|
United States47024 Posts
On September 03 2009 18:49 maybenexttime wrote:
But BluzMan does have a point, though.
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.
How would you be oblivious to the actual skill cap of the game?
Most people on this site don't actually play Korean progamers, but I'm pretty sure a lot are well aware of how far and away their skill level is.
This may have been brought up before, but Day[9]'s podcast about playing worse players is worth a listen, as it's quite relevant to this discussion.
|
On September 03 2009 23:57 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2009 18:49 maybenexttime wrote:
But BluzMan does have a point, though.
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. How would you be oblivious to the actual skill cap of the game? Most people on this site don't actually play Korean progamers, but I'm pretty sure a lot are well aware of how far and away their skill level is. This may have been brought up before, but Day[9]'s podcast about playing worse players is worth a listen, as it's quite relevant to this discussion.
can you give us a link ?
|
United States12235 Posts
There will always be replays available of top players. Those replays will always be emulated by players who wish to improve their game. Not everyone is looking for that sort of improvement, so that is going to widen the skill gap.
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 04 2009 03:14 D10 wrote:
can you give us a link ?
http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/intrigue/Day90006PlayAgainstWorsePlay.mp3
Basically, it offers the perspective that while an A-level player may not have the INTENT of bashing newbies for the sake of bashing newbies, playing players at a D-level when trying to learn something new is still very advantageous.
|
While I agree generally with it I don´t see it as good argument for smurfing. Playing Players above and below you can each be educational and useless given the right situation. But why not be honest about it?
Anti-smurf doesn´t keep you from playing better or worse players but it prevents anomalies in the mesurment. The ladder works only when the win/loss rankings are at least aproachingly from matches against equally matched players.
Basically don´t sacrifice bad players for your own advancement.
|
what did they ever do you
edit: on a more serious note, I completely agree with day9, and it makes me reeeeeeally sad that noobs are taken into consideration that much.
|
New people should be taken into consideration this much because they make up the vast majority of the user base. In fact Blizzard should prioritize the experiences of newbies ahead of those of hardcore players any day. Stop being so elitist; the game doesn't only revolve around you. I'm sure Blizzard would be ecstatic if you rage quit this game out of frustration and they got 10 new users in your place.
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 04 2009 04:36 Unentschieden wrote:
While I agree generally with it I don´t see it as good argument for smurfing. Playing Players above and below you can each be educational and useless given the right situation. But why not be honest about it?
Anti-smurf doesn´t keep you from playing better or worse players but it prevents anomalies in the mesurment. The ladder works only when the win/loss rankings are at least aproachingly from matches against equally matched players.
Basically don´t sacrifice bad players for your own advancement.
The thing is, what the podcast made me see is that, without having been at the B to A level play, how MUCH your level of play can fluctuate when trying a new build or a new map. Offracing can be handled by tracking racial stats individually, but when you could potentially fluctuate down from A-level to C or D level when trying a new build, forcing your stats naturally drop down to that level from a bunch of losses, or having to stats-reset an A-rank account seems to punish those players way too much.
For those who didn't listen to the podcast, Day[9] gives some anecdotal experience at the end about how when Peaks of Baekdu got added to the map pool for WCG, he had to practice for it and it was a new experience. While he was A-rank on the other 3 WCG maps, he would get trashed on Peaks, because he didn't understand the map. He would win some games around the A- level, but the fact that he couldn't adequately analyze the real nuances of the map because high-level players can hide their weaknesses meant that playing at his normal level, or eve a little below his normal level, was hampering his development of a game-plan. It's not that he had to drop down 1 or 2 ranks to find where he could get 50/50 win-rates on the map; he ultimately progressed by making a new account, and building up his game plan from the D-level, because that level of play let him see the basic things that could be abused on the map.
|
In my opinion though, the point of SC2 is to STOP this thing where you can do one specific strategy on one map and climb the ladder.. That is bullshit IMO, you aren't talented/skilled if you can do one build on one map and win from it. You are skilled if you can win on ANY balanced map, any strategy/build and keyword: CONSISTANTLY. That is what ruins BW kinda imo and why iccup ranks don't mean much. Anyone can 4pool on a 2-player map with smallest distances and probably get at least up to B or higher even with just 4pooling. Doesnt mean they will get 100%, but they will win more games than they lose by the sheer surprise of 4pool, does that make them really a B rank? No.
I hope that at least in the first 2-3 years of SC2, it will be the best player wins, not based on him using the latest build order out of korea that owns everything else, but based on his smarts, instincts and overall game sense. I dont wanna see people like Idra, who just do one strategy and if you do anything remotely different than the standard play, he gets mad and ragequits (ie F91's domination of him with non-standard zerg play).. I wanna see gosus like Grrrr and Boxer who win on innovation and being able to adapt and win in ANY game situation.
I know my dream wont come true, but I think thats what blizzard should aim for.
|
And what about the D level players he played against? He specifically mentioned how he DIDN´T learn from being trashed by better players on his A-account.
It hypocrytical to say how new player should be GRATEFULL (not in the podcast but in this thread) to be stomped by A players on their "refreshment" tour from D back to A.
While both players can learn in a good vs. bad matchup it should be mutually voluntary. When a learning player looses a match how can he tell the reason? Was his opponents strategy good or was it actually bad but his fundamentals were just too good? Isn´t every participant in the ladder entitelt to games that "count" against players that have the same incentive to win? Smurfs don´t play the same as a "real" player simply because their games don´t "count" and their reason for existans is either sadism or experimentation.
When such matchups occur they shouldn´t influence ladder ranking since, as I said before the ranking is based on winrating against similary skilled players. I´d advocate a non-ladder matchup system. Maybe even for usermade maps (paid?).
|
The "learning" or "skill improvement" function of the ladder is of VERY low importance.
The true importance of the ladder is ensuring a Fun multiplayer game.
Fun multiplayer games are going to be best when the players are near equal, when the game is competitive, interesting.
Wide gaps will Not be fun. And the idea that one should play people much better than you 'for your own good' is terrible.
If you want to play someone worse than you, set up a custom game...
say noobs please, prepare for bashing (and check the level)
and then those noobs that want to learn how high level players play can join and learn from getting bashed.
For the Standard game however.... Match player's of equal skill should be the goal (only other competing goal should be doing it fast)
|
On September 04 2009 06:07 Krikkitone wrote:
Wide gaps will Not be fun. And the idea that one should play people much better than you 'for your own good' is terrible.
If you want to play someone worse than you, set up a custom game...
say noobs please, prepare for bashing
isn't that hilarious, way better players basically raping you and ,then to boot ,they somehow rationalize it by saying " its for your own good".
if they advertised their intent, of a compete MISS-MATCH as you said, they would find out how much we are willing to be violated.....they may grow grey hair before getting a game.
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 04 2009 06:03 Skyze wrote:
In my opinion though, the point of SC2 is to STOP this thing where you can do one specific strategy on one map and climb the ladder.. That is bullshit IMO, you aren't talented/skilled if you can do one build on one map and win from it. You are skilled if you can win on ANY balanced map, any strategy/build and keyword: CONSISTANTLY. That is what ruins BW kinda imo and why iccup ranks don't mean much. Anyone can 4pool on a 2-player map with smallest distances and probably get at least up to B or higher even with just 4pooling. Doesnt mean they will get 100%, but they will win more games than they lose by the sheer surprise of 4pool, does that make them really a B rank? No.
Jesus, did you even listen to the podcast? Day[9] didn't get to A rank just doing one build and one map. You know why he sucked on Peaks? Because until it got added to the WCG pool, NO ONE PLAYED IT. Obviously, anyone's going to suck at first on a map they haven't played before, and have had no real chance to play prior.
On September 04 2009 06:03 Skyze wrote:
I hope that at least in the first 2-3 years of SC2, it will be the best player wins, not based on him using the latest build order out of korea that owns everything else, but based on his smarts, instincts and overall game sense. I dont wanna see people like Idra, who just do one strategy and if you do anything remotely different than the standard play, he gets mad and ragequits (ie F91's domination of him with non-standard zerg play).. I wanna see gosus like Grrrr and Boxer who win on innovation and being able to adapt and win in ANY game situation.
You're really naive if you think Grrr and Boxer didn't fine-tune their builds to perfection just as much as current progamers do, or that they were any more capable of responding to unexpected situations than Jaedong or Bisu are now. Also, non-standard play is not to be confused with on-the-fly decision-making. Non-standard builds are practiced to death just as much as any standard build is.
On September 04 2009 06:03 Unentschieden wrote:
And what about the D level players he played against? He specifically mentioned how he DIDN´T learn from being trashed by better players on his A-account.
It hypocrytical to say how new player should be GRATEFULL (not in the podcast but in this thread) to be stomped by A players on their "refreshment" tour from D back to A.
Actually, Day also mentions that in testing against D-level players, he didn't systematically stomp them every time. Rather, he would know that the builds he lost with at the D-level wouldn't hold up at higher levels. As he nailed down builds that would work on Peaks, he would move up, and the level of opponents he would face would match the level of fine-tuning his build was at. Were his mechanics better than a C-level player? Yes. But that was counterbalanced by the fact that while the C-level player was playing a prepared, fine-tuned build, Day's build was unrefined.
The reality is that A-level players aren't always playing A-level Starcraft. The limited granularity of a ladder system is such that players will always fluctuate more wildly than the ladder system can keep up with. If you KNOW you're playing D-level Starcraft, why should you have to wait for the ladder system to catch up to you?
On September 04 2009 06:03 Skyze wrote:
While both players can learn in a good vs. bad matchup it should be mutually voluntary. When a learning player looses a match how can he tell the reason? Was his opponents strategy good or was it actually bad but his fundamentals were just too good? Isn´t every participant in the ladder entitelt to games that "count" against players that have the same incentive to win? Smurfs don´t play the same as a "real" player simply because their games don´t "count" and their reason for existans is either sadism or experimentation.
Ultimately I think this comes down to how people use the ability to smurf. In the hands of a responsible player, who will always be playing his best to improve, it can be an important tool, and essential to the improvement of a player who reaches the middle-high levels of play. In the hands of a player really striving for improvement, such games can be useful for both players. At the same time, I do recognize that such a system is prone to abuse, and that is extremely unfortunate.
On September 04 2009 06:03 Skyze wrote:
When such matchups occur they shouldn´t influence ladder ranking since, as I said before the ranking is based on winrating against similary skilled players. I´d advocate a non-ladder matchup system. Maybe even for usermade maps (paid?).
This is sort of the impasse that gets reached. How do you create a system where you can have games in which ladder level is relevant (because the higher-level player does need to know that he's playing at a lower level), but at the same time, doesn't affect the post-game results?
|
On September 04 2009 07:11 TheYango wrote:
This is sort of the impasse that gets reached. How do you create a system where you can have games in which ladder level is relevant (because the higher-level player does need to know that he's playing at a lower level), but at the same time, doesn't affect the post-game results?
Simple... Custom Game.... assuming you can determine your opponent's ladder level even in a non ladder game.
Advertise:
2000 level player looking to try poor builds against a 1300-1700 level player.
|
Personally I think that custom games will be the solution for the lack of a way to practice against other players. It's important to keep in mind that just because Melee games were rare in WC3 doesn't mean that they will be rare in SC2 as well.
The reason why Melee games in WC3 were rare was because:
1. The games list was filled to the brim with DotA, and it was a pain to sort through the game list to find a melee game.
2. People simply practiced on the official ladder due to smurfing, so there was no need to use custom games.
Both of these problems are being solved by the new Bnet 2.0. Since you only have one account, the only true way to practice without screwing your W/L record is through custom games, and the fact that you can filter custom games easier means that the demand for custom melee games will be MUCH higher in SC2 than in WC3. I don't think the practice problem is really a problem at all.
The only other problems with anti-smurfing is getting harassed by other players, but I think that is easily solved with anonymous features.
|
Canada11349 Posts
On September 03 2009 00:16 dcttr66 wrote:
The point behind the one account thing isn't so much about hey, we don't like smurfing!
it's more like, hey, we want to keep track of our players, who is the best all the way down to the worst. we're running the tournaments, it's our show and we're the ones running it. so stay like that where we can recognize you, don't go putting on masks so we start losing track of you, yeah...no masks allowed. you get your recognition for being a great player...no need to smurf if you're at the top of your league is there? stay there or jump to the next league...advance or stay put. or have newer and better players come along and rise above you. we're keeping track of all your games...you can't escape us...we shall document it all...sc2 will be a glorious game...and everyone's going to have fun...every replay shall be autosaved and at the sc2 tenth year anniversary we will upload a mega video with ALL BATTLE.NET GAMES IN A SINGLE VIDEO THAT WILL TAKE YEARS UPON YEARS TO WATCH IN 8X SPEED.
lol I kinda wanted to joke around...but seriously...i don't really think the focus on this whole issue should be on goodbye to smurfing...but uhm...it seems like smurfing is going to be either severely crippled or non-existent. i would hope it shall be non-existent, but if it's crippled that's cool too.
This is the argument (and permutations of it) that I don't understand. This need for everyone to be known all the time. What for? Do you want passports and driver's licenses too? The internet is a big place and I for one prefer to exercise some modicum of control of information of my person. That includes who I want to interact with and when. Full access and do not disturb is not a flexible enough system.
If Browder's talk about re-rolling different ids at your current skill level is true, then I am well-pleased.
|
I haven't read any of the posts past page 6, I'll be honest about that.
I just started playing starcraft one year ago. I logged onto battle.net for the first time, and joined a game called "1v1 NOOBS ONLY"
I got completely crushed. No worries I thought, I'll do better next time.
Next game was called, "noob".
I got completely crushed.
This cycle continued for the next hundred games I played, with my record being something like, 1-100, the one win simply because it was a 2v2.
I was so discouraged, so sad. I quit sc.
I came back, 10 months later. I started playing again, with my friends helping me. This time, with the proper teachers and extensive training (I currently have 1000 games in my autoreplay, and I got chaoslauncher in june), I was able to become a D player. Come on guys, lets be serious here. For someone starting, and no proper teachers to help them, there is NO WAY they can compare to any of the players who have played for 10+ years. It is still extremely hard for me to even keep up with some of the High D players / low D+ players, even after playing so many games.
I am not looking forward to the new ICCup season because it means that I have to deal, once again, with all of those B+, A- players who will totally crush me, and I will definitely not get better, but will get worse, because my current confidence will get shattered, and I will begin to play scared. (O_O) <-Hopefully someone gets the joke.
I'm pretty sure the most practical solution was already reached by page 6, so let me express what I think is a reasonable solution:
You will have one email address attached to your CD Key
That one email address has 3 ratings; one for each race.
You will then enter battle.net using your email address, and when you do, you will be prompted with a screen, asking you to input an account ID and password. You may then log onto whatever name you want, but the ratings will still be the same. As for trying weird builds, I don't see the point.
|
On August 22 2009 08:08 Vision 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? You've GOT to be insane... seriously... People use different names to learn new strategies and a new race all the time,and there's never been a problem with it.. Another fucking STUPID SENSELESS decision by Blizzard. -_-
wow my feelings are so hurt.
anyways, yse i abolutely agree with this guy :D
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 04 2009 10:49 ArcticxWolf wrote:
As for trying weird builds, I don't see the point.
So in your opinion, every player should just play 2-3 builds, on a static map pool?
I don't see competitive play having much longevity that way.
|
If you only get to use only 1 ranked account, the ladder rankings become relevant, since there are no players with a ton of high ranked acc.
That is a point i like.
If i want to play for fun, unranked games are the way to go.
The only problem i can see is when different people use 1 account, for example brothers.
Sadly there is no easy solution for this since when you allow more ranked acc the ladder will suffer from smurf accounts.
I think one solution would be to allow more accounts, but only the highest ranked account would be ranked, the lower rank accounts will be invisible.
Unfortunately this leaves the noob-stomping problem which can only be solved if there is a limited amount of accounts/new starts/reset stats that does not allow you to start over and over again as a "beginner".
In the end i can see blizzard us allowing like 3-5 accounts which will be all ranked, but cannot be resetted/restarted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://api.ning.com/files/OWalY4UavzMdoo7egA4FjDmPoLF8SeShdalnvPtJsl8TL*okLiDanusOpXkspkLdGA9n2uRwz6zdZFR3vkxrAerRH**H29pK/smurfs3.jpg)
