|
EDIT:
I did some more testing. The conclusion that Auto-Join leads to this problem was wrong! I apologize for this misinformation. (One of my friends appeared offline and he had auto-join activated. Seems like it was only a coincidence)
Still there is a bug with the channels: Many people are shown in the channel list alltough they are not active. Some of them are shown as offline, the others have no status at all. Hopefully it will be fixed soon
Screenshot:
![[image loading]](http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/850/bnetchatbug.jpg)
Latest rumour:
![[image loading]](http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/4805/explanationt.png)
Original Post:
--------------------
I wasn't on the PTR because i live in EU. I don't know if the feature was tested there and if yes why nobody pointed out how dumb it is...
![[image loading]](http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/7434/channelsy.png)
In Options you can check "Auto-Join Private Channels" which sounds really good. So i don't have to type or double click the same channels everytime when i connect to Battle.Net.
BUT
Why do people, who activated Auto-Join, stay in the channel even when they are offline? Chat channels are maxed at 100 people!
When i join "teamliquid" then 70 people are offline, 20 are playing the game and so there are only 10 people to chat with! The same problem exists in "teamliquid2" or even in the General Chat Channels.
With this implementation of Auto-Join it is guaranteed that you can't meet other online players in public channels. Thats seems not well thought out. [Didn't this happen on PTR? I never read about this problem]
So what do you think? Should this option be implemented otherwise? Or do i exaggerate and there is no problem? Feel free to communicate.
|
does this include people inviting you to a channel against your will? i never saw this setting
|
The option shouldn't be removed. The people should be removed from the channels once they go offline (this should be really simple to do, I don't get why it's not done that way -_-).
The option clearly states "auto-join" Private Channels, not "stay in private channels 24/7".
|
I would presume that a simple time-out functionality would be in place after a certain time of inactivity... Obviously they didn't think about over-flooded channels with offline people.
|
On January 13 2011 17:59 Talin wrote:
The option shouldn't be removed. The people should be removed from the channels once they go offline (this should be really simple to do, I don't get why it's not done that way -_-).
The option clearly states "auto-join" Private Channels, not "stay in private channels 24/7".
This, I didn't even know this means you're taking up a slot when you go offline :s
|
Lol people stay in chat channels when they go offline? I didn't even realize that until now. I mean, wtf, Blizz fails at programming a chat? This is disturbing in so many ways....
|
Obviously just an oversight. A dumb one, but just that.
Let's hope they'll fix it soon, they can do a lot to improve the chat channel system still.
|
Didn't know this. I thought I just was lucky ^^ I like the auto-join, but the taking spot as offline is kinda stupid. I don't want to be in a channel full of offliners.
|
So noone on PTR noticed that? ^^
|
On January 13 2011 18:07 sleepingdog wrote:
Lol people stay in chat channels when they go offline? I didn't even realize that until now. I mean, wtf, Blizz fails at programming a chat? This is disturbing in so many ways....
They stay in chat channels only when they activated Auto-Join. But yes, i don't understand how nobody at Blizzard realised that this is a problem -.-
|
What is the point in having 100 man limits anyways? The other public channels have infinite number of people and the private channels should have less spam...
|
Auto join chat channels HAS to keep people in, i believe, due to the way it works. If there is a 100 person limit on channels, If that 100 limit is reached and someone signs on with auto join active the system cannot allocate them a port into the channel unless, well, they already have one
Its basically a really bad design flaw. IMO the only way a channel can prioritize people with the auto join ticked is to basically 'keep them in there' (i.e. keep their b.net track allocated to the room port), I don't know why they can't auto remove people after a time period as stated by Talin and Bliznako and simply prompt them with a 'canno't join channel' message when they sign in if the limit is reached.
Then theres the other argument of 100 people limits and NO INSTANCES ON PRIVATE CHANNELS!!?!?? I think thats the dumbest move...
well it is in its infancy, so we shall see.
|
On January 13 2011 18:10 Alpina wrote:
So noone on PTR noticed that? ^^
Well u have to understand that PTR was a test server
I went to PTR and tested stuff but it's normal stuff like this escaped us because
1. Alot of the people invited to PTR never actually bothered with it
2. Some people only played games to test balance
3. Their wasn't alot of people and alot of channels so few channels were maxed and we didn't notice that people went offline.
|
Wait I logged in today and had auto join enabled and I couldn't get into 'teamliquid2' because it was full... :s
|
On January 13 2011 18:13 ReketSomething wrote:
What is the point in having 100 man limits anyways? The other public channels have infinite number of people and the private channels should have less spam...
i think its something to do with how difficult it becomes to actually read things when there are >100 people typing at once (theoretically)
|
Yeah, easy fix. Remove people from chat once they are offline.
|
I think, they should actually add a third option called something like "custom channels"
I understand that the thought process behind them making private channels auto joinable is that they envisioned small groups of people who like to play together all having a common ground on which to talk while signed in.
The problem we are finding is that these channels are not designed big enough to accommodate for large communities of arbitrary members like this, as large numbers en mass are trying to join the same channel.
I think a third option should be implemented somehow that allows larger communal instanced chatrooms for communities like TL. But they would need to do it in such a way as to not allow everyone to make one as then that is simply what would be made instead of private rooms.
Possibly have 1 'custom chat room' applicable to be made per account. And instead of having to search, there would be a separate list tab on the chat rooms panel listing all of the channels, with an inbuilt search function which collapses the list down to the spelling input into the search function... or something.
|
On January 13 2011 18:15 des0lar wrote:
Yeah, easy fix. Remove people from chat once they are offline.
I don't think people are debating what should be done. Problem is how do we blizzard to implement this :o I don't think you can remove them yourself and even if you could that would be quite troublesome.
|
On January 13 2011 18:27 Piski wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2011 18:15 des0lar wrote:
Yeah, easy fix. Remove people from chat once they are offline. I don't think people are debating what should be done. Problem is how do we blizzard to implement this :o I don't think you can remove them yourself and even if you could that would be quite troublesome.
You know the question I'm asking myself?
What the fuck Blizzard?
Seriously...max chat rooms at 100, and then when people are offline you keep them in the chat channel? How could that EVER be considered a REMOTELY good idea in any scenario with a game as big as SC2 is?
I mean really? My three year old could have figured out that was a bad idea, it's simple math and common sense.
|
I suspect this could be the reason why I'm locked out of the channels I want to be in.
Yesterday my connection to BNet died, and since then I'm unable to join the channels I would normally have auto-joined. This includes channels like TLgeneral and TLkoth.
When trying to enter one of those channels it basically behaves like I was already in, ie. gives no feedback at my attempts to get in at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
