|
When MorroW was switching to Zerg there was so much ridicule towards the poor guy. For a while people would post his pages and pages of defeats in his win/loss record. This acted as an example to me as to why we need to seriously make this change to how 1v1 ladders are done.
Specifically, I want a different ranking for each race, random included. The idea here for me is that right now 1v1 encourages choosing one race and sticking to it even when just playing for fun. I think the game would be better if you had a different league and ladder for each race so that you are not only not punished for considering race changing, making it less of an uphill battle, it also opens up regular players the opportunity to play all the races without worrying about their ladder rank and for pro random players to work on a specific race or see how they are doing in each race.
I’m not sure why they didn’t do it to be honest and I think this could make the game more fun.
  
|
We also need better chat channels, better servers for no input limit reached, multiviewer replay functionality, cross-server play, a clan system, and name changes =\ Game has also been out for a year. Should be dropped to $40 so people don't have to pay so much just to play a game with their friends, especially with 2 expansions coming out in the future.
|
We wouldnt have this issue if blizzard allowed different accounts for each serial. Blizz' argument is (i guess) that it prevents people on smurf accounts from stomping lower league people and thus ruining the game for them. This is ofc totally stupid because if you switch races and get your rating lowered, you can stomp those lower people simply by switching back to your main race again. My suggested solution would be that you can create different subaccounts, but each time you create a new, it starts with a rating somwhere around the rating of your other accounts.
For me personally it would solve the "ladder anxiety" (I dont play 1v1 anymore, cause I havent for a long time and losing 20 games in a row to get to a rating where i can start winning again doesn't sound like fun to me) and allow me to learn different races aside from teamgames. IMO different rankings per race are better than the current situation, but not enough. I guess in the end its just Activision being the greedy assholes they are: they won't change a thing as long people keep buying the game several times for new accounts (and ofc the coming expansions for every single one). Man, I cant tell you how much I hate Activision after having read some of the bobby kotick(?) interviews.
|
That is a band-aid fix for the problem of imbalance.
|
When they're done fixing all that, I'd like a coke. Please.
|
also id like to fix world hunger and cure cancer, but more important have blizzard bring back the /w PLS
|
But then my extra two accounts would become unnecessary.. 
|
it's not like it would be very hard to implement (multiple accounts per serial key). I even believe they have the feature already, but it's deactivated.
|
this guys idea is good donno why people are just being stupid with gay responses, its true that since "they" chose to remove multiple accounts they should give us that choice to have in our profiles, which race we want to use when playing.
click profile>click desired race>play. this would make 3 separate rankings for you yeah, but too bad its not game breaking, rank breaking, or any break at all, a complete fix. i dont even play sc2 and this idea rocks my socks off.
edit: since i play on iccup ima go learn zerg and make a new account so my main account wont lose its actual skill level ranking, oh crap but i have to make a new account i wish i could just have three seperate rankings, each assigned to my race, rank by race, not rank per account. this idea is good.
|
Idea is obviously good but blizzard is sorta a whore. So it won't ahppen
|
Pretty good argument for having different rank for each race. I don't care about morrow or losing ladder points, but if you want to play off race then you should be matched against people who play at the level you play that race, not your main race.
I don't agree with multiple accounts for one serial, I don't have a problem with chat or the servers, I don't watch replays with my friends, I don't think there should be cross server play, I don't think you need to change your name all the time, I don't think the game is too expensive, I don't see what you want for a clan system, this has got nothing to do with balance, I hate coke, I agree with fixing world hunger and cancer.
|
On June 19 2011 06:08 DamageControL wrote:
Idea is obviously good but blizzard is sorta a whore. So it won't ahppen
Yeah Blizzard aka Activision won't do anything if it doesn't make them money.
|
On June 19 2011 06:16 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 06:08 DamageControL wrote:
Idea is obviously good but blizzard is sorta a whore. So it won't ahppen Yeah Blizzard aka Activision won't do anything if it doesn't make them money.
Tell me any business that is different.
|
On June 19 2011 05:41 Probe1 wrote:
When they're done fixing all that, I'd like a coke. Please.
fuck you I want three separate glasses for mountain dew, coke and orange soda
in all seriousness, they should implement this but they're probably pretty busy with HotS atm so it's not that big a deal in my mind
|
On June 19 2011 06:18 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 06:16 Chocolate wrote:On June 19 2011 06:08 DamageControL wrote:
Idea is obviously good but blizzard is sorta a whore. So it won't ahppen Yeah Blizzard aka Activision won't do anything if it doesn't make them money. Tell me any business that is different.
None but that doesn't mean Blizzard has to be like them. It just makes me angry that Blizzard is controlled by a company that has lots of stockholders.
|
On June 19 2011 06:19 MonsieurGrimm wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:41 Probe1 wrote:
When they're done fixing all that, I'd like a coke. Please.
fuck you I want three separate glasses for mountain dew, coke and orange soda
ALL I WANTED WAS A PEPSI
|
On June 19 2011 06:25 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 06:18 deathly rat wrote:On June 19 2011 06:16 Chocolate wrote:On June 19 2011 06:08 DamageControL wrote:
Idea is obviously good but blizzard is sorta a whore. So it won't ahppen Yeah Blizzard aka Activision won't do anything if it doesn't make them money. Tell me any business that is different. None but that doesn't mean Blizzard has to be like them. It just makes me angry that Blizzard is controlled by a company that has lots of stockholders.
Lol what? Do you want Blizzard to go out of business? Yes, there should be separate ladders, but people won't stop complaining. The next complaint will be that we should be able to choose which matchup we want to play. Then we want a separate ladder for each of those matchups. Then we want LAN. Then we want rated FFAs.
It never stops. We got chat channels and people are still complaining about them
|
On June 19 2011 06:18 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 06:16 Chocolate wrote:On June 19 2011 06:08 DamageControL wrote:
Idea is obviously good but blizzard is sorta a whore. So it won't ahppen Yeah Blizzard aka Activision won't do anything if it doesn't make them money. Tell me any business that is different.
1998 Blizzard was different. They created SC and BW, without all of the greedyness that "all" companies have. They created WC3 and WoW, both very good games (still are, BTW). However, people are worried that Blizzard is becoming too greedy, with microtransactions in WoW (for name changes and character customization) and for all the restrictions on SCII, such as a lack of cross-realm play, name changes, and single-user accounts (making people buy multiple games + expansions).
|
On June 19 2011 06:37 awu25 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 06:25 Chocolate wrote:On June 19 2011 06:18 deathly rat wrote:On June 19 2011 06:16 Chocolate wrote:On June 19 2011 06:08 DamageControL wrote:
Idea is obviously good but blizzard is sorta a whore. So it won't ahppen Yeah Blizzard aka Activision won't do anything if it doesn't make them money. Tell me any business that is different. None but that doesn't mean Blizzard has to be like them. It just makes me angry that Blizzard is controlled by a company that has lots of stockholders. Lol what? Do you want Blizzard to go out of business? Yes, there should be separate ladders, but people won't stop complaining. The next complaint will be that we should be able to choose which matchup we want to play. Then we want a separate ladder for each of those matchups. Then we want LAN. Then we want rated FFAs. It never stops. We got chat channels and people are still complaining about them
Obviously, I guess. But they just pick and choose the best ideas. You conceded this is a good change. So would LAN. Rated FFA's? eh...who cares. Why would we want seperate ladders for each matchups or to be able to control MU? Maybe in custom. but not in ladder.
|
On June 19 2011 06:43 Omegalisk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 06:18 deathly rat wrote:On June 19 2011 06:16 Chocolate wrote:On June 19 2011 06:08 DamageControL wrote:
Idea is obviously good but blizzard is sorta a whore. So it won't ahppen Yeah Blizzard aka Activision won't do anything if it doesn't make them money. Tell me any business that is different. 1998 Blizzard was different. They created SC and BW, without all of the greedyness that "all" companies have. They created WC3 and WoW, both very good games (still are, BTW).
I don't understand exactly what your point is here. The big difference is that these games were created when new RTSs were potentially the most popular game title. SC2 was created at a time when RTSs are a niche market. If Blizzard wanted to make more big bucks they could easily make a FPS or another MMO. Of course they have to make money on SC2, but deciding to make it was surely either because they wanted to or it was a very brave business risk. Both worthy of praise.
On June 19 2011 06:43 Omegalisk wrote:
However, people are worried that Blizzard is becoming too greedy, with microtransactions in WoW (for name changes and character customization) and for all the restrictions on SCII, such as a lack of cross-realm play, name changes, and single-user accounts (making people buy multiple games + expansions).
I don't like micro transactions, but name changes are a particular issue. In an online environment it is very important to know who you are talking to. If people were changing their name all the time then somebody could easily tell you that they are someone else who has just changed their name and use this to scam you. Also, it is a significant obstacle for known scammers.
Realms and servers are designed to be closed systems. In WoW it would destroy the economies of servers, and in SC2 regional servers reduce lag for players.
People really see consipiracy and evil intent where there are simple explanations.
|
On June 19 2011 07:10 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 06:43 Omegalisk wrote:On June 19 2011 06:18 deathly rat wrote:On June 19 2011 06:16 Chocolate wrote:On June 19 2011 06:08 DamageControL wrote:
Idea is obviously good but blizzard is sorta a whore. So it won't ahppen Yeah Blizzard aka Activision won't do anything if it doesn't make them money. Tell me any business that is different. 1998 Blizzard was different. They created SC and BW, without all of the greedyness that "all" companies have. They created WC3 and WoW, both very good games (still are, BTW). I don't understand exactly what your point is here. The big difference is that these games were created when new RTSs were potentially the most popular game title. SC2 was created at a time when RTSs are a niche market. If Blizzard wanted to make more big bucks they could easily make a FPS or another MMO. Of course they have to make money on SC2, but deciding to make it was surely either because they wanted to or it was a very brave business risk. Both worthy of praise.
There is a very big different between making enough money to have a profit and maximizing that profit. Yes, RTS's aren't a huge player in the market right now, but removing cross-realm play, etc will not improve their profits for that reason. I can agree with them appealing to the casual market, as it grows the community, but the only people who will buy multiple accounts are the people who truly care about the game and would buy it anyways.
Also, that doesn't explain WoW.
Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 06:43 Omegalisk wrote:
However, people are worried that Blizzard is becoming too greedy, with microtransactions in WoW (for name changes and character customization) and for all the restrictions on SCII, such as a lack of cross-realm play, name changes, and single-user accounts (making people buy multiple games + expansions).
I don't like micro transactions, but name changes are a particular issue. In an online environment it is very important to know who you are talking to. If people were changing their name all the time then somebody could easily tell you that they are someone else who has just changed their name and use this to scam you. Also, it is a significant obstacle for known scammers.
I do agree that quickly changing names would be too easy and would cause problems, but it doesn't have to be that way. For instance, instead of a name change in WoW costing real money, it could cost a rather large amount of in-game money. I suppose that the cost of name changes could be attributed to the amount of server time needed to change, but they could easily be mitigated by the $15 a month that you pay for that server time.
Realms and servers are designed to be closed systems. In WoW it would destroy the economies of servers, and in SC2 regional servers reduce lag for players.
I do agree that having cross-realm interation on WoW would cause many problems with the economy (as WoW isn't designed that way) but that isn't an excuse for being able to create characters on different servers. In SC2, you could just connect to different servers, possibly with a new SC2 name, and play from there. The lag would be a side effect that players would accept, and could be reduced by playing on the same server.
|
On June 19 2011 07:25 Omegalisk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 07:10 deathly rat wrote:On June 19 2011 06:43 Omegalisk wrote:On June 19 2011 06:18 deathly rat wrote:On June 19 2011 06:16 Chocolate wrote:On June 19 2011 06:08 DamageControL wrote:
Idea is obviously good but blizzard is sorta a whore. So it won't ahppen Yeah Blizzard aka Activision won't do anything if it doesn't make them money. Tell me any business that is different. 1998 Blizzard was different. They created SC and BW, without all of the greedyness that "all" companies have. They created WC3 and WoW, both very good games (still are, BTW). I don't understand exactly what your point is here. The big difference is that these games were created when new RTSs were potentially the most popular game title. SC2 was created at a time when RTSs are a niche market. If Blizzard wanted to make more big bucks they could easily make a FPS or another MMO. Of course they have to make money on SC2, but deciding to make it was surely either because they wanted to or it was a very brave business risk. Both worthy of praise. There is a very big different between making enough money to have a profit and maximizing that profit. Yes, RTS's aren't a huge player in the market right now, but removing cross-realm play, etc will not improve their profits for that reason. I can agree with them appealing to the casual market, as it grows the community, but the only people who will buy multiple accounts are the people who truly care about the game and would buy it anyways. Also, that doesn't explain WoW. Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 06:43 Omegalisk wrote:
However, people are worried that Blizzard is becoming too greedy, with microtransactions in WoW (for name changes and character customization) and for all the restrictions on SCII, such as a lack of cross-realm play, name changes, and single-user accounts (making people buy multiple games + expansions).
I don't like micro transactions, but name changes are a particular issue. In an online environment it is very important to know who you are talking to. If people were changing their name all the time then somebody could easily tell you that they are someone else who has just changed their name and use this to scam you. Also, it is a significant obstacle for known scammers. I do agree that quickly changing names would be too easy and would cause problems, but it doesn't have to be that way. For instance, instead of a name change in WoW costing real money, it could cost a rather large amount of in-game money. I suppose that the cost of name changes could be attributed to the amount of server time needed to change, but they could easily be mitigated by the $15 a month that you pay for that server time. Show nested quote +
Realms and servers are designed to be closed systems. In WoW it would destroy the economies of servers, and in SC2 regional servers reduce lag for players.
I do agree that having cross-realm interation on WoW would cause many problems with the economy (as WoW isn't designed that way) but that isn't an excuse for being able to create characters on different servers. In SC2, you could just connect to different servers, possibly with a new SC2 name, and play from there. The lag would be a side effect that players would accept, and could be reduced by playing on the same server.
The only reason I can think that 99% of people would want to play cross realm is that these days people often have online friends around the world, with whom you might want to play SC2. I'm pretty sure there are technical reasons why it is less desireable to have people playing cross servers. The actual money they would make by a tiny percentage of people buying more than one copy for this reason seems outweighed by the simplicity of the task. I'm basically saying there must be more to this technically than we are seeing on the surface.
Using in game money to purchase name changes doesn't work because player incomes of the high earning players are at least 100x that of low level low earning players. The absolute top earning people are the money farmers. They will definately be able to change name whenever they want because the price would have to be set at a level which normal people could afford.
Also, making the game have in-built lag for playing across the world would only invite critcism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
