|
On February 12 2012 22:25 RayBeans wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2012 21:41 [F_]aths wrote:On February 12 2012 20:16 RayBeans wrote:I like the laddersystem as it is at the moment, I feel great ranking nr. 1 in silver and not being rank 182.731/200.000 or whatever  What is missing are open chat channels to talk to random people. And clan features. And everything else that is mentioned in the first post of this thread.  There are public chat channels where you can talk to random people. Some issues stated in the OP are not real issues, rather a misunderstanding of the OP's poster (like AT vs RT matching is fair since it uses the MMR system to match teams.) Most other points are a matter of personal taste. For example I overall like to use the SC2 Bnet UI to get fast into a game, may it be a ladder game or a custom game. I am not distracted by large public chat windows. I also like the league system better than many proposals here in the thread. There are some things which could be done better, but in my opinion WC3 is not a useful example for a good UI. I played WC3 for years and find SC2's UI much cleaner and easier to use. It also offers more features where it matters. (Party system, friends list with the option to add a note.) Some more details in the player statistics would be nice. Clan support would be great. But please no return to the Bnet 1.0 look and feel. Of course there are open chat channels but no one uses them, at least not the ones officially offered (like zerg strategy talk etc.) If i remember correctly in WC3 users automatically joined an open chat channel when entering bnet, this would at least help to populate the existing channels. Otherwise i agree with your points, as they are more or less my points
"No one" seems to be an understatement. Almost every time I join an additional instance of the zerg strategy channel because the original one is full.
I didn't like to be automatically transferred into a chat channel. Thankfully WC3 then was changed so one does not automatically enters the channel at login. But to access the friends list, one also had to go to chat. That chat was usually filled with bot spam (clan recruitment.)
|
On February 12 2012 23:03 Shockk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2012 21:41 [F_]aths wrote:On February 12 2012 20:16 RayBeans wrote:I like the laddersystem as it is at the moment, I feel great ranking nr. 1 in silver and not being rank 182.731/200.000 or whatever What is missing are open chat channels to talk to random people. And clan features. And everything else that is mentioned in the first post of this thread. Some issues stated in the OP are not real issues, rather a misunderstanding of the OP's poster (like AT vs RT matching is fair since it uses the MMR system to match teams.) You haven't played a lot of SC2 team games, have you? Oh, and do me a favor and don't assume I'm stupid, alright? There is nothing to "misunderstand", but I'll gladly elaborate on why AT vs. RT isn't fine. Regardless of matchmaking, an AT will always be in an advantageous position compared to an RT. Be it predetermined strategies or voice communitcation. Also, the matchmaking system in team games is atrocious. It will create "even teams" only on paper, usually by pairing good players with weakers ones to create an "even" team. A "real" even team will easily roflstomp such a forced composition. And finally, RTs are abused 24/7. People will sign up with premade 2/3-man teams for 3/4man team games, for example, where they're rated as RT but will obviously have a huge edge over their opponents. Most team games aren't fun. You either win against teams you're hopelessly outmatching, or you'll get stomped by a team you have no hope winning against. Every 1 in 10 games is an actual even, entertaining match.
Actually I have my share regarding team matches, for AT, RT, and mixed teams (which counts as RT for the ladder.)
If an AT is matched versus an RT, they do not have an advantage because they are matched with MMR. The AT can use voice chat and has better strategy coordination, but the MMR reflects this already. For mixed RT/AT matches, the Bnet probably considers the AT strength of the AT participants even though the points count towards the RT ladder. But ladder and MMR are separate anyway.
Separating RT and AT will make the average team balance even more uneven because each player pool is smaller.
|
On February 13 2012 03:49 YaShock wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 03:29 RajaF wrote:On February 13 2012 03:23 Zarrow wrote:Limited time, staff, resources? I'm sorry, but this is not a valid argument. They already had everything implemented in WarCraft 3, they just had to remake it for SC2. I just can't understand why would they recreate everything. I mean they recreated the game, I'm not happy with that (a lot of BW fans aren't) but it's OK, they wanted an easier game so casuals can play it (more casuals = more money, however after 2 years most of these casuals switched the game, the remaining are either from BW, or who decided to be competitive after 2 years). But why change the UI for Battle.net? I just don't get. It blows my mind. It doesn't support casuals, it doesn't make more money, it doesn't do anything good, it only costed more money, because they made a whole new UI. Not to mention, this UI really doesn't fit PC games, and especially Blizzard games. Also there is some seriously stupid stuff going on, like only one person can watch a replay. I mean even in BW they could do it which is more than 12 years old. First off what is this? You claim his argument is untrue, and yet you offer no facts yourself, so how can your own argument even stand? Secondly, have you ever taken a computer course or anything associated? You say it yourself "all they had to do was remake it" let me point your attention to the word remake which means, make again, which means they had to start from scratch, you can't just pull enormous amounts of code from a super old game and shove it into a new one. Thirdly, why are you complaining about the game? If you want to play BW play BW, SC2 was always supposed to be a new game not just some revamped BW. Fourthly, you say the new UI doesn't do anything good and again you don't give any support, you list two things that are highly opinion based and believe you can make a point out of that? There's no way you can know that the UI doesn't make Blizz more money, you have no facts. Lastly, I agree with you that there should be shared replay watching but that doesn't mean you can blame Blizz for not implementing it into a TOTALLY new game (engine wise). Let me remind you that SC2 was pushed back for years and at some point they had to release it. Just like Skyrim, of course there are ridiculous amounts of features that they could have put in but for me, I'd rather have the game now and wait for a small almost negligible part of the game later, even if that is more than two years down the road. You don't get it... the UI is serious business. Have you not noticed the more than 1000 people who posted their support in bashing blizzard for not implementing clan support. And I mean, everyone knows how easy it is to write 5K+ lines of code. Those blizzard devs must do nothing all day but smoke weed in the office  Okay that was just a stupid comment, you have said nothing useful here. Ye it's hard to write that much code, but sure you don't know programming because it's much more than 5K. But more to the point: it's their job.
Yes it is their job... to develop a video game. The priorities of a video game are like this: everything else then the lobby UI. If there is no time right now for the lobby UI, well tough cookies. 99% of the people who buy this game do it so that they can play SC2, not make friends. Thus it is not a priority, and I hope Blizzard does not make it so at any point in the future.
|
The phenomenon and the power of Starcraft is it's community. It always has been and it always will be.
|
Canada11607 Posts
On February 13 2012 04:39 RajaF wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 03:49 YaShock wrote:On February 13 2012 03:29 RajaF wrote:On February 13 2012 03:23 Zarrow wrote:Limited time, staff, resources? I'm sorry, but this is not a valid argument. They already had everything implemented in WarCraft 3, they just had to remake it for SC2. I just can't understand why would they recreate everything. I mean they recreated the game, I'm not happy with that (a lot of BW fans aren't) but it's OK, they wanted an easier game so casuals can play it (more casuals = more money, however after 2 years most of these casuals switched the game, the remaining are either from BW, or who decided to be competitive after 2 years). But why change the UI for Battle.net? I just don't get. It blows my mind. It doesn't support casuals, it doesn't make more money, it doesn't do anything good, it only costed more money, because they made a whole new UI. Not to mention, this UI really doesn't fit PC games, and especially Blizzard games. Also there is some seriously stupid stuff going on, like only one person can watch a replay. I mean even in BW they could do it which is more than 12 years old. First off what is this? You claim his argument is untrue, and yet you offer no facts yourself, so how can your own argument even stand? Secondly, have you ever taken a computer course or anything associated? You say it yourself "all they had to do was remake it" let me point your attention to the word remake which means, make again, which means they had to start from scratch, you can't just pull enormous amounts of code from a super old game and shove it into a new one. Thirdly, why are you complaining about the game? If you want to play BW play BW, SC2 was always supposed to be a new game not just some revamped BW. Fourthly, you say the new UI doesn't do anything good and again you don't give any support, you list two things that are highly opinion based and believe you can make a point out of that? There's no way you can know that the UI doesn't make Blizz more money, you have no facts. Lastly, I agree with you that there should be shared replay watching but that doesn't mean you can blame Blizz for not implementing it into a TOTALLY new game (engine wise). Let me remind you that SC2 was pushed back for years and at some point they had to release it. Just like Skyrim, of course there are ridiculous amounts of features that they could have put in but for me, I'd rather have the game now and wait for a small almost negligible part of the game later, even if that is more than two years down the road. You don't get it... the UI is serious business. Have you not noticed the more than 1000 people who posted their support in bashing blizzard for not implementing clan support. And I mean, everyone knows how easy it is to write 5K+ lines of code. Those blizzard devs must do nothing all day but smoke weed in the office Okay that was just a stupid comment, you have said nothing useful here. Ye it's hard to write that much code, but sure you don't know programming because it's much more than 5K. But more to the point: it's their job. Yes it is their job... to develop a video game. The priorities of a video game are like this: everything else then the lobby UI. If there is no time right now for the lobby UI, well tough cookies. 99% of the people who buy this game do it so that they can play SC2, not make friends. Thus it is not a priority, and I hope Blizzard does not make it so at any point in the future.
The problem with this is the promise Blizzard gave to the community. They were going to take away something: LAN. And in exchange we were going to get a lobby experience that was so amazing that we wouldn't even want LAN. Problem is, we don't have LAN (even for tournaments) and Battlenet 2.0 never materialized.
Starcraft 2 Developer's Talk
2009 Interview with IncGamers.
"Our aim is to deliver far better than we have done in the past, and basically connect players because the social side is important," said Sigaty.
Custom games like DotA and future user-made maps made for StarCraft II will also be easier to get to. "We've definitely done a lot of workaround allowing for custom maps that are very popular to come over more easily than it was in War 3," Sigaty said, pointing out it was an ardours process in WarCraft 3. "The map data is [now] configured more successful to make them into ladders at launch."
Emphasis mine.
These are promises they made and it just hasn't happened.
|
On February 13 2012 04:28 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2012 23:03 Shockk wrote:On February 12 2012 21:41 [F_]aths wrote:On February 12 2012 20:16 RayBeans wrote:I like the laddersystem as it is at the moment, I feel great ranking nr. 1 in silver and not being rank 182.731/200.000 or whatever What is missing are open chat channels to talk to random people. And clan features. And everything else that is mentioned in the first post of this thread. Some issues stated in the OP are not real issues, rather a misunderstanding of the OP's poster (like AT vs RT matching is fair since it uses the MMR system to match teams.) You haven't played a lot of SC2 team games, have you? Oh, and do me a favor and don't assume I'm stupid, alright? There is nothing to "misunderstand", but I'll gladly elaborate on why AT vs. RT isn't fine. Regardless of matchmaking, an AT will always be in an advantageous position compared to an RT. Be it predetermined strategies or voice communitcation. Also, the matchmaking system in team games is atrocious. It will create "even teams" only on paper, usually by pairing good players with weakers ones to create an "even" team. A "real" even team will easily roflstomp such a forced composition. And finally, RTs are abused 24/7. People will sign up with premade 2/3-man teams for 3/4man team games, for example, where they're rated as RT but will obviously have a huge edge over their opponents. Most team games aren't fun. You either win against teams you're hopelessly outmatching, or you'll get stomped by a team you have no hope winning against. Every 1 in 10 games is an actual even, entertaining match. Actually I have my share regarding team matches, for AT, RT, and mixed teams (which counts as RT for the ladder.) If an AT is matched versus an RT, they do not have an advantage because they are matched with MMR. The AT can use voice chat and has better strategy coordination, but the MMR reflects this already. For mixed RT/AT matches, the Bnet probably considers the AT strength of the AT participants even though the points count towards the RT ladder. But ladder and MMR are separate anyway. Separating RT and AT will make the average team balance even more uneven because each player pool is smaller.
Separate AT and RT ladders worked perfectly fine in WC3. The only problem they had were long queue times at the highest levels; the average team though never had to wait very long (source: literally thousands of WC3 AT/RT games at various skill levels). There was no "imbalance because of smaller player pools".
|
Woah this is what we need. . . do not understand why blizzard can't put these type of interfaces and changes, is it that hard?
|
Amazing write up. This should be on the front page. Its so sad how little a since of community I have even though the population is infinitely more vast then US EAST channels.
Back when I played BW, I would know what channels to go to and I would have a general idea of who would be there, I miss this.
|
perhaps Blizzard got rather low proffit from SC2(compared to WOW ) so that's why they won't invest in it to make it very cool....I won't buy Diablo3 unless I see some streams showing that is bad-ass, which I seriously doubt it. Up until now, I rather prefer Diablo2MXL than what I've seen so far..
|
On February 13 2012 05:49 Shockk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 04:28 [F_]aths wrote:On February 12 2012 23:03 Shockk wrote:On February 12 2012 21:41 [F_]aths wrote:On February 12 2012 20:16 RayBeans wrote:I like the laddersystem as it is at the moment, I feel great ranking nr. 1 in silver and not being rank 182.731/200.000 or whatever What is missing are open chat channels to talk to random people. And clan features. And everything else that is mentioned in the first post of this thread. Some issues stated in the OP are not real issues, rather a misunderstanding of the OP's poster (like AT vs RT matching is fair since it uses the MMR system to match teams.) You haven't played a lot of SC2 team games, have you? Oh, and do me a favor and don't assume I'm stupid, alright? There is nothing to "misunderstand", but I'll gladly elaborate on why AT vs. RT isn't fine. Regardless of matchmaking, an AT will always be in an advantageous position compared to an RT. Be it predetermined strategies or voice communitcation. Also, the matchmaking system in team games is atrocious. It will create "even teams" only on paper, usually by pairing good players with weakers ones to create an "even" team. A "real" even team will easily roflstomp such a forced composition. And finally, RTs are abused 24/7. People will sign up with premade 2/3-man teams for 3/4man team games, for example, where they're rated as RT but will obviously have a huge edge over their opponents. Most team games aren't fun. You either win against teams you're hopelessly outmatching, or you'll get stomped by a team you have no hope winning against. Every 1 in 10 games is an actual even, entertaining match. Actually I have my share regarding team matches, for AT, RT, and mixed teams (which counts as RT for the ladder.) If an AT is matched versus an RT, they do not have an advantage because they are matched with MMR. The AT can use voice chat and has better strategy coordination, but the MMR reflects this already. For mixed RT/AT matches, the Bnet probably considers the AT strength of the AT participants even though the points count towards the RT ladder. But ladder and MMR are separate anyway. Separating RT and AT will make the average team balance even more uneven because each player pool is smaller. Separate AT and RT ladders worked perfectly fine in WC3. The only problem they had were long queue times at the highest levels; the average team though never had to wait very long (source: literally thousands of WC3 AT/RT games at various skill levels). There was no "imbalance because of smaller player pools".
RT/AT games in WC3 are far from perfect. For each game you need you invite your friend(s) again. And then you can get way stronger or weaker teams as opponents. Or both good players and scrubs in the same random team. And especially for the AT, the search time is way longer than in SC2. Even at times WC3 got a much larger playerbase than today. I played a lot of 2v2 AT in WC3 some years ago.
|
Having separate RT/AT ladders makes for more accurate matches of skill while sacrificing queue time. The question is, will the players want it enough to make that sacrifice? In my opinion the queue time would only extend by a small amount, so it's definitely worth it.
|
YaShcok I believe I owe you an explanation as you explained your post to me so here goes: Thank you for pointing out the reason you did not include facts was because they were all ready in the OP I never considered that and am sorry for bashing you  . To address what you said about it being changed a lot I believe that is a matter of opinion, I played the original BW and now SC2 and in my opinion Blizz did a fine job of creating a new but not unfamiliar game. Lastly, I concede your point that they should have added in the great BW features instead of adding a facebook effect which, from the hundreds of posts in this thread clearly point out that they did a "sub-par" job.
|
I think theres little excuse for there not to be an option to move the minerals/gas/supply text to be rught above teh minimap if you want it there. Putting important information in the hardest to see spot on the screen has only gotten worse as screen resolutions increased.
|
I want my losses returned. The removal was probably part of the "everyone's a winner" mentality that's been spreading in sports that needs to die.
|
|
|
On February 13 2012 14:37 Darknat wrote:
I want my losses returned. The removal was probably part of the "everyone's a winner" mentality that's been spreading in sports that needs to die.
It's a general cultural trend in the U.S. that's absolutely ridiculous on so many levels that it's mind-boggling.
|
On February 13 2012 07:19 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 05:49 Shockk wrote:On February 13 2012 04:28 [F_]aths wrote:On February 12 2012 23:03 Shockk wrote:On February 12 2012 21:41 [F_]aths wrote:On February 12 2012 20:16 RayBeans wrote:I like the laddersystem as it is at the moment, I feel great ranking nr. 1 in silver and not being rank 182.731/200.000 or whatever What is missing are open chat channels to talk to random people. And clan features. And everything else that is mentioned in the first post of this thread. Some issues stated in the OP are not real issues, rather a misunderstanding of the OP's poster (like AT vs RT matching is fair since it uses the MMR system to match teams.) You haven't played a lot of SC2 team games, have you? Oh, and do me a favor and don't assume I'm stupid, alright? There is nothing to "misunderstand", but I'll gladly elaborate on why AT vs. RT isn't fine. Regardless of matchmaking, an AT will always be in an advantageous position compared to an RT. Be it predetermined strategies or voice communitcation. Also, the matchmaking system in team games is atrocious. It will create "even teams" only on paper, usually by pairing good players with weakers ones to create an "even" team. A "real" even team will easily roflstomp such a forced composition. And finally, RTs are abused 24/7. People will sign up with premade 2/3-man teams for 3/4man team games, for example, where they're rated as RT but will obviously have a huge edge over their opponents. Most team games aren't fun. You either win against teams you're hopelessly outmatching, or you'll get stomped by a team you have no hope winning against. Every 1 in 10 games is an actual even, entertaining match. Actually I have my share regarding team matches, for AT, RT, and mixed teams (which counts as RT for the ladder.) If an AT is matched versus an RT, they do not have an advantage because they are matched with MMR. The AT can use voice chat and has better strategy coordination, but the MMR reflects this already. For mixed RT/AT matches, the Bnet probably considers the AT strength of the AT participants even though the points count towards the RT ladder. But ladder and MMR are separate anyway. Separating RT and AT will make the average team balance even more uneven because each player pool is smaller. Separate AT and RT ladders worked perfectly fine in WC3. The only problem they had were long queue times at the highest levels; the average team though never had to wait very long (source: literally thousands of WC3 AT/RT games at various skill levels). There was no "imbalance because of smaller player pools". RT/AT games in WC3 are far from perfect. For each game you need you invite your friend(s) again. And then you can get way stronger or weaker teams as opponents. Or both good players and scrubs in the same random team. And especially for the AT, the search time is way longer than in SC2. Even at times WC3 got a much larger playerbase than today. I played a lot of 2v2 AT in WC3 some years ago.
This little discussion of ours is getting a bit too circular for my taste. So far you haven't adressed the issue of RT abuse in SC2 except with an assumption that you "think" it's somehow covered by the matchmaking when in reality it's not (check the top diamond/master ladders for team games to look at some ridiculous win-%. Legit random team gamers? Hell, no).
The overall matchmaking has improved, yes. Which is to be expected 9 years after WC3. And small features like not having to invite people again for every game are good too; sure. Still, SC2's team game system is a mess, prone to abuse, sacrificing fair matchups for short queue times and convenience.
|
|
|
I would just like to point out that even though you make very good points, I think it's necessary to take into account the fact that many people (including me) actually liked the new UI, which I think is not as bad as you describe. I always felt like BW was very fun to play in lan with friends, but was very exclusive for net play and as a result I never played it online. Warcraft III felt a little better, but it also looked like there was too many features, and it felt a bit messy.
Even though the UI in sc2 needs improvement, and you pointed its flaws very accurately, it's also a lot more easy to undestand, and pleasing to the eye that the previous UI were. So I think it's also good to aknowledge its merits to better correct its flaws.
|
On February 13 2012 17:14 Shockk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 07:19 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2012 05:49 Shockk wrote:On February 13 2012 04:28 [F_]aths wrote:On February 12 2012 23:03 Shockk wrote:On February 12 2012 21:41 [F_]aths wrote:On February 12 2012 20:16 RayBeans wrote:I like the laddersystem as it is at the moment, I feel great ranking nr. 1 in silver and not being rank 182.731/200.000 or whatever What is missing are open chat channels to talk to random people. And clan features. And everything else that is mentioned in the first post of this thread. Some issues stated in the OP are not real issues, rather a misunderstanding of the OP's poster (like AT vs RT matching is fair since it uses the MMR system to match teams.) You haven't played a lot of SC2 team games, have you? Oh, and do me a favor and don't assume I'm stupid, alright? There is nothing to "misunderstand", but I'll gladly elaborate on why AT vs. RT isn't fine. Regardless of matchmaking, an AT will always be in an advantageous position compared to an RT. Be it predetermined strategies or voice communitcation. Also, the matchmaking system in team games is atrocious. It will create "even teams" only on paper, usually by pairing good players with weakers ones to create an "even" team. A "real" even team will easily roflstomp such a forced composition. And finally, RTs are abused 24/7. People will sign up with premade 2/3-man teams for 3/4man team games, for example, where they're rated as RT but will obviously have a huge edge over their opponents. Most team games aren't fun. You either win against teams you're hopelessly outmatching, or you'll get stomped by a team you have no hope winning against. Every 1 in 10 games is an actual even, entertaining match. Actually I have my share regarding team matches, for AT, RT, and mixed teams (which counts as RT for the ladder.) If an AT is matched versus an RT, they do not have an advantage because they are matched with MMR. The AT can use voice chat and has better strategy coordination, but the MMR reflects this already. For mixed RT/AT matches, the Bnet probably considers the AT strength of the AT participants even though the points count towards the RT ladder. But ladder and MMR are separate anyway. Separating RT and AT will make the average team balance even more uneven because each player pool is smaller. Separate AT and RT ladders worked perfectly fine in WC3. The only problem they had were long queue times at the highest levels; the average team though never had to wait very long (source: literally thousands of WC3 AT/RT games at various skill levels). There was no "imbalance because of smaller player pools". RT/AT games in WC3 are far from perfect. For each game you need you invite your friend(s) again. And then you can get way stronger or weaker teams as opponents. Or both good players and scrubs in the same random team. And especially for the AT, the search time is way longer than in SC2. Even at times WC3 got a much larger playerbase than today. I played a lot of 2v2 AT in WC3 some years ago. This little discussion of ours is getting a bit too circular for my taste. So far you haven't adressed the issue of RT abuse in SC2 except with an assumption that you "think" it's somehow covered by the matchmaking when in reality it's not (check the top diamond/master ladders for team games to look at some ridiculous win-%. Legit random team gamers? Hell, no). The overall matchmaking has improved, yes. Which is to be expected 9 years after WC3. And small features like not having to invite people again for every game are good too; sure. Still, SC2's team game system is a mess, prone to abuse, sacrificing fair matchups for short queue times and convenience.
Top rankings in 1v1 also often show more wins than losses, this is not especially a team game issue. Even if you could somehow abuse the RT/AT mixing, you can do it only for so long because the MMR adapts. With very high win ratios over a sustained period, you are ranked high and get worthy opponents – if they are online. As in 1v1, top players often play lesser ones because there are not enough top players online.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
