The Great Battle Net UI - Part 1

Posts: 119
There have recently been a lot of threads about how bad the UI of Battle.net is. In particular, there is a five part thread that just completely bashes the UI all together.

http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/3988232669 Part 1
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/4015344810 Part 2
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/4038616990 Part 3
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/4063009077 Part 4


I am making this thread in Blizzard's defense, because I am personally satisfied with the current UI of battle.net and would like to create a forum environment to praise it's strengths.
Maybe if enough goes on in this thread, that Blizzard will see it and can give themselves a big pat on the back, and see that some of us think they are doing a great job!


Chat Functionallity
I am personally really fond of the current chat channel UI. It's really small, so you don't have to look at all the stuff that everyone says. Sometimes I don't like to read what xXSNIPERXx has to say, or what xPOOPFEAST420x is raging about; and with these nifty little chat tools, I can just simply scroll over what they say.
I also am really fond of being invited into secret channels against my will. For example, one time I was invited into a chat channel called "lol you suck" after I lost to a silver leaguer on ladder. Him and his Gold league friends told me what I could do to do better. I blocked him after the game because he was rude, and without this function, I wouldn't have learned those valuable lessons.

Speaking of blocking communication between players. I actually really like being able to not receive messages from other players, but be able to send them messages anyways. This way I can give them friendly advice on how to improve their game without them trying to start an argument with me.


No LAN? No Problem!
As far as tournaments go, I think that the occassional lag here, and the possibility of a disconnect there makes the game seem more realistic and earn its grit as a sport. Just like football players have to deal with errant weather. These occasional technical dificulties really make it easy for me to relate a high level tournament to my own ladder play, because these things happen to me just like they happen to the pros.
And of course there is piracy. I watched all three Pirates of the Carribean movies with my girlfriends in junior high, and if not having LAN keeps those kind of people away from playing this game, then I'm all for it. I feel much safer not having to play with pirates.
Here is a video of Husky or HD's dad explaining why lack of LAN is a good thing in Starcraft 2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UFA1ieWA8s


Hiding Losses
I personally am not very good at this game. It's really challenging, so I like that Blizzard does it's job and hide's my failures, which would inevitably discourage me from playing this game.
I personally would like it if they implemented a few other changes as well, to make the game less intimidating for me to play.
These are some ideas that my friend threw together. He has his GED, a degree in Dental Assistance, and a MBA in Engineering, and he made these on his really nice computer:

http://i40.tinypic.com/n1av7l.png
http://i43.tinypic.com/n8ks1.png

I think Blizzard should sell these options in their online store. I would be the first to buy them, followed by 500,000 others at $9.99 USD a download.

My mom even suggested that maybe Blizzard could implement a rewards program called "Raynor Fun Bucks" where you get $1 in Raynor Fun Bucks for every gl, hf, and gg you say. Then us good guys will be able to cash in and get some encouraging mods to our game for being nice!

http://i41.tinypic.com/35i2fpe.png

Conclusion
So if you guys want Blizzard to hear about this and feel good about the great job they are doing, discuss how you really feel right here! If the thread fills, I will create another one, and hopefully we can get more than the other guys in that other thread where everyone is against having a great game with an awesome UI!

EDIT FEB 29TH 4:38AM CST

Clan Support
The lack of clan support makes it so pros will honor their commitment to a team since they can't change their name. EG probably would have bought HuK a long time ago if there was clan support. My friend who works for EG said that the reason why they took so long was because they had to raise enough money to buy him another account so he could change it from LiquidHuK to EGHuK.
They may have also considered getting rid of iNcontroL awhile ago, too, if there was clan support. For the longest time, he showed no results, and was really slumping. Now we are getting into my own conspiracy theory here, but I think that EG would have kicked him off awhile ago if they didn't already have a whopping $60 invested in having his name have EG in front of it. EG is practically the Wal-Mart of eSports, so I wouldn't have been surpised if they dropped him like a bag of hot rice. I really like iNcontroL, so I am thankful for the lack of LAN, because I personally think it is what kept his career alive until he found himself as EG captain.

Special thanks to BcDewtrocity for pointing out that I forgot to address "Clan Support"
Edited by xXxMETHxXx on 2/29/2012 2:44 AM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 116
good read. i especially agree with the no lan because it gives us casual players an equal chance to win on ladder as the pros in gsl finals. blizzard definatly made the right decisions there. i would hate to feel like they are only better than me because they dont have lag anyway. excellent post and good day to you good sir!
Reply Quote
Posts: 119
the lack of clan support makes it so pros will honor their commitment to a team since they can't change their name.
i can't believe i left out such an important detail, i will add it right away
Reply Quote
Posts: 13
02/29/2012 02:55 AMPosted by BcDewtrocity
Well here you are trying a bit too hard. Do you really think EG, who pays Huk up to a 100k a year salary was worried about 60 dollars?


Yes.
Reply Quote
Posts: 13
MMXUrMomEzZ
02/29/2012 02:55 AMPosted by BcDewtrocity
Well here you are trying a bit too hard. Do you really think EG, who pays Huk up to a 100k a year salary was worried about 60 dollars?


Yes.


Just because the Vikings pay Michael Jordan 9,999,999,999,999 simoleons to play pitcher, doesn't mean they are going to buy their water boy a new jersey because he spilled bacon on it.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,064
02/29/2012 02:20 AMPosted by xXxMETHxXx
My friend who works for EG said that the reason why they took so long was because they had to raise enough money to buy him another account so he could change it from LiquidHuK to EGHuK.

Ya like Bcdewrocity said...60 bucks is a joke.

But after seeing all these ridiculous videoes, i now realize you are a supporter of our cause and are taking the other side only to show how retarted you would have to be to acctually support the present system...cheers.
Edited by Themightyone on 2/29/2012 3:08 AM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 2,825


I am making this thread in Blizzard's defense, because I am personally satisfied with the current UI of battle.net and would like to create a forum environment to praise it's strengths.



Good for you.

Just know, that Blizzard put the bare minimum effort into battle net 2.0. Compared to the battle net 1.0s (sc1, wc3, d2) the games that are on the battle net 2.0 have less features. D3 won't even have chat channels.

Should a shiny new product labeled "the always connected experience" and as "2.0" should be a hollow skeleton of a system compared to "1.0"?

There are definitely good reasons that most sane people consider this 2.0 a step backwards, it may be up to the crap quality of other platforms, but it is not the blizzard quality we used to know.

All in all, this "always connected" skeletal battle net has hurt Blizzard greatly. The phrase is customer retention. This game definitely has some, but not nearly as much as previous Blizzard strategy games have had. WC3 and SC1 went strong for years, SC2 had a large opening that made it quite profitable, but then people left in droves. The active player base is maybe at best a tenth of what it was at launch.
Reply Quote
Posts: 892


I am making this thread in Blizzard's defense, because I am personally satisfied with the current UI of battle.net and would like to create a forum environment to praise it's strengths.



Good for you.

Just know, that Blizzard put the bare minimum effort into battle net 2.0. Compared to the battle net 1.0s (sc1, wc3, d2) the games that are on the battle net 2.0 have less features. D3 won't even have chat channels.

Should a shiny new product labeled "the always connected experience" and as "2.0" should be a hollow skeleton of a system compared to "1.0"?

There are definitely good reasons that most sane people consider this 2.0 a step backwards, it may be up to the crap quality of other platforms, but it is not the blizzard quality we used to know.

All in all, this "always connected" skeletal battle net has hurt Blizzard greatly. The phrase is customer retention. This game definitely has some, but not nearly as much as previous Blizzard strategy games have had. WC3 and SC1 went strong for years, SC2 had a large opening that made it quite profitable, but then people left in droves. The active player base is maybe at best a tenth of what it was at launch.

You do know that this was a sarcastic, satirical parody right?
Reply Quote
Posts: 2,825

You do know that this was a sarcastic, satirical parody right?


Sarcasm rarely translates well through a written medium.

There seems to be a greater chance that the original poster is serious than there is that he is sarcastic. I'm making the fewest assumptions in this case, a la Occam's razor. There are far to few actually clever people on this forum that can even succeed in proper sarcasm.
Edited by Dwarfspider on 2/29/2012 8:53 AM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 139
Hey guys, I heard of this guy called Colbert. He's a terrific fellow and he's a right winger like the truest of us Americans. You should watch him to replace the hold that Glen Beck left in our hearts.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,064

You do know that this was a sarcastic, satirical parody right?


Sarcasm rarely translates well through a written medium.

There seems to be a greater chance that the original poster is serious than there is that he is sarcastic. I'm making the fewest assumptions in this case, a la Occam's razor. There are far to few actually clever people on this forum that can even succeed in proper sarcasm.

The sarcasm and satire is hidden in his links; once you see them it becomes quite obvious.

...occams razor is an over abused concept that should only be applied when one is feeling too lazy and thoughtless to pursue the truth.
Edited by Themightyone on 2/29/2012 6:47 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 2,825


...occams razor is an over abused concept that should only be applied when one is feeling too lazy and thoughtless to pursue the truth.


Well, you have me there. At least for this thread.
Edited by Dwarfspider on 2/29/2012 6:57 PM PST
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]