|
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.
Well, obviously the lower you're in the food chain, the higher are your chances of being matched with someone much better, if there's nothing done to prevent smurfing.
Sure, if you're C+ on ICCUP right now, you'll meet B, B+, A- players once in a while, but you'll be outmatched much less frequently than if you're a D player, who will get raped by any player from D+ to A- who just reseted his stats. This can be extremely discouraging to new players, when they feel only 1 out of 3 games they play are actually on their own level. It really isnt about the records as much as trying to have fair games for everyone.
Some people will say ''omg playing against better ppl will make you better in the long run!!!'. It's true, but frankly there's really not much a D will learn from a B when the game doesnt even get to mid game, this will just frustrate the D player more than anything.
Bottomline, I agree with Blizzard's effort to keep newbies in this kind of ''newbie zone''. After all, don't we want to encourage the less skilled to play regular maps, instead of going back to money maps that were so popular in SC1? Isnt the goal of the whole community, not only Blizzard, to make the game as accessible as possible for anyone?
Also, FrozenArbiter's suggestion to be able to have many accounts all tied to the main account with shared stats is really the most logical solution, I can't think of any downside to this idea.
|
On August 24 2009 17:54 Noe wrote:
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.
Wrong. What I want is that rating should represent a player's skill level as accurately as possible 
|
I like having multiple names/accounts. I always have liked my privacy at times.
The way I view it is that blizzard simply wants the best ladder with the least amount of admin work load. 1 account essentially eliminates a lot of potential stats abuse. I can't think of an easier or more effective way of managing a ladder as large as sc2's will be. Iccup is constantly recruiting.
I don't see this being changed.
What would be nice is if before your first game of a new ladder season you had the option of changing your name, preferably for free ;;
|
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.
dude, its a ladder. people play to win there. go on bnet if you dont wanna win or dont wanna face players who play to actually win. lol
|
Blizzard is only following a natural trend in that all the great ideas always come with bad ones =)
|
On August 24 2009 08:35 TheTuna wrote:
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.
Afaik he's talking about different games' characters.
|
On August 24 2009 18:14 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +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
I didn't really get your point there, only that a few people would take record hits to bash noobs. The rest made no sense at all to me. But sure, not alot of people would go through this process to kill less experienced players, because this is not even the point in smurfing.
On August 24 2009 18:17 lepape wrote:
Bottomline, I agree with Blizzard's effort to keep newbies in this kind of ''newbie zone''. After all, don't we want to encourage the less skilled to play regular maps, instead of going back to money maps that were so popular in SC1? Isnt the goal of the whole community, not only Blizzard, to make the game as accessible as possible for anyone?
Sure, it's good to encourage new players. But if it is like Starcraft, where alot of knowledge and no speed/apm plays a huge character in the beginning, even slightly better players will 'roll' over these beginners. Then there will be whine again over something else instead of smurfing.
|
On August 24 2009 19:11 Noe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 18:14 blade55555 wrote: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 I didn't really get your point there, only that a few people would take record hits to bash noobs. The rest made no sense at all to me. But sure, not alot of people would go through this process to kill less experienced players, because this is not even the point in smurfing. Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 18:17 lepape wrote:
Bottomline, I agree with Blizzard's effort to keep newbies in this kind of ''newbie zone''. After all, don't we want to encourage the less skilled to play regular maps, instead of going back to money maps that were so popular in SC1? Isnt the goal of the whole community, not only Blizzard, to make the game as accessible as possible for anyone? Sure, it's good to encourage new players. But if it is like Starcraft, where alot of knowledge and no speed/apm plays a huge character in the beginning, even slightly better players will 'roll' over these beginners. Then there will be whine again over something else instead of smurfing.
Wow. Just wow I am not even going to bother wasting my time responding to this in an actual response.
|
On August 24 2009 16:46 Zelniq wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 05:01 maybenexttime wrote: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
But 'one account per cd key' has just as many issues. ;/
If there are enough people playing unrated games for you to be able to practice/mess around/whatever, then there are definitely enough people for you to be able to bash noobs.
How is bashing noobs in unrated games not a problem if doing so in rated ones is?
In my opinion, the Blizzard ladder should, first and foremost, be a practice platform. Maybe they should have a separate ladder meant specifically for competition, with one acc per cd key allowed, where accuracy is of utmost importance. From my experience, the vast majority of players playing on the ladder do not care about such accuracy as much as Nony does, because they don't aim to reach top 100 or so - for them it's just a tool to get games quick.
On August 24 2009 17:34 BrickTop wrote:
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.
bold added
I already explained why such a point of view is completely wrong.
Let's say I'm an A Terran, B Zerg and D Protoss.
Scenario #1: I decide to play only with my A Terran.
The result is: my account is A rank; it does not reflect my overall skill level, but it does reflect my peak skills.
Scenario #2: I decide to play only with my A Terran and B Zerg
The result is: my account is A-/B+ rank; it does not reflect my overall skill level not does it reflect my peak skills.
Scenario #3: I decide to play with all races.
The result is: my account is C- rank; it does reflect my overall skill level, but it does not reflect my peak skills.
You can swap "Zerg"/"Protoss" with "mech TvZ"/"unorthodox play"/whatever
The point is, if somebody does not want his account to reflect his overall skill level or/nor his peak skill level, there's no way Blizzard can force them to. There's no way to make the ladder as accurate as you or Nony want...
If somebody can prevent his rank from dropping by practicing in unrated games, why not let him do this on ladder, with another account, for the sake of much greater convenience?
Also, Nony, I've suggested an alternate solution: upon reaching Brozne League, you're entitled to creating 2-3 additional accounts, each starting as Brozne League account, leaving the vast majority of people complaining about smurfs out of the equation, without forcing you to give free points to too strong opponents.
Anyway, I still have not seen the issue of the start of a new season addressed.
It should be a much bigger of a problem for everyone complaining about smurfs...
|
One account would be awesome in one way but I feel bad for the progamers.
|
On August 24 2009 09:59 Liquid`NonY wrote:
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.
Ahh I see your point now. And theres no way to know how well you'll play on the new account in advance. Damn a mindfuck  .
EDIT:
On August 24 2009 19:32 maybenexttime wrote:
The point is, if somebody does not want his account to reflect his overall skill level or/nor his peak skill level, there's no way Blizzard can force them to. There's no way to make the ladder as accurate as you or Nony want...
QFT. People will try new races/strategies either way so they'll give free points to opponents with or without having smurf accounts. The smurf account just keeps intact your own score.
If we want truly accurate ladder the system should be made so that neither of the opponents gain free advantage. I cant think of another way except practicing only in unrated games but the quality of play there will always suck big time.
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 24 2009 20:14 MER wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 09:59 Liquid`NonY wrote:
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. Ahh I see your point now. And theres no way to know how well you'll play on the new account in advance. Damn a mindfuck . EDIT: Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 19:32 maybenexttime wrote:
The point is, if somebody does not want his account to reflect his overall skill level or/nor his peak skill level, there's no way Blizzard can force them to. There's no way to make the ladder as accurate as you or Nony want...
QFT. People will try new races/strategies either way so they'll give free points to opponents with or without having smurf accounts. The smurf account just keeps intact your own score. If we want truly accurate ladder the system should be made so that neither of the opponents gain free advantage. I cant think of another way except practicing only in unrated games but the quality of play there will always suck big time.
There is a compromise, which is that the system could significantly diminish the point gains/losses associated with alternate accounts (whether you're playing with or against them). Not perfect, but workable. This way, players trying new strategies don't lose as many points when doing so on their alternate accounts (though they don't gain as many points either), and players playing against someone's alternate account doesn't gain as many points as they would by playing someone's main account.
|
OK, another issue:
Blizzard has put so much effort in limiting smurfing, but how exactly are they gonna prevent people from noob-bashing by joining this whole Casual League they'll have? It's practically a huge sign saying "WE'RE NEWBIES, COME HERE AND RAPE US"...
|
On August 24 2009 18:48 [DUF]MethodMan 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. dude, its a ladder. people play to win there. go on bnet if you dont wanna win or dont wanna face players who play to actually win. lol
The reason I play on a ladder is because I want to improve. The skill level is higher than on battle.net and doesn't vary quite as much. People who just want to win and don't care about improving their skill at all are people I'm not interested in playing, ever. In general C+ or so players will not improve their skills playing a D level player, thus resetting stats late in the season doesn't really help them. I do actually play more on hamachi than iccup now due to this.
|
On August 22 2009 08:16 pokerface wrote:
and we waited waited holding our breath,hoping that they will announce SOMETHING that could ease our pain...guess what we didnt get shit.This is aweful
OWNED!
|
Actually, the best reaon to play on the Ladder is to take advantage of the AMM so you get....
Fun Games
a competitive (non custom/v. AI) game is fun if it is very competitive ie playing someone at your level... 50% win/loss
(for a fun/easy win you play v. an Easy AI, for a fun weird game you play custom)
This also happens to be the best way to improve (playing people about as good as you)
As for the Casual league, well there are things there to limit that like
1) not played on fastest speed (lowers the APM usefulness... and makes it more annoying to pros)
2) rush blockers
3.... possibly players on a high level in the casual league can't join....
OR
Even better, the AMM based on your regular ladder level still works, so if you go in the casual league to noob bash... you will be paired against the other noob bashers of your level. (unless you Never leave the Casual league)
Basically the idea is that high level players should ONLY be playing v. noobs in custom/private games
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Krikkitone, I think after a (few) year(s), this might work. The problem? At release, ANYONE who has played SC or WC3 before, and joins the noob league, is gonna stomp the people in it :-(
And, @Nony:
How about instead of starting him at his highest ELL, he starts at a higher than 0 ELL (how much higher depending on how high his highest is I guess)?
Also, instead of having the ELL adjust like it would under normal circumstances, make it hyper sensitive during your first 10 games (like how you used to gain/lose a ton of points in your first 25 games on Game-i).
I'm still not sure how to solve the Ranking vs ELL issue, if someone makes a new account and is matched with a pretty high ranking player due to ELL, does that mean the high ranking player could potentially drop really far in rank.. or do you win/lose the same amount regardless of how far below/above you the person you lose to/beat is ranked?
And, as maybenexttime said, you should not be able to create a new account until you hit a certain ELL level (or maaaaybe 1, letting your siblings create their own account without buying a new game SHOULD be possible, regardless of what the bean counting department at Blizzard thinks).
|
I think a lot of us are losing privileges because of a few of us being assholes.
The story of just about everything nowadays.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 25 2009 07:59 gumbum8 wrote:
I think a lot of us are losing privileges because of a few of us being assholes.
The story of just about everything nowadays.
Hehe, yes I have lamented this fact multiple times over the past few days
|
Everyone who is against this idea, prepare to be countered:
Play custom or unrated.
Brother wants to play? Unrated
New Race? Unrated
New Strategy? Unrated
I'm expected they'll just gloss over this and argue with the others, but you can't say I didn't try.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
