|
On August 22 2009 23:41 Archaic wrote:
Basically, people don't smurf just to "own noobs to boost their ego." People smurf to be anonymous, for privacy, entertainment, screwing around, whatever it may be. Sure, sometimes people decide, "Hey! Let's go beat some D- level people for fun!" but that is HARDLY the majority of their time spent. It is simply a waste of time and effort.
On August 22 2009 23:41 Archaic wrote:
If they play against a person trying their hardest, it would better test the viability of their build. But if they screw around, play carelessly, and mess up their timings, it could very well screw up the build timings that they are trying to test out.
So it's ok for good players to screw around against weaker players and interfere with their learning process? It's worse for weaker players, too, because a good player testing a new build who loses hands down against someone who is also good but is screwing around has still learned that there is a glaring weakness in his build, while a worse player doing a build perfectly can lose to a good player who is screwing around.
As another thought, some examples of players screwing around for fun in ways that will probably reduce the level of the player who loses to them:
Take for example a B- Protoss smurfing against a D Zerg who does proxy 2-gate outside the Zerg main on heartbreak ridge. Even if the Zerg scouts it right away and reacts properly, they're going to lose because of inferior micro. What they're going to learn is "I need to start more sunkens." or "I need to fight with my Drones." and they'll still lose against smurfs and other D players because they'll have lost too much economy in defending. Eventually, they'll get frustrated with 9 pool, 12 hatch, and overpool because they never win against 2-gate, and try "I need to get my pool out earlier," creating a Zerg who always 5-pools against Protoss, or they'll stop putting their second hatch at their natural and putting it in their main with a safety sunken, creating an inferior Zerg player that standard FE Protoss players laugh at and thank for the easy win.
Another, more excessive example, would be a smurf who builds a single 8 rax against inferior Protoss, then when they have 2 marines pulls all but enough SCVs to continue that marine pump and support a bunker or two and attacks the Protoss, winning because of vastly superior micro. What exactly is the Protoss player learning from this?
|
On August 22 2009 08:14 blade55555 wrote:But of course you guys will complain your probably one of the c-b fag players who can't beat your own rank so you smurf to feel good about yourself. Blizzard made a good decision and you can hate it all you want they won't change it 
This, a million times this. I fucking hate getting stomped all over by smurfs, fuck your shit. Fuck. Your. Shit. Try picking on people your own size, you damn cowards.
This is a great decision by Blizzord <333 And your baww/rage is delicious.
|
agreed, this is a great move by blizzard.
|
They should at least have it so that you can run concurrent stats. Like a "Cheese stat" and a "Regular stat" for people who want to test their skills or try out new strategies.
In order to combat smurfing, the profile can be made so that ALL concurrent stats are listed (regular, cheese, etc.) so that anyone can simply look at the profile to see that it's actually a good player.
|
i like this system no more smurffing me !!
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 23 2009 01:14 KinosJourney2 wrote:Im glad about this, now i wont get raped anymore on B.NET. + Show Spoiler +yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!
You realize that the reason you get raped on Bnet is not smurfs right? It's that it's an 11 fucking year old game and if you are new you are gonna get killed.
|
Canada11349 Posts
What exactly is the Protoss player learning from this?
That irregular action sometimes works? Honestly, if it is a experimental build, then by definition the D level will not run across it very much unless they play that player again.
Your post seems to assume that a D level will make drastic changes over one game.
The two gate rush is not experimental, it is a very powerful build at low levels (as I discovered) and doesn't work against a proper modern build (I also discovered.) You seem to assume that the 2-gate was propagated by smurfs pwning noobs. Whereas, I think it was propagated largely by low level protoss (like me) who discovered they can destroy similarly skilled players in 8 minutes.
|
As a bit of a newbie (C/C+) I find smurfing so fucking annoying. I don't see a problem with this at all.
|
<sorry I haven't read the whole thread>
Wouldn't sc2 account system be like in red alert 3 where you have one main account assigned to a single cd key and you can create multiple 'nicks' with individual stats, but every person could easily check which 'nicks' belong to the same account?
|
Blizzard is messing up so bad...
We all know that Blizz wants to squeez bucks outta SCII, but piss off your customers and you wont be getting anything.
If Blizz insits on keeping their WoW-esque login system for SCII, they should make it so that we have one 'SCII User account' (or master account, as another poster mentioned) to login into SC and as many Bnet accounts as we want. Plus, if they put the additional regulation of disabling simultaneous usage of the same "SCII User account" the problem of hacking would be solved...
Gaah... I'm starting to feel like I'm not gonna buy SCII cause its primary objective will be to make Blizz's pockets fat rather than expanding the SC industry (i.e. programing).
|
On August 23 2009 01:42 win8282 wrote:
Blizzard is messing up so bad...
We all know that Blizz wants to squeez bucks outta SCII, but piss off your customers and you wont be getting anything.
If Blizz insits on keeping their WoW-esque login system for SCII, they should make it so that we have one 'SCII User account' (or master account, as another poster mentioned) to login into SC and as many Bnet accounts as we want. Plus, if they put the additional regulation of disabling simultaneous usage of the same "SCII User account" the problem of hacking would be solved...
Gaah... I'm starting to feel like I'm not gonna buy SCII cause its primary objective will be to make Blizz's pockets fat rather than expanding the SC industry (i.e. programing).
Of course Blizz is making the game to make its pockets fat. We can only hope that it aids progaming as well (hey, it's the best shot that's out there -- it's not like any other game is providing a bettery way).
|
what if you join different teams and you want their tag in your name? Like you get sponsored by different companies?
Who actually smurfs because they want to "bash newbies" ???
Some people on here sound VERY bitter about smurfs. VERY. So what if someone "smurfs" you... its just a fucking game.
and FA is exactly right. if you are legitimately new to the game you arent losing because of smurfs you are losing because the game is old as fuck and the only people who are playing it nowadays are people who have played for years.
|
On August 23 2009 01:39 GG.Win wrote:
As a bit of a newbie (C/C+) I find smurfing so fucking annoying. I don't see a problem with this at all.
As a C-/C player I dont understand this at all. Either you play at korean hours and get stomped or you simply want a positive record. At C+, smurfs are B+ and higher - you won't face of these players, and when you do you can find flaws in your play better than when you play vs C. You can learn alot from losing to better players. And I'd be suprised if you have never tried new strategies on another account.
|
I do not like this one account per cd key either. I never smurf just to get easy wins, and i never seem to have a big problem going against smurfs. did blizzard say why they are doing this?
|
wtf is blizzard thinking?
|
I just hope everything works out well at the end...
Oh please...
|
Yeah, those weren't the best examples. ZvZ would probably be a better, where superior micro trumps build order wins, and a new player with bad micro might learn that overpool loses to 9-pool and 12-hatch because he loses to 9-pool players with really good micro a lot.
And yes, D players do change their builds after losing one game. As evidence, I present all of the threads that can be found here and on iccup with "I lost to such-and-such, what build should I do so this doesn't happen anymore?" as the main idea of the initial post.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 23 2009 01:39 Tritanis wrote:
Wouldn't sc2 account system be like in red alert 3 where you have one main account assigned to a single cd key and you can create multiple 'nicks' with individual stats, but every person could easily check which 'nicks' belong to the same account?
That is what I'm hoping, but Blizzard were not clear about this.
|
Like the guy some spots above me, I was wondering how the team/tag stuff will work, will there be something like on WGT, so that you can change your tag in your account settings? I hope they will consider this.
|
On August 23 2009 02:37 NeV wrote:
Like the guy some spots above me, I was wondering how the team/tag stuff will work, will there be something like on WGT, so that you can change your tag in your account settings? I hope they will consider this.
I would assume it would be something like in SOCOM on the Playstation. When you create your team or clan, you input what your tag is, then when you recruit others, the tag you selected automatically appears before their name. Having to manually add it as we do now in Starcraft is really primitive and I wouldn't expect that to stay the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
