|
United States47024 Posts
On August 26 2009 06:46 d(O.o)a wrote:
Lol and yeah wtf why are they moneygrubbing SC the reason it was such a huge success in korea was that it was cheap, the only reason they are doing this is so they can make money off name changes and new accounts. pretty sad imo.
As I said in another thread, I don't think Blizzard is dumb enough to be doing this as a moneygrubbing tactic. Even if they like money, they're also smart enough to do it in a way that keeps people coming back for more (see WoW), that they don't need to resort to petty measures that make people hate them. If they're set on doing this, it's as a feature that there's legitimate support in the fanbase for (even if it's not people at TL).
|
On August 26 2009 07:07 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2009 06:46 d(O.o)a wrote:
Lol and yeah wtf why are they moneygrubbing SC the reason it was such a huge success in korea was that it was cheap, the only reason they are doing this is so they can make money off name changes and new accounts. pretty sad imo. As I said in another thread, I don't think Blizzard is dumb enough to be doing this as a moneygrubbing tactic. Even if they like money, they're also smart enough to do it in a way that keeps people coming back for more (see WoW), that they don't need to resort to petty measures that make people hate them. If they're set on doing this, it's as a feature that there's legitimate support in the fanbase for (even if it's not people at TL).
Yeah but the thing is the support (assuming you mean ways to change it or something) is because they can charge money for name changes.
|
this is stupid like xbox live accounts.
-__-
they can do something to prevent smurfing but at least let people make 1 new account every week or so...
|
On August 26 2009 09:22 Mykill wrote:
this is stupid like xbox live accounts.
-__-
they can do something to prevent smurfing but at least let people make 1 new account every week or so...
And how would that fix smurfing in the least bit?
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 26 2009 09:22 Mykill wrote:
this is stupid like xbox live accounts.
-__-
they can do something to prevent smurfing but at least let people make 1 new account every week or so...
Or, its like Steam, which works.
The CONCEPT of 1-account-per-game is fine, and Steam has it pretty well established that it works. The key is making sure that the appropriate options are available to make it a convenient alternative to unlimited accounts, like privacy options, name changing, race-by-race stats, sub-accounts, etc.
|
My first post on teamliquid, hi guys! 
I think the system where you only can only have on ID is nice, since it will fix various issues:
- Hacking/maphacking - if you get banned, your ID gets banned, thus loosing your other connected blizz games and forcing you to buy a new game. It's going to be so nice playing SC2 and not be worrying about someone using maphack.
- Smurfing. Ah well. You wont have 70-30-2 in stats, but you will most likly have 50-50-2. You will get opponents which most likly is on same skill level as you and because of this you will have a more steady learning curve.
And most likly you will be able to change ur name, but you will keep all achivements/stats.
|
Why not give three ID's per account? Opportunity cost, right? You COULD use it as one ID per race, or you COULD use it as one ID per style, or you COULD use it for one ID for each sibling (2.2 children per household av right?).
This way, you have 3 accounts, and it is your choice how to use them?
|
|
|
On August 26 2009 17:58 Tyraz wrote:
Why not give three ID's per account? Opportunity cost, right? You COULD use it as one ID per race, or you COULD use it as one ID per style, or you COULD use it for one ID for each sibling (2.2 children per household av right?).
This way, you have 3 accounts, and it is your choice how to use them?
How would this prevent smurfing and noob bashing?
Let's say your ID's are forcefully limited to one race per ID. The mechanics and game experience and game sense of an A+ player would still transfer with the player as he switches races, thus allowing him to easily kill off newbs and D- players. Also, how could you possibly limit a certain style to a single ID? You can't expect the game to prevent the player from executing certain builds or using specific hotkey combinations...
Blizzard's stated main reason for 1 ID per game is to minimize noob bashing and to promote games between players of similar skill levels.
EDIT: Also somebody mentioned something about ID-concealing options and features; I think this is a great idea and might actually work... noobs don't get raped and pros don't get dodged! Of course if you were a pro, you might have to hide your status and ID from your friends as well, as you wouldn't want anybody accidently letting slip that you're online. Oh well w/e, that's getting into kinda insignificant stuff.
|
Looking through the thread here are the two main reasons people want to smurf and create multiple accounts:
1. Anonymity
2. Practice New Builds/Screwing Around
As said before, number one can easily be addressed by Blizzard; hell even if they don't do anything the current BNET 1.0 features are probably enough: /dnd, /squelch, etc. Now you may say "Then I won't be able to make any friends/training partners, etc. on BNET." Look if you're well known enough to get people to constantly harass you chances are you don't need to use BNET to find your practice partners and friends. Blizzard can also easily implement a feature that allows you to hide your user name in ranked matches.
As for number 2, I just don't see the argument. Pro-smurfers tell newbies to "suck it up and take some losses, it'll be good for you." However, when it's time to loose some games themselves to test out new builds, they whine and claim they must use smurfs. If you don't want to lose points, than unranked is always available. I highly doubt unranked would be the nightmare described paranoid users in this thread. How would beating newbies in ranked matches be better than playing random people in unraked? Even if you somehow can'tt find good matches, It probably isn't hard to find a practice partner of your skill level on the internet these days anyways.
This thread is really typical of this site; users just jump on the latest news of SC2 and loudly proclaim that the Blizzard made an idiotic decision and the game is ruined forever. People need to broaden their perspectives a bit. Starcraft II does not completely revolve around the competitive gaming scene. Lots of arguments goes like this: "Newbies can suck it up and suffer for a bit, so I can have the features I wanted."
Looking at the one-account-per-game method, the pros outweighs the supposed cons by a large large margin. Only hardcore competitive long-time players would object; you guys are not as relevant as you think.
|
On August 26 2009 18:25 Stripe wrote:
As for number 2, I just don't see the argument. Pro-smurfers tell newbies to "suck it up and take some losses, it'll be good for you." However, when it's time to loose some games themselves to test out new builds, they whine and claim they must use smurfs. If you don't want to lose points, than unranked is always available. I highly doubt unranked would be the nightmare described paranoid users in this thread. How would beating newbies in ranked matches be better than playing random people in unraked? Even if you somehow can'tt find good matches, It probably isn't hard to find a practice partner of your skill level on the internet these days anyways.
Or you could set up a practice server/game room where none of the games count for points but players are still segregated by their rank/skill level. Players could still remain anonymous like in the actual servers that count for points.
|
On August 22 2009 08:10 jimminy_kriket wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:01 blade55555 wrote:On August 22 2009 07:57 maybenexttime wrote:
Pathetic.
It's already been discussed to death. IDIOTIC decision. What if I want to learn a new race? What if my brother wants to play? What if I want to learn a new strategy? What if I simply want to mess around? FUCK THAT. How is it idiotic? Great Decision by Blizzard. I remember when I used to be against this 1 account per cd key but aoe3 did it and it worked out splendid. Smurfing = down. You want to learn a new race? Play unrated. Your brother wants to play? Have him play on your account or buy his own. Want to learn a new strategy? Why play unrated!. Why do you need a new account to test strategies when you can do unrated eh? Or are you one of those smurfs who just loves to rape lower ranked players? I dont think you understand how much this will fuck up progamers. Maybe from a newbie D- point of view its fine, but when your a player like nada or boxer or even jainfei your going to get harrassed to shit from people wanting to play you, or even people wanting to just bother the shit out of you because they dont like you. With that said, I dont think they will actually go through with this. At least I believe they will have some system in place to avoid harassment/allow anonymity.
/dnd and thats all.
|
On August 26 2009 17:58 Tyraz wrote:
Why not give three ID's per account? Opportunity cost, right? You COULD use it as one ID per race, or you COULD use it as one ID per style, or you COULD use it for one ID for each sibling (2.2 children per household av right?).
This way, you have 3 accounts, and it is your choice how to use them?
Why would you want one ID per race, when b.net 2.0 will clearly (with all its advanced features) track your stats using each race individually anyway?
If the ToC of SC2 are anything like that of wow you are only permitted to allow one sibling play it. Licences (WoW at least) are per person not per computer. I bet its like wow in the fact that they don't care how many computers you install it on, or track the CD key being used. It's all about what user you are logged on as.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 26 2009 18:20 blue_arrow wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2009 17:58 Tyraz wrote:
Why not give three ID's per account? Opportunity cost, right? You COULD use it as one ID per race, or you COULD use it as one ID per style, or you COULD use it for one ID for each sibling (2.2 children per household av right?).
This way, you have 3 accounts, and it is your choice how to use them? How would this prevent smurfing and noob bashing? Let's say your ID's are forcefully limited to one race per ID. The mechanics and game experience and game sense of an A+ player would still transfer with the player as he switches races, thus allowing him to easily kill off newbs and D- players. Also, how could you possibly limit a certain style to a single ID? You can't expect the game to prevent the player from executing certain builds or using specific hotkey combinations... Blizzard's stated main reason for 1 ID per game is to minimize noob bashing and to promote games between players of similar skill levels. EDIT: Also somebody mentioned something about ID-concealing options and features; I think this is a great idea and might actually work... noobs don't get raped and pros don't get dodged! Of course if you were a pro, you might have to hide your status and ID from your friends as well, as you wouldn't want anybody accidently letting slip that you're online. Oh well w/e, that's getting into kinda insignificant stuff.
I know this thread is big, but I'm getting tired of repeating this:
1 Real ID -> 3-5 usernames. You can't make a new username (or perhaps you can only make 1 extra username, dunno) until you've reached an expected ladder level of X. Once you reach rank X, all your new usernames start at that expected ladder level.
Ta-da - no noob bashing, but you get new accounts.
Only thing we need to know is how many points you win / lose depending on rank, or if you lose the same regardless (ie player #10 on the ladder has the same ELL as player #25, do they win/lose the same number of points?).
On August 26 2009 20:47 DeCoup wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2009 17:58 Tyraz wrote:
Why not give three ID's per account? Opportunity cost, right? You COULD use it as one ID per race, or you COULD use it as one ID per style, or you COULD use it for one ID for each sibling (2.2 children per household av right?).
This way, you have 3 accounts, and it is your choice how to use them? Why would you want one ID per race, when b.net 2.0 will clearly (with all its advanced features) track your stats using each race individually anyway? If the ToC of SC2 are anything like that of wow you are only permitted to allow one sibling play it. Licences (WoW at least) are per person not per computer. I bet its like wow in the fact that they don't care how many computers you install it on, or track the CD key being used. It's all about what user you are logged on as.
Yes it will track your RECORD for each race individually, but will your ELL differ between the races? If you will, then great - but we have the same problem I described above about actual positions on the ladder and points won/lost.
If that's not a problem, then having multiple IDs isn't one either - you can just make any new ID start off at your highest ELL.
On August 26 2009 19:17 ProoM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:10 jimminy_kriket wrote:On August 22 2009 08:01 blade55555 wrote:On August 22 2009 07:57 maybenexttime wrote:
Pathetic.
It's already been discussed to death. IDIOTIC decision. What if I want to learn a new race? What if my brother wants to play? What if I want to learn a new strategy? What if I simply want to mess around? FUCK THAT. How is it idiotic? Great Decision by Blizzard. I remember when I used to be against this 1 account per cd key but aoe3 did it and it worked out splendid. Smurfing = down. You want to learn a new race? Play unrated. Your brother wants to play? Have him play on your account or buy his own. Want to learn a new strategy? Why play unrated!. Why do you need a new account to test strategies when you can do unrated eh? Or are you one of those smurfs who just loves to rape lower ranked players? I dont think you understand how much this will fuck up progamers. Maybe from a newbie D- point of view its fine, but when your a player like nada or boxer or even jainfei your going to get harrassed to shit from people wanting to play you, or even people wanting to just bother the shit out of you because they dont like you. With that said, I dont think they will actually go through with this. At least I believe they will have some system in place to avoid harassment/allow anonymity. /dnd and thats all.
But I want to talk to and meet people. I just wouldn't want to deal with 5000 kids everyday going "OMGGGGGGGGGGG SLAYERS'BOXER HAVE MY BABIES".
|
ablsarghf
When did this happend Ô_ö, seems like Im missing alot what's going on.
I don't see the big deal about this thou.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Talking to Daigomi about the problem with having a separate ELL for each of your races, he presented me with a very simple solution:
Have each race have a separate ELL *and* a separate ladder ranking. So if you are 1st rank with Protoss it doesn't get affected if you go 0-10 as zerg.
Only problem (plz someone suggest how to work around this):
I want Blizzard to implement matchup picking (IE I don't like PvP, so I prefer playing PvT PvZ TvP and PvR). How do you reconcile this with the above?
|
People are exaggerating the idea of getting spammed by people just from being high ranked. But lets assume it did happen. Then you would have a few options. Option 1) /dnd now no one can message you. Option 2) /ignore now whoever was messaging you cannot message you anymore without buying a new cdkey. Option 3) just get over it and don't respond. These options are all assuming no new hide or ignore features are added.
Also smurfing or 'sandbagging' is a huge issue in wc3 laddering, and somewhat in BW. If you're good it doesn't really effect you, but I know it pisses off a lot of people when they are first starting to verse someone who has been playing for 3 years but isn't quite good enough to actually be satisfied and goes to bash noobs for fun or to clean out his precious record.
If you want to play an off race you could just 1) play. 2) Go into a popular chat channel and ask for a game. 3) Ask your friends for a game. 4) Host a custom game. 5) Buy a 2nd off-race/fun account.
|
|
|
On August 26 2009 23:08 Medzo wrote:
People are exaggerating the idea of getting spammed by people just from being high ranked. But lets assume it did happen. Then you would have a few options. Option 1) /dnd now no one can message you. Option 2) /ignore now whoever was messaging you cannot message you anymore without buying a new cdkey. Option 3) just get over it and don't respond. These options are all assuming no new hide or ignore features are added.
Also smurfing or 'sandbagging' is a huge issue in wc3 laddering, and somewhat in BW. If you're good it doesn't really effect you, but I know it pisses off a lot of people when they are first starting to verse someone who has been playing for 3 years but isn't quite good enough to actually be satisfied and goes to bash noobs for fun or to clean out his precious record.
If you want to play an off race you could just 1) play. 2) Go into a popular chat channel and ask for a game. 3) Ask your friends for a game. 4) Host a custom game. 5) Buy a 2nd off-race/fun account.
If you want to avoid smurfs you could just 1) play. 2) Go into a popular chat channel and ask for a game. 3) Ask your friends for a game. 4) Host a custom game. 5) Buy a 2nd off-race/fun account.
Ok maybe it didnt work with poing #1. But I dont understand why people want to play ladder but not facing good players. If I want to compete in the elite class in sports I pay the ranking fee and compete in the elite class. People who are just in it for fun and cant compete have other classes to have fun in.
The best solution would be to have the same system as in a game called starcraft. One ladder with seperate stats and then a normal game thingy with just wins-losses-disc. Both having matchmaking but normal games does not have matchmaking according to stats.
Please tell me whats wrong with that idea. Not that people seem to read any other posts anyway.
|
well battle.net now works decently with the smurfing.
cant these developers just make sure its "unhackable" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
