EPTOne account per game - Goodbye to smurfing? - Page 33
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Nitro68
France470 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
- Are you always playing in a league when you ladder via AMM? - How long is a season? - How does it determine if you should move up or not? | ||
|
Nitro68
France470 Posts
| ||
Zelniq
United States7166 Posts
for season length, if they keep going as they have been before, they'd probably just end the season whenever they want to end it, rather than have it predetermined ive no idea for the last question | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12240 Posts
On September 03 2009 04:59 FrozenArbiter wrote: Do you have a link where they talk about it in some more detail? I don't remember them being very specific during the presentation. - Are you always playing in a league when you ladder via AMM? - How long is a season? - How does it determine if you should move up or not? It's probably going to be very similar to WoW's arena system. It uses a Bayesian algorithm to produce a matchmaking rating, or MMR. Your MMR fluctuates greatly, and determines the opponents you will face (they will have a similar MMR). If you win a lot, your MMR will skyrocket and suddenly you'll start facing very good players. Conversely, if you lose a lot, your MMR will plummet. Eventually a confidence value cements your rating as you approach a 50% win ratio, wherever that places you on the absolute spectrum. WoW arena uses an ELL-style system that awards rating based on the difference in rating between you and your opponent, but it is not zero sum. So if you're a 1500 team fighting an 1800 team and you both have MMRs of 2000, they would lose less than you would gain if you won. I'm thinking they'll apply this same principle to SC2 by just splitting it up arbitrarily and keeping your rating hidden. Say your hidden rating is 1000-1400, that might be the Copper bracket. Maybe 1400-1600 is the Silver bracket. 1600-1800 might be the Gold, and so forth. So let's say you're at 1330 and your MMR is 1500, and you play against a 1500 player whose MMR is also 1500. You'd be a Copper player playing against a Silver-level player, and once your rating got up to 1400, you'd move up into the Silver bracket. | ||
|
Tsagacity
United States2124 Posts
Eventually a confidence value cements your rating as you approach a 50% win ratio, wherever that places you on the absolute spectrum. I hope this doesn't cement your rating too much  These things remind me of Halo 3, where it's ridiculously hard to rank up after you've played a lot of games.My little brother who was already 50 got a new account to help his friend from school. In two days my little brother went from 1 to 50, and his friend had remained at 48 the whole time >.< My worry is that at some point after mass-gaming or screwing around it might get hard to continue a steady rise, but I guess that's where the fancy math comes into play to average out the two  I guess a more visible rating system helps too. It's better if you see yourself go from 1500 to 1600, as opposed to Halo where you're still just 48 with no visible improvement. | ||
|
dupsky
United States14 Posts
On September 02 2009 20:22 Rekrul wrote: yeah and if they are the type of people that say 'fuck this shit' just cause they got raped a couple times they are worthless for the community anyways so they can go fuck themselves. less idiots for us more money for blizzard winwin translation: less idiots for us....... smaller community, less potential strat development. more money for blizzard.......less money for blizzard (less sales) winwin.......loselose p.s. if there is no anti-smurfing measure blizzard can kiss my $50 bucks goodbye. this i promise.....also i will trash this game to all i know while i play another strategy game that cares about fair play. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12240 Posts
| ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
On September 03 2009 07:31 dupsky wrote: translation: less idiots for us....... smaller community, less potential strat development. more money for blizzard.......less money for blizzard (less sales) winwin.......loselose p.s. if there is no anti-smurfing measure blizzard can kiss my $50 bucks goodbye. this i promise.....also i will trash this game to all i know while i play another strategy game that cares about fair play. Really? That is what would make you play another game ? lol | ||
|
DeCoup
Australia1933 Posts
On September 03 2009 09:54 D10 wrote: Really? That is what would make you play another game ? lol I have a lot of friends who I tried to talk into getting into SC1. Every single one of them played thru the campaign, but they all rage quit because of the sheer number of people rolling them online. None of them would even think about going back without systems to stop that from happening. You have to remember that not everyone is as hardcore as some of the TL community. I would expect it to be upwards of 90% (Maybe more like 99%) of the people who blizzard are targeting for SC2 would take a similar view to that of friends than the more pro/elitist views. That is why Blizzard is taking the time to do these things. Because pleasing the pro's and elitists (which come up to what... 1-5% of the potential customers) and letting everyone else be disappointed or angered by online play is bad business. Having a system which does not negatively impact on the esport/pro level of play AND makes online play for beginners great is the only sensible choice. The only people this hurts is assholes. And honestly, I'd prefer noobs that I don't see (because of the league difference) to assholes I do see in this game. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
Its like trying to convince your friends to try to get into a wrestling match against the game itself before you can actually have fun with it. Hardcore interface that drives away players /= smurfing. Also AMM. | ||
|
Zelniq
United States7166 Posts
On September 03 2009 10:18 DeCoup wrote: I would expect it to be upwards of 90% (Maybe more like 99%) of the people who blizzard are targeting for SC2 would take a similar view to that of friends than the more pro/elitist views. he's got a point, the vast majority definitely does not enjoy getting completely destroyed online, it's no fun at all and there's no motivation to try and learn from such complete destruction. and nearly all who experience this will simply quit playing. this is assuming of course that the system is setup so that nearly every new player will get raped by a smurf within a few games. yes apparently it's hard for all of us to understand this kind of behavior, but we are the small minority here. even though i enjoy getting thoroughly destroyed when i play a new game online, i can understand why people dont, and dont bother trying. | ||
|
BluzMan
Russian Federation4235 Posts
I don't have anything about smurfing. It allows easy preliminary testing of strategems and lifts the pressure. Yes, sometimes even better players need some relief from always facing a very strong opponent. Anyway, smurfing is benefical for both sides - only when you get beat by someone really much better than you, you can see a clear direction to go. It's somewhat easier to tell why you have lost and you lose the illusion that "there's nothing to get better at, I only lose due to bad shape/luck". This is important. Besides, imagine yourself switching races. While you don't start out totally newb, you still need waaay lower rankings to be able to win. Inability to make an account will totally lock you into place with your better rank you probably wouldn't wanna spoil. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On September 03 2009 16:58 BluzMan wrote: This is ridiculous. While Blizzard may coninue to make the game more newbie-friendly, let us not forget how ridiculous it is in any other sport for a beginner to whine that he doesn't have a good winrate. Any measure that allows people to rock online after beating the campaign will be to the game's demise. I don't have anything about smurfing. It allows easy preliminary testing of strategems and lifts the pressure. Yes, sometimes even better players need some relief from always facing a very strong opponent. Anyway, smurfing is benefical for both sides - only when you get beat by someone really much better than you, you can see a clear direction to go. It's somewhat easier to tell why you have lost and you lose the illusion that "there's nothing to get better at, I only lose due to bad shape/luck". This is important. Besides, imagine yourself switching races. While you don't start out totally newb, you still need waaay lower rankings to be able to win. Inability to make an account will totally lock you into place with your better rank you probably wouldn't wanna spoil. You are contradicting yourself ie Paragraph 2 noob getting smurfed: good because you need to get beat by someone way better than you to improve Paragraph 3 'pro' playing off race: I need to play people much worse than me to learn, playing people much better than me is no fun. NO The way to maximize learning and fun for a multiplayer is to play against people close to your own level. If you want an easy relaxing game, play against the computer. Ideally, Every single AMM game that is played should have a 50% of each side winning because you are playing someone equal to your level. Now it might be a good idea to have seperate rankings for seperate races, but your ranking should be stuck to you as a person and you should not be able to remove it. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5752 Posts
Being oblivious of the actual skill cap of the game causes you to have much lesser incentive to improve. You simply do not realize you can drastically improve every single aspect of your game, and you keep improving at a moderate pace, much slower than what you're capable of. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 03 2009 07:31 dupsky wrote: translation: less idiots for us....... smaller community, less potential strat development. more money for blizzard.......less money for blizzard (less sales) winwin.......loselose p.s. if there is no anti-smurfing measure blizzard can kiss my $50 bucks goodbye. this i promise.....also i will trash this game to all i know while i play another strategy game that cares about fair play. Just FYI, there's a good chance you'll get completely rolled anyway. I think it's fine that they are implementing some ways to prevent people from really abusing, but I have a feeling people really overrate the amount of people who actually do this. Most of the time when you get destroyed by some guy at low ranks, at least in SC, it's not because he's cheating, it's because the game is 11 years old. | ||
|
Lurgee
Australia252 Posts
| ||
|
dcttr66
United States555 Posts
On September 03 2009 00:30 Tsagacity wrote: What? It looks like you just contradicted yourself in the very next sentence >.< the point is they're explaining that they're looking for positive things...they aren't focused on taking out bad things, but putting in good things... i think they should do both, but, oh well that's just my opinion. On September 03 2009 00:37 FrozenArbiter wrote: Simple: You can't make a new account until you have played X games or reached a certain rank. OR: If you create 3 accounts and play on 1, the other accounts will still start at a higher rank once you actually start playing on them. that second option still wouldn't work they can still play like 10 games each right? then 200 games each after that... as for your first idea i don't really like it, but it's reasonable...but don't you think it would be important for them to lock down the first while they play the second? it would mean you can only be using them one at a time...i guess that's to be expected, and you're still changing your name...which is still something i don't like...i still think this sort of thing should only be done once a year, no more often than that. any more often than once a year and it's too hard to keep track of the players for other players. if all 3 accounts are tied to the master account that's fine for blizzard's computers, which can handle all that data...but i can't think of anybody that would rather want this system thinking about how it will affect getting to know your opponents. why is that? for every extra name tied to your account, that's one less name of another opponent that someone will remember. so let's say someone can remember 500 names. instead of remembering 500 different opponents, if 200 of those had 3 different names each...just remembering those 200 would take up his ability to remember 600 names...something BEYOND what he is capable of. it's simple math. i don't see how it's hard to understand. to me it just makes it so hard. i don't see how you can come to any other conclusion than smurfing is wrong. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
The people interested in that will stick to one ID, then when you feel like playing "in peace", you hop on your alt. account. | ||
|
Jonoman92
United States9106 Posts
On September 03 2009 22:00 dcttr66 wrote: it's simple math. i don't see how it's hard to understand. to me it just makes it so hard. i don't see how you can come to any other conclusion than smurfing is wrong. lol smurfing isn't necessarily right or wrong... It's wrong from the perspective of noobs who can't take a few losses and dislike the opportunity to play someone who they would otherwise never get a game with, to everyone else it's not a huge deal. I remember someone saying this on TL and I thought it was a cool way to think about it. You receive ladder points for giving games to those worse than you and cash in those points to play people better than you. If you don't like losing then SC and SC:2 aren't the games for you. edit: I want to add that while smurfing on a ladder is ok. Smurfing for any league or tournament should be considered cheating imo, and leagues that have a ladder qualification part shouldn't allow smurfing if the ladder is part of a qualification system. | ||
| ||
