|
Gameon didn't work -- they haven't given a status update on it -- so obviously a lot hinges on that. I did say "fix gameon.." And "stick with what you have" is a reference to the current makeup of WCG.
Having played the ladder formats, and then playing tournament format last year, the idea of a tourney makes me cringe: e.g., I lost a WCG tourney last year due to them not having a designated server, and my opponent abused that by submitting a walkover (go to a diff server, and submit screen shot). Apparently since it was late in the tourney (later stage), the admin didn't feel it was necessary to show up (all the players but my opponent were there).
I'd rather rely on gameon doing it's job than having to rely on WCG admins as heavily; in ladder format, you have time to look over everything for abuse, but in a tourney -- if you drop the ball for 1 day -- that really has a big effect on the tourney. And since WCG is only once a year, no one wants negligence to decide their fate.
|
trust me, the ladder format is terrible... there've been massive problems with it every time they have done it.
and arguably, pretty much all of the people who SHOULD have been at regionals (from the online tournaments) got there, and got to the finals... so it worked out alright.
|
I'll take that as a joke. I have qualified for regionals the past two ladder formats (when I started WCG). I'm aware of who has been qualifying, and when you look at who "should" be at regionals, it's not even a comparison worth making; during the ladder formats, there was some abuse -- but it always got handled = moot point. Last years tourney: all of the sudden the "ex-hackers" came to qualify -- and, magically, a lot of them did.. I know I was far from the only one that had a wrongful walkover happen last year. It was a mess.
I'm aware that my point would rely on if there is anti hack or not -- but your point was that the players who "should" be at regionals were there, and that is just silly is you look at the past 3 years.
After the ladder finishes, they review for abuse for quite some time before making anything official; the only time there has been "fishy" stuff happening that may have slipped past the admins is the games between friends that occur during the final hours of the ladder. Ones where like 1 guy already has a qualifying spot locked up, but he is still playing his friend (and losing).
|
No matter the format, people will try to abuse... but if a tournament is to be held, they need to at least do an adequate job of handling it. And no, that did not happen last year.
|
|
|
I think having no lan lat is seriously unfair for every single terran player.
Sure muta micro is gone but mnm and sci vs lurker/ling/scourge is impossible in battle.net latency.
Not to mention tvp where strong reaction times and unit responses have because an interagal part in overcoming the p>T imbalance.
Please let us use iccup for our games like last year!
|
On April 16 2009 05:36 AttackZerg wrote:
Not to mention tvp where strong reaction times and unit responses have because an interagal part in overcoming the p>T imbalance.
I'm going to stop you right there
|
The non lan lat issue is deff something that should be resolved if possible. Not only is Terran at a bigger disadv, but a lot of people probably are not familiar with playing on non lan anymore (I'm not at least), making it even harder to play. I think everyone can agree on that it would be nicer to play on lan settings than otherwise, so that really is something that should be addressed.
|
On April 16 2009 06:06 tonight wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2009 05:36 AttackZerg wrote:
Not to mention tvp where strong reaction times and unit responses have because an interagal part in overcoming the p>T imbalance. I'm going to stop you right there
oh of course you are
Why can't WCG just be run on the iccup servers? EVERYONE that is going to qualify uses iccup rather than bnet
|
Just to clarify for everyone,
ICCUP is considered a direct competitor of GamOn/WCGZone.
|
On April 16 2009 11:13 Laurent wrote:
Just to clarify for everyone,
ICCUP is considered a direct competitor of GamOn/WCGZone.
But ICCup is actually good  Generally the best competitor is the one selected by the community when given the choice 
|
Artosis
United States2138 Posts
On April 16 2009 11:13 Laurent wrote:
Just to clarify for everyone,
ICCUP is considered a direct competitor of GamOn/WCGZone.
what?
|
I think iCCup keeps people actually playing bw. I'd say 80% of gamers now hang out on iccup when they go to bnet
|
On April 16 2009 11:13 Laurent wrote:
Just to clarify for everyone,
ICCUP is considered a direct competitor of GamOn/WCGZone.
If WCG thinks this then why don't they give up and disband?
|
On April 16 2009 11:13 Laurent wrote:
Just to clarify for everyone,
ICCUP is considered a direct competitor of GamOn/WCGZone.
But no competitive players (that I know of) use GamOn/WCGZone for their laddering needs. ICCUP works and it's what people use. I'm sure ICCUP has 1000x the users. I know it's too late now but it's too bad WCG and ICCUP couldn't work something out in terms of advertising and sponsorships. I mean ideally WCG will still use ICCUP regardless for the sake of the BW players ease and the fact that ICCUP is proven and reliable, although I'm not sure if that will happen
|
Well, if they view iccup as a competitor, then they need to implement lan lat. Until then, there isn't a reason to even start viewing them as a competitor, as it is a pretty one-sided affair.
|
On April 16 2009 11:13 Laurent wrote:
Just to clarify for everyone,
ICCUP is considered a direct competitor of GamOn/WCGZone.
lol!
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
GamOn / WCGZone are NOT competitors with ICCUP because Gamon and WCGZone are used specifically once a year for a single event while ICCUP runs year long and has a completely separate purpose/goal than WCG's "ladders."
Laurent
If they were really competitors than WCG would have implemented a LAN Latency. Not having that and calling yourself a competitor is like fielding a coed childrens soccer team against the nation of Spain.
|
On April 16 2009 11:30 Louder wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2009 11:13 Laurent wrote:
Just to clarify for everyone,
ICCUP is considered a direct competitor of GamOn/WCGZone.
But ICCup is actually good
Well said, good sir!
|
United States4991 Posts
On April 16 2009 11:13 Laurent wrote:
Just to clarify for everyone,
ICCUP is considered a direct competitor of GamOn/WCGZone.
I would've understood if you guys said you can't use it because Blizzard doesn't want an organization like WCG to use a 3rd party server. But a direct competitor? lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
