No Chat Lobbies is FAIL (BNet2.0)

[FrozenArbiter]

I wish I could say, I'm only relaying the public information we have. I would be interested in a blue post on this but we'll have to be patient. Your analogy is incorrect, our temporary "living space" is the IM solution. This sounds like it's not likable to you and that's understandible. Ultimately though, I'm trying my best to discuss this and I'm getting a feeling that you're getting a bit frustrated Frozen. Please calm down buddy, we're on the same side. ^_^

I'm not frustrated with anything but not understanding Blizzard :C

So what would you suggest to improve the situation? Constructive feedback will get farther than a few swear words and a pot full of complaints Solutions will progress more when you talk about solutions instead of problems.

A temporary chat channel, as I've said. I think I used a total of one curse word in the entire post you quoted ;p

I can see some of your points and agree with them. However, I don't think we should judge B.net as "dead" until we play it with our own hands. I think that we may not know the full details on this subject... I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss it until we know the details though. I advise a more open mind for discussion/speculation instead of pushing opinions as if they're the only truth.

Just to clarify, that's how I feel about your posts on this, I don't think that's how you intend to get them across... call it a hunch

But nobody is providing a reason for why you couldn't implement temporary chat channels.

[Gifted]

There are major issues with "temporary solutions".. especially temporary solutions that have existed in the past. People get attached to "the past". This makes it significantly harder to approach it in a clean functionality. Good development involve putting forth an intended use and providing the cleanest method to go with that intended use. If both of these are aligned, then the functionality can be coded cleanly with the best power possible. In other words, if it's not done right, you'll spend TONS of manpower fixing it over time and take the power out of "your" hands and put it "directly" in the consumers. While this isn't "bad" persay in the big picture, the goal is that you can align the consumers to your view, and therefore increase satisfaction.

They've learned how to work with this significantly with the lessons learned from wow. Let me site the idea of the LFG (looking for group) functionality they implemented. They looked at the problem, people using a trade channel for finding groups, and wanted to find a solution so people could create parties through an interface. One of their earliest ideas was to make a "looking for group" channel that spread across ALL OF THE GAME. (normally the chats are for the region you are specifically in) While some took this as a good thing, the majority of the people took it to a massive chat room. Then they took it away because it didn't solve the issue they wanted.. the players made it their own.

They since made an interface where you select the areas you are seeking and your role. People can query this, but it's barely used. Some people want to look for dungeons for their alts, which they aren't always on, so they wanted another means of communication.

So they implemented the lookingforgroup channel ONLY if you are currently using the "LFG" interface tool, putting yourself out there. The first 2 months were horrid. People were just putting themselves in LFG for the global chat... this weakened the tool significantly, because you'd ask if a person in the interface was available and they'd say "Just chatting". After a while, people were getting discouraged because they were trying to use it correctly but many couldn't let go of the past iteration. Over time however, the alignment was finally there, and it's actually a LFG channel as people started to let go of the past and more people started to realize it was getting better. The fight for this was over a year before it was finally dust in the wind.

The point above is this... if they would have taken the extra time to plan/examine the system, this could have been bypassed completely. This is most important with systems that have major change... you want the people aligned with it's intent from day one or else it will eventually be more painful for the customer.

This is proven not only in wow but many forms of development theory, the problem is simple. People won't want to let go of the old until the "new" becomes the old. It's the nature of people fearing change. The easiest way to help the customer if you feel a change is good.. is to implement the change correctly the first time with no distractions of the past.

I wouldn't be surprised that this is part of the reason they aren't implementing channels from day one but in the later patch, to help people adjust to the new IM system.

If they have a new chat system, the adjustment to the IM system and the chat system may be too much simultaneously, and might help people digress into the old system... causing more pain for the developers and the customers simultaneously.

IMPORTANTE: This is my speculation based on expirience in the industry and I feel it's sound as this information is pretty universal. It's typically not perceived lightly by a customer if this is brought up because many will feel "I shouldn't be forced into something" or "What about my power as a customer"... it's different than that if you feel that way... it's the goal of making everyone happy in the end... the shortest path.

[FrozenArbiter]

One would think that with all the social networking sites out there, all the chat programs, all the Instant Messengers, that people could be trusted to operate both normal channels as well as more IM specific features -_-

mIRC has been doing it for how long exactly?

Sigh, I hate business decisions like this. Always holding things back just so it can be "equal for everybody at the exact same time".

[Gifted]

The only reason those business decisions are chosen is that they are proven to be the most stable. It's the general masses to be concerned about, not the business.

[FrozenArbiter]

Well saying "I hate people" has a more negative ring to it... :P

[Gifted]

Well saying "I hate people" has a more negative ring to it... :P

That's a good point, now if we had someone cute like my 2 year old boy screaming out "I hate people" while giggling...people may ignore the negative ring... let me use an example... here's a picture I just took on my phone while my 2 year old screamed out (by my suggestion) "iyie ate pee-bell!"



Does it have a negative ring now?

[FrozenArbiter]

I support him.

Negativity circumvented via cuteness, good thinking =]