EPTOne account per game - Goodbye to smurfing? - Page 27
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Irrelevant
United States2364 Posts
| ||
|
lazz
Australia3119 Posts
| ||
|
garmule2
United States376 Posts
| ||
|
dcttr66
United States555 Posts
On August 27 2009 13:28 garmule2 wrote: The whole concept of 'smurfing' is utterly ridiculous. This change will do terrible, terrible damage to it. fixed. | ||
|
pzea469
United States1520 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it is not an idiotic decision, it is just bad for players. maybe inconsiderate is the word here. | ||
|
dcttr66
United States555 Posts
"TWENTY FIVE GOD DAMNED PAGES. I am so fucking sick of restating my position because people have selective god damned reading. No, I'm not afraid of losing. PGTour season 6 and 7, I played a combined 800 games, finishing the seasons at A- and A+ respectively. I dodged nobody, I rematched anyone who asked, and asked anyone who beat me for a rematch. But when I wanted to play some off-races, I created a new account. Why? Because my protoss is fucking A rank and my Zerg is like D+ -_- Do I care one shit about losing to the other A ranks? NO. But losing with my main account means it goes down in rank, meaning I can't play as good players (as protoss) without going back up in rank, which I don't want to do because it's a waste of my time." If your protoss is rank a you have no business complaining about how bad your zerg skills are. either you're a pro or you're not. if you're not, play zerg for fun, and don't care about your overall record. in wc3, your undead and orc stats are seperate. so it will be with starcraft 2 most likely. people will still see your mighty rank a worthy protoss stats and your lousy d rank worthy zerg stats. furthermore, you would not have to keep restating your position so much if you bothered to read everyone's posts. like mine. or don't you recall me telling you that changing a name would inhibit the opponent's ability to know who he is playing against? back to what you were talking about...the distinction with wins and losses depending on what races you are using is shown in warcraft 3. in starcraft 2 they will probably take it a step further and show you your wins and losses for each matchup. that will be something to look forward to. the details are up to blizzard about all that math with the AMM and whatever else as far as i'm concerned. TheYango wrote: "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." exactly. it's just so simple. too simple for some ro realize, i guess. it's really going to work out ok i think. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
If your protoss is rank a you have no business complaining about how bad your zerg skills are. either you're a pro or you're not. if you're not, play zerg for fun, and don't care about your overall record. in wc3, your undead and orc stats are seperate. so it will be with starcraft 2 most likely. people will still see your mighty rank a worthy protoss stats and your lousy d rank worthy zerg stats. furthermore, you would not have to keep restating your position so much if you bothered to read everyone's posts. like mine. or don't you recall me telling you that changing a name would inhibit the opponent's ability to know who he is playing against? back to what you were talking about...the distinction with wins and losses depending on what races you are using is shown in warcraft 3. in starcraft 2 they will probably take it a step further and show you your wins and losses for each matchup. that will be something to look forward to. the details are up to blizzard about all that math with the AMM and whatever else as far as i'm concerned. TheYango wrote: "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." exactly. it's just so simple. too simple for some ro realize, i guess. it's really going to work out ok i think. Great point. Furthermore, this is a great decision because it does stop that kind of abuse of lower level players. I have no doubt that with today's technology you'll be able to change clan tags, change account names, etc... without any trouble so you don't have to make new accounts. Furthermore, stats are going to be kept separate by race (and probably separate by match up). They already separate them by race in WC3, so why not in SC2? If you need to play an off race or test out any new strats or anything, do it on your damn main account. You don't need to be a douchebag and abuse lower ranked players. | ||
|
dcttr66
United States555 Posts
"TheYango wrote: "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." exactly. it's just so simple. too simple for some ro realize, i guess. it's really going to work out ok i think." at any rate some of that stuff won't make it, and some stuff is already available and people are too ignorant to realize that. like for example, privacy options are already available in wc3, like i already stated, and also for the aforementioned reason that i keep repeating sub-accounts would never work...unless of course they did the VERY awkward thing where they gave you two names which showed up in every screen, with the main account in parenthesis and the sub account as the main display name, kinda like dota names with those heroes and player names or something like that i guess....THAT'S THIS ONLY WAY sub accounts would work. otherwise people wouldn't get recognized when they changed accounts and that would screw people over. even it being a way it could work, i'll admit that, there's no way it would actually look good, it would be a hideous solution to the problem that i keep mentioning. but it's the only solution i can come up with, and like i said, with the race matchup statistics something like a sub account is completely unnecessary and unproductive. especially with the achievement system that blizzard is bringing to bnet. maybenexttime wrote: "On August 25 2009 14:11 dcttr66 wrote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Show nested quote + On August 24 2009 18:17 lepape wrote: 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- how about the one i mentioned about the fact that the hidden identity makes the player unrecognizable? so he can play someone who hasn't changed his name and know how he plays and the other guy knows nothing about him...that's a downside. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How about the fact that a known player play an unknown one? The latter was able to study the former's play style in depth, whereas the former does not know anything about the latter. How is that not a downside? ;;" if he's a known player then it's his responsibility to stay known. you can't go throwing around crazy suppositions like, "dude, i could totally take on superman, he's got nothing on me, i read all his comic books, watched all his movies...i know him better than the back of my hand...haha...he's going to be so scared to not wear a mask like batman does if he has to go up against me, muahahahahahaha!!!" i mean really, that's what you sound like, dude. | ||
|
mysticism
Canada124 Posts
| ||
|
Tsagacity
United States2124 Posts
On August 27 2009 14:16 mysticism wrote: Both of you can play with one CD key, but if you want separate ladder accounts you probably need two. so... i need 2 cd's keys for me and my brother to play? I guess if races have separate ratings you could each have your own race  | ||
|
mysticism
Canada124 Posts
On August 27 2009 14:20 Tsagacity wrote: Both of you can play with one CD key, but if you want separate ladder accounts you probably need two. I guess if races have separate ratings you could each have your own race thankfully we do, but honestly i would want my own ladder account... this is really stupid of blizzard, should make it atlest two per cd key.. or atleast something else | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On August 27 2009 14:34 mysticism wrote: thankfully we do, but honestly i would want my own ladder account... this is really stupid of blizzard, should make it atlest two per cd key.. or atleast something else Well, that defeats pretty much every reason for them to make it 1 per CD key.... | ||
|
Nitro68
France470 Posts
BNET Terms of use : https://eu.battle.net/account/creation/tos.xml You agree that you will not, under any circumstances: let any third person (except for a minor for whom you opened an account on the Service) use your account on the Service or for a Game, but not limited to, using so-called power-leveling services; | ||
|
teapot
United Kingdom266 Posts
Somewhere along the line Blizzard made changes that made search times too long, or I forget what, but the pros abandoned the ladder. It sort of coincided with a general decline in the scene, and now most replays are from online leagues/tournaments. This idea of preventing smurfing by only having one account is really throwing the baby out with the bath water. There are loads more reasons for having multiple accounts than just smurfing. One of the reasons that pro's used to smurf, was before the AMM was fixed it was possible to go close to 50-0 on the old ladder without meeting a serious opponent. So what these guys would do is create a new account once they dropped below 80%. Because anything less than 80% was considered noob. The new AMM fixed this because it elevated you fairly quickly to play with high ranked players if you were doing well. This pissed off the old "high percentage" players because they couldn't get their high percentages against similarly skilled players. It was too hard for them to shake off the idea that their stats would be 50% and they rage-quit the ladder. The AMM fixes smurfing. It just needs to be tweaked, because as others have mentioned, trying to find games at high level resulted in long search times, because there is a smaller pool of players. What needs to be done is have it search initially in your player pool. After a reasonable period of time searching it will extend the search to your next best opponent. That is all. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
If your protoss is rank a you have no business complaining about how bad your zerg skills are. either you're a pro or you're not. if you're not, play zerg for fun, and don't care about your overall record. in wc3, your undead and orc stats are seperate. so it will be with starcraft 2 most likely. people will still see your mighty rank a worthy protoss stats and your lousy d rank worthy zerg stats. So because I'm good at this game, I can't play for fun? What kind of twisted logic is that? Of course the stats are separate, but if my ranking or overall ELL goes down, why would I care? I don't care about having "perfect stats", I care about being able to play vs as good opponents as possible. furthermore, you would not have to keep restating your position so much if you bothered to read everyone's posts. like mine. or don't you recall me telling you that changing a name would inhibit the opponent's ability to know who he is playing against? But, I think that's a good thing? Privacy is good. If you are absolutely dead set against allowing people anonymity, then you can simply have each account link to your master ID. back to what you were talking about...the distinction with wins and losses depending on what races you are using is shown in warcraft 3. in starcraft 2 they will probably take it a step further and show you your wins and losses for each matchup. that will be something to look forward to. the details are up to blizzard about all that math with the AMM and whatever else as far as i'm concerned. Again, it's not about whether your stats are shown separately for each race, it's about whether you have a separate ranking for each race. If you don't, then losing with your bad race means you drop in rank and play worse players with your good race. Not good. Btw, instead of using citation marks you can just write [quote ] text [/ quote] without the spaces, it makes it easier to read  On August 27 2009 18:06 Nitro68 wrote: They want you and your brother to buy the game. BNET Terms of use : https://eu.battle.net/account/creation/tos.xml Yes, that's what they want. But I don't think anyone with one computer is stupid enough to buy 2 copies of a game just to satisfy some ridiculous ToS On August 27 2009 11:26 Jibba wrote: IRC? Special scrim channels? It doesn't work on B.net because it uses an archaic 1 channel chat system, but I don't think finding practice will be that hard, especially with an influx of gamers who are used to doing that to find competitive practice. I don't know if Blizzard is planning to add in real chat support, but that'd make it even easier. I'd still rather search an opponent than get auto-matched. Have you ever played WC3? I'm not asking this in a snarky kind of way, I'm just curious. I get the feeling you don't realize how extremely convenient it is to be able to matchup, in less than a minute most of the time, with a player of your skill level. Why would I want to bother with IRC? That's a lot of alt tabbing. Scrim channels have existed for BW, and yes they are good, but they are not as good as AMM. Especially if you are either slightly too bad or slightly too good. AMM won't replace custom game practice with someone you know, playing the same small set of maps over and over in preparation for leagues and tournaments, but it will be the most used platform for getting games (unless, maybe, blizzard doesn't do anything about the latency and you have to use chaoslauncher style plugins). if he's a known player then it's his responsibility to stay known. you can't go throwing around crazy suppositions like, "dude, i could totally take on superman, he's got nothing on me, i read all his comic books, watched all his movies...i know him better than the back of my hand...haha...he's going to be so scared to not wear a mask like batman does if he has to go up against me, muahahahahahaha!!!" i mean really, that's what you sound like, dude. Honestly dcttr, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. | ||
|
Sir.Kimmel
United States785 Posts
account name//character nameONE MASTER ACCOUNT and then you have character names aka sub accounts... each sub account carries its own record with what you've done but they are all linked together so your master account would show your overall record while the sub account would just show the record on that account. | ||
|
dNo_O
United States233 Posts
On August 22 2009 07:59 TwoToneTerran wrote: Difference between this and steam is that you can still LAN on Steam games. :> Steam works because it's not intrinsically tied to a specific game like this seems to be, and that's gonna trip this up. you can't start cs if you can't connect to steam. you cannot lan with steam, but you can play lan hosted games with it. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 27 2009 22:45 dNo_O wrote: you can't start cs if you can't connect to steam. you cannot lan with steam, but you can play lan hosted games with it. Offline mode. | ||
|
Eatme
Switzerland3919 Posts
Personally I just want to create lots of accounts for no real reason. I got atleast 13 accounts on various servers. And no I'm not good at this game, I should be crying about being beaten by good players on D but I'm not since that is what playing in a ladder is about. Being competitive. | ||
| ||
