EPT[SC2B] View From the Top - Page 3
| Forum Index > News |
|
rugmonkey
United Kingdom126 Posts
| ||
|
Pupsilein
Germany17 Posts
I think most people don't care if they are number 735.589 in the world's ranking, but it they rank top 20 in their division it makes a difference. Sure the top players need some way to compete globally, but e-sports should not just be about the few top players, but also include the casual player. I'm also happy not to have to play constantly against some random guys from Korea with huge lags. | ||
Heyoka
Katowice25012 Posts
On March 18 2010 15:28 Maceifer wrote: Guys, I think the statement was widely misunderstood. Let's recap the Q&A: I think this is just a misunderstood question leading to a misconceived answer. FRIENDING across realms will not be possible, meaning that you can't add players from Asia to your friends list if you play on Europe for instance as far as I understand the answer. I don't beleive he would have said friends if he really meant logging into different realms. I agree the Blizz response is somewhat ambiguous, but the question the guy asked is really, really clear. Its raises enough concern to warrant talking about it. There is a chance I'll look like an idiot when its revealed that the "pro league" ranking is a global thing that transcends countries but we'll see, this "we'll do it after launch" is dangerous talk as we all know how long it takes for them to patch things in (online replays was promised 'after launch' for WC3 lol!). And yes the 60% issue is because its top 8 of each division. haha way to read my mind Pupsilein | ||
|
uhlyk
Slovakia36 Posts
| ||
TheMute
United States458 Posts
| ||
|
TheAntZ
Israel6248 Posts
On March 18 2010 20:06 TheMute wrote: I wonder if the people that work on sc2 come to here to read the articles Yes, they do, and they've said so before | ||
|
Art_of_Kill
Zaire1232 Posts
but they should keep 3 servers, because i see alot americans to complain about latancy issues, while i have perfect lan latancy on europe server and if all server merge this would be bad for lan latancy so the best way is to give people the possibility to switch betwen servers for tournaments and they should make it possible to chat with people from other servers!!!!!!! (why do they make it possible to chat as sc2 player with a WOW player? what sense does it make? but you dont have a possibility to chat with sc2 friends who are on an other server .....) | ||
|
OminouS
Sweden1343 Posts
On March 18 2010 11:57 HuskyTheHusky wrote: Oh my god I LOVE STATS. Rolling in my own happiness atm. Thanks! I second that! I'm a stats junkie. | ||
JWD
United States12607 Posts
| ||
|
Osmoses
Sweden5302 Posts
| ||
|
Senx
Sweden5901 Posts
 Really hope that we get to play on any given server at the launch and that there is something like a global ranking, or atleast continental ranking. | ||
|
goswser
United States3548 Posts
| ||
|
Razamataz
Canada135 Posts
| ||
|
Commodore
United States97 Posts
On March 18 2010 11:48 heyoka wrote: The system in place right now is a bit of a step backwards, further dividing up communities when it is not needed. This is a point on which I disagree with this article and the one titled "Battle.net - 1 Step Forward, 2.0 Steps Back." I don't have a beta key, but from what I've read, there's one thing that Battle.net 2.0 does very well. Moreover, as I will explain, this is really the only thing that matters. It puts you up against opponents of the same skill level after only 10 games. From experience, I can say that Iccup does a horrible job at this, especially at the D level. Furthermore, it's very frustrating and time consuming to find a game on Iccup, especially if you're behind a firewall. What Battle.net 2.0 doesn't do is provide you with a rank. But this isn't really the point, right? Battle.net 2.0 is a place to practice and have fun, and all that you need for practice is a good practice partner. Battle.net 2.0 does a good job of pairing you with one. Tournaments should provide plenty of opportunities for ranking in SC2. Aren't tournament rankings much more meaningful than Iccup rankings anyway? | ||
|
mcneebs
Canada391 Posts
| ||
|
Pokebunny
United States10654 Posts
On March 19 2010 00:24 Commodore wrote: This is a point on which I disagree with this article and the one titled "Battle.net - 1 Step Forward, 2.0 Steps Back." I don't have a beta key, but from what I've read, there's one thing that Battle.net 2.0 does very well. Moreover, as I will explain, this is really the only thing that matters. It puts you up against opponents of the same skill level after only 10 games. From experience, I can say that Iccup does a horrible job at this, especially at the D level. Furthermore, it's very frustrating and time consuming to find a game on Iccup, especially if you're behind a firewall. What Battle.net 2.0 doesn't do is provide you with a rank. But this isn't really the point, right? Battle.net 2.0 is a place to practice and have fun, and all that you need for practice is a good practice partner. Battle.net 2.0 does a good job of pairing you with one. Tournaments should provide plenty of opportunities for ranking in SC2. Aren't tournament rankings much more meaningful than Iccup rankings anyway? A ladder is a competition, practice is practice. The word ladder implies you are climbing up/down ranks, which is useless if you don't even know your rank. | ||
|
chichom27
Ecuador56 Posts
But let's take a step back and take a look at the current setup. Being divided into different divisions and servers, well, I think it is a good thing. When I think of this I think of one of the biggest international sports: Soccer. Soccer world wide tournaments are arranged to specifically seed teams from different regions into one big world tournament. This holds true for national selections, and individual clubs ('08 club final was between Manchester United(England) vs Liga Universitaria de Quito(Ecuador)). Relating it back to SC2, I feel that being divided into regions will allow each region to develop their own quirks in gameplay and playstyle. Then top players of each region would bring their own personal styles, in addition to the regional styles into, say the world finals.I am not suggesting that strategies will vastly differ between regions, but there will definitely be differences. When it comes to dividing each league into different divisions, that will depend on the amount of players there are playing in each division. As the game currently is in beta, I imagine (please correct me if I'm wrong) the divisions are fairly small in relation to what they could possibly be once release hits. Another point of view that can be adopted is that from a viewer perspective. If divisions just randomly pop up to accommodate the population of the league, it would be hard to get spectators to have favorites. Divisions with more meaning behind them besides population could encourage a greater following. I'm not too big of basketball but I feel you can get a sense of that sort of following out of that sport. When you got big confrontations of east coast vs west coast for example. Imagine the regional finals of NA for example, and finally seeing starplayerA vs starplayerB finally duke it out, it might prove a little more epic than rank1player vs rank2player. TLDR: I feel divisions might be a good thing at the competitive level, but there has to be more meaning behind them besides to separate the population of a specific league. | ||
|
Parnage
United States7414 Posts
I am pretty sure they'll be some form of cross community/region playing. One way or another it'll get done and I wouldn't be surprised if Blizzard is already working on the issue now. I don't quite see them as the evil/bumbling types. Honestly isn't the fact that if you're in plat top 8 you have a pretty good idea of where you happen to be in the standings? I mean sure it could be a tad better but it's not one is completely oblivious of his standing in the world. Thou I am sure given enough time plenty of math types will be so kind as to figure out some sort of way of telling you your 8,987th in the world if blizzard doesn't do it for them. | ||
|
Slunk
Germany768 Posts
| ||
|
LaughingTulkas
United States1107 Posts
On March 19 2010 02:26 Slunk wrote: I don't get how the rating system is inaccurate. I am not completely sure, but I do not seem to be only playing the players in my division. At the very least, if the system is "expanding search" I get to play guys from different divisions and leagues. This means a division is by no means a closed system. Thus, the points should tell you enough about how good a player is (1495 Gold player should be equal to other 1495 Gold players, no matter what divisions they are in, even if their relative ranks inside their respective divisions differ). So, from what I unterstand, the only thing Blizzard needs to do is to make it possible to display an overall player list for each league without changing the ranking system in any way. Yeah, that's how I understood it as well. I don't think there is any point adjustment for the "strength" of your division. How many points you get is determined by only three things 1. Your strength as a player 2. Your opponents strength as a player 3. Whether or not you win. Oh, well then there's those resting points. So I lied, there's 4 things. But nowhere here is anything related to what division you are in. So as slunk said, whoever has the highest rating, is the best player. It means that they have beaten the most and best ranked other players. Regardless of division or anything else. Now the leagues definitely seem to be on different scales, but that's another matter. | ||
| ||
