|
On August 24 2009 04:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:Yes but that's a problem with the game being 11 years old, not with smurfing :p + I was absolutely obsessed with starcraft when I started playing it - I was like "ok, I'm gonna go pro". I think I downloaded every single PvZ on YaoYuan.com (it was not as big back then as now lol  ) and I played 20 games a day + watched a ton of replays. And I had the good fortune to run into a few really nice korean players who taught me a lot about how to play (especially this one guy who went by qqqoooqqq on west, really nice guy).
Yeah, it probably wouldn't be as bad sc2 regardless, but it's kind of annoying on iccup. I don't mind playing like A or A+ zergs, but when I'm playing pvz all that's going to happen if a C or higher zerg plays me (at d/d+ level) is "runby/hydrabust/lingall-in/2 hatch mutas/5/6/7pool" because they want a fast win and you learn nothing from this other than that C and higher players can deny scouting well.
edit: Also, I did watch tons of pro replays when just starting, but recent and relevant pro replays are a bit harder to find. Haven't really found anyone better than me to play with other than fanaticist, and we just went 1/1 in the last pvp we played.
|
On August 24 2009 02:04 MER wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 00:45 Liquid`NonY wrote:On August 23 2009 10:55 FrozenArbiter wrote:
How many times do I need to bring this up....
Have one master account.
Allow this account to create - let's say - 3 user IDs for SC2.
Have the ELL be tracked by the master account - so if I have a high ranking account and create a new one, the new account will start with the same ELL as my first account (or, at least higher than a completely new account).
No noobs get bashed, and I get to "smurf" without disrupting the accuracy of the ladder. I think the amount of extra technical work this involves is not worth the very weak benefit of this feature. I think there are more important features missing from B.Net 2.0. Also, if you could clarify this scenario: --Master account has 2000 rating. --First ID has 2000 rating (all games have been played on this ID) --Second ID is created. It has 0 rating, but matches against 2000 rated players (based on master account rating) --Second ID plays against a 2000 rated player (both by ID and master) Are the point changes (for both the IDs and the masters) calculated based on each player's master account rating, or on the rating of their IDs? If it's based on master account rating, then the player who plays on only one ID is going to get easier points than he deserves. That is, with this system, it is guaranteed that people are going to get free points when playing their main race and trying their hardest against someone not playing their main race and/or not trying. But if you try to adjust for this by factoring in the 2nd ID's personal rating into the point change calculation, then the guy playing on one ID stands to get screwed when playing against someone's 2nd ID who is playing his best. Either way, it's corrupting the ladder. If it's based purely on personal ratings, then obviously the guy who uses only one ID is at a huge disadvantage. He is forced to match against people with very low rating who have a much better chance of beating him than their rating reflects. The bottom line, I think, is that if you are playing rated ladder games, you ought to be trying your hardest every single game. You only need one account for that. Asking for multiple accounts is purely an aesthetic thing, for both the name of the account and the stats on the account. Such weak aesthetic features aren't worth adding an entire new layer of account registration and management. IMO the purpose of the master account's points should be to determine your overall skill so you wont get bashing noobs whenerever you make a new ID. So when you make a new ID it starts with the same points as your master account. After a match the point change to your ID is done according to your ID's points. That way if you use this account for offrace/screwing around your ID's points will eventually go down but that wont be bad for the opposing players because you are playing badly on this account. In the same time, after a match your master account's points get readjusted but not with the same amount as your ID but taking into account your other IDs - if you have another very strong main ID the points wont go down so much after a loss (or to make it simpler the master account's points may be equal to the points of your best ID) In short the matchmaking is done according to how well you play on your current ID - if you play bad there is no harm for your noob opponents. The master points are to determine your overall skill so that when you make a new account you dont start from 0 points and start bashing weaker players.
Or in other words the purpose of the master account's points is so that when you start a new ID not to start from the bottom and rape weaker opponents till you get high, but to start from your current level and get raped yourself until you go down to the level you are playing at.
I really like the idea, although, I see one problem with it: how do you prevent people from creating additional accounts (way) before they reach their peak level? E.g. let's say I'm capable of reaching A rank (which I'm not, but for the sake of the example, let me dream ), but I create a new account when my master account is at D+. Now I have a duplicate D+ account, and I can easily bash newbs on that level, while I comfortably level my main account.
The potential solution:
I suggested to FA on MSN that maybe you should be able to create new accounts as soon as you reach Bronze League (an equivalent of C rank or so), so that the vast majority of people that complain about smurfing are left out of the equation; obviously, any new account would always start at Brozne League level or your highest account level, as you suggested.
What do you think?
|
On August 24 2009 05:01 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 02:04 MER wrote:On August 24 2009 00:45 Liquid`NonY wrote:On August 23 2009 10:55 FrozenArbiter wrote:
How many times do I need to bring this up....
Have one master account.
Allow this account to create - let's say - 3 user IDs for SC2.
Have the ELL be tracked by the master account - so if I have a high ranking account and create a new one, the new account will start with the same ELL as my first account (or, at least higher than a completely new account).
No noobs get bashed, and I get to "smurf" without disrupting the accuracy of the ladder. I think the amount of extra technical work this involves is not worth the very weak benefit of this feature. I think there are more important features missing from B.Net 2.0. Also, if you could clarify this scenario: --Master account has 2000 rating. --First ID has 2000 rating (all games have been played on this ID) --Second ID is created. It has 0 rating, but matches against 2000 rated players (based on master account rating) --Second ID plays against a 2000 rated player (both by ID and master) Are the point changes (for both the IDs and the masters) calculated based on each player's master account rating, or on the rating of their IDs? If it's based on master account rating, then the player who plays on only one ID is going to get easier points than he deserves. That is, with this system, it is guaranteed that people are going to get free points when playing their main race and trying their hardest against someone not playing their main race and/or not trying. But if you try to adjust for this by factoring in the 2nd ID's personal rating into the point change calculation, then the guy playing on one ID stands to get screwed when playing against someone's 2nd ID who is playing his best. Either way, it's corrupting the ladder. If it's based purely on personal ratings, then obviously the guy who uses only one ID is at a huge disadvantage. He is forced to match against people with very low rating who have a much better chance of beating him than their rating reflects. The bottom line, I think, is that if you are playing rated ladder games, you ought to be trying your hardest every single game. You only need one account for that. Asking for multiple accounts is purely an aesthetic thing, for both the name of the account and the stats on the account. Such weak aesthetic features aren't worth adding an entire new layer of account registration and management. IMO the purpose of the master account's points should be to determine your overall skill so you wont get bashing noobs whenerever you make a new ID. So when you make a new ID it starts with the same points as your master account. After a match the point change to your ID is done according to your ID's points. That way if you use this account for offrace/screwing around your ID's points will eventually go down but that wont be bad for the opposing players because you are playing badly on this account. In the same time, after a match your master account's points get readjusted but not with the same amount as your ID but taking into account your other IDs - if you have another very strong main ID the points wont go down so much after a loss (or to make it simpler the master account's points may be equal to the points of your best ID) In short the matchmaking is done according to how well you play on your current ID - if you play bad there is no harm for your noob opponents. The master points are to determine your overall skill so that when you make a new account you dont start from 0 points and start bashing weaker players.
Or in other words the purpose of the master account's points is so that when you start a new ID not to start from the bottom and rape weaker opponents till you get high, but to start from your current level and get raped yourself until you go down to the level you are playing at. I really like the idea, although, I see one problem with it: how do you prevent people from creating additional accounts (way) before they reach their peak level? E.g. let's say I'm capable of reaching A rank (which I'm not, but for the sake of the example, let me dream ), but I create a new account when my master account is at D+. Now I have a duplicate D+ account, and I can easily bash newbs on that level, while I comfortably level my main account. The potential solution: I suggested to FA on MSN that maybe you should be able to create new accounts as soon as you reach Bronze League (an equivalent of C rank or so), so that the vast majority of people that complain about smurfing are left out of the equation; obviously, any new account would always start at Brozne League level or your highest account level, as you suggested. What do you think?
Yes, you make a good point. And your suggestion will be in accord with the achievement system Blizzard are adding. There might be an achievement: You got to rank X, additional 5 IDs available.
Another solution, though not perfect, may be to make a small cap to the IDs (e.g. 3) you can make per account. That way if you make the max 3 IDs in the beginning, when you start using them later youll be able to climb through weaker players only 3 times.
|
Maybe this will make melle custom games much more popullar ? I dont like it either but you cant blame them for making the ladder more "serious"
|
Wasn't there a "pratice league" or something listed as one of the leagues? That sounds like a place you could go if you just want to fuck around with a random build or offrace; did they clarify at BlizzCon?
|
On August 24 2009 04:44 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 04:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:Yes but that's a problem with the game being 11 years old, not with smurfing :p + I was absolutely obsessed with starcraft when I started playing it - I was like "ok, I'm gonna go pro". I think I downloaded every single PvZ on YaoYuan.com (it was not as big back then as now lol ) and I played 20 games a day + watched a ton of replays. And I had the good fortune to run into a few really nice korean players who taught me a lot about how to play (especially this one guy who went by qqqoooqqq on west, really nice guy). Yeah, it probably wouldn't be as bad sc2 regardless, but it's kind of annoying on iccup. I don't mind playing like A or A+ zergs, but when I'm playing pvz all that's going to happen if a C or higher zerg plays me (at d/d+ level) is "runby/hydrabust/lingall-in/2 hatch mutas/5/6/7pool" because they want a fast win and you learn nothing from this other than that C and higher players can deny scouting well. edit: Also, I did watch tons of pro replays when just starting, but recent and relevant pro replays are a bit harder to find. Haven't really found anyone better than me to play with other than fanaticist, and we just went 1/1 in the last pvp we played.
FA/MER's solution should prevent the vast majority of smurfing/noob bashing. The thing is that the A level players will ALWAYS have to go through someone to get to their A level. If they really want to spend all their time bashing noobs, then they can, but I don't think that represents very many people. Second, as I stated before, they have to go through someone. Similar to beginning of the iCCup season, where everyone, D- to A+ are all at D. You will play a game and get raped by some A level Korean, because they have to get to A someway.
Going up ranks involves a logical process that inevitably will involve some form of noob bashing. Of course it isn't the focus (unless some guy wants it to be). Beating 10 D players to get to D+ means that you ARE better than the Ds, and you deserve the D+. And you repeat that until you can no longer bash everyone in that rank, in which you would go 80-50 to get from A to A+, or something of that sort. My point is that some D level players are always going to get steamrolled, but later in the seasons, when things settle down, and each player is in their respective rank, then it would drop down to a minimum, assuming FA/MER's solution is implemented.
|
Something else interesting:http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/starcraft2/video/6215996/battle-net-panel-highlights
If you go to about ~10:00 in the video, Rob Pardo talks about how the Real ID provides achievements that "span characters". This sounds a lot like alternate sub-accounts are possible.
|
It's amazing how so many in this thread is bashing Blizzard for something that isn't even done yet. If anyone here is dumb enough to think that Blizzard is going to let pro gamers get identified and harassed without anything to protect them then they deserve to get trolled.
Edit: I'm also happy to see there will be some anti-smurfing measures in this new b-net. Ideally you want to play in a ladder where you are as evenly matched with your opponent as possible, and as often as possible. This is the entire point of a ladder. Players who smurfs just to stomp newbies basically bypasses the entire point of having a ladder in the first place.
|
8748 Posts
MER: Let's say a high rated player wants to make a second ID because he's going to do something that'll cause him to get more losses, like play a different race, play on a laptop or do weird strategies. When he tried his best, he reached a 2000 rating on his first ID. But because of the self-imposed disadvantages, he's only capable of a 1500 rating on his second ID. If you allow him to match against 2000 rated players when he starts his second ID, it's true that he won't have to newb bash his way from 0-1500. That's good. The problem is that his opponents, 2000 rated players, are going to bash him from 2000 down to 1500. I'm sure he doesn't care about that -- in fact it's why he made a second ID. But all of his opponents during his descension to 1500 got good points that they did not deserve.
In other words, every time a high rated player makes a second ID on which he plans to achieve a lower ranking, your system allows for high rated players to essentially newb bash and get free points when they're already near the top of the ladder.
|
On August 24 2009 08:33 Archaic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 04:44 Nevuk wrote:On August 24 2009 04:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:Yes but that's a problem with the game being 11 years old, not with smurfing :p + I was absolutely obsessed with starcraft when I started playing it - I was like "ok, I'm gonna go pro". I think I downloaded every single PvZ on YaoYuan.com (it was not as big back then as now lol ) and I played 20 games a day + watched a ton of replays. And I had the good fortune to run into a few really nice korean players who taught me a lot about how to play (especially this one guy who went by qqqoooqqq on west, really nice guy). Yeah, it probably wouldn't be as bad sc2 regardless, but it's kind of annoying on iccup. I don't mind playing like A or A+ zergs, but when I'm playing pvz all that's going to happen if a C or higher zerg plays me (at d/d+ level) is "runby/hydrabust/lingall-in/2 hatch mutas/5/6/7pool" because they want a fast win and you learn nothing from this other than that C and higher players can deny scouting well. edit: Also, I did watch tons of pro replays when just starting, but recent and relevant pro replays are a bit harder to find. Haven't really found anyone better than me to play with other than fanaticist, and we just went 1/1 in the last pvp we played. FA/MER's solution should prevent the vast majority of smurfing/noob bashing. The thing is that the A level players will ALWAYS have to go through someone to get to their A level. If they really want to spend all their time bashing noobs, then they can, but I don't think that represents very many people. Second, as I stated before, they have to go through someone. Similar to beginning of the iCCup season, where everyone, D- to A+ are all at D. You will play a game and get raped by some A level Korean, because they have to get to A someway. Going up ranks involves a logical process that inevitably will involve some form of noob bashing. Of course it isn't the focus (unless some guy wants it to be). Beating 10 D players to get to D+ means that you ARE better than the Ds, and you deserve the D+. And you repeat that until you can no longer bash everyone in that rank, in which you would go 80-50 to get from A to A+, or something of that sort. My point is that some D level players are always going to get steamrolled, but later in the seasons, when things settle down, and each player is in their respective rank, then it would drop down to a minimum, assuming FA/MER's solution is implemented.
I'm actually referring to the past 4 weeks or so on iccup as to my experience, if I'm playing at the beginning of the ladder I know what to expect. (I run into way more C/C+ players now than I ever did at the beginning, but fewer B- or higher based on eapm/apm alone).
|
|
|
A player cannot always play at his peak performance. He needs a warmup/strategy testing/less serious area. Nony points it out very clearly. there will be "ladder inflation" if people are allowed more than one account on the same ladder.
So how can this be solved?...
1) have a "practice/warmup ladder"
2) allow groups to create their own ladders. For example, teamliquid could create a ladder. Not sure if this would work though, as there needs to be many many people in it for AMM to work...
3) play unranked custom games with teammates/friends/strangers.
bad thing with many ladders is that you segregate people into small pockets, that potentially screws up competition etc.
One account many ladders OR many accounts one ladder?
|
On August 24 2009 00:06 MasterFischer wrote:
It´s a good idea, I don´t really like smurfing.
Celebrities get harassed? Yea so?
What about all the real life celebrities, tv, movie, rock stars.. they dont have a fkin smurf name, they get harassed all the time by low life losers. That´s what its like being a celebrity. Deal with it or quit teh game.
I´m sure they can handle it, and I´m sure some kind of feature will be added to better handle harassment etc.
Play Unrated if u want to check out new stuff, strategies and races.
I have a hard time understanding where all the whine is coming from, I really do. :/
I do not mind the rule as much, as I believe changing names will be available.
IMO the analogy of tv/rock stars getting harassed is not really appropriate here because:
1)We are not low life losers... we are educated gamers.
2) They said it was going to be like facebook, so they have to accept a friend request to be able to talk to them.
3) Have you noticed a trend with the top Korean/foreign players? They are all well mannered, and the only other way of meeting someone like JD on battle net 2 is through the ladder. No doubt that he will be playing in the best league in the ladder, along with other top and well mannered people. This statement excludes IdrA (however, his time in Korea has made more mannered than when he was in the USA, which means he is amongst top players which means that some of their gm with rub off on him as well). This means the pros wont be harrassed.
However I do agree with why this is a big deal. I honestly think Bnet in general will function like steam (except bnet isnt a seperate program), and steam is amazing.
|
(Half of a) Solution : make practice mode, where you would play practice games agaisnt someone of your current league.
Really, anti-smurfing is here to stay, and I think everyone here saw it coming, as Blizzard's intention of making their games much more accessible to beginners has always been clear.
|
United States7166 Posts
On August 24 2009 05:01 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 02:04 MER wrote:On August 24 2009 00:45 Liquid`NonY wrote:On August 23 2009 10:55 FrozenArbiter wrote:
How many times do I need to bring this up....
Have one master account.
Allow this account to create - let's say - 3 user IDs for SC2.
Have the ELL be tracked by the master account - so if I have a high ranking account and create a new one, the new account will start with the same ELL as my first account (or, at least higher than a completely new account).
No noobs get bashed, and I get to "smurf" without disrupting the accuracy of the ladder. I think the amount of extra technical work this involves is not worth the very weak benefit of this feature. I think there are more important features missing from B.Net 2.0. Also, if you could clarify this scenario: --Master account has 2000 rating. --First ID has 2000 rating (all games have been played on this ID) --Second ID is created. It has 0 rating, but matches against 2000 rated players (based on master account rating) --Second ID plays against a 2000 rated player (both by ID and master) Are the point changes (for both the IDs and the masters) calculated based on each player's master account rating, or on the rating of their IDs? If it's based on master account rating, then the player who plays on only one ID is going to get easier points than he deserves. That is, with this system, it is guaranteed that people are going to get free points when playing their main race and trying their hardest against someone not playing their main race and/or not trying. But if you try to adjust for this by factoring in the 2nd ID's personal rating into the point change calculation, then the guy playing on one ID stands to get screwed when playing against someone's 2nd ID who is playing his best. Either way, it's corrupting the ladder. If it's based purely on personal ratings, then obviously the guy who uses only one ID is at a huge disadvantage. He is forced to match against people with very low rating who have a much better chance of beating him than their rating reflects. The bottom line, I think, is that if you are playing rated ladder games, you ought to be trying your hardest every single game. You only need one account for that. Asking for multiple accounts is purely an aesthetic thing, for both the name of the account and the stats on the account. Such weak aesthetic features aren't worth adding an entire new layer of account registration and management. IMO the purpose of the master account's points should be to determine your overall skill so you wont get bashing noobs whenerever you make a new ID. So when you make a new ID it starts with the same points as your master account. After a match the point change to your ID is done according to your ID's points. That way if you use this account for offrace/screwing around your ID's points will eventually go down but that wont be bad for the opposing players because you are playing badly on this account. In the same time, after a match your master account's points get readjusted but not with the same amount as your ID but taking into account your other IDs - if you have another very strong main ID the points wont go down so much after a loss (or to make it simpler the master account's points may be equal to the points of your best ID) In short the matchmaking is done according to how well you play on your current ID - if you play bad there is no harm for your noob opponents. The master points are to determine your overall skill so that when you make a new account you dont start from 0 points and start bashing weaker players.
Or in other words the purpose of the master account's points is so that when you start a new ID not to start from the bottom and rape weaker opponents till you get high, but to start from your current level and get raped yourself until you go down to the level you are playing at. I really like the idea, although, I see one problem with it: how do you prevent people from creating additional accounts (way) before they reach their peak level? E.g. let's say I'm capable of reaching A rank (which I'm not, but for the sake of the example, let me dream ), but I create a new account when my master account is at D+. Now I have a duplicate D+ account, and I can easily bash newbs on that level, while I comfortably level my main account. The potential solution: I suggested to FA on MSN that maybe you should be able to create new accounts as soon as you reach Bronze League (an equivalent of C rank or so), so that the vast majority of people that complain about smurfing are left out of the equation; obviously, any new account would always start at Brozne League level or your highest account level, as you suggested. What do you think?
um there's still the problem where people can create a new account, mass lose (on purpose or just screwing around/new race), then play seriously and bash newbies.
not to mention that this system just makes things complicated with a lot of 'what if' scenarios and has holes/issues (such as the one nony posted just above)
really the system blizzard has is fine especially if they have separate ELL ratings for each race, and nonrated or some such type of game you can play if you wanna screw around
|
I think a lot of people have a false idea of what a rating should be, mostly because of easy account restarts in most online games, and the whole online mentality of bragging and your worth being measured by records.
What I mean is that many people think if they try a new strategy or a new race, their rating/record shouldn't take a hit because of that. And this is where I ask: why not? If you suck at that other strategy/race/whatever, then you rating should reflect it, because it's a part of your game. A rating is not a measurement of your best skills, but a measurement of your skills overall. Of course I think they should have seperate ratings for the different races, but trying unorthodox or just new builds/etc in ladder games should cause a small rating/record hit, because they reveal a weakness in your gameplay.
So I don't really see any problem that can't be solved by allowing name changing and privacy settings. You can have several names, you can hide from your friends with some of those names, have privacy, etc., but your rating will always reflect your personal skill level. Because that is what a rating should do.
|
hmm i dont really care -__-
|
I love this decision. Its really gonna cut down on the trolling. The final blow to trolling should be a permanent ignore list. That would make b.net so much better.
|
Since people (oh, noobs I meant) are so against smurfing, and as it is now, it wont be allowed. I'll take the time to lose alot of games just to drop my rating down to beginners level, and then bash them. Why? Because you're crying about smurfs wanting clean records, while you yourself obviously want the same. If you want a good game with people your own rank, and don't care about stats, just leave the game when you sense that the player is much higher rank than you (he obviously deserve the points to get there anyway..). You could also take the time to look for a player of your own level, and play unrated with him/her.
Ladders wont get inaccurate because some people are smurfing, the majority of the players will still make the large impact on how the ladder is.
|
On August 24 2009 17:54 Noe wrote:
Since people (oh, noobs I meant) are so against smurfing, and as it is now, it wont be allowed. I'll take the time to lose alot of games just to drop my rating down to beginners level, and then bash them. Why? Because you're crying about smurfs wanting clean records, while you yourself obviously want the same. If you want a good game with people your own rank, and don't care about stats, just leave the game when you sense that the player is much higher rank than you (he obviously deserve the points to get there anyway..). You could also take the time to look for a player of your own level, and play unrated with him/her.
Ladders wont get inaccurate because some people are smurfing, the majority of the players will still make the large impact on how the ladder is.
lol ok have fun with that. Not many people will want to have their rating hit like that all the time so only the select few people (oh, idiots I meant) will lose on purpose, smurf so thats 1 smurf compared to 70% of people getting smurfed. Hmm 1 out of every 20 or so games or 1 out of 2-3 games. I like my odds 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
