|
On November 19 2014 06:22 MarlieChurphy wrote:1998 vs 2014. That is 16 years. People were still using 33k baud modems back then. People had 4 gigabyte hard drives in their desktop PCs, Internet Explorer was a good browser, AOL was the most prominent ISP. Holy shit. The only improvement at all is the AMM and ladder. Every single other thing is worse now than it was in 1998, when they had all that crappy shit to work with. How is that even possible?
Funny thing is I used to be worried sc2 would be more red alert'ish, but I always figured blizzard would come up with an awesome b.net (the same way the overall B.NET experience of bw to war3 had many great improvements).
Boy o boy, Blizzard did a spectacular job messing it up BNET in sc2.... That along with lan and one account per game purchase are the main reasons why I boycott the game.
I am still not 100% sure how they messed up b.net so badly tho... You could look at 'no lan' and 'one account per game' as a way to try to get more profits, but how is having a crippled battle.net good for anyone?
|
On December 04 2014 09:54 Hotshot wrote:
I am still not 100% sure how they messed up b.net so badly tho... You could look at 'no lan' and 'one account per game' as a way to try to get more profits, but how is having a crippled battle.net good for anyone?
Actually after the announcement of D3 going to console it all made sense. It was said the Xbox live person designed the first bnet 2. So no chat and everything makes sense.
Well when they presented it, no one knew that they were considering console games. So obviously everyone was raging about this new battle net. So they scrapped it short before Sc2 was meant to be released. So when WoL got out we had a Battlenet that was being restructured for 6 month. Again we didn't know that they were still planning that it should be handled with a controller, which made it harder to actually improve.
The Lan decision is easy, they want the playerbase to stick together not be separated. Improves the longevity and since most of the world has stable internet now, there is no realy need for lan anyway. So it fits to what Blizzard is doing overall.
One account per region originated from their initial plan of doing a trilogy that would be released in 6 month steps and would only have single player changes. So you would only need one copy for multiplayer or had 3 all regions by LotV (or 3 different accounts). Well they changed the plan quite heavily after that Blizzcon :p .
But they planned from the beginning to have Bnet turn into something Steam like for Blizzard games. So one account per game makes sense and thats why you only buy licenses to play the game and not the game itself anymore. It also explains why, despite scrapping Bnet2, Sc2 didn't use the old Bnet. They simple wanted it to be part of the new system they envisioned.
I only want to know if they really had consoles and Steam-like in mind, when they presented us Bnet2 at Blizzcon. But I understand now why Blizzard is so secretive about their projects.
|
On December 04 2014 08:01 boxerfred wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2014 07:57 waitwhat wrote:
This list is honestly too long for a small team to handle. I think we should prioritize just a few changes and not exhaust the small team's resources as they have quite a bit to work on for the LoTV release. Are you saying that a million dollar developer team cannot take on minor bugs and usability issues? It's a shame that those things are not addressed. OP basically did what a decent QA departure is being paid for.
Yea, and most of these changes aren't complete overhauls either. They are just minor changes to a line of code here, create a graphic for it there, etc.
Man I wish I was working QA at Blizzard. I only live 1 city over from it.
On December 04 2014 08:42 Fecalfeast wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2014 07:57 waitwhat wrote:
This list is honestly too long for a small team to handle. I think we should prioritize just a few changes and not exhaust the small team's resources as they have quite a bit to work on for the LoTV release. The list of bugs in Ultra Street Fighter 4 that the folks at shoryuken.com compiled is huge and capcom hasn't even mentioned it. The head of the Skullgirls team, Mike Z, releases patches and bug fixes almost daily and has the beta public to anyone who buys the game. He also hangs out in IRC and talks to people about suggestions they make and will try them out himself if he finds them reasonable. He said lists like the one on shoryuken are, or should be, a game dev's dream come true yet here we are with huge companies capcom and blizzard pushing out a couple minor fixes whenever they feel like it even while bugs that have persisted throughout the entire life of the game remain and are documented. I understand developing a fighting game is very different from developing an RTS but from my experience smaller teams are far better at fixing minor issues than large corporations. Whether this is because it's easier to manage a smaller fanbase's suggestions or because large companies don't want to admit their mistakes I have no idea.
yea, ultimately it's a control issue. I'm sure there are devs on the team who love this stuff and would want to do it, but the head guys see it as a negative profit endeavor instead of a labor of love and possibly even more money by having a better product in the long term.
On December 04 2014 09:09 zelevin wrote:
I don't know why anyone would post something like this at all. After 4+ years, it's obvious blizzard doesn't care.
People have made lists like this throughout the game's lifetime. Often times, blizzard is willing to change things or they put their foot down saying they will never do it (LAN). However, they have also said things like we couldn't do a replay rewind feature or multiple people in a replay because they would have to overhaul the entire code. Yet now we have that.
It's important that they see these arguably minor issues as they are often overlooked for the big problems. Usually it's best to get at the core or big problems in most instances of life, but sometimes it might just be better to settle for starting with the little stuff and working your way up from there.
And tbh, I don't even think anyone has taken the time to compile such list before because it's just so many little annoying things about the game that takes lots and lots of playing to notice. Like most people in this thread said, they have thought the same things, but never really vocalized about them. Or when they did, it was just in a random post here and there which probably was never seen.
PS- Blizzard recently fixed the bug that was shown in the screenshot at the top of the thread. Although, I doubt this thread had anything to do with that.
|
I'm just so happy to see people are still trying to make this a better game than what it is. Also the amount of good reactions and response in this thread. This list you provided op is great and i agree with most of them and i really think something needs to be changed for the expansion.
I also know that some of the blizzard employees reads teamliquid.net but what everyone could do is to at least "semi-spam" them on twitter and direct them to this link.
We could at least try right? We have nothing to lose!
|
Thought of a few more gameplay issues:
[*]The way units burrow in this game has always been pretty retarded. They fumble around trying to find their own spot in the same way units fumble around when you target something large. Sometimes they don't even burrow in a timely manner.
This can be a huge issue with lurkers in LotV where they need to run up and burrow for burst damage asap. I propose allowing lurkers to burrow on top of other burrowed units and not block burrowed moving roaches etc.
[*]I think the previous issue is a similar issue that units have when targeting larger targets. The units will fumble around until they either get stuck in a sliding pattern and/or stop behind allied units (when they have a clear path to attack something else). Often times the units will not even attempt to hit the target when it is open ( try to run around enemy units or structures) and will just attack something else immediately before even deciding there is no path. I never understood why this was, but it's especially bad with lings trying to run in to snipe a target.
PS- also came across this old thread http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/147011-i-love-bnet-20
Half of these were fixed or changed. Can we get the rest now?
B.net 2.0 in a nutshell: + Show Spoiler +
|
On December 04 2014 10:29 FeyFey wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2014 09:54 Hotshot wrote:
I am still not 100% sure how they messed up b.net so badly tho... You could look at 'no lan' and 'one account per game' as a way to try to get more profits, but how is having a crippled battle.net good for anyone? Actually after the announcement of D3 going to console it all made sense. It was said the Xbox live person designed the first bnet 2. So no chat and everything makes sense. Well when they presented it, no one knew that they were considering console games. So obviously everyone was raging about this new battle net. So they scrapped it short before Sc2 was meant to be released. So when WoL got out we had a Battlenet that was being restructured for 6 month. Again we didn't know that they were still planning that it should be handled with a controller, which made it harder to actually improve.
This feels a lot like the shenanigans Microsoft did with win 8 (trying to get people to use a mobile OS on their desktop). But even if you factor out everything related to console (like losing channels, custom game names, etc) how would that explain losing basic abilities like kicking/banning players, seeing people pings, etc?
On December 04 2014 10:29 FeyFey wrote:
The Lan decision is easy, they want the playerbase to stick together not be separated. Improves the longevity and since most of the world has stable internet now, there is no realy need for lan anyway. So it fits to what Blizzard is doing overall.
But how many people really play on lan? Its only really was ever used for tournament, at LAN parties when you wanted the best speeds, or when the net was down. Losing that always frustrated me.
On December 04 2014 10:29 FeyFey wrote:One account per region originated from their initial plan of doing a trilogy that would be released in 6 month steps and would only have single player changes. So you would only need one copy for multiplayer or had 3 all regions by LotV (or 3 different accounts). Well they changed the plan quite heavily after that Blizzcon :p .
This was the biggest deal breaker for me. My problem is I always had multiple accounts. I would often have my regular one that had all my friend list and my clan.... Then id have random ones nobody knew about were I could practice anonymously and in peace. While in war3 I often had one account for each race. So that way if I decided to play my worse race (orc) or my best race (undead) and I could be matched up with people in my skill level, and without 'tainting' any accounts. I lost 100% all of this with the 'one account' limitation.
On December 04 2014 10:29 FeyFey wrote:
But they planned from the beginning to have Bnet turn into something Steam like for Blizzard games. So one account per game makes sense and thats why you only buy licenses to play the game and not the game itself anymore. It also explains why, despite scrapping Bnet2, Sc2 didn't use the old Bnet. They simple wanted it to be part of the new system they envisioned.
That is a fine plan in theory, but not everyone wants all games grouped into one account... But even if they did, that still does not explain why you could not have more logins per game. For example what did brothers do who purchased this game?
|
Can someone explain to me what he means by "Cant see black player in aliance menu. Racist imo"
|
While this is here may I add two custom game bugs which I think desperately need fixing?
Extension mods are broken with regards to saving information. There is a bug where if you try to load information the file gets erased. So that means that no micro trainer, macro tool, build order trainer can have any kind of information from previous games. No high score list, no saved games, no user settings. That's only for training tools, good luck creating a new game experience using extension mods.
Edit boxes have a bug where only the first 255 characters are usable. edit boxes are the only way to import data into a map. They used to have a 255 character limit but people complained it was too small so Blizzard extended the size limit. Fixed, right? No, when the game looks at the edit box all it can see is the first 255 characters. Whoever "fixed" the problem for writting to edit boxes forgot to change the limit for reading from them.
|
On December 04 2014 16:44 L3monsta wrote:
Can someone explain to me what he means by "Cant see black player in aliance menu. Racist imo"
When you are the custom color for black, it's really hard to see in the top right alliance menu or anywhere the black color shows up (on the map, in the text they write, etc). It was a joke about being racist.
Imo, they need a drop shadow font or something to make it easier to see.
|
On December 05 2014 00:07 turtles wrote:
While this is here may I add two custom game bugs which I think desperately need fixing?
Extension mods are broken with regards to saving information. There is a bug where if you try to load information the file gets erased. So that means that no micro trainer, macro tool, build order trainer can have any kind of information from previous games. No high score list, no saved games, no user settings. That's only for training tools, good luck creating a new game experience using extension mods.
Edit boxes have a bug where only the first 255 characters are usable. edit boxes are the only way to import data into a map. They used to have a 255 character limit but people complained it was too small so Blizzard extended the size limit. Fixed, right? No, when the game looks at the edit box all it can see is the first 255 characters. Whoever "fixed" the problem for writting to edit boxes forgot to change the limit for reading from them.
Do you mean arcade? It's actually kind of confusing that we have custom and arcade, what is the difference? >.<
I'm not really sure what you mean by the first thing.
The 2nd thing sounds like a galaxy editor bug?
|
Do you mean arcade? It's actually kind of confusing that we have custom and arcade, what is the difference?
It's VERY confusing. Custom games is supposed to be for SC2 content, so stuff like maps and micro arenas. The arcade is supposed to be for non-SC2 related games like nexus wars or FPS games. There's nothing stopping you from taking a map from arcade and putting it in custom or vice versa. So the answer is that there IS no difference just a catagorization. It makes no sense to me why they would split the scene in two causing extra confusion.
I'm not really sure what you mean by the first thing.
When you use an extension mod it will erase your save files from previous games.
The 2nd thing sounds like a galaxy editor bug?
It's a bug that only surfaces in the game client. When you're in SC2 (not the editor) there is no way to enter more than 255 characters into an edit box. Which is fine for fields like entering your name into a text box but broken for importing any other kind of information.
|
What save files? You talking about map specific stuff like if you put achievements on your map?
Wait what edit box? Where do you need to put 255 characters?
Give scenarios.
|
[*]No recently played option for mods, have to manually search or type in the search box each time. Ideally you would want the last mods you played at the top of your list always.
[*]Problem with maps when changing modes or whatever, sometimes puts the game on fast instead of faster speed, no ability for obs/specatators either. Might have something to do with custom, or making public or something? I have no idea.
[*]Alliance menu in game doesn't have a shared vision and ally, only has ally. So if someone wants to share vision and ally with someone who is KO'd in an FFA and wants to just obs after with 1 bldg, they are forced to share vision when they don't want to. or if they scan you could see it.
[*]The suggest player thing is not very noticeable, the person has to say they have done it. There is no flashing indicator that someone is pending to be accepted/denied. Causes much confusion when adding random people to a game you spammed in channels and the random people adding more random people or friends.
[*]Furthermore, since people often just spam invites to random shit, when you friends invite you to a game, it doesn't come with a notification your friend invited you, and often people ignore or decline them before they realize what's going on.
|
On December 06 2014 12:54 MarlieChurphy wrote:
What save files? You talking about map specific stuff like if you put achievements on your map?
Wait what edit box? Where do you need to put 255 characters?
Give scenarios.
I'm talking bank files which are the files maps use to store information. Whenever an extension mod tries to access a file it creates a blank file with that name overwritting any existing ones. The example you brought up is achievements. If an extension mod has achievements when it goes to load the achievements file it erases it and replace it with a blank one. So any achievements that you have are deleted.
Another example might be an ELO extension map which calculates players ELO when you play against opponents. Exactly the same way ELO scores are taken for chess rankings. That way you could compare players rankings in a transparent manner and have a statistical analysis of what the % chance of each player winning is. Not currently possible due to this bug.
As for edit boxes they are the only user friendly method of importing information into a map. So anything user generated, anything players might want to share or anything they might want to import.
Wouldn't it be cool if you could pick a pro replay and then try and copy them while seing ghost images of the pros units/buildings as you play? It would be a great way to compare your level of macro to others. That would be possible if edit boxes weren't bugged.
You could have a map which creates micro scenarios like 10 marines vs 5 lings and 3 banelings, 2 banshees vs 10 marines, or massive protoss deathball vs 200/200 terran mech ball. and then share them with friends to challenge them. Not possible due to this bug.
These are just situations which I'm thinking up as I go along which are denied by these bugs. I'm sure the creativity of the collective SC2 community would be able to come up with even better examples of things which would be possible if these bugs were fixed.
|
I'd be pretty happy if the game client would not crash
1. While I'm laddering, all of a sudden
2. While it's logging in server, if I alt-tab and get back in-game afterwards. (happens in about 90% of cases)
I've sent countless crash reports. I got a good gaming setup so the computer is not the issue. I'm alt#tabbing to read up on buiild orders and stuff while i play customs vs AI because fuck #dreampool
|
It feels like the majority of sequels/games these days have stepped back in terms of design and usability... Why is it so hard to create something simple and intuitive that we used to have? Why did they have to reinvent the wheel into something worse?
I mean - they had a very good system to use as a base. Is there a good reason on why Blizz didn't just use the old system as a base, and revamped the look & feel + added new features?
|
On December 06 2014 23:19 MysticaL wrote:
I mean - they had a very good system to use as a base. Is there a good reason on why Blizz didn't just use the old system as a base, and revamped the look & feel + added new features?
Reading replies earlier in theis thread, someone suggested it was because of Blizzards aim to bring Diablo to the console, hence perhaps why the UI was made by the same guy who did Xbox's.
|
On December 06 2014 23:19 MysticaL wrote:
It feels like the majority of sequels/games these days have stepped back in terms of design and usability... Why is it so hard to create something simple and intuitive that we used to have? Why did they have to reinvent the wheel into something worse?
I mean - they had a very good system to use as a base. Is there a good reason on why Blizz didn't just use the old system as a base, and revamped the look & feel + added new features?
This is an issue with technology in general. There is this sort of drive that companies have to always make shit new even if the old thing was already (nearly) perfectly designed. A couple of easy examples are websites, like facebook or youtube, they are constantly "updating" stuff that makes shit worse or more complicated in many cases.
Another example is with stuff like cellphones, they constantly pump out new versions of models that completely forget old functions that people love, or the way those functions are accessed which is what made them great in the first place.
I think it's party that disconnect between utility and efficiency that maybe the engineer doesn't understand the layman needs, or perhaps it's just that the CEO types aren't as thorough when they release products, they just want shiny and new stuff to advertise. Or maybe it's a combo of both.
|
On December 06 2014 23:34 fruity. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2014 23:19 MysticaL wrote:
I mean - they had a very good system to use as a base. Is there a good reason on why Blizz didn't just use the old system as a base, and revamped the look & feel + added new features? Reading replies earlier in theis thread, someone suggested it was because of Blizzards aim to bring Diablo to the console, hence perhaps why the UI was made by the same guy who did Xbox's.
I don't really think they were planning to put SC2 on console, even though BW was on the N64. I think it was simply the fact that they needed someone to do it and didn't have anyone and it was urgent or something. Honestly it looks like it was a rush job, because later they totally overhauled it, but they still had to base it off the old GUI which was terrible in the first place.
|
Couple more things I noticed today:
[*]I think if you invite someone and they are DLing and it times out before they finish, it auto declines for them and says they declined to the inviter. (not 100% sure on this one)
[*]Can't click 'No' on locked alliances on melee in a custom (only works if you set to misc). And what the hell is the difference between these modes anyway?
[*]What is 'Other" mode for? Only has one option iirc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/yef6p.jpg)
