost as terrible as the update that went through with Live Messenger a little while back - taking something that is simple, easy to understand, yet very efficient - and warping it into some console-esk bullshit. Hopefully unlike Windows/Microsoft - Blizzard might listen to the community and take a step back and look at things. However I'm not sure this would happen - as this would mean a corporate giant would need to actually admit being wrong, and we all know how often that happens.
|
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.
|
Yeah, the whole system is pretty horrible from top to bottom. The menus are far too graphics/flash heavy to allow for quick and straightforward navigation. It loads SO SLOWLY at times.
|
whats even worse is that even their online forums are kept separate despite them both being english forums
|
If you're a Mac player, if you minimize at all while sc2 is open, your control groups over lap (assign x to 5, assign y to 4, hit 5, y replaces x), you can't use any F keys, or hotkeys (hit S and it toggles sound on/off, M, music on/off)
This has lost me at least 3-4 games, before i discovered the source of the problem, being minimizing/going back
|
Agreed
There are a lot of things that could be improved looking at the interaction design. During the beta it was already clear they had made poor design choices. The back button while looking at people's profiles for instance. This wasn't always there, and still doesn't feel quite right, and there's moments where people can feel 'lost'.
But the custom game interface is probably where they dropped the ball the most. Simple things like search, previously played, maybe have different views, a rating system, etc.
All in all, you can clearly see this was designed with somewhat of a console way of thinking, as others have mentioned. Use cases, usability testing, etc is not something they've spent their money or time on, or maybe just didn't have the right people for the job, poor art-directing. Could be a lot of things.
This is however, old news. Bnet has been the source of a lot of complaints since beta, and I'm sure they're looking at feedback from the community, and will probably look to improve... be it soon(tm) or whenever.
|
Battle.net 0.2? OH I GET IT HAHAHA GOOD ONE OP. EPIC WIN XD SO ORIEGINAL
Blizzerd you fail
|
I honestly don't see what's so bad about bnet 2.0. It allows you to do what you need to do. You can play ladder games, have a friends list, talk to the people on your friends list, play custom games, and participate in chat channels.
I guess the bottom line is that people will ALWAYS find something to complain about.
|
Well while theirs a lot of "hate" in posts; its obvisious to anyone that the System for Custom Games is really bad.
The worst of all is that they really could simply take the WC3 way and change nothing to have a better result.
Theirs to much "lets try this, lets try that" ; it really made the final result worser.
It even looks like they care more how everything "looks" and not how it "works".
Might be a better idea to make it actual work good and then care if it looks good.
*However; in the end a lot of the stuff Blizzard "can't" do is done by 3rd Party; if you could just download your stuff easy from another website and play it with your friends without the need of the Battlenet ; a lot would be happy; but Blizzard decides not to go that way; overall money is just more important than happy customers; especially as theirs a lot of players that simply take everything they get and don't care at all ...
If the Addon comes and we get LAN support; THAT would be a really good signal (and woudl really make Blizzard the great company it actual "was").
|
On January 15 2011 11:09 AirbladeOrange wrote:I guess the bottom line is that people will ALWAYS find something to complain about.
That and for some reason TL has a higher percentage of whining babies than the bnet forums now.
|
Simply stated, join game should be joining a game already made. Creating a game creates a game...none of this join game = wait forever because no one else knows its been made shenanigans
|
On January 15 2011 11:09 AirbladeOrange wrote:
I honestly don't see what's so bad about bnet 2.0. It allows you to do what you need to do. You can play ladder games, have a friends list, talk to the people on your friends list, play custom games, and participate in chat channels.
I guess the bottom line is that people will ALWAYS find something to complain about.
Are you kidding? Custom games are hell. It's utterly atrocious trying to set up custom games. Age of Empires II had the best table system. I would honestly in a second take SCBW bnet over this piece of shit Bnet 2.0. I have never been more frustrated in custom games. You want to play a 1v1 on LT vs a Protoss user that's around your skill level? GOOD LUCK. Probably a silver player will join as Terran, and guess what? The game autostarts. You can't EVEN LEAVE THE LOBBY. You have to hit escape and logout. Not to mention the fact your opponent might do this to you last second so you end up loading the game with no opponent.
Do you know I've spent over 15 minutes trying to find a single custom game to play because me and another bronze player kept joining the same game over and over, and on the offchances I got someone else, they weren't even plat?
What happened to being able to make games "Master League 2500+ Toss come." Shit like that. What happened to being able to BOOT players that come to the games because YOU were the host? Guess what, there's no boot option anymore unless you make a private game. It's an utterly piece of shit system, literally one of the worst custom systems I've ever encountered, EVER. And that's not to mention how horrendous the popularity system is.
|
I really don't understand how there's supposedly so much money being pumped into SC2, yet so many things like this are found by the average gamer and Blizzard takes so long to fix them.
|
On January 15 2011 10:15 wankey wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 09:44 razboi wrote:
It might not be perfect but it shows us that they are trying. I kinda like BNet the way it is. Can it be improved more, yes, I think so. But so far, i'm a satisfied customer. Are you kidding me? It might not be perfect but it shows us that they are trying. Are you KIDDING ME? Yes, for a startup company, or maybe an amateur game design company or hell, maybe even Valve in their early days of Steam, but BLIZZARD. Oh the almighty BLIZZARD, the same people we gave 7 years to make a sequel game. Who rake in more money than EA and Activision COMBINED. What on earth were they thinking? Who designed this custom game fail? Fire Greg Cannessa please, fire him now. Do you realize how much you're all been gipped? I can make you a masters league in 5 minutes. Write a PHP code to filter all to 10% of players, design a new icon, and voila, a completely new feature called masters league is upon us! All hail masters league! None of the features they've come up with are ACTUALLY useful. Where is the categorization? Where is the search in custom games? Why didn't they look at Warcraft 3 and think to themselves, hmm maybe there might be a tug of war or a ship battle custom game. Why weren't they included in categories? Why aren't there categories!? Porn websites have better categorization than Starcraft 2 custom games. Why can't I click, tug of war, and look at a list of tug of war games? Or click Dota and look at a list of Dota games? Instead the only thing I can do is filter with 5 settings. That's great, the rest of the games on B.net are just custom. Why is there even a "faster" filter??? Can't they get into poeple's heads and TELL them that Starcraft IS this fast. There is no slow, normal, fast setting. THIS IS STARCRAFT. They on the bloody earth did they keep this arcane feature from 12 years ago? Why is the custom game browser one of the simplest, mundane and useless features ever to graze the earth? On the other hand, Why can't I see people's ping!??! Another stupid dumbass blunder. Blizzard is the Apple of gaming, except Blizzard actually make shitty games but the mass fanboys can't really see it through their thick glasses. They lather on EXTREMELY large budgets to make up for their losses in talent to produce an extremely well polished mediocre game. If not for the asians playing Multiplayer keeping Starcraft 2 alive, it would've been tossed away like no other.
I fully agree with your post and don't forget that we waited 7 months for the simplest of things - chat channels.
I could also probably make chat channels in C++ in like 1 hour. Do the menu look, link up the buttons and save the text, as simple as that.
Don't forget that we also didn't get LAN so going to a LAN party you have to play on the internet, want to play with ur friends in a PC cafee sitting right next to you, no luck you need to connect to the internet.
Also don't forget Blizzard removed cross-region play so some poor souls buy 3-4 copies of the game.
Also don't forget that Blizzard needed 7 months to come up with simple kystomizable keys.
Also don't forget that after 7 years of development and additional 7 months of waiting custom games still sucks.
10 years into the future and WC3 bnet is better than SC2 bnet, heck SC1 bnet is better than SC2 bnet.
Also don't forget about the inability to lock a custom game and the stupid long countdown.
I'd say Blizzard needed to fire Craig 7 months ago when he failed to deliver.
|
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.
So if 12 years ago, you bought a car that worked perfectly fine and had 4 wheels, and then now bought a car with a fancy engine, perfect glossy paint but only had 3 wheels and no radio, would that be acceptable? Bnet .20 is a step back in every conceivable way. It just looks better than SC/BW's Bnet or WC3's Bnet. On every level, this Bnet is fail.
|
It's fine, stop whining. I noticed that other maps are actually played now, like the other 1v1 Blizzard maps that aren't in the map pool, just because they are on the top of the custom game list, whereas the same maps were never played before patch 1.2. And I see that as a good thing since everybody's QQing about imbalanced maps but don't bother trying to play any other map.
You should really stop blaming Blizzard for their hard work. Much like Husky's SCV love song, you guys are blaming a next gen game just cuz his ancestor satisfied you more.
|
you can say whatever you want, but bnet2.0 sucks big time....
they new patch fucked it up even more then give it a good time..... blizzard WHAT HAS BECOME OF YOU.....
custom games & joining + the list is bugged (worked quite well before)
random discs
chat channels after 6 months? wtf!!!!
no clan support after 7 months? (and counting...)
this is bad, really bad!
|
On January 15 2011 09:43 MavercK wrote:
because they hired the guy who designed xbox live to design battle.net 2.0
nothing can be done.
unless they fire him and scrap the entire interface.
this!!!!
hiring the guy who designed xbox live was a fucking TERRIBLE idea!!!!! i honestly havent the slightest clue what they were thinking.
|
You guys whine so much, at least now you can join a chat channel and find someone you want to play against. The custom game interface isn't amazing but it's not terrible either. Honestly you all are acting like blizzard is so much fail so go play some other RTS. Oh SC1 and WC3 were so much better?? News flash, you can still play those games.
It's also obvious that b.net 2.0 is a work in progress and they already delayed SC2 enough to get it out with b.net 2.0, yet you were probably the same people complaining about the delay and now you complain more that b.net 2.0 isn't up to your standards.
|
i'm personally not a big fan of the current bnet, but i don't wanna argue about wether it's good right now or not...
just looked up an interview of pc gamer with Sagaty where this was in:
But in an interview with PCGamer, the game's lead producer, Chris Sagaty, announced that they have 1.2 pencilled in as the first real "esport patch."
i'm really curious what happened to the "e-sports" part...
|
On January 15 2011 11:56 xaeiu wrote:
i'm really curious what happened to the "e-sports" part...
Master's league. All the complaining that you can't compare rank across divisions..now you can.
|
On January 15 2011 09:43 MavercK wrote:
because they hired the guy who designed xbox live to design battle.net 2.0
nothing can be done.
unless they fire him and scrap the entire interface.
There's a problem with this logic: X-Box Live doesn't suck!
I know it's the cool PC-gamer thing to do, dissing on consoles and all for doing anything at all, regardless of whether it's good or not. But X-Box Live is a very good system for finding players to play with, communicating with them, etc.
If anything, the problem with B.Net 2.0 is that it isn't more like X-Box Live.
Furthermore, one person doesn't decide how everything is implemented. The person "who designed xbox live" did not in fact design X-Box Live by himself. He was part of the X-Box Live team, just as he's now part of the Battle.Net 2.0 team.
But don't let actual facts get in the way of your blind scapegoating. Please, hang him in effigy and so forth.
Are you kidding me? It might not be perfect but it shows us that they are trying. Are you KIDDING ME?
Yes, for a startup company, or maybe an amateur game design company or hell, maybe even Valve in their early days of Steam, but BLIZZARD. Oh the almighty BLIZZARD, the same people we gave 7 years to make a sequel game. Who rake in more money than EA and Activision COMBINED.
I'm sorry, what?
First, we did not "give" Blizzard 7 years to make a sequel. Blizzard took however long they wanted to make a sequel; they neither asked for nor required our permission.
Second, Blizzard did not spend 7 years making SC2. Serious development of SC2 did not begin until around 2005. So that's only 5 years.
Third, every game from a developer needs to be self-sufficient; it needs to pay for itself. You don't borrow from Peter to pay Paul, not if you want to actually have money. That means that no matter how much WoW makes, SC2 was going to have a finite budget. And that budget would not be whatever the WoW profits are.
Fourth and most important, money != design. Money != code. Money can certainly help these things. But it doesn't magic things out of thin air. You may want to read "The Mythical Man Month" to know more about the limits of trying to solve problems by throwing more people/money at them.
Fifth, if Blizzard wasn't trying, we wouldn't have chat channels of any kind.
|
On January 15 2011 10:15 wankey wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 09:44 razboi wrote:
It might not be perfect but it shows us that they are trying. I kinda like BNet the way it is. Can it be improved more, yes, I think so. But so far, i'm a satisfied customer. Are you kidding me? It might not be perfect but it shows us that they are trying. Are you KIDDING ME? Yes, for a startup company, or maybe an amateur game design company or hell, maybe even Valve in their early days of Steam, but BLIZZARD. Oh the almighty BLIZZARD, the same people we gave 7 years to make a sequel game. Who rake in more money than EA and Activision COMBINED. What on earth were they thinking? Who designed this custom game fail? Fire Greg Cannessa please, fire him now. Do you realize how much you're all been gipped? I can make you a masters league in 5 minutes. Write a PHP code to filter all to 10% of players, design a new icon, and voila, a completely new feature called masters league is upon us! All hail masters league! None of the features they've come up with are ACTUALLY useful. Where is the categorization? Where is the search in custom games? Why didn't they look at Warcraft 3 and think to themselves, hmm maybe there might be a tug of war or a ship battle custom game. Why weren't they included in categories? Why aren't there categories!? Porn websites have better categorization than Starcraft 2 custom games. Why can't I click, tug of war, and look at a list of tug of war games? Or click Dota and look at a list of Dota games? Instead the only thing I can do is filter with 5 settings. That's great, the rest of the games on B.net are just custom. Why is there even a "faster" filter??? Can't they get into poeple's heads and TELL them that Starcraft IS this fast. There is no slow, normal, fast setting. THIS IS STARCRAFT. They on the bloody earth did they keep this arcane feature from 12 years ago? Why is the custom game browser one of the simplest, mundane and useless features ever to graze the earth? On the other hand, Why can't I see people's ping!??! Another stupid dumbass blunder. Blizzard is the Apple of gaming, except Blizzard actually make shitty games but the mass fanboys can't really see it through their thick glasses. They lather on EXTREMELY large budgets to make up for their losses in talent to produce an extremely well polished mediocre game. If not for the asians playing Multiplayer keeping Starcraft 2 alive, it would've been tossed away like no other.
Then don't play it.
|
The new patch really botched the custom hotkeys too. I just wanna go back to my old hotkey changer, cause it was so much more useful.
Examples:
If you try binding anything Zerg/Terran to "W," the game unbinds warpgates for Protoss, and says there's a conflict. WTF? The only time this has any effect is in team games where a player drops and you control their units, or when you NP a probe as Zerg and start building Protoss stuff. As in, almost never. The "toggle conflicts" button doesn't work for this, as it's only designed for units that go from one mode to another, like tanks and vikings.
Also, for some weird reason, when I play Terran the tech lab is "z" and reactor is "x" even though in the hotkey changer it is listed as "x" and "c" respectively. It blew my mind when I played a game as random, rolled Terran, and then 3 minutes into the game I realize my barracks is building a reactor instead of a tech lab because the hotkeys are wrong. I lost that game, left, rechecked the hotkeys (they were displayed as I intended them) and then played a custom to check: they were STILL wrong in-game.
Then, you can't change the modifiers for control groups to anything other than alt, ctrl, and shift. You can't substitute the spacebar. For example, I wanted my spacebar to act just like ctrl because I own a Lenovo (and their retardedness doesn't allow me to remap my FN key, whole 'nother story there) but you can't change the modifier! Third party hotkey apps ALL allow this functionality. In fact, you can make a modifier out of ANY key. I don't know why Blizzard is sucking so hard at this when they tested 1.2 for what, 2 months? Not to mention, this game has been anticipated for so many years now. Age of Empires 2 had better hotkey customization than this crap, and it came out around the same time Broodwar did. Hell, you could customize your mouse scroll to a hotkey in Age2. You had hotkeys in Age2 that would find specific buildings, like barracks or stables, therefore eliminating some of the need to bind tech buildings to control groups.
This is just developer fail at its finest.
|
On January 15 2011 11:29 thehitman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 10:15 wankey wrote:On January 15 2011 09:44 razboi wrote:
It might not be perfect but it shows us that they are trying. I kinda like BNet the way it is. Can it be improved more, yes, I think so. But so far, i'm a satisfied customer. Are you kidding me? It might not be perfect but it shows us that they are trying. Are you KIDDING ME? Yes, for a startup company, or maybe an amateur game design company or hell, maybe even Valve in their early days of Steam, but BLIZZARD. Oh the almighty BLIZZARD, the same people we gave 7 years to make a sequel game. Who rake in more money than EA and Activision COMBINED. What on earth were they thinking? Who designed this custom game fail? Fire Greg Cannessa please, fire him now. Do you realize how much you're all been gipped? I can make you a masters league in 5 minutes. Write a PHP code to filter all to 10% of players, design a new icon, and voila, a completely new feature called masters league is upon us! All hail masters league! None of the features they've come up with are ACTUALLY useful. Where is the categorization? Where is the search in custom games? Why didn't they look at Warcraft 3 and think to themselves, hmm maybe there might be a tug of war or a ship battle custom game. Why weren't they included in categories? Why aren't there categories!? Porn websites have better categorization than Starcraft 2 custom games. Why can't I click, tug of war, and look at a list of tug of war games? Or click Dota and look at a list of Dota games? Instead the only thing I can do is filter with 5 settings. That's great, the rest of the games on B.net are just custom. Why is there even a "faster" filter??? Can't they get into poeple's heads and TELL them that Starcraft IS this fast. There is no slow, normal, fast setting. THIS IS STARCRAFT. They on the bloody earth did they keep this arcane feature from 12 years ago? Why is the custom game browser one of the simplest, mundane and useless features ever to graze the earth? On the other hand, Why can't I see people's ping!??! Another stupid dumbass blunder. Blizzard is the Apple of gaming, except Blizzard actually make shitty games but the mass fanboys can't really see it through their thick glasses. They lather on EXTREMELY large budgets to make up for their losses in talent to produce an extremely well polished mediocre game. If not for the asians playing Multiplayer keeping Starcraft 2 alive, it would've been tossed away like no other. I fully agree with your post and don't forget that we waited 7 months for the simplest of things - chat channels. I could also probably make chat channels in C++ in like 1 hour. Do the menu look, link up the buttons and save the text, as simple as that.Don't forget that we also didn't get LAN so going to a LAN party you have to play on the internet, want to play with ur friends in a PC cafee sitting right next to you, no luck you need to connect to the internet. Also don't forget Blizzard removed cross-region play so some poor souls buy 3-4 copies of the game. Also don't forget that Blizzard needed 7 months to come up with simple kystomizable keys. Also don't forget that after 7 years of development and additional 7 months of waiting custom games still sucks. 10 years into the future and WC3 bnet is better than SC2 bnet, heck SC1 bnet is better than SC2 bnet. Also don't forget about the inability to lock a custom game and the stupid long countdown. I'd say Blizzard needed to fire Craig 7 months ago when he failed to deliver.
Oh hi R2CH, maybe you could have developed SC2 within a week too.
|
The way Blizzard has acted towards their customers since the release of SC2 and the new WoW expansion, it seems there is a new sort of organizational attitude to just never admit fault for anything. Even when it is painfully obvious, they won't admit that maybe they have designed something so poorly as to be unacceptable by today's standards.
They just don't seem to care in the least. Maybe it's a result of the years of crying and whining from the WoW forums, or some general shift in the way they treat their customers following the reaction of the Real ID fiasco but I feel like you will never hear "I am sorry, we were wrong" from Blizzard. If they can't even admit the significant flaws in the design of their system the chances of them actually fixing anything is really low.
I mean just look at the feedback we gave in beta. The community made it pretty clear that we wanted chat channels. They didn't just resist, they went as far as to essentially say "we know what you want better than you do". Now we've got these incredibly basic channels that make me think - like so many other aspects of bnet 2.0 - that they did not actually use them themselves at any point. I mean you can't even scroll up when others are typing. That's such an obvious hindrance if you used chat for more than 10 seconds.
I grew up with BW and War 2 and Diablo, like every other kid who did the same i admired Blizzard. These days I just think they don't really care about their customers as long as their games sell. I'm not gonna be butthurt about it and tear up my Jim Raynor notepad in a fit of tears, but I'll probably think twice about buying anymore of their products
|
The very fact that the SC2 menus feature a 3d background and require your graphics card to work overtime is just ridiculous. People don't care how flashy their menus are as long as they are logical and simple to use.
|
On January 15 2011 11:57 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 11:56 xaeiu wrote:
i'm really curious what happened to the "e-sports" part... Master's league. All the complaining that you can't compare rank across divisions..now you can.
So 7months after Bnet 2.0 came out, the first "e-sports" patch, we finally get our actually promised part of the "e-sports"?
Also trying to get a custom game is the most horrendous thing I've ever tried to do. I'd rather have the bugged out version of BW where if you left a game too fast you couldn't see any game in the list for like 5min. It would still be faster joining a game than the failure we have now.
Goals for Blizzard to fix:
No auto-start. (at least ability to leave during count-down/start)
No auto-countdown.
Ability to boot/kick whoever.
Able to see ping.
Should be search box to search for games easily.
Both types of popularity systems should be removed. (public will decide what game should be shown by actually playing it)
Expedite the loading of joining games in the list and starting the actual game.
Remove the constant DC people have. (truthfully say I haven't joined a single game yet where someone wasn't DC'd within 1min)
Add ability to sort by category, name, and possibly rating based on votes by players? (remove ability for creators to name their category for their custom game w/e they want, makes it impossible to actually find it in its actual category, give them a list of game modes basically)
|
I think the complaint is not so much with the fact that stuff is screwed up. It's the fact that this is a multimillion dollar international that cannot fix (or doesn't want to fix) the simplest of things in a huge timespan.
Yes, I know about corporate overhead and how that slows things down.
Yes, I know about the dangers of blindly following user requests.
No, neither of that excuses the fact that it took aforementioned company FIVE MONTHS since launch to implement one of the most requested and basic features out there. These are features that any single competent programmer could fix up within a week, maximum. Bugtested and everything.
Many simple features are still missing.
The situation at hand: Blizzard claims it wants SC2 to be a legitimate e-sport, yet it's doing everything in it's power to keep it from becoming one. Lack of LAN, lack of chat channels until five months past launch, lack of cross-realm play, bad custom games, no clan/team features, you name it. Interface/functionalitywise, there is no difference between the "e-sports game" Starcraft 2 and goddamn Bejeweled.
If this were some indie developer struggling to meet deadlines and find enough staff and funding to complete their project, I would be sympathetic. With Blizzard, however...
TL;DR: Blizzard is not "trying". If they were trying, all this stuff would have been fixed at the first, second patch at the very latest. It is literally no effort at all. Which leaves two options:
1) Design team/programming staff is incompetent.
2) Misguided "we know better" attitude.
Neither is particularly appealing.
|
How about a search function for custom games ? :&
|
On January 15 2011 11:29 thehitman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 10:15 wankey wrote:On January 15 2011 09:44 razboi wrote:
It might not be perfect but it shows us that they are trying. I kinda like BNet the way it is. Can it be improved more, yes, I think so. But so far, i'm a satisfied customer. Are you kidding me? It might not be perfect but it shows us that they are trying. Are you KIDDING ME? Yes, for a startup company, or maybe an amateur game design company or hell, maybe even Valve in their early days of Steam, but BLIZZARD. Oh the almighty BLIZZARD, the same people we gave 7 years to make a sequel game. Who rake in more money than EA and Activision COMBINED. What on earth were they thinking? Who designed this custom game fail? Fire Greg Cannessa please, fire him now. Do you realize how much you're all been gipped? I can make you a masters league in 5 minutes. Write a PHP code to filter all to 10% of players, design a new icon, and voila, a completely new feature called masters league is upon us! All hail masters league! None of the features they've come up with are ACTUALLY useful. Where is the categorization? Where is the search in custom games? Why didn't they look at Warcraft 3 and think to themselves, hmm maybe there might be a tug of war or a ship battle custom game. Why weren't they included in categories? Why aren't there categories!? Porn websites have better categorization than Starcraft 2 custom games. Why can't I click, tug of war, and look at a list of tug of war games? Or click Dota and look at a list of Dota games? Instead the only thing I can do is filter with 5 settings. That's great, the rest of the games on B.net are just custom. Why is there even a "faster" filter??? Can't they get into poeple's heads and TELL them that Starcraft IS this fast. There is no slow, normal, fast setting. THIS IS STARCRAFT. They on the bloody earth did they keep this arcane feature from 12 years ago? Why is the custom game browser one of the simplest, mundane and useless features ever to graze the earth? On the other hand, Why can't I see people's ping!??! Another stupid dumbass blunder. Blizzard is the Apple of gaming, except Blizzard actually make shitty games but the mass fanboys can't really see it through their thick glasses. They lather on EXTREMELY large budgets to make up for their losses in talent to produce an extremely well polished mediocre game. If not for the asians playing Multiplayer keeping Starcraft 2 alive, it would've been tossed away like no other. I fully agree with your post and don't forget that we waited 7 months for the simplest of things - chat channels. I could also probably make chat channels in C++ in like 1 hour. Do the menu look, link up the buttons and save the text, as simple as that. Don't forget that we also didn't get LAN so going to a LAN party you have to play on the internet, want to play with ur friends in a PC cafee sitting right next to you, no luck you need to connect to the internet. Also don't forget Blizzard removed cross-region play so some poor souls buy 3-4 copies of the game. Also don't forget that Blizzard needed 7 months to come up with simple kystomizable keys. Also don't forget that after 7 years of development and additional 7 months of waiting custom games still sucks. 10 years into the future and WC3 bnet is better than SC2 bnet, heck SC1 bnet is better than SC2 bnet. Also don't forget about the inability to lock a custom game and the stupid long countdown. I'd say Blizzard needed to fire Craig 7 months ago when he failed to deliver.
Thank you! This is exactly why despite thinking SC2 is a pretty fun game and having a good time in the beta, I still haven't bought it. bnet 0.2 is just such a setback from the original its pathetic. I had huge expectations from BNET 2.0, much more so than from SC2. Guess other people view Chat channels as some amazing improvement, instead of something 13 years old.
|
On January 15 2011 12:19 Special Endrey wrote:
How about a search function for custom games ? :&
Hell, how about just displaying a list of currently hosted and available custom game lobbies, the way EVERY GAME EVER has tackled this problem? Contrary to popular belief, the general gaming populace is not too stupid to use a server browser and has done so for 10+ years. If the Counterstrike community can do it, so can we.
In fact, why is the lobby even tied to the map in the first place? Would it be so hard to just host a game room, set a custom name and some filters and then select map and gametype from within the lobby?
The stupidity here:
"Had a fun game guys. Let's play another map."
*Proceeds to boot everyone out of the game and reinvite them after re-hosting another map*
Instead of
"Had a fun game guys. Let's play another map."
*switches map*.
|
2v2 python anybody? Oh right, good luck finding my game. Things won't change until we get another 1000+ page thread on the issue.
|
Man this thread is full of complaints.
If its that bad why are you people even playing it? Youre playing Blizzards game, they gave chat channels, nerfed terran into the ground, buffed everything else, gave you a damn smart map editor if thats your thing. They keep bending to the peoples will. Sorry that everything isnt up to par for some of you with extremely high expectations. However the game works, its playable and a fuck ton better than anything EA can throw out there.
If this game is that bad then go play another RTS
|
On January 15 2011 12:29 MOARpylons wrote:
Man this thread is full of complaints.
If its that bad why are you people even playing it? Youre playing Blizzards game, they gave chat channels, nerfed terran into the ground, buffed everything else, gave you a damn smart map editor if thats your thing. They keep bending to the peoples will. Sorry that everything isnt up to par for some of you with extremely high expectations. However the game works, its playable and a fuck ton better than anything EA can throw out there.
If this game is that bad then go play another RTS
I really wish people would stop throwing this around as a way to legitimize how shitty and unresponsive blizzard has been. Its not.
When the general consensus is that wc3 has better online multiplayer features and support than sc2, there is a problem, and no "play another game" is not the answer.
And these "extremely high expectations" that you speak of were all satisified in a game that already exists, that blizzard made.
|
On January 15 2011 12:39 jeparie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 12:29 MOARpylons wrote:
Man this thread is full of complaints.
If its that bad why are you people even playing it? Youre playing Blizzards game, they gave chat channels, nerfed terran into the ground, buffed everything else, gave you a damn smart map editor if thats your thing. They keep bending to the peoples will. Sorry that everything isnt up to par for some of you with extremely high expectations. However the game works, its playable and a fuck ton better than anything EA can throw out there.
If this game is that bad then go play another RTS I really wish people would stop throwing this around as a way to legitimize how shitty and unresponsive blizzard has been. Its not. When the general consensus is that wc3 has better online multiplayer features and support than sc2, there is a problem, and no "play another game" is not the answer. And these "extremely high expectations" that you speak of were all satisified in a game that already exists, that blizzard made.
So youre telling me that WC3 is so much better, that it satisfied all your expectations. And yet you say "Play another game" isnt the answer. So what is then? What are you gonna do? Sit here and whine about it? Make your own gaming company and show blizzard up? Alot getting done there huh?
Either play the game or dont, But dont say that my argument is crap when yours isnt anything more than "Well this game came out a long time ago and is so much better, why cant sc2 be like that now?!"
|
On January 15 2011 12:53 MOARpylons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 12:39 jeparie wrote:On January 15 2011 12:29 MOARpylons wrote:
Man this thread is full of complaints.
If its that bad why are you people even playing it? Youre playing Blizzards game, they gave chat channels, nerfed terran into the ground, buffed everything else, gave you a damn smart map editor if thats your thing. They keep bending to the peoples will. Sorry that everything isnt up to par for some of you with extremely high expectations. However the game works, its playable and a fuck ton better than anything EA can throw out there.
If this game is that bad then go play another RTS I really wish people would stop throwing this around as a way to legitimize how shitty and unresponsive blizzard has been. Its not. When the general consensus is that wc3 has better online multiplayer features and support than sc2, there is a problem, and no "play another game" is not the answer. And these "extremely high expectations" that you speak of were all satisified in a game that already exists, that blizzard made. So youre telling me that WC3 is so much better, that it satisfied all your expectations. And yet you say "Play another game" isnt the answer. So what is then? What are you gonna do? Sit here and whine about it? Make your own gaming company and show blizzard up? Alot getting done there huh? Either play the game or dont, But dont say that my argument is crap when yours isnt anything more than "Well this game came out a long time ago and is so much better, why cant sc2 be like that now?!"
We are talking about bnet, not the game. You see a lot of people had the very modest expectation that Starcraft 2's bnet (hailed bnet 2.0) would be substantially better than Warcraft 3s (the latest iteration of bnet 1.0) when in actual fact it is quite significantly worse than its predecessor's multiplayer client in many ways, except perhaps facebook integration.
it seems you are having issue separating "the game" from "bnet". I'm sorry to say your argument kind of is crap
|
On January 15 2011 12:04 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 09:43 MavercK wrote:
because they hired the guy who designed xbox live to design battle.net 2.0
nothing can be done.
unless they fire him and scrap the entire interface. There's a problem with this logic: X-Box Live doesn't suck!I know it's the cool PC-gamer thing to do, dissing on consoles and all for doing anything at all, regardless of whether it's good or not. But X-Box Live is a very good system for finding players to play with, communicating with them, etc. If anything, the problem with B.Net 2.0 is that it isn't more like X-Box Live. Furthermore, one person doesn't decide how everything is implemented. The person "who designed xbox live" did not in fact design X-Box Live by himself. He was part of the X-Box Live team, just as he's now part of the Battle.Net 2.0 team. But don't let actual facts get in the way of your blind scapegoating. Please, hang him in effigy and so forth.
I don´t want to get into the whole "guy who designed xbox live" discussion, but it is quite obvious that applications on consoles and applications on a computer have radically different requirements. Mainly, the input devices. Consoles usually have some kind of gamepad, while a computer has a mouse + keyboard. These make different things more useful. For example, if you can not type in words easily, there is no point in having a search function, and something like "show more" bound to a convenient Gamepad Key is much more useful. However, on a PC, you have a keyboard, and a mouse which makes it quite easy to scroll a large list of things, and search for something specific. This does not make either of these systems necessarily worse or better, a console system works just fine on consoles. But it does not work as good as a PC system on a PC.
I am not really involved into console gaming, so i have no comparison, but the whole "show more" business just seems to be incredibly unfunctional on a PC, when compared to, for example, a long list which you can scroll by using a sidebar, and a search function. This makes the system feel console-esque, or, actually, like a cheap port from a console. Stuff on a PC should use the superior input devices a PC has.
X-Box live might be really good at what it does, which is connecting people playing X-Box. I have no idea, i don´t have an x-box. However, i am quite sure that it would not work nearly as good when connecting PC, simply because PC-Gaming is inheretely different from Console gaming.
It is also not quite that far of a leap if someone important from the x-box live team is also important in the bnet 2.0 team, and the bnet 2.0 feels console-esque, to see a connection. Again, i don´t really know who that guy is, or what he does. But it might be a good idea to design a system which will be used on a PC to be used on a PC. And PC-gamers are used to some luxuries which Console gamers don´t get, because they have to use a gamepad instead of mouse + keyboard.
|
On January 15 2011 12:53 MOARpylons wrote:
Either play the game or dont, But dont say that my argument is crap when yours isnt anything more than "Well this game came out a long time ago and is so much better, why cant sc2 be like that now?!"
I don't think you understand what an argument is.
There is absolutely no reason for Blizzard to fuck up battlenet for sc2 so much when they got it so right for wc3, and their refusal to acknowledge this is even worse.
|
On January 15 2011 13:02 jeparie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 12:53 MOARpylons wrote:
Either play the game or dont, But dont say that my argument is crap when yours isnt anything more than "Well this game came out a long time ago and is so much better, why cant sc2 be like that now?!" I don't think you understand what an argument is. There is absolutely no reason for Blizzard to fuck up battlenet for sc2 so much when they got it so right for wc3, and their refusal to acknowledge this is even worse.
So why do you think they changed it? Just so they can say "You know all those guys who are gonna play SC2 when it comes out? yeah fuck those guys"? There must have been some reason behind it dont you think?
|
On January 15 2011 12:29 MOARpylons wrote:
Man this thread is full of complaints.
If its that bad why are you people even playing it? Youre playing Blizzards game, they gave chat channels, nerfed terran into the ground, buffed everything else, gave you a damn smart map editor if thats your thing. They keep bending to the peoples will. Sorry that everything isnt up to par for some of you with extremely high expectations. However the game works, its playable and a fuck ton better than anything EA can throw out there.
If this game is that bad then go play another RTS
I never understood why apologists appear out of fucking nowhere. Do you work for Blizzard by any chance?
WE BOUGHT THE GAME, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO COMPLAIN.
|
|
|
On January 15 2011 13:08 MOARpylons wrote:
So why do you think they changed it? Just so they can say "You know all those guys who are gonna play SC2 when it comes out? yeah fuck those guys"? There must have been some reason behind it dont you think?
They tried to make it better. It didn't work. No one thinks it worked.
Instead of changing what people want in a timely fashion, they took 7 months to put in half assed chat channels. If they would just listen to what people are saying in regards to bnet, I guarantee it would be tons better and people would be satisfied.
|
and thats the problem with the computer gaming industry imo.
because of all the hype that consoles and etc are getting (ill include WoW) more games are now developed FOR the console and PORTED to the pc.
its MOST LIKELY will not get any better, as long as we have these "hardcore gamers" with their consoles, producers/developers will design shit to kepp THEM happy.
who cares if theres an entire country devoted to this game, theres a 13 year old who wants to play halo4 with the latest bubble sheild and "bubblegum" launcher so he can "pwn all dem noobs on xbox live"
its about where the market is. they want money, not a decent game.
|
Blizzard is listening at the very least, but the major problem is that they're being way too slow.
There's absolutely no reason why it should take 6+ months to release chat channels, and heavily flawed chat channels at that since that still lack features every other chat client in existence has. If it takes this long just to implement a basic programming feature, imagine how long it will take for them to fix the custom game system, or the clan system, or watching replays in multiplayer. With the rate Blizzard is going, we're literally going to have to wait several YEARS just for Bnet 2.0 to be on par to what Bnet 1.0 has been for over a decade.
Something is horribly wrong with the SC2/Bnet teams. Either they are understaffed and need more WoW coders on the job, or the project managers need a slap upside the head. Having a long development time for video games is fine, but not when it comes to programming simple features that have existed in games for decades.
|
Yay we got chat channels! Now what do I get to bitch about!?
|
On January 15 2011 13:29 Fir3fly wrote:
and thats the problem with the computer gaming industry imo.
because of all the hype that consoles and etc are getting (ill include WoW) more games are now developed FOR the console and PORTED to the pc.
its MOST LIKELY will not get any better, as long as we have these "hardcore gamers" with their consoles, producers/developers will design shit to kepp THEM happy.
who cares if theres an entire country devoted to this game, theres a 13 year old who wants to play halo4 with the latest bubble sheild and "bubblegum" launcher so he can "pwn all dem noobs on xbox live"
its about where the market is. they want money, not a decent game.
So because console games are ported to the PC, SC2's (which is not a console game) interface needs to be shitty?
How does making a non-functional online system help appease fans/make money? How does making the game mode played most by casual gamer (customs) unplayable keep them happy? I really have no clue what you're trying to say with the 13 year old halo comment. This is the exact type of customer they're pissing off with the broken custom game system
The one good thing I'll say though is that the autocountdown timer is at 5 seconds instead of the ridiculous 30 seconds that it was at before
On January 15 2011 12:29 MOARpylons wrote:
Man this thread is full of complaints.
If its that bad why are you people even playing it? Youre playing Blizzards game,
The problem is that with the broken ass system, we're kinda not playing the game. We're playing SC2, but we're not really playing that much customs. Or did you miss the part where the complaints are aimed at the custom game system? Play/obs was an incredibly popular thing to do on SC:BW. A huge number of pub games were play/obs. No matter what the map was, it would fill up. It's kinda impossible to do that now. Play/obs is just one example, tons and tons of maps that fill up almost instantly would be impossible to play under the SC2 system
|
i think hon did the chat interface right
bnet 1.0 was fine too, i dont like the small ass chat window. also does anyone know how to delete channels you have joined? i also dont like how people can automatically add me to a channel.
there also needs to be hotkeys for the menu interface. i hate having message windows open, and then having to manually minimize each one or move them to be able to do things such as search for games and stuff
also countdown should stop if someone leaves. something so basic and so logical yet a bigass company like blizzard can't implement after months
i definitely prefer bnet 1.0
all the people saying go play another rts, we arent complaining about the game, sc2 is a great game to play, just bnet 2.0 blows, and you'd think they cant make an interface worse after 10 years and more money
also, i dont care about this, but just looking at the masters league icon shows how much effort they put into this. it really does look like they are doing everything half assed
|
I had a game completely freeze up on me which resulted in a stand off between the other player.
The new 'draw game' feature didn't kick in. I was able to communicate with the other player but our units and buildings were completely frozen in time. The other guy refused to leave so I had to take the loss.
And yea the custom game section is total crap.
|
Sc2 could be such a better game if Bnet 2.0 was decent. WC3 had awsome clan support. Now we cant even get a new account. No chat channels for 7 months.... etc etc. Terrible custom game system. Ofcourse people are complaining.
Honestly the people saying to stop complaining or w/e need to have some self respect. How could you be happy with they way thing are and tell other people who want to see it improved to just shut up? People here just want to see a stronger community.
Actually being able to talk to people and create groups(clans) for like minded people to play games together would help this game alot. I dont get how they could retard the growth of the community so much when they say its so important to them to see esports and SCII succeed. Influence from consoles has no place on a pure pc game.
The design is so bad. What were they even trying to achieve? Isolating players and minimizing cooperation at every level. Blah, i wish peopel complained about it alot more. Have standards damnit.
|
On January 15 2011 14:10 CounterOrder wrote:
Sc2 could be such a better game if Bnet 2.0 was decent. WC3 had awsome clan support. Now we cant even get a new account. No chat channels for 7 months.... etc etc. Terrible custom game system. Ofcourse people are complaining.
Honestly the people saying to stop complaining or w/e need to have some self respect. How could you be happy with they way thing are and tell other people who want to see it improved to just shut up? People here just want to see a stronger community.
Actually being able to talk to people and create groups(clans) for like minded people to play games together would help this game alot. I dont get how they could retard the growth of the community so much when they say its so important to them to see esports and SCII succeed. Influence from consoles has no place on a pure pc game.
The design is so bad. What were they even trying to achieve? Isolating players and minimizing cooperation at every level. Blah, i wish peopel complained about it alot more. Have standards damnit.
Thanks to 1.2 you can make a clan channel and communicate all you want.
|
The sense of entitlement here is astonishing. Blizzard has developed an awesome multiplayer system; the automatic matching takes so much pain out of a process that used to be incredibly hit and miss, and frankly pretty intimidating. The profiles are great - a little more in the way of statistics would be nice, but I'm sure that will come. The custom game section offers plenty of variety so I'm always finding something new and fun to play there when I'm not in the mood for laddering. And now they've added chat channels as requested - not that they really add any value, since they're all populated by 15 year olds with no girlfriends, but at least it goes to show Blizzard is listening to the community and adding features as they are requested. Frankly, the only thing I could complain about is the inability to share replays with friends without manually giving them the file.
|
On January 15 2011 13:57 Purind wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 15 2011 13:29 Fir3fly wrote:
and thats the problem with the computer gaming industry imo.
because of all the hype that consoles and etc are getting (ill include WoW) more games are now developed FOR the console and PORTED to the pc.
its MOST LIKELY will not get any better, as long as we have these "hardcore gamers" with their consoles, producers/developers will design shit to kepp THEM happy.
who cares if theres an entire country devoted to this game, theres a 13 year old who wants to play halo4 with the latest bubble sheild and "bubblegum" launcher so he can "pwn all dem noobs on xbox live"
its about where the market is. they want money, not a decent game. So because console games are ported to the PC, SC2's (which is not a console game) interface needs to be shitty? How does making a non-functional online system help appease fans/make money? How does making the game mode played most by casual gamer (customs) unplayable keep them happy? I really have no clue what you're trying to say with the 13 year old halo comment. This is the exact type of customer they're pissing off with the broken custom game system The one good thing I'll say though is that the autocountdown timer is at 5 seconds instead of the ridiculous 30 seconds that it was at before
i know sc2 isn't a console game. what im saying is that they're looking at the general mass of games/"gamers" and thinking "consoles are making money, people love the simple interface of consoles, etc, lets design it like that and be done with it."
once they make the game and sell it, they're not really making money off it anymore, so they dont need to worry about "simple" things like having a better interface, once the games out, they want to keep it fairly maintained so people will buy it, but thats about it.
what would benefit them if they fixed issues, less people complaining? woot.. as long as a bunch of kids continue to buy it, they dont care.
as you can tell, i have an extreme hatred towards this turn towards consoles that games are taking.
aswel as a general disappointment towards blizzard. dont take my shit to heart 
|
As I remember, Blizzard said that Activision is handling Bnet 2.0 while Blizzard was let alone for the "gameplay."
So, right now I'm just sort of blaming Activision for this. You can tell it must not be Blizzard, or at least not the same people from SC1/WC3 etc in the Bnet 1.0 days, else something drastic changed their minds on how the online experience should be like, since so many aspects seem to have gotten worse in SC2 instead of better (Show more button, popularity system, can't create games with game names etc).
|
On January 15 2011 14:27 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
As I remember, Blizzard said that Activision is handling Bnet 2.0 while Blizzard was let alone for the "gameplay."
So, right now I'm just sort of blaming Activision for this. You can tell it must not be Blizzard, or at least not the same people from SC1/WC3 etc in the Bnet 1.0 days, else something drastic changed their minds on how the online experience should be like, since so many aspects seem to have gotten worse in SC2 instead of better (Show more button, popularity system, can't create games with game names etc).
Pure rumor and speculation mixed with the foolish idea that business partners who voluntarily choose to work together are somehow at odds with each other and only one side is "to blame". Sorry buddy but the entire online experience is different from the SC1/WC3 days and smart business people will cater to that if they want to remain successful.
|
Russian Federation410 Posts
I'm sorry, but at this point all of this is pure BS. Blizzard delivered everything the community asked for and then some. With the exception of custom game menu and the ability to watch replays in multiplayer, it' has everything one needs. The advanced replay vault, map store and 5-6 new game modes like StarCraft Dota are on the way, so there's nothing for one to complain about.
|
I didnt read the whole thread, so this might have come up already:
Somehow I got kicked from a game (you were dropped), so I came back to the menu. And then all the chat-chans I had joined were gone. No problem I thought and tried to reconnect to them, but it didnt work. A logout or a restart of the game didnt solve the problem. I then asked a friend what to do, he was surprised, apparently I was still being desplayed as being in the chat channel.
This happend 5hours ago. I still cant join the channels I have been in before, though I can join other ones. :>
|
The sense of entitlement here is astonishing. Blizzard has developed an awesome multiplayer system; the automatic matching takes so much pain out of a process that used to be incredibly hit and miss, and frankly pretty intimidating.
Really they don't really invent something totally new; its pretty much the same as Xbox live TrueSkill; its even the same guy in development ...
The profiles are great - a little more in the way of statistics would be nice, but I'm sure that will come.
They "look" nice; but thats a point everyone complains; most of the stuff just "looks" nice but lacks actual features.
It seems like they put a lot more effort in the graphics and stuff ; and don't really care much for the feature that is the actual important part.
The custom game section offers plenty of variety so I'm always finding something new and fun to play there when I'm not in the mood for laddering.
Its the way its working; nobody says it isnt working at all; just that the system makes it very difficult to actual release a game on BattleNet as its way to difficult to make a real use of this Custom Games.
Currently Custom Games are really what you discribe ; its something to do just in between of Laddering; but the giant potential of the REAL GOOD Editor is destroyd if your Release System is bad.
Take a look at the "Dota" Community, its so big that Games are "clones" of it; its a freaking Custom map; Blizzard should be a hell ass support in this ; some peops even buy Warcraft 3 just to play the Dota Custom map; if that isnt a big selling point; what is ?
And now they've added chat channels as requested - not that they really add any value, since they're all populated by 15 year olds with no girlfriends, but at least it goes to show Blizzard is listening to the community and adding features as they are requested.
A problem in this point is that pretty much everyone complaint about the lack of chats since the Beta; Blizzard simply ignored that and with the giant pressure from all the Buyers and Whiners they decided to put a chat system in that is really not great; it does its job ofcourse; but its not what you would expect from a big game forge ; Blizzard stands for Quality; not for half hearted chat systems.
Frankly, the only thing I could complain about is the inability to share replays with friends without manually giving them the file.
Thats something that could be fixed so easy and quickly; however its something blizzard doesnt care because the pressure to actual care for it isnt big enough.
One thing should be for sure:
Blizzard CAN do better; and no matter what; they SHOULD do better.
No matter what SC2 is a wonderful game; if Battlenet 2.0 would actual be worth its 2.0 ; it would be just MORE awesome; and who should complain about an even better game ? Nobody would ...
|
I'm not so much annoyed or angry as just really confused. The WC3 system was better in pretty much every way, minus the matchmaking. Everything that surrounds SC2 is just kind of bad. Things like the chat channels, the lack of clan support, the lack of a decent way to see your overall rating and the poor custom game system. It only looks worse when you compare it to SC2 itself, which is a fantastic game. I just find myself kind of puzzled as to how all the secondary features ended up being several magnitudes worse than those of previous blizzard games.
Also, please drop this "well, if you don't like it don't play it" stuff. I'm going to presume most people on this board fucking love this game. So, regardless of the fact that they're unhappy with certain features of the product, I doubt they'd want to stop playing.
|
On January 15 2011 14:27 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
As I remember, Blizzard said that Activision is handling Bnet 2.0 while Blizzard was let alone for the "gameplay."
So, right now I'm just sort of blaming Activision for this. You can tell it must not be Blizzard, or at least not the same people from SC1/WC3 etc in the Bnet 1.0 days, else something drastic changed their minds on how the online experience should be like, since so many aspects seem to have gotten worse in SC2 instead of better (Show more button, popularity system, can't create games with game names etc).
That's not totally true. What they said was, or more specifically, what Dustin Browder said was that the Bnet 2.0 team and the SC2 design/balance team are completely unrelated. In other wards Bnet 2.0 sucking != SC2 sucking.
There is a lot of whining in this thread. But most of it is pretty justified. People aren't asking for new features or complaining about the bugginess of new features. People are complaining about the fact that features which have been around for over a decade on every other online video game, be it console or PC, are being half-assed and extremely delayed in its implementation to Bnet 2.0.
In my honest opinion, if it weren't for the fact that SC2 is a very good game that's consistently attracting and retaining its audience, Bnet 2.0 would be a complete flop, would fail, and would be almost completely devoid of any human presence by this time.
|
On January 15 2011 15:02 ]Grey[ wrote:
I'm not so much annoyed or angry as just really confused. The WC3 system was better in pretty much every way, minus the matchmaking. Everything that surrounds SC2 is just kind of bad. Things like the chat channels, the lack of clan support, the lack of a decent way to see your overall rating and the poor custom game system. It only looks worse when you compare it to SC2 itself, which is a fantastic game. I just find myself kind of puzzled as to how all the secondary features ended up being several magnitudes worse than those of previous blizzard games.
Also, please drop this "well, if you don't like it don't play it" stuff. I'm going to presume most people on this board fucking love this game. So, regardless of the fact that they're unhappy with certain features of the product, I doubt they'd want to stop playing.
I'll say it again. They delayed SC2 for bnet2.0, this was well known. The more features they added in, the longer it would be delayed. They will continue improving it over time. Would you rather get SC2 back in july, and chat channels now, or have both only just now? Would you rather not have SC2 now or get it next summer with more bnet features? People are just whining without thinking, there is nothing to be confused about, and if Blizzard held back SC2 for a more feature rich bnet, most people in this thread would be whining about how long it was taking.
Oh but everyone in this thread can make a better bnet in an hour, my bad. lol
|
On January 15 2011 14:50 Go0g3n wrote:
I'm sorry, but at this point all of this is pure BS. Blizzard delivered everything the community asked for and then some. With the exception of custom game menu and the ability to watch replays in multiplayer, it' has everything one needs. The advanced replay vault, map store and 5-6 new game modes like StarCraft Dota are on the way, so there's nothing for one to complain about.
If Blizzard had truly delivered everything we asked for, we wouldn't be having this thread. Blizzard is not even remotely close to giving us even half the stuff we expected from 2010 technology.
- No chat channels for half a year despite it being pre-1990 technology, and even now it's still lacking many features.
- No clan support for what looks to be at least another year
- No ability to watch replays with friends
- No cross-region play for most players
- No LAN
- No decent custom game system. We still have this awful system where we can't name games, where games auto-start against player consent, where new maps are doomed never to get played due to the popularity system
Keep in mind that these features are things Bnet 1.0 already has, and that thing is over a decade old. And not only that, but we had to practically scream in Blizzard's ear for them to put chat channels in since they were vehemently against doing so months before. You attack us for whining, yet it was precisely that which got us chat channels back. Fans can and should give feedback, whether positive or negative, and it's ridiculous to pretend that everything about Bnet 2.0 is peachy when it blatantly isn't.
On January 15 2011 15:11 Treemonkeys wrote:
Would you rather not have SC2 now or get it next summer with more bnet features?
YES!!!! ABSOLUTELY!!! I wouldn't mind in the least if SC2 was delayed so it could be properly polished with more features and testing before it came out. It would also give them time to improve the lousy sounds, the horrible dialogue in the single-player, and fix the dozens of horrible design-decisions that went into Bnet 2.0.
|
On January 15 2011 15:11 Spawkuring wrote:
Keep in mind that these features are things Bnet 1.0 already has, and that thing is over a decade old. And not only that, but we had to practically scream in Blizzard's ear for them to put chat channels in since they were vehemently against doing so months before. You attack us for whining, yet it was precisely that which got us chat channels back. Fans can and should give feedback, whether positive or negative, and it's ridiculous to pretend that everything about Bnet 2.0 is peachy when it blatantly isn't.
This is completely absurd, and it is why these QQ threads exist. There was no screaming and Blizzard was NEVER vehemently against doing chats channels. You guys are just acting like brats who think they have to whine enough to get what they want. They have said all along they would be improving bnet over time.
|
On January 15 2011 15:11 Spawkuring wrote:
YES!!!! ABSOLUTELY!!! I wouldn't mind in the least if SC2 was delayed so it could be properly polished with more features and testing before it came out. It would also give them time to improve the lousy sounds, the horrible dialogue in the single-player, and fix the dozens of horrible design-decisions that went into Bnet 2.0.
Then you should have read a freaking review and waited another year to buy the game. Problem solved.
|
On January 15 2011 15:15 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 15:11 Spawkuring wrote:
Keep in mind that these features are things Bnet 1.0 already has, and that thing is over a decade old. And not only that, but we had to practically scream in Blizzard's ear for them to put chat channels in since they were vehemently against doing so months before. You attack us for whining, yet it was precisely that which got us chat channels back. Fans can and should give feedback, whether positive or negative, and it's ridiculous to pretend that everything about Bnet 2.0 is peachy when it blatantly isn't. This is completely absurd, and it is why these QQ threads exist. There was no screaming and Blizzard was NEVER vehemently against doing chats channels. You guys are just acting like brats who think they have to whine enough to get what they want. They have said all along they would be improving bnet over time.
http://www.gamereplays.org/starcraft2/portals.php?show=news&news_id=594472
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128014
Both links have quotes from Blizzard confirming no chat channels in SC2. The community exploded in Blizzard's face over chat channels for a reason.
|
On January 15 2011 15:24 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 15:15 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 15 2011 15:11 Spawkuring wrote:
Keep in mind that these features are things Bnet 1.0 already has, and that thing is over a decade old. And not only that, but we had to practically scream in Blizzard's ear for them to put chat channels in since they were vehemently against doing so months before. You attack us for whining, yet it was precisely that which got us chat channels back. Fans can and should give feedback, whether positive or negative, and it's ridiculous to pretend that everything about Bnet 2.0 is peachy when it blatantly isn't. This is completely absurd, and it is why these QQ threads exist. There was no screaming and Blizzard was NEVER vehemently against doing chats channels. You guys are just acting like brats who think they have to whine enough to get what they want. They have said all along they would be improving bnet over time. http://www.gamereplays.org/starcraft2/portals.php?show=news&news_id=594472http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128014Both links have quotes from Blizzard confirming no chat channels in SC2. The community exploded in Blizzard's face over chat channels for a reason.
Yeah and Blizzard has one the the best track records of listening to there community and giving them what they want, there was no "vehement" refusal to add them in. You just posted a perfect example of Blizzard changing their previous plans to cater to what the community wants, and you're acting like this is a bad thing. Grow up.
|
On January 15 2011 15:15 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 15:11 Spawkuring wrote:
Keep in mind that these features are things Bnet 1.0 already has, and that thing is over a decade old. And not only that, but we had to practically scream in Blizzard's ear for them to put chat channels in since they were vehemently against doing so months before. You attack us for whining, yet it was precisely that which got us chat channels back. Fans can and should give feedback, whether positive or negative, and it's ridiculous to pretend that everything about Bnet 2.0 is peachy when it blatantly isn't. This is completely absurd, and it is why these QQ threads exist. There was no screaming and Blizzard was NEVER vehemently against doing chats channels. You guys are just acting like brats who think they have to whine enough to get what they want. They have said all along they would be improving bnet over time.
I understand if you want to have your own opinion, even if I think it is horribly wrong.
But please, at least get your facts STRAIGHT. And now you're trying to cover up what you said before . . .
I don't understand if they have to somehow "improve Bnet over time" if all the features they are adding are things that are a decade old. Remember in Bnet 1.0 we had LAN, functional chat channels, cross-realm play? That was over a decade ago. Is it really so hard to implement it in 2010-2011?
|
Ah, poor custom maps. How could they screw battle.net so badly? 
|
On January 15 2011 15:29 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 15:24 Spawkuring wrote:On January 15 2011 15:15 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 15 2011 15:11 Spawkuring wrote:
Keep in mind that these features are things Bnet 1.0 already has, and that thing is over a decade old. And not only that, but we had to practically scream in Blizzard's ear for them to put chat channels in since they were vehemently against doing so months before. You attack us for whining, yet it was precisely that which got us chat channels back. Fans can and should give feedback, whether positive or negative, and it's ridiculous to pretend that everything about Bnet 2.0 is peachy when it blatantly isn't. This is completely absurd, and it is why these QQ threads exist. There was no screaming and Blizzard was NEVER vehemently against doing chats channels. You guys are just acting like brats who think they have to whine enough to get what they want. They have said all along they would be improving bnet over time. http://www.gamereplays.org/starcraft2/portals.php?show=news&news_id=594472http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128014Both links have quotes from Blizzard confirming no chat channels in SC2. The community exploded in Blizzard's face over chat channels for a reason. Yeah and Blizzard has one the the best track records of listening to there community and giving them what they want, there was no "vehement" refusal to add them in. You just posted a perfect example of Blizzard changing their previous plans to cater to what the community wants, and you're acting like this is a bad thing. Grow up.
Thank you for proving my point. Blizzard changes their plans according to community feedback, which is precisely what all these posts are intended to do. Why you keep trying to dismiss us as pointless whiners I don't know, because it's precisely the whining that gets Blizzard to change their mind on important issues. Blizzard says "no chat channels". Community complains and guess what? We have chat channels. Squeaky wheel gets the grease as they say. Our words are definitely harsh, but people have every right to be upset when the product (Bnet 2.0) that was heavily hyped up from Blizzard fails to meet expectations.
|
On January 15 2011 15:31 Superiorwolf wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 15:15 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 15 2011 15:11 Spawkuring wrote:
Keep in mind that these features are things Bnet 1.0 already has, and that thing is over a decade old. And not only that, but we had to practically scream in Blizzard's ear for them to put chat channels in since they were vehemently against doing so months before. You attack us for whining, yet it was precisely that which got us chat channels back. Fans can and should give feedback, whether positive or negative, and it's ridiculous to pretend that everything about Bnet 2.0 is peachy when it blatantly isn't. This is completely absurd, and it is why these QQ threads exist. There was no screaming and Blizzard was NEVER vehemently against doing chats channels. You guys are just acting like brats who think they have to whine enough to get what they want. They have said all along they would be improving bnet over time. I understand if you want to have your own opinion, even if I think it is horribly wrong. But please, at least get your facts STRAIGHT. I don't understand if they have to somehow "improve Bnet over time" if all the features they are adding are things that are a decade old. Remember in Bnet 1.0 we had LAN, functional chat channels, cross-realm play? That was over a decade ago. Is it really so hard to implement it in 2010-2011?
Is it really so hard to understand that everything takes time and SC2 was delayed enough already for bnet2.0? You can't just cut and paste the code onto a completely new framework.
|
The only thing I like about bnet 0.2 is the party system and how you can join everyone at onces. Besides that the rest of the 99% of bnet is complete shit.
|
On January 15 2011 15:34 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 15:29 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 15 2011 15:24 Spawkuring wrote:On January 15 2011 15:15 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 15 2011 15:11 Spawkuring wrote:
Keep in mind that these features are things Bnet 1.0 already has, and that thing is over a decade old. And not only that, but we had to practically scream in Blizzard's ear for them to put chat channels in since they were vehemently against doing so months before. You attack us for whining, yet it was precisely that which got us chat channels back. Fans can and should give feedback, whether positive or negative, and it's ridiculous to pretend that everything about Bnet 2.0 is peachy when it blatantly isn't. This is completely absurd, and it is why these QQ threads exist. There was no screaming and Blizzard was NEVER vehemently against doing chats channels. You guys are just acting like brats who think they have to whine enough to get what they want. They have said all along they would be improving bnet over time. http://www.gamereplays.org/starcraft2/portals.php?show=news&news_id=594472http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128014Both links have quotes from Blizzard confirming no chat channels in SC2. The community exploded in Blizzard's face over chat channels for a reason. Yeah and Blizzard has one the the best track records of listening to there community and giving them what they want, there was no "vehement" refusal to add them in. You just posted a perfect example of Blizzard changing their previous plans to cater to what the community wants, and you're acting like this is a bad thing. Grow up. Thank you for proving my point. Blizzard changes their plans according to community feedback, which is precisely what all these posts are intended to do. Why you keep trying to dismiss us as pointless whiners I don't know, because it's precisely the whining that gets Blizzard to change their mind on important issues. Blizzard says "no chat channels". Community complains and guess what? We have chat channels. Squeaky wheel gets the grease as they say. Our words are definitely harsh, but people have every right to be upset when the product (Bnet 2.0) that was heavily hyped up from Blizzard fails to meet expectations.
There is a difference between feedback and whining, and the mentality that they will only listen to your feedback if you post it in the words of a spoiled brat is foolish and immature...and freaking annoying. This place is getting just as bad as the battle.net forums.
|
On January 15 2011 15:34 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 15:31 Superiorwolf wrote:On January 15 2011 15:15 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 15 2011 15:11 Spawkuring wrote:
Keep in mind that these features are things Bnet 1.0 already has, and that thing is over a decade old. And not only that, but we had to practically scream in Blizzard's ear for them to put chat channels in since they were vehemently against doing so months before. You attack us for whining, yet it was precisely that which got us chat channels back. Fans can and should give feedback, whether positive or negative, and it's ridiculous to pretend that everything about Bnet 2.0 is peachy when it blatantly isn't. This is completely absurd, and it is why these QQ threads exist. There was no screaming and Blizzard was NEVER vehemently against doing chats channels. You guys are just acting like brats who think they have to whine enough to get what they want. They have said all along they would be improving bnet over time. I understand if you want to have your own opinion, even if I think it is horribly wrong. But please, at least get your facts STRAIGHT. I don't understand if they have to somehow "improve Bnet over time" if all the features they are adding are things that are a decade old. Remember in Bnet 1.0 we had LAN, functional chat channels, cross-realm play? That was over a decade ago. Is it really so hard to implement it in 2010-2011? Is it really so hard to understand that everything takes time and SC2 was delayed enough already for bnet2.0? You can't just cut and paste the code onto a completely new framework.
I would like you to see the example of HoN. That's an example of something done correctly AND efficiently. And ya everything does take time, but EIGHT years? Come on, that's a bit much, considering that the "features" they are implementing are something that were already in Bnet 1.
|
On January 15 2011 15:29 Treemonkeys wrote:
This is completely absurd, and it is why these QQ threads exist. There was no screaming and Blizzard was NEVER vehemently against doing chats channels. You guys are just acting like brats who think they have to whine enough to get what they want. They have said all along they would be improving bnet over time.
http://www.incgamers.com/Interviews/270/blizzards-frank-pearce-interview/2
Q:Another thing I thought you'd promised was chat rooms within Battle.net...
Nope. No plans for specific chat rooms at this time. You'll be able to open up chats direct with your friends, and when we add clans and groups there'll be chats for your clans and groups, but no specific plans for chat rooms right now. Do you really want chat rooms?
Q:Loads of people within the community are wanting Looking For Group chat rooms, and that sort of thing.
Well, if we've done our job right in terms of the matchmaking service, then hopefully they won't feel like they'll need it for that service.
|
First of all whats wrong with blizzard and the chatrooms?
Everybody that can program could program better chatrooms. Those chatrooms are a disgrace its not funny anymore. I like watching sc2, but i hate b-net 2.0 so much its not funny anymore..
I just miss the sc1 b-net and even more the wc3 one.
God those were awesome times -_- Seems like they are over.
|
On January 15 2011 15:39 Superiorwolf wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 15:34 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 15 2011 15:31 Superiorwolf wrote:On January 15 2011 15:15 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 15 2011 15:11 Spawkuring wrote:
Keep in mind that these features are things Bnet 1.0 already has, and that thing is over a decade old. And not only that, but we had to practically scream in Blizzard's ear for them to put chat channels in since they were vehemently against doing so months before. You attack us for whining, yet it was precisely that which got us chat channels back. Fans can and should give feedback, whether positive or negative, and it's ridiculous to pretend that everything about Bnet 2.0 is peachy when it blatantly isn't. This is completely absurd, and it is why these QQ threads exist. There was no screaming and Blizzard was NEVER vehemently against doing chats channels. You guys are just acting like brats who think they have to whine enough to get what they want. They have said all along they would be improving bnet over time. I understand if you want to have your own opinion, even if I think it is horribly wrong. But please, at least get your facts STRAIGHT. I don't understand if they have to somehow "improve Bnet over time" if all the features they are adding are things that are a decade old. Remember in Bnet 1.0 we had LAN, functional chat channels, cross-realm play? That was over a decade ago. Is it really so hard to implement it in 2010-2011? Is it really so hard to understand that everything takes time and SC2 was delayed enough already for bnet2.0? You can't just cut and paste the code onto a completely new framework. I would like you to see the example of HoN. That's an example of something done correctly AND efficiently. And ya everything does take time, but EIGHT years? Come on, that's a bit much, considering that the "features" they are implementing are something that were already in Bnet 1.
They started b.net2.0 when SC2 was nearly complete, they haven't been working on it for 8 years.
|
On January 15 2011 15:43 TheDna wrote:
First of all whats wrong with blizzard and the chatrooms?
Everybody that can program could program better chatrooms. Those chatrooms are a disgrace its not funny anymore. I like watching sc2, but i hate b-net 2.0 so much its not funny anymore..
I just miss the sc1 b-net and even more the wc3 one.
God those were awesome times -_- Seems like they are over.
No actually WC3 online still works, have a blast.
|
On January 15 2011 15:38 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 15:34 Spawkuring wrote:On January 15 2011 15:29 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 15 2011 15:24 Spawkuring wrote:On January 15 2011 15:15 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 15 2011 15:11 Spawkuring wrote:
Keep in mind that these features are things Bnet 1.0 already has, and that thing is over a decade old. And not only that, but we had to practically scream in Blizzard's ear for them to put chat channels in since they were vehemently against doing so months before. You attack us for whining, yet it was precisely that which got us chat channels back. Fans can and should give feedback, whether positive or negative, and it's ridiculous to pretend that everything about Bnet 2.0 is peachy when it blatantly isn't. This is completely absurd, and it is why these QQ threads exist. There was no screaming and Blizzard was NEVER vehemently against doing chats channels. You guys are just acting like brats who think they have to whine enough to get what they want. They have said all along they would be improving bnet over time. http://www.gamereplays.org/starcraft2/portals.php?show=news&news_id=594472http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128014Both links have quotes from Blizzard confirming no chat channels in SC2. The community exploded in Blizzard's face over chat channels for a reason. Yeah and Blizzard has one the the best track records of listening to there community and giving them what they want, there was no "vehement" refusal to add them in. You just posted a perfect example of Blizzard changing their previous plans to cater to what the community wants, and you're acting like this is a bad thing. Grow up. Thank you for proving my point. Blizzard changes their plans according to community feedback, which is precisely what all these posts are intended to do. Why you keep trying to dismiss us as pointless whiners I don't know, because it's precisely the whining that gets Blizzard to change their mind on important issues. Blizzard says "no chat channels". Community complains and guess what? We have chat channels. Squeaky wheel gets the grease as they say. Our words are definitely harsh, but people have every right to be upset when the product (Bnet 2.0) that was heavily hyped up from Blizzard fails to meet expectations. There is a difference between feedback and whining, and the mentality that they will only listen to your feedback if you post it in the words of a spoiled brat is foolish and immature...and freaking annoying. This place is getting just as bad as the battle.net forums.
Since when is being harsh the same thing as being bratty? If a company drops the ball on a product, especially a product that was heavily hyped, put at a price of $60, and was directly the cause of years of delays, then people have every right to be angry and let that anger be known.
It's not "bratty" to expect a 2010 service to have features that nearly every online game service since 1990 has, including games made by the same company no less. It's not "bratty" to get mad when a company shows blatant signs of being out of touch with community desires due to their questionable decisions. If anything is childish, it's the notion that huge corporations shouldn't have any harsh feedback of any kind because it hurts their feelings. Please, the people at Blizzard are adults. They know about the relationship between producer and consumer and that a thick skin is necessary. Don't go into these threads if you can't handle people being angry.
|
Yeah i am a bit angry at how slow this is all going. I play sc2 and try to improve everyday on ladder. If you're like me, and thats most of what you do, then you shouldn't be complaining TOO much. I understand that features are missing and stuff but as long as we have these chat channels, we have all the stuff we need to keep playing happily. The people who i feel really sorry for, and the reason I am angry, is because i remember all the hype about the starcraft 2 editor. I remember how excited everyone was, including me, and as soon as it released content started pouring out of the community. People have seriously put their heart into the editor, to first learn it and then release content. But with the horrible custom maps system battlenet has, it just makes it so hard for people to play good maps and i feel so sorry for the people who made great content for the game. At first it was acceptable, because we thought it would be changed very soon in a patch, plus we were just excited to even play, but now its just ridiculous. Maybe its something really hard to do, i really don't know, but i seriously thought blizzard could easily handle this and fix it in a week.....
Anyways, i love the game and i'm happy with my chat channels right now. But yeah, its too bad for all you masters of the editor. Hopefully blizz fixes this soon so you guys can get your well deserved props. And maybe then people will once again be excited about the great editor.
|
On January 15 2011 15:45 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 15:38 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 15 2011 15:34 Spawkuring wrote:On January 15 2011 15:29 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 15 2011 15:24 Spawkuring wrote:On January 15 2011 15:15 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 15 2011 15:11 Spawkuring wrote:
Keep in mind that these features are things Bnet 1.0 already has, and that thing is over a decade old. And not only that, but we had to practically scream in Blizzard's ear for them to put chat channels in since they were vehemently against doing so months before. You attack us for whining, yet it was precisely that which got us chat channels back. Fans can and should give feedback, whether positive or negative, and it's ridiculous to pretend that everything about Bnet 2.0 is peachy when it blatantly isn't. This is completely absurd, and it is why these QQ threads exist. There was no screaming and Blizzard was NEVER vehemently against doing chats channels. You guys are just acting like brats who think they have to whine enough to get what they want. They have said all along they would be improving bnet over time. http://www.gamereplays.org/starcraft2/portals.php?show=news&news_id=594472http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128014Both links have quotes from Blizzard confirming no chat channels in SC2. The community exploded in Blizzard's face over chat channels for a reason. Yeah and Blizzard has one the the best track records of listening to there community and giving them what they want, there was no "vehement" refusal to add them in. You just posted a perfect example of Blizzard changing their previous plans to cater to what the community wants, and you're acting like this is a bad thing. Grow up. Thank you for proving my point. Blizzard changes their plans according to community feedback, which is precisely what all these posts are intended to do. Why you keep trying to dismiss us as pointless whiners I don't know, because it's precisely the whining that gets Blizzard to change their mind on important issues. Blizzard says "no chat channels". Community complains and guess what? We have chat channels. Squeaky wheel gets the grease as they say. Our words are definitely harsh, but people have every right to be upset when the product (Bnet 2.0) that was heavily hyped up from Blizzard fails to meet expectations. There is a difference between feedback and whining, and the mentality that they will only listen to your feedback if you post it in the words of a spoiled brat is foolish and immature...and freaking annoying. This place is getting just as bad as the battle.net forums. Since when is being harsh the same thing as being bratty? If a company drops the ball on a product, especially a product that was heavily hyped, put at a price of $60, and was directly the cause of years of delays, then people have every right to be angry and let that anger be known. It's not "bratty" to expect a 2010 service to have features that nearly every online game service since 1990 has, including games made by the same company no less. It's not "bratty" to get mad when a company shows blatant signs of being out of touch with community desires due to their questionable decisions. If anything is childish, it's the notion that huge corporations shouldn't have any harsh feedback of any kind because it hurts their feelings. Please, the people at Blizzard are adults. They know about the relationship between producer and consumer and that a thick skin is necessary. Don't go into these threads if you can't handle people being angry.
No, bratty is "greg made you his bitch" animated gif followed by a thread nerd tears/rage. The more childish the community acts, the more childlike Blizzard will treat it. There is no reason to give a shit about a corporation's feelings, but it's also not desirable to be a member of a community who can articulate their complaints on the level of a 16 year old. Especially when they are using a content patch that was made for the community as an opportunity to whine more. It's pathetic.
|
On January 15 2011 15:53 Treemonkeys wrote:
No, bratty is "greg made you his bitch" animated gif followed by a thread nerd tears/rage. The more childish the community acts, the more childlike Blizzard will treat it. There is no reason to give a shit about a corporation's feelings, but it's also not desirable to be a member of a community who can articulate their complaints on the level of a 16 year old. Especially when they are using a content patch that was made for the community as an opportunity to whine more. It's pathetic.
So now if we act like a child when we demand features that were perfectly functional and useful in other games blizzard made, they can choose to not give them to us out of principle?
That doesn't make any sense. Blizzard should be doing everything it can to make bnet2.0 better by taking what people liked about bnet1.0 and expanding upon it, not just starting from scratch and ignoring complaints.
|
On January 15 2011 15:15 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 15:11 Spawkuring wrote:
Keep in mind that these features are things Bnet 1.0 already has, and that thing is over a decade old. And not only that, but we had to practically scream in Blizzard's ear for them to put chat channels in since they were vehemently against doing so months before. You attack us for whining, yet it was precisely that which got us chat channels back. Fans can and should give feedback, whether positive or negative, and it's ridiculous to pretend that everything about Bnet 2.0 is peachy when it blatantly isn't. This is completely absurd, and it is why these QQ threads exist. There was no screaming and Blizzard was NEVER vehemently against doing chats channels. You guys are just acting like brats who think they have to whine enough to get what they want. They have said all along they would be improving bnet over time.
LOL biggest troll I've ever seen.
Here are some things Blizzard's either failed to deliver, misled the community about, or just sucked at implementing in SC2:
1. Blizzard never intended chat channels to be in the game until the community protested. As late as the end of beta phase 1, Blizzard said there were not going to be chat channels. When they realized what an uproar it caused, they reversed the decision during the beta downtime.
Now that they're included, the chat channels are riddled with bugs and problems.
2. Originally Blizzard removed cross-region play from SC2, unlike its past games where you could create an account on any of the servers. Then, Blizzard promised cross-region support (I think between beta phase 1 and 2), and then reneged and only gave it to SEA players. Basically, SEA players were in uproar because, originally, Australia was tied to SEA and many would have to deal with major lag because of the way some ISPs work there. EU and NA players also complained about the lack of cross-region support, because of friends in other regions, and the like.
IMO, Blizzard realized that they would lose some business if they didn't give SEA players the option to play on the NA server. However, I'm fairly sure they didn't think the EU/NA concerns were important, so they only implemented cross-region support for SEA players.
3. No LAN support. WTF? There is NO reason for this. All this "authentication" and "piracy" garbage is unfounded. There was nothing stopping Blizzard from requiring battle net authentication the first time you play a game. Then, the game can be played on a LAN. What's so difficult about this? It works to prevent piracy the same way requiring the Internet for multiplayer does. The only difference is that tournaments no longer have to deal with lag and drops, which have already happened multiple times in the short history of SC2 competition. To date, Blizzard has not given a good reason for this decision.
4. The lack of proper hotkey support. Past games have all provided customizable hotkeys (not Blizzard games, perhaps, but still). WoW has GREAT customization. SC2 is garbage in comparison. Now that we have an in-game hotkey modifier, it's still garbage. It's very buggy, and it certainly seems like Blizzard is somehow incompetent in this area.
For example, as I stated earlier in the thread, you can't map Terran/Zerg hotkeys to "W" without making a conflict with the Protoss warp-in hotkey. Yet, I was able to do this pre-patch with a hotkey editor from this forum.
Last night, my hotkey profiles were all reset inexplicably. I logged out and logged back in an hour later, and I had to remap all my keys (after losing my ladder game because I kept hitting the wrong keys) which took 10-15 minutes to do.
To add insult to injury, the techlab and reactor hotkeys are still messed up for me. They register as "z" and "x", respectively, in-game, whereas I have set them to "x" and "c" in the hotkey changer. I don't understand why it will not change.
5. No clan support. No tags. Nothing.
6. Custom game list. WTF? Big fail here.
I could go on. There's bugs with several of the maps, for example. Shakuras is still not on the map pool. The bug was known about for well over a month before this last patch, yet nothing was done about it.
The worst part is that the team seemed to have enough time to include an easter egg with this last patch, yet they didn't have the foresight to correct many of the existing bugs, nor double-check the features they were adding in this patch.
|
Honestly, all I want is the old Battle.net 1.0 custom map system. The only thing about 2.0 that I'm not satisfied with is the clan support and the custom map system. The custom map system SUCKS. I also want LAN back.
But look at some of their custom games improvements.
1. You download the map before you join the game instead of afterwards and waiting for people to DL.
2. Spectators and Referee support.
3. Custom colors
4. AI can participate in custom games
5. Party system (though it could be much better, at least they have a party system)
6. Invite player option
7. Much easier to move people around and supports alot of people
Now the things that really suck:
1. You create a game and give it a name like, "BGH diamond only" This is all I really want instead of the stupid popularity system which takes forever to find people for a unpopular game. (fixes most of the issues)
2. You can't have spectators in a party game, you have to manually disband the party and create a private game
3. No regional play. I want to try my luck against them koreans
4. Game autostart if it is a public game
This is about it that is bad about the current state of B.Net 2.0
|
Come on Cheese , it's not abotu whining , this is an tripple-A PC GAME , and they're just leaving an unexperienced guy to work on such a big project , this guy was hired in 2009 , how can you make a service usable in such a short period of time , starcraft 2 is just 3 parts glued together (hence memory leaks) SP , MP and BNET , bnet code is really weak , Dustin Browder however is a genius on the game , the game is FINE , the game is epic , everything else it's fine (some minor bugs still)
But the service is completel upside down , and this is not whining , this is serious and you can't give such a service out to the wordls most dedicated PC game and it's players.
If your are a console guy you don't whine of course , you're a sheep you buy everything ,(using "you" as general) we just want to send blizzard a messeage , it's still a hardcore PC game , and we expect hardcore service.
|
On January 15 2011 18:15 Stewox. wrote:
Come on Cheese , it's not abotu whining , this is an tripple-A PC GAME , and they're just leaving an unexperienced guy to work on such a big project , this guy was hired in 2009 , how can you make a service usable in such a short period of time , starcraft 2 is just 3 parts glued together (hence memory leaks) SP , MP and BNET , bnet code is really weak , Dustin Browder however is a genius on the game , the game is FINE , the game is epic , everything else it's fine (some minor bugs still)
But the service is completel upside down , and this is not whining , this is serious and you can't give such a service out to the wordls most dedicated PC game and it's players.
If your are a console guy you don't whine of course , you're a sheep you buy everything ,(using "you" as general) we just want to send blizzard a messeage , it's still a hardcore PC game , and we expect hardcore service.
I think expecting hardcore servicing is a bit too much, you just didnt pay enough for something like that.
get it? see what I did there? ;D
|
On January 15 2011 09:43 MavercK wrote:
because they hired the guy who designed xbox live to design battle.net 2.0
nothing can be done.
unless they fire him and scrap the entire interface.
I don't care if it takes a year to do, I want that done.
Also when it comes to the popularity system it's not really worse. It's just a little more inconvieniant to join some of the most popular maps.
The advantage is that there are far more maps that get played and discovered now. The "messed up" system is intentional, just it still need a hell of a lot more additional features still.
|
I love the new interface. I don't have a problem chat channels is what i wanted. I wish it would be 200-300 cap instead of 100 cause half the channel is afk/in a game any way. other than that no complaints. Idk why people cry so much it's so obvious things are improving.
|
The part that gets people upset about battle.net 0.2 is that WC3 battle.net is better in EVERY SINGLE GODDAMNED THING except matchmaking. I don't think anyone can argue about this. Where is the revolutionary online platform they advertised about? Oh yea we got the most basic form of online comunication wee-pee. Even the chat is better in WC3. In here we got these wierd windows with bugged user list (anyone noticed that avatars get stuck when scrooling down?)..
I understand why they can't have the WC3 custom map system, it would change every second because of how many people are playing. But oh my god this one is terrible. A search function would just exponentially increase the system... They have an amazing editor that makes amazing maps, but we can't play them as we could because we can only find the Nexus Wars lol
|
Its not only all the missing things. What we have at the moment is still not working.
There are so many little bugs you stop count them.
Oh i cant open a game its buged again can you do it? oh its buged for you too?
Oh why are they shadows in chatchannel?
Oh if i click play against ki sc2 freeze again...
Oh just reconnected because i couldn't join the game.
Oh wait a sec sc2 crahed again.
Oh these maps has a messed up picture... since 3 month.
Oh Servers are down again.
Oh its lagging at the interface and ingame. oh its lagging for everyone?
And even without bugs the hole interface is not user friendl.
the map search is a bad joke. you can only search for name no rexespressions-
Map public system is just....
And than all the missing function thats in every rts game last 10 years but not in sc2.
Battelnet 0.2 ist just a epic fail! Without the game i would never buy something from a company that make such bad qualtity products again... I dont think complaining in battelnet forum brings something because so bad functions and so many bugs dont show a little issue it shows that they are no longer able to make a good interface...
|
- "You have voice chat disabled" appears periodically without reason (without clicking ex. cedilla (default)
Yes. I, and apparently many others have had this problem for quite some time already. I recently made a thread about it.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=184557
We need someone to make a b net forum post about this specific issue, preferably at the NA forum.
|
what happened to that little arrow u can press when ur chatting to sum1 and add them as friend or view profile or whatever =/
|
Also I want everyone to note this:
The disconnects and Dropps are due to broken ALT-TAB in Starcraft 2 (i have win7x64) the Maximization of game application takes longer as game runs longer , Singleplayer is the most leaky (i have a big research on SC2 memory leak- but this if for another topic completely) and makes the ALT-TAB maximization very long , up to 2 or more minutes after 3 hours of gameplay (the game build up memory and momentum of leak , the more you need to wait to get back in)
I have notified on EU forums about this but i don't think if anybody catched this, there is no NET , it's ALT-TAB that makes you a false disconnect , and it takes forever to get into the game so other drop you because of course they think you're gone.
PS: Lol i went to sleep and you guys made 6 pages, thanks for support 
|
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.
There is a perfectly good reason to whine
They implemented chat channels in a ridiculously flawed manner...people who join and log off stay in the channel and the channel cap is 100...what the hell is that all about?
As it stands Bnet 1.0 is still superior in just about everyway to Bnet 0.2 PARTICULARLY with the way UMS maps are handled. They gave people a huge amount of power with the editor and then neutered the way you play on the maps.
Makes perfect sense.
People are annoyed because it was like taking 20 steps backwards with what was supposed to be an upgrade.
|
On January 15 2011 10:15 wankey wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 09:44 razboi wrote:
It might not be perfect but it shows us that they are trying. I kinda like BNet the way it is. Can it be improved more, yes, I think so. But so far, i'm a satisfied customer. Are you kidding me? It might not be perfect but it shows us that they are trying. Are you KIDDING ME? Yes, for a startup company, or maybe an amateur game design company or hell, maybe even Valve in their early days of Steam, but BLIZZARD. Oh the almighty BLIZZARD, the same people we gave 7 years to make a sequel game. Who rake in more money than EA and Activision COMBINED. What on earth were they thinking? Who designed this custom game fail? Fire Greg Cannessa please, fire him now. Do you realize how much you're all been gipped? I can make you a masters league in 5 minutes. Write a PHP code to filter all to 10% of players, design a new icon, and voila, a completely new feature called masters league is upon us! All hail masters league! None of the features they've come up with are ACTUALLY useful. Where is the categorization? Where is the search in custom games? Why didn't they look at Warcraft 3 and think to themselves, hmm maybe there might be a tug of war or a ship battle custom game. Why weren't they included in categories? Why aren't there categories!? Porn websites have better categorization than Starcraft 2 custom games. Why can't I click, tug of war, and look at a list of tug of war games? Or click Dota and look at a list of Dota games? Instead the only thing I can do is filter with 5 settings. That's great, the rest of the games on B.net are just custom. Why is there even a "faster" filter??? Can't they get into poeple's heads and TELL them that Starcraft IS this fast. There is no slow, normal, fast setting. THIS IS STARCRAFT. They on the bloody earth did they keep this arcane feature from 12 years ago? Why is the custom game browser one of the simplest, mundane and useless features ever to graze the earth? On the other hand, Why can't I see people's ping!??! Another stupid dumbass blunder. Blizzard is the Apple of gaming, except Blizzard actually make shitty games but the mass fanboys can't really see it through their thick glasses. They lather on EXTREMELY large budgets to make up for their losses in talent to produce an extremely well polished mediocre game. If not for the asians playing Multiplayer keeping Starcraft 2 alive, it would've been tossed away like no other.
I just agree on this so much. just take a look at battle.net and add the features people want! How hard can it be?
|
The SC2 B.Net still is the most horrible interface ever to be seen in a Blizzard game yet.
The game's been out for half a year and what has changed? We got chat, later than promised, with oh so many flaws (scrolling, including offline players, limit to 100 ppl etc.). Sure, it's an improvement, but nothing to be actually happy with.
There's still the terrible custom game system. The profile that bugs out every second day and takes ages to load (and is useless anyway because no one looks at it). The confusing ladder/division/league system that noone except for people who follow scene sites like TL understands. And small stuff like the real name being displayed all over the whole interface - yeah thanks, I know who I am, no need to remind me.
B.Net still is a huge disappointment, and I don't think that'll change soon.
|
On January 15 2011 19:13 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +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. There is a perfectly good reason to whine They implemented chat channels in a ridiculously flawed manner...people who join and log off stay in the channel and the channel cap is 100...what the hell is that all about?
I think this is Blizzard getting back at the community....I mean, they were asking us "do you really want chat channels?"
We didn't realize that this was a shout-out like "please people, as we showed with bnet 2.0 already we are incapable of doing something like that without fail, so do you REALLY want us to incorporate chat channels?"
Although this has nothing to do with the recent patch, I think each and every RTS of the last 5 years had a WAY better interface. I played a real lot RTS just for fun, even stuff like battle for middle earth, rise of nations, rise of legends (which was REALLY cool btw)....all of them failed because of lacking community, but navigation was so much better...
Maybe it's just another way of saying "just click on the damn 'find game' button for ladder and leave us alone"
|
If they just fix the custom game design, I'm ok with how it's currently.
|
There's a historical and cultural aspect to this debate that everyone seems to overlook. It may sound as over-thinking but the state of Bnet now has a lot to do with pop culture and corporate understanding of it.
Back in the day when only a fraction of people were using computers, almost everyone knew how to program one, there were almost no general purpose software so you had to write your own mostly. Then came the corporate software makers. They made general purpose software that had functionality because computer users knew what they were doing. You couldn't trick them easily. Closed source software and increase in computer usage caused the gap between software maker and user to widen. Nowadays the fraction of users who can program their computers to the total number of users is a nightmare. No one knows even how to write a simple shell script, hell no one knows what a shell is anymore.
It's only natural that PC gamers who have seen the brighter days of software development are hugely disappointed now. They effing know how to use their computers and are feeling tricked when their abilities are taken away from them.
Corporate software industry killed programming altogether. Bnet is a victim of that.
For those that think implementing chat channels are hard work;
You don't have to invent chat all over again to do this. There are already many working chat protocols. Choose one, design the interface, that's it. They could have even used standard irc if they wanted. No one would complain. Same goes for search. You don't have to write your own search engine. Take one and put a text box in your interface.
The state of Bnet has nothing to do with budgets or competent programming or anything. This is a result of corporate decision making and many of them were wrong. Simply, you can't publish a game with a cellphone-app-functional interface if you don't want to piss people off. The only two ways you can do this is either you don't care, or you are misinformed.
|
On January 15 2011 12:29 MOARpylons wrote:
Man this thread is full of complaints.
If its that bad why are you people even playing it? Youre playing Blizzards game, they gave chat channels, nerfed terran into the ground, buffed everything else, gave you a damn smart map editor if thats your thing. They keep bending to the peoples will. Sorry that everything isnt up to par for some of you with extremely high expectations. However the game works, its playable and a fuck ton better than anything EA can throw out there.
If this game is that bad then go play another RTS
ofcourse it is , we aren't console gamers who eat everything
This is a hardcore game and the service doesn't par up to the quality standard. As you can see , everybody had much higher expectations, this is whole code is a joke , they need to get rid of this crappy flash-style broken code and get some real programmers working on it.
Ofcourse , Blizzard is a high profile developer , this is just unacceptable , and thus i praise what is really good , but we're not fanboys to rank it over the top. SC2 is really good , but come on , they just lose some credibility because of stupid and easy mistakes like this.
How damn hard is to make a fully featured interface , any sc1 and wc3 gamer can go out there and do a better job of finding the features and stuff , this is just beyond what Bnet team is currently at blizzard , they have zero idea on PC native features, PC style , overall PC features(other game's standards) and the features in bnet 1.0. Are they really considering a work in progress , they could name it 0.2 for the sake of honesty.
|
On January 15 2011 11:25 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 11:09 AirbladeOrange wrote:
I honestly don't see what's so bad about bnet 2.0. It allows you to do what you need to do. You can play ladder games, have a friends list, talk to the people on your friends list, play custom games, and participate in chat channels.
I guess the bottom line is that people will ALWAYS find something to complain about. Are you kidding? Custom games are hell. It's utterly atrocious trying to set up custom games. Age of Empires II had the best table system. I would honestly in a second take SCBW bnet over this piece of shit Bnet 2.0. I have never been more frustrated in custom games. You want to play a 1v1 on LT vs a Protoss user that's around your skill level? GOOD LUCK. Probably a silver player will join as Terran, and guess what? The game autostarts. You can't EVEN LEAVE THE LOBBY. You have to hit escape and logout. Not to mention the fact your opponent might do this to you last second so you end up loading the game with no opponent. Do you know I've spent over 15 minutes trying to find a single custom game to play because me and another bronze player kept joining the same game over and over, and on the offchances I got someone else, they weren't even plat? What happened to being able to make games "Master League 2500+ Toss come." Shit like that. What happened to being able to BOOT players that come to the games because YOU were the host? Guess what, there's no boot option anymore unless you make a private game. It's an utterly piece of shit system, literally one of the worst custom systems I've ever encountered, EVER. And that's not to mention how horrendous the popularity system is.
Quoted for truth. Why does Blizzard have to do "special and shiny and new" stuff when they could just upgrade BW BNET a bit and have lik 99% complaints less... I have played lik 5 custom games, they were all shit and it is way to annoying to get a game started you like.
JUST DO IT LIKE IN BROODWAR. GODdammit. Can't even choose a gamename like "2300Diamond LT gogogo!"
If I want to host a game noone will find it because it's like 30 pages down...
|
On January 15 2011 14:14 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 14:10 CounterOrder wrote:
Sc2 could be such a better game if Bnet 2.0 was decent. WC3 had awsome clan support. Now we cant even get a new account. No chat channels for 7 months.... etc etc. Terrible custom game system. Ofcourse people are complaining.
Honestly the people saying to stop complaining or w/e need to have some self respect. How could you be happy with they way thing are and tell other people who want to see it improved to just shut up? People here just want to see a stronger community.
Actually being able to talk to people and create groups(clans) for like minded people to play games together would help this game alot. I dont get how they could retard the growth of the community so much when they say its so important to them to see esports and SCII succeed. Influence from consoles has no place on a pure pc game.
The design is so bad. What were they even trying to achieve? Isolating players and minimizing cooperation at every level. Blah, i wish peopel complained about it alot more. Have standards damnit. Thanks to 1.2 you can make a clan channel and communicate all you want.
There is no clan support in 1.2. All you can do is make chat channels with no moderation. I mean I get they are listening to the community but really how badly implemented are these chat channels. I understand all the devs weren't working during December but Blizzard has always waited to get things done right before pushing out a product. It just seems so un-Blizzard like.
|
On January 15 2011 21:33 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 14:14 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 15 2011 14:10 CounterOrder wrote:
Sc2 could be such a better game if Bnet 2.0 was decent. WC3 had awsome clan support. Now we cant even get a new account. No chat channels for 7 months.... etc etc. Terrible custom game system. Ofcourse people are complaining.
Honestly the people saying to stop complaining or w/e need to have some self respect. How could you be happy with they way thing are and tell other people who want to see it improved to just shut up? People here just want to see a stronger community.
Actually being able to talk to people and create groups(clans) for like minded people to play games together would help this game alot. I dont get how they could retard the growth of the community so much when they say its so important to them to see esports and SCII succeed. Influence from consoles has no place on a pure pc game.
The design is so bad. What were they even trying to achieve? Isolating players and minimizing cooperation at every level. Blah, i wish peopel complained about it alot more. Have standards damnit. Thanks to 1.2 you can make a clan channel and communicate all you want. There is no clan support in 1.2. All you can do is make chat channels with no moderation. I mean I get they are listening to the community but really how badly implemented are these chat channels. I understand all the devs weren't working during December but Blizzard has always waited to get things done right before pushing out a product. It just seems so un-Blizzard like.
As a clan you can still make a channel unknown to all non members,
For example you could name your channel
"TeamBACK PrivateChannel" and no one would randomly guess it. Unless a member leaks the name. Even tough chat channels could use some moderation and some chat channels should be able to be password protected. but only password protection should be able to be done by emailing blizzard with some sort of format.
We don't want a channel "Teamliquid" with a random password no one could ever guess because some idiot decided it would be fun to do.
I think chat channels still were a huge improvement to starcraft. But it has its flaws.
|
On January 15 2011 12:13 fearus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 11:29 thehitman wrote:On January 15 2011 10:15 wankey wrote:On January 15 2011 09:44 razboi wrote:
It might not be perfect but it shows us that they are trying. I kinda like BNet the way it is. Can it be improved more, yes, I think so. But so far, i'm a satisfied customer. Are you kidding me? It might not be perfect but it shows us that they are trying. Are you KIDDING ME? Yes, for a startup company, or maybe an amateur game design company or hell, maybe even Valve in their early days of Steam, but BLIZZARD. Oh the almighty BLIZZARD, the same people we gave 7 years to make a sequel game. Who rake in more money than EA and Activision COMBINED. What on earth were they thinking? Who designed this custom game fail? Fire Greg Cannessa please, fire him now. Do you realize how much you're all been gipped? I can make you a masters league in 5 minutes. Write a PHP code to filter all to 10% of players, design a new icon, and voila, a completely new feature called masters league is upon us! All hail masters league! None of the features they've come up with are ACTUALLY useful. Where is the categorization? Where is the search in custom games? Why didn't they look at Warcraft 3 and think to themselves, hmm maybe there might be a tug of war or a ship battle custom game. Why weren't they included in categories? Why aren't there categories!? Porn websites have better categorization than Starcraft 2 custom games. Why can't I click, tug of war, and look at a list of tug of war games? Or click Dota and look at a list of Dota games? Instead the only thing I can do is filter with 5 settings. That's great, the rest of the games on B.net are just custom. Why is there even a "faster" filter??? Can't they get into poeple's heads and TELL them that Starcraft IS this fast. There is no slow, normal, fast setting. THIS IS STARCRAFT. They on the bloody earth did they keep this arcane feature from 12 years ago? Why is the custom game browser one of the simplest, mundane and useless features ever to graze the earth? On the other hand, Why can't I see people's ping!??! Another stupid dumbass blunder. Blizzard is the Apple of gaming, except Blizzard actually make shitty games but the mass fanboys can't really see it through their thick glasses. They lather on EXTREMELY large budgets to make up for their losses in talent to produce an extremely well polished mediocre game. If not for the asians playing Multiplayer keeping Starcraft 2 alive, it would've been tossed away like no other. I fully agree with your post and don't forget that we waited 7 months for the simplest of things - chat channels. I could also probably make chat channels in C++ in like 1 hour. Do the menu look, link up the buttons and save the text, as simple as that.Don't forget that we also didn't get LAN so going to a LAN party you have to play on the internet, want to play with ur friends in a PC cafee sitting right next to you, no luck you need to connect to the internet. Also don't forget Blizzard removed cross-region play so some poor souls buy 3-4 copies of the game. Also don't forget that Blizzard needed 7 months to come up with simple kystomizable keys. Also don't forget that after 7 years of development and additional 7 months of waiting custom games still sucks. 10 years into the future and WC3 bnet is better than SC2 bnet, heck SC1 bnet is better than SC2 bnet. Also don't forget about the inability to lock a custom game and the stupid long countdown. I'd say Blizzard needed to fire Craig 7 months ago when he failed to deliver. Oh hi R2CH, maybe you could have developed SC2 within a week too.
No, but if blizzard gave me support and all the money they have I would have probably build SC2 in 7 years as much as they took all alone and probably do a better job at it.
There is no excuse for Blizzard for the failed systems they did. They had the time, the resources, the experience and the people to do it perfectly but they failed.
Also 7 months for simple chat channels is amazing even how they took so long. I fail to see how they needed so much time for simple chat channels, not to mention all the things they didn't add, improve or fix.
|
People really shouldn't defend Blizzard just because chats were added. It seems like you feel the need to appease them, now that they've met just one of many popular demands by the fanbase because they might go the other way again.
That attitude is wrong. There are so many flaws left in SC2 (or rather, it's online interface) that one thing players shouldn't do is stopping to complain. Sure, it should remain contructive criticism. But unless the game doesn't live up to the promises ("best online interface", "you won't want to go offline again" etc), there's no reason to stop the criticism.
Also, don't exclusively blame the developers. Most of those are avid gamers themselves and they certainly aren't happy with the current state, unless they've lowered their standards dramatically since WC3. But it's not their choice to decide what's being developed, since other people direct ressources, money and manpower.
Chances are we won't see any major improvements anyway, since SC2 has sold very well despite all the issues. Blizz will survive screwing over the hardcore fanbase as long as they continue to appeal to people who don't care about the things we criticize. Many people are first-time customers, didn't grow up with the franchise and lack any comparison. They don't know that B.Net2 is lacking because they never knew B.Net1.
|
I'm not a big fan of the interface myself, it feels really empty. I enjoyed the wc3 interface waaay more. Never rlly played BW so can't really compare those 2. I'm a little bit disappointed by how slow it takes for them to implement changes to this, but eventually( in a year or two) it'll get better I guess...
|
People seriously underestimate the actual amount of work that big software projects cost, such as SC2. Especially integrating all kinds of features and different platforms (SC2, WoW) is a tremendously complex task once you get into it. Bystanders who only observe the end product with its inevitable imperfections, cannot understand this it seems.
That said, some choices that Blizzard made are debatable. This mostly regards the custom games part of the interface. It always puzzled me why in WC3 it wasn't possible to filter games by gamename or map or anything. The list was just completely unordered, looking very unprofessional. On the other hand, I only ladder in SC2 so the custom game stuff doesn't bother me really..
The only bug that really bugs me is the fact that I cannot enter certain private chat channels anymore as I was online during the chatroom-messup-crash on battle.net (ppl who were online are still registered as present in those channels and thus cannot join the channel again).
|
the missing features (search etc.) are easy to implement (i am a professional software developer) compared to the stuff that has been done for the game itself.
So the failure must be caused by incompetent management decisions. As a software company grows frequently the tech-oriented managers/leads are replaced by people coming from the business/financial/marketing area. By the time those people start doing technical/product related decisions which are beyond their personal competence. I have experienced this scheme numerous times in the software industry: non-techs decide about technical issues such as network protocols or decide to skip important features ("Nobody needs that in the future.."). Long term those companies and their products tend to fail , but this takes quite a time. Frequently they survive because of customer lock-in.
|
You guys need to just calm the hell down. I mean afterall, with out b.net-.0.2 how else would we import our Facebook friends!?
Ya so what if I had 2 friends on Facebook who I already had added to my list. The game does it for me! Just think how many valuable resources went into making this handy tool! TY blizzard!
|
On January 15 2011 23:49 Morphs wrote:
People seriously underestimate the actual amount of work that big software projects cost, such as SC2. Especially integrating all kinds of features and different platforms (SC2, WoW) is a tremendously complex task once you get into it. Bystanders who only observe the end product with its inevitable imperfections, cannot understand this it seems.
That said, some choices that Blizzard made are debatable. This mostly regards the custom games part of the interface. It always puzzled me why in WC3 it wasn't possible to filter games by gamename or map or anything. The list was just completely unordered, looking very unprofessional. On the other hand, I only ladder in SC2 so the custom game stuff doesn't bother me really..
The only bug that really bugs me is the fact that I cannot enter certain private chat channels anymore as I was online during the chatroom-messup-crash on battle.net (ppl who were online are still registered as present in those channels and thus cannot join the channel again).
As I stated earlier, overall quality in the software industry went down considerably. To see this, just take the time and use linux. Then you see what dedicated individuals as well as groups living solely on donations can accomplish quality wise. If free software developers of the gnu/linux community can do that, a company with actual money should only do better. Quality software development is a matter of dedication and priorities. If your priority is making money and the incentive you put in front of your employee is more money for faster results, he'll do a shitty but fast job. I'm pretty sure most of the time spent making Bnet was on meetings and calculations, not actual design and programming. You can easily tell by the product.
|
they're screwing the pooch on a lot of things here, I think a lot of bad judgement calls were made on blizzard's team in terms of balance and multiplayer design, seems like they totally missed the mark on what they were hoping to go for and because of time constraints and what not, we have a rushed unfinished product that seems to pale in comparison with their older interfaces in terms of key features. There are as many negatives as there are positives with this new "BNet 2.0", especially considering BNet 1.0 was the multiplayer interface to be rivaled by companies to come.. they got it right the first time, the followup was weak
hopefully blizz can learn from their mistakes (which obviously they won't admit but the reception is pretty much the indicator) and trust not to make these leaps of faith by hiring a console interface designer to lead a project that should've been done by someone with experience in PC online interfacing (both completely different)
|
It's just really sad to see one of the greatest game company in the world who made oh-so-perfect games to just get greedy and not care about the products. Where is the Blizzard we knew and love? Where are the flawless games that are knowed by every single person who ever owned a pc game? Where is the love for the games and the constant battle to make it better and better? Where is the company that revolutionized RPG and RTS and MMORPG?
Swimming in piles of money and eaten alive by Activision it seems... I am really sad...
|
On January 15 2011 23:49 Morphs wrote:
People seriously underestimate the actual amount of work that big software projects cost, such as SC2. Especially integrating all kinds of features and different platforms (SC2, WoW) is a tremendously complex task once you get into it. Bystanders who only observe the end product with its inevitable imperfections, cannot understand this it seems.
People most certainly are not underestimating it. Developers that sell 1/20th of the number of games Blizzard does can afford to develop better online services.
|
For the record , Company of Heroes Tales of Valor multiplayer interface (without fancy specific names or marketing it as separate) , owns battlnet in every possible aspect.
Played COH 2 years ago , and today bought Tales Of Valor standalone multiplayer-centric expansion (lacks old campaigns , but i played the olders already) and i can tell you that COHTOV is technically superior to SC2 , technically i mean , in patch support (engine updates, crash fixes, memory optimizations) , in pefromance as well , the the graphics options has a bar indicator for memory usage , and all the little stuff that hardcore players need , real numerical ping , system inf warnings for players that lag and technical information output , there is also tons of stuff i didn't even found out yet.
And you don't need silly matchmaking and battlecrap services which go heavy on the companies pocked for maintaining the servers and online HDD space for maps , you don't need that , OH , COHTOV has matchmaking as a PLUS too !
|
8748 Posts
On January 16 2011 00:01 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:the missing features (search etc.) are easy to implement (i am a professional software developer) compared to the stuff that has been done for the game itself. So the failure must be caused by incompetent management decisions. As a software company grows frequently the tech-oriented managers/leads are replaced by people coming from the business/financial/marketing area. By the time those people start doing technical/product related decisions which are beyond their personal competence. I have experienced this scheme numerous times in the software industry: non-techs decide about technical issues such as network protocols or decide to skip important features ("Nobody needs that in the future.."). Long term those companies and their products tend to fail , but this takes quite a time. Frequently they survive because of customer lock-in.
I think this is probably closest to the truth. As big as Blizzard is, it's a real danger. And even though Blizzard has been around a long time for a gaming company, they haven't been around for a long time as a company in general. There's probably some inexperience still lingering around with the people in charge. They strongly follow a certain business philosophy but don't realize that it doesn't fit the particular project at hand.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On January 15 2011 17:59 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 15:15 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 15 2011 15:11 Spawkuring wrote:
Keep in mind that these features are things Bnet 1.0 already has, and that thing is over a decade old. And not only that, but we had to practically scream in Blizzard's ear for them to put chat channels in since they were vehemently against doing so months before. You attack us for whining, yet it was precisely that which got us chat channels back. Fans can and should give feedback, whether positive or negative, and it's ridiculous to pretend that everything about Bnet 2.0 is peachy when it blatantly isn't. This is completely absurd, and it is why these QQ threads exist. There was no screaming and Blizzard was NEVER vehemently against doing chats channels. You guys are just acting like brats who think they have to whine enough to get what they want. They have said all along they would be improving bnet over time. LOL biggest troll I've ever seen. Here are some things Blizzard's either failed to deliver, misled the community about, or just sucked at implementing in SC2: 1. Blizzard never intended chat channels to be in the game until the community protested. As late as the end of beta phase 1, Blizzard said there were not going to be chat channels. When they realized what an uproar it caused, they reversed the decision during the beta downtime. Now that they're included, the chat channels are riddled with bugs and problems. 2. Originally Blizzard removed cross-region play from SC2, unlike its past games where you could create an account on any of the servers. Then, Blizzard promised cross-region support (I think between beta phase 1 and 2), and then reneged and only gave it to SEA players. Basically, SEA players were in uproar because, originally, Australia was tied to SEA and many would have to deal with major lag because of the way some ISPs work there. EU and NA players also complained about the lack of cross-region support, because of friends in other regions, and the like. IMO, Blizzard realized that they would lose some business if they didn't give SEA players the option to play on the NA server. However, I'm fairly sure they didn't think the EU/NA concerns were important, so they only implemented cross-region support for SEA players. 3. No LAN support. WTF? There is NO reason for this. All this "authentication" and "piracy" garbage is unfounded. There was nothing stopping Blizzard from requiring battle net authentication the first time you play a game. Then, the game can be played on a LAN. What's so difficult about this? It works to prevent piracy the same way requiring the Internet for multiplayer does. The only difference is that tournaments no longer have to deal with lag and drops, which have already happened multiple times in the short history of SC2 competition. To date, Blizzard has not given a good reason for this decision. 4. The lack of proper hotkey support. Past games have all provided customizable hotkeys (not Blizzard games, perhaps, but still). WoW has GREAT customization. SC2 is garbage in comparison. Now that we have an in-game hotkey modifier, it's still garbage. It's very buggy, and it certainly seems like Blizzard is somehow incompetent in this area. For example, as I stated earlier in the thread, you can't map Terran/Zerg hotkeys to "W" without making a conflict with the Protoss warp-in hotkey. Yet, I was able to do this pre-patch with a hotkey editor from this forum. Last night, my hotkey profiles were all reset inexplicably. I logged out and logged back in an hour later, and I had to remap all my keys (after losing my ladder game because I kept hitting the wrong keys) which took 10-15 minutes to do. To add insult to injury, the techlab and reactor hotkeys are still messed up for me. They register as "z" and "x", respectively, in-game, whereas I have set them to "x" and "c" in the hotkey changer. I don't understand why it will not change. 5. No clan support. No tags. Nothing. 6. Custom game list. WTF? Big fail here. I could go on. There's bugs with several of the maps, for example. Shakuras is still not on the map pool. The bug was known about for well over a month before this last patch, yet nothing was done about it. The worst part is that the team seemed to have enough time to include an easter egg with this last patch, yet they didn't have the foresight to correct many of the existing bugs, nor double-check the features they were adding in this patch. On January 16 2011 00:01 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:the missing features (search etc.) are easy to implement (i am a professional software developer) compared to the stuff that has been done for the game itself. So the failure must be caused by incompetent management decisions. As a software company grows frequently the tech-oriented managers/leads are replaced by people coming from the business/financial/marketing area. By the time those people start doing technical/product related decisions which are beyond their personal competence. I have experienced this scheme numerous times in the software industry: non-techs decide about technical issues such as network protocols or decide to skip important features ("Nobody needs that in the future.."). Long term those companies and their products tend to fail , but this takes quite a time. Frequently they survive because of customer lock-in.
Two really really good posts. Agreed with both.
|
8748 Posts
On January 16 2011 00:05 Attiicus wrote:
You guys need to just calm the hell down. I mean afterall, with out b.net-.0.2 how else would we import our Facebook friends!?
Ya so what if I had 2 friends on Facebook who I already had added to my list. The game does it for me! Just think how many valuable resources went into making this handy tool! TY blizzard!
I think this is a really dumb way to attack Blizzard. We need as many people as possible in our community. After gameplay, I think community is the most important part of the game. Every effort made at building and maintaining community is a big part of what separates SC from these "technically superior" games that have only ~200k or less players whose communities die in less than 3 years. Blizzard fully admits that the phenomenon of SC1 was damn lucky. With SC2, they're making purposeful efforts to repeat the feat.
It's silly that every time Blizzard does something to reach more people, there are some "hardcore" fans that say it's a money grab. Which isn't totally untrue, but if Blizzard is doing what's best for the game, then that's also a money grab, because what's best for the game can also be best for Blizzard's health as a company. So a real money grab is when they do something bad for the game, to get more money, and so the point hinges on whether Blizzard's efforts to expand community are bad for the game. As if that's even a question haha.
But it's really silly that the hardcore fans have that viewpoint because here they are in an awesome community, enjoying the community and the game, and they see more people as playing the game and joining the community as bad. It's selfish and/or shortsighted, because it's like "Hey Blizzard actually you already have a community of SC fans. Here we are. Dedicate all your resources to making the best product you can for us and ignore any services you could do for everyone else." Blizzard has done a pretty damn good job balancing between the two extremes.
If their #1 goal is to have SC2 still being played by a decent amount of people 10 years from now, which I think is what is most important to all of us here (and not by any means Blizzard's safest way of maximizing profits), then I can see how every decision they've made and their general allocation of resources makes sense. So we have a few rough years of bnet 2010-2012 let's say, well then 2013-2018 can be our golden years, and we'll all forget about the start. But down the road we'll be damn happy that Blizzard was able to get enough people initially interested in SC at the start so that a strong community could get set up and hold for all those years. Unfortunately, coming out with a perfect product in the opinion of hardcore fans is not what best builds a strong long term community.
|
On January 15 2011 09:43 MavercK wrote:
because they hired the guy who designed xbox live to design battle.net 2.0
nothing can be done.
unless they fire him and scrap the entire interface.
Which they should. I guess not really, but yeah, BNET is bad. Making a bad chat-system in 2011 should earn them a medal. Why not just implement IRC or something akin to that? I don't get Blizzard's angle on this whole online-thing.
EDIT: Schnullerbacke13 probably telling it like it is.
|
On January 16 2011 00:57 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2011 00:05 Attiicus wrote:
You guys need to just calm the hell down. I mean afterall, with out b.net-.0.2 how else would we import our Facebook friends!?
Ya so what if I had 2 friends on Facebook who I already had added to my list. The game does it for me! Just think how many valuable resources went into making this handy tool! TY blizzard! I think this is a really dumb way to attack Blizzard. We need as many people as possible in our community. After gameplay, I think community is the most important part of the game. Every effort made at building and maintaining community is a big part of what separates SC from these "technically superior" games that have only ~200k or less players whose communities die in less than 3 years. Blizzard fully admits that the phenomenon of SC1 was damn lucky. With SC2, they're making purposeful efforts to repeat the feat. It's silly that every time Blizzard does something to reach more people, there are some "hardcore" fans that say it's a money grab. Which isn't totally untrue, but if Blizzard is doing what's best for the game, then that's also a money grab, because what's best for the game can also be best for Blizzard's health as a company. So a real money grab is when they do something bad for the game, to get more money, and so the point hinges on whether Blizzard's efforts to expand community are bad for the game. As if that's even a question haha. But it's really silly that the hardcore fans have that viewpoint because here they are in an awesome community, enjoying the community and the game, and they see more people as playing the game and joining the community as bad. It's selfish and/or shortsighted, because it's like "Hey Blizzard actually you already have a community of SC fans. Here we are. Dedicate all your resources to making the best product you can for us and ignore any services you could do for everyone else." Blizzard has done a pretty damn good job balancing between the two extremes. If their #1 goal is to have SC2 still being played by a decent amount of people 10 years from now, which I think is what is most important to all of us here (and not by any means Blizzard's safest way of maximizing profits), then I can see how every decision they've made and their general allocation of resources makes sense. So we have a few rough years of bnet 2010-2012 let's say, well then 2013-2018 can be our golden years, and we'll all forget about the start. But down the road we'll be damn happy that Blizzard was able to get enough people initially interested in SC at the start so that a strong community could get set up and hold for all those years. Unfortunately, coming out with a perfect product in the opinion of hardcore fans is not what best builds a strong long term community.
Yes, and none of this is going to be achieved with the aid of Facebook integration, particularly while Blizzard simultaneously refuses to provide the most basic of features anyone who has played any multiplayer PC game over the last 10 years would come to reasonably expect. It's gimmicky, superfulous and adds absolutely nothing to the overall online gaming experience.
|
I personally find it very very irritating that Blizzard delivers such a great game, but then drops the ball when it comes to Battle.net. Arguments that try to defend the amount of work and planning that goes into such projects are futile in my eyes. A customer gets what a customer gets. For a company that supposedly values social interaction very high, the lack of foresight on social features for the gaming man or woman are heartbreaking.
Since chat channels are out I played more custom matches than I did in the previous months + beta combined. With strangers I might add!
I find it especially confusing that Blizzard, a company with the most successful MMO in the history of like ever fails to deliver a compelling multiplayer-interface. And keep in mind they have 5 years of experience in handling the biggest amount of gamers that ever subscribed to a game on this planet.
"How?" I ask myself then. How is it possible that Blizzard didn't go "We're not only going to invest in creating the best rts game ever, we will also create the greatest multiplayer interface human hands will ever digitally touch."
Instead we get something that looks like it was made for a console market.
Greg Cannessa: "Common we all know it takes ages to type words on a console. Why would you..."
Rest: "PC MOTHERFUCKER! PC!!"
|
On January 15 2011 09:41 Torte de Lini wrote:
Why can't they do it like in WC3 except just show how many slots have been made/filled whatever.
Because by the time you refreshed the list and clicked the game it will be full. That's one of the few features I love about battle.net. To bad it fails when you try to join with a party an there aren't enough places in the game. Instead of creating a new lobby it will give an error that the lobby is full.
|
On January 15 2011 09:43 MavercK wrote:
because they hired the guy who designed xbox live to design battle.net 2.0
nothing can be done.
unless they fire him and scrap the entire interface.
Lets form a Protest.
|
On January 16 2011 03:42 Zombo Joe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 09:43 MavercK wrote:
because they hired the guy who designed xbox live to design battle.net 2.0
nothing can be done.
unless they fire him and scrap the entire interface. Lets form a Protest.
Well why not , i think it's about time to make a stand up , just like they did over at Left For Dead 2 was announced so fast.
Clearly , he's the only lead who is not experienced enough , and this console crap is making my stomack go around , i won't say consoles are totally wrong , okay fine , i got a wii , im a ninteno junkie but when i play a console(only ninteno's first parties - a dosen top line franchises) that's stuff is there and you use it there and it's okay there , but when i play a PC game , i don't WANT that here, i don't want the console style , the console feel , the console ways.
Consoles are for playing only , relaxing sitting down with friends , socializing , you play , you don't modify , customize super duper bla bla , but on a PC you're not on with friends and you devote to the most hardcore experience.
Im not a biased guy because of my nintendo addiction , but i am able to keep double minded , when i use the console it's another mentality , it's a console , that's cool for it , that's fine , split screen is required for console games it's a standard , for PCs it's not and nobody needs it and doesn't whine about it for not being also on PCs , that's why im saying , i don't want SHOW MORE button on a PC game , that's a thing of mobile casual console world (typical bad design) , i don't want that on PCs, we don't need that here.
|
Over the course of a few months, how much has Blizzard done to both the gameplay, UI, and for individual people in terms of upgrades, assistance, etc. I would say a whole lot more then most developers would. Especially ones that are embroiled in a fairly significant e-sports legal battle over the very game they are trying to improve. It took Blizzard years to refine SC1 to the point it is at today, so I think people need to cut them some slack.
Yes there are many things still that ought to be done to improve the experience, but it takes time and money to make those features possible to you for free. Work with what you got and if you really want to help Blizzard, perhaps less flaming of what you could have and more constructive criticisms or helpful posts for them.
TL is far more constructive then the official B.net forums IMO, what if we made a stronger effort to bring (copy and paste) our most constructive criticisms or suggestions to them directly and set the example/tone for the community. To the best of our individual ability at least.
|
Well im keeping it civil as i can , i guess ranting over because of anger is never a good thing , but for them to see constructive criticism is well , you have to be lucky , moderators on bnet , do they really transeft the correct community feel to the developers , probably not , they suppres all the negative threads.
They did that in beta , there was a big EU revolt and it was going for about some days , people were so protesting and all the "activision took over blizzard" threads were rampagins , that's exactly the time when chat channels ( husky state on bnet video ) said to be left out as Plexa quoted Wherebugsgo on 1# point (on 7th page) - yeah it was so big revolt , that the Blizzard's forum girl guru (forgot nickname) had to came "all the way" from US forums to assist sorting up the EU revolt , which meant banning and closing threads and EVEN deleting what was negative/critical.
And i was the one who was banned also , ofcourse , for being negative , all i did was honest threads without any profantiy or any breaks of terms , they also deleted my posts , it's wiped though , you can't see those forums , they're deleted and only a few thousand people know what was going around.
For me , as a preservative and caring person (look below) , i predicted that of course. (since they were also saying the forums will be wiped a week before beta ended)
Here , i saved those for emergencies in future , i knew they would come useful:
![[image loading]](http://www.shrani.si/f/6/4B/3lWqz6QD/statebnet1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.shrani.si/f/2N/f0/24K7YMlm/statebnet2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.shrani.si/f/16/Qf/3fDVZlo/statebnet3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.shrani.si/f/3J/ly/14NOmF0c/statebnet4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.shrani.si/f/11/TB/45o9e1Ne/statebnet5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.shrani.si/f/3y/HW/4Hwguupk/statebnet6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.shrani.si/f/1J/Qj/uZpvUSN/statebnet7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.shrani.si/f/2o/S9/nW2sZhk/statebnet8.jpg)
Those weren't troll threads , not at all. Maybe i screenshoted posts too but i don't know where i put those files (have a lot of backups in zillion of backup dvds) (formated win7 before sc2 retail relese)
They also were agressive since it was beta (closed) froums which wouldn't get to see much of public attention and also wiped so ... history deleted. (if it wasn't for me :p :d)
EDIT: oh there's a few posts , She's Xordiah , and yes it's a she , the guy didn't knew it's a she.
Keep the topic to the facts of the pictures , analyze what people are saying , it's clear that our critical constructiveness didn't work as we didn't get responses anyways , so why are they expecting peace while they don't agree to prioritize the critical feedback.
__>> Another thought <<__
One of the big things in companies i see lately, their lack of response, it's a killer , why can't they admit an engineer or programmers are unable to find "ex ex bug" and can't fix that in time , why can't they admit greg canessa isn't particularly experienced on PC games , why can't they admit they know and see our feedback and our concerns , why can't they admit and respond to our pleas and our cries , the EU forums are ghost town , nobody's there , all they do is on mondays , and else is just technical help (which is helping guys with crappy PCs or bad settings to get SC2 running - no bug section) They say to email bugs , but i emailed and user Error Reporter so many times about the memory leak in SC2 and they still dont seem to get it , they lack a creative mix to manage community, they lack a system which will profile and clasiffy all the bugs and problems people reported and apply status to them "active in [patch version]" "fixed" "known" "being worked on" .... that would be epic for the community to stop hyping the old bugs over and over again and that would make it more fluid and people would report more bugs cause they'll feel more confident about their contribution and thus a happier community , blizzard doesn't see that gamers feel very good about their self if they contribute something and that makes them feel proud , now , nobody can't report bugs to EU , plus nobody listens , it's not just the FACT , is also the "AIR" , there''s daily 2 threads about not listening and that takes every newcomer to not even try doing anything "ofcourse why would i do and help something if they don't listen at all" - Yeah , i do fell good about patching, it's fine , they're doing patches of course , but you see , what it's in the patches counts , and i fully support that fact over a easter egg being patched instead of something more important and vital.
Why blizzard can't admit they're a creative company, clearly , the technical side of SC2 is not what you call ... superb , sadly , and this is no any overly negative , this is truth , as im the only guy who ever reasearched the memory leak , nobody on the web , atleast i didn't found anyone who would fully use the PC knowledge and external programs to test SC2 memory leaks , it's a leaky game and i have full research which is for another thread it's a lot to talk about. But be sure that im not just a guy over the fence , im in gaming(PCs) for well over 10 years: quick findings are , 1# most people don't realize it because they use pagefile (virtual memory) , 2# - memory leak also causes Alt tab to take longer to maximize (up to 3 minutes) if you play for more than 4 hours Singleplayer (plus MP) , if you don't play singleplayer before playing multiplayer, you'll be fine > as long as you play only MP the alt tab takes about 10 seconds. 3# The memory leak is evident , the game has poor cleaning of usless stuff , this is shown in the fact that if you played SP before playing MP , MP will lag and it will take as long to maximize alt tab as long would it take for SP > which ends up of the infamous "DROPPED" ! because with a this clusterfuck of bugs , Alt Tab makes your client to show a disconnect window.
For a record , if you want how real patches look like , patch notes , take a look at Company of Heroes , plus the mutliplayer interface of that game obliterates anything bnet has to offer. It just isn't so popular and the game didn't sell as good , WHY!!! Well , they obviously didn't had false advertising - Relic Entertainment was always loyal and honest afaik , this world is wrong , the masses of causal people tend to not realize about hardcore and truly good stuff , but they believe the corporate bullshit in other low quality stuff (generally)
The point is here , blizzard has to quit spying on the forums with developers , they do look the forums obviously , they do , but those individual developers don't RESPOND , they think the managers and whoever mods gonna taken care of it, either it's a lack of staff or what , currently there's no clear and good connection with blizzard an EU , do you want me to repeat that , the only day EU mods are online is monday , that was confimed , if it changed since , please correct me.
EDIT: A bot has warned me for the images, can you please not remove them they're vital and quite handy , they must not be resized or edited because that will render them unreadable, they're uploaded on a very good and picture dedicated servers which should work fast at least in europe (it's not laggy photobucket or imagesack , it's a local site - without advertisments)
|
On January 16 2011 07:17 Torpedo.Vegas wrote:
Over the course of a few months, how much has Blizzard done to both the gameplay, UI, and for individual people in terms of upgrades, assistance, etc. I would say a whole lot more then most developers would. Especially ones that are embroiled in a fairly significant e-sports legal battle over the very game they are trying to improve. It took Blizzard years to refine SC1 to the point it is at today, so I think people need to cut them some slack.
Yes there are many things still that ought to be done to improve the experience, but it takes time and money to make those features possible to you for free. Work with what you got and if you really want to help Blizzard, perhaps less flaming of what you could have and more constructive criticisms or helpful posts for them.
TL is far more constructive then the official B.net forums IMO, what if we made a stronger effort to bring (copy and paste) our most constructive criticisms or suggestions to them directly and set the example/tone for the community. To the best of our individual ability at least.
I would have cut them some slack if they didn't take 7 months to bring in chat channels without clan support.
I would give them some slack if SC1 12 years old bnet 1.0 wasn't 10x better than bnet 2.0
I mean where is that image of bnet 2.0 and rock? The only check it has even now if facebook integration and chat channel from the stone age. WC3 chat is 10x better and WC3 bnet is 20x better than bnet 2.0.
I would give them some slack if they only had 1 year to develop the game and were in a crazy rush to finish it, instead they had 7 years total, 5 practical years and an additional 7 months to make it good.
|
Even if Blizzard "should" have channel moderation and "should" have clan support(although I don't feel that's particularly necessary), the rants feel a little flaccid. It's unreasonable and even a little childish to rant until you get a feature, receive the feature, and then just keep ranting about it because it took too long or it's not exactly to your liking.
|
Even if Blizzard "should" have channel moderation and "should" have clan support(although I don't feel that's particularly necessary), the rants feel a little flaccid. It's unreasonable and even a little childish to rant until you get a feature, receive the feature, and then just keep ranting about it because it took too long or it's not exactly to your liking.
As long as the critic is correct and not just screaming ; it should also help to further improve the game; nobody can blame this kind of critic.
If peops really want features; they ask for them; if they are not listened; they scream for it.
The most important part is:
If we wouldnt care for the game at all; nobody would write something here; we like the game; we like it a lot to spend countless hours within the game and beyound ; so its really just our right to have critics.
*Yea chat channels are great ; "at least" its something; ofcourse they could do even worser ; but is something "good" just because it could be "worser" ? No obvisious not.
For some the game is "good enough" ; but as long as it could be way better ; peops will aim to get something better ; this kind of critics allways kicks in some vital points ; if its not Blizzard that listens to the community [in this points] ; then another game forge will and present you what you wish for.
Overall i am looking forward into a better B.net 2.0 ; sometimes the good ideas turn out to be not as good ; peops are used to B.net 1.0 and the features in the latest B.net are not really what the community looks for ; even more important if the feedback in Beta was "ignored" ; thats the worst you can do as a developer ...
But SC2 is a great game; no matter what ; this type of critics won't destroy the game; but it will certainly help to improve ; even if its just that Blizzard can't ignore the critics anymore.
|
personally I just want to be able to finally switch regions and have clans. The chat channels are ok with me
|
those who really think that battle.net 0.000000000000000002 is fine is either retarded or only work like having a fulltime job in the ladder with the horrible maps.
pick one yourself.
|
As much as I agree I think I think Blizzard just isn't gonna change their plans. They are known to almost always ignore the community. MAYBE they'll add cross-realm or clan support some time, but it's only an afterthought.
|
On January 16 2011 07:40 Stewox. wrote:
For a record , if you want how real patches look like , patch notes , take a look at Company of Heroes , plus the mutliplayer interface of that game obliterates anything bnet has to offer. It just isn't so popular and the game didn't sell as good , WHY!!! Well , they obviously didn't had false advertising - Relic Entertainment was always loyal and honest afaik , this world is wrong , the masses of causal people tend to not realize about hardcore and truly good stuff , but they believe the corporate bullshit in other low quality stuff (generally)
I agree with some of your comments but this one I have to point out isn't correct. If you look at the British faction of CoH there are numerous balancing issues. However the custom game UI that CoH uses would be great for SC2. I'm also having problems finding custom maps to play people on and so far the only way I've resolved this is playing with a random that also likes to use custom maps. But his skill level isn't the same as mine and makes the game less interesting.
|
Relic has some great technological experience and they're popped out such interface , i just can't get over how much stuff that game has , i didn't even explored everything ( i just boutght COHTOV yesterday) so , just seeing it on the outside , i mean , it's a honest and maybe even better nemesis.
The british feel less strong but the balance should be fine , it's better than other games , i guess , just look how clean, fast , fluid the game is , it's a great engine , and i just love it , ALT-TAB works less than a second , i didn't tired SC2 in windowed thought , COH goes to windowed by default on ALTTAB.
Im not making that up , they did win a "Technological" Award in 2006 for the original COH , yeah , the game uses LUA for scripting language, data is probably XML. LUA is also in Crysis scripting , but i think it's a quite advanced and feature full LUA , so ... Galaxy code is quite restriced to pervent hacking of the game adn bnet.
While i don't know the specifics , i didn't mod or map COH a lot so i don't have idea about their system of doing things, but from outside it looks like very good , i can see it , not just technical , but also convenitent and creative , i don't remember the last time where a developer would keep it's own patch list and downloads on their site , oh yeah but they're slow downloads , relic on the other hand has a good list of patches , and even more languages than SC2 has :p , and finally , ofcourse , a downloader/patcher was also made for TOV expansion (imo) ... i didn't saw it in first expansion.
Anyways that's for a comparrison, I didn't see a thing COH didn't have comparing to SC2 , and that's a 4 year old game with 2 expansions.
Yeh im cutting slack to SC2 of course , it's early release , and blizzard makes sure it has the creative aspect done , they just don't go for technological acclaim , that's a stupid reason for saying the game "will be more reachable to wider crowd" that's stupid to say , because COH is more reachable , the settings work , the game's configurable , the game isn't a resource hog buggy leaky code , SC2 will not work even if you lower GPU stuff to minimum , SC2 engine is bad , and graphics quality don't mean anything, it'll still take up loads of memory. (somebody said that on official forums)
EDIT: this is just funny how i was so freaking enthusiastic and aticipating about SC2 in march last year and to now , come on .. the game's finished of course , the battlnet is really nothing what i've been expecting or wishing to see, yeah oh well.
|
Until, as far as I'm aware, today, people who were offline stayed in chat channels, taking up spaces, meaning each channel had like...THREE fucking people in it online. Looks like that's gone now, thank fuck, because it made them unusable.
|
Here is my proposal:
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/qvLhe.jpg)
(click to enlarge) XD
|
Let not overlook the fact that you can't sort games based on skill. Now, noobs are forced to play experts or play rated on the ladder. Im sure a lot of noobs find that very discouraging, constant getting destroyed in custom games. Likely even discourage some from wanting to play online at all. I would classify this as a huge oversight on blizzards part.
|
On January 16 2011 17:24 Kar98 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2011 07:40 Stewox. wrote:
For a record , if you want how real patches look like , patch notes , take a look at Company of Heroes , plus the mutliplayer interface of that game obliterates anything bnet has to offer. It just isn't so popular and the game didn't sell as good , WHY!!! Well , they obviously didn't had false advertising - Relic Entertainment was always loyal and honest afaik , this world is wrong , the masses of causal people tend to not realize about hardcore and truly good stuff , but they believe the corporate bullshit in other low quality stuff (generally) I agree with some of your comments but this one I have to point out isn't correct. If you look at the British faction of CoH there are numerous balancing issues. However the custom game UI that CoH uses would be great for SC2. I'm also having problems finding custom maps to play people on and so far the only way I've resolved this is playing with a random that also likes to use custom maps. But his skill level isn't the same as mine and makes the game less interesting.
The nice thing about CoH was the fact that it screamed in your face what rank someone was at every opportunity.
If SC2 had this somewhere it would be so nice, just to be able to tell in a quick look what level player someone was.
|
On January 16 2011 23:27 Trib wrote:
Let not overlook the fact that you can't sort games based on skill. Now, noobs are forced to play experts or play rated on the ladder. Im sure a lot of noobs find that very discouraging, constant getting destroyed in custom games. Likely even discourage some from wanting to play online at all. I would classify this as a huge oversight on blizzards part.
it discourages me as well. im tired of wasting time in a totaly onesided game cause the profile didnt load fast enough for me to see hes gold or even lower. the system is plain crap.
@stewox
yeah its ridiculous how blizz handles complaints and the lack of contact with the community. was fun, when the huge mlg finals bnet happened i posted in a thread about it in bnet. nothing really bad just something like "next game failed too... bnet 0.2 does again what its best at" . got a 2 week forum ban for that one post for "trolling". incredibly retarded but made me laugh.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On January 16 2011 23:35 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2011 23:27 Trib wrote:
Let not overlook the fact that you can't sort games based on skill. Now, noobs are forced to play experts or play rated on the ladder. Im sure a lot of noobs find that very discouraging, constant getting destroyed in custom games. Likely even discourage some from wanting to play online at all. I would classify this as a huge oversight on blizzards part. it discourages me as well. im tired of wasting time in a totaly onesided game cause the profile didnt load fast enough for me to see hes gold or even lower. the system is plain crap. @stewox yeah its ridiculous how blizz handles complaints and the lack of contact with the community. was fun, when the huge mlg finals bnet happened i posted in a thread about it in bnet. nothing really bad just something like "next game failed too... bnet 0.2 does again what its best at" . got a 2 week forum ban for that one post for "trolling". incredibly retarded but made me laugh.
Well since the problem was with MLG's internet connection i'd say your ban was justified for whining without any grounds to do so. Go to any moderated forum and start whinging without evidence and you'll get warned/banned.
|
On January 16 2011 23:23 Skee wrote:Here is my proposal: (click to enlarge) XD
win, however never gonna happen T_T
|
On January 16 2011 23:23 Skee wrote:Here is my proposal: (click to enlarge) XD
WHAT THE SHIIIIIIIIIIT! Nice :p
It looks so easy and social and clean. Now we have to watch raynor's mug all the time...
That would be really friggin awesome. Send a pic to Blizzard :p
That and the custom games-shit changing back to War3 or BW-system.
|
On January 15 2011 12:17 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2011 11:57 Treemonkeys wrote:On January 15 2011 11:56 xaeiu wrote:
i'm really curious what happened to the "e-sports" part... Master's league. All the complaining that you can't compare rank across divisions..now you can. So 7months after Bnet 2.0 came out, the first "e-sports" patch, we finally get our actually promised part of the "e-sports"? Also trying to get a custom game is the most horrendous thing I've ever tried to do. I'd rather have the bugged out version of BW where if you left a game too fast you couldn't see any game in the list for like 5min. It would still be faster joining a game than the failure we have now. Goals for Blizzard to fix: No auto-start. (at least ability to leave during count-down/start) No auto-countdown. Ability to boot/kick whoever. Able to see ping. Should be search box to search for games easily. Both types of popularity systems should be removed. (public will decide what game should be shown by actually playing it) Expedite the loading of joining games in the list and starting the actual game. Remove the constant DC people have. (truthfully say I haven't joined a single game yet where someone wasn't DC'd within 1min) Add ability to sort by category, name, and possibly rating based on votes by players? (remove ability for creators to name their category for their custom game w/e they want, makes it impossible to actually find it in its actual category, give them a list of game modes basically)
This is kind of what my thinking is on the custom games issue, but a few differences.
I say go back to the old way of doing it that allows people to host their own games with there own names of the games. Now since blizzard doesn't want us to actually "host" the game they could still host it and give the person that started the game the "leader/host" position in the lobby.
Also another thing is to add a favorites tab with this set up. So lets say you join a game that someone hosted called "Wintermaul TD JOIN UP NOOBS ALLOWED" You play the game and like it, then you should be able to favorite it and join it again/host it.
|
On January 16 2011 23:23 Skee wrote:Here is my proposal: (click to enlarge) XD
best bnet mockup yet
|
On January 17 2011 00:00 Telcontar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2011 23:35 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On January 16 2011 23:27 Trib wrote:
Let not overlook the fact that you can't sort games based on skill. Now, noobs are forced to play experts or play rated on the ladder. Im sure a lot of noobs find that very discouraging, constant getting destroyed in custom games. Likely even discourage some from wanting to play online at all. I would classify this as a huge oversight on blizzards part. it discourages me as well. im tired of wasting time in a totaly onesided game cause the profile didnt load fast enough for me to see hes gold or even lower. the system is plain crap. @stewox yeah its ridiculous how blizz handles complaints and the lack of contact with the community. was fun, when the huge mlg finals bnet happened i posted in a thread about it in bnet. nothing really bad just something like "next game failed too... bnet 0.2 does again what its best at" . got a 2 week forum ban for that one post for "trolling". incredibly retarded but made me laugh. Well since the problem was with MLG's internet connection i'd say your ban was justified for whining without any grounds to do so. Go to any moderated forum and start whinging without evidence and you'll get warned/banned.
at this point no one even mentioned mlgs connection since the stream was fine. and given the situation with bnet at that time it wasnt so farfetched to write few words to express my annoyance over bnet fuckups that builds up evrytime i get a rnd disc,lag or bug.
and i doubt that any moderated forum would just ban evrybody who wrote in a thread for a nonoffensive one liner.
chatbug btw fixed now on eu again. surprised actually that it happened before next week. but still dont understand why they are so silent. didnt even write a post that they did something.
|
The ladder is broken too. A lot of people who were in top of ladder are no longer there. For example oGsMC now is like #800 in world when he was in top 10. So after the introduction of master league level of players dropped too lol?
|
On January 17 2011 01:21 Alpina wrote:
The ladder is broken too. A lot of people who were in top of ladder are no longer there. For example oGsMC now is like #800 in world when he was in top 10. So after the introduction of master league level of players dropped too lol?
they lost points since evryone was reset to ~2300 after masters promotion. people have to play again to get back to their rating.
|
On January 17 2011 01:25 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 01:21 Alpina wrote:
The ladder is broken too. A lot of people who were in top of ladder are no longer there. For example oGsMC now is like #800 in world when he was in top 10. So after the introduction of master league level of players dropped too lol? they lost points since evryone was reset to ~2300 after masters promotion. people have to play again to get back to their rating.
I understand this but why this works that way? I think if someone was on high diamond he should be in high masters now.. Ladder rankings just does not say much at all.
|
On January 17 2011 01:28 Alpina wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 01:25 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On January 17 2011 01:21 Alpina wrote:
The ladder is broken too. A lot of people who were in top of ladder are no longer there. For example oGsMC now is like #800 in world when he was in top 10. So after the introduction of master league level of players dropped too lol? they lost points since evryone was reset to ~2300 after masters promotion. people have to play again to get back to their rating. I understand this but why this works that way? I think if someone was on high diamond he should be in high masters now.. Ladder rankings just does not say much at all.
Don't derail this into a masters league discusion when you clearly do not understand. First of all high diamond should be high masters makes no sense. High bronze should be high silver when they promote? Those who were on top will get there. The leagues and ladders sistem is the only thing close to decent in bnet 0.2. The rest is abysimial. The more I use chat channels the more I see how they are still in alpha state =/. And I remember them saying it took long to put them in because they wanted to do it right... *sigh*
|
We knew chat channels were coming under this form. We said «Yo Blizz, those channels kind of suck =/ » and they were like « Yo guys, do you even really WANT chat? ». We were all thinking « Blizzard, have you guys fallen off the rocker? Of course we fucking want chat » so they give us this crappy system.
I mean, yeah b.net 1.0 had its problems, but there were work arounds for functionality. B.net 2.0 needs a global chat that by default throws you in there when you log in. As handsome as Tychus' face is, I don't really give a fuck to see it every time I log on when I could instead be meeting new people. The system is designed for those who have existing/pre-established gaming communities. For those trying to get stuff off the ground however, it's extremely limiting.
Popularity system for custom games is flawed by definition. A new incredibly amazing game may never be played by a reasonable proportion of the custom gaming enthusiasts because the map-maker didn't know half of battle.net to encourage it being tested. Creating games in the old system was better because individual players made the list, and those looking for interesting/different games joined them.
The UI is still fundamentally flawed. Let's just compare the old and new systems shall we?
Note what I wrote in the chat. Default chat and everything you need only click away. Not to mention the fact that the interesting information remains in the middle of your screen. Clan support from Warcraft III allows cross-game clans to at least maintain control of their chat channels.
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/HOvew.jpg)
Here however, you've got the buttons at the top, out of the way. Ok, that's alright. But then if you click anything else, you'll have to wade through menus to reach the information that interests you. Sometimes less is more. We've also got these two wide columns of space that are being wasted. Yes, your background is cool Blizzard. Do I care when I'm trying to click buttons, but I have to move my stupid chat windows? No. Don't forget that you'll have to put them back into place every time you exit a game.
![[image loading]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E576Fg2CUWU/0.jpg)
Ultimately, I really wouldn't mind having an out-of-game chat client (tied to authorized b.net accounts) which would allow us to chat through that instead of idling the game for nothing.
Of course, we've all been saying this from the start... but I mean, why would that matter? The worst part is, I've always been one of those people who said «Don't worry, Blizzard has some sort of plan for this, and you'll see that ultimately it WILL be a better system». Sadly, I can't say that I think this way anymore because since beta people have been telling them about the problems with their system. We're getting close to a year without much notable improvement.
There needs to be a way to add some sort of permanence to these channels, and, improve the way they are displayed on the battle.net screen.
|
On January 17 2011 01:42 acidfreak wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 01:28 Alpina wrote:On January 17 2011 01:25 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On January 17 2011 01:21 Alpina wrote:
The ladder is broken too. A lot of people who were in top of ladder are no longer there. For example oGsMC now is like #800 in world when he was in top 10. So after the introduction of master league level of players dropped too lol? they lost points since evryone was reset to ~2300 after masters promotion. people have to play again to get back to their rating. I understand this but why this works that way? I think if someone was on high diamond he should be in high masters now.. Ladder rankings just does not say much at all. Don't derail this into a masters league discusion when you clearly do not understand. First of all high diamond should be high masters makes no sense. High bronze should be high silver when they promote? Those who were on top will get there. The leagues and ladders sistem is the only thing close to decent in bnet 0.2. The rest is abysimial. The more I use chat channels the more I see how they are still in alpha state =/. And I remember them saying it took long to put them in because they wanted to do it right... *sigh*
Ladder in which I have no idea how much I improved over half a year is decent? The only decent thing about this system is that it gives you opponents of your level and always keeps your W/L ratio ~50%.
|
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.
Wow.
Chat channels is one feature that was requested a LONG time ago, and its final implementation is very poor, borderline broken.
I'm sure Blizzard sees these posts too.
There is so much wrong here I won't go on. Just like there are tons of things wrong with Battle.net 2.0, which would probably be considered a bad interface if this was a console game.
|
One of the big things in companies i see lately, their lack of response, it's a killer , why can't they admit an engineer or programmers are unable to find "ex ex bug" and can't fix that in time , why can't they admit greg canessa isn't particularly experienced on PC games , why can't they admit they know and see our feedback and our concerns , why can't they admit and respond to our pleas and our cries , the EU forums are ghost town , nobody's there , all they do is on mondays , and else is just technical help (which is helping guys with crappy PCs or bad settings to get SC2 running - no bug section)
First, Blizzard does respond to feedback. They told us that they didn't prioritize chat channels during SC2's game development, and because of that, the game wouldn't ship with them. They've told us that Clan features will be coming in a later patch. And so forth.
What Blizzard does not do is respond to particular, specific questions from random people. They do not engage people on the forums. They do not constantly provide updates on the progress of feature X. And nor should they; they've got more important things to do than argue with people on their forums.
Second, what good would it do? The only response that really matters is getting the functionality. Blizzard doesn't like giving dates for anything, whether game patches or game releases. Not until they're reasonably certain of making that date. Remember when SC2 was supposed to be out in late 2008?
Why do you feel the need for a company to constantly communicate with you? Why is it important to you that they answer specifically your questions and concerns?
B.net 2.0 needs a global chat that by default throws you in there when you log in.
This is a matter of opinion. Personally, I have no love for a global default chat room. It's like trying to talk in a crowed room; you can't have a conversation because everyone is stepping on everyone else's dialog.
I understand the argument for one, but I just don't think a chat system is a particularly good way to communicate with a large, random group of people.
We're getting close to a year without much notable improvement.
This is the part I don't get. At the "beginning of the year", we didn't have chat channels. Now we do. And they're better chat channels than what SC1 had. How does that qualify as not "much notable improvement?"
In SC1, my entire 1920x1200 screen would have been taken up by a single channel. That's far more wasted space than SC2's background. Now, I can have multiple channels open at the same time, and have multiple conversations if I so desire.
Indeed, I would love it if Blizzard embraced the multiple windows idea throughout their GUI. Put everything in separate windows, possibly tear-able windows with tabs and the like. That way, you can have the ladder over in a window, your chat channels in a window, rankings in another, custom games in another, etc. And as long as the arrangement of windows was saved and restored between games and closing/opening SC2, everything would be perfect.
|
Show nested quote +B.net 2.0 needs a global chat that by default throws you in there when you log in. This is a matter of opinion. Personally, I have no love for a global default chat room. It's like trying to talk in a crowed room; you can't have a conversation because everyone is stepping on everyone else's dialog. I understand the argument for one, but I just don't think a chat system is a particularly good way to communicate with a large, random group of people.
Bolded, is your opinion. Is that not why we're all here? To discuss our opinions? I thought I did a good job of supporting my argument initially, but let me reiterate.
I personally don't think that global chat rooms are necessarily a good way to stimulate prolonged discussion. That said, it is a good way to create links between people. Whether it's just a simple «Hey, anyone up for a 1v1 on X map? I want to try something out with someone random» that leads to a longer online friendship, or something of another form, it doesn't really matter. Once that link is established, the person is added to your friends list, you get to know each other over the course of the game and what not. Eventually you'll be meeting in a private channel, hopefully with a small group of people who share similar interests.
This is the part I don't get. At the "beginning of the year", we didn't have chat channels. Now we do. And they're better chat channels than what SC1 had. How does that qualify as not "much notable improvement?" In SC1, my entire 1920x1200 screen would have been taken up by a single channel. That's far more wasted space than SC2's background. Now, I can have multiple channels open at the same time, and have multiple conversations if I so desire. Indeed, I would love it if Blizzard embraced the multiple windows idea throughout their GUI. Put everything in separate windows, possibly tear-able windows with tabs and the like. That way, you can have the ladder over in a window, your chat channels in a window, rankings in another, custom games in another, etc. And as long as the arrangement of windows was saved and restored between games and closing/opening SC2, everything would be perfect.
Again, bolded is your opinion. Which is fine, you're allowed to think that by all means, but I personally think that the iteration isn't quite right. What difference is there really between me having the TL IRC open or jumping into the in-game chat? Probably none, other than the fact that the IRC will have more people in it, won't disappear in between games and in consequence will allow for a more focussed discussion.
Unfortunately I'm not lucky enough to have a 1920x1200 screen due to space limitations on my desk. I'm at 1600x900 though and I still feel like I have more room in the SC1 system because I don't need to clutter my entire screen with 17 conversations and chat windows. Everything works through a single consolidated window. I'm not saying SC2 needs to follow this exactly, but I think it would be nice to at least have a designated space for chat(s).
**edited for quote-tag fail**
|
On January 15 2011 12:29 MOARpylons wrote:
Man this thread is full of complaints.
If its that bad why are you people even playing it?
Man I'm getting pretty tired of these "why are you playing it? posts.
Please, at least try to read a thread. It's not about the game itself.
Starcraft 2, the game is fine. This includes Campaign / Competitive Multiplayer / Custom Games / Map Editor. And they are even improving that. Great stuff.
But we're talking about the interface here. Battlenet 2.0. You know, the way you get to your games.
It's like using a total piece of crap browser to look at content on the web. But you saying "If the browser is so crap, why don't you stop looking at websites".
In my opinion the interface to get to your Campaign / Competitive Multiplayer / Profile is fine. There still could be alot of improvements here and there, but it's nothing big.
The Custom Games part of the interface is in every way total crap.
And I can see that the lack of LAN / Cross Region etc. could be a big miss for some.
I'm guessing most who say it's fine don't even play Custom Games (as much). And if some people like it, I would like to see some arguments about why the system is fine as it is now.
|
Ironic, how there's a call out to see reasons why the system is good and the thread stops. <.<
|
On January 16 2011 23:23 Skee wrote:Here is my proposal: (click to enlarge) XD
Beautiful man
|
On January 17 2011 00:19 DwmC_Foefen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2011 23:23 Skee wrote:Here is my proposal: (click to enlarge) XD WHAT THE SHIIIIIIIIIIT! Nice :p It looks so easy and social and clean. Now we have to watch raynor's mug all the time... That would be really friggin awesome. Send a pic to Blizzard :p That and the custom games-shit changing back to War3 or BW-system.
wow this is scaryly well made, if only blizzard had gone this style who knows maybe one day...
lol at the chat thats awesome
|
On January 15 2011 09:43 MavercK wrote:
because they hired the guy who designed xbox live to design battle.net 2.0
nothing can be done.
unless they fire him and scrap the entire interface.
I totally opt for this.
|
Chat systems need a way to leave chat rooms ingame and to remove private channels from your chat channels permanently
|
Yeah , i can't remove a channel i created lol , it's sits there for 3 days already.
The mockups look good , just ... i would just have a higher resolution , i mean , absolute size , and making buttons a liiitle bit smaller, so could fit in some more menus and features.
I guess that was the resolution your monitor you took for the template , fine ,the system and layout is important , the fine tunings come later.
@somebodywhoquotedmeinthe8thpage
Yeah i was also banned for a , week i guess , same reason proably , i don't know specifics sicne it was more of a surprise , but i think i was rambling a thread about bnet or a post ,it was no big deal since i don't remember it so much , but i might used some caps , idk anyways this was 3 months ago.
|
On January 17 2011 12:16 jshnaidz wrote:
Chat systems need a way to leave chat rooms ingame and to remove private channels from your chat channels permanently
Yeah I created a "Star Battle!" chat channel oblivious of there's actually one already. It just stuck there rubbing the pain and shame into me.
|
On January 16 2011 23:23 Skee wrote:Here is my proposal: (click to enlarge) XD
I honestly cried a little bit when i saw how beautiful it was.
SIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHHH
|
On January 16 2011 23:23 Skee wrote:Here is my proposal: (click to enlarge) XD
If it would look like THIS ; thats would actual solve so much problems ...
Looks super awesome ; maybe someone is good enough to "Mod" the Battle.Net ; i would so much support such a project.
|
So, basically, everyone says the chat system is bad, because it doesnt look like it used to be in bw? I dont care how it looks like, moderation for custom channels is what i miss.
|
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".
|
I hate to agree that the current Custom Game interface is a complete fail. In War3, even though there was a lot of trolling in the game name section, everything was a bit more community friendly. It had nice chat channels, nice 1x1/2x2 games with observers, in which you can just go and have a chat with people during a game. Everything about Bnet 2.0 feels foreign, the SC2 community is in the teamliquid forums, not in the game. Why was it necessary to implement this cross game chat platform!? I don't really see a reason to chat with my WoW friends. Bnet 2.0 is just designed very poorly, with chat channels coming so late after launch, clan system is non-existent and custom games rating is just lame.
|
After playing alot customs in WC3 I just want to cry with Bnet2.0 custom game interface system.
|
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.
|
Chat system is horrible. I try to go to a channel but i end up in instance number 15 with 5 other ppl. wtf is this shit.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
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
QQ
|
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. Show nested quote +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 i believe that blizzard knows what they're doing, they understand the essence of starcraft(they created it and continue to) they know why starcraft is good(warcraft 3 editor could not accept keypress or any sort of fps action, aka sc2 implents these features showing that they follow every aspect of the games community. i dont think i need to mention the years of balance updates for starcraft) they do have a habit of making the best video games ever created, and raking hordes of cash( the only two aspects of their lives) have a little faith. QQ
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?
|
It's funny how BW's bnet still far better than bnet2.0. I still remeber how fun it is chatting and playing custom game on wc3.
|
@ 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.
|
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.
|
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
|
On January 17 2011 23:11 Lon-ami wrote:Show nested quote +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
The link you posted says nothing about 18 hours anywhere. Also, please keep the "/pwned" attitude to yourself.
|
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.
|
I'm not a fan of Bnet 2.0. I'd be a fan if the custom games worked like they did in Brood War and I could change regions. Seriously, it's disgusting that SEA can switch between their server and NA while I'm sat here on the EU server unable to change.
|
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.
|
Battle.net 2.0 is a closed system. That's the problem. Not chat channels, not map publishing, not custom games, not the lack of console commands. They're all a symptom of a closed system. Closed systems stymie how effectively developers can code their game and closed systems stymie any consumer attempts to rectify it. No amount of modifying the current Battle.net 2.0 interface will change that.
|
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.
|
On January 17 2011 21:58 DarQraven wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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 i believe that blizzard knows what they're doing, they understand the essence of starcraft(they created it and continue to) they know why starcraft is good(warcraft 3 editor could not accept keypress or any sort of fps action, aka sc2 implents these features showing that they follow every aspect of the games community. i dont think i need to mention the years of balance updates for starcraft) they do have a habit of making the best video games ever created, and raking hordes of cash( the only two aspects of their lives) have a little faith. QQ 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.
|
For the love of god. Let me invite people to game with their name / identifier WITHOUT having to flist them first.
|
On January 17 2011 23:33 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +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.
They should know better. They made fucking broodwar. How could a company like that possibly be incompetent? So we shrug "incompetence" off as an impossbility.
We'd all love to hear why they apparently don't know or refuse to care about it, directly from them. But Blizzard keeps administering its sedative "It will get better soon.", "It is so awesome that you don't need chat channels.", etc.
Why can't we make Blizzard aware of that huge WHY that is going through our minds every time we see bnet 2.0? What do we need to do for them to acknowledge us?
|
On January 18 2011 00:25 enzym wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 23:33 Jibba wrote: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. What do we need to do for them to acknowledge us?
Stop buying their games.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
Well in my opinion Blizzard does their best to attract more customers. People like to criticise the ladder system, which is in fact quite useless to anyone who is really interested in how their skill relates to the skill of others. But you need to realise that such people are a really small minority. Most of their users don't want that, they want the system to tell them "wow, you're the best player ever!", which is exactly what it was designed to do.
Same thing with the interface. Hardcore PC gamers who want a more complex, detailed interface, are a minority. Most of the gamers these days are used to the console interfaces consisting of three huge buttons, which is exactly what Blizzard tried to achieve with this new Battle.net.
Too many people are jumping into conclusions and are really underestimating how smart people behind Blizzard really are. SC2, as a super-expensive development project, was quite risky. It is not the type of game your average gamer wants to play, and Blizzard, as a company, just could not commit to a hundred million dollar game project just the sake of the hardcore minority. They had to do everything possible to make the game more accessible to the casual player.
What I think they are doing wrong is being overly conservative and protective about everything. The outdated network engine, for example. How many times the players got frustrated because of the lagging observers? And the observers who were running a stream with a couple of thousands of viewers were forced to leave because their internet was misbehaving temporarily. I don't see any reason whatsoever to not have improved this at all since BW.
Why not make the AMM system more open? What exactly is so scary with giving people direct access to the information that they can still access via third-party services if they need to (e.g. sc2ranks)? Why not let people interface SC with their own AMM or ladder implementation, only officially and without resorting to hacks? It's quite easy to see that the official ladder is going nowhere as soon as custom maps become more popular, and people will resort to some really awkward and cumbersome custom ladder implementations.
Why not make the B.Net UI API public? They did that in WoW, and it worked out really well. This way they could provide a minimal implementation of the custom maps or chat interface for those users who didn't care and then the community who actually cared would make whatever enhanced interface they thought was more appropriate as an add-on.
Short version: I think the way Blizzard handled the ladder system and the B.net interface makes sense if you try to see it from their point of view, but I also think they are being very stubborn and short-sighted blocking the community from helping them with the development of better UI or ladder implementations.
|
On January 17 2011 23:48 osten wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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.
On January 17 2011 23:55 mrdx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 21:58 DarQraven wrote:On January 17 2011 21:26 LeSioN wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. 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 i believe that blizzard knows what they're doing, they understand the essence of starcraft(they created it and continue to) they know why starcraft is good(warcraft 3 editor could not accept keypress or any sort of fps action, aka sc2 implents these features showing that they follow every aspect of the games community. i dont think i need to mention the years of balance updates for starcraft) they do have a habit of making the best video games ever created, and raking hordes of cash( the only two aspects of their lives) have a little faith. QQ 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.
That totally deserved to be quoted for truth.
Now, to my personal rant:
It's not only "UI design", it's everything with "design" on it, from story to art.
I'll give you a clear example: story. Why story? because anyone is able to write its won story.
It's terribad. Not only SC2, look at WoW. They've gone worse and worse, I'm a fan of Warcraft lore, and I cry with WoW. Some stuff is nice, but everything else reeks 2 things: clichés and lack of care, clichés when you see everything's a copy or a ripoff from other famous stuff, and lack of care when you see storylines contradict themselves again and again. And no, don't tell me they try their best, I'm in a story forum and any goddamn forum newbie is able to write a better story, even me, who hadn't ever played WoW (boring gameplay, imo).
Same for the UI. Anyone here would be able to make a better design, and we don't see them just because we don't have so many people that programs at high levels.
The main problem here is that videogames aren't for geeks anymore, now everyone, from your grandma to that brainless douchebag that plays Farmville like a drug addict is a potential customer.
Now check numbers. Numbers of geek people, and numbers of crappy people. We geeks are a minority. For god's sake, I heard people saying CoD:MW2 was the best game ever, what the fuck man? it's the worst shit I've ever seen. A campaign of 4 hours, and a ripped off multiplayer, with everything in control of the company, when the title before allowed you to make servers for free and your own maps, which now you have to buy in packs.
Okay, you wanna make cash from those douchebags. No problem. But do it respecting us. Come on, is that hard to program a chat for release? to program clans? don't kid me, I'm a programmer, and I know that when your blue posts say "we're working hard on it" you're just lying and laughing your ass at me.
The main problem at Blizzard, right now, is that they don't care about us. Want proof? we had one of their big guys say "you really want chats?" when half the official forums were whining for them.
To end with this rant (starts to have no sense, fury blurs me xD) the worst thing of Battle.net 0.2 is, no doubt, custom maps. They have completelly killed them, yes, they have. They don't put a search bar on join game, why? because it's hard to program and we need to wait for a patch? because too many buttons make dumbtards get lost? no, because they don't want people to search, that's all. It's like when they forced facebook on us during beta, and when they tried to make everyone's real name appear at the forums.
There's people saying we should stand in their shoes. I do that, and I find myself acting like a stupid kid without brain, forcing sh1t I never wanted over everyone, when they're realizing I'm forcing it over them and they're whining for me to stop forcing it.
This levels of protectionism and lack of care and bullshit forcing will kill the game. BW and W3 lived because they were fun to play. Is SC2 fun to play? BW and W3 lived because of custom maps, too. Is SC2 friendly to mapmakers?
God, I'm full of rage and hate (sorry for the wall of whine, anyway ).
|
On January 18 2011 02:05 Lon-ami wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 17 2011 23:48 osten wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. On January 17 2011 23:55 mrdx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 21:58 DarQraven wrote:On January 17 2011 21:26 LeSioN wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. 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 i believe that blizzard knows what they're doing, they understand the essence of starcraft(they created it and continue to) they know why starcraft is good(warcraft 3 editor could not accept keypress or any sort of fps action, aka sc2 implents these features showing that they follow every aspect of the games community. i dont think i need to mention the years of balance updates for starcraft) they do have a habit of making the best video games ever created, and raking hordes of cash( the only two aspects of their lives) have a little faith. QQ 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. That totally deserved to be quoted for truth. Now, to my personal rant: It's not only "UI design", it's everything with "design" on it, from story to art. I'll give you a clear example: story. Why story? because anyone is able to write its won story. It's terribad. Not only SC2, look at WoW. They've gone worse and worse, I'm a fan of Warcraft lore, and I cry with WoW. Some stuff is nice, but everything else reeks 2 things: clichés and lack of care, clichés when you see everything's a copy or a ripoff from other famous stuff, and lack of care when you see storylines contradict themselves again and again. And no, don't tell me they try their best, I'm in a story forum and any goddamn forum newbie is able to write a better story, even me, who hadn't ever played WoW (boring gameplay, imo). Same for the UI. Anyone here would be able to make a better design, and we don't see them just because we don't have so many people that programs at high levels. The main problem here is that videogames aren't for geeks anymore, now everyone, from your grandma to that brainless douchebag that plays Farmville like a drug addict is a potential customer. Now check numbers. Numbers of geek people, and numbers of crappy people. We geeks are a minority. For god's sake, I heard people saying CoD:MW2 was the best game ever, what the fuck man? it's the worst shit I've ever seen. A campaign of 4 hours, and a ripped off multiplayer, with everything in control of the company, when the title before allowed you to make servers for free and your own maps, which now you have to buy in packs. Okay, you wanna make cash from those douchebags. No problem. But do it respecting us. Come on, is that hard to program a chat for release? to program clans? don't kid me, I'm a programmer, and I know that when your blue posts say "we're working hard on it" you're just lying and laughing your ass at me. The main problem at Blizzard, right now, is that they don't care about us. Want proof? we had one of their big guys say "you really want chats?" when half the official forums were whining for them. To end with this rant (starts to have no sense, fury blurs me xD) the worst thing of Battle.net 0.2 is, no doubt, custom maps. They have completelly killed them, yes, they have. They don't put a search bar on join game, why? because it's hard to program and we need to wait for a patch? because too many buttons make dumbtards get lost? no, because they don't want people to search, that's all. It's like when they forced facebook on us during beta, and when they tried to make everyone's real name appear at the forums. There's people saying we should stand in their shoes. I do that, and I find myself acting like a stupid kid without brain, forcing sh1t I never wanted over everyone, when they're realizing I'm forcing it over them and they're whining for me to stop forcing it. This levels of protectionism and lack of care and bullshit forcing will kill the game. BW and W3 lived because they were fun to play. Is SC2 fun to play? BW and W3 lived because of custom maps, too. Is SC2 friendly to mapmakers? God, I'm full of rage and hate (sorry for the wall of whine, anyway ).
Quoted for absolute truth, and this is what, the fourth consecutive one or something?
Anyways, there's not really much left to be said other than Blizzard really cares just that much more about appealing to the lowest common denominator than the fans that made them great and can make a much better judgement on the quality of their game. Speaking of which, when it comes to developing games or other entertainment media, it's a law of logic, nature and whatever else - focusing on the lowest common denominator as your target demographic hurts everyone but the lowest common denominator. With Starcraft 2, it's been proven. Nobody in their right minds who has the knowledge of at least other Blizzard games would consider Battle.net 0.2 an even passable online system.
As for the This levels of protectionism and lack of care and bullshit forcing will kill the game. part, while the premise is right, the conclusion isn't, as much as I (or anyone else here) would want it to be. Face it. There are simply too many stupid people - or folks who simply don't know better - that will enjoy this shitty system no matter how many shortcomings it has. And by enjoying it and using it, they're encouraging this sort of business practice to continue.
|
I think bnet is fine. I am used to wc3 chat channels but I find these actually better. In wc3 there could be even less people in a channel and whats really the difference? In sc2 the screen is only smaller. There are only 2 things lacking for me which are clans and moderation in the channels.
On custom games the popularity system is indeed a bit weird but on the other hand they helped custom games since everyone can host which is a big improvement on wc3 where you had to open ports etc. Which a lot of people couldn't be assed to do ( me ) or didn't know how to.
And for blizzard ignoring customers, they don't Blizzard cares a lot about their customers and they show it in more than one way. For one when was the last time the fees for WoW raised? exactly never does that sound like a company who doesn't care about their customers?
On top of that there are things you can buy for money like a server transfer or name change but neither of these things have any influence on the gameplay while a lot of companies like Activision ( I know they merged ) charge money for extra maps at CoD.
I think people are overreacting to this all I think, I mean sure it isn't perfect but it aint as bad as some people are implying.
|
Well I've been playing Blizzard games for a long time and I find the SC2 battle.net to be completely "passable", I mean it works, and it does what I want. It could be better, but it still works great. I understand that a lot of people are not happy with the way gaming is changing, becoming more accessible, and becoming easier, which IMO is a large reason why battle.net 2.0 is the way it is now. Personally I am ecstatic that Blizzard was able to make SC2 the way it is in the age of Call of Duty and Halo. Just because people have different priorities with what they want out of a game doesn't mean they are stupid or don't know better...it's just a game. People are not more stupid or ignorant now than they were in the 90's, what has changed is developers and especially Blizzard are catering to a much bigger audience because that is where the money is at.
|
What thing that makes me mad is in WC3 you could see your win percent and games played with each race. I have no idea why they would take that out, something so simple but nice.
|
i can't even join #teamliquid on EU  full..
|
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 got a point , but you know , the whole terminology is wrong , how can they add some new features like easily , if they can't even keep working what they have , you have to have expeirence with games to realize that bnet is just a smiple browser menu , an offline browser which is totally not a browser but a few menus sticked together , it's probably broken code from the beginnning , that'y why all the bugs all the time , the methodology is console-like , the stupid show more button.
SHOW MORE button may be there because they want to minimize lag , when you enter it would refresh the whole list for some time , what does this have the difference if starting game has taken an astronomic 30 seconds , and even now 10 seconds (1.2) , so the list would refresh before those 10 seconds pass , definitely , you really have to have a crap connection , or bnet servers that can't cope with your client request.
SHOW Moore button makes a BIAS and the early modders are hurt , if they want numbers they need to get into the top , nobody will press show more button 30 times to get into the bottom, (new images for this in the main thread post)
It's a whole lot than this , a whole lot , i can't ever type as fast to explain and think about it , i lost my fingers on this today , on official forums , i created this thread about an email i sent to blizzard customer support , and i received an interesting response , one guy in the forum goes all rage at me because he didn't saw that the original messege is the first one that appears in the top of the post , yes , blizzard wanted my info why ? , they didn't bugged me before on this and my accunt was the same for almost a year now.
SO this talk go in other places as well , i just made it what i had in mind:
I wanted to share it here too since i covered some more wider and quite important ideas and aspects.
I won't say anything more , i have my points and are completely civil and my rights , i just mentioned it and that's it , i surely don't want to risk any measures , because , as you can see , battlenet 2.0 fails again and they now have the actual image going around which is severely tarnishing their image , good , now should they finally fire that console noob Greg canessa and start working on a better interface? This is completely truthful information and if they use force against me , it just proves the facts even more. I won't nag them on email anymore , they can see the images i hope , i hope the whole company does. (links in the email). I have no anything against blizzard but this is my own self now , im going to protect my self with my rights no matter how good or cool they are , the email they posted back to me, requesting information , was only an answer filler, and it was a perfect way to mark people who are in their wanted list , propbably with hacks , yes , they know who is experienced with the game is also a potential hacker , okay fine , nobody would hack so much if bnet would be better , so it's not my fault , im not a hacker , i didn't do anything , all i did was analyzing the game , the pride how they hyped , oh "1.2 will be so big and cool" and now what we see , we see even more bugged custom game system , popularity system flawed because of the green bar bug [the gif picture in teamliquid thread linked], they obviously want to shut me up , because i have the knowledge to spread negative words about the whole game , yes i do , but im not evil , i won't do that for no reason. I didn't do anything yet , it was just a thread on teamliquid that jumped 10 pages quickly and also administrators and mods replied with similar opinions that battlenet is still in the same pit as with beta almost one year ago. As you can see my preserved "visions from the past" in the screenshots i taken in EU beta forums , the community asked same questions we're asking ourself today , it wasn't much of a difference , the same ramblings are still going around now what beta testers already asked before. Ofcourse they want to shut me up , i realized and researched about the memory leak , they probably don't have any time to fix it anytime soon , so they just ignore it , i posted emails , threads , error reporter , no sign of them realizing , the memory leak is not very huge but it is affecting , ALT-TAB issue so it takes longer to return into the game longer you run the application under singleplayer , the best way to go around it , before you want to play MP , never play SP , or just restart the application so it clears the memory out , the SC2 application is unable to clear SP usless data out of memory before starting MP , (+ cheap flash bnet code , like a mobile browser meh) this makes the game behave in MP the same as it does in SP , you'll transfer all your "application time" to MP , which could lead up to 3 minutes of waiting to return into the game ( 10-sec to 3 min black screen when maximizing, mouse is visible) , in the end of all this , the game's default return time is above normal of any other game i ever played. SP: takes 10-15 seconds > longer you play the (above 3 hrs) it can take 3 minutes to return from alt tab. MP: Takes 10 seconds , doesn't increase by time apparently, memory leak is not present in MP. Main Menu: Takes 3-5 seconds normally , fresh start. This is alt-tab-IN ; whereas alt tab OUT(of the game) , is always instant. (thank god for something) Furthermore , the Alt-TAB issue is also , (did i mentioned this already , man this is a wall of text im fixing here and there and i hope i don't lose my self) ... makes false disconnect screens , when a user goes into windows ,SC2 engine becomes unstable and stalls and laggs the game , it also makes in most cases, the disconnect window , it doesn't matter the PC performance , doesn't matter on anything at all , it's a huge bug , the users usually are out one minute and they return , but it takes 10-15 seconds normally for MP to get into the game , usually people are back in 90 seconds or 2 minutes , but what they find is a "You have been dropped" , this might fix some of those huge Dropped complaints but those casuals on the official forums don't explain what were they doing , some might even be noobs with crap settings /network card / routers / ISP , stupid wireless ... whatever. Blizzard should really read and listen what people say .. , oh oh wait ... , it's not my fault you sold your company to vivendi in the first place so ... if activision is pressuring blizzard , then , well , sorry , but this is the same thingas IW clusterfick. (whoh i hope not) continuing .. in the teamliquid thread is clearly stated , (i stated that !) if blizzard would admit they inability to fix engine bugs fast , if blizzard admitted their BNET Lead Project manager is inexperienced with PC games and anything that's PC , if blizzard admitted they're whatever reason for not having bugs forums in EU , if blizzard admitted they have a lack of staff in the community managers department and posters, if blizzard admitted that there is a serious defect in the [this was missing previsouly , fixed] battlnet architecture how it interacts with the game , or whatever reason for the inability to make proper code to run good to survive more than one patch. The community would treat the company more fairl and also loyal , since they offered transparency via admitting and thus having a good enough reason and explanation , but the reasons they have now are slim to none , it's just ramblings about one guy who happens to be the only console guy in the whole company , what if , blizzard CEO lost the control over who is employed on different areas , what if this is the problem , and KOTICK or whoever is again messing around. That's unknown , but it surely doesn't work and i think blizzard wouldn't let this happen , i think this was forced somehow , hopes that this is not the blizzard we always had. If blizzard just said that , ofcourse not , causal people must be blindfolded to buy our products and our freaking over the top paid services for a programmer to make a cheap click to transfer a profile , oh yeah , that costs 15 $. In the end , i still think Activision is pressuring blizzard , what else should i think of , this makes sense , and they can't offer response or have the interaction with customers they had before. On the teamliquid thread , you can also see that even if blizzard or activision want's to destroy history , i kept it preserved , you can see in a couple of shots , how Xordiah was behaving in EU BETA forums ~march-june 2010. They suppresed anything opposing them , without the EU revolt of the beta attendees , we probably wouldn't have chat channels today(in whatever form(version) they are is another question.) Lucky for blizzard, i won't hype this up anywhere else (or for my own good) , im not evil , but we can all agree how much chances PC community gives blizzard , how much things we look by , how much things we ignore just to play the game , if blizzard wouldn't have the great games to justify , then it would be already dead. Blizzard passes the tests of so many PC eyes , that you can't image here , you first guys in this community , but this is getting severe and this fails stack up , the game cannot longer justify the minuses , the game is great no doubt about it , i would wite an essay to thank the devs and everything yeah but im not that of a "praise whore" im not a fanboy who sees only good and overpraises stuff , the things that are good aren't important these kind of speeches , cirtical assesment is always targeting the bad and this is giving you the information how to IMPROVE the bad , the things that are already good don't need to be mentioned of course. I just want to set clear facts that blizzard should act now , and do something about bettlnet , the "focal point" is approaching fast , after the "focal point" everything will change around , the game's positive things would be irrevalant , the service will be so bugged that the greateness of the core game will no longer justify the waste and annoyances spend on the service , no matter how good the game is , yeah , this is clear and square , no matter how great the campain or the animations or the easter eggs are , if all other things that keep the game running aren't clear than the good things have no place no credit no revalancy. The engine is bugged , the game is a resource hog , the ALT TAB issue is killing online guys with "DROPPED" (explained earlier) , the custom game system is flawed , the whole battlenet is not 2.0 , it's 0.2. The game is like a PC , if some components don't work it doesn't matter how good all other's are , YOU HAVE THE BOTTLNECK , the bnet is bottlnecking the other things in SC2 , it doesn't MATTER how good everything else is if the suckness of the bad component is so bad it prevails and effecively causes other to become USELESS. I've had it enough with the alt tab isssue , my patience has gone, i don't have 100 years in my life to devote 1/3 of that for the stupid 3 minute black screen in alt tab , give me a break. They're trying. They're trying , oh yeah they probably are , but if they admitted to the PC community they are trying but they missed and failed and they're still trying , if they said that , community would treat them differently , you don't want to make speculation material for your customers , they'll do this what im doing now , posting threads like this , making votes , promoting negative image , well , it's not my fault , it's my duty to do , that's who i am , im a loyal fan , im not a sheep , im in gaming for over 10 years , and i know the industry , and i don't give a damn about companies and their profits and their interests , i want good games and that's what im here for in this forum or ... well , im one of rare who even posts here , all the hardcores never post on official forums where all different age and inteligence groups collide , and that's entertainment we all seek in free time , am the user of this entertainment and i want it to be good , and what is the most what makes me go rage is that , the game's freaking good , they just miss the point in stupid places , in EASIEST PLACES , bnet , HOW HARD IS TO MAKE A FREAKING INTERFACE , i know that because im inside the industry , i know it's not hard to make a search function , i know many things about that , that's the main drive for these kind of posts , because it has to do with stupid and cheap decisions of managing priority in the company , it's not something that is a big deal , it's NOT a big deal , it's just a simple decision they have to make , of WOW is running for 5 yeears and it's clean now , why the flying sakes the developers and forum posters are devoted to the fucking WOW , if you have CRITICAL STATUS IN STARCRAFT 2 , that's right , we got them , their WOW expansion is more important than SC2 with ciritical times and people raging and everythhing , that's right folks , and we would be a lot more patient and maybe even looked them throught the fingers (cut them slack , whatever the phrase) IF BLIZZARD WOULD ADMIT THEIR DECISIONS WERE WRONG AND THEY DID TRANSFER PEOPLE TO CATACLYSM INSTEAD OF FIXING SC2 BNET 2.0. ADMIT IT BLIZZARD FOR THE PEOPLE TO SEE TRUTH - YES IT DOESN'T WORK GOOD ON MARKETING BUT YOU'LL AT LEAST KEEP THE FANS YOU ALREADY HAVE. Freaking gluttony of more customers. Just look Company of Heroes and Relic Entertainment , people happy , company honest , Multiplayer interface(no fancy names) for COH 10-times better than Bnet 2.0. http://wow.joystiq.com/2009/03/25/blizzard-vs-relic-entertainment-in-the-escapists-march-mayhem/http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=90261Note: Escapist links have forbidden error , can't find results, does somebody recall ? I think i catched this years back i think i do have a loose memory but i forgot the outcome at all. According to the thread on the teamliquid forums , Relic was winning over BLizzard , just look the commnets, it is clear that activision is taking over blizzard as people suspect is more and more , go away kotick , just go away for good sakes don't ruin another developer. Can't find escapist results of the showdown , and also , indications were that Relic was ahead, yeah , im late to the party , i was actually a COD (other FPS) guy from 2005 to 2009 , and im coming back to RTS as main games now. Why blizzard just doesn't admit they're a creative company , and not a technological one , would make us a little bit more paitence. Honest admittions that companies provide my affect their marketing and hunger for more customers but it makes the already fans ... stay fans or at least less angry. You have to admit blizzard , or people will hate bnet 2.0 for good , that might spark a chain reaction of breakdowns and people will just stop caring. If that's true though , that blizzard is just fighting for control every day there , we might keep our mouth shut seems like they're doing anything they can and they can't do more because they're a public company and they can be fired if they speak or respond to consumers ... but i don't feel like this was true , it's too good to be true , it makes too much sense to be true , just get it out of your mind , just get ah ... just remember , what activision says (bobby kotick is levels above blizzard ceo, vivendi you suck) , blizzard does , Look the funny side , Vivendi owned Blizzard , Vivendi Games which was only a holding company for Blizzard , merged with Activision , but Vivendi is the majority sakeholder , 52%-54% but Vivendi , let the deal through , knowing that the deal was , that new formed ActivisionBlizzard holding company would be the parent to Vivendi Games , and thus Activision is parent to Blizzard entertainment even if Vivendi owns the majority of them and Blizzard is stated to be independent , it clearly isn't. Yes , it is right , as it seems , But the flaw is , that activision guys were taken for the ActivisionBlizzard holding company , there is no neutrals in the holding company , the biggest boss is the activision boss , and Blizzard CEO has the power of doing his way , but he's being pressured by kotick probably on stuff, like ourageous paid serivces in WOW support, stupid console fourms for noobs, whatever i can think of. It's just athought , nobody knows what's going on for sure. Blizzard Ceo also has a position in the holding company too along with blizzard subsidary , but he's not in the top , it's the kotick who is , and that guy effectively has ability to affect both subcompanies.
I'll update the main thread post with some more pics to expose the other bugs , later when i take time to do it.
@@ to much to quote:
1# Yeah i agree on the fact that blizzard listens silently ,but they never respond , they said on blizzcon that they have a dedicated internet research team that traces and finds posts and people on other forums and what are they talking about so we ofcourse should get heard , but you know , it's up to the boss if he takes that serious , and stupid feeding WOW while SC2 is in grave need for a mediiiiiic!
2# Yeah i also agree with others about UI and modability and oh , too much ,
3# Yeah i know about MW2 crap and the stupid noobs thinking it's the best, that's a WHOLE other clustefuck , i would be writting another wall like this if id go for Infinity Ward isse ,we're all experienced here so we should know about that , ofcourse , nobody plays cod on PC anymore (EU , not even here) , i know a lot more and i do understand this whole industry , i hope i can just help , that's my point ,all i want is help preserve great communities , and hardcore commnities , noobs and casual communities never preserve them self, because there's nothing special about it, a casual game is not a work of art. I view games as a work of art and business should come second.
I would have a comment on the american market , hehe , that PC didn't died in europe and it's far from that , ton of hardcore nintendo fans here too (first parties that probably pwn most PC games too) that in america (casual) gamers act like a herd , if someone says "xbox is cool " then whole country jumps on it , if someone says kinect is cool , the whole country jumps on it , people seem to buy everything and believe everything and then it just fades off and it's a circle because something else pops up - this is a whole another topic, it's the marketing and that's a really good weapon for any company , they can't scew over other's like they can in US. unfortunately , but i only speak the truth , this is about casuals , no offense against fellows
On January 17 2011 23:55 mrdx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 21:58 DarQraven wrote: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. 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 i believe that blizzard knows what they're doing, they understand the essence of starcraft(they created it and continue to) they know why starcraft is good(warcraft 3 editor could not accept keypress or any sort of fps action, aka sc2 implents these features showing that they follow every aspect of the games community. i dont think i need to mention the years of balance updates for starcraft) they do have a habit of making the best video games ever created, and raking hordes of cash( the only two aspects of their lives) have a little faith. QQ 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.
Yeah , just as we're suspecting , and this is quite funny how i written and got same thought about it before checking this thread today. SO i think this is what it's called , community common sense , i should say , we should stop arguing about "how long it takes to code that or this" a that a topic for it self but it makes sense a bit , you know , we now already know for sure they are better than this , they are able to fix memory leaks and such , it's just a proritization , and for them it reached certain level of quality so they don't need to be alert. They're having a great time with cataclysm as we speak.
The nature how they do patches is werid , they already knew 1.2 will be the patch which adds mouse tracking (from blizzcon) so come on , i suspect some weird technologcial shortucts here , they did feature patches before , now i got them , they have to be using a technique like this , but when bugs and balance issues have to be fixed , they fastly issue out some patches to fix is:
Now look this is a FREAKING huge thing in my mind , i can't for cry sakes explains so hard my fingers are toast but i will try , it all adds up , it all adds up , i got it yes i did:
I think it's like this: they're developing the big core patches before with older builds and sources , right , okay , now , for example they already have these betas and betas and alphas with various devs , now look , this is it , the patches always changes something to be weirder , look this is like completely out of my mind , i noticed an older feel with 1.2 , it's a weird feel , like you degraded the system with some more features but it's using an older piece os something ..example , it was always a feel like this with huge patches , it's like new features , but you have history in mirror , it's like going BACK to some other patch before , and what they did normally thorughout patches , when a current bug was fixed the patrch was made with the latest build from (ofcourse) the PC running the latest stuff , i think, anyways it updated right and was working , now these big patches have this distinct feel that they've been taken from some old outdate "beta patch" build and they just glued the new patch together , i don't know if it's in performance , very small UI , menu , details stuff , but ofcourse the more visible bugs and breaks, or what but feels kind of broken , i am a modder and mapper and i have experience , so i feel something's werid is going , it's like DLC they do it before but they have timeframes when they're going to release it. It's a clusterfuck , some many teams working on it , and they go round round to wow an sc2 and you got a perfect scenatio for a sloppy job and stuff just doesn't work man, patches aren't patches really , they'll just throw and glue stuff until they're done.
It feels like there is a: (example probability)
Bnet Patching team (realtime patching of bnet service , doesn't require download, mainly keeps running the servers ;; and watching with satellites if a scrubwoman trips over the cables in any of the foreign blizzard's offices.)
Feature Patching team (relies on it's builds and betas they make over time , uses outdated sc2 builds because it's been developing for long time, it's probably some guy's computer in the corner of the company damn)
Realtime Patching team (small patches that fix bugs and don't have an outdated feel., this team has a lot of work fixing after the big patches)
This system , they can't do anything we say now , the Feature Patching team is behind , they have a schedule , and they'll add our stuff later , we just have to wait. Why don't split the teams or make another one , so one would work on features that blizzard intends to add anyhow , and the other team which would release weekly hotfixes in virtually realtime (smaller stuff that's only a matter of changing a few lines of code and params ex bugfixing)
Currently the Realtime team is overloaded with bugs that big patches produce , so how can they fix previous bugs and communitiy reported bugs if a new big patch brings back same and new bugs all the time , you won't believe it , this is exactly what happened in beta , new patches which were featurized , brought back problems with the stability of the engine, same old problem again , this repeated up to 3 times , until patch 13 that pretty much broken the whole game , there were ~15 patches in beta i recall afaik.
You don't even know that SC2 Beta was so unstable that it caused BSODs or regular basis , when exiting application or ALT-TAB , yeah alt tab was even more bugged.
EDITNOTE: There might be some mistakes with context , due to me jumping around when writting and i forgot to finish something (you can become lost in this wall) , notify if you catch some.
EDIT: Found unfinished text in "if blizzard admitted" in the quote section. The ending was missing. Fixed.
|
I don't know about the wall of china but Stew, yours totally can be seen from the moon
But I still agree with you.
|
I think its fine when they implenment clan support.
The chat channels are awesome, i saw guys like MorroW and Haypro on teamliquid EU (and they actually talked to us), this other channel has a King of the Hill Tourney going on the whole day, and ppl can find practice partners in their skill range. Overall they improved bnet so much imo.
And I didnt got spammed to buy anything yet.
You guys exegerrate way so much, stop QQ and be happy for what weve got.
|
Well.... It's Blizzard's fault, sure, but not the employees. A corporation has no soul and stuggles after greed. Great companies like "old blizzard" do things for fun and service, they keep the greed to a minimum. Suddenly they decide "no, that is not viable on todays market" "we will be eaten" and assimilates activision and starts pumping in big channels of pure greed through every aspect of the company. We should be glad that the game itself is somewhat intact. Really. How greedy can you get. Please stay small and good instead of 100 million wow subscriber large and extremely unhealthily greedy. Bleh it's too late..
|
Blizzard has to stop following suits of the stupid gaming industry, it doesn't matter what facebook game releases , it doesn't mater what EA or whoever does with a game , you should always continue the work you do best and don't look for unneded alternatives , they have a wrong view of the market , any company does , but i think blizzard has more idea than any other company still , other companies do not know the ways of how communities behave and how stuff affects them , a business model will never work if it's made up of some business people who never played games.
|
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/starcraftiiheartoftheswarm/news.html?sid=6281113&mode=news
This however is a funny read , not official from blizzard , but it's only greg that talked , i should say that's far fetched he goes on to say , i don't take it as potent , he just think's he knows good and goes on to explan some stuff about oh facebook and xbox games, it's another typical example of how industry noobs take one of the popular entertainment journalist site and ramble about their long too late findings.
He rambles about how it's hard to do that and do this and bla blah blak , sir , just take a look on company of heroes and bnet 1.0.
He explains stuff he wasn't part of , he only worked for Xbox live , and he goes to imply that PSN and Steam and Facebook fall in the same bucket , come on.
Then he goes to say how hard is to make "for instance that you won't receive a popup while you're in a tournament , it's something that required a lot of extra work and effort" - I honestly laughed at this one , it's wasnt just a silent lol.
Am i being too critical or to agressive with my style of explaining? ,well i do keep it in levels but some anger you can expect because that's natural for any unsatisfied customer , it just might look too much i have this accent im not english and well , i ususally write more mean than i want or even realize, excuse me.
|
On January 18 2011 20:01 Inspectah wrote:
I think its fine when they implenment clan support.
The chat channels are awesome, i saw guys like MorroW and Haypro on teamliquid EU (and they actually talked to us), this other channel has a King of the Hill Tourney going on the whole day, and ppl can find practice partners in their skill range. Overall they improved bnet so much imo.
And I didnt got spammed to buy anything yet.
You guys exegerrate way so much, stop QQ and be happy for what weve got.
It's pretty bold (if not overly arrogant) to dismiss valid criticism as "QQ". And many people here provide just that. Blizzard handing us flawed chat channels doesn't mean we have reason to be happy with the current state of the game. It's the first issue on a long list of neccessary improvements.
Some folks may exaggerate, that's true, but the majority claiming "b.net 2.0 sucks!" happens because it's true.
|
On January 18 2011 01:37 Random() wrote:Why not make the B.Net UI API public? They did that in WoW, and it worked out really well. This way they could provide a minimal implementation of the custom maps or chat interface for those users who didn't care and then the community who actually cared would make whatever enhanced interface they thought was more appropriate as an add-on.
that is an absolutely fucking fantastic idea. i LOVED modding my UI in WoW, making it as efficient and aesthetically pleasing as possible. being able to mod the sc2 UI would be killer.
|
The reason why people mentioned consoles is because BNET 2.0 really resembles a console interface. I mentioned this before, but the cross game chat is a clear example of that. PC users don't need cross game chat, skype easily fixes that. Console games don't have chat rooms, because typing is impossible with a gamepad. BNET 2.0 also didn't have chat channels. Clan support is also crucial for the community, but Blizz haven't said anything about it yet. Also, why not allow experienced 1x1 or 2x2 players get an additional in-game character, that they can use for practice? Asking professional players to buy multiple copies of the game is an insult, considering that they are one the main drivers of SC2's success in e-sports. I still don't know how to ignore a random dude that starts flaming or raging over the chat. The list goes on, but the overall idea is that the people designing BNET 2.0 have no idea what the community needs. They feel everyone should feel special, when they are rank 1 in some crappy division, not aware of how far from the top tier they actually are. The whole user friendly mentality is just sickening. Good players should be rewarded, bad players should be encouraged to get better by looking at the top, not comforting them with false rankings.Another thing, how often did you guys used the Facebook integration? Was it a worthy feature, or it could've been easily removed for the sake of a more functional chat? Cross game chat? The bottom line is BNET 2.0 is great for anything BUT Starcraft 2. I really hope the next expansion makes a huge U-turn for the best, right now this is not acceptable. Don't say SC2 is still a young game, because Blizz have had more than a decade of experience in online gaming.
|
i was about to whine about bnet 0.2 here but i see you guys are so much better than me doing that
@Stewox - great read i wish there were more people devoted to the community like you
|
The problem with you guys arguying is that you mix in logical and sound complains (the memory leak issue for instance), with weird calamity claims or conspiration activision theories. You can't be taken seriously when you just bring those kind of arguments to the table and I'm not sure Blizzard or anyone involved with the game would take those post with the care needed.
Let me just tell you guys of how it works in those kind of industries.
Blizzard has a small set of devs dedicated to Sc2, they have to divide their time between new features, bug fixing, balance editing,... Of course the devs don't make those decisions. The project leader/ lead designer make the priority decisions. No dev comes to work in the morning telling himself. Hey I'll fix that bug now and after lunch I'll implement chat system. BAM.
For bug fixes it goes that way:
a) Analyse the bug reports (they have a QA team dedicated to this). Sort the bugs, check with the dev team if it's already fixed, known, planned. < It already takes time. On Wow it's quite fast because the Q&A team and the dev team are apparently very stable and work very well with each other.
b) In case of a new bug verify the bug / replay it / test it on their machines. It can get tricky here. Bugs are not always well documented and in case of technical bugs can sometimes appear once out of a few iterations. < It takes even more time. Depending on the bug it can take very long, and if they can't find it soon, they might drop the bug or postpone the analysis in order to do more urgent things/ easier things.
c) wow they verified it. They need to get the dev team to understand where the bug comes from in the code. Sometimes dev "A" will have to check code from dev "B" to understand it. And of course they have to understand. Not that easy. In case of memory leaks for instance, it can come from a lot of factors. It can come from legit errors in the code, but can also come from 3rd party issues (graphic card drivers, directx, a combination of multiple issues,...). They have to identify that precisely to define a workaround. < It's the hardest part probably. Especially if you have multiple reports of "memory leaks" without providing info on the hosting system.
d) Oh boy fix it. But how? The time to fix will be identified. The bug fix prioritised and then they'll put it on the schedule. Usually the bugs are qualified as such :
- critical mystake (BSOD,...)
- renders the game/critical function unplayable
- occasional bug / quality of life bug (playable, but annoying)
- Would be nice if we fixed that sometime. (translation issue, ...)
Of course lowest priority will take a lot of time because they have other things to do.
e) testing!
Did my fix introduce new bugs?
Did my fix introduce performance issues? Client side? Server side?
Is the bug really fixed?
f) package it and schedule it for deployment.
6 steps and I probably forgot some more. All this take a lot of resources.
To design a new function they also need to have the design team/ community team/ marketing ... have a shot at specifications.
All this process and work, involves a lot of human interactions. So you WILL have mystakes. You WILL have some shitty stuff going out because dev "C" was lazy, dumped, demotivated (A and B are nice guys).
Because of all this a lot of companies choose not to listen to their player base at all. Most of them actually. Blizzard actually tries to some extant to implement stuff that the players want. It's not that easy, so give them some slack.
Another thing: of course they sell sc2 to make money. Welcome to real life, they aren't 3 guys coding in their garage a tetris... Besides what I don't get is that you guys didn't pay more for this additional feature, they didn't cheat you out of it. If it needs more stuff, provide them with ideas, or specifics. Going all hate/whine about they didn't make it perfect the first time those greedy bastards, is disrespectful for their work regardless if you're right or wrong.
tl;dr : chill guys
|
Scrap the custome game interface , its killing custome games
|
On January 18 2011 21:53 Inex wrote:
The reason why people mentioned consoles is because BNET 2.0 really resembles a console interface. I mentioned this before, but the cross game chat is a clear example of that. PC users don't need cross game chat, skype easily fixes that. Console games don't have chat rooms, because typing is impossible with a gamepad. BNET 2.0 also didn't have chat channels. Clan support is also crucial for the community, but Blizz haven't said anything about it yet. Also, why not allow experienced 1x1 or 2x2 players get an additional in-game character, that they can use for practice? Asking professional players to buy multiple copies of the game is an insult, considering that they are one the main drivers of SC2's success in e-sports. I still don't know how to ignore a random dude that starts flaming or raging over the chat. The list goes on, but the overall idea is that the people designing BNET 2.0 have no idea what the community needs. They feel everyone should feel special, when they are rank 1 in some crappy division, not aware of how far from the top tier they actually are. The whole user friendly mentality is just sickening. Good players should be rewarded, bad players should be encouraged to get better by looking at the top, not comforting them with false rankings.Another thing, how often did you guys used the Facebook integration? Was it a worthy feature, or it could've been easily removed for the sake of a more functional chat? Cross game chat? The bottom line is BNET 2.0 is great for anything BUT Starcraft 2. I really hope the next expansion makes a huge U-turn for the best, right now this is not acceptable. Don't say SC2 is still a young game, because Blizz have had more than a decade of experience in online gaming.
Even though I wrote it in a very cynical way I don't think it's all because of the "xbox live"-guy. The mentality just screams "we overslept web 2.0 hype and now overcompensate where we shouldn't because we dont really understand it". Especially the facebook integration and the cross-game messaging system is proof of that.
But these are good feature for post-release patches. Noone would have said a thing if they gave us these features in a later patch. Some would use it, some would ignore it, fine. But the mentality to prioritize these features over certain core features is confusing to me.
But let's play with it for a second, everything pre chat patch here:
1. You are a casual gamer, almost no experience with action-rts
2. You play the singleplayer then move over to multiplayer
3. You play placement matches, land in bronze
4. You play a few games, hey you make a friend, achievement yes
5. It gets too hard, your 1 friend cant help you he's in bronze as well after all
6. Play some more, wade through the slideshow of a menu to check your stats / achievements
7. You play a few UMS games (no promotion that something like this exists)
"Oukey" you say to yourself. "I've done that, that was fun" you think to yourself. And now you're back to the Battle.net Interface. And you quickly realize..."I'm alone here". Where is everybody?
An inherent flaw of the system if you ask me. I just like to point this out because Blizzard took the facebook way of social interaction but then somehow it never occurred to them that FB works because you know someone, that someone knows someone you know as well from school, and so forth. While here if you're not so lucky to know about Teamliquid or have friends that like to play SC2 you basically are stuck in this interface that completely prevents the free spirit of activities driven by micro communities. And if you can't grasp the importance of such activities, think about where you are! Teamliquid. Think about the random conversations you had in WoW. Think about the little fellowships you formed or the massiv guilds you joined.
And, for those of you who where not fortune enough to undergo the very early days of Starcraft, this happend there instantly. Everyone, and I mean everyone was in the same pool. Clans, UMS, Tournaments everything formed through the power of, albeit anonymous, but still social interactions. So it all comes down to these activities that all surround this games. Sometimes the connection is a bit loose but still, you are there, together playing the game. The incentive is there.
And that is where everything comes together. That is why chat channels, watching replays online together, clan support, promoting UMS, personal statistics, a good custom game interface, custom tournaments and just everything that encourages these activities that walk with the game is so damn important. They might think "achievements!" but this is not WoW. These sidequests are just that, sidequests.
And that is the reason why people are disappointed in Blizzard's Battlenet 2.0. Because Blizzard has most of these things in their previous games! Now you tell me where the 2.0 part kicks in.
|
On January 19 2011 00:08 Bellygareth wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The problem with you guys arguying is that you mix in logical and sound complains (the memory leak issue for instance), with weird calamity claims or conspiration activision theories. You can't be taken seriously when you just bring those kind of arguments to the table and I'm not sure Blizzard or anyone involved with the game would take those post with the care needed. Let me just tell you guys of how it works in those kind of industries. Blizzard has a small set of devs dedicated to Sc2, they have to divide their time between new features, bug fixing, balance editing,... Of course the devs don't make those decisions. The project leader/ lead designer make the priority decisions. No dev comes to work in the morning telling himself. Hey I'll fix that bug now and after lunch I'll implement chat system. BAM. For bug fixes it goes that way: a) Analyse the bug reports (they have a QA team dedicated to this). Sort the bugs, check with the dev team if it's already fixed, known, planned. < It already takes time. On Wow it's quite fast because the Q&A team and the dev team are apparently very stable and work very well with each other. b) In case of a new bug verify the bug / replay it / test it on their machines. It can get tricky here. Bugs are not always well documented and in case of technical bugs can sometimes appear once out of a few iterations. < It takes even more time. Depending on the bug it can take very long, and if they can't find it soon, they might drop the bug or postpone the analysis in order to do more urgent things/ easier things. c) wow they verified it. They need to get the dev team to understand where the bug comes from in the code. Sometimes dev "A" will have to check code from dev "B" to understand it. And of course they have to understand. Not that easy. In case of memory leaks for instance, it can come from a lot of factors. It can come from legit errors in the code, but can also come from 3rd party issues (graphic card drivers, directx, a combination of multiple issues,...). They have to identify that precisely to define a workaround. < It's the hardest part probably. Especially if you have multiple reports of "memory leaks" without providing info on the hosting system. d) Oh boy fix it. But how? The time to fix will be identified. The bug fix prioritised and then they'll put it on the schedule. Usually the bugs are qualified as such : - critical mystake (BSOD,...) - renders the game/critical function unplayable - occasional bug / quality of life bug (playable, but annoying) - Would be nice if we fixed that sometime. (translation issue, ...) Of course lowest priority will take a lot of time because they have other things to do. e) testing! Did my fix introduce new bugs? Did my fix introduce performance issues? Client side? Server side? Is the bug really fixed? f) package it and schedule it for deployment. 6 steps and I probably forgot some more. All this take a lot of resources. To design a new function they also need to have the design team/ community team/ marketing ... have a shot at specifications. All this process and work, involves a lot of human interactions. So you WILL have mystakes. You WILL have some shitty stuff going out because dev "C" was lazy, dumped, demotivated (A and B are nice guys). Because of all this a lot of companies choose not to listen to their player base at all. Most of them actually. Blizzard actually tries to some extant to implement stuff that the players want. It's not that easy, so give them some slack. Another thing: of course they sell sc2 to make money. Welcome to real life, they aren't 3 guys coding in their garage a tetris... Besides what I don't get is that you guys didn't pay more for this additional feature, they didn't cheat you out of it. If it needs more stuff, provide them with ideas, or specifics. Going all hate/whine about they didn't make it perfect the first time those greedy bastards, is disrespectful for their work regardless if you're right or wrong. tl;dr : chill guys
The problem, and I'll think most will agree here, is that Blizzard's standards have dropped a fair height since War3 (Arguably some time in their WoW history, frankly, I'd guess it really has some - or a lot of - things to do with the Activision merger), both in writing, which is oh-so apparent in everything recent they've done, with no exception: from the way they fucked up Arthas to the horrible cheesiness of the Diablo 3 class trailers to the way Starcraft 2's story just plain sucked on every aspect compared to their previous work; and other things, such as interface and, as has been pointed out, plain simple coding. Now, what throws more fuel into the fire is their outright lies prior to the Starcraft 2 launch, the failure to admit any mistakes whatsoever afterwards and the general extremely slow pace in which they address problems. If it takes half a year for a design team of 50 to code a simple chat room system that's not even all that great and to reduce an integer from 30 to 5, something is terribly wrong.
|
On January 19 2011 00:08 Bellygareth wrote:The problem with you guys arguying is that you mix in logical and sound complains (the memory leak issue for instance), with weird calamity claims or conspiration activision theories. You can't be taken seriously when you just bring those kind of arguments to the table and I'm not sure Blizzard or anyone involved with the game would take those post with the care needed. Let me just tell you guys of how it works in those kind of industries. Blizzard has a small set of devs dedicated to Sc2, they have to divide their time between new features, bug fixing, balance editing,... Of course the devs don't make those decisions. The project leader/ lead designer make the priority decisions. No dev comes to work in the morning telling himself. Hey I'll fix that bug now and after lunch I'll implement chat system. BAM. For bug fixes it goes that way: a) Analyse the bug reports (they have a QA team dedicated to this). Sort the bugs, check with the dev team if it's already fixed, known, planned. < It already takes time. On Wow it's quite fast because the Q&A team and the dev team are apparently very stable and work very well with each other. b) In case of a new bug verify the bug / replay it / test it on their machines. It can get tricky here. Bugs are not always well documented and in case of technical bugs can sometimes appear once out of a few iterations. < It takes even more time. Depending on the bug it can take very long, and if they can't find it soon, they might drop the bug or postpone the analysis in order to do more urgent things/ easier things. c) wow they verified it. They need to get the dev team to understand where the bug comes from in the code. Sometimes dev "A" will have to check code from dev "B" to understand it. And of course they have to understand. Not that easy. In case of memory leaks for instance, it can come from a lot of factors. It can come from legit errors in the code, but can also come from 3rd party issues (graphic card drivers, directx, a combination of multiple issues,...). They have to identify that precisely to define a workaround. < It's the hardest part probably. Especially if you have multiple reports of "memory leaks" without providing info on the hosting system. d) Oh boy fix it. But how? The time to fix will be identified. The bug fix prioritised and then they'll put it on the schedule. Usually the bugs are qualified as such : - critical mystake (BSOD,...) - renders the game/critical function unplayable - occasional bug / quality of life bug (playable, but annoying) - Would be nice if we fixed that sometime. (translation issue, ...) Of course lowest priority will take a lot of time because they have other things to do. e) testing! Did my fix introduce new bugs? Did my fix introduce performance issues? Client side? Server side? Is the bug really fixed? f) package it and schedule it for deployment. 6 steps and I probably forgot some more. All this take a lot of resources. To design a new function they also need to have the design team/ community team/ marketing ... have a shot at specifications. All this process and work, involves a lot of human interactions. So you WILL have mystakes. You WILL have some shitty stuff going out because dev "C" was lazy, dumped, demotivated (A and B are nice guys). Because of all this a lot of companies choose not to listen to their player base at all. Most of them actually. Blizzard actually tries to some extant to implement stuff that the players want. It's not that easy, so give them some slack. Another thing: of course they sell sc2 to make money. Welcome to real life, they aren't 3 guys coding in their garage a tetris... Besides what I don't get is that you guys didn't pay more for this additional feature, they didn't cheat you out of it. If it needs more stuff, provide them with ideas, or specifics. Going all hate/whine about they didn't make it perfect the first time those greedy bastards, is disrespectful for their work regardless if you're right or wrong. tl;dr : chill guys
That's bug fixing. Shitty interface design is not a bug, it's just that - shitty design. Missing features aren't bugs either - they're features they couldn't be bothered to add to the product.
All of that could have been avoided if they had had the proper design goals in the first place.
|
On January 19 2011 01:34 ciortas1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 00:08 Bellygareth wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The problem with you guys arguying is that you mix in logical and sound complains (the memory leak issue for instance), with weird calamity claims or conspiration activision theories. You can't be taken seriously when you just bring those kind of arguments to the table and I'm not sure Blizzard or anyone involved with the game would take those post with the care needed. Let me just tell you guys of how it works in those kind of industries. Blizzard has a small set of devs dedicated to Sc2, they have to divide their time between new features, bug fixing, balance editing,... Of course the devs don't make those decisions. The project leader/ lead designer make the priority decisions. No dev comes to work in the morning telling himself. Hey I'll fix that bug now and after lunch I'll implement chat system. BAM. For bug fixes it goes that way: a) Analyse the bug reports (they have a QA team dedicated to this). Sort the bugs, check with the dev team if it's already fixed, known, planned. < It already takes time. On Wow it's quite fast because the Q&A team and the dev team are apparently very stable and work very well with each other. b) In case of a new bug verify the bug / replay it / test it on their machines. It can get tricky here. Bugs are not always well documented and in case of technical bugs can sometimes appear once out of a few iterations. < It takes even more time. Depending on the bug it can take very long, and if they can't find it soon, they might drop the bug or postpone the analysis in order to do more urgent things/ easier things. c) wow they verified it. They need to get the dev team to understand where the bug comes from in the code. Sometimes dev "A" will have to check code from dev "B" to understand it. And of course they have to understand. Not that easy. In case of memory leaks for instance, it can come from a lot of factors. It can come from legit errors in the code, but can also come from 3rd party issues (graphic card drivers, directx, a combination of multiple issues,...). They have to identify that precisely to define a workaround. < It's the hardest part probably. Especially if you have multiple reports of "memory leaks" without providing info on the hosting system. d) Oh boy fix it. But how? The time to fix will be identified. The bug fix prioritised and then they'll put it on the schedule. Usually the bugs are qualified as such : - critical mystake (BSOD,...) - renders the game/critical function unplayable - occasional bug / quality of life bug (playable, but annoying) - Would be nice if we fixed that sometime. (translation issue, ...) Of course lowest priority will take a lot of time because they have other things to do. e) testing! Did my fix introduce new bugs? Did my fix introduce performance issues? Client side? Server side? Is the bug really fixed? f) package it and schedule it for deployment. 6 steps and I probably forgot some more. All this take a lot of resources. To design a new function they also need to have the design team/ community team/ marketing ... have a shot at specifications. All this process and work, involves a lot of human interactions. So you WILL have mystakes. You WILL have some shitty stuff going out because dev "C" was lazy, dumped, demotivated (A and B are nice guys). Because of all this a lot of companies choose not to listen to their player base at all. Most of them actually. Blizzard actually tries to some extant to implement stuff that the players want. It's not that easy, so give them some slack. Another thing: of course they sell sc2 to make money. Welcome to real life, they aren't 3 guys coding in their garage a tetris... Besides what I don't get is that you guys didn't pay more for this additional feature, they didn't cheat you out of it. If it needs more stuff, provide them with ideas, or specifics. Going all hate/whine about they didn't make it perfect the first time those greedy bastards, is disrespectful for their work regardless if you're right or wrong. tl;dr : chill guys The problem, and I'll think most will agree here, is that Blizzard's standards have dropped a fair height since War3 (Arguably some time in their WoW history, frankly, I'd guess it really has some - or a lot of - things to do with the Activision merger), both in writing, which is oh-so apparent in everything recent they've done, with no exception: from the way they fucked up Arthas to the horrible cheesiness of the Diablo 3 class trailers to the way Starcraft 2's story just plain sucked on every aspect compared to their previous work; and other things, such as interface and, as has been pointed out, plain simple coding. Now, what throws more fuel into the fire is their outright lies prior to the Starcraft 2 launch, the failure to admit any mistakes whatsoever afterwards and the general extremely slow pace in which they address problems. If it takes half a year for a design team of 50 to code a simple chat room system that's not even all that great and to reduce an integer from 30 to 5, something is terribly wrong.
Some of your points are valid, but you may have an idolised vue of what was Diablo2's classes or Starcraft 1 story (and it's a matter of opinion, but I thought previous Diablo's classes where more cheesy than Diablo 3's).
Also, you have to realise that when the main product is shipped most of the dev team is reassigned to say, the expansion, or other projects usually. I'm not saying that's the good way to do it, it's just the way the industry works. So the additional features will take a lot more time than it should.
And Balance decisions? It's not a matter of coding, it's mainly a matter of the design team making the decision and testing the decision, exploring more ways... I personally am glad they don't make balance changes as fast as for wow for instance (ruining or overbuffing classes ).
For the chat room, you just make an amalgam between delay and workload. I'm pretty sure they didn't spend all that much time making it. They just decided not to make it a high priority and to dedicate a lot of resources into it. Does it need a lot more resources? Probably if it's an important feature. Is it important for the blizzard design team? Probably not. Is it important for the community? Maybe more than what's perceived by the bliz team.
Edited the last part to recenter on bnet:
Bnet 2.0 is first and foremost a technical accomplishement to be able to put 100 000 more users at the same time together to play game almost lagless. Bnet 1 had a lot less users and was laggy as hell in comparison.
Of course other systems work that way but for a RTS for the PC, it's quite good that they managed it.
|
On January 18 2011 21:12 Shockk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2011 20:01 Inspectah wrote:
I think its fine when they implenment clan support.
The chat channels are awesome, i saw guys like MorroW and Haypro on teamliquid EU (and they actually talked to us), this other channel has a King of the Hill Tourney going on the whole day, and ppl can find practice partners in their skill range. Overall they improved bnet so much imo.
And I didnt got spammed to buy anything yet.
You guys exegerrate way so much, stop QQ and be happy for what weve got.
It's pretty bold (if not overly arrogant) to dismiss valid criticism as "QQ". And many people here provide just that. Blizzard handing us flawed chat channels doesn't mean we have reason to be happy with the current state of the game. It's the first issue on a long list of neccessary improvements. Some folks may exaggerate, that's true, but the majority claiming "b.net 2.0 sucks!" happens because it's true.
Well all Im trying to say is that blizzard gave us this very balanced and fun game to play and people are complaining over the top about bnet 2.0. You guys demand stuff that is not owed to you by blizzard in any way. In fact they dont owe anybody anthing. If they feel like this UI is better for their own product for whatever reason theyre allowed to do so. Welcome to capitalism.
How can you be so demanding? Imagine sc2 wasnt even released, the pc gaming scene would still be stuck on WoW, esports would die with counterstrike and that leaves us with major console releases as gaming powerhouses.Hf So just bear with blizz and give them the benefit of the doubt.
|
Main thread post updated (new pics)
|
On January 18 2011 21:53 Inex wrote:
Don't say SC2 is still a young game, because Blizz have had more than a decade of experience in online gaming.
I should agree , even tho i said that as a "slack cutter" a few times , to maybe give em some room , but this is the hard truth right there ,
also agreed with the other text.
On January 17 2011 23:33 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I've already explained that MW2 was a made up revenge against activision many of IW guys wanted to leave the company after COD4 released. (when co-founder grant collier went missing)
On top of that , there's was a coincidental feature on Kotaku , some people have also the same opinion (well they have the same result out of the facts because they have followed events and news just like me , i was a COD guy back then)
The article is here http://kotaku.com/5731810/was-modern-warfare-2-an-act-of-sabotage
EDIT: lol i think i quoted you already and i forgot ... i was specifically meaning this time , i missed it , that you said "iw took the shit" for dumbing down MW2 pc version (pretty much the whole game) actually , IW wasn't IW anymore , the company was sold to Activision in 2003 , so , the developers just did a backfire , IW wasn't their's neither Acivision , but they tarnished Activision image either IW or AV , for busisness man and investors they obviosuly know what kind of company is what (you can't be a business man without knowing this) , they planted a "charge" on the way out "of the door".
|
On January 19 2011 02:20 Bellygareth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 01:34 ciortas1 wrote:On January 19 2011 00:08 Bellygareth wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The problem with you guys arguying is that you mix in logical and sound complains (the memory leak issue for instance), with weird calamity claims or conspiration activision theories. You can't be taken seriously when you just bring those kind of arguments to the table and I'm not sure Blizzard or anyone involved with the game would take those post with the care needed. Let me just tell you guys of how it works in those kind of industries. Blizzard has a small set of devs dedicated to Sc2, they have to divide their time between new features, bug fixing, balance editing,... Of course the devs don't make those decisions. The project leader/ lead designer make the priority decisions. No dev comes to work in the morning telling himself. Hey I'll fix that bug now and after lunch I'll implement chat system. BAM. For bug fixes it goes that way: a) Analyse the bug reports (they have a QA team dedicated to this). Sort the bugs, check with the dev team if it's already fixed, known, planned. < It already takes time. On Wow it's quite fast because the Q&A team and the dev team are apparently very stable and work very well with each other. b) In case of a new bug verify the bug / replay it / test it on their machines. It can get tricky here. Bugs are not always well documented and in case of technical bugs can sometimes appear once out of a few iterations. < It takes even more time. Depending on the bug it can take very long, and if they can't find it soon, they might drop the bug or postpone the analysis in order to do more urgent things/ easier things. c) wow they verified it. They need to get the dev team to understand where the bug comes from in the code. Sometimes dev "A" will have to check code from dev "B" to understand it. And of course they have to understand. Not that easy. In case of memory leaks for instance, it can come from a lot of factors. It can come from legit errors in the code, but can also come from 3rd party issues (graphic card drivers, directx, a combination of multiple issues,...). They have to identify that precisely to define a workaround. < It's the hardest part probably. Especially if you have multiple reports of "memory leaks" without providing info on the hosting system. d) Oh boy fix it. But how? The time to fix will be identified. The bug fix prioritised and then they'll put it on the schedule. Usually the bugs are qualified as such : - critical mystake (BSOD,...) - renders the game/critical function unplayable - occasional bug / quality of life bug (playable, but annoying) - Would be nice if we fixed that sometime. (translation issue, ...) Of course lowest priority will take a lot of time because they have other things to do. e) testing! Did my fix introduce new bugs? Did my fix introduce performance issues? Client side? Server side? Is the bug really fixed? f) package it and schedule it for deployment. 6 steps and I probably forgot some more. All this take a lot of resources. To design a new function they also need to have the design team/ community team/ marketing ... have a shot at specifications. All this process and work, involves a lot of human interactions. So you WILL have mystakes. You WILL have some shitty stuff going out because dev "C" was lazy, dumped, demotivated (A and B are nice guys). Because of all this a lot of companies choose not to listen to their player base at all. Most of them actually. Blizzard actually tries to some extant to implement stuff that the players want. It's not that easy, so give them some slack. Another thing: of course they sell sc2 to make money. Welcome to real life, they aren't 3 guys coding in their garage a tetris... Besides what I don't get is that you guys didn't pay more for this additional feature, they didn't cheat you out of it. If it needs more stuff, provide them with ideas, or specifics. Going all hate/whine about they didn't make it perfect the first time those greedy bastards, is disrespectful for their work regardless if you're right or wrong. tl;dr : chill guys Edited the last part to recenter on bnet: Bnet 2.0 is first and foremost a technical accomplishement to be able to put 100 000 more users at the same time together to play game almost lagless. Bnet 1 had a lot less users and was laggy as hell in comparison. Of course other systems work that way but for a RTS for the PC, it's quite good that they managed it.
That is where the facts clash, this is only a matter of networking expertise , networking platform how well it is set up and in what status the servers are , plus , general amount of power and bandwidth for the servers , if it's not done correctly it makes lag , pretty much has nothing to do with the desing or features or bugs , if a bug is causing LAG , it's is not a bug in Bnet , it's a bug in the networking architecture , somewhere in those server settings maybe , something configured incorrectly.
on the other things , well , they are busy with cataclysm i'll say , and the SC2 team isn't as big yet.
@ I also agree on the fact that missing features are clearly not bugs by them self , ofcourse , that's logical and not only contextual, maybe he got his thought wrong twisted.
|
On January 19 2011 20:54 Stewox. wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 19 2011 02:20 Bellygareth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 01:34 ciortas1 wrote:On January 19 2011 00:08 Bellygareth wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The problem with you guys arguying is that you mix in logical and sound complains (the memory leak issue for instance), with weird calamity claims or conspiration activision theories. You can't be taken seriously when you just bring those kind of arguments to the table and I'm not sure Blizzard or anyone involved with the game would take those post with the care needed. Let me just tell you guys of how it works in those kind of industries. Blizzard has a small set of devs dedicated to Sc2, they have to divide their time between new features, bug fixing, balance editing,... Of course the devs don't make those decisions. The project leader/ lead designer make the priority decisions. No dev comes to work in the morning telling himself. Hey I'll fix that bug now and after lunch I'll implement chat system. BAM. For bug fixes it goes that way: a) Analyse the bug reports (they have a QA team dedicated to this). Sort the bugs, check with the dev team if it's already fixed, known, planned. < It already takes time. On Wow it's quite fast because the Q&A team and the dev team are apparently very stable and work very well with each other. b) In case of a new bug verify the bug / replay it / test it on their machines. It can get tricky here. Bugs are not always well documented and in case of technical bugs can sometimes appear once out of a few iterations. < It takes even more time. Depending on the bug it can take very long, and if they can't find it soon, they might drop the bug or postpone the analysis in order to do more urgent things/ easier things. c) wow they verified it. They need to get the dev team to understand where the bug comes from in the code. Sometimes dev "A" will have to check code from dev "B" to understand it. And of course they have to understand. Not that easy. In case of memory leaks for instance, it can come from a lot of factors. It can come from legit errors in the code, but can also come from 3rd party issues (graphic card drivers, directx, a combination of multiple issues,...). They have to identify that precisely to define a workaround. < It's the hardest part probably. Especially if you have multiple reports of "memory leaks" without providing info on the hosting system. d) Oh boy fix it. But how? The time to fix will be identified. The bug fix prioritised and then they'll put it on the schedule. Usually the bugs are qualified as such : - critical mystake (BSOD,...) - renders the game/critical function unplayable - occasional bug / quality of life bug (playable, but annoying) - Would be nice if we fixed that sometime. (translation issue, ...) Of course lowest priority will take a lot of time because they have other things to do. e) testing! Did my fix introduce new bugs? Did my fix introduce performance issues? Client side? Server side? Is the bug really fixed? f) package it and schedule it for deployment. 6 steps and I probably forgot some more. All this take a lot of resources. To design a new function they also need to have the design team/ community team/ marketing ... have a shot at specifications. All this process and work, involves a lot of human interactions. So you WILL have mystakes. You WILL have some shitty stuff going out because dev "C" was lazy, dumped, demotivated (A and B are nice guys). Because of all this a lot of companies choose not to listen to their player base at all. Most of them actually. Blizzard actually tries to some extant to implement stuff that the players want. It's not that easy, so give them some slack. Another thing: of course they sell sc2 to make money. Welcome to real life, they aren't 3 guys coding in their garage a tetris... Besides what I don't get is that you guys didn't pay more for this additional feature, they didn't cheat you out of it. If it needs more stuff, provide them with ideas, or specifics. Going all hate/whine about they didn't make it perfect the first time those greedy bastards, is disrespectful for their work regardless if you're right or wrong. tl;dr : chill guys Edited the last part to recenter on bnet: Bnet 2.0 is first and foremost a technical accomplishement to be able to put 100 000 more users at the same time together to play game almost lagless. Bnet 1 had a lot less users and was laggy as hell in comparison. Of course other systems work that way but for a RTS for the PC, it's quite good that they managed it. That is where the facts clash, this is only a matter of networking expertise , networking platform how well it is set up and in what status the servers are , plus , general amount of power and bandwidth for the servers , if it's not done correctly it makes lag , pretty much has nothing to do with the desing or features or bugs , if a bug is causing LAG , it's is not a bug in Bnet , it's a bug in the networking architecture , somewhere in those server settings maybe , something configured incorrectly. on the other things , well , they are busy with cataclysm i'll say , and the SC2 team isn't as big yet. @ I also agree on the fact that missing features are clearly not bugs by them self , ofcourse , that's logical and not only contextual, maybe he got his thought wrong twisted.
By 'he', are you referring to me? If so, in the post I made I didn't refer to bugs specifically, I said problems, and there are maaaaaany problems with the game that work just the way they were intended by Blizzard. Didn't want to respond to the guy since, frankly, the only points he brought up were there because he couldn't read what I wrote.
|
This is a BIAS taken from the console world , this is a very basic example of crappy mobile/console attitude and design , this show more button must go AWAY.
I feel your rage with me, it's one of the reasons I can't stand playing on bnet 2.0
Now in 2.0 programmers didn't placed the buttons and ui and windows , so , it's more of a "user friendly" BS , but the older stuff worked , programmers have that practise and they know what's a good system and you have everything clearly shown to you.
If I could use Diablo Bnet 12 years ago as a kid with ease I don't comprehend why they had to import the "IQ of 50 required" user friendly console xbox crap on a PC system. When they could have just imported the interfaces and everything from the old Bnet, tweaked it and no one would have complained.
What I miss the most, is logging into Bnet and having a wide array of /commands to do everything I'd want to quick and easy, now navigating back and fourth between a menu within a menu within a menu is fucking tiresome...
|
On January 19 2011 20:54 Stewox. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 02:20 Bellygareth wrote:On January 19 2011 01:34 ciortas1 wrote:On January 19 2011 00:08 Bellygareth wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The problem with you guys arguying is that you mix in logical and sound complains (the memory leak issue for instance), with weird calamity claims or conspiration activision theories. You can't be taken seriously when you just bring those kind of arguments to the table and I'm not sure Blizzard or anyone involved with the game would take those post with the care needed. Let me just tell you guys of how it works in those kind of industries. Blizzard has a small set of devs dedicated to Sc2, they have to divide their time between new features, bug fixing, balance editing,... Of course the devs don't make those decisions. The project leader/ lead designer make the priority decisions. No dev comes to work in the morning telling himself. Hey I'll fix that bug now and after lunch I'll implement chat system. BAM. For bug fixes it goes that way: a) Analyse the bug reports (they have a QA team dedicated to this). Sort the bugs, check with the dev team if it's already fixed, known, planned. < It already takes time. On Wow it's quite fast because the Q&A team and the dev team are apparently very stable and work very well with each other. b) In case of a new bug verify the bug / replay it / test it on their machines. It can get tricky here. Bugs are not always well documented and in case of technical bugs can sometimes appear once out of a few iterations. < It takes even more time. Depending on the bug it can take very long, and if they can't find it soon, they might drop the bug or postpone the analysis in order to do more urgent things/ easier things. c) wow they verified it. They need to get the dev team to understand where the bug comes from in the code. Sometimes dev "A" will have to check code from dev "B" to understand it. And of course they have to understand. Not that easy. In case of memory leaks for instance, it can come from a lot of factors. It can come from legit errors in the code, but can also come from 3rd party issues (graphic card drivers, directx, a combination of multiple issues,...). They have to identify that precisely to define a workaround. < It's the hardest part probably. Especially if you have multiple reports of "memory leaks" without providing info on the hosting system. d) Oh boy fix it. But how? The time to fix will be identified. The bug fix prioritised and then they'll put it on the schedule. Usually the bugs are qualified as such : - critical mystake (BSOD,...) - renders the game/critical function unplayable - occasional bug / quality of life bug (playable, but annoying) - Would be nice if we fixed that sometime. (translation issue, ...) Of course lowest priority will take a lot of time because they have other things to do. e) testing! Did my fix introduce new bugs? Did my fix introduce performance issues? Client side? Server side? Is the bug really fixed? f) package it and schedule it for deployment. 6 steps and I probably forgot some more. All this take a lot of resources. To design a new function they also need to have the design team/ community team/ marketing ... have a shot at specifications. All this process and work, involves a lot of human interactions. So you WILL have mystakes. You WILL have some shitty stuff going out because dev "C" was lazy, dumped, demotivated (A and B are nice guys). Because of all this a lot of companies choose not to listen to their player base at all. Most of them actually. Blizzard actually tries to some extant to implement stuff that the players want. It's not that easy, so give them some slack. Another thing: of course they sell sc2 to make money. Welcome to real life, they aren't 3 guys coding in their garage a tetris... Besides what I don't get is that you guys didn't pay more for this additional feature, they didn't cheat you out of it. If it needs more stuff, provide them with ideas, or specifics. Going all hate/whine about they didn't make it perfect the first time those greedy bastards, is disrespectful for their work regardless if you're right or wrong. tl;dr : chill guys Edited the last part to recenter on bnet: Bnet 2.0 is first and foremost a technical accomplishement to be able to put 100 000 more users at the same time together to play game almost lagless. Bnet 1 had a lot less users and was laggy as hell in comparison. Of course other systems work that way but for a RTS for the PC, it's quite good that they managed it. That is where the facts clash, this is only a matter of networking expertise , networking platform how well it is set up and in what status the servers are , plus , general amount of power and bandwidth for the servers , if it's not done correctly it makes lag , pretty much has nothing to do with the desing or features or bugs , if a bug is causing LAG , it's is not a bug in Bnet , it's a bug in the networking architecture , somewhere in those server settings maybe , something configured incorrectly. on the other things , well , they are busy with cataclysm i'll say , and the SC2 team isn't as big yet. @ I also agree on the fact that missing features are clearly not bugs by them self , ofcourse , that's logical and not only contextual, maybe he got his thought wrong twisted.
Sorry but you're wrong. I've worked in performance and optimisation and most of the time lag issues and performance troubles come from bad programmation, or a specific feature that fucks up the whole thing.
Of course network and system architecture and good sizing of the platform is important but it's not the issue most of the time.
|
I agree with the shortcomings of battle.net 2.0 brought up, but you have to recall the past interviews with greg.
He's looking at battle.net in the grand schemes of their plans for 20 years, building a platform that will connect all blizzard titles into their own world, basically he wants to build the next xbox live for Activision Blizzard on the pc.
So in perspective of sc2, the majority of development is most likely shifted to diablo 3 and the future of the platform and getting those where they want it, not all the additions and modifications it currently needs in sc2. It should still be considered in beta for the lack of features and polish of its current incarnation.
We'll have to wait and see whats next and if the community can shape the direction it takes but before the expansion, it will probably only revolve around balance and minor fixes to battle net, nothing major.
|
On January 20 2011 22:31 Bellygareth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 20:54 Stewox. wrote:On January 19 2011 02:20 Bellygareth wrote:On January 19 2011 01:34 ciortas1 wrote:On January 19 2011 00:08 Bellygareth wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The problem with you guys arguying is that you mix in logical and sound complains (the memory leak issue for instance), with weird calamity claims or conspiration activision theories. You can't be taken seriously when you just bring those kind of arguments to the table and I'm not sure Blizzard or anyone involved with the game would take those post with the care needed. Let me just tell you guys of how it works in those kind of industries. Blizzard has a small set of devs dedicated to Sc2, they have to divide their time between new features, bug fixing, balance editing,... Of course the devs don't make those decisions. The project leader/ lead designer make the priority decisions. No dev comes to work in the morning telling himself. Hey I'll fix that bug now and after lunch I'll implement chat system. BAM. For bug fixes it goes that way: a) Analyse the bug reports (they have a QA team dedicated to this). Sort the bugs, check with the dev team if it's already fixed, known, planned. < It already takes time. On Wow it's quite fast because the Q&A team and the dev team are apparently very stable and work very well with each other. b) In case of a new bug verify the bug / replay it / test it on their machines. It can get tricky here. Bugs are not always well documented and in case of technical bugs can sometimes appear once out of a few iterations. < It takes even more time. Depending on the bug it can take very long, and if they can't find it soon, they might drop the bug or postpone the analysis in order to do more urgent things/ easier things. c) wow they verified it. They need to get the dev team to understand where the bug comes from in the code. Sometimes dev "A" will have to check code from dev "B" to understand it. And of course they have to understand. Not that easy. In case of memory leaks for instance, it can come from a lot of factors. It can come from legit errors in the code, but can also come from 3rd party issues (graphic card drivers, directx, a combination of multiple issues,...). They have to identify that precisely to define a workaround. < It's the hardest part probably. Especially if you have multiple reports of "memory leaks" without providing info on the hosting system. d) Oh boy fix it. But how? The time to fix will be identified. The bug fix prioritised and then they'll put it on the schedule. Usually the bugs are qualified as such : - critical mystake (BSOD,...) - renders the game/critical function unplayable - occasional bug / quality of life bug (playable, but annoying) - Would be nice if we fixed that sometime. (translation issue, ...) Of course lowest priority will take a lot of time because they have other things to do. e) testing! Did my fix introduce new bugs? Did my fix introduce performance issues? Client side? Server side? Is the bug really fixed? f) package it and schedule it for deployment. 6 steps and I probably forgot some more. All this take a lot of resources. To design a new function they also need to have the design team/ community team/ marketing ... have a shot at specifications. All this process and work, involves a lot of human interactions. So you WILL have mystakes. You WILL have some shitty stuff going out because dev "C" was lazy, dumped, demotivated (A and B are nice guys). Because of all this a lot of companies choose not to listen to their player base at all. Most of them actually. Blizzard actually tries to some extant to implement stuff that the players want. It's not that easy, so give them some slack. Another thing: of course they sell sc2 to make money. Welcome to real life, they aren't 3 guys coding in their garage a tetris... Besides what I don't get is that you guys didn't pay more for this additional feature, they didn't cheat you out of it. If it needs more stuff, provide them with ideas, or specifics. Going all hate/whine about they didn't make it perfect the first time those greedy bastards, is disrespectful for their work regardless if you're right or wrong. tl;dr : chill guys Edited the last part to recenter on bnet: Bnet 2.0 is first and foremost a technical accomplishement to be able to put 100 000 more users at the same time together to play game almost lagless. Bnet 1 had a lot less users and was laggy as hell in comparison. Of course other systems work that way but for a RTS for the PC, it's quite good that they managed it. That is where the facts clash, this is only a matter of networking expertise , networking platform how well it is set up and in what status the servers are , plus , general amount of power and bandwidth for the servers , if it's not done correctly it makes lag , pretty much has nothing to do with the desing or features or bugs , if a bug is causing LAG , it's is not a bug in Bnet , it's a bug in the networking architecture , somewhere in those server settings maybe , something configured incorrectly. on the other things , well , they are busy with cataclysm i'll say , and the SC2 team isn't as big yet. @ I also agree on the fact that missing features are clearly not bugs by them self , ofcourse , that's logical and not only contextual, maybe he got his thought wrong twisted. Sorry but you're wrong. I've worked in performance and optimisation and most of the time lag issues and performance troubles come from bad programmation, or a specific feature that fucks up the whole thing. Of course network and system architecture and good sizing of the platform is important but it's not the issue most of the time.
Em , yes , ingame performance and lag spikes , slowdonws, that is coding inside the game engine , but im speaking about networking , the game can have excelent code , while if the servers are crippled their SERVER-SIDE systems and settings , that's again "programming" but it's not the work SC2 team does involve , it relies on another team that's responsible for that. and we saw how achievement servers were always going down, some guys there have trobule with some servers... it's because of a priority , they don't foucs so much for SC2 as they do for wow of course, they thought it's fine , but when a emergency gets up , they aren't ready.
|
Anyone else crashing like no tomorrow?
|
For me the most annoying part of Battle.net 0.2 is how there is a significant delay between requests and they start queuing up. Seriously Its like impossible to navigate the GUI without getting the message about flooding Battle.net and queuing the requests. Can Blizzard, one of the richest gaming companies in the entire world, seriously not sustain a server that can handle more than 2 or 3 requests from a person in a row?
|
On January 25 2011 09:12 Disastorm wrote:
For me the most annoying part of Battle.net 0.2 is how there is a significant delay between requests and they start queuing up. Seriously Its like impossible to navigate the GUI without getting the message about flooding Battle.net and queuing the requests. Can Blizzard, one of the richest gaming companies in the entire world, seriously not sustain a server that can handle more than 2 or 3 requests from a person in a row?
Yeah , exactly , frogot to point out.
It really feels sluggish and slow response , every menu feels like it's a new "page" in a browser and it needs to download it , the result is this and instead of downloading data , it lags and it doesn't display menu modules and gui which it has in the 80 MB bnet MPQ file , it would be a lot better if it would just display and progressively show new hits or in the custom game lobby actually having a server browser like it's meant to be without show more and with a refresh button / stop refresh.
The result is this distinctive feel of a broken crappy flash-code service that is very similar to what Xbox live and youtube is like.
I was never really a Apple fan because i wasn't aware of it in early days and still never used a single apple product, and i know the guy's weird about not having it on the ipad/phone/whatever , but for some reason i fully agree on one particular thing Steve Jobs said , Adobe Flash is crappy broken piece of shit. So many nonexperienced asstwats makes sites with flash these days i hate flash and i hate flash sites , they're always bugged and i just hate the methodology of using scripts to execute stuff in a site , where i want direct links to everything!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3jrPj.png)
