|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 05 2009 09:46 r4j2ill wrote:
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
....... Sigh.
I don't want to play lower ranked players, I just don't want to be stuck on one name forever. I want to be able to play some Zerg games without dropping 500 ranks because my zerg is 1/10 as good as my Protoss.
Hopefully any new account you create wont start at the bottom level, because I actually don't want to play newbies.
You can't practice strategies vs the computer WTF kind of statement is that.
And complaining about the lack of LAN is NOT stupid, not having LAN is stupid.
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 05 2009 09:46 r4j2ill wrote:
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.
Because clearly Blizzard will keep updating the AI code as new builds are discovered and standardized among progamers.
That's unrealistic and totally ridiculous.
|
On September 05 2009 08:02 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +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).
If you insist to use a C-Level strategy on the Ladder you SHOULD be C. If you think your strategy works but needs practive don´t play on the Ladder. The new Bnet Functionality SHOULD make it easy to find appropiate traning Partners.
I´m actually curious about your idea what the Ladder is and what it should be used for. Try to draw analougys to "real" sports for reference please.
Edit:
On September 05 2009 10:19 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2009 09:46 r4j2ill wrote:
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. Because clearly Blizzard will keep updating the AI code as new builds are discovered and standardized among progamers. That's unrealistic and totally ridiculous.
Blizzard should absolutely include or patch in a AI-Editor. It´d be the most complex tool though...
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 05 2009 10:21 Unentschieden wrote:
If you insist to use a C-Level strategy on the Ladder you SHOULD be C. If you think your strategy works but needs practive don´t play on the Ladder. The new Bnet Functionality SHOULD make it easy to find appropiate traning Partners.
I'm not saying you SHOULDN'T be. What I'm saying is you shouldn't have to throw a ton of random games to get there. If stats-reset is in, I'm fine. If there's some way to drop down to an appropriate level quickly (by having it redo the 10-games-to-determine-level process again or something), I'm fine. But a player shouldn't have to join a game, sit for 2 minutes, then quit, over and over again, just because he wants to practice at a lower level.
(I assume stats-reset is out because I've heard no mention of it being in, and including it seems counter to the anti-newb-bashing philosophy.)
On September 05 2009 10:21 Unentschieden wrote:
Blizzard should absolutely include or patch in a AI-Editor. It´d be the most complex tool though...
And making it "play like progamers" or even like a D-level player would be quite a monumental task.
|
On September 05 2009 10:30 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2009 10:21 Unentschieden wrote:
If you insist to use a C-Level strategy on the Ladder you SHOULD be C. If you think your strategy works but needs practive don´t play on the Ladder. The new Bnet Functionality SHOULD make it easy to find appropiate traning Partners. I'm not saying you SHOULDN'T be. What I'm saying is you shouldn't have to throw a ton of random games to get there. If stats-reset is in, I'm fine. If there's some way to drop down to an appropriate level quickly (by having it redo the 10-games-to-determine-level process again or something), I'm fine. But a player shouldn't have to join a game, sit for 2 minutes, then quit, over and over again, just because he wants to practice at a lower level. (I assume stats-reset is out because I've heard no mention of it being in, and including it seems counter to the anti-newb-bashing philosophy.) Show nested quote +On September 05 2009 10:21 Unentschieden wrote:
Blizzard should absolutely include or patch in a AI-Editor. It´d be the most complex tool though... And making it "play like progamers" or even like a D-level player would be quite a monumental task.
If you want to practice at a lower level, just Play.... you will get reset low soon enough.
Play at the high level, maybe you will learn something about this new strategy of yours while you are working your way down. (and then hopefully back up with the new strategy)
|
On September 05 2009 10:30 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2009 10:21 Unentschieden wrote:
If you insist to use a C-Level strategy on the Ladder you SHOULD be C. If you think your strategy works but needs practive don´t play on the Ladder. The new Bnet Functionality SHOULD make it easy to find appropiate traning Partners. I'm not saying you SHOULDN'T be. What I'm saying is you shouldn't have to throw a ton of random games to get there. If stats-reset is in, I'm fine. If there's some way to drop down to an appropriate level quickly (by having it redo the 10-games-to-determine-level process again or something), I'm fine. But a player shouldn't have to join a game, sit for 2 minutes, then quit, over and over again, just because he wants to practice at a lower level. (I assume stats-reset is out because I've heard no mention of it being in, and including it seems counter to the anti-newb-bashing philosophy.)
I think you kinda missed my point. It´s fine if you play against higher or lower ranked/skilled Players - except when it´s on the Ladder. The ladder only works based on approximately evenly matched Players. And even if that is not possible the ranking algorithm should adjust aka wins against better players or losses against worse count more.
I fully support a non-ranking matchup system. "Honest Smurfers" shouldn´t complain about that since it would make it EASIER for them to play against their target skill.
Of course that is mostly a advantage for the C-Player in this case which might be why it´s not popular - If the C-Player plays against a Smurf his win doesn´t count as much as it should and his loss counts more than it should - and the Smurf itself doesn´t count at all it´s not his "real" account.
|
Seriously, I think we're getting worried for nothing. They have the solution in their own backyard, WoW. A non-rated, automatic matchmaking system. With thumbs up/down system for different matchups as a bonus.
It shouldn't be hard to implement, so if it isn't there when the beta strikes, we will simply have to push very hard for it. I know I will.
But if they studied the reasons why ICCup, Garena, and other places are popular, I'm sure they'll come with a very good compromise to starting a new account altogether. They have no choice. If they manage to pull off something nice, then 1 account is going to be a very positive change for all the honest gamers out there.
The most important thing we have to do, is, like we are doing, keep the discussion up on the forefront and be vocal when the beta strikes. Blizz knows that we are required for their game to still be a top seller in 10 years.
|
On September 04 2009 11:05 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Well, why would those builds be "standard" if they weren't the most effective possible build? Usually, progamers invent build orders, and I doubt that someone who tries "weird builds" could find something that progamers, people who play this game 10+ hours a day, missed after studying for so many years.
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 06 2009 07:04 ArcticxWolf wrote:
Well, why would those builds be "standard" if they weren't the most effective possible build? Usually, progamers invent build orders, and I doubt that someone who tries "weird builds" could find something that progamers, people who play this game 10+ hours a day, missed after studying for so many years.
"Weird builds" have one advantage over the standard. Standard builds become so because they are favorable in a vacuum against an unknown metagame, or against other "standard" builds. Nonstandard builds are always created out of the metagame. They aren't better overall, but they ARE better against the builds they're tailored against. For example, 4rax after FE may lose to a good portion of zerg builds and be "nonstandard", but in a metagame dominated by 3-hatch muta, it's advantageous. Similarly, bunker rushing in TvP is not normally reliable, and is definitely non-standard, but the almost guaranteed chance of Protoss 12-nexing on Heartbreak Ridge makes it advantageous on that map.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 06 2009 07:04 ArcticxWolf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2009 11:05 TheYango wrote: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. Well, why would those builds be "standard" if they weren't the most effective possible build? Usually, progamers invent build orders, and I doubt that someone who tries "weird builds" could find something that progamers, people who play this game 10+ hours a day, missed after studying for so many years.
... How do you think they discovered all those builds?
SC2 hasn't even been released yet, there's gonna be a loooot fo experimenting for many years.
|
I'll give a short view: I am a casual gamer. I rarely play and do not intend to play SC2 heavily, except at the level of the single player. I play approximately an hour a week. While a good player can waste 10 minutes so he can make a big star out of lurker eggs, that will be about 5% of the time I play a month gone. If this would never happen, my love of Starcraft would be greater, I'd probably play more, and be a better player, but there would always be someone who is that much better. But quite frankly, I can't be bothered.
I think this feature is great. Smurfing sucks for a player like me, and I'd like to always play someone at my level. Want to check out new builds? Play a casual game against friends, clanmates, whatever. Playing against players worse than you will never be able to teach you how viable a build is. Going 7pool against noob protoss players would work. If you're good enough, it'd work every time. Have you learned anything from that?
|
United States11393 Posts
On September 06 2009 12:24 Kazius wrote:
I'll give a short view: I am a casual gamer. I rarely play and do not intend to play SC2 heavily, except at the level of the single player. I play approximately an hour a week. While a good player can waste 10 minutes so he can make a big star out of lurker eggs, that will be about 5% of the time I play a month gone. If this would never happen, my love of Starcraft would be greater, I'd probably play more, and be a better player, but there would always be someone who is that much better. But quite frankly, I can't be bothered.
I think this feature is great. Smurfing sucks for a player like me, and I'd like to always play someone at my level. Want to check out new builds? Play a casual game against friends, clanmates, whatever. Playing against players worse than you will never be able to teach you how viable a build is. Going 7pool against noob protoss players would work. If you're good enough, it'd work every time. Have you learned anything from that?
http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/intrigue/Day90006PlayAgainstWorsePlay.mp3
|
Canada11378 Posts
On September 04 2009 23:01 dcttr66 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2009 08:16 Falling wrote: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.
Unless you're specifically playing against a certain person all the time, I don't think this would be an issue. Sure, when I'm playing a friend, I know what sort of builds they do and can predict to their builds. But with AMM and your example of memorizing hundreds of names? There are many things I'd memorize rather than lists of theoretical opponents and their strategies. It would be far easier and effective to scout their build rather than memorize tendencies of hundreds of players. I highly doubt people will change their names countless times in order to target individual known players. The interesting thing is, if the id change is an issue for memorizing, you too can change your id, gaining that slight (very slight in an AMM system) advantage.
Whoever wrote that computer AI could replace human gaming? I doubt that. AI by it's nature is predictable or else it has 'unpredictable' strategies programmed into it- therefore predictable.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
Ok, I don't know shit about sc2 and I really hate all of these decisions ( that I'm keeping up with ) Blizzard is making. I feel like all they are trying to make out of this is money... I don't even think the original people from SC:BW are even making the game, it feels like fucking command and conquer.
|
United States12240 Posts
On September 06 2009 14:11 Clasic wrote:
Ok, I don't know shit about sc2 and I really hate all of these decisions ( that I'm keeping up with ) Blizzard is making. I feel like all they are trying to make out of this is money... I don't even think the original people from SC:BW are even making the game, it feels like fucking command and conquer.
This is a very bad post. Keep these kinds of posts out of the thread or you risk derailing it. Do some more research about SC2, and most importantly Bnet2.0 and the Marketplace system, before coming in here and posting about it. It feels nothing like C&C and Bnet is shaping up to be very promising and very powerful.
|
On September 05 2009 07:26 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +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.
i already explained...the issue ISN'T JUST ABOUT THE STRATEGY.
it's about what the opponent is capable of and what he's not. where he's weak and where he's strong. with that kind of knowledge, you can more easily break him.
if you don't have that knowledge, that kindof sucks but it's balanced out if he doesn't have that knowledge on you, that's what some people here have been saying...but someone like me isn't going to feel like changing his name. i'd rather have the same one.
i just would hate for my record to suffer for it...but, in the end i guess it won't matter much anyway unless i'm near the top...and i seriously doubt that's going to happen...so...meh...the main thing that gets me is i just don't like someone taking away something that could make the game a lot more fun. i feel like the challenge of remembering the strengths and weaknesses of particular opponents would add a lot more depth to the game. as it is, you only get that kind of depth when you play the same people over and over again. but with autosaving replays you can go back and analyze games you've played, take note of some of the better players and what they did right and wrong...and formulate proper plans of attack against that. but this knowledge you could gain is meaningless if you don't play that guy as you know him because he changed his name. that's where recognition fails...and fun dwindles...that's my perspective, at least.
|
Well this is bullshit. Some of the greatest times I've had on bnet have been smurfing with a group of guys (usually clannies) and pissing people off or going off to be a spy in some clan and try to take them down from the inside. Metagaming aside, it's also really boring to have to stick to the same damn name over an extended period of time- sometimes I just want some variety in my name (as in I'll tell people it's just old me, but on a new name)
|
On September 06 2009 16:06 Ramsing wrote:
Well this is bullshit. Some of the greatest times I've had on bnet have been smurfing with a group of guys (usually clannies) and pissing people off or going off to be a spy in some clan and try to take them down from the inside.
Umm this may be one of the reasons that they are doing it.
|
On September 06 2009 16:06 Ramsing wrote:
Well this is bullshit. Some of the greatest times I've had on bnet have been smurfing with a group of guys (usually clannies) and pissing people off or going off to be a spy in some clan and try to take them down from the inside.
This is a perfect reason to remove smurfing.
|
On September 06 2009 13:01 Harem wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2009 12:24 Kazius wrote:
I'll give a short view: I am a casual gamer. I rarely play and do not intend to play SC2 heavily, except at the level of the single player. I play approximately an hour a week. While a good player can waste 10 minutes so he can make a big star out of lurker eggs, that will be about 5% of the time I play a month gone. If this would never happen, my love of Starcraft would be greater, I'd probably play more, and be a better player, but there would always be someone who is that much better. But quite frankly, I can't be bothered.
I think this feature is great. Smurfing sucks for a player like me, and I'd like to always play someone at my level. Want to check out new builds? Play a casual game against friends, clanmates, whatever. Playing against players worse than you will never be able to teach you how viable a build is. Going 7pool against noob protoss players would work. If you're good enough, it'd work every time. Have you learned anything from that? http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/intrigue/Day90006PlayAgainstWorsePlay.mp3
Allow me to retort: that is why you can play non-ladder games against friends. This is what clans, RL friends, LAN parties (which will still be an option unless you want to pirate - and the hook will really hurt your APM), and casual playing are for.
I'm sure that if it wasn't so effortless to smurf people would have actually bothered trying to find other ways to practice without annoying the f@#$ out of players like me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
