|
Actually Blizzard is against sharing an account with your brother so it will probably be 1 account.
You might have multiple IDs for 'social' type reasons
There might be one rank for each race.
But I would say that for a Fun game you have 3 options
1-play people you know
2-play ranked AMM
3-play against the computer
#2 is if you want a game that is fun because it is competitive, you might win/you might lose... but you have a good chance either way
#3 is if you want to have fun with a game you will probably win (you can just make the AI easier if you are not that good)
#1 is if you want to play a custom game
Playing totally random people is not likely to be fun....
Although if the ranks of players are displayed even when you have a custom game, then that would be useful in finding a gameof the right level. (say you want a game with Gold players, you could see what level your opponents were before going in... they might not be the best at a DotA map, but they would probably be better than Copper players)
|
I played C&C for a long time and it was rly horrible with that system
All good players opened smurfs and tried to get the other players down in the ladder (cuz top8 got 400$)
Last season, they fortunalety decided to declare an anti-smurfing rule
If u wanted to test a new strategy or something u just opened a "non-ranked" match and tested it with ur mates
I don't see a problem there, but i see a problem in destroying the online-experience cuz all the bad players would get raped by mid- and good-players
If Starcraft2 is more fun to lower ranked players too, then the viewerbase will increase and that is also favourable for eSports
|
Is it only me, or does anybody else sense a fundamental flaw in the "smurfing is important for training new builds/strategies/-argumentation!? I mean, it might break down to a different perception about the purpose of a ladder system. While some (including me) see it as a mean to enjoy competitive matches against players of roughly the same skill set, so that a ladder rank actually reflects your ability to play the game, others might just find it a convenient way to find a training partner to improve their game. But given the latter is the case, what do you need smurfing for?
Just play a few games with a new (wacky) build order, get crushed a couple of times (if it's really working out so badly) and you are automatically set against players who you would probably easily beat with your best builds (i.e. players worse than you), but with whom you can have decent (and very "educative") games with your new builds/strategies. All you need is a ranking system which, after some decisive defeats, ranks you down appropriately.
If you don't want that because you don't want your stats ruined, you probably don't see the ladder system as a training ground! In that case you should consider that by smurfing, you are not only ruining the experience of new players, but you also ruin their stats, thereby preventing the ladder system from working properly. It's the pro-smurfing players who want to have the best of two worlds, and that is just not acceptible!
The only legit reason I see for smurfing is the option of anonymity, which I find an important aspect, however, this is easily solved by allowing several ids for the same account plus options for ignoring, logging in as guest, etc.
|
United States12224 Posts
There is no real reason to support smurfing anymore. A lot of times, people want to escape their past. They want to have a fresh start where they won't get killed by 4pools that used to rack up a lot of losses for them. The truth is that isn't going to matter, and by creating a new name and starting fresh, you're only inflating your win percentage to reflect how worse low-ranked players are than you now. It's a superficial and hollow statistic. Everyone starts out bad, that's just how it is. Whether or not you stay bad is determined by your drive to improve. Someone with a 1000-1000 record can be just as skilled as someone with a 70-3 record.
So let's say you're a C player on ICCup with a record of 50-50. A lot of those losses came from D players, but you know how to beat them easily now because you've learned more and applied that knowledge to your game. If you create a new account and go 50-5 and get back to C, you're not much better than you were on your old account because you're typically going to be winning against D-player strategies and reflexes. Now, what happens when you're grinding up to B? Is it then time to create yet another new account when you finally reach B but your record is 200-200? I created dozens of smurf names on Battle.net and just played 1v1 pub games for the best record, but that was only a reflection of how I had been performing recently, rather than over the entire course of learning to play the game. The games themselves varied greatly by opponent, and it was evident that the records were meaningless, so I stopped.
|
On September 04 2009 07:11 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +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.
So if everyone sucked how does that hurt ranking? It´s relative, if he plays worse on a certain map than everyone else why SHOULDN´T his ranking suffer? It´s not like there was a conspiracy where certain players got to know and practice on the map beforehand was there?
On September 04 2009 07:11 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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?
Because that is the VERY POINT of the ladder. An A-Player that doesn´t play A-level Starcraft is not an A-Player. In that example the Ladder had temporarily 2 inaccuracys: a fake Player fighting his way up from D-rank and a A-rank on "hiatus" who actually wasn´t A.
Doesn´t it occur to you that Smurfs are part of the reason why the Ladder isn´t a good representation of player skill?
More important than him knowing he´s playing D-level the LADDER should know that. How much skill fluctuation SHOULD be represented by the Ladder, especially knowing that Players will to their best to conceil downward adjustments(aka playing bad)) I´m not saying that the determinating method is perfect and I don´t envy the people responsible for them.
On September 04 2009 07:11 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2009 06:03 not Skyze but Unentschieden 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.
I admire your trust in your fellow Gamer but I´m afraid to inform you that a system that CAN be abused WILL be abused. Unproven claims that "will be a minority anyway" simply don´t cut it - even one abuser is one abuse too many.
Would you treat hackers the same? "A maphack was used against you? Too bad but that bad luck, there aren´t that many hackers anyway. Also it´s kinda your fault anyway for not hacking yourself"?
It´s either full tolerance or no tolerance.
On September 04 2009 07:11 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +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?
I´m not shure what you mean with post-game results here.
I imagine some kind of parallel "practice ladder". Results wouldn´t count but you could define matchup wishes like "opponent points: xxx opponent race: yyy map: zzz" and it would match you up with a as much as possible fitting opponent. Ranked matches and Practice matches should be different. You wouldn´t practice in a Tournament would you?
Overall I get the impression pro-smurfers are defending common anti-deranking mesures taken by current players like it´s in any way justified. Please elaborate if I´m getting a false impression here.
|
On September 04 2009 16:52 MiraMax wrote:
Is it only me, or does anybody else sense a fundamental flaw in the "smurfing is important for training new builds/strategies/-argumentation!? I mean, it might break down to a different perception about the purpose of a ladder system. While some (including me) see it as a mean to enjoy competitive matches against players of roughly the same skill set, so that a ladder rank actually reflects your ability to play the game, others might just find it a convenient way to find a training partner to improve their game. But given the latter is the case, what do you need smurfing for?
Just play a few games with a new (wacky) build order, get crushed a couple of times (if it's really working out so badly) and you are automatically set against players who you would probably easily beat with your best builds (i.e. players worse than you), but with whom you can have decent (and very "educative") games with your new builds/strategies. All you need is a ranking system which, after some decisive defeats, ranks you down appropriately.
If you don't want that because you don't want your stats ruined, you probably don't see the ladder system as a training ground! In that case you should consider that by smurfing, you are not only ruining the experience of new players, but you also ruin their stats, thereby preventing the ladder system from working properly. It's the pro-smurfing players who want to have the best of two worlds, and that is just not acceptible!
The only legit reason I see for smurfing is the option of anonymity, which I find an important aspect, however, this is easily solved by allowing several ids for the same account plus options for ignoring, logging in as guest, etc.
oh wow....look at all that proper english
On September 04 2009 17:26 Excalibur_Z wrote:
There is no real reason to support smurfing anymore. A lot of times, people want to escape their past. They want to have a fresh start where they won't get killed by 4pools that used to rack up a lot of losses for them. The truth is that isn't going to matter, and by creating a new name and starting fresh, you're only inflating your win percentage to reflect how worse low-ranked players are than you now. It's a superficial and hollow statistic. Everyone starts out bad, that's just how it is. Whether or not you stay bad is determined by your drive to improve. Someone with a 1000-1000 record can be just as skilled as someone with a 70-3 record.
So let's say you're a C player on ICCup with a record of 50-50. A lot of those losses came from D players, but you know how to beat them easily now because you've learned more and applied that knowledge to your game. If you create a new account and go 50-5 and get back to C, you're not much better than you were on your old account because you're typically going to be winning against D-player strategies and reflexes. Now, what happens when you're grinding up to B? Is it then time to create yet another new account when you finally reach B but your record is 200-200? I created dozens of smurf names on Battle.net and just played 1v1 pub games for the best record, but that was only a reflection of how I had been performing recently, rather than over the entire course of learning to play the game. The games themselves varied greatly by opponent, and it was evident that the records were meaningless, so I stopped.
aha! ok what more do you guys want? we got a gaming story of someone who has changed his ways from smurfing. he has repented. when sc2 comes out it may be time for you to do the same
"The only legit reason I see for smurfing is the option of anonymity, which I find an important aspect, however, this is easily solved by allowing several ids for the same account plus options for ignoring, logging in as guest, etc."
Despite that no one seems to agree with me on this point, i still feel like several ids for the same account will be a big hassle because remembering extra names is such a drag and basically makes remembering more and more people more and more impossible.
|
On September 04 2009 22:46 dcttr66 wrote:
oh wow....look at all that proper english
smurfs is whiners
me is gosu
Is that better?
|
On September 03 2009 22:38 Jonoman92 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
but don't you even read the most important part of my post? don't just read the last paragraph...the ones before it are MORE important...they're the reason i came up with the conclusion...
"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."
On September 04 2009 08:16 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +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.
basically the thing i'm worried about is honest players like me with a name that never changes, playing against people that have played me countless times from my perspective, because they are new people everytime they change their name...they will know who i am and be familiar with me...and know what my strengths and weaknesses are and i'll know nothing about them. that's what i don't like. if i'm playing someone i don't know because i've never played him before, that's acceptable. but if i'm playing someone i don't know because i forgot him, that's my own fault. but if i'm playing someone i don't know because he changed his identity...that's cheating on his part.
|
On September 04 2009 22:46 dcttr66 wrote:
"The only legit reason I see for smurfing is the option of anonymity, which I find an important aspect, however, this is easily solved by allowing several ids for the same account plus options for ignoring, logging in as guest, etc."
Despite that no one seems to agree with me on this point, i still feel like several ids for the same account will be a big hassle because remembering extra names is such a drag and basically makes remembering more and more people more and more impossible.
As the quote mentions, that is the POINT of multiple IDs
If I have multiple IDs I don't WANT anyone to remember me... I want to be anonymous, and that should be allowed.
If I want people to remember me, I stick with one ID (easer for me too.)
If you have a predictable strategy, then either
1. Learn to change it/ vary it... or at least learn to deal with its strong counters
2. become anonymous
|
The rank is not for training, is to establish criteria for classification among the players.
And the podcast he did not smurf, he just went through a natural process up to determine its level of primacy. As gain increased, but that's not his real level, then fell. When faced weaker players he find his strategy and up ond the rank again. This can be done in the system that will implement by blizzard.
The problem that you are thinking on behalf of the minority, the gosus, instead of understanding that most, average or noob, that's what makes the game popular.They r rooting for gosus and attend their games. The more the noobs are respected and enjoy this game, the greater will be the basis for further gosus or to support the gosus.
|
On September 05 2009 00:02 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2009 22:46 dcttr66 wrote:
"The only legit reason I see for smurfing is the option of anonymity, which I find an important aspect, however, this is easily solved by allowing several ids for the same account plus options for ignoring, logging in as guest, etc."
Despite that no one seems to agree with me on this point, i still feel like several ids for the same account will be a big hassle because remembering extra names is such a drag and basically makes remembering more and more people more and more impossible. As the quote mentions, that is the POINT of multiple IDs If I have multiple IDs I don't WANT anyone to remember me... I want to be anonymous, and that should be allowed. If I want people to remember me, I stick with one ID (easer for me too.) If you have a predictable strategy, then either 1. Learn to change it/ vary it... or at least learn to deal with its strong counters 2. become anonymous
well...if you don't want people to remember you, it's not fair for the people you're playing against.
you may remember, oh yeah that guy sucks with psionic storm, or colossus or that he only puts cannons at his expansion mineral line or his main or whatever thing he does. if you know these things and your opponent has no idea you know these things...how is he supposed to react? he'll just get crushed. and it's not just about what strategy he does like what units he's getting or how fast he's teching/expanding/attacking or whatever...it applies to a lot of other things...like how good or bad he is at things mainly...like what is his apm and what does he spend it on. are you going to feel more comfortable teching, attacking, expanding or just plain normal play? the player who is anonymous will always have the advantage. :/ his opponent is not going to just automatically know anything about him like what's his apm and what it's spent on, or where he's most likely to be vulnerable, or what units is he bad at microing during battle...
i feel like memory is a great asset that we can use, but it will be abused if people are allowed to.
how fair would it be to be playing a game of memory and when your opponent goes to the bathroom you switch around half of the cards still on the board? hmm? that's basically what's happening when you obscure your name with this smurfing nonsense.
anyway, that guy said he thinks it's a legit reason. but...it's the only reason smurfing exists as far as i can tell, am i not right? so called newb bashing which is supposedly an illegitimate reason for wanting to smurf is possible with smurfing because the newb has no idea who his opponent is right? i don't see how that's any different from letting other people who aren't newb bashing change their names. they still are anonymous, and they still have that unfair advantage.
|
On September 05 2009 05:49 dcttr66 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2009 00:02 Krikkitone wrote:On September 04 2009 22:46 dcttr66 wrote:
"The only legit reason I see for smurfing is the option of anonymity, which I find an important aspect, however, this is easily solved by allowing several ids for the same account plus options for ignoring, logging in as guest, etc."
Despite that no one seems to agree with me on this point, i still feel like several ids for the same account will be a big hassle because remembering extra names is such a drag and basically makes remembering more and more people more and more impossible. As the quote mentions, that is the POINT of multiple IDs If I have multiple IDs I don't WANT anyone to remember me... I want to be anonymous, and that should be allowed. If I want people to remember me, I stick with one ID (easer for me too.) If you have a predictable strategy, then either 1. Learn to change it/ vary it... or at least learn to deal with its strong counters 2. become anonymous well...if you don't want people to remember you, it's not fair for the people you're playing against. There's nothing unfair about having an unknown name =/ As long as it's tied to rating somehow I think people should get as many names as they want. Everyone can do it anyway.
|
On September 05 2009 05:57 Tsagacity wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2009 05:49 dcttr66 wrote:On September 05 2009 00:02 Krikkitone wrote:On September 04 2009 22:46 dcttr66 wrote:
"The only legit reason I see for smurfing is the option of anonymity, which I find an important aspect, however, this is easily solved by allowing several ids for the same account plus options for ignoring, logging in as guest, etc."
Despite that no one seems to agree with me on this point, i still feel like several ids for the same account will be a big hassle because remembering extra names is such a drag and basically makes remembering more and more people more and more impossible. As the quote mentions, that is the POINT of multiple IDs If I have multiple IDs I don't WANT anyone to remember me... I want to be anonymous, and that should be allowed. If I want people to remember me, I stick with one ID (easer for me too.) If you have a predictable strategy, then either 1. Learn to change it/ vary it... or at least learn to deal with its strong counters 2. become anonymous well...if you don't want people to remember you, it's not fair for the people you're playing against. There's nothing unfair about having an unknown name =/ As long as it's tied to rating somehow I think people should get as many names as they want. Everyone can do it anyway.
if that's how it's going to work, that's going to be such a pain...i really would change my name every day, just to keep up with everyone...but it wouldn't be something i'd prefer to do...it's a feature i'd rather do without. i mean, doing this it's going to turn sc2 into player names for warcraft 3 ffa ladder. player 1, player 2, player 3, player 4. well, technically in wc3 because of so much smurfing we call everyone by their color. which annoys me to no end. if we have to call people by their color in sc2 because of smurfing...and if it's THIS bad which is WORSE than smurfing in previous games...it's all going to be naming ppl by their color...and that will be really sad and a detraction from the friendly gaming experience...
|
On September 05 2009 06:04 dcttr66 wrote:...it's all going to be naming ppl by their color...and that will be really sad and a detraction from the friendly gaming experience...
and don't forget that smurfing hurts players who prefer to use allied colors because their allies talk about a player using his color name and the allied color player has to switch allied colors on and off to figure out who he's talking about(or to)...not a big deal, really though...but i thought it was worth mentioning...
|
I can hardly believe how important smurfing is for some guys. The only upset for me is the fat i can not create 1acc/race, but thats it.
You wont be spammed or harassed, since the chat system does not work this way in sc2.
On the other hand i really like the idea of a smurf-free ladder.
If you want to try out a new bo or something, just play with a friend. Shouldnt be too difficult to find some friends out of the 1.000.000 active players...
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 05 2009 06:04 dcttr66 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2009 05:57 Tsagacity wrote:On September 05 2009 05:49 dcttr66 wrote:On September 05 2009 00:02 Krikkitone wrote:On September 04 2009 22:46 dcttr66 wrote:
"The only legit reason I see for smurfing is the option of anonymity, which I find an important aspect, however, this is easily solved by allowing several ids for the same account plus options for ignoring, logging in as guest, etc."
Despite that no one seems to agree with me on this point, i still feel like several ids for the same account will be a big hassle because remembering extra names is such a drag and basically makes remembering more and more people more and more impossible. As the quote mentions, that is the POINT of multiple IDs If I have multiple IDs I don't WANT anyone to remember me... I want to be anonymous, and that should be allowed. If I want people to remember me, I stick with one ID (easer for me too.) If you have a predictable strategy, then either 1. Learn to change it/ vary it... or at least learn to deal with its strong counters 2. become anonymous well...if you don't want people to remember you, it's not fair for the people you're playing against. There's nothing unfair about having an unknown name =/ As long as it's tied to rating somehow I think people should get as many names as they want. Everyone can do it anyway. if that's how it's going to work, that's going to be such a pain...i really would change my name every day, just to keep up with everyone...but it wouldn't be something i'd prefer to do...it's a feature i'd rather do without. i mean, doing this it's going to turn sc2 into player names for warcraft 3 ffa ladder. player 1, player 2, player 3, player 4. well, technically in wc3 because of so much smurfing we call everyone by their color. which annoys me to no end. if we have to call people by their color in sc2 because of smurfing...and if it's THIS bad which is WORSE than smurfing in previous games...it's all going to be naming ppl by their color...and that will be really sad and a detraction from the friendly gaming experience...
SC has no smurf restrictions whatsoever and we have no problems... Calling people by their colour? Why? -.-
Blizzard has already said it's going to work like this:
1 Account -> 2-3 IDs
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 04 2009 10:49 ArcticxWolf wrote:
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.
But, you realize this has NOTHING to do with smurfing right? You got crushed because in SC, even bad players are "good" (ie they have played for a long time).
Smurfing had literally nothing what so ever to do with it.
|
On September 05 2009 05:49 dcttr66 wrote:
i feel like memory is a great asset that we can use, but it will be abused if people are allowed to.
how fair would it be to be playing a game of memory and when your opponent goes to the bathroom you switch around half of the cards still on the board? hmm? that's basically what's happening when you obscure your name with this smurfing nonsense.
.
Starcraft =/= Memory
If you are playing against unknown players, then maybe you will be slightly below your level, and they will be slightly above theirs.
The point is, if you want to know a players strategy, find out by scouting, not by looking at their name.
However, as long as you can withold your name from everyone except the people playing with you, then I'd be fine with one fixed ID, that you can change once every season.
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 04 2009 16:52 MiraMax wrote:
Just play a few games with a new (wacky) build order, get crushed a couple of times (if it's really working out so badly) and you are automatically set against players who you would probably easily beat with your best builds (i.e. players worse than you), but with whom you can have decent (and very "educative") games with your new builds/strategies. All you need is a ranking system which, after some decisive defeats, ranks you down appropriately.
What happens if that's 3-4 ranks down? What if you need to drop from A to C to get to the appropriate level for whatever build you're working on? Should you need to waste time throwing games to get that far? If resetting stats is possible, then this whole argument is moot (since you could reset stats for the same effect), but it doesn't seem guaranteed that some form of stat resetting is available (seeing as stats resetting every week allows noob bashing just as much as smurfing).
|
idk why ppl crying about this its not even a big deal.
People are upset that they cant play ppl that are lower skill wise compare to them selves. people these days only play ppl that they kno they can beat how pathetic. learn to lose it makes u better at the game
secondarly, people are compaining about trying strategies and crap like that. what strategy?? build orders? if u want to practice shit like that uu can do it single player cuz the computers play like progamers now in sc2.
lastly, i dont see why ppl whining over making new acconts ur stats will be reset ever now n then if u play in the ladder. if there are other ppl playing on ur account well thatz ur problem not ours go buy 2 sc2 dont cry over the forums
i m tired of these kids compaining about stupid shit these days about stuff like lan 1 account per key and other stupid stuff seriously if u dont like the game dont buy it
ok i m good now ;D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
