|
On October 28 2015 03:16 wasilix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2015 02:41 Chernobyl wrote:On October 28 2015 02:20 opisska wrote:On October 28 2015 02:06 digmouse wrote:
People really can dig out negatives on pretty much everything. Yeah, they have effectively removed my favourite game mode from the game (even my friends with new computers have terrible fps drops in 2v2 games and while they are at least physically able to play the game, it's not really enjoyable) and they are pretending like nothing happened while fixing minor bugs and solving "problems" that I consider stupid (the silence thing). I have spend the better part of the last five years playing team SC2 games with my friends, which Blizzard's ignorance has robbed me of for no real reason, so pardon my "negativity". Every patch they don't do anything about it is just laughing in the face of their paying customers. They should just admit their incompetence and revert to the previous patch that worked. Use the 32-bits version, my mentally challenged friend. User was warned for this post They mentioned in this thread, that 32-bit version was tried. As an IT professional myself it's obvious, that the move to release 3.0 prior to LoTV was bold to say the least - a very risky move. The patch had a lot of changes, some of which were certainly untested in beta before, and the issues this patch caused only confirms that it was a mistake.
They rolled out the architectural changes to a wide audience instead of the limited beta players (even though it was an open beta at the end) to see if there are things which need to be addressed prior to the Lotv release. Imagine, Lotv gets released and then gets bad press for some performance issues.
|
United Kingdom20301 Posts
The have had a long beta, then they use HotS to test their actual coding side stuff on Hots, totally unoptimized, mention something about Win10 user problems, and absolutely ignore that many, many people that are not on Win10 suffered serious performance issues? And just humptydump along like there aren't a thousand posts on it on Bnet.
It's easy to document very significant performance losses going from 32 to 64 bit on the beta client which is still on v2.5, not even 3.0
i have not seen anybody at blizzard acknowledge that for the entire beta
They rolled out the architectural changes to a wide audience instead of the limited beta players
It was ~20-60% of the starcraft playerbase for many months
|
sounds pretty good. now make the game better...
|
Russian Federation80 Posts
On October 30 2015 03:16 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2015 03:16 wasilix wrote:On October 28 2015 02:41 Chernobyl wrote:On October 28 2015 02:20 opisska wrote:On October 28 2015 02:06 digmouse wrote:
People really can dig out negatives on pretty much everything. Yeah, they have effectively removed my favourite game mode from the game (even my friends with new computers have terrible fps drops in 2v2 games and while they are at least physically able to play the game, it's not really enjoyable) and they are pretending like nothing happened while fixing minor bugs and solving "problems" that I consider stupid (the silence thing). I have spend the better part of the last five years playing team SC2 games with my friends, which Blizzard's ignorance has robbed me of for no real reason, so pardon my "negativity". Every patch they don't do anything about it is just laughing in the face of their paying customers. They should just admit their incompetence and revert to the previous patch that worked. Use the 32-bits version, my mentally challenged friend. User was warned for this post They mentioned in this thread, that 32-bit version was tried. As an IT professional myself it's obvious, that the move to release 3.0 prior to LoTV was bold to say the least - a very risky move. The patch had a lot of changes, some of which were certainly untested in beta before, and the issues this patch caused only confirms that it was a mistake. They rolled out the architectural changes to a wide audience instead of the limited beta players (even though it was an open beta at the end) to see if there are things which need to be addressed prior to the Lotv release. Imagine, Lotv gets released and then gets bad press for some performance issues.
Well, it's not how things get done if you want to know. The point is that say there was a working branch 2.x that is HoTS, and was prerelease 3.x. No one ever in practice of programming throws 2.x out of the window and replaces it with 3.x. They didn't, although it seems they replaced some significant modules, which is enough to stay away from these changes. This is just asking for problems, really. I don't really see a reason why 3.0 couldn't wait until release. I get it, BW screens hype, etc, a I believe this decision was forced on IT department.
Changes like these only travel from newer branches to older in few cases: hotfixes (which is unlikely to happen in this order, normally will be brought from older stable branch to newer in this case) and post-release maintenance of old branches.
Anyway what's done is done, pretty obvious they aren't happy about the result, and working hard on it, so I'm not here to flame them, but when things like this happen there are always unhappy customers, and also there are unhappy and vocal (read: outrageously vocal) unhappy customers, so I rather even sympathise Blizzard in this situation 
|
can the silenced players receive messages from others not on their friends? If so, put me on the list right now!
|
On October 29 2015 23:25 hZCube wrote:
Just FYI, that mule issue. Looks like they are using 32 bit values for that count, and the maximum number that can store is 2^32-1, which is 4,294,967,295.
It's a classic case of not having a bounds check in there. Easy mistake, also easy to fix, it'll be sorted in the next minor patch.
Glad to see Blizzard developpers do sometimes the same silly mistakes than I do when I code :p
|
I can't believe more people aren't up in arms about the "silencing." First, look at our big brother LOL. How did that work out for them? Pro players constantly goaded into saying one bad remark and then banned. Don't we all want to be able to express ourselves freely?
It's like any other social justice warrior campaign. Sounds great on the outside until you realize the means used to accomplish the goal. People telling on each other because they don't like each other. This will turn bnet into my elementary school classes. Quite possibly the worst idea ever.
|
On October 30 2015 08:37 TRaFFiC wrote:
I can't believe more people aren't up in arms about the "silencing." First, look at our big brother LOL. How did that work out for them? Pro players constantly goaded into saying one bad remark and then banned. Don't we all want to be able to express ourselves freely?
It's like any other social justice warrior campaign. Sounds great on the outside until you realize the means used to accomplish the goal. People telling on each other because they don't like each other. This will turn bnet into my elementary school classes. Quite possibly the worst idea ever.
Agreed! Even though there's way too much trash talk and BM going on on Battlenet (feel free to check out my blog for a full discussion of the topic), I think "silencing" goes too far.
It's totally sufficient that you can block/ban/squelch people that you don't want to interact with
|
Whats the cooldown for the duration increase? How long does one expect to be released back to the previous stage of the penalty?
|
United Kingdom20301 Posts
On October 30 2015 09:43 RevTiberius wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2015 08:37 TRaFFiC wrote:
I can't believe more people aren't up in arms about the "silencing." First, look at our big brother LOL. How did that work out for them? Pro players constantly goaded into saying one bad remark and then banned. Don't we all want to be able to express ourselves freely?
It's like any other social justice warrior campaign. Sounds great on the outside until you realize the means used to accomplish the goal. People telling on each other because they don't like each other. This will turn bnet into my elementary school classes. Quite possibly the worst idea ever.
Agreed! Even though there's way too much trash talk and BM going on on Battlenet (feel free to check out my blog for a full discussion of the topic), I think "silencing" goes too far. It's totally sufficient that you can block/ban/squelch people that you don't want to interact with
it's AUTOMATIC SILENCING that is the problem. It's too easy to game and have false reports.
|
At least it's only silencing. As much as I think it's completely unnecessary and catering only to whiny children (really, people should not be such crybabies about what somebody writes them on the internet) it also doesn't feel like a problem to me. I would be putting the Blizzard HQ on fire if it was actual banning, but only silencing, who cares. They should go a step further and make it a shadowban, so that you don't know that you are silenced and make an AI to reply to you in a generically insulted way - my experience of the game would be exactly the same as before! (of course, they should implement that after they roll back to some version of the game that actually works).
Now I am being positive and constructive, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
