EPTHow StarCraft 2 Battle.Net will be perfect. - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Cassel_Castle
United States820 Posts
| ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19299 Posts
| ||
|
shtdisturbance
Canada613 Posts
| ||
|
btlyger
United States470 Posts
| ||
|
Gatored
United States679 Posts
Good times. T.T | ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
This would be pretty neat if they implemented it ( You can even customize the colors of the entire channel on View---> Colors ---> ( Alt+K ) ---> Pick ) It does both what the OP had in the Wc3 picture + the Multiple channels thing that SC2 does and the system is older than most instant chat messengers. ( people who post in the general section probably has seen that before ) channel modes... chat commands... | ||
|
HARMevent
Barbados28 Posts
| ||
|
WCH
Canada239 Posts
| ||
|
IcedBacon
Canada906 Posts
| ||
|
Maynarde
Australia1286 Posts
On July 19 2011 12:56 IcedBacon wrote: I don't see why people keep making threads about this. Blizzard knows what we want from the dozens/hundreds of threads like these, they're keeping busy, and we have to wait and see what they're going to implement next. Very true, I really do hope for GUI improvements in the future. I have alot of respect for Blizz and what they do, so I also got a little faith that improvements are coming. | ||
|
Mvz
206 Posts
And I agree with the lonely part, if you don't have alot of friends on your list its so dead ingame. They really need to fix a lobby in chat like any other game. I always forgets the chat channels because the only channel I would wanna join (teamliquid) is always full so I don't have auto join on any channel ingame. Also, fix the damn limit in chat channels, it's so dumb. | ||
|
TKatzurimata
United States17 Posts
| ||
|
Meta
United States6225 Posts
6. Non-Blizzard maps in the ladder pool Everyone knows that Blizzard's later pool is sub-par. Tournament organizers refuse to use a majority of the maps in their ladder pool because everybody is discontent with them. I don't see this changing until Blizzard gets off their high-horse and start letting the players vote on user-made maps in the ladder pool. They already did this with Tal'Darim Altar, I don't see why they don't do it more often based on the success and popularity of that map. 7. More maps in the ladder pool, with more vetoes to compensate. In my opinion, as long as there are enough vetoes to get the ladder pool for any individual down to 10-15 maps, there should be no limit on maps in the ladder pool. I would hope that there would be dozens, and there's really no need to rotate them out as long as people are given more vetos. Certainly, using ALL your vetoes would raise the time to find opponents for a match, but if that was well stated I think the community could live with it. Most people would probably veto the same maps anyways. This would help with the perceived stigma that Blizzard has surrounding the use of user-made maps in the ladder pool. 8. Selecting specific match-ups on ladder There are only 9 matchups (16 if you count random), I don't think this is a big deal. Certainly, if you only want to play TvZ, it would increase your time to find a match, but again, if players knew this when selecting a low number of potential matchups to play then I don't think that's a problem. 9. Removal of close spawn positions on Shattered Temple and Metalopolis. Blizzard has removed close spawn positions on Shakuras Plateau, so why can't they do it on these maps? These positions are a joke, no tournaments run maps in which they are possible, they force bland one-base allins and completely nix any chance of a macro game. This seems like a no-brainer and once again makes it seem like Blizzard map designers have no brain. | ||
|
josemadera
Dominican Republic1 Post
Thx you so much for this effort LinGz. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On July 19 2011 13:38 TKatzurimata wrote: The bnet issue would be completely solved if it went back to the style of warcraft 3. Chat channels, clans, clan channels, ability to make and name custom games, ability to make as many accounts as i pleased off of one cdkey -.- . I remember wc3 bnet to be better then 2.0 in alot of ways. There's something you need to realize about BNet 2.0 and classic BNet. Classic was basically a glorified irc client, with buttons that introduced one to game features. The nametags you created were linked to simple databases, which includes ladder ratings etc. The entire thing was simple. 2.0 is an entirely new system. I have a distinct feeling the thing was programmed from the ground up. The idea is to have this social backbone that each game client attaches to which allows users to connect directly to one another. From there it manages an insane amount of data with each game. This means that each new "feature" requires a lot more time to develop and test since everything is more complicated. This is why the only real UI improvements we've seen have to deal with chat channels and custom map searches, which each already had an extensive system for customization and modification. Simply, we're going to have to wait for a lot of "old" features to make it in because now everything is more complicated. | ||
|
Stromming
Sweden64 Posts
On July 18 2011 23:53 Pred8oar wrote: Blizzard is a shitty company that makes great games. That doesn't make any sense to me. | ||
|
CluEleSs_UK
United Kingdom583 Posts
| ||
|
Strike_
Netherlands704 Posts
| ||
| ||
