|
On September 12 2009 23:01 Unentschieden wrote:
Exactly. Yango, you need to justify training on the ladder in the first place. It is "somewhat" justifyable in a enviroment where there is no other way to find players of a certain skilllevel - something Bnet2.0 SHOULD offer.
this
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 13 2009 09:45 Unentschieden wrote:
I was more talking about the general aproach to the issue mentioned over the whole thread instead of only the OP. The complete disregard of playing a "real" game until you are out of D.
It was bought up that loosing against better players that smurf can be be a learning experience. Is it really if they just cheese?
I'm saying that terrible players are even more likely to cheese than good players. I don't think it's a good argument that it's a "learning experience" to lose to vastly better players. Some people will appreciate it (I think it's fun), some won't.
However, I don't think bringing cheese into the argument serves any point.
Anyway, I just started playing ICCUP again the other day... After 17 games, I've played TWO people that tried to cheese me. Every other game has been a "real game" as you put it.
Oh actually, 3 people - someone tried to build proxy-gates inside my main then he realized he'd placed his pylon too close and left before the game counted.
I played Terran and got mostly zerg opponents, so it's different than if you play Z and get mostly Terrans I guess, but that's to do with the matchup, not the level of play. If you play zerg, people are going to fuck with you - deal with it or switch race.
|
Vatican City State491 Posts
This whole thread is pathetic, I tried to read through it, but it's just few smart people vs 51523 scrub players. If you want to improve, you need to play better players. That's why you play on a ladder. Personally I love when iccup gets resetted, because this is my only chance to see how good players play. Of course getting owned by an A rank player can be pretty sad.. but well, I at least can see the gap.
I believe that most scrubs would prefer to get owned by some random Joe, where they could easily find a way to defeat him, not by "improving everything".
I think there is only one reason to make people use 1 nickname (not sure if anyone has mentioned it, Ive stopped reading at page 15): if 2+ million people buy the game, it might be pretty hard to make an account.
I like nice character names in diablo... and nearly all are taken :D
Although most people manage to name 20+ diablo characters somehow.
I think blizzard wants to prevent everyone from picking up 50 nice names to resell them or something... not sure.
I really really hate this "feature" though, I think poeple will find a way to abuse anyway. Also writing that "one could play unranked games to learn" is so sad... every starcraft player with half brain places iccup. But I understand that the "average Joe" would get owned hardcore... still what will happen after the ladder reset? He will get owned again
|
On September 20 2009 16:06 closed wrote:
This whole thread is pathetic, I tried to read through it, but it's just few smart people vs 51523 scrub players. If you want to improve, you need to play better players.
I think there is only one reason to make people use 1 nickname (not sure if anyone has mentioned it, Ive stopped reading at page 15): if 2+ million people buy the game, it might be pretty hard to make an account.
an analogy is in order here.............so...if i just want to start, to learn to box, i should be placed in the ring with MIKE TYSON( in his prime) , instead of similar to my rank fighters.
......oh, and i guess there are only 2+ million POSSIBLE name combinations on this earth....not even a single 1 more.
that post is beyond stupid.
|
On September 20 2009 16:06 closed wrote:
I really really hate this "feature" though, I think poeple will find a way to abuse anyway. Also writing that "one could play unranked games to learn" is so sad... every starcraft player with half brain places iccup. But I understand that the "average Joe" would get owned hardcore... still what will happen after the ladder reset? He will get owned again
Who said the ladder will get reset?... ever
No you will start at a certain level (After 10 initial games) and move up or down each time you win or lose.
There will be tournaments, but the seasons will not affect a person's position on the ladder.
the new "average Joe" will probably not lose more than the first 6-7 games, then he will go to a 45-55% win ratio like Everone else and stay there. He will not ever have to "requalify" for being Copper level.
The AMM will help guarantee you are playing a mix of (slightly) better players and (slightly) worse players.
If you shift your strategy/race to try something new, then your level will drop as you lose games, but then begin to stabilize as you both learn about this strategy and as you are playing poor enough players to actually win with the new strategy race.
If you shift back to your old strategy/race you will then begin to win a bit more (assuming you still know how to do the old strategy/race better than your new one) and eventually, with enough practice, you will get back to that level that you were at.
|
|
|
If there are no seasonal resets then how can there even be ladder seasons if you don't need to rank up all over again?
|
maybenexttime, a reset in the new system as far as I understand it, is equal to a new season in almost all "real sports" leagues, you either stay in your league/division (copper, bronze, silver, gold etc.) or get relegated/promoted and then you start with 0 points in the new season of your league/division. So instead of starting from total zero each season you start from zero inside your league, like premier league clubs (or all others) do in football.
|
Would be really annoing to have all my (3 or whatever) accounts affect eachothers. I play one for each race and my T account makes me face worse players as Z and vice versa. My lesser skilled friends wont play teamgames with me since we are bound to lose and the same with my good friends since I will be to bad to face the players match with their level. Atleast this is how it works in TFT.
And sharing the acc with a familymember will be even worse. Your brother being really good and you really bad and none of you able to play opponents at your normal level.
Atleast some precious snowflake wont have their ego crushed and risking them to quit the game 2months earlier.
|
the issue of Warcraft 3 AMM is that your ELL in AT in common over different teams, for Starcraft 2 however they said that they will rate each AT team you have individually, so this problem won't happen. The sharing with family is indeed a problem, had that in supreme commander which had also a 1 account per cd-key approach. As we had 2 computers capable of running it and liked the game a lot we ended up buying a 2nd version anyways but it sucks if you only have 1 computer.
1 Account per key really kept the people very civilized in supreme commander though, although that might have been also because the average age of the players was like 25 or so.
|
On September 22 2009 22:37 TBO wrote:
the issue of Warcraft 3 AMM is that your ELL in AT in common over different teams, for Starcraft 2 however they said that they will rate each AT team you have individually, so this problem won't happen. The sharing with family is indeed a problem, had that in supreme commander which had also a 1 account per cd-key approach. As we had 2 computers capable of running it and liked the game a lot we ended up buying a 2nd version anyways but it sucks if you only have 1 computer.
1 Account per key really kept the people very civilized in supreme commander though, although that might have been also because the average age of the players was like 25 or so.
I think that's something we're just gonna have to live with. The days of spawning and sharing 1 game across an entire family seem to be gone, so it's likely at this point that multiple people will need their own personal account to really enjoy all of the game's features.
Sharing one account with a little brother or something doesn't sound too bad though since that person can still play custom games. I get the feeling that custom games are going to be a lot more popular now that smurfing is gone, and custom games will probably be the outlet players need in order to practice.
|
On September 22 2009 21:17 TBO wrote:
maybenexttime, a reset in the new system as far as I understand it, is equal to a new season in almost all "real sports" leagues, you either stay in your league/division (copper, bronze, silver, gold etc.) or get relegated/promoted and then you start with 0 points in the new season of your league/division. So instead of starting from total zero each season you start from zero inside your league, like premier league clubs (or all others) do in football.
There is no need for resets.. you get "reset" every single game.... each game you rise or fall into or out of a league/division.
The only thing "Seasons" will matter for is: Who was # 1 in 'Copper 66' season 4?
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 22 2009 21:17 TBO wrote:
maybenexttime, a reset in the new system as far as I understand it, is equal to a new season in almost all "real sports" leagues, you either stay in your league/division (copper, bronze, silver, gold etc.) or get relegated/promoted and then you start with 0 points in the new season of your league/division. So instead of starting from total zero each season you start from zero inside your league, like premier league clubs (or all others) do in football.
So effectively, if you're in Silver league, but you're working on a new build and can't play it at the Silver-league level, you have to force-lose/dish out free-wins until you get to your appropriate level?
|
Why is this discussion even taking place? I believe that the vast majority of people will be like myself, casual gamers. I've never really needed a second account in WC3 (I'll use it as an example as it has the AMM, icons and everything), sure I made some other accounts from time to time to fool around with friends by picking some funny (matching) nicknames etc. but I let all of this extra accounts decay and be deleted after just a couple of games.
And all the hardcore players shouldn't have any problems at all, in WC3, if you were determined enough you could get to top10 on any ladder over the course of one weekend. How long will it take you depends just on your skill level, because you need either a shitton of games played or not so many games but >90% win ratio.
Besides, what if you lose a couple of games and it's gonna show in your profile? It doesn't mean much until you take a look at who your opponents were.
Also, all of the important games (tourneys etc.) are either custom (ie. not ranked) or use the completely separate ranking (in WC3 you had separate rankings for 1v1, 2v2 etc. and tourney games, you could be for example lvl 3 in 1v1 and lvl 39 in 3v3, I don't think tourney gave you any levels, just icons).
|
First I want to address what some people think is a “cheap.” Cheap is a term made up by people who don’t have to skill do deal with it. We play this game to win. If I know that a certain competitor has absolutely no anwser to a bunker rush than I am much more likely to bunker rush over and over. I is a viable strategy and in no way cheap. We play this game to win matches and if those strategies win matches than by all means use them.
Why do people think there will be no resets on the ladder. It is propostorus to me to think that the ladder won’t reset to the beginning. Hypotheticly lets just say we have bronze/silver/gold leagues. Why would it not start over at the beginning every season. Are the people that are in the bronze league just completely satisfied playing the bronze league over and over and not improving. What if they want to get better an move up and get high on the ladder, they would start at the beginning of bronze and have to play their way all the way up and win in the silver all the way through to and effectively play through 2 leagues.
On that matter wouldn't the guy who got first in the bronze league move up to the silver league anyway? Are we only going to assign leagues at the end of a ladder season? Or are we forced to stay in bronze until the end of the first season till and the top 100 or so move to silver? Are we going to make it a reward to move up to silver for winning an online tourney? Like top 3 move up to silver and the rest can start in a new tourney. Or you can qualify at the end of the ladder by being in the top 100 or so. Make it several ways.
I don’t get the concept of being the best of the bronze ladder when that would certainly mean you should have moved up to the silver ladder already. Same goes for the best of the silver ladder, if you’re the best there you should have to move up to gold. It just doesn’t compute how that would work, and how blizzard would ensure that someone could be the best of bronze and just have fun with scrubs all day and not move up to silver.
I do support having different ranks to play so you can match up with your peers but maybe the lower classes won’t have their own seasons. This way you can safely stay in your rank until you move up and they just reset the higher ones like you have to qualify to get into the official ladder. And as most of you have let it be known casuals probably won’t care about making it into the higher ladder as you guys don’t seem to care about anything except not wanting to play higher class players.
On to smurfing. I can ligitimately say I havn’t run across anybody in my clans or guilds or starcraft circles or warcraft cicles who enjoyed starting new accounts just to beat on scrubs. The only thing I have known any of them to do was to do exactly what has been described in this thread, and that was to experiment with new builds. In starcaft the only “newb basing” I have known to be done was joining comp stomps to bs. Which in my opinion should be completely ligit as comp stops are rediculous and made just to bs in.
Multiple accounts really shouldn’t be a problem. I am ok with have a master blizzard account that can be linked to all the games you play with battle.net 2.0. like its your D3 account and your SC2 acct and other games that may be coming out in the future. I just think its taking a step backwards.
|
United States12224 Posts
On September 23 2009 03:36 _PulSe_ wrote:
First I want to address what some people think is a “cheap.” Cheap is a term made up by people who don’t have to skill do deal with it. We play this game to win. If I know that a certain competitor has absolutely no anwser to a bunker rush than I am much more likely to bunker rush over and over. I is a viable strategy and in no way cheap. We play this game to win matches and if those strategies win matches than by all means use them.
"Cheap" is something that is either far more difficult to counter than it is to execute, or something that provides such a massive advantage that it is nearly unbeatable. See: Muta rush in v1.1 or so of the original Starcraft. Larvae spawn rate had been increased and Hatcheries built quickly, and all of the new Brood War units made Mutas weaker. Imagine if players had the Muta control that they do now... that would have gone from "cheap" to "unstoppable".
EDIT: But yes, a lot of people will call something "cheap" if they are just not good enough to stop it. However, if it's a problem with the game and not the player, then it's a legitimate gripe.
|
On September 21 2009 05:23 dupsky wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2009 16:06 closed wrote:
This whole thread is pathetic, I tried to read through it, but it's just few smart people vs 51523 scrub players. If you want to improve, you need to play better players.
I think there is only one reason to make people use 1 nickname (not sure if anyone has mentioned it, Ive stopped reading at page 15): if 2+ million people buy the game, it might be pretty hard to make an account.
an analogy is in order here.............so...if i just want to start, to learn to box, i should be placed in the ring with MIKE TYSON( in his prime) , instead of similar to my rank fighters. ......oh, and i guess there are only 2+ million POSSIBLE name combinations on this earth....not even a single 1 more. that post is beyond stupid.
An analogy that is not analogous illustrates nothing. In your example, unremitting bodily injury awaits. This and the adrenaline involved in violence tend to inhibit learning. In competitive computer games, ego damage may follow for the weak of heart, but learning opportunities abound uninterrupted by physical pain.
If 2 million buy the game and each are allowed unlimited nickname reservation privileges, a potentially infinite number of combinations may be reserved, with only a fraction being used in any relevant frequency. Names can be rotated out with disuse as happens in b.net currently, but it doesn't take detailed models to realize that this is markedly less efficient than a strategy involving limiting nicknames as well.
To be honest the name availability argument isn't persuasive to me. Just please issue more fleshed out arguments in the future. Curt mockeries and sarcasm may belie whatever enlightenment that could be conveyed.
|
On September 23 2009 04:03 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 03:36 _PulSe_ wrote:
First I want to address what some people think is a “cheap.” Cheap is a term made up by people who don’t have to skill do deal with it. We play this game to win. If I know that a certain competitor has absolutely no anwser to a bunker rush than I am much more likely to bunker rush over and over. I is a viable strategy and in no way cheap. We play this game to win matches and if those strategies win matches than by all means use them.
"Cheap" is something that is either far more difficult to counter than it is to execute, or something that provides such a massive advantage that it is nearly unbeatable. See: Muta rush in v1.1 or so of the original Starcraft. Larvae spawn rate had been increased and Hatcheries built quickly, and all of the new Brood War units made Mutas weaker. Imagine if players had the Muta control that they do now... that would have gone from "cheap" to "unstoppable". EDIT: But yes, a lot of people will call something "cheap" if they are just not good enough to stop it. However, if it's a problem with the game and not the player, then it's a legitimate gripe.
if its in the game it isn't cheap. Yes that would obviously be a blatant balance issue but you can't blame the player for that. you can't say he is any less skilled than a player who chose something that was less effective of a strategy.
it goes back to the whole don't hate the playa hate the game. But yea that would be the closest something could be to cheap but that doesn't mean a player is cheap. it means the game is imbalanced. hopefully that won't be the case with SC2
|
United States12224 Posts
On September 23 2009 04:08 _PulSe_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 04:03 Excalibur_Z wrote:On September 23 2009 03:36 _PulSe_ wrote:
First I want to address what some people think is a “cheap.” Cheap is a term made up by people who don’t have to skill do deal with it. We play this game to win. If I know that a certain competitor has absolutely no anwser to a bunker rush than I am much more likely to bunker rush over and over. I is a viable strategy and in no way cheap. We play this game to win matches and if those strategies win matches than by all means use them.
"Cheap" is something that is either far more difficult to counter than it is to execute, or something that provides such a massive advantage that it is nearly unbeatable. See: Muta rush in v1.1 or so of the original Starcraft. Larvae spawn rate had been increased and Hatcheries built quickly, and all of the new Brood War units made Mutas weaker. Imagine if players had the Muta control that they do now... that would have gone from "cheap" to "unstoppable". EDIT: But yes, a lot of people will call something "cheap" if they are just not good enough to stop it. However, if it's a problem with the game and not the player, then it's a legitimate gripe. if its in the game it isn't cheap. Yes that would obviously be a blatant balance issue but you can't blame the player for that. you can't say he is any less skilled than a player who chose something that was less effective of a strategy. it goes back to the whole don't hate the playa hate the game. But yea that would be the closest something could be to cheap but that doesn't mean a player is cheap. it means the game is imbalanced. hopefully that won't be the case with SC2
Now you're sort of derailing into the whole Sirlinesque argument of "play to win all the time" which isn't directly related. If you're one of those players who exploits an imbalance in the game to win, then you should expect to get angry messages from people complaining about it. However, it depends on your level of competition. If you're playing at the highest levels where there is a lot of pride or prizes on the line, then you want to do all you can to secure the win because victory is all that matters. If, on the other hand, you're playing against casuals or mid-range players and exploiting a game imbalance, the chances are higher that they'll be expecting to play against someone with "honor" (as nebulous a term as that can be on the internet). These are the same people who would leave a Ladder game during the 2-minute grace period whenever they scouted a 4-pool.
|
On September 23 2009 01:53 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2009 21:17 TBO wrote:
maybenexttime, a reset in the new system as far as I understand it, is equal to a new season in almost all "real sports" leagues, you either stay in your league/division (copper, bronze, silver, gold etc.) or get relegated/promoted and then you start with 0 points in the new season of your league/division. So instead of starting from total zero each season you start from zero inside your league, like premier league clubs (or all others) do in football. So effectively, if you're in Silver league, but you're working on a new build and can't play it at the Silver-league level, you have to force-lose/dish out free-wins until you get to your appropriate level?
No. You play custom games outside the ranked automated matchmaker system until you can play that build at your existing rank.
Also, there's a strange symmetry between your argument here and the argument against smurfing generally. You say that you would have to force-lose to get to an appropriate level for this build you don't play well. Why not just use that build at your current level and lose over and over? You can learn that way, right?
If you can't, then why should we expect some new player to be able to learn by losing over and over against players who are way better than he is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
