|
Mod EDIT:
Seems they are on the same page as us regarding this - good news 
- FrozenArbiter
I thought this was interesting - your Battle.net account will be tied to your game license, so you'll be unable to just create a new account and run around and stomp low ranked players. (Unless you feel like shelling out $50 for a new SC2 license.)
What do you guys think of that?
|
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.
Why can't they f'ing make it like CNC3? One master-account and unlimited playing accounts. ;; Blizzard made the worst decision possible. T____T
|
As people predicted, bnet 2.0 is looking A LOT like steam.
The anti-smurfing is ok with me, but they better have some sort of anonymity feature option so well-known players can't be harassed.
|
this is something i feared a lot. really stupid imo..
|
Difference between this and steam is that you can still LAN on Steam games. :> Steam works because it's not intrinsically tied to a specific game like this seems to be, and that's gonna trip this up.
|
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?
|
Find all progamer accounts AND MASS ADD THEM!
|
WoW has taught Blizzard how to squeeze the lemon for the last nickel.
|
I like to rape low rank users 
Spelling N00B in pylons is so fun
|
It's just pathetic how people complain about smurfing. If you want to play someone seriously, you should always give it your all, no matter stats, names or whatever. Allowing only one name is stupid beyond belief; what if I suddenly decide my name is no good? What if I want to be part of a small clan on the side of my main account, or just play some teamgames with my friends with a common theme for our names?
I can think of NO valid reason to why they'd limit it to one account per game. None whatsoever.
|
that really nice, I do like this features
|
On August 22 2009 08:01 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +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. -_-
|
On August 22 2009 08:01 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +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?
First of all, it did not work in AoE3 at all. Everyone and their mother complained...
Second of all, what makes you think anyone will play unrated games? That almost never happens in WC3, and getting a decent opponent is even less likely. T____T
|
On August 22 2009 08:01 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +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?
I dont think you understand how much this will fuck up progamers. Maybe from a newbie D- point of view its fine, but when your a player like nada or boxer or even jainfei your going to get harrassed to shit from people wanting to play you, or even people wanting to just bother the shit out of you because they dont like you.
With that said, I dont think they will actually go through with this. At least I believe they will have some system in place to avoid harassment/allow anonymity.
|
Hopefully we'll have something set up like ICCup is now, if the new cybernetic fortress that is BNet 2.0 can allow it...
|
time to make another useless online petition :/
this thing is complete shit
|
On August 22 2009 08:10 jimminy_kriket 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? I dont think you understand how much this will fuck up progamers. Maybe from a newbie D- point of view its fine, but when your a player like nada or boxer or even jainfei your going to get harrassed to shit from people wanting to play you, or even people wanting to just bother the shit out of you because they dont like you. With that said, I dont think they will actually go through with this. At least I believe they will have some system in place to avoid harassment/allow anonymity.
There is an ignore button I am confident it wont' be as big a deal as your making it out to be.
I get unrated games on the first starcraft fast I don't see why it will be any different in sc2.
As for the aoe3 yes people complained but it wasn't a big deal after everyone played on it and crap complaining went down and nobody cared. But of course you guys will complain your probably one of the c-b fag players who can't beat your own rank so you smurf to feel good about yourself. Blizzard made a good decision and you can hate it all you want they won't change it
|
On August 22 2009 08:10 jimminy_kriket 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? With that said, I dont think they will actually go through with this. At least I believe they will have some system in place to avoid harassment/allow anonymity.
I seriously hope you are right. If they go through with this they are completely insane in the head.
Blade55555: If everyone was like you, our entire civilization would be bowing to ants.. ~_~ You don't seem to understand how big of a mistake they are making. Unrated games will yield low-skilled players without motivation (hence why they are playing unrated) Progamers won't be able to play without people following them around, annoying them (even ignore isn't enough, they won't be able to go anywhere without people following them around) And it's just kind of messing up a piece of StarCraft that was necessary for practice..
|
and we waited waited holding our breath,hoping that they will announce SOMETHING that could ease our pain...guess what we didnt get shit.This is aweful
|
Find all progamer accounts AND MASS ADD THEM!
Actually, this won't be a problem; you can only talk to your friends, and friend requests will have to be manually approved by the person themselves. So no Jaedong-harassing...
(This is something fine to discuss, but please...no hysteria! The panel is ongoing; don't assume stupid stuff and then get mad about it. Wait until you know something before assuming the worst. )
|
That is, Jaedong will be Jaedong on Battle.net...and he can get on and chat to Stork and Bisu whenever they're online, and see when Stork's playing WoW. But no one else can talk to him, harass him, etc...unless he manually approves their request to be his friend.
So like Facebook, where famous people are online, but no one's spamming their pages with requests to marry them or something...
|
I remember in the warcraft 3 trial they let you choose watever nick name you wanted when u entered battle.net. It is the same thing on steam.
So you enter battle.net, choose a nickname (this way you can smurf) and all your achievements or what not will be recorded under your email...
Its like steam... I just hope there isnt a seperate program called "Battle.net"... that would suck more.
|
|
|
On August 22 2009 08:14 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:10 jimminy_kriket wrote: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? I dont think you understand how much this will fuck up progamers. Maybe from a newbie D- point of view its fine, but when your a player like nada or boxer or even jainfei your going to get harrassed to shit from people wanting to play you, or even people wanting to just bother the shit out of you because they dont like you. With that said, I dont think they will actually go through with this. At least I believe they will have some system in place to avoid harassment/allow anonymity. There is an ignore button I am confident it wont' be as big a deal as your making it out to be. I get unrated games on the first starcraft fast I don't see why it will be any different in sc2. As for the aoe3 yes people complained but it wasn't a big deal after everyone played on it and crap complaining went down and nobody cared. But of course you guys will complain your probably one of the c-b fag players who can't beat your own rank so you smurf to feel good about yourself. Blizzard made a good decision and you can hate it all you want they won't change it
You're dense... BW does not have the the automated match-making WC3 does. The VAST majority of competitive games on WC3 are played on the ladder - it's way easier than hosting custom games. SC2 will be not unlike WC3 in that regard...
If someone's not liking that once in a while he gets to play with a better player, maybe he should stick to UMS games or play on the casual ladder for newbies. T___T
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
I think this decision is fine.
While we lose some minor conveniences from having only 1 account for ranked play, I'd say the benefit of deterring newb-bashing is greater.
Besides, this is comparable to how (afaik) XBL and PSN allow you to have only 1 account for online play (unless you want to pay for more).
Lastly, there's not much point in saying "but programers will be harassed!" as if this feature is being added to the current Bnet. I expect in Bnet 2.0 they'll add privacy options to prevent that kind of harassment, such as ignoring specific users, ignoring all users except your friends, and maybe appearing logged-out to anyone who's not your friend, etc.
|
On August 22 2009 08:28 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:14 blade55555 wrote:On August 22 2009 08:10 jimminy_kriket wrote: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? I dont think you understand how much this will fuck up progamers. Maybe from a newbie D- point of view its fine, but when your a player like nada or boxer or even jainfei your going to get harrassed to shit from people wanting to play you, or even people wanting to just bother the shit out of you because they dont like you. With that said, I dont think they will actually go through with this. At least I believe they will have some system in place to avoid harassment/allow anonymity. There is an ignore button I am confident it wont' be as big a deal as your making it out to be. I get unrated games on the first starcraft fast I don't see why it will be any different in sc2. As for the aoe3 yes people complained but it wasn't a big deal after everyone played on it and crap complaining went down and nobody cared. But of course you guys will complain your probably one of the c-b fag players who can't beat your own rank so you smurf to feel good about yourself. Blizzard made a good decision and you can hate it all you want they won't change it You're dense... BW does not have the the automated match-making WC3 does. The VAST majority of competitive games on WC3 are played on the ladder - it's way easier than hosting custom games. SC2 will be not unlike WC3 in that regard... If someone's not liking that once in a while he gets to play with a better player, maybe he should stick to UMS games or play on the casual ladder for newbies. T___T
lol I have to say that was a funny read
You need an open mind not a closed one otherwise everything blizzard does will be bad to people like you which is not good when its actually good :D
|
I would rather not have smurfs in SC2, in any form. If you're that prideful about having a totally clean account with wins only, I guess it would be worth it to you to buy that many copies of Starcraft 2.
|
On August 22 2009 08:16 Captain Peabody wrote:Actually, this won't be a problem; you can only talk to your friends, and friend requests will have to be manually approved by the person themselves. So no Jaedong-harassing... (This is something fine to discuss, but please...no hysteria! The panel is ongoing; don't assume stupid stuff and then get mad about it. Wait until you know something before assuming the worst. )
Ah, but think of how many "friend requests" good ol' Dongo is going to get per day when his tag is public. Methinks many.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
I thought they said your ranking was tied to your Battle.net account, but you can have multiple IDs (ranked the same as your main Bnet account)?
If not...
On August 22 2009 08:30 Koof wrote:
I would rather not have smurfs in SC2, in any form. If you're that prideful about having a totally clean account with wins only, I guess it would be worth it to you to buy that many copies of Starcraft 2.
Smurfing is NOT sandbagging. It has NOTHING to do with stats.
Do you know what the first account I created for SC was? Archmage_Fenix. I was 12.
Being stuck with that for 8 years would have sucked balls.
Second - privacy. Sometimes, you want to play alone, you don't want to talk to the people on your flist - you just want to relax.
Fuck the cry-babies. Fuck them all.
|
On August 22 2009 08:30 Koof wrote:
I would rather not have smurfs in SC2, in any form. If you're that prideful about having a totally clean account with wins only, I guess it would be worth it to you to buy that many copies of Starcraft 2.
Agreed with you 100%. So far the arguments to why its bad are pretty bad because its really not hard to play unrated for the problems people are saying like trying a new race or strategy don't see how its hard to play unrated but ok then ^^.
|
What about clan tags? Say you changed clans or something, will you be able to change your name at least? >.>
|
they can't be serious
Worse decision ever!!!
|
On August 22 2009 08:32 dhe95 wrote:
What about clan tags? Say you changed clans or something, will you be able to change your name at least? >.>
This is my only concern. What AoE3 did was you could create your clan on the server and when creating it (when you logged on to eso2). You put your clan name, then the tags. The tags would go next to your name and if you left the clan it would go away. I am hoping Blizzard does the same thing.
|
|
|
Once again I think we are back to the point where it's wait and see -____-. Speculation is fun for only so long. Clan tags and name changing seems like something they would have put alot of thought into right?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 22 2009 08:32 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:30 Koof wrote:
I would rather not have smurfs in SC2, in any form. If you're that prideful about having a totally clean account with wins only, I guess it would be worth it to you to buy that many copies of Starcraft 2. Agreed with you 100%. So far the arguments to why its bad are pretty bad because its really not hard to play unrated for the problems people are saying like trying a new race or strategy don't see how its hard to play unrated but ok then ^^.
1) Privacy. Sometimes you even want privacy from your FRIENDS.
2) Being stuck with the same ID you made when you were 10, 10 years later. No thank you.
3) Not wanting to play Zerg on ladder when you are A rank Protoss but C rank Zerg (this is solved by them having 1 rating for each race).
There is NO REASON why you wouldn't allow people to make multiple IDs - just tie them all to a single Battle.net account, and rate them based on that.
On August 22 2009 08:37 mrgerry wrote:
Once again I think we are back to the point where it's wait and see -____-. Speculation is fun for only so long. Clan tags and name changing seems like something they would have put alot of thought into right?
In WC3, you have a seperate Clan name in your profile. However people still make new IDs for new clans I think, since the clan name isn't visible apart from when you are in a channel/profile (I THINK).
|
Renaming yourself is SO going to be a microtransaction.
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On August 22 2009 07:57 maybenexttime wrote:
What if I want to learn a new race? [...] What if I want to learn a new strategy?
You still have good options:
- play unrated matches
- play with your friends
- ask for games in an appropriate channel
- ask for games on TLnet or another forum
- man-up, play rated matches, and take the stats hit (after all, I thought only newbies cared about their record?  )
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 22 2009 08:40 L wrote:
Renaming yourself is SO going to be a microtransaction.
Fuck my life.
On August 22 2009 08:40 Bill307 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 07:57 maybenexttime wrote:
What if I want to learn a new race? [...] What if I want to learn a new strategy? You still have good options: - play unrated matches - play with your friends - ask for games in an appropriate channel - ask for games on TLnet or another forum - man-up, play rated matches, and take the stats hit (after all, I thought only newbies cared about their record? )
Inferior options to just allowing people to create new IDs. Or, having 1 seperate rating for each of your races (ie my protoss is ELO 2000, my Terran is ELO 1800, my Zergo is ELO 900).
|
On August 22 2009 08:39 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:32 blade55555 wrote:On August 22 2009 08:30 Koof wrote:
I would rather not have smurfs in SC2, in any form. If you're that prideful about having a totally clean account with wins only, I guess it would be worth it to you to buy that many copies of Starcraft 2. Agreed with you 100%. So far the arguments to why its bad are pretty bad because its really not hard to play unrated for the problems people are saying like trying a new race or strategy don't see how its hard to play unrated but ok then ^^. 1) Privacy. Sometimes you even want privacy from your FRIENDS. 2) Being stuck with the same ID you made when you were 10, 10 years later. No thank you. 3) Not wanting to play Zerg on ladder when you are A rank Protoss but C rank Zerg (this is solved by them having 1 rating for each race). There is NO REASON why you wouldn't allow people to make multiple IDs - just tie them all to a single Battle.net account, and rate them based on that.
1. There will be a privacy option if not will blizzard isn't thinking straight.
2. If it really bothers you buy a new account or pick a name you know you will like ^^.
3. Unrated?
4. If you can make a new name if you keep the stats then that's fine with me as long as you keep the stats so that you can't smurf.
|
On August 22 2009 08:40 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:40 L wrote:
Renaming yourself is SO going to be a microtransaction. Fuck my life. Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:40 Bill307 wrote:On August 22 2009 07:57 maybenexttime wrote:
What if I want to learn a new race? [...] What if I want to learn a new strategy? You still have good options: - play unrated matches - play with your friends - ask for games in an appropriate channel - ask for games on TLnet or another forum - man-up, play rated matches, and take the stats hit (after all, I thought only newbies cared about their record? ) Inferior options to just allowing people to create new IDs. Or, having 1 seperate rating for each of your races (ie my protoss is ELO 2000, my Terran is ELO 1800, my Zergo is ELO 900). I think some of these could be some really good questions for the August Q&A submission
|
Do you know what the first account I created for SC was? Archmage_Fenix. I was 12.
Being stuck with that for 8 years would have sucked balls.
Second - privacy. Sometimes, you want to play alone, you don't want to talk to the people on your flist - you just want to relax.
They talked a lot about "Real Life" identification as a big feature of your Battle.net account...so that probably won't be that big of a deal (since your friends will be able to identify you anyway). In any event, I have no doubt that name changes will be available--maybe for a fee, like WoW, though.
As for the second issue; you don't have to talk to your friends if you don't want to...just ignore them, and they'll go away! Works every time...:D
(And they also talked about privacy and parental controls; not quite sure what that entails, though...)
Ah, but think of how many "friend requests" good ol' Dongo is going to get per day when his tag is public. Methinks many.
What is it they say? The price of fame...
|
On August 22 2009 08:31 FrozenArbiter wrote:
I thought they said your ranking was tied to your Battle.net account, but you can have multiple IDs (ranked the same as your main Bnet account)?
If not...
I understood this too. Ok you have only one battle.net account but are you sure you can have only one ID ?
Smurfing is NOT sandbagging. It has NOTHING to do with stats.
Do you know what the first account I created for SC was? Archmage_Fenix. I was 12.
Being stuck with that for 8 years would have sucked balls.
Second - privacy. Sometimes, you want to play alone, you don't want to talk to the people on your flist - you just want to relax.
Fuck the cry-babies. Fuck them all.
They spoke about "privacy" and other thing. I believe you can probably appear "offline" even if you are online (or say, I'm online for this group of friends, but offline for the others). Or maybe something like that.
|
|
|
who wants to buy my unused battle.net 2.0 account? ^^
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 22 2009 08:43 Integra wrote:
I think its awesome.
Why?
You realize it has 0 positive effects that couldn't be achieved by just tieing all your IDs to one "master account"?
|
I think lots of people are missing the point. Blizzard's goal is to help more casual players get better at the game and enjoy it more, and become more serious players a la TL. Discouraging smurfing is one way to catalyze that.
Don't you want a larger competitive StarCraft community?
Blizzard will cater to the needs of progamers, which are likely similar to the wants of TL players, so I suggest everyone just relax and wait for the final product.
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On August 22 2009 08:39 FrozenArbiter wrote:
1) Privacy. Sometimes you even want privacy from your FRIENDS.
No reason they can't add an "Appear Offline (to everyone)" option, akin to instant messengers.
Though I don't see any problems with allowing multiple IDs tied to the same rating (and ignore lists, so people have to ignore you only once).
Rating each race separately (possibly including Random as its own race) also sounds like a very good idea that they should definitely add.
|
I'm utterly convinced that the majority on this board will complain about everything new. I have yet to see something that was new that wasn't really complained about, by the majority. This isn't SC1, this is SC2. Stop trying to transpose SC2 features to SC1 it doesn't work. SC2 is a whole new game.
It's just like FFXI folks on BG who transpose new FFXIV features onto FFXI like the 10 active abilities.
SC1 =/= SC2
Open-minds people. This all ready worked very well for ESO (AoE III).
As to address FA:
1 - Anonymous (Just like MSN)
2- Buy a new game, I'm sure 10 years later 10$ won't hurt. Surely you can afford 10$ every 10 years?
3 - You solved that yourself
I guess all the smurfs are getting butt-hurt. Oh well, continue on. I for one am ecstatic. This is just like FFXI and ESO where the community is much tighter than if you could change your name at a notice. This means reputation actually means something or be prepared to be exiled. This has a side effect of usually keeping peoples attitudes in check. (I deplore smurfing)
|
On August 22 2009 08:44 FrozenArbiter wrote:Why? You realize it has 0 positive effects that couldn't be achieved by just tieing all your IDs to one "master account"?
Do you realize that they spent the entire Battle.net discussion about what the positive efffects were?
|
Guys are you sure your battle.net account isnt just the thing you log into at the battle.net website
It's not the game id you use
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 22 2009 08:45 0neder wrote:
I think lots of people are missing the point. Blizzard's goal is to help more casual players get better at the game and enjoy it more, and become more serious players a la TL. Discouraging smurfing is one way to catalyze that.
Don't you want a larger competitive StarCraft community?
Blizzard will cater to the needs of progamers, which are likely similar to the wants of TL players, so I suggest everyone just relax and wait for the final product.
But smurfing ONLY means playing on a "secret" account. Look, if I smurf (which I have done many, many times) it's mostly because I just don't want to play on my main account.
Back on PGTour I was smurfing. My account was A+ (jinro).
SANDBAGGING (creating a new account to beat on bad players) is solved by tieing your RANKING to a master account.
IE: Master account: FrozenArbiter at asdf.com (not a real email btwwwwww).
Bnet IDs:
Dream.t)PltO
number9dream
jinro
(you can make a limit of like 3 if you want, then if you want to make more you have to delete an old one).
All of these accounts would have their rating be the same - if I win 5 games with Dream.t)PltO, I won't get 5 wins on number9dream but my ELL (expected ladder level, which is what decides who you play in the Automated Match Maker) would change.
On August 22 2009 08:48 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:44 FrozenArbiter wrote:On August 22 2009 08:43 Integra wrote:
I think its awesome. Why? You realize it has 0 positive effects that couldn't be achieved by just tieing all your IDs to one "master account"? Do you realize that they spent the entire Battle.net discussion about what the positive efffects were?
If so, I did not hear them. Repeat one of them for me plz (I am serious, I do not remember hearing anything that I thought was good about this, but it could be because the stream was lagging like crazy for me so I only catched 25% of what they said about smurfing and had to rely on people repeating it to me).
|
On August 22 2009 08:47 Aegraen wrote:
I'm utterly convinced that the majority on this board will complain about everything new. I have yet to see something that was new that wasn't really complained about, by the majority. This isn't SC1, this is SC2. Stop trying to transpose SC2 features to SC1 it doesn't work. SC2 is a whole new game.
It's just like FFXI folks on BG who transpose new FFXIV features onto FFXI like the 10 active abilities.
SC1 =/= SC2
Open-minds people. This all ready worked very well for ESO (AoE III).
As to address FA:
1 - Anonymous (Just like MSN)
2- Buy a new game, I'm sure 10 years later 10$ won't hurt. Surely you can afford 10$ every 10 years?
3 - You solved that yourself
I guess all the smurfs are getting butt-hurt. Oh well, continue on. I for one am ecstatic. This is just like FFXI and ESO where the community is much tighter than if you could change your name at a notice. This means reputation actually means something or be prepared to be exiled. This has a side effect of usually keeping peoples attitudes in check. (I deplore smurfing)
Me too. Glad to see someone who has the same views as me. It worked fine for aoe3 no problems at all was not sure at first but it really was fine. Pick a username you like and your fine. I was hoping blizzard would do this now no more gay smurfs who can't play their own rank .
|
What is wrong with smurfing though. Sure, noobs get owned, but if this disencourages them then they were probably never going to get good anyway. This system is protecting scrubs, and hurting everyone else.
|
On August 22 2009 08:51 Lurgee wrote:
What is wrong with smurfing though. Sure, noobs get owned, but if this disencourages them then they were probably never going to get good anyway. This system is protecting scrubs, and hurting everyone else.
How does it hurt everyone else? Because they can't beat their own rank they want to smurf lower ranked players to make themselves feel good? Oh well if they really have to smurf buy a new game. Really I dont' see how this hurts everyone else at all ^^.
|
On August 22 2009 08:31 FrozenArbiter wrote:I thought they said your ranking was tied to your Battle.net account, but you can have multiple IDs (ranked the same as your main Bnet account)? If not... Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:30 Koof wrote:
I would rather not have smurfs in SC2, in any form. If you're that prideful about having a totally clean account with wins only, I guess it would be worth it to you to buy that many copies of Starcraft 2. Smurfing is NOT sandbagging. It has NOTHING to do with stats. Do you know what the first account I created for SC was? Archmage_Fenix. I was 12. Being stuck with that for 8 years would have sucked balls. Second - privacy. Sometimes, you want to play alone, you don't want to talk to the people on your flist - you just want to relax. Fuck the cry-babies. Fuck them all.
If WoW is any indication, I'm sure there will be a service to change your name. Infact, since the game is tied to your email, not your login, I can infer that you might actually just change your name as much as you want but the stats stick with you.
As far as privacy goes, they talked about in the panel that there are a plethora of features to hide you from the public.
|
they should have added a hidden rating system combined with normal rating AND with a max 3 accounts, that's just my opinion. They could have done a lot better and it's kind of dissapointing that a non competitive game like WoW has a better ladder system than sc2 atm.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 22 2009 08:47 Aegraen wrote:
I'm utterly convinced that the majority on this board will complain about everything new. I have yet to see something that was new that wasn't really complained about, by the majority. This isn't SC1, this is SC2. Stop trying to transpose SC2 features to SC1 it doesn't work. SC2 is a whole new game.
It's just like FFXI folks on BG who transpose new FFXIV features onto FFXI like the 10 active abilities.
SC1 =/= SC2
Open-minds people. This all ready worked very well for ESO (AoE III).
As to address FA:
1 - Anonymous (Just like MSN)
2- Buy a new game, I'm sure 10 years later 10$ won't hurt. Surely you can afford 10$ every 10 years?
3 - You solved that yourself
I guess all the smurfs are getting butt-hurt. Oh well, continue on. I for one am ecstatic. This is just like FFXI and ESO where the community is much tighter than if you could change your name at a notice. This means reputation actually means something or be prepared to be exiled. This has a side effect of usually keeping peoples attitudes in check. (I deplore smurfing)
First good effect of this I have heard.
I could actually live with having your master account visible on all your "smurfs". Not ideal, but at least you wont be stuck with an ID you don't like, or be unable to add a clan tag to your name.
On August 22 2009 08:50 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:47 Aegraen wrote:
I'm utterly convinced that the majority on this board will complain about everything new. I have yet to see something that was new that wasn't really complained about, by the majority. This isn't SC1, this is SC2. Stop trying to transpose SC2 features to SC1 it doesn't work. SC2 is a whole new game.
It's just like FFXI folks on BG who transpose new FFXIV features onto FFXI like the 10 active abilities.
SC1 =/= SC2
Open-minds people. This all ready worked very well for ESO (AoE III).
As to address FA:
1 - Anonymous (Just like MSN)
2- Buy a new game, I'm sure 10 years later 10$ won't hurt. Surely you can afford 10$ every 10 years?
3 - You solved that yourself
I guess all the smurfs are getting butt-hurt. Oh well, continue on. I for one am ecstatic. This is just like FFXI and ESO where the community is much tighter than if you could change your name at a notice. This means reputation actually means something or be prepared to be exiled. This has a side effect of usually keeping peoples attitudes in check. (I deplore smurfing) Me too. Glad to see someone who has the same views as me. It worked fine for aoe3 no problems at all was not sure at first but it really was fine. Pick a username you like and your fine. I was hoping blizzard would do this now no more gay smurfs who can't play their own rank .
God, you have no idea how much I agonize everytime I have to create an account -_____-
And that's when I can create a new one if I'm not happy! I'm gonna have a aneurysm over this shit man.
Keep FrozenArbiter?
Jinro? (my PGTour ID)
Okami? (lovely name IMO)
TianYuan? (my Go ID)
number9dream? (common ID I use)
Dream.t)PltO? (my West ID)
God.
|
On August 22 2009 08:50 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:47 Aegraen wrote:
I'm utterly convinced that the majority on this board will complain about everything new. I have yet to see something that was new that wasn't really complained about, by the majority. This isn't SC1, this is SC2. Stop trying to transpose SC2 features to SC1 it doesn't work. SC2 is a whole new game.
It's just like FFXI folks on BG who transpose new FFXIV features onto FFXI like the 10 active abilities.
SC1 =/= SC2
Open-minds people. This all ready worked very well for ESO (AoE III).
As to address FA:
1 - Anonymous (Just like MSN)
2- Buy a new game, I'm sure 10 years later 10$ won't hurt. Surely you can afford 10$ every 10 years?
3 - You solved that yourself
I guess all the smurfs are getting butt-hurt. Oh well, continue on. I for one am ecstatic. This is just like FFXI and ESO where the community is much tighter than if you could change your name at a notice. This means reputation actually means something or be prepared to be exiled. This has a side effect of usually keeping peoples attitudes in check. (I deplore smurfing) Me too. Glad to see someone who has the same views as me. It worked fine for aoe3 no problems at all was not sure at first but it really was fine. Pick a username you like and your fine. I was hoping blizzard would do this now no more gay smurfs who can't play their own rank .
Yup, this is probably the most important feature of BattleNet, in fact The Structure of BattleNet seems to be based around it.
|
On August 22 2009 08:51 Lurgee wrote:
What is wrong with smurfing though. Sure, noobs get owned, but if this disencourages them then they were probably never going to get good anyway. This system is protecting scrubs, and hurting everyone else. I would rather noobs get good at the game and recognize Starcraft for what it is, rather than them dropping the game all together. I don't see why everyone is so against trying to get people into intermediate play.
|
On August 22 2009 08:56 Koof wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:51 Lurgee wrote:
What is wrong with smurfing though. Sure, noobs get owned, but if this disencourages them then they were probably never going to get good anyway. This system is protecting scrubs, and hurting everyone else. I would rather noobs get good at the game and recognize Starcraft for what it is, rather than them dropping the game all together. I don't see why everyone is so against trying to get people into intermediate play.
They will never get good if they go and rq after losing to someone practicing their offrace at a lower ranking.
edit: Which even without smurfing is going to happen a lot, especially during early days when people are moving from SC -> SC2.
|
On August 22 2009 08:54 stroggos wrote:
they should have added a hidden rating system combined with normal rating AND with a max 3 accounts, that's just my opinion. They could have done a lot better and it's kind of dissapointing that a non competitive game like WoW has a better ladder system than sc2 atm.
I haven't heard. What type of ladder system and rating system are they using? ELL? ELO? Trueskill? Some other type of amalgamation?
What type of Ladders? 1v1, 2v2, 3v3? Race vs Race? Most Wins? Most Losses? Ladder options abound.
|
so now u have more reason to buy all 3 campaigns.....its all a business move
|
Didn't he said something about creating new ID and keeping achievements or solo saves or something like that ? Which would confirm you can have several IDs on the same account.
|
On August 22 2009 08:58 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:54 stroggos wrote:
they should have added a hidden rating system combined with normal rating AND with a max 3 accounts, that's just my opinion. They could have done a lot better and it's kind of dissapointing that a non competitive game like WoW has a better ladder system than sc2 atm. I haven't heard. What type of ladder system and rating system are they using? ELL? ELO? Trueskill? Some other type of amalgamation? What type of Ladders? 1v1, 2v2, 3v3? Race vs Race? Most Wins? Most Losses? Ladder options abound.
I don't believe they said. I am curious how they are doing that too.
|
I don't really care about smashing on noobs, but I still don't like the decision. What if I just want to change my name?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 22 2009 08:59 Nitro68 wrote:
Didn't he said something about creating new ID and keeping achievements or solo saves or something like that ? Which would confirm you can have several IDs on the same account.
If he did, I am completely 100% satisfied.
|
On August 22 2009 08:57 Lurgee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:56 Koof wrote:On August 22 2009 08:51 Lurgee wrote:
What is wrong with smurfing though. Sure, noobs get owned, but if this disencourages them then they were probably never going to get good anyway. This system is protecting scrubs, and hurting everyone else. I would rather noobs get good at the game and recognize Starcraft for what it is, rather than them dropping the game all together. I don't see why everyone is so against trying to get people into intermediate play. They will never get good if they go and rq after losing to someone practicing their offrace at a lower ranking. edit: Which even without smurfing is going to happen a lot, especially during early days when people are moving from SC -> SC2. That's the problem though. You can't have 80% of a potential fan base bashing the game because they get matched up with someone who simply is leagues ahead of them. There are plenty of other ways to practice off races without ruining a scrub's perception of the game.
The point is to have LESS scrubs overall. I would rather 10 more people stick with Starcraft because they didn't get stomped by people smurfing/sandbagging, than you getting slightly better at the game, sorry if that offends.
I have a lot of friends who simply won't play SC/WC3 just because the beginning skill curve is just too great. My problem isn't an unlimited potential for people to grow at SC- that is probably its greatest facet- but just getting people through the initial stages until they actually know what's going on. Having people on a completely different level playing these new people gives an impression that it is impossible for them to progress.
|
On August 22 2009 09:00 1337o wrote:
I don't really care about smashing on noobs, but I still don't like the decision. What if I just want to change my name?
I suppose you should take more precaution when creating your name? You can always buy another CD-Key also.
I know people like to look at it at how it only effects them, but trust me this is better in the end. The pro's vastly outweigh the cons. I've seen it work tremendously well in many games (FFXI, AoE III, etc.) compared to games that the alternative (Create as many names as you want with no repercussions) borked totally.
In any event no one is forcing you to support Blizzard. If you don't like the decisions they are making then vote with your money and don't buy it. If everyone who didn't like these decisions did that then they would reverse them. Use the power of the consumer and your money.
|
On August 22 2009 08:58 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:54 stroggos wrote:
they should have added a hidden rating system combined with normal rating AND with a max 3 accounts, that's just my opinion. They could have done a lot better and it's kind of dissapointing that a non competitive game like WoW has a better ladder system than sc2 atm. I haven't heard. What type of ladder system and rating system are they using? ELL? ELO? Trueskill? Some other type of amalgamation? What type of Ladders? 1v1, 2v2, 3v3? Race vs Race? Most Wins? Most Losses? Ladder options abound.
They said that they hired a statistician to make a new system that would be better than trueskill. 2v2 3v3 ladder will be based on teams and they have several leagues for each ladder (practice league up til pro league). Then rank you within the league your in.
|
I don't see what's wrong with it, as long as you can change your in-game name or reset your stats whenever you want to. The game will have different stats for each race you play like WC3 right?
|
I read through these posts and nobody seemed to mention this. Lets say you bought the game and installed it on your home computer and created an account called "Sherminator". Then you get really good at the game and start to go to tournaments, so at the tourny arena how can you have your username that people know you by "Sherminator" if the account is tied down to 1 cd key?
Unless you are able to edit your name anytime after you create it.
|
On August 22 2009 09:09 Husika wrote:
I read through these posts and nobody seemed to mention this. Lets say you bought the game and installed it on your home computer and created an account called "Sherminator". Then you get really good at the game and start to go to tournaments, so at the tourny arena how can you have your username that people know you by "Sherminator" if the account is tied down to 1 cd key?
Unless you are able to edit your name anytime after you create it. Simple, you log in to your battle.net account on their systems.
|
Why can't it work like steam?
In steam, you have 1 account, with all your games and friends tied to it, you can choose to appear online, offline, busy or away to your them, outside of game, no one can contact you but friends you've approved. AND you can change your name at will, half way through a game if you want, all your friends are still there, your steam achievements, w/e, it's all tied to the same account, but you can just change your name whenever you feel like it. Wouldn't this be the best solution? I did like what FA said about games on different ID's (but same master account) changing your trueskill (or w/e system they use) ranking, but not adding w/l to the records of your other accounts. That kind of thing is really good if people don't want to mess up their stats and stuff
At the very least I hope blizzard ranks all your races differently, as opposed to trying to play zerg on the ladder when you main terran and get owned badly
|
It's a good decision. If there's one thing Blizzard learned from WoW, it's how to make big bucks. No one gives a shit about you hardcore players. You're going to buy the game anyways. What Blizzard does care about is the massive population of casuals. By making B-net newb-friendly, they're appealing to the masses. And that's always a good choice. Bigger fanbase = more $$$.
|
On August 22 2009 09:07 naonao wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:58 Aegraen wrote:On August 22 2009 08:54 stroggos wrote:
they should have added a hidden rating system combined with normal rating AND with a max 3 accounts, that's just my opinion. They could have done a lot better and it's kind of dissapointing that a non competitive game like WoW has a better ladder system than sc2 atm. I haven't heard. What type of ladder system and rating system are they using? ELL? ELO? Trueskill? Some other type of amalgamation? What type of Ladders? 1v1, 2v2, 3v3? Race vs Race? Most Wins? Most Losses? Ladder options abound. They said that they hired a statistician to make a new system that would be better than trueskill. 2v2 3v3 ladder will be based on teams and they have several leagues for each ladder (practice league up til pro league). Then rank you within the league your in.
Eh, we'll see. I have no confidence in any other system that isn't ELO. All other systems have proven to be inferior. Hopefully, they buck the trend...
|
On August 22 2009 09:16 nataziel wrote:
Why can't it work like steam?
In steam, you have 1 account, with all your games and friends tied to it, you can choose to appear online, offline, busy or away to your them, outside of game, no one can contact you but friends you've approved. AND you can change your name at will, half way through a game if you want, all your friends are still there, your steam achievements, w/e, it's all tied to the same account, but you can just change your name whenever you feel like it. Wouldn't this be the best solution? I did like what FA said about games on different ID's (but same master account) changing your trueskill (or w/e system they use) ranking, but not adding w/l to the records of your other accounts. That kind of thing is really good if people don't want to mess up their stats and stuff
At the very least I hope blizzard ranks all your races differently, as opposed to trying to play zerg on the ladder when you main terran and get owned badly From what we've seen in the thread and at the panels, I'd say all or most of the things you suggested will be in the game.
|
being stuck with only one acc when it comes to custom games would blow.
good thing in war 3 when you didnt follow some retarded scrub rule like no hero/base aim and got banned you could easily switch acc and ip but only having one acc would mean youre fucked.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
*sigh*
Another bad move by Blizzard...
I don't think smurfing was actually that bad of a problem in SC1 ;;
|
On August 22 2009 09:30 Plexa wrote:
*sigh*
Another bad move by Blizzard...
I don't think smurfing was actually that bad of a problem in SC1 ;;
Its pretty bad... Once you get to the c level I heard its not bad but at the D-, D, D+ level half the players you play are smurfs. And no i'm not saying it because I lost when you see a guy join 100% win, 250+ apm and rapes you is definitely a smurf. If your C well that's why you don't think its that bad.
Great move by blizzard
|
In an interview with Chris he said that (at the time) they had not decided which way to go with names. One idea they seemed to be leaning towards was that your in game name does not nessessarily have to be unique. So If 10,000 people want to be called 'Merlin' (that was his example) they can.
This leads me to believe they have been considering the Steam method of allowing anyone to be called anything and change their name whenever they want.
|
Good Decision.
Smurfing and hacking are the two worse problems on a ladder.
|
A iCCup thing will happen.
|
Great idea, I like it a lot. No more smurfing.
|
Smurfing is a really fun part of iCCup.. look at how much discussion it generates in the who is who thread.
|
On August 22 2009 08:06 sushiman wrote:
It's just pathetic how people complain about smurfing. If you want to play someone seriously, you should always give it your all, no matter stats, names or whatever. Allowing only one name is stupid beyond belief; what if I suddenly decide my name is no good? What if I want to be part of a small clan on the side of my main account, or just play some teamgames with my friends with a common theme for our names?
I can think of NO valid reason to why they'd limit it to one account per game. None whatsoever.
So they can charge people $10 to change their account name. Valid reason? maybe for blizzard.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 22 2009 09:41 Highways wrote:
Good Decision.
Smurfing and hacking are the two worse problems on a ladder.
smurfing
Gaming term: Entering your regular server under a different name so u can see whats going on without being recognized.
Smurfing has NOTHING to do with beating up on weaker opponents - _-
|
On August 22 2009 09:41 Highways wrote:
Good Decision.
Smurfing and hacking are the two worse problems on a ladder.
this
really good move by blizzard. I really don't see why people have a problem with this..
|
On August 22 2009 09:55 EpiK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 09:41 Highways wrote:
Good Decision.
Smurfing and hacking are the two worse problems on a ladder. this really good move by blizzard. I really don't see why people have a problem with this..
Because the people who want to smurf can't smurf anymore and it makes them sad panda's.
|
I'm not a huge fan of this at all.
- I want to change my ID sometimes.
- I want to play fun random team games doing crazy things without lowering my esteem on my main account.
- Sometimes you have RL friends that annoy you to no end on the game, I need to get away. Once they see me sign on and off the messages/calls start rolling in. x.x
- Winning % is important, most people want to maintain that so they are still wanted in clans/AT games/playing good opponents in a custom game. But they still want to have their fun doing silly things from time to time.
|
ReS, you'll still be able to change your name, it will just be linked to your account.
|
On August 22 2009 10:21 ReS wrote:
I'm not a huge fan of this at all.
- I want to change my ID sometimes.
- I want to play fun random team games doing crazy things without lowering my esteem on my main account.
- Sometimes you have RL friends that annoy you to no end on the game, I need to get away. Once they see me sign on and off the messages/calls start rolling in. x.x
- Winning % is important, most people want to maintain that so they are still wanted in clans/AT games/playing good opponents in a custom game. But they still want to have their fun doing silly things from time to time.
Its a good thing that games can only be played on ladder and there aren't any custom games to fuck around in.
|
On August 22 2009 10:23 Chuiu wrote:
ReS, you'll still be able to change your name, it will just be linked to your account.
Nice.
|
On August 22 2009 08:41 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:39 FrozenArbiter wrote:On August 22 2009 08:32 blade55555 wrote:On August 22 2009 08:30 Koof wrote:
I would rather not have smurfs in SC2, in any form. If you're that prideful about having a totally clean account with wins only, I guess it would be worth it to you to buy that many copies of Starcraft 2. Agreed with you 100%. So far the arguments to why its bad are pretty bad because its really not hard to play unrated for the problems people are saying like trying a new race or strategy don't see how its hard to play unrated but ok then ^^. 1) Privacy. Sometimes you even want privacy from your FRIENDS. 2) Being stuck with the same ID you made when you were 10, 10 years later. No thank you. 3) Not wanting to play Zerg on ladder when you are A rank Protoss but C rank Zerg (this is solved by them having 1 rating for each race). There is NO REASON why you wouldn't allow people to make multiple IDs - just tie them all to a single Battle.net account, and rate them based on that. 2. If it really bothers you buy a new account or pick a name you know you will like ^^.
So your argument is to go into the future and ask yourself what username you'd like, or fork over $60 just for a damn name? I don't know about you, but not everyone is rich enough to throw $60 down for a trivial reason, for something that SHOULD be free, and I don't know many people with a time machine.
EDIT: Even if you are able to change your name, it would be a hassle to change it constantly. Personally, I have two accounts on iCCup. One is for my friends, my identity. One is a relatively anonymous one for mass gaming. Losses don't matter, rank doesn't matter. It is just a gaming account. It allows me to experiment with builds, do things I wouldn't normally do without practice so that I can play on my ranked account better.
Playing unranked games is a HORRIBLE idea because there is no guarantee that your opponent will play his best. You can't exclusively play friends for practice games. Sometimes you want a stranger playing his hardest so you can learn, practice, and improve.
This would be really easy to solve by Blizzard. One master account, infinite usernames. I don't see a logical reason against it.
|
On August 22 2009 09:35 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 09:30 Plexa wrote:
*sigh*
Another bad move by Blizzard...
I don't think smurfing was actually that bad of a problem in SC1 ;; Its pretty bad... Once you get to the c level I heard its not bad but at the D-, D, D+ level half the players you play are smurfs. And no i'm not saying it because I lost when you see a guy join 100% win, 250+ apm and rapes you is definitely a smurf. If your C well that's why you don't think its that bad. Great move by blizzard
No its not bad, its just you being completely new to SC and not being aware of (in "our" terms) bad players (meaning D level) being just a lot better than totally new people. You cant just take the skill level of a game which is 11 fucking years old and then try to base a new environment on this. Its just not working and it wont. Seriously, fuck Blizzard.
|
i dont think its TOO big of a deal
a mistake yes, but not the end of the world
it will mostly be an issue for famous players
|
Meh, i think this decision will [i]encourage[\n] piracy rather than discourage it. Like when you wanna have some laughs you smirf B.Net instead of ICup. If they don't have multiple accounts for one CD Key (even if you can only log onto B.Net for one at a time), then that is a serious motivation for people to use alternatives.
They said they want to make sure B.Net is good enough that its a compelling reason to stay on it.
Well this is just ONE compelling reason not to stay on it ALL the time.
Its not difficult to imagine a pirate server for kicks and giggles with randoms; and then it will get more sophisticated with user tracking; and before you know it, you have only pro's who wanna smirf on a pirate server and no noobie kids from B.Net!
Its obviously not difficult to see where this is going.
This is a really blind decision from Blizzard. Their decision is probably based on the fact they want people who start playing on B.Net to be gently played pushed into it; however I don't think they have measured the implications from the high level players perspective.
However, this being said, I don't think it will be tooooo bad if they have a different rating for each race.
|
I actually really like this decision
|
On August 22 2009 09:50 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 09:41 Highways wrote:
Good Decision.
Smurfing and hacking are the two worse problems on a ladder. Show nested quote +smurfing
Gaming term: Entering your regular server under a different name so u can see whats going on without being recognized.
Smurfing has NOTHING to do with beating up on weaker opponents - _-
Frankly, if it stops people trying to stomp noobs at the beginning of the ladder I more than welcome this change.
Edit:
i dont think its TOO big of a deal
a mistake yes, but not the end of the world
it will mostly be an issue for famous players
Indeed, I think that maybe 1-2% of the SC2 install base will have a problem with this because of ''e-popularity''. And you can make private games to practice your off-races.
|
On August 22 2009 08:16 Captain Peabody wrote:
Actually, this won't be a problem; you can only talk to your friends, and friend requests will have to be manually approved by the person themselves. So no Jaedong-harassing...
This has already been addressed. Imagine the number of approval requests flooding Jaedongs account? Either there's an "ignore all" option, or shit's going to go down yo.
|
If this is the case ladder will be pretty pointless. Ladder will be for mass gaming, maybe trying new things. However, if you want to try other races, strategies, or play styles you will get worse before you get better. Ladder status will be nothing to brag about.
If I only have one account to play with my friends who will be terrible I won't be worrying about my win %. I shouldn't be forced to not worry though, because I had fun shooting for high ranks and high win % in war3.
|
If the pirated version is superior in every way, why should I spend $50 on a real version?
I hope another ladder like ICCUP makes a Bnet 2.0 emulator so I don't have to feel like a prisoner playing SC2
|
I'm leaning towards not liking it. What if I didn't like my first account name? lol.
|
On August 22 2009 11:17 Bosu wrote:
If this is the case ladder will be pretty pointless. Ladder will be for mass gaming, maybe trying new things. However, if you want to try other races, strategies, or play styles you will get worse before you get better. Ladder status will be nothing to brag about.
If I only have one account to play with my friends who will be terrible I won't be worrying about my win %. I shouldn't be forced to not worry though, because I had fun shooting for high ranks and high win % in war3.
What kind of logic is this? This will make the ladder more accurate.
I really believe some of you guys have never heard of Custom games.....
|
This is more of a complaint from the WC3 players who see many more smurfs than SC players. There are always high level WC3 players who will smurf or abuse, and beat the shit out of lower level players to inflate their %.
|
On August 22 2009 09:30 Plexa wrote:
*sigh*
Another bad move by Blizzard...
I don't think smurfing was actually that bad of a problem in SC1 ;;
No offence, but I think you lack perspective on how it is like to be a SC beginner nowadays since you have been playing for so long that smurfing does not represent a great problem to you. At least, that is what I assume. If that is not the case, I apologise.
Anyway, smurfing is a VERY bad problem. Asking for newbie games on Battle.net or even ICCup is like asking for a death wish. More often then not, your opponent will turn out to be someone that clearly is not a newbie in any way. Even not asking specifically for newbie games will often match you with players much superior to you. The ability to see stats on ICCup does not resolve the issue since players can too easily manipulate the stats (either by clearing them or making a new account) and the D rank represents a wide range of skill levels (from people completely new to SC to people with hundreds of games under their belt).
Being a newbie does not (necessarily) mean you are not willing to put any effort into becoming a better player and that you are easily discouraged. Infact, even D- people can appretiate the fact that it takes a lot of time, effort and dedication to become a really good player. However, if you see nothing but failure (beacuse you only get to play against much superior players) and your overall winrate makes  ZergBong`s ZvT look like bonjwa material, it is hard not to be discouraged and get the impression that you will never be able to become good at the game. That is the whole reason why game developers strive to match you with equally good players, since that makes it more likely you will win at least a few and thus give you a glimmer of hope that you might actually improve in the long run (thus giving you a reason to keep playing).
Plus, improvement needs to be gradual in order to work. Just like you cannot jump from learning the alphabet to learning rocket science, so too you cannot jump from playing like me (worst player in history, KeSPA approved ) to playing like Jaedong. So if you keep playing against people that are way beyond your league, then you will never be able to learn how to become better.
Do not misunderstand my post, I am not saying progamers should not be able to experiment with new builds or play an off-race without compromising their primary record. However, I do not see why this could not be an option without compromising newcomers. Infact, even when experimenting/off-racing, there really is no reason for good players to start at the very rock bottom since at least some of their skills will transfer to the other race (their raw speed, if nothing else). So if you are, according to the Battle.net 2.0 ranking system, a Pro League level player, your experimenting/off-race ID could start off at the Silver League or even Gold League. There is absolutely no reason why you would have to go all the way down to Practice League just to do so.
Also, FA, your term definition is wrong. "Smurfing" is the practice of creating a seperate account to play at lower levels, regardless whether you do so with the intention of experimenting/off-racing or harassing newbies. "Sandbagging" is the practice of intentionally playing poorly or with a handicap, for whatever reason (for example, I recently played with a really good Zerg player and he intentionally played with just his mouse to give me a fighting chance).
|
Talk about a fucking retarded decision. :/
|
On August 22 2009 11:24 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 11:17 Bosu wrote:
If this is the case ladder will be pretty pointless. Ladder will be for mass gaming, maybe trying new things. However, if you want to try other races, strategies, or play styles you will get worse before you get better. Ladder status will be nothing to brag about.
If I only have one account to play with my friends who will be terrible I won't be worrying about my win %. I shouldn't be forced to not worry though, because I had fun shooting for high ranks and high win % in war3. What kind of logic is this? This will make the ladder more accurate. I really believe some of you guys have never heard of Custom games.....
It is great logic
Why should my record be wrecked because I want to play with my RL friends that WILL be terrible?
Why should I be forced to play custom games to try new things and new races? It will take hundreds of games to learn a new race. Going from a 70% win rate to 30% because I switched races does not make the ladder more accurate.
Really my biggest gripe though is that I will lose HUNDREDS of games playing AT with friends that are terrible. How does that make the ladder more accurate?
|
On August 22 2009 11:50 Bosu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 11:24 Aegraen wrote:On August 22 2009 11:17 Bosu wrote:
If this is the case ladder will be pretty pointless. Ladder will be for mass gaming, maybe trying new things. However, if you want to try other races, strategies, or play styles you will get worse before you get better. Ladder status will be nothing to brag about.
If I only have one account to play with my friends who will be terrible I won't be worrying about my win %. I shouldn't be forced to not worry though, because I had fun shooting for high ranks and high win % in war3. What kind of logic is this? This will make the ladder more accurate. I really believe some of you guys have never heard of Custom games..... It is great logic Why should my record be wrecked because I want to play with my RL friends that WILL be terrible? Why should I be forced to play custom games to try new things and new races? It will take hundreds of games to learn a new race. Going from a 70% win rate to 30% because I switched races does not make the ladder more accurate. Really my biggest gripe though is that I will lose HUNDREDS of games playing AT with friends that are terrible. How does that make the ladder more accurate?
Who is forcing you to play Ladder with them? Play Custom Games.
You aren't forced to play custom games to try new things. You can play custom or ladder its your decision. Win % doesn't mean fuck all in RTS. You could have 25% and still be better than 90% of the SC2 players. Seems to me you are a statophobe (Yes I made that up).
In any event, a decrease in smurfing, a more reputable community, and a more accurate ladder because there are not or are very little duplicative names is much more lofty and worthy than the cries of someone who made a bad choice for his name and now regrets it.
Pro's vastly outweight the minor inconvenience cons.
|
Calm down about having a good record, it's just a game. Why care so much about it?
(directed to no one in particular)
|
solution: 3 accounts per license?
one for each race, so you can try the offrace BO shit
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Ye, I got the definition of sandbagging a bit wrong - I thought it could be used for both that and for intentionally lowering your rank to play worse players.
Anyhow, the smurfing definition apparently goes for both situations, it is not exclusively used to describe someone griefing (and in fact, this is probably why I have such a problem with the term - I have never used it to describe someone noob-bashing - smurfs to me mean nothing beyond it being someones secret alias).
As for the threshold for a new player today, I don't think it has anything to do with smurfing frankly. The game is 10 years old, even someone who is comparatively a noob is going to destroy a REAL noob. It's not disingenous of him to join a "1v1 noobs" game, because he is also a noob... just not to the same degree.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I somehow doubt it...
I started playing in Brood war in 2002 (played some vanilla SC in 2001), and played probably 300++ games before I had a positive record. These are probably my fondest SC memories because I really, really, really loved the game at that time... I cannot relate AT ALL with people feeling frustrated over losing when just starting... I just do not get it :/ Every win - rare as they were - was awesome, because I had worked so hard for it and I could tell I was improving.
I did have the benefit of knowing about the professional scene, of watching replays and VODs for inspiration, so maybe if I hadn't known about the extraordinary level of play that was possible, my ego would have been more easily bruised?
The rest I agree with. As I've said, I think having a "master account" that determines your ELL for all your IDs, is the best solution.
On August 22 2009 11:56 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 11:50 Bosu wrote:On August 22 2009 11:24 Aegraen wrote:On August 22 2009 11:17 Bosu wrote:
If this is the case ladder will be pretty pointless. Ladder will be for mass gaming, maybe trying new things. However, if you want to try other races, strategies, or play styles you will get worse before you get better. Ladder status will be nothing to brag about.
If I only have one account to play with my friends who will be terrible I won't be worrying about my win %. I shouldn't be forced to not worry though, because I had fun shooting for high ranks and high win % in war3. What kind of logic is this? This will make the ladder more accurate. I really believe some of you guys have never heard of Custom games..... It is great logic Why should my record be wrecked because I want to play with my RL friends that WILL be terrible? Why should I be forced to play custom games to try new things and new races? It will take hundreds of games to learn a new race. Going from a 70% win rate to 30% because I switched races does not make the ladder more accurate. Really my biggest gripe though is that I will lose HUNDREDS of games playing AT with friends that are terrible. How does that make the ladder more accurate? Who is forcing you to play Ladder with them? Play Custom Games. You aren't forced to play custom games to try new things. You can play custom or ladder its your decision. Win % doesn't mean fuck all in RTS. You could have 25% and still be better than 90% of the SC2 players. Seems to me you are a statophobe (Yes I made that up). In any event, a decrease in smurfing, a more reputable community, and a more accurate ladder because there are not or are very little duplicative names is much more lofty and worthy than the cries of someone who made a bad choice for his name and now regrets it. Pro's vastly outweight the minor inconvenience cons.
Playing custom games after getting used to AMM, is absolutely terrible I like playing SC more than WC3, but the AMM for WC3 makes me want to play it more than I want to play SC right now.
|
Jaedong joins the game for the first SC2 MSL Finals...
"All available slots have been closed"
Announcer: "sorry our game is flooded by pubs, will try to ban as many as possible"
|
The amount of accounts one can create should be limited, but not limited to one per CD key. Two or three accounts would be ideal. This way you can have one account as your main where you play seriously and another account where you can just muck around with friends, try new strategies or change race.
I enjoy playing on a smurf and doing fun strategies that aren't very effective. I would never do this on my main account because I don't want to ruin my record.
If finding unrated games is very easy, then this shouldn't be an issue.
On August 22 2009 11:57 FrozenArbiter wrote:Playing custom games after getting used to AMM, is absolutely terrible I like playing SC more than WC3, but the AMM for WC3 makes me want to play it more than I want to play SC right now.
This is the reason I play more WC3 than SC. Even with Iccup I find it difficult to find a game with someone around my skilll level.
The great thing about trying new strategies using the AMM is, as you get better with the strategy you start to vs better players. In custom games it could be difficult to find someone of the appropriate skill level.
|
Have you never played war3 AT before? Why the fuck would I want to make custom games to play 2v2s? ATing is crazy fun. Laddering is far more fun then playing custom games. It is not the same experience at all.
And ya call me a stats whore whatever. I don't like my win % being 20% lower because I like to AT with my buddies or dick around with an off race or mass banelings.
Two accounts would be fine with me (although I would still prefer as many as I want). One is not enough.
|
On August 22 2009 12:03 Bosu wrote:
Have you never played war3 AT before? Why the fuck would I want to make custom games to play 2v2s? ATing is crazy fun. Laddering is far more fun then playing custom games. It is not the same experience at all.
And ya call me a stats whore whatever. I don't like my win % being 20% lower because I like to AT with my buddies or dick around with an off race or mass banelings.
Two accounts would be fine with me (although I would still prefer as many as I want). One is not enough.
Like I said, you are looking at this at how it effects you and not the environment overall.
Comparatively its like you are one ant in an ant hill screaming, my needs and wants, my needs and wants, when the overall community would be a better place if you realized that by putting aside some of those needs and wants it benefits the whole.
If you truly do not like this then make your voice heard. Seriously, if people are upset at the direction of the game then don't support it. Blizzard will get your message loud and clear and will change it for the needs and wants using the power of the consumer to voice dissatisfaction.
I also like how you say having more names would make the ladder more accurate then go on to say I want to have one fuck around name. Imagine if 50% of the people had fuck around names and played ladder, how bad that would actually skew the true rankings of players. In a one name system this is absolved.
Instance. Player ranked 5087 in one name environment plays others genuinely around his rank and skill level.
Now, that Player ranked 5087 is thrown into a system where there are more than one name and the higher level players have fuck around names. Now this player is rank 7050 and does not play as many games around his skill level as he otherwise would have.
Do you see how people having more than one name hugely skews the ladder? Duplicative names create a huge mess. The goal of the ladder should be to be as accurate as possible and this is made true by one name system.
|
I think this is a great idea. I believe it was Browder who said.
"If our match making works like we want it to, everyone will be 50/50"
Stat whoring is detrimental to any game. This is the best solution and will likely result in the best POSSIBLE match making.
|
It isn't about stat whoring. It is about being able to try new things and play with bads without raping your record. If somebody was 1000-1000, but 500 of those losses were with friends in AT, offracing, dicking around, or trying new strats, how fair would it be when that player decides to play his main race seroiusly? Talk about smurfing. And its not smurfing against noobs, its smurfing against mid level players that probably care about winning.
|
i enjoy playing for stats, once they drop below 66% i dont care about loses anymore which leads to clearing them lol
|
lol seriously if you want to try something new why don't you just play with a clan mate, or unrated, or a friend w/e. So far you guys can't seem to argue why you can't do that too well. So far all I have heard was what? nobody does unrated in Warcraft 3 so its going to be like that in sc2 I guess. The logic of people.
|
On August 22 2009 11:50 Bosu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 11:24 Aegraen wrote:On August 22 2009 11:17 Bosu wrote:
If this is the case ladder will be pretty pointless. Ladder will be for mass gaming, maybe trying new things. However, if you want to try other races, strategies, or play styles you will get worse before you get better. Ladder status will be nothing to brag about.
If I only have one account to play with my friends who will be terrible I won't be worrying about my win %. I shouldn't be forced to not worry though, because I had fun shooting for high ranks and high win % in war3. What kind of logic is this? This will make the ladder more accurate. I really believe some of you guys have never heard of Custom games..... It is great logic Why should my record be wrecked because I want to play with my RL friends that WILL be terrible? Why should I be forced to play custom games to try new things and new races? It will take hundreds of games to learn a new race. Going from a 70% win rate to 30% because I switched races does not make the ladder more accurate. Really my biggest gripe though is that I will lose HUNDREDS of games playing AT with friends that are terrible. How does that make the ladder more accurate?
Uh, it would make the ladder extremely accurate actually. Your stats will be split for each race like WC3 at least so if you suck with terran it'll show a 30% win for terran. How much more accurate can it get than that?
And losing hundreds of games with your friends means your AT sucks. Again, accurate.
I think you're confusing "accurate" with "make me look good".
|
Everyone who does't like this feature is bad at starcraft and hates playing better players who are smurfing, everyone who doesn't like it is good and are likely the ones smurfing. It's really that simple.
|
On August 22 2009 09:05 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 09:00 1337o wrote:
I don't really care about smashing on noobs, but I still don't like the decision. What if I just want to change my name? I suppose you should take more precaution when creating your name? You can always buy another CD-Key also. I know people like to look at it at how it only effects them, but trust me this is better in the end. The pro's vastly outweigh the cons. I've seen it work tremendously well in many games (FFXI, AoE III, etc.) compared to games that the alternative (Create as many names as you want with no repercussions) borked totally. In any event no one is forcing you to support Blizzard. If you don't like the decisions they are making then vote with your money and don't buy it. If everyone who didn't like these decisions did that then they would reverse them. Use the power of the consumer and your money.
Im sorry but id rather not pay 50$ when i typo my name and am unable to change it.
I can't see this Idea going anywhere but down
|
Sweden33719 Posts
For me smurfing isn't about stats whoring... I have used this example before, but my PGTour smurf (the pre-cursor to ICCUP for those who are new) had about a 54% winrate once I dragged myself up to the A ranks (and at A+ it was barely 40% I think, but overall 54 or so).
This was still a smurf! I didn't dodge anyone, I didn't newb-bash (hell, I almost always tried to get a regame if I got owned), but it wasn't my real account.
I don't like having one name, thinking up new IDs is fun. Like my current mess-around ID: CAPTAINCAPSLOCK
Fun ID, but would I use it as my main account? Obviously not.
I've had tonnes of ladder smurfs....
MorningStar
Jinro
-DaeBak- (however I was informed this was a very "chon nom" sounding ID - chon nom meaning something along the lines of "hillbilly" or "country" - and retired it lolol)
Iyanden
Okami
Malmis.sidabari
number9dream
ddengbabo
Many. New season? New ID. It's part of the fun.
Then all the different clans:
F]WindToss[c (I think I might have changed this to F]StormyToss[c later - what can I say, I was 13) - euro clan with malmis and travin from TL.
cG)r(Stormy - Korean clan on US West. Good group of guys =]
iD.FA - Pretty good level European clan back in the day.. 2003-2004~
JinrO[s2] - Russian clan I joined after iD disbanded.
Dream.t)PltO - good Korean US west clan.
Gp)_JinrO - strong Chinese clan I used to play for.
mAnnEr)HanBang - Korean clan on Asia.
Hm -.- Can't remember the Brainclan server clan I was in...
Anyway, my point is, I like being able to use more than one ID.
|
konadora
Singapore66159 Posts
I like having multiple account names
So I say nay
|
On August 22 2009 12:35 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 09:05 Aegraen wrote:On August 22 2009 09:00 1337o wrote:
I don't really care about smashing on noobs, but I still don't like the decision. What if I just want to change my name? I suppose you should take more precaution when creating your name? You can always buy another CD-Key also. I know people like to look at it at how it only effects them, but trust me this is better in the end. The pro's vastly outweigh the cons. I've seen it work tremendously well in many games (FFXI, AoE III, etc.) compared to games that the alternative (Create as many names as you want with no repercussions) borked totally. In any event no one is forcing you to support Blizzard. If you don't like the decisions they are making then vote with your money and don't buy it. If everyone who didn't like these decisions did that then they would reverse them. Use the power of the consumer and your money. Im sorry but id rather not pay 50$ when i typo my name and am unable to change it. I can't see this Idea going anywhere but down
Then take the extra ten seconds or so and proof-read your name to make sure there is no typos. It's not like you are proofing a 2,000 page thesis on the interactions of planetary bodies or of triple-star systems and the effects on a planet thereof.
I hope that wasn't the example or basis for the arguement? Of course no one likes to spend another 50$ for a new name, but like I said, the pro's outweigh the cons. I'm wondering what is your stance on the pro-con community wide.
|
On August 22 2009 12:39 FrozenArbiter wrote:
For me smurfing isn't about stats whoring... I have used this example before, but my PGTour smurf (the pre-cursor to ICCUP for those who are new) had about a 54% winrate once I dragged myself up to the A ranks (and at A+ it was barely 40% I think, but overall 54 or so).
This was still a smurf! I didn't dodge anyone, I didn't newb-bash (hell, I almost always tried to get a regame if I got owned), but it wasn't my real account.
I don't like having one name, thinking up new IDs is fun. Like my current mess-around ID: CAPTAINCAPSLOCK
Fun ID, but would I use it as my main account? Obviously not.
I've had tonnes of ladder smurfs....
MorningStar
Jinro
-DaeBak- (however I was informed this was a very "chon nom" sounding ID - chon nom meaning something along the lines of "hillbilly" or "country" - and retired it lolol)
Iyanden
Okami
Malmis.sidabari
number9dream
ddengbabo
Many. New season? New ID. It's part of the fun.
Then all the different clans:
F]WindToss[c (I think I might have changed this to F]StormyToss[c later - what can I say, I was 13) - euro clan with malmis and travin from TL.
cG)r(Stormy - Korean clan on US West. Good group of guys =]
iD.FA - Pretty good level European clan back in the day.. 2003-2004~
JinrO[s2] - solid Russian clan I joined after iD disbanded.
Dream.t)PltO - good Korean US west clan.
Gp)_JinrO - strong Chinese clan I used to play for.
mAnnEr)HanBang - Korean clan on Asia.
Hm -.- Can't remember the Brainclan server clan I was in...
Anyway, my point is, I like being able to use more than one ID.
Have you stopped to think about the negative aspects of such a system? (Remember, system overall, not everyone is yourself, and firstly you had to "smurf" people to get up the ranks. You can't just start off by playing people your own skill level now can you?)
|
On August 22 2009 11:50 Bosu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 11:24 Aegraen wrote:On August 22 2009 11:17 Bosu wrote:
If this is the case ladder will be pretty pointless. Ladder will be for mass gaming, maybe trying new things. However, if you want to try other races, strategies, or play styles you will get worse before you get better. Ladder status will be nothing to brag about.
If I only have one account to play with my friends who will be terrible I won't be worrying about my win %. I shouldn't be forced to not worry though, because I had fun shooting for high ranks and high win % in war3. What kind of logic is this? This will make the ladder more accurate. I really believe some of you guys have never heard of Custom games..... It is great logic Why should my record be wrecked because I want to play with my RL friends that WILL be terrible? Why should I be forced to play custom games to try new things and new races? It will take hundreds of games to learn a new race. Going from a 70% win rate to 30% because I switched races does not make the ladder more accurate. Really my biggest gripe though is that I will lose HUNDREDS of games playing AT with friends that are terrible. How does that make the ladder more accurate?
AT = Arranged Teams ?
In WC3, if you have a friend name X and another Y you will have different levels for each team you make.
For instance, You + X = level 5; You + Y = level 7; You alone = level 22
So playing AT with noobs is not a problem.
There's still the problem of offrace in 1v1.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 22 2009 12:44 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 12:39 FrozenArbiter wrote:
For me smurfing isn't about stats whoring... I have used this example before, but my PGTour smurf (the pre-cursor to ICCUP for those who are new) had about a 54% winrate once I dragged myself up to the A ranks (and at A+ it was barely 40% I think, but overall 54 or so).
This was still a smurf! I didn't dodge anyone, I didn't newb-bash (hell, I almost always tried to get a regame if I got owned), but it wasn't my real account.
I don't like having one name, thinking up new IDs is fun. Like my current mess-around ID: CAPTAINCAPSLOCK
Fun ID, but would I use it as my main account? Obviously not.
I've had tonnes of ladder smurfs....
MorningStar
Jinro
-DaeBak- (however I was informed this was a very "chon nom" sounding ID - chon nom meaning something along the lines of "hillbilly" or "country" - and retired it lolol)
Iyanden
Okami
Malmis.sidabari
number9dream
ddengbabo
Many. New season? New ID. It's part of the fun.
Then all the different clans:
F]WindToss[c (I think I might have changed this to F]StormyToss[c later - what can I say, I was 13) - euro clan with malmis and travin from TL.
cG)r(Stormy - Korean clan on US West. Good group of guys =]
iD.FA - Pretty good level European clan back in the day.. 2003-2004~
JinrO[s2] - Russian clan I joined after iD disbanded.
Dream.t)PltO - good Korean US west clan.
Gp)_JinrO - strong Chinese clan I used to play for.
mAnnEr)HanBang - Korean clan on Asia.
Hm -.- Can't remember the Brainclan server clan I was in...
Anyway, my point is, I like being able to use more than one ID. Have you stopped to think about the negative aspects of such a system? (Remember, system overall, not everyone is yourself, and firstly you had to "smurf" people to get up the ranks. You can't just start off by playing people your own skill level now can you?)
What?
Every new season I made a new account. Every season, your stats reset, so no I didn't have to "smurf" anyone, because EVERYONE starts over at the end of a season.
IE in season 6 I was A- with the ID jinrO. I decided to keep using it in season 7, but even though I didn't make a new ID I still started over from rank D.
Secondly, I said I'm fine with your ELL being linked to your "main" account (ie the Battle.net account you register with your CD-key, the one that you can use with the Blizzard store etc). I just want to be able to create more than ID to be honest.
I'd like a way to make "fuck around" accounts so I could do stupid shit like nuke rush without it ruining my ladder score, but it's not essential.
I honestly don't see the big deal about playing someone better than you - I played iloveoov at C- in PGTour - he rolled me in 10-15 minutes. Was I devastated I'd been "smurfed by a progamer"? No, I went "holy shit this guy is good [he was 33-0 at the time, and it was early season lol], I have to find out who it is".
|
On August 22 2009 11:25 FragKrag wrote:
This is more of a complaint from the WC3 players who see many more smurfs than SC players. There are always high level WC3 players who will smurf or abuse, and beat the shit out of lower level players to inflate their %.
I'm not understanding why this is fundamentally wrong... I think by cultivating a more effective matchmaking system in which % wasn't the sole criteria of judgement, incentive to smurf would be eliminated and they wouldn't have to restrict it to 1 account per game.
|
There are not many smurfs on war3 ladder. I smurf on it all the time and everybody is pretty terrible, including me. In the war3 ladder if you go 5-0 you will already be playing people with good records. At 0-0 you usually play people with 50%+ as well.
|
wow this is really pathetic as someone mentioned before
smurfing is really cool, you can play however and whoever you like without much pressure and have lots of fun. All of those who complain smufing is bad just because they get get beat up by some guys above their ranks but looking to get good stats are just lousy losers. People that are actually good get harassed by newbies so they make smurfs and play without having to worry about that. People that aren't that good make smurfs so they don't ruin their ladder score while fucking around or offracing. Everyone's having fun and there is balance in the universe.
Did Blizzard atleast give a motivation for this decision ? I don't see a real purpose to having just one account name for cd-key.
|
On August 22 2009 07:57 Tsagacity wrote:
As people predicted, bnet 2.0 is looking A LOT like steam.
The anti-smurfing is ok with me, but they better have some sort of anonymity feature option so well-known players can't be harassed.
Whats bad about steam, they do a really good job
|
I don't think anyone has such an issue with this on stuff like xbox live. You can play unranked games if you want to fool around, and ladder is for laddering.
|
i dont mind at all. smurfing is a huge problem in starcraft and iccup specifically: i think the effect of smurfing is magnified because a lot of starcraft players are extremely egotistical and like to stomp noobies.
|
On August 22 2009 13:06 FirstBorn wrote:
smurfing is really cool, you can play however and whoever you like without much pressure and have lots of fun.
oh god that is so pathetic. if you want to just fuck around (read: i liek to stomp noobies because im a huge loser and it gives me an ego boost) then just play non ranked games. it's pretty fucking straight forward guys.
out of all the things blizz has done in sc2 this is probably the best decision ever. playing SC against people the same skill level as you every game is going to be fantastic.
|
On August 22 2009 13:19 lazz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 13:06 FirstBorn wrote:
smurfing is really cool, you can play however and whoever you like without much pressure and have lots of fun. oh god that is so pathetic. if you want to just fuck around (read: i liek to stomp noobies because im a huge loser and it gives me an ego boost) then just play non ranked games. it's pretty fucking straight forward guys. out of all the things blizz has done in sc2 this is probably the best decision ever. playing SC against people the same skill level as you every game is going to be fantastic.
True that will be great
|
I really like the ideas behind this new battle.net. One account per game makes more accurate matchmaking and easier to ban hackers. It looks great and I am looking foward to SC2
|
On August 22 2009 13:19 lazz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 13:06 FirstBorn wrote:
smurfing is really cool, you can play however and whoever you like without much pressure and have lots of fun. oh god that is so pathetic. if you want to just fuck around (read: i liek to stomp noobies because im a huge loser and it gives me an ego boost) then just play non ranked games. it's pretty fucking straight forward guys.
To be honest I'm quite bad. And when I get a terrible recond on Iccup I just make a new account and stomp D players. That boosts up my confidence and it's easier to start playing on my main account right away.
It's not about me sitting in the D channel all day stomping newbies, but I can do that whenever I'm on a loss streak and mentally get in shape for when I'm going to play with people my own skill.
|
United States22883 Posts
I think one important thing to not lose sight of is the fact that competitive online SC2 will not end at Blizzard's ladder. My guess is we'll have a situation similar to what's currently going on right now, but we'll more than one other competitive league. Those primarily concerned with battle.net and the official ladder are akin to those that care about pub stats or OGL in CS.
Ladders are not a good way to run competition anyways, so we'll have real leagues where serious play happens. No, you might not get to smurf on b.net (and I agree, there are some good aspects to it) but that's not going to be the majority of the TL community's focus anyways.
|
On August 22 2009 13:48 FirstBorn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 13:19 lazz wrote:On August 22 2009 13:06 FirstBorn wrote:
smurfing is really cool, you can play however and whoever you like without much pressure and have lots of fun. oh god that is so pathetic. if you want to just fuck around (read: i liek to stomp noobies because im a huge loser and it gives me an ego boost) then just play non ranked games. it's pretty fucking straight forward guys. To be honest I'm quite bad. And when I get a terrible recond on Iccup I just make a new account and stomp D players. That boosts up my confidence and it's easier to start playing on my main account right away. It's not about me sitting in the D channel all day stomping newbies, but I can do that whenever I'm on a loss streak and mentally get in shape for when I'm going to play with people my own skill.
if you want to "mentally get in shape", then play NON RANKED GAMES. then when you've decided youve bashed enough newbies there you can go play ladder. what's the problem here?
|
On August 22 2009 12:31 blade55555 wrote:
lol seriously if you want to try something new why don't you just play with a clan mate, or unrated, or a friend w/e. So far you guys can't seem to argue why you can't do that too well. So far all I have heard was what? nobody does unrated in Warcraft 3 so its going to be like that in sc2 I guess. The logic of people.
lol if you want to improve why don't you lose games to people better than you rather than playing some demented form of noobcraft with other new players, where you can win occasionally?
|
On August 22 2009 13:52 Lurgee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 12:31 blade55555 wrote:
lol seriously if you want to try something new why don't you just play with a clan mate, or unrated, or a friend w/e. So far you guys can't seem to argue why you can't do that too well. So far all I have heard was what? nobody does unrated in Warcraft 3 so its going to be like that in sc2 I guess. The logic of people. lol if you want to improve why don't you lose games to people better than you rather than playing some demented form of noobcraft with other new players, where you can win occasionally?
I don't learn anything playing a guy who rapes me within 5-10 minutes. Just learn to do unrated not hard at all ^^.
|
On August 22 2009 13:48 FirstBorn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 13:19 lazz wrote:On August 22 2009 13:06 FirstBorn wrote:
smurfing is really cool, you can play however and whoever you like without much pressure and have lots of fun. oh god that is so pathetic. if you want to just fuck around (read: i liek to stomp noobies because im a huge loser and it gives me an ego boost) then just play non ranked games. it's pretty fucking straight forward guys. To be honest I'm quite bad. And when I get a terrible recond on Iccup I just make a new account and stomp D players. That boosts up my confidence and it's easier to start playing on my main account right away. It's not about me sitting in the D channel all day stomping newbies, but I can do that whenever I'm on a loss streak and mentally get in shape for when I'm going to play with people my own skill.
Thats just pathetic. You're pretty much an a perfect example for why this is being done to prevent crap like that.
|
On August 22 2009 13:06 FirstBorn wrote:
wow this is really pathetic as someone mentioned before
smurfing is really cool, you can play however and whoever you like without much pressure and have lots of fun. All of those who complain smufing is bad just because they get get beat up by some guys above their ranks but looking to get good stats are just lousy losers. People that are actually good get harassed by newbies so they make smurfs and play without having to worry about that. People that aren't that good make smurfs so they don't ruin their ladder score while fucking around or offracing. Everyone's having fun and there is balance in the universe.
Did Blizzard atleast give a motivation for this decision ? I don't see a real purpose to having just one account name for cd-key.
You, YOU, as in YOU, yourself, having fun, is indicative of balance in the universe?
Interesting. I'm no expert, but that sounds pretty contradictory.
|
Are we sure that you can't change names despite having a main account?
Doesn't solve the problem really... but you might be able to. Either way, I disagree with this decision... In fact, I beg to ask what the point of it is. Everyone who has given an argument for it, in my opinion, hasn't really said anything I can actually appreciate. :X
|
all i have to say is that this feature is fucking disgusting ....
|
On August 22 2009 14:10 keV. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 13:06 FirstBorn wrote:
wow this is really pathetic as someone mentioned before
smurfing is really cool, you can play however and whoever you like without much pressure and have lots of fun. All of those who complain smufing is bad just because they get get beat up by some guys above their ranks but looking to get good stats are just lousy losers. People that are actually good get harassed by newbies so they make smurfs and play without having to worry about that. People that aren't that good make smurfs so they don't ruin their ladder score while fucking around or offracing. Everyone's having fun and there is balance in the universe.
Did Blizzard atleast give a motivation for this decision ? I don't see a real purpose to having just one account name for cd-key. You, YOU, as in YOU, yourself, having fun, is indicative of balance in the universe? Interesting. I'm no expert, but that sounds pretty contradictory.
If you ddin't catch on to that phrase then I can't help with it.
Imo there's too much fuss about being owned so badly in the D ranks. It's even more sad that this is pretty much the main reason people support this decision.
|
Way to kill convenience Blizzard. Every time we can hear about more, and more stupid limitations, they were even seriously thinking about forcing you to be online all the time when you play campaign.
On August 22 2009 08:39 FrozenArbiter wrote:
3) Not wanting to play Zerg on ladder when you are A rank Protoss but C rank Zerg (this is solved by them having 1 rating for each race).
That would completely suck for race pickers/random players.
|
for the record on trying new strategies and what not.
i come from wc3 and every respectable player plays custom games and practices with practice partners to work on certain aspects of there game --
|
On August 22 2009 14:31 FirstBorn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 14:10 keV. wrote:On August 22 2009 13:06 FirstBorn wrote:
wow this is really pathetic as someone mentioned before
smurfing is really cool, you can play however and whoever you like without much pressure and have lots of fun. All of those who complain smufing is bad just because they get get beat up by some guys above their ranks but looking to get good stats are just lousy losers. People that are actually good get harassed by newbies so they make smurfs and play without having to worry about that. People that aren't that good make smurfs so they don't ruin their ladder score while fucking around or offracing. Everyone's having fun and there is balance in the universe.
Did Blizzard atleast give a motivation for this decision ? I don't see a real purpose to having just one account name for cd-key. You, YOU, as in YOU, yourself, having fun, is indicative of balance in the universe? Interesting. I'm no expert, but that sounds pretty contradictory. If you ddin't catch on to that phrase then I can't help with it. Imo there's too much fuss about being owned so badly in the D ranks. It's even more sad that this is pretty much the main reason people support this decision.
Don't you get it? When an A+ player makes a new account he smurfs everyone from D to B+. It doesn't just effect the lowest ladder rung...
|
On August 22 2009 14:32 Polis wrote:Way to kill convenience Blizzard. Every time we can hear about more, and more stupid limitations, they were even seriously thinking about forcing you to be online all the time when you play campaign. Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:39 FrozenArbiter wrote:
3) Not wanting to play Zerg on ladder when you are A rank Protoss but C rank Zerg (this is solved by them having 1 rating for each race). That would completely suck for race pickers/random players.
Offline campaigns are actually going to be limited (whereas online campaign would be "full") from what I've heard Dustin Browder say.
|
On August 22 2009 14:34 starPride wrote:
for the record on trying new strategies and what not.
i come from wc3 and every respectable player plays custom games and practices with practice partners to work on certain aspects of there game --
Because you are either completely casual, or you play almost everyday, and you have plenty of people to play against every time.
|
i hope they have some better stuff to announce at blizzcon. lately the only stuff thats been leaking out the past few months has been bad news.
|
We really dont know how this is going to work, they have never said you can't have or make different I.D's. They could just as easy tie in your battle.net account hidden rating with your SC2 account('s) so if you do want to make a new name you will be paired up with players still around your level of skill as of your Bnet account.
Either way even if you "can't" make more accounts because they want to stop smurfing remember the population of SC2 will be much larger then how WC3/SC is atm. Back in the day's like 10 years ago if any of you played/remember back then almost all of the skilled games were unrated... why was this, well many people played together with people they knew or on servers like kali,gamei, what not. Sure you could say that was because of map hacks,disc hacks, lack of good ladder play and not able to play it on fastest, but I know when I used to train it was with a few buddies and we'd talk to enhance our game after playing. This was also before replays lol so yah of course things will be different now.
Smurfing is only fun when you are smurfing at your skill lvl or higher and are playing competive ladder, but want your real id unknown. To go around and bash noobs has always been done by other skilled noobs who cant beat anyone with any kind of decent skill. I used to love seeing random smurfs 18-0 1400ish rating in sc thinking they all bad ass then discon hack you because you stomp them and there ego is that of a small boy who just isnt allowed to lose. Stopping smurfs also is a way to prevent the use of hacks, I've known plenty of skilled players back in the day that addmitted to map hacking on smurfs just to give them an edge and increase there gameplay. that is still considered cheating even if you play legit on main name and in tournies and what not.
|
On August 22 2009 14:36 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 14:31 FirstBorn wrote:On August 22 2009 14:10 keV. wrote:On August 22 2009 13:06 FirstBorn wrote:
wow this is really pathetic as someone mentioned before
smurfing is really cool, you can play however and whoever you like without much pressure and have lots of fun. All of those who complain smufing is bad just because they get get beat up by some guys above their ranks but looking to get good stats are just lousy losers. People that are actually good get harassed by newbies so they make smurfs and play without having to worry about that. People that aren't that good make smurfs so they don't ruin their ladder score while fucking around or offracing. Everyone's having fun and there is balance in the universe.
Did Blizzard atleast give a motivation for this decision ? I don't see a real purpose to having just one account name for cd-key. You, YOU, as in YOU, yourself, having fun, is indicative of balance in the universe? Interesting. I'm no expert, but that sounds pretty contradictory. If you ddin't catch on to that phrase then I can't help with it. Imo there's too much fuss about being owned so badly in the D ranks. It's even more sad that this is pretty much the main reason people support this decision. Don't you get it? When an A+ player makes a new account he smurfs everyone from D to B+. It doesn't just effect the lowest ladder rung...
You hardly even meet someone above B+ when playing casual games on your rank.
Besides, the main problem here isn't newb bashing, but the loss of intimacy your smurfs provided.
|
On August 22 2009 14:31 FirstBorn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 14:10 keV. wrote:On August 22 2009 13:06 FirstBorn wrote:
wow this is really pathetic as someone mentioned before
smurfing is really cool, you can play however and whoever you like without much pressure and have lots of fun. All of those who complain smufing is bad just because they get get beat up by some guys above their ranks but looking to get good stats are just lousy losers. People that are actually good get harassed by newbies so they make smurfs and play without having to worry about that. People that aren't that good make smurfs so they don't ruin their ladder score while fucking around or offracing. Everyone's having fun and there is balance in the universe.
Did Blizzard atleast give a motivation for this decision ? I don't see a real purpose to having just one account name for cd-key. You, YOU, as in YOU, yourself, having fun, is indicative of balance in the universe? Interesting. I'm no expert, but that sounds pretty contradictory. If you ddin't catch on to that phrase then I can't help with it. Imo there's too much fuss about being owned so badly in the D ranks. It's even more sad that this is pretty much the main reason people support this decision.
Actually, I'm pretty sure the main reason I support this system is because I want good games against other good players, so that I can increase my level of play and have fun doing it.
I don't want to be smurfed, and I also don't want someone with the freedom of anonymity being a cunt for the sake of being a cunt with no repercussions.
I don't want the guy who spends more time finding ways to get free wins to have any success.
I don't want people stat whoring endlessly, by constantly recreating their accounts and producing faux skill (see HoN).
I don't want people with racist or unfunny internet memes as names. (unless they are actually clever.)
The only people who benefit from having free reign over account names are assholes. Why do you think TL works? (8. THOU SHALT RESPECT YOUR ID) Its a better system for serious competitive players and I am thrilled it will be implemented
|
making the one name one account thing is great because it helps against cheating and abusing and game ruining in unrated games and all that. if a player wants a bad reputation...he can't change it. that's awesome. it forces people to be good mannered or stop playing, or be bad mannered and only get to play very boring games like LOAP where no one cares if you're a cheater.
|
On August 22 2009 14:44 FirstBorn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 14:36 Aegraen wrote:On August 22 2009 14:31 FirstBorn wrote:On August 22 2009 14:10 keV. wrote:On August 22 2009 13:06 FirstBorn wrote:
wow this is really pathetic as someone mentioned before
smurfing is really cool, you can play however and whoever you like without much pressure and have lots of fun. All of those who complain smufing is bad just because they get get beat up by some guys above their ranks but looking to get good stats are just lousy losers. People that are actually good get harassed by newbies so they make smurfs and play without having to worry about that. People that aren't that good make smurfs so they don't ruin their ladder score while fucking around or offracing. Everyone's having fun and there is balance in the universe.
Did Blizzard atleast give a motivation for this decision ? I don't see a real purpose to having just one account name for cd-key. You, YOU, as in YOU, yourself, having fun, is indicative of balance in the universe? Interesting. I'm no expert, but that sounds pretty contradictory. If you ddin't catch on to that phrase then I can't help with it. Imo there's too much fuss about being owned so badly in the D ranks. It's even more sad that this is pretty much the main reason people support this decision. Don't you get it? When an A+ player makes a new account he smurfs everyone from D to B+. It doesn't just effect the lowest ladder rung... You hardly even meet someone above B+ when playing casual games on your rank. Besides, the main problem here isn't newb bashing, but the loss of intimacy your smurfs provided.
i don't mind it at all. this is a much better compromise because now you are guaranteed to play vs someone who is relatively clsoe to your skill level every game. there is no reason to be making a new account every time the competition gets too difficult.
|
On August 22 2009 14:44 FirstBorn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 14:36 Aegraen wrote:On August 22 2009 14:31 FirstBorn wrote:On August 22 2009 14:10 keV. wrote:On August 22 2009 13:06 FirstBorn wrote:
wow this is really pathetic as someone mentioned before
smurfing is really cool, you can play however and whoever you like without much pressure and have lots of fun. All of those who complain smufing is bad just because they get get beat up by some guys above their ranks but looking to get good stats are just lousy losers. People that are actually good get harassed by newbies so they make smurfs and play without having to worry about that. People that aren't that good make smurfs so they don't ruin their ladder score while fucking around or offracing. Everyone's having fun and there is balance in the universe.
Did Blizzard atleast give a motivation for this decision ? I don't see a real purpose to having just one account name for cd-key. You, YOU, as in YOU, yourself, having fun, is indicative of balance in the universe? Interesting. I'm no expert, but that sounds pretty contradictory. If you ddin't catch on to that phrase then I can't help with it. Imo there's too much fuss about being owned so badly in the D ranks. It's even more sad that this is pretty much the main reason people support this decision. Don't you get it? When an A+ player makes a new account he smurfs everyone from D to B+. It doesn't just effect the lowest ladder rung... You hardly even meet someone above B+ when playing casual games on your rank. Besides, the main problem here isn't newb bashing, but the loss of intimacy your smurfs provided.
When you say intimacy, what you really mean is anonymity, those are not the same thing. I'll give you a hint: One of those two things can lead to people being assholes.
How is DND tagging or turning off chat not intimate enough for someone?
|
On August 22 2009 14:43 ReDDoG-TrEe wrote:
We really dont know how this is going to work, they have never said you can't have or make different I.D's. They could just as easy tie in your battle.net account hidden rating with your SC2 account('s) so if you do want to make a new name you will be paired up with players still around your level of skill as of your Bnet account.
Either way even if you "can't" make more accounts because they want to stop smurfing remember the population of SC2 will be much larger then how WC3/SC is atm. Back in the day's like 10 years ago if any of you played/remember back then almost all of the skilled games were unrated... why was this, well many people played together with people they knew or on servers like kali,gamei, what not. Sure you could say that was because of map hacks,disc hacks, lack of good ladder play and not able to play it on fastest, but I know when I used to train it was with a few buddies and we'd talk to enhance our game after playing. This was also before replays lol so yah of course things will be different now.
Smurfing is only fun when you are smurfing at your skill lvl or higher and are playing competive ladder, but want your real id unknown. To go around and bash noobs has always been done by other skilled noobs who cant beat anyone with any kind of decent skill. I used to love seeing random smurfs 18-0 1400ish rating in sc thinking they all bad ass then discon hack you because you stomp them and there ego is that of a small boy who just isnt allowed to lose. Stopping smurfs also is a way to prevent the use of hacks, I've known plenty of skilled players back in the day that addmitted to map hacking on smurfs just to give them an edge and increase there gameplay. that is still considered cheating even if you play legit on main name and in tournies and what not.
yeah it's true, like you said even before replays...there were map hackers...and they could learn what their good opponents did that helped them be good even before replays...pretty crazy cheating there.
|
even with revealing records for a name changer the name changer still hides his identity from people...thus people aren't aware of his reputation because he hid it.
|
On August 22 2009 14:46 keV. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 14:31 FirstBorn wrote:On August 22 2009 14:10 keV. wrote:On August 22 2009 13:06 FirstBorn wrote:
wow this is really pathetic as someone mentioned before
smurfing is really cool, you can play however and whoever you like without much pressure and have lots of fun. All of those who complain smufing is bad just because they get get beat up by some guys above their ranks but looking to get good stats are just lousy losers. People that are actually good get harassed by newbies so they make smurfs and play without having to worry about that. People that aren't that good make smurfs so they don't ruin their ladder score while fucking around or offracing. Everyone's having fun and there is balance in the universe.
Did Blizzard atleast give a motivation for this decision ? I don't see a real purpose to having just one account name for cd-key. You, YOU, as in YOU, yourself, having fun, is indicative of balance in the universe? Interesting. I'm no expert, but that sounds pretty contradictory. If you ddin't catch on to that phrase then I can't help with it. Imo there's too much fuss about being owned so badly in the D ranks. It's even more sad that this is pretty much the main reason people support this decision. Actually, I'm pretty sure the main reason I support this system is because I want good games against other good players, so that I can increase my level of play and have fun doing it. I don't want to be smurfed, and I also don't want someone with the freedom of anonymity being a cunt for the sake of being a cunt with no repercussions. I don't want the guy who spends more time finding ways to get free wins to have any success. I don't want people stat whoring endlessly, by constantly recreating their accounts and producing faux skill (see HoN). I don't want people with racist or unfunny internet memes as names. (unless they are actually clever.) The only people who benefit from having free reign over account names are assholes. Why do you think TL works? (8. THOU SHALT RESPECT YOUR ID) Its a better system for serious competitive players and I am thrilled it will be implemented
this this this this.
i can't reiterate enough how great it will be to have a consistent ladder rank and to actually play against people the same skill level as you. starcraft's main weakness, esp. on iccup, is people smurfing/recreating accounts/stat whoring. with this new system none of that will happen. this is easily the best implementation blizzard has come up for starcraft 2.
|
this is a amazing idea... and for all the people that say OMG i cant learn a new race or let a friend play.. there is a thing called unranked games... like god
|
On August 22 2009 15:01 iMate wrote:
this is a amazing idea... and for all the people that say OMG i cant learn a new race or let a friend play.. there is a thing called unranked games... like god
Why have ladders at all, we can all just play unranked games..... like god.
|
On August 22 2009 14:46 keV. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 14:31 FirstBorn wrote:On August 22 2009 14:10 keV. wrote:On August 22 2009 13:06 FirstBorn wrote:
wow this is really pathetic as someone mentioned before
smurfing is really cool, you can play however and whoever you like without much pressure and have lots of fun. All of those who complain smufing is bad just because they get get beat up by some guys above their ranks but looking to get good stats are just lousy losers. People that are actually good get harassed by newbies so they make smurfs and play without having to worry about that. People that aren't that good make smurfs so they don't ruin their ladder score while fucking around or offracing. Everyone's having fun and there is balance in the universe.
Did Blizzard atleast give a motivation for this decision ? I don't see a real purpose to having just one account name for cd-key. You, YOU, as in YOU, yourself, having fun, is indicative of balance in the universe? Interesting. I'm no expert, but that sounds pretty contradictory. If you ddin't catch on to that phrase then I can't help with it. Imo there's too much fuss about being owned so badly in the D ranks. It's even more sad that this is pretty much the main reason people support this decision. Actually, I'm pretty sure the main reason I support this system is because I want good games against other good players, so that I can increase my level of play and have fun doing it. I don't want to be smurfed, and I also don't want someone with the freedom of anonymity being a cunt for the sake of being a cunt with no repercussions. I don't want the guy who spends more time finding ways to get free wins to have any success. I don't want people stat whoring endlessly, by constantly recreating their accounts and producing faux skill (see HoN). I don't want people with racist or unfunny internet memes as names. (unless they are actually clever.) The only people who benefit from having free reign over account names are assholes. Why do you think TL works? (8. THOU SHALT RESPECT YOUR ID) Its a better system for serious competitive players and I am thrilled it will be implemented
Given that Battle.net 2.0 will be created by Blizzard, I'm pretty sure you'll be able to see your opponent's record when joining or hosting a game. So you should have no problem filering those 40-1 record guys you don't really want to play against.
|
On August 22 2009 14:36 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 14:31 FirstBorn wrote:On August 22 2009 14:10 keV. wrote:On August 22 2009 13:06 FirstBorn wrote:
wow this is really pathetic as someone mentioned before
smurfing is really cool, you can play however and whoever you like without much pressure and have lots of fun. All of those who complain smufing is bad just because they get get beat up by some guys above their ranks but looking to get good stats are just lousy losers. People that are actually good get harassed by newbies so they make smurfs and play without having to worry about that. People that aren't that good make smurfs so they don't ruin their ladder score while fucking around or offracing. Everyone's having fun and there is balance in the universe.
Did Blizzard atleast give a motivation for this decision ? I don't see a real purpose to having just one account name for cd-key. You, YOU, as in YOU, yourself, having fun, is indicative of balance in the universe? Interesting. I'm no expert, but that sounds pretty contradictory. If you ddin't catch on to that phrase then I can't help with it. Imo there's too much fuss about being owned so badly in the D ranks. It's even more sad that this is pretty much the main reason people support this decision. Don't you get it? When an A+ player makes a new account he smurfs everyone from D to B+. It doesn't just effect the lowest ladder rung...
yeah...see the a ranker guys beat the b and c ranker guys into the d ranks...all because they aren't good enough for the s ranks...it's no good for the b and c rankers.
|
On August 22 2009 15:04 FirstBorn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 14:46 keV. wrote:On August 22 2009 14:31 FirstBorn wrote:On August 22 2009 14:10 keV. wrote:On August 22 2009 13:06 FirstBorn wrote:
wow this is really pathetic as someone mentioned before
smurfing is really cool, you can play however and whoever you like without much pressure and have lots of fun. All of those who complain smufing is bad just because they get get beat up by some guys above their ranks but looking to get good stats are just lousy losers. People that are actually good get harassed by newbies so they make smurfs and play without having to worry about that. People that aren't that good make smurfs so they don't ruin their ladder score while fucking around or offracing. Everyone's having fun and there is balance in the universe.
Did Blizzard atleast give a motivation for this decision ? I don't see a real purpose to having just one account name for cd-key. You, YOU, as in YOU, yourself, having fun, is indicative of balance in the universe? Interesting. I'm no expert, but that sounds pretty contradictory. If you ddin't catch on to that phrase then I can't help with it. Imo there's too much fuss about being owned so badly in the D ranks. It's even more sad that this is pretty much the main reason people support this decision. Actually, I'm pretty sure the main reason I support this system is because I want good games against other good players, so that I can increase my level of play and have fun doing it. I don't want to be smurfed, and I also don't want someone with the freedom of anonymity being a cunt for the sake of being a cunt with no repercussions. I don't want the guy who spends more time finding ways to get free wins to have any success. I don't want people stat whoring endlessly, by constantly recreating their accounts and producing faux skill (see HoN). I don't want people with racist or unfunny internet memes as names. (unless they are actually clever.) The only people who benefit from having free reign over account names are assholes. Why do you think TL works? (8. THOU SHALT RESPECT YOUR ID) Its a better system for serious competitive players and I am thrilled it will be implemented Given that Battle.net 2.0 will be created by Blizzard, I'm pretty sure you'll be able to see your opponent's record when joining or hosting a game. So you should have no problem filering those 40-1 record guys you don't really want to play against.
That is a huge problem though. When you have people who can post those records, and they are given the same kind of 'stage time' as someone who doesn't pull that crap, you skew the value of stats in general to the point where they are not actually worth anything.
I shouldn't have to filter in the first place. Honestly, stats should have one purpose in SC2 and that is for matchmaking. Someones 'goodness' should be proven by winning tournaments, either online or offline; even ELO is fine as long as its actually fair.As long as its not by crunching numbers every time someone joins your game.
|
United States7166 Posts
On August 22 2009 15:09 keV. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 15:04 FirstBorn wrote:On August 22 2009 14:46 keV. wrote:On August 22 2009 14:31 FirstBorn wrote:On August 22 2009 14:10 keV. wrote:On August 22 2009 13:06 FirstBorn wrote:
wow this is really pathetic as someone mentioned before
smurfing is really cool, you can play however and whoever you like without much pressure and have lots of fun. All of those who complain smufing is bad just because they get get beat up by some guys above their ranks but looking to get good stats are just lousy losers. People that are actually good get harassed by newbies so they make smurfs and play without having to worry about that. People that aren't that good make smurfs so they don't ruin their ladder score while fucking around or offracing. Everyone's having fun and there is balance in the universe.
Did Blizzard atleast give a motivation for this decision ? I don't see a real purpose to having just one account name for cd-key. You, YOU, as in YOU, yourself, having fun, is indicative of balance in the universe? Interesting. I'm no expert, but that sounds pretty contradictory. If you ddin't catch on to that phrase then I can't help with it. Imo there's too much fuss about being owned so badly in the D ranks. It's even more sad that this is pretty much the main reason people support this decision. Actually, I'm pretty sure the main reason I support this system is because I want good games against other good players, so that I can increase my level of play and have fun doing it. I don't want to be smurfed, and I also don't want someone with the freedom of anonymity being a cunt for the sake of being a cunt with no repercussions. I don't want the guy who spends more time finding ways to get free wins to have any success. I don't want people stat whoring endlessly, by constantly recreating their accounts and producing faux skill (see HoN). I don't want people with racist or unfunny internet memes as names. (unless they are actually clever.) The only people who benefit from having free reign over account names are assholes. Why do you think TL works? (8. THOU SHALT RESPECT YOUR ID) Its a better system for serious competitive players and I am thrilled it will be implemented Given that Battle.net 2.0 will be created by Blizzard, I'm pretty sure you'll be able to see your opponent's record when joining or hosting a game. So you should have no problem filering those 40-1 record guys you don't really want to play against. That is a huge problem though. When you have people who can post those records, and they are given the same kind of 'stage time' as someone who doesn't pull that crap, you skew the value of stats in general to the point where they are not actually worth anything. I shouldn't have to filter in the first place. Honestly, stats should have one purpose in SC2 and that is for matchmaking. Someones 'goodness' should be proven by winning tournaments, either online or offline, not by crunching numbers every time someone joins your game.
what the hell are you guys talking about..
the only way is to use the ladder matchmaking system which doesnt give you a choice of who to play against
am i incorrect?
|
On August 22 2009 15:11 Zelniq wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 15:09 keV. wrote:On August 22 2009 15:04 FirstBorn wrote:On August 22 2009 14:46 keV. wrote:On August 22 2009 14:31 FirstBorn wrote:On August 22 2009 14:10 keV. wrote:On August 22 2009 13:06 FirstBorn wrote:
wow this is really pathetic as someone mentioned before
smurfing is really cool, you can play however and whoever you like without much pressure and have lots of fun. All of those who complain smufing is bad just because they get get beat up by some guys above their ranks but looking to get good stats are just lousy losers. People that are actually good get harassed by newbies so they make smurfs and play without having to worry about that. People that aren't that good make smurfs so they don't ruin their ladder score while fucking around or offracing. Everyone's having fun and there is balance in the universe.
Did Blizzard atleast give a motivation for this decision ? I don't see a real purpose to having just one account name for cd-key. You, YOU, as in YOU, yourself, having fun, is indicative of balance in the universe? Interesting. I'm no expert, but that sounds pretty contradictory. If you ddin't catch on to that phrase then I can't help with it. Imo there's too much fuss about being owned so badly in the D ranks. It's even more sad that this is pretty much the main reason people support this decision. Actually, I'm pretty sure the main reason I support this system is because I want good games against other good players, so that I can increase my level of play and have fun doing it. I don't want to be smurfed, and I also don't want someone with the freedom of anonymity being a cunt for the sake of being a cunt with no repercussions. I don't want the guy who spends more time finding ways to get free wins to have any success. I don't want people stat whoring endlessly, by constantly recreating their accounts and producing faux skill (see HoN). I don't want people with racist or unfunny internet memes as names. (unless they are actually clever.) The only people who benefit from having free reign over account names are assholes. Why do you think TL works? (8. THOU SHALT RESPECT YOUR ID) Its a better system for serious competitive players and I am thrilled it will be implemented Given that Battle.net 2.0 will be created by Blizzard, I'm pretty sure you'll be able to see your opponent's record when joining or hosting a game. So you should have no problem filering those 40-1 record guys you don't really want to play against. That is a huge problem though. When you have people who can post those records, and they are given the same kind of 'stage time' as someone who doesn't pull that crap, you skew the value of stats in general to the point where they are not actually worth anything. I shouldn't have to filter in the first place. Honestly, stats should have one purpose in SC2 and that is for matchmaking. Someones 'goodness' should be proven by winning tournaments, either online or offline, not by crunching numbers every time someone joins your game. what the hell are you guys talking about.. the only way is to use the ladder matchmaking system which doesn't give you a choice of who to play against am i incorrect?
If its like WC3 matchmaking, and I expect it will be, yes you are correct, there is no choice.
I'm just saying I shouldn't have to /stats someone and have to determine the value of what I read based on anything but the actual numbers.
|
iccup has /dnd ... it that simple no1 get harrassed...
|
I'd love to hear all these people saying "its a terrible stupid decision by blizzard" to actually come up with something more fair and a way to determine someones true skill. I especially love the "What if I want to learn another race argument," when get this: YOU HAVE 3 SEPARATE RECORDS.
(If you think you have a better solution you don't)
|
the only problem for me, with this decision, is about privacy.
And one question : could me change our nick after created an account ? Because I guess if I have 13 y.o and start as "superboss", i'd like to change it when I turn 15... . If not, it is also a problem of freedom.
|
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?
You don't need a new nickname for a new race.
On August 22 2009 07:57 maybenexttime wrote:
What if my brother wants to play?
Ok. It's not nice... but in other hand you can tell you not hacked, it was my brother! I understand and I agreed why Blizzard made this decision. Besides there is no problem to join/create unranked game or... made account family In the end games are for fun...
On August 22 2009 07:57 maybenexttime wrote:
What if I want to learn a new strategy?
You don't need a new nickname for a new race.
On August 22 2009 07:57 maybenexttime wrote:
What if I simply want to mess around? FUCK THAT.
Leave Battle.net 2.0 and mess in your home;x
On August 22 2009 15:01 iMate wrote:
this is a amazing idea... and for all the people that say OMG i cant learn a new race or let a friend play.. there is a thing called unranked games... like god
I agree.
On August 22 2009 15:02 Polis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 15:01 iMate wrote:
this is a amazing idea... and for all the people that say OMG i cant learn a new race or let a friend play.. there is a thing called unranked games... like god Why have ladders at all, we can all just play unranked games..... like god. Idiotic question - idiotic answer.
Why? Because they want.
---edit---
Now I saw in Battle.net 2.0 Revealed thread that you can "Play As Guest"
|
On August 22 2009 15:20 keV. wrote:
I'd love to hear all these people saying "its a terrible stupid decision by blizzard" to actually come up with something more fair and a way to determine someones true skill. I especially love the "What if I want to learn another race argument," when get this: YOU HAVE 3 SEPARATE RECORDS.
(If you think you have a better solution you don't)
One account per cd-key si a really bad way to determine someone's true skill. For instance, a player starts playing sc2 for the first time and loses more than he wins because he's a slow learner or just experiments with different strategies. Therefore, his record might be something like 350-500. But as he plays he learns to adapt and gets at 1000-800.
A second player is a faster learner that adapter better to the new game and has his record at about 300-70. But as he reaches 1000 wins, he is at the same level of skill level with the first player, yet his record is a lot better.
Anyway, there's still too much theorycrafting at this point, so let's just wait for the game to come out.
|
On August 22 2009 15:16 mysticism wrote:
iccup has /dnd ... it that simple no1 get harrassed...
What you don't want to avoid everybody?
On August 22 2009 15:20 keV. wrote:
I'd love to hear all these people saying "its a terrible stupid decision by blizzard" to actually come up with something more fair and a way to determine someones true skill. I especially love the "What if I want to learn another race argument," when get this: YOU HAVE 3 SEPARATE RECORDS.
(If you think you have a better solution you don't)
What if I play ZvT/ZvP/TvZ good it does not mean that I play TvP good. What about ability o choose mu that goes to your ranking, you could have separate rankings. For example you play TvP badly so you choose it to be ranked separately from your ZvT/ZvP/TvZ. Maybe accounts that don't have MU against all races should not be on the main ranking page, they could have separate page for that (called training accounts for example some % would be required to get on the main page rankings). I hope that you will be able to select MU not only race I play for fun, and some MU just aren't, not becouse of winning or loosing that is irrelevant to me as long as the games are good. Race picking makes the game much more fun.
|
On August 22 2009 15:28 NeSeNVi wrote:
Idiotic question - idiotic answer.
Why? Because they want.
What if somebody want to play new Mu in league, there is exactly the same reason on why you play new race/mu/strategy in league you want automatic matchmaking, and to play against players with similar skill level. You always have access to players that have similar levels to all your MU?
|
On August 22 2009 15:32 Polis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 15:16 mysticism wrote:
iccup has /dnd ... it that simple no1 get harrassed...
What you don't want to avoid everybody? Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 15:20 keV. wrote:
I'd love to hear all these people saying "its a terrible stupid decision by blizzard" to actually come up with something more fair and a way to determine someones true skill. I especially love the "What if I want to learn another race argument," when get this: YOU HAVE 3 SEPARATE RECORDS.
(If you think you have a better solution you don't) What if I play ZvT/ZvP/TvZ good it does not mean that I play TvP good. What about ability o choose mu that goes to your ranking, you could have separate rankings. For example you play TvP badly so you choose it to be ranked separately from your ZvT/ZvP/TvZ. Maybe accounts that don't have MU against all races should not be on the main ranking page, they could have separate page for that (called training accounts for example some % would be required to get on the main page rankings). I hope that you will be able to select MU not only race I play for fun, and some MU just aren't, not becouse of winning or loosing that is irrelevant to me as long as the games are good. Race picking makes the game much more fun.
So you are taking my argument of breaking stats up more and more and countering it with an argument that can in fact be solved by breaking stats up more and more.
Given that you answered you're own questions I just won't say anything.
Also, try and remember that a ladder is not a training ground. You shouldn't be able to pick and choose your opponents.
|
I'm sure there will still be some way for you to learn how to play and beat people with 1/10th your playtime on Bnet2. Don't worry.
God forbid learning a new strategy would actually cause you to lose games on your main account, or a new race would actually cause your rank to slip to your new play level. They can't let this happen.
TL.net doesn't really like for people to smurf with their account names, because usually their is only one reason you would do it... to try to get away with something you dont really want to try on your main.
Maybe it will actually have a side effect of having people be more GM on Bnet2 than they are now. If you actually feel there is some sort of reputation attached to your account, you might not inclined to be so bad mannered. Though of course it will happen a lot- it may be less frequent than now.
With the mask of near total anonymity Far too many people on Bnet now act like total douches, same on ICCup. If they win, even by a hair, you're offensive GG'd or worse... and if you beat someone, even by a hair, they don't GG they just leave or worse... they do the "fuck you" or some such nonsense.
Possible that the same could go for some of the more harmless game hacking that may be attempted.
Needless to say I support this feature.
|
On August 22 2009 15:41 keV. wrote:
So you are taking my argument of breaking stats up more and more and countering it with an argument that can in fact be solved by breaking stats up more and more.
I just had said that dividing simply by race is not good, and that you should be able to choose on what MU you want to play on your account.
On August 22 2009 15:41 keV. wrote:
Also, try and remember that a ladder is not a training ground. You shouldn't be able to pick and choose your opponents.
My post was about selecting MU, not opponents. Those things are unconnected.
On August 22 2009 15:50 cUrsOr wrote:
I'm sure there will still be some way for you to learn how to play and beat people with 1/10th your playtime on Bnet2. Don't worry.
God forbid learning a new strategy would actually cause you to lose games on your main account, or a new race would actually cause your rank to slip to your new play level. They can't let this happen.
TL.net doesn't really like for people to smurf with their account names, because usually their is only one reason you would do it... to try to get away with something you dont really want to try on your main.
What is the point of playing your D level TvP against C+ opponents that you normally play your best MU? To make good games you must be matched against similar opponents. It has nothing to do with loosing points, maybe I should loose points in pointless one sided games just so I will be able to drop enough to get an even TvP? :/
Ability o select MU would solve most problems for me, but it does not look like it work that way from bn2.0 screens so far.
|
On August 22 2009 15:38 Polis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 15:28 NeSeNVi wrote:
Idiotic question - idiotic answer.
Why? Because they want. What if somebody want to play new Mu in league, there is exactly the same reason on why you play new race/mu/strategy in league you want automatic matchmaking, and to play against players with similar skill level. You always have access to players that have similar levels to all your MU?
On screens from Battle.net 2.0 Revealed thread:
- in Join Cusotm Game: map name, type, genre and popularity
- in Create Custom Game: map name, genre, author
Now I see it's a problem;x I think Blizzard should add 'rank'/'races' (or sth like this: C+/C TvZ) there. You know... there will be patches for sure and let's hope they will add this. And I don't see any reason to have 'popularity' there.
|
Exactly. It has everything to do with loosing rank. You should loose rank in pointless one sided games, so you will be drop enough to get an even TvP.
Even on iccup, your rank isnt by Race MU, its by overall performance. If your TvP prevents you from movving above D+ overall, youre not a C- player.
|
On August 22 2009 15:41 keV. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 15:32 Polis wrote:On August 22 2009 15:16 mysticism wrote:
iccup has /dnd ... it that simple no1 get harrassed...
What you don't want to avoid everybody? On August 22 2009 15:20 keV. wrote:
I'd love to hear all these people saying "its a terrible stupid decision by blizzard" to actually come up with something more fair and a way to determine someones true skill. I especially love the "What if I want to learn another race argument," when get this: YOU HAVE 3 SEPARATE RECORDS.
(If you think you have a better solution you don't) What if I play ZvT/ZvP/TvZ good it does not mean that I play TvP good. What about ability o choose mu that goes to your ranking, you could have separate rankings. For example you play TvP badly so you choose it to be ranked separately from your ZvT/ZvP/TvZ. Maybe accounts that don't have MU against all races should not be on the main ranking page, they could have separate page for that (called training accounts for example some % would be required to get on the main page rankings). I hope that you will be able to select MU not only race I play for fun, and some MU just aren't, not becouse of winning or loosing that is irrelevant to me as long as the games are good. Race picking makes the game much more fun. So you are taking my argument of breaking stats up more and more and countering it with an argument that can in fact be solved by breaking stats up more and more. Given that you answered you're own questions I just won't say anything. Also, try and remember that a ladder is not a training ground. You shouldn't be able to pick and choose your opponents.
What the hell do you mean a ladder isn't a training ground? That's exactly what a ladder is lol.
A lot of people supporting 1 account 1 key are people who suck, whining about people getting whining about stats by beating up noobs to get good stats; the guy who sucks is whining about stats too, why should the guy who sucks be favoured?
I agree absolutely 100% with every word FrozenArbiter has said in this thread so far.
|
Lots of people who support 1 account 1 key are people who are C+, and when they start to lose around that level, just open new accounts to get more wins.
Hence, its the same fear of losing that you dont like the "noobs" having.
|
On August 22 2009 16:01 Nightmarjoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 15:41 keV. wrote:On August 22 2009 15:32 Polis wrote:On August 22 2009 15:16 mysticism wrote:
iccup has /dnd ... it that simple no1 get harrassed...
What you don't want to avoid everybody? On August 22 2009 15:20 keV. wrote:
I'd love to hear all these people saying "its a terrible stupid decision by blizzard" to actually come up with something more fair and a way to determine someones true skill. I especially love the "What if I want to learn another race argument," when get this: YOU HAVE 3 SEPARATE RECORDS.
(If you think you have a better solution you don't) What if I play ZvT/ZvP/TvZ good it does not mean that I play TvP good. What about ability o choose mu that goes to your ranking, you could have separate rankings. For example you play TvP badly so you choose it to be ranked separately from your ZvT/ZvP/TvZ. Maybe accounts that don't have MU against all races should not be on the main ranking page, they could have separate page for that (called training accounts for example some % would be required to get on the main page rankings). I hope that you will be able to select MU not only race I play for fun, and some MU just aren't, not becouse of winning or loosing that is irrelevant to me as long as the games are good. Race picking makes the game much more fun. So you are taking my argument of breaking stats up more and more and countering it with an argument that can in fact be solved by breaking stats up more and more. Given that you answered you're own questions I just won't say anything. Also, try and remember that a ladder is not a training ground. You shouldn't be able to pick and choose your opponents. What the hell do you mean a ladder isn't a training ground? That's exactly what a ladder is lol. A lot of people supporting 1 account 1 key are people who suck, whining about people getting whining about stats by beating up noobs to get good stats; the guy who sucks is whining about stats too, why should the guy who sucks be favoured? I agree absolutely 100% with every word FrozenArbiter has said in this thread so far.
The official blizzard ladder is not iCCup. The fact that people use it to train for tournaments is irrelevant. The original purpose of online ladders is to rank the best online players.
The rest of your post is stupid.
|
On August 22 2009 16:01 cUrsOr wrote:
Exactly. It has everything to do with loosing rank. You should loose rank in pointless one sided games, so you will be drop enough to get an even TvP.
Even on iccup, your rank isnt by Race MU, its by overall performance. If your TvP prevents you from movving above D+ overall, youre not a C- player.
I will get even TvP, and I will own people in ZvP/ZvT/PvZ what is the point of that? You should have MU against all races to make account "complete", and that is all. Otherwise you are just handicapping people that like to experiment for no reason.
|
Well its prob been said many times in this post and many blogs and what not.. but i feel the best way to do it is.. you should be ranked by race.. this would make it possible to switch races and play at your level of play ..
|
On August 22 2009 08:50 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:45 0neder wrote:
I think lots of people are missing the point. Blizzard's goal is to help more casual players get better at the game and enjoy it more, and become more serious players a la TL. Discouraging smurfing is one way to catalyze that.
Don't you want a larger competitive StarCraft community?
Blizzard will cater to the needs of progamers, which are likely similar to the wants of TL players, so I suggest everyone just relax and wait for the final product. But smurfing ONLY means playing on a "secret" account. Look, if I smurf (which I have done many, many times) it's mostly because I just don't want to play on my main account. Back on PGTour I was smurfing. My account was A+ (jinro). SANDBAGGING (creating a new account to beat on bad players) is solved by tieing your RANKING to a master account. IE: Master account: FrozenArbiter at asdf.com (not a real email btwwwwww). Bnet IDs: Dream.t)PltO number9dream jinro (you can make a limit of like 3 if you want, then if you want to make more you have to delete an old one). All of these accounts would have their rating be the same - if I win 5 games with Dream.t)PltO, I won't get 5 wins on number9dream but my ELL (expected ladder level, which is what decides who you play in the Automated Match Maker) would change. Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:48 Integra wrote:On August 22 2009 08:44 FrozenArbiter wrote:On August 22 2009 08:43 Integra wrote:
I think its awesome. Why? You realize it has 0 positive effects that couldn't be achieved by just tieing all your IDs to one "master account"? Do you realize that they spent the entire Battle.net discussion about what the positive efffects were? If so, I did not hear them. Repeat one of them for me plz (I am serious, I do not remember hearing anything that I thought was good about this, but it could be because the stream was lagging like crazy for me so I only catched 25% of what they said about smurfing and had to rely on people repeating it to me).
I dunno if you're being serious or not or if that's how it's going to go but I completely agree and like what you said...except maybe the limitation on "accounts" to 3 is a little off-putting...then again maybe not.
I'm just disliking any idea on "restrictions" when it comes to a company that didn't have any in the first place (except for subtle things here and there which wasn't bad) and WoW doesn't count really.
|
dude i dont give a shit if people make new IDs, i do care if people can make new IDs and have a totally clean record. that's fucked and messes up the ladder system, making the learning curve very difficult for the newbies. look at all the people who get pushed away from SC because they go on D ranked games on iccup and get absolutely destroyed by smurfs.
|
Have you people complaining about smurfs ever played warcraft 3? Because people that are low level are really bad... so are most high levels. And with the way the ladder works you won't play against bad players for long at all. You actually start at about an average skill rating.
|
There is only one instance where I thought smurfing was a problem. cnc3
Because then top players made smurfs in hopes of beating other top players to lower their ranking rather than upping theirs.
|
I like it, players in disguise are one of the biggest reasons why nobody of my more casual friends want to play SC on Iccup. In the end players dislike smurfs as much as regular cheaters.
|
I don't understand how you will get good at the game if you only play people your own skill level. You get more value out of losing a game than winning one. Watch the replay see your mistakes and try to correct them. It's good because it will encourage more people to play. It's bad because it's just a game and people should be able to do whatever the hell they want. All of the previous SC players weren't lucky enough to have a system like this and we got stomped like shit when we first started. But only those with enough determination to keep playing even after having a record of 5-65 are the ones who really get good at the game. Smurfing didn't affect me personally, everytime i lost i studied replays and got better it made no difference how much better the player was than me. It has gotten really bad recently though. I find i lose more games at D/D+ than C-/C/C+.
|
It's always the people who are frustrated by playing the A level Korean on a D account who hate smurfs. "omg i lost 50 points because i played a level kor"
|
On August 22 2009 18:28 FragKrag wrote:
It's always the people who are frustrated by playing the A level Korean on a D account who hate smurfs. "omg i lost 50 points because i played a level kor"
Its always the smurfs who hate the 1 ID per cd key "omg I can't boost my ego by beating some noob".
|
On August 22 2009 18:31 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 18:28 FragKrag wrote:
It's always the people who are frustrated by playing the A level Korean on a D account who hate smurfs. "omg i lost 50 points because i played a level kor" Its always the smurfs who hate the 1 ID per cd key "omg I can't boost my ego by beating some noob".
There's a reason why progamers smurf, if you can't see why this is a really retarded decision then you're not very bright
|
On August 22 2009 18:31 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 18:28 FragKrag wrote:
It's always the people who are frustrated by playing the A level Korean on a D account who hate smurfs. "omg i lost 50 points because i played a level kor" Its always the smurfs who hate the 1 ID per cd key "omg I can't boost my ego by beating some noob".
gj, you know nothing.
|
On August 22 2009 18:28 FragKrag wrote:
It's always the people who are frustrated by playing the A level Korean on a D account who hate smurfs. "omg i lost 50 points because i played a level kor"
I think C level players that make smurfs wreak more havoc within the D ranks than A level players. Main reason is because there's way more of them. Even so, I can't see all of the C players constantly making new accounts to go 20-0 until they reach C.
|
It's a great thing.
And you know what's even greater? Listening to all the whine of the former smurfers on this thread.
Priceless.
|
On August 22 2009 18:46 MrRey wrote:
It's a great thing.
And you know what's even greater? Listening to all the whine of the former smurfers on this thread.
Priceless.
+1. It is funny
|
D players just don't understand that C, B, and A players have to get through somebody to make it to their rank.
|
I have a suggestion, since Ladder goes by seasons (generally they do,even the old Starcraft Ladder), at the beginning or when a player enters a season they get to pick 1 ID and then stuck with that for the whole season and once the season is over, they can either keep or get a new nick (the old nick will be up for grab again, limiting 1 nick per user per season). Also make it that non-ladder games don't give a rating and just shows as a stat, this will solve several problems.
1: People won't have to worry about their ranking that much since each new season everyone gets reset anyway and might be on a different nick. Also people can smurf all they want each new season, they're just stuck with that nick for that whole season.
2: People who don't play ladder won't really care about their records or ratings. Blizzard can even add a ClearStats function like on ICCup to clear all your record if you really want to. (since this will affect unrated games only, it shouldn't be a huge issue)
|
I don't understand what you're all bitching about... oO
Sure it can be fun to be smurfing and screwing around with unorthodox plays but what stop you to do the same with your real account ? Because you don't want any loses on your beautiful account ? Gimme a break dude.
Stats means nothing and you all know it, but still it seems like you're still taking it way too seriously.
Whatever. I do support the idea of 1 name for 1 account. I'm tired of guessing who's who, or having a guy constantly trashtalking me just because he beat me on smurfs accounts.
Progamers being followed by fans ? No problem pretty sure it can be easily avoided.
I don't see any good point about smurfs yet.
|
On August 22 2009 18:48 v[1.8]c wrote:
I have a suggestion, since Ladder goes by seasons (generally they do,even the old Starcraft Ladder), at the beginning or when a player enters a season they get to pick 1 ID and then stuck with that for the whole season and once the season is over, they can either keep or get a new nick (the old nick will be up for grab again, limiting 1 nick per user per season). Also make it that non-ladder games don't give a rating and just shows as a stat, this will solve several problems.
1: People won't have to worry about their ranking that much since each new season everyone gets reset anyway and might be on a different nick. Also people can smurf all they want each new season, they're just stuck with that nick for that whole season.
2: People who don't play ladder won't really care about their records or ratings. Blizzard can even add a ClearStats function like on ICCup to clear all your record if you really want to. (since this will affect unrated games only, it shouldn't be a huge issue)
Clearstats option would be really nice but the same people that disagreed with having multiple accounts per cd-key would disagree because they'd "get pwned by gosus that are boosting their ego".
Still, the b.net 2.0 account will probably still have your total win-loss record somewhere.
|
On August 22 2009 16:05 keV. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 16:01 Nightmarjoo wrote:On August 22 2009 15:41 keV. wrote:On August 22 2009 15:32 Polis wrote:On August 22 2009 15:16 mysticism wrote:
iccup has /dnd ... it that simple no1 get harrassed...
What you don't want to avoid everybody? On August 22 2009 15:20 keV. wrote:
I'd love to hear all these people saying "its a terrible stupid decision by blizzard" to actually come up with something more fair and a way to determine someones true skill. I especially love the "What if I want to learn another race argument," when get this: YOU HAVE 3 SEPARATE RECORDS.
(If you think you have a better solution you don't) What if I play ZvT/ZvP/TvZ good it does not mean that I play TvP good. What about ability o choose mu that goes to your ranking, you could have separate rankings. For example you play TvP badly so you choose it to be ranked separately from your ZvT/ZvP/TvZ. Maybe accounts that don't have MU against all races should not be on the main ranking page, they could have separate page for that (called training accounts for example some % would be required to get on the main page rankings). I hope that you will be able to select MU not only race I play for fun, and some MU just aren't, not becouse of winning or loosing that is irrelevant to me as long as the games are good. Race picking makes the game much more fun. So you are taking my argument of breaking stats up more and more and countering it with an argument that can in fact be solved by breaking stats up more and more. Given that you answered you're own questions I just won't say anything. Also, try and remember that a ladder is not a training ground. You shouldn't be able to pick and choose your opponents. What the hell do you mean a ladder isn't a training ground? That's exactly what a ladder is lol. A lot of people supporting 1 account 1 key are people who suck, whining about people getting whining about stats by beating up noobs to get good stats; the guy who sucks is whining about stats too, why should the guy who sucks be favoured? I agree absolutely 100% with every word FrozenArbiter has said in this thread so far. The official blizzard ladder is not iCCup. The fact that people use it to train for tournaments is irrelevant. The original purpose of online ladders is to rank the best online players. The rest of your post is stupid.
It's ok, your entire post is stupid. I don't care what the inventer of an online ladder's purpose was, ladders are used to train and practice and nothing else. People barely care about who's actually at the top, aside from wondering what progamer it is.
|
First, the progammers:
-What's the percentage of progamers-that-could-be-disturbed-in-a-chat compared to the casual-gamers-that-get-raped-by-a-smurfer? It's a rethorical question boys, the percentage is ridiculous, and Blizzard would be right to be on the casual gamers side.
-Then, don't tell me it's that hard for a progamer to type a kind /do not disturb command during the start of the game. Please don't.
Then, anonymity:
-You're on the internet boy, you already got your anonymity.
-Don't want to be disturb? again, the do-not-disturb command is here for you. And if the guys on your friendlists are... let's say "friends", or simply normal people, they will understand that everybody does not want to talk to anybody at anytime.
Stats:
-Don't suck and your stats won't suck. Period.
-"Yeah smartass, but when you begin: you suck, then you improve, then your stats won't reflect your level on the longterm". True, but it's the same for everybody, so it's the same shit for everybody. And anyway, if you want to know how good a player is, the only way to know it is to play him, stats have never been worth a shit when you gotta say if a player's good or bad.
To be more serious, I'd say that, in my opinion, smurfers are a bigger problem than all the very little inconveniences the system has.
That being said, only the smurfers get pwned by that new feature.
And that's a boon.
|
On August 22 2009 18:54 RaiZ wrote:
I don't understand what you're all bitching about... oO
Sure it can be fun to be smurfing and screwing around with unorthodox plays but what stop you to do the same with your real account ? Because you don't want any loses on your beautiful account ? Gimme a break dude.
Stats means nothing and you all know it, but still it seems like you're still taking it way too seriously.
Whatever. I do support the idea of 1 name for 1 account. I'm tired of guessing who's who, or having a guy constantly trashtalking me just because he beat me on smurfs accounts.
Progamers being followed by fans ? No problem pretty sure it can be easily avoided.
I don't see any good point about smurfs yet.
The problem is that you will be tied to your rank, because you have only 1 account. I'm not really worried about my stats, but I am worried about trying new Matchups and strategies at a level I attained with another Matchup. For example, I started playing PvZ on iccup 2 weeks ago after doing well against a friend of mine in it. Since my ZvZ isnt really C (my zvp and zvt are), I'm trying to learn PvZ to play that instead. Now If i had to learn PvZ at C level instead of D, I would have lost every single game, which also means I can't play my ZvP and ZvT at C level, because my PvZ is dragging everything down. In the new system, I can't even doge vT and vP when learning PvZ, because ladder is automatic.
And don't give me shit about unranked, because pretty much every game I've played with unranked games they are very hard to get a decent opponent. I want to be able to make a new account to practice new stuff. Sorry to all the newbies, but you'll have to lose to better players at every level. There's always a better player.
I don't see the problem with smurfs. At C level people face B players who rape them. At B level there's always the A players moving upwards. Instead of looking to the ladder to give you perfectly balanced skill levels, try finding a few friends to play with for fun. The ladder should be about skill. If you can't beat the smurfs, then you will get stuck at the level you are at. You can get C- with less than 33% wins. If the number of smurfs exceeds 66%, then it is a problem. It isn't.
|
lol its not hard to play a clan mate, friend thats your skill.. Yes do unranked this smurf crap don't give me that ^^.
|
On August 22 2009 19:25 blade55555 wrote:
lol its not hard to play a clan mate, friend thats your skill.. Yes do unranked this smurf crap don't give me that ^^.
Lol, you really are a bad player aren't you? All your posts in this thread just scream ignorance.
If I want to practice a new matchup, i'm not going to get far playing just one or two players. Everyone has a certain style. Playing publics is gauranteed to put you in much more situations you will need to learn how to counter. Unranked games aren't a good idea, because I want to know how good I am at this matchup.
|
how hard is it to play normal games when trying new race/etc? I think there will be multiple ladders too? try it on a diff ladder.
Im thinking if there are different servers, like east/west/europe/asia.. you could do all your hardcore gaming on europe (usually the strongest server, outside of the lag you get playing on asia) and then when you dont suck, come back on east to win the majority of games.. that would save from the 'learning period"
|
On August 22 2009 19:32 Skyze wrote:
how hard is it to play normal games when trying new race/etc? I think there will be multiple ladders too? try it on a diff ladder.
Im thinking if there are different servers, like east/west/europe/asia.. you could do all your hardcore gaming on europe (usually the strongest server, outside of the lag you get playing on asia) and then when you dont suck, come back on east to win the majority of games.. that would save from the 'learning period"
If you can do this, what's the biggie with allowing multiple accounts? What you propose is also smurfing...
|
On August 22 2009 18:47 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 18:46 MrRey wrote:
It's a great thing.
And you know what's even greater? Listening to all the whine of the former smurfers on this thread.
Priceless. +1. It is funny
You know what's funnier? Listening to all the whining noobs on the thread. You got raped by someone who made a new id on iccup, big deal, don't try to bring down everyone else for it.
|
On August 22 2009 19:34 Nightmarjoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 18:47 blade55555 wrote:On August 22 2009 18:46 MrRey wrote:
It's a great thing.
And you know what's even greater? Listening to all the whine of the former smurfers on this thread.
Priceless. +1. It is funny You know what's funnier? Listening to all the whining noobs on the thread. You got raped by someone who made a new id on iccup, big deal, don't try to bring down everyone else for it.
lol i'm not the one complaining about this you just contradicted yourself by calling yourself a whiny noob. your whining about not being able to smurf. Oh boo hoo go cry some more that you can't smurf .
|
i think it will be like steam. you will have a main battle.net account but you can create as many aliases as you want.
|
On August 22 2009 19:36 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 19:34 Nightmarjoo wrote:On August 22 2009 18:47 blade55555 wrote:On August 22 2009 18:46 MrRey wrote:
It's a great thing.
And you know what's even greater? Listening to all the whine of the former smurfers on this thread.
Priceless. +1. It is funny You know what's funnier? Listening to all the whining noobs on the thread. You got raped by someone who made a new id on iccup, big deal, don't try to bring down everyone else for it. lol i'm not the one complaining about this you just contradicted yourself by calling yourself a whiny noob. your whining about not being able to smurf. Oh boo hoo go cry some more that you can't smurf .
Almost everyone had to go thrown the same thing getting pwned by better players and we dealed with it just fine. Some of the people in this thread give too much importance to themselves. Good koreans are foreigners aren't interested in taking wins from people like you all day long, they do it so they avoid people spamming them all the time.
The ones that make most accounts to bash D level players are people around C and they're just slightly better than you and playing against them isn't that much of a waste of time.
Besides, stop using the term smurf so much. Not counting FA, almost all of the people in the thread aren't good enough to be actually smurfing. Unless you're near B+/A- or above and you're a top foreigner/korean you're not literally smurfing, you just play on different accounts.
|
On August 22 2009 19:34 Nightmarjoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 18:47 blade55555 wrote:On August 22 2009 18:46 MrRey wrote:
It's a great thing.
And you know what's even greater? Listening to all the whine of the former smurfers on this thread.
Priceless. +1. It is funny You know what's funnier? Listening to all the whining noobs on the thread. You got raped by someone who made a new id on iccup, big deal, don't try to bring down everyone else for it.
You cant argue with rock solid logic like this.
|
On August 22 2009 19:48 FirstBorn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 19:36 blade55555 wrote:On August 22 2009 19:34 Nightmarjoo wrote:On August 22 2009 18:47 blade55555 wrote:On August 22 2009 18:46 MrRey wrote:
It's a great thing.
And you know what's even greater? Listening to all the whine of the former smurfers on this thread.
Priceless. +1. It is funny You know what's funnier? Listening to all the whining noobs on the thread. You got raped by someone who made a new id on iccup, big deal, don't try to bring down everyone else for it. lol i'm not the one complaining about this you just contradicted yourself by calling yourself a whiny noob. your whining about not being able to smurf. Oh boo hoo go cry some more that you can't smurf . Almost everyone had to go thrown the same thing getting pwned by better players and we dealed with it just fine.
rofl that's the worst logic ever. "i had to suffer, so it's only fair that you do too."
grow up man. you can't smurf, so what? get over it, it's better this way.
edit: lol me and cursor wrote essentially the same thing. protosshivemind
|
On August 22 2009 19:51 lazz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 19:48 FirstBorn wrote:On August 22 2009 19:36 blade55555 wrote:On August 22 2009 19:34 Nightmarjoo wrote:On August 22 2009 18:47 blade55555 wrote:On August 22 2009 18:46 MrRey wrote:
It's a great thing.
And you know what's even greater? Listening to all the whine of the former smurfers on this thread.
Priceless. +1. It is funny You know what's funnier? Listening to all the whining noobs on the thread. You got raped by someone who made a new id on iccup, big deal, don't try to bring down everyone else for it. lol i'm not the one complaining about this you just contradicted yourself by calling yourself a whiny noob. your whining about not being able to smurf. Oh boo hoo go cry some more that you can't smurf . Almost everyone had to go thrown the same thing getting pwned by better players and we dealed with it just fine. rofl that's the worst logic ever. "i had to suffer, so it's only fair that you do too." grow up man. you can't smurf, so what? get over it, it's better this way. edit: lol me and cursor wrote essentially the same thing. protosshivemind
My point is that everyone will suffer, no matter what. How many of your games are against overwhelmingly better players anyway ? one out of ten ?
|
On August 22 2009 19:55 FirstBorn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 19:51 lazz wrote:On August 22 2009 19:48 FirstBorn wrote:On August 22 2009 19:36 blade55555 wrote:On August 22 2009 19:34 Nightmarjoo wrote:On August 22 2009 18:47 blade55555 wrote:On August 22 2009 18:46 MrRey wrote:
It's a great thing.
And you know what's even greater? Listening to all the whine of the former smurfers on this thread.
Priceless. +1. It is funny You know what's funnier? Listening to all the whining noobs on the thread. You got raped by someone who made a new id on iccup, big deal, don't try to bring down everyone else for it. lol i'm not the one complaining about this you just contradicted yourself by calling yourself a whiny noob. your whining about not being able to smurf. Oh boo hoo go cry some more that you can't smurf . Almost everyone had to go thrown the same thing getting pwned by better players and we dealed with it just fine. rofl that's the worst logic ever. "i had to suffer, so it's only fair that you do too." grow up man. you can't smurf, so what? get over it, it's better this way. edit: lol me and cursor wrote essentially the same thing. protosshivemind My point is that everyone will suffer, no matter what. How many of your games are against overwhelmingly better players anyway ? one out of ten ?
everyone will suffer? sorry I don't understand what you mean by that.
when I just started out at D level most of my games were against overwhelmingly better players. at least 7 out of 10. mind you, im in australia so I play against mostly koreans.
|
On August 22 2009 14:32 Polis wrote:Way to kill convenience Blizzard. Every time we can hear about more, and more stupid limitations, they were even seriously thinking about forcing you to be online all the time when you play campaign. Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:39 FrozenArbiter wrote:
3) Not wanting to play Zerg on ladder when you are A rank Protoss but C rank Zerg (this is solved by them having 1 rating for each race). That would completely suck for race pickers/random players.
If SC2 will be like WC3 ladder racepicking is not available for ladder play.
|
On August 22 2009 19:59 lazz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 19:55 FirstBorn wrote:On August 22 2009 19:51 lazz wrote:On August 22 2009 19:48 FirstBorn wrote:On August 22 2009 19:36 blade55555 wrote:On August 22 2009 19:34 Nightmarjoo wrote:On August 22 2009 18:47 blade55555 wrote:On August 22 2009 18:46 MrRey wrote:
It's a great thing.
And you know what's even greater? Listening to all the whine of the former smurfers on this thread.
Priceless. +1. It is funny You know what's funnier? Listening to all the whining noobs on the thread. You got raped by someone who made a new id on iccup, big deal, don't try to bring down everyone else for it. lol i'm not the one complaining about this you just contradicted yourself by calling yourself a whiny noob. your whining about not being able to smurf. Oh boo hoo go cry some more that you can't smurf . Almost everyone had to go thrown the same thing getting pwned by better players and we dealed with it just fine. rofl that's the worst logic ever. "i had to suffer, so it's only fair that you do too." grow up man. you can't smurf, so what? get over it, it's better this way. edit: lol me and cursor wrote essentially the same thing. protosshivemind My point is that everyone will suffer, no matter what. How many of your games are against overwhelmingly better players anyway ? one out of ten ? everyone will suffer? sorry I don't understand what you mean by that.
I mean that everyone will lose really bad until they get the hand of the game. The lack of multiple accounts won't make that go away.
|
On August 22 2009 20:13 Too_MuchZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 14:32 Polis wrote:Way to kill convenience Blizzard. Every time we can hear about more, and more stupid limitations, they were even seriously thinking about forcing you to be online all the time when you play campaign. On August 22 2009 08:39 FrozenArbiter wrote:
3) Not wanting to play Zerg on ladder when you are A rank Protoss but C rank Zerg (this is solved by them having 1 rating for each race). That would completely suck for race pickers/random players. If SC2 will be like WC3 ladder racepicking is not available for ladder play.
Now that WOULD SUCK.
|
what do you mean you cant race pick in wc3 ladder??
You pick whatever race you want to play, simple as that.
The thing I think you mean, is you dont pick what race you play AGAINST.. which is friggin retarded if you do anyways, I cant STAND those guys who play like ZvT, ZvP and TvZ... If you cant play one matchup for your race, you just cant play your race.. Learn all 3 matchups! This will make you HAVE to learn all 3 matchups. Finally!
|
On August 22 2009 08:40 Bill307 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 07:57 maybenexttime wrote:
What if I want to learn a new race? [...] What if I want to learn a new strategy? You still have good options: - play unrated matches
Load up WC3 and tell me how many custom 1 on 1's you see. That's right - practically NONE.
Now try finding one with an opponent of a skill level that matches yours. Too bad, that's close to impossible. T________T
- play with your friends
When I'm off-racing they all might be way too good for me.
As for trying out new strategies, doing so against a group of selected few individuals does not allow me to capitalize on the surprise factor (i.e. I can't practice the same cheese/unorthodox strategy the same way I can just mass test it on the ladder).
- ask for games in an appropriate channel
- ask for games on TLnet or another forum
Making a new account is WAY more convenient.
- man-up, play rated matches, and take the stats hit (after all, I thought only newbies cared about their record? )
So that I drop from let's say C rank as Terran to like D because I decided to learn Zerg? When I'm back to playing Terran and have to get back to C all the way through D players, how is that any different from smurfing?
|
What you people constantly going like "PLAY NONRANKED GAMES IF YOU WANNA DO STUPID STUFF/PRACTICE OTHER RACES/BO" dont even bother to consider is that when you wanna practice, you wanna have an at least decent opponent. How the hell should I find a decent opponent going on to regular B.Net right now and join a public game? Seriously lol it just doesnt happen. And with your logic it just wont happen since people playing non-ranked games on B.Net 2.0 are gonna be even worse than the scrubs playing pub on regular B.Net right now.
Its like someone said before all just whining coming from people who just cant get over losing a lot and being raped back and forth. Also like FA said, when I began to play ('99) I even enjoyed losing because I could learn by it and see lots of new stuff and shit. I really dont know how many games I played in total over those 10 years but if Id take just the first 2 or 3 years I guess my winrate wouldnt be higher than 40%. Still I continued to play because I loved and still love the game.
In the end this makes me think youre just the people who wont hang around very long so why the fuck should you even have a voice to decide or influence anything at all?
|
On August 22 2009 20:20 Skyze wrote:
what do you mean you cant race pick in wc3 ladder??
You pick whatever race you want to play, simple as that.
The thing I think you mean, is you dont pick what race you play AGAINST.. which is friggin retarded if you do anyways, I cant STAND those guys who play like ZvT, ZvP and TvZ... If you cant play one matchup for your race, you just cant play your race.. Learn all 3 matchups! This will make you HAVE to learn all 3 matchups. Finally!
People race pick becouse they find other MU more fun, why would I play something that offers worse gameplay? There is nothing harder about mirror MU. Peaple that race pick also play 3 MU so there is nothing unfair there.
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
On August 22 2009 19:48 FirstBorn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 19:36 blade55555 wrote:On August 22 2009 19:34 Nightmarjoo wrote:On August 22 2009 18:47 blade55555 wrote:On August 22 2009 18:46 MrRey wrote:
It's a great thing.
And you know what's even greater? Listening to all the whine of the former smurfers on this thread.
Priceless. +1. It is funny You know what's funnier? Listening to all the whining noobs on the thread. You got raped by someone who made a new id on iccup, big deal, don't try to bring down everyone else for it. lol i'm not the one complaining about this you just contradicted yourself by calling yourself a whiny noob. your whining about not being able to smurf. Oh boo hoo go cry some more that you can't smurf . Almost everyone had to go thrown the same thing getting pwned by better players and we dealed with it just fine. Some of the people in this thread give too much importance to themselves. Good koreans are foreigners aren't interested in taking wins from people like you all day long, they do it so they avoid people spamming them all the time. The ones that make most accounts to bash D level players are people around C and they're just slightly better than you and playing against them isn't that much of a waste of time. Besides, stop using the term smurf so much. Not counting FA, almost all of the people in the thread aren't good enough to be actually smurfing. Unless you're near B+/A- or above and you're a top foreigner/korean you're not literally smurfing, you just play on different accounts.
nah, smurfing just means to use a different id than your regular/normal one to avoid being recognized, you don't have to be good to smurf. hell, it's not even a term restricted to gaming, it's used when talking about just forum ids as well.
|
Morons that whine on this and compare it to how it is in sc1 needs to engage their brain and think about it. Sc2 will have multiple ladders and custom games. You won't play all your games on ladder hence you can play other races. Chances are you will get more than one NICKNAME for the same account. So chancing names shuoldn't be a problem.
|
Well the whole reason why I dislike the idea is not because of smurfing or sandbagging but it's mainly cuz of different aliases (depending on communities and/or clans)
|
This is not as bad as the find-talkwith-friends system. I have no idea how they managed to delete the chat channel system... fucking killer!
|
|
|
On August 22 2009 20:24 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:
What you people constantly going like "PLAY NONRANKED GAMES IF YOU WANNA DO STUPID STUFF/PRACTICE OTHER RACES/BO" dont even bother to consider is that when you wanna practice, you wanna have an at least decent opponent. How the hell should I find a decent opponent going on to regular B.Net right now and join a public game? Seriously lol it just doesnt happen. And with your logic it just wont happen since people playing non-ranked games on B.Net 2.0 are gonna be even worse than the scrubs playing pub on regular B.Net right now.
Its like someone said before all just whining coming from people who just cant get over losing a lot and being raped back and forth. Also like FA said, when I began to play ('99) I even enjoyed losing because I could learn by it and see lots of new stuff and shit. I really dont know how many games I played in total over those 10 years but if Id take just the first 2 or 3 years I guess my winrate wouldnt be higher than 40%. Still I continued to play because I loved and still love the game.
In the end this makes me think youre just the people who wont hang around very long so why the fuck should you even have a voice to decide or influence anything at all?
Then play ranked games in a different ladder to the main one. They've stated people will be able to setup there own ladders and there will be multiple competitions going on at the same time. So simply dont play your mess around or practise games on the main ladder.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 22 2009 20:20 Skyze wrote:
what do you mean you cant race pick in wc3 ladder??
You pick whatever race you want to play, simple as that.
The thing I think you mean, is you dont pick what race you play AGAINST.. which is friggin retarded if you do anyways, I cant STAND those guys who play like ZvT, ZvP and TvZ... If you cant play one matchup for your race, you just cant play your race.. Learn all 3 matchups! This will make you HAVE to learn all 3 matchups. Finally!
...
Why?
I DESPISE PvP. Why shouldn't I get to play TvP if I want to?
PvR PvZ PvT TvP is what I would set it to, and I don't get why I wouldn't be allowed to do that - it's a game, shouldn't fun come first?
|
Twelve pages of whining...
Well anyway, I'm rather indifferent to this decision. It's pretty much like Wc3 Ladder. I'm completely fine with the system other than being able to pick which race you play against. That's really the only downside to this that I can see. Because mirror matches are garbage. I like the fact that now everyone who plays ladder will have true stats. I don't care about rank, and I find it ridiculous that people are whining about it. If you want to learn a new race, bite the bullet, and take the rank beating. Seriously it's just not that big of a deal. Only people with ego issues care about rank. [Half serious haha]
But yeah, meh.
|
There will probably be a costing feature to create 1 more/multiple account(s).
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 22 2009 16:30 hsram wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:50 FrozenArbiter wrote:On August 22 2009 08:45 0neder wrote:
I think lots of people are missing the point. Blizzard's goal is to help more casual players get better at the game and enjoy it more, and become more serious players a la TL. Discouraging smurfing is one way to catalyze that.
Don't you want a larger competitive StarCraft community?
Blizzard will cater to the needs of progamers, which are likely similar to the wants of TL players, so I suggest everyone just relax and wait for the final product. But smurfing ONLY means playing on a "secret" account. Look, if I smurf (which I have done many, many times) it's mostly because I just don't want to play on my main account. Back on PGTour I was smurfing. My account was A+ (jinro). SANDBAGGING (creating a new account to beat on bad players) is solved by tieing your RANKING to a master account. IE: Master account: FrozenArbiter at asdf.com (not a real email btwwwwww). Bnet IDs: Dream.t)PltO number9dream jinro (you can make a limit of like 3 if you want, then if you want to make more you have to delete an old one). All of these accounts would have their rating be the same - if I win 5 games with Dream.t)PltO, I won't get 5 wins on number9dream but my ELL (expected ladder level, which is what decides who you play in the Automated Match Maker) would change. On August 22 2009 08:48 Integra wrote:On August 22 2009 08:44 FrozenArbiter wrote:On August 22 2009 08:43 Integra wrote:
I think its awesome. Why? You realize it has 0 positive effects that couldn't be achieved by just tieing all your IDs to one "master account"? Do you realize that they spent the entire Battle.net discussion about what the positive efffects were? If so, I did not hear them. Repeat one of them for me plz (I am serious, I do not remember hearing anything that I thought was good about this, but it could be because the stream was lagging like crazy for me so I only catched 25% of what they said about smurfing and had to rely on people repeating it to me). I dunno if you're being serious or not or if that's how it's going to go but I completely agree and like what you said...except maybe the limitation on "accounts" to 3 is a little off-putting...then again maybe not. I'm just disliking any idea on "restrictions" when it comes to a company that didn't have any in the first place (except for subtle things here and there which wasn't bad) and WoW doesn't count really.
This is a very important point, and yes I'm being serious.
On August 22 2009 21:01 Krohm wrote:
Twelve pages of whining...
Well anyway, I'm rather indifferent to this decision. It's pretty much like Wc3 Ladder. I'm completely fine with the system other than being able to pick which race you play against. That's really the only downside to this that I can see. Because mirror matches are garbage. I like the fact that now everyone who plays ladder will have true stats. I don't care about rank, and I find it ridiculous that people are whining about it. If you want to learn a new race, bite the bullet, and take the rank beating. Seriously it's just not that big of a deal. Only people with ego issues care about rank. [Half serious haha]
But yeah, meh.
Don't you see the problem with this?
Let's say I'm A rank protoss, but my zerg is maybe D+. Now, I've got my high ranked ladder account and I feel like playing some Zerg. Who will I be matched up against? A ranked players.
It will suck. A lot.
Then when I get tired of losing to A rank players, I go back to playing protoss. But, what's this? My losses dropped my account down to B? Now I get to destroy people waaaaaay below my rank instead.
As I've said before, this part of the problem can be solved by having each race (or, indeed, each matchup) be tracked seperately in terms of rating (if you get to A as protoss and then start playing zerg, your Zerg starting ELL should be higher, of course).
|
|
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 22 2009 15:20 keV. wrote:
I'd love to hear all these people saying "its a terrible stupid decision by blizzard" to actually come up with something more fair and a way to determine someones true skill. I especially love the "What if I want to learn another race argument," when get this: YOU HAVE 3 SEPARATE RECORDS.
(If you think you have a better solution you don't)
If you have a different rating for each race then that's fine, but they have not made any indication that this is the case.
In addition, as I've said many many times, you can easily have every new account someone makes be TIED to their main account, meaning if your ELL matches you up with A rank players and you make a new account, your starting ELL for that account will be ... A rank.
|
On August 22 2009 20:56 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 20:20 Skyze wrote:
what do you mean you cant race pick in wc3 ladder??
You pick whatever race you want to play, simple as that.
The thing I think you mean, is you dont pick what race you play AGAINST.. which is friggin retarded if you do anyways, I cant STAND those guys who play like ZvT, ZvP and TvZ... If you cant play one matchup for your race, you just cant play your race.. Learn all 3 matchups! This will make you HAVE to learn all 3 matchups. Finally! ... Why? I DESPISE PvP. Why shouldn't I get to play TvP if I want to? PvR PvZ PvT TvP is what I would set it to, and I don't get why I wouldn't be allowed to do that - it's a game, shouldn't fun come first?
If you can pick what matchups you can play (just like wc3 removing maps but this time matchups) I am supporting it then.
|
On August 22 2009 21:07 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 16:30 hsram wrote:On August 22 2009 08:50 FrozenArbiter wrote:On August 22 2009 08:45 0neder wrote:
I think lots of people are missing the point. Blizzard's goal is to help more casual players get better at the game and enjoy it more, and become more serious players a la TL. Discouraging smurfing is one way to catalyze that.
Don't you want a larger competitive StarCraft community?
Blizzard will cater to the needs of progamers, which are likely similar to the wants of TL players, so I suggest everyone just relax and wait for the final product. But smurfing ONLY means playing on a "secret" account. Look, if I smurf (which I have done many, many times) it's mostly because I just don't want to play on my main account. Back on PGTour I was smurfing. My account was A+ (jinro). SANDBAGGING (creating a new account to beat on bad players) is solved by tieing your RANKING to a master account. IE: Master account: FrozenArbiter at asdf.com (not a real email btwwwwww). Bnet IDs: Dream.t)PltO number9dream jinro (you can make a limit of like 3 if you want, then if you want to make more you have to delete an old one). All of these accounts would have their rating be the same - if I win 5 games with Dream.t)PltO, I won't get 5 wins on number9dream but my ELL (expected ladder level, which is what decides who you play in the Automated Match Maker) would change. On August 22 2009 08:48 Integra wrote:On August 22 2009 08:44 FrozenArbiter wrote:On August 22 2009 08:43 Integra wrote:
I think its awesome. Why? You realize it has 0 positive effects that couldn't be achieved by just tieing all your IDs to one "master account"? Do you realize that they spent the entire Battle.net discussion about what the positive efffects were? If so, I did not hear them. Repeat one of them for me plz (I am serious, I do not remember hearing anything that I thought was good about this, but it could be because the stream was lagging like crazy for me so I only catched 25% of what they said about smurfing and had to rely on people repeating it to me). I dunno if you're being serious or not or if that's how it's going to go but I completely agree and like what you said...except maybe the limitation on "accounts" to 3 is a little off-putting...then again maybe not. I'm just disliking any idea on "restrictions" when it comes to a company that didn't have any in the first place (except for subtle things here and there which wasn't bad) and WoW doesn't count really. This is a very important point, and yes I'm being serious. Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 21:01 Krohm wrote:
Twelve pages of whining...
Well anyway, I'm rather indifferent to this decision. It's pretty much like Wc3 Ladder. I'm completely fine with the system other than being able to pick which race you play against. That's really the only downside to this that I can see. Because mirror matches are garbage. I like the fact that now everyone who plays ladder will have true stats. I don't care about rank, and I find it ridiculous that people are whining about it. If you want to learn a new race, bite the bullet, and take the rank beating. Seriously it's just not that big of a deal. Only people with ego issues care about rank. [Half serious haha]
But yeah, meh. Don't you see the problem with this? Let's say I'm A rank protoss, but my zerg is maybe D+. Now, I've got my high ranked ladder account and I feel like playing some Zerg. Who will I be matched up against? A ranked players. It will suck. A lot. Then when I get tired of losing to A rank players, I go back to playing protoss. But, what's this? My losses dropped my account down to B? Now I get to destroy people waaaaaay below my rank instead. As I've said before, this part of the problem can be solved by having each race (or, indeed, each matchup) be tracked seperately in terms of rating (if you get to A as protoss and then start playing zerg, your Zerg starting ELL should be higher, of course).
I think having every matchup its own ranking zvp, zvt, zvz, tvz, tvp, tvt, pvz, pvt and pvp. You can look your ranking it on your account. You will be matched your ladder game according what matchups you want to play and it matches randomly opponents matchups he wants (if there is many options). Some problems though, like one of your matchup might be very low because not playing it and you are noob bashing that point. But it might speed up that matchup to your average ranking by giving points faster to reach your current skill level.
|
Being limited to one account would really suck. And for you who whines about smurfing, and says that every smurfer out there just want to bash noobs.. Aren't you of the same sort? Since you seem to DON'T want to play against better players. Deal with it.
Smurfing was never there for a clean stat record. On iCCup, for example, you can /clearstats YES, and your stats will go down to 0-0. THIS was made for you to be able to get a clean stat record.
I've been playing BW for four years, and I have probably made over 50 accounts. Every time I made a new account, I was not happy with my name. Also, I keep different accounts for different races, just so I can do whatever I want and still keep my original rank on another account.
Also, I've not read twelve pages of whine, so my comment might take up subjects that were already deeply discussed. -_-
|
this game is a joke , blizzard is a shadow of a company they were 10 years ago
|
I want to smurf.. I mean, at the beginning I'll be pretty sure a fucking idiot with my race, but I don't want to have this stuff on my account just 5 years after the release which makes me still look like and idiot 8[
|
On August 22 2009 21:42 BBS wrote:I want to smurf.. I mean, at the beginning I'll be pretty sure a fucking idiot with my race, but I don't want to have this stuff on my account just 5 years after the release which makes me still look like and idiot 8[
If you feel bad in your inner self because of a game then i'm sorry sir but you ARE an idiot .
|
Meh smurfing isn't a problem for me. If I didn't get smurffed, it would have taken me so much longer to get to D. Infact you gain so much more exp compared to playing (even winning) against your own level.
But my friend who just started playing scbw really hates the smurfing, but that is negated by playing just with his friends who are willing to patiently teach him the game. In no time he got better.
It is just a matter of perspective, but I still prefer smurfing, since it forces me (without knowing) to play a better player.
|
On August 22 2009 20:56 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 20:20 Skyze wrote:
what do you mean you cant race pick in wc3 ladder??
You pick whatever race you want to play, simple as that.
The thing I think you mean, is you dont pick what race you play AGAINST.. which is friggin retarded if you do anyways, I cant STAND those guys who play like ZvT, ZvP and TvZ... If you cant play one matchup for your race, you just cant play your race.. Learn all 3 matchups! This will make you HAVE to learn all 3 matchups. Finally! ... Why? I DESPISE PvP. Why shouldn't I get to play TvP if I want to? PvR PvZ PvT TvP is what I would set it to, and I don't get why I wouldn't be allowed to do that - it's a game, shouldn't fun come first?
Players should NOT be allowed to racepick on the ladder.
Player A: ZvZ TvT PvP
Player B: ZvP PvT TvZ
How are you going to determine which of these two are better than each other? What if the "proleague ladder" has a finals, and Player A has to play Player B?
The objective of a ladder is to see a representation of how good you are. It is a competition. Whether or not you find this fun is up to you. If Blizzard starts taking fun as a priority over competition on ranked ladder games then the ladder will not be where the best players play and it will not truely be a ladder.
|
On August 22 2009 21:15 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 15:20 keV. wrote:
I'd love to hear all these people saying "its a terrible stupid decision by blizzard" to actually come up with something more fair and a way to determine someones true skill. I especially love the "What if I want to learn another race argument," when get this: YOU HAVE 3 SEPARATE RECORDS.
(If you think you have a better solution you don't) If you have a different rating for each race then that's fine, but they have not made any indication that this is the case. In addition, as I've said many many times, you can easily have every new account someone makes be TIED to their main account, meaning if your ELL matches you up with A rank players and you make a new account, your starting ELL for that account will be ... A rank.
I personally prefer a one name, one account system, but I'm ok with multi ID thing as well. As long as you can't completely whipe your stats like in WC3. The smurfing is a small part in my eyes. I'm much more excited about the stronger community (the reason I like one name) and possible anti-hack and anti-abuser/statwhore possibilities.
I think it is safe to assume that you will be able to view and match based on separate race stats. Some of that functionality exists already. If you can't then it IS a serious problem
Edit: Also, do people really think they are going to have one wins and losses record for five years as someone so eloquently put it? Why is it so impossible to assume that they will break online ladder play into seasons? WoW?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 22 2009 22:21 FortuneSyn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 20:56 FrozenArbiter wrote:On August 22 2009 20:20 Skyze wrote:
what do you mean you cant race pick in wc3 ladder??
You pick whatever race you want to play, simple as that.
The thing I think you mean, is you dont pick what race you play AGAINST.. which is friggin retarded if you do anyways, I cant STAND those guys who play like ZvT, ZvP and TvZ... If you cant play one matchup for your race, you just cant play your race.. Learn all 3 matchups! This will make you HAVE to learn all 3 matchups. Finally! ... Why? I DESPISE PvP. Why shouldn't I get to play TvP if I want to? PvR PvZ PvT TvP is what I would set it to, and I don't get why I wouldn't be allowed to do that - it's a game, shouldn't fun come first? Players should NOT be allowed to racepick on the ladder. Player A: ZvZ TvT PvP Player B: ZvP PvT TvZ How are you going to determine which of these two are better than each other? What if the "proleague ladder" has a finals, and Player A has to play Player B? The objective of a ladder is to see a representation of how good you are. It is a competition. Whether or not you find this fun is up to you. If Blizzard starts taking fun as a priority over competition on ranked ladder games then the ladder will not be where the best players play and it will not truely be a ladder.
You have to pick a race to play vs Random.
If that situation, it's treated as playing vs random.
Oh and you are actually allowed to race pick in SC and WC3, and people do (see: Ret - TvZ, ZvT ZvP).
On August 22 2009 22:24 keV. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 21:15 FrozenArbiter wrote:On August 22 2009 15:20 keV. wrote:
I'd love to hear all these people saying "its a terrible stupid decision by blizzard" to actually come up with something more fair and a way to determine someones true skill. I especially love the "What if I want to learn another race argument," when get this: YOU HAVE 3 SEPARATE RECORDS.
(If you think you have a better solution you don't) If you have a different rating for each race then that's fine, but they have not made any indication that this is the case. In addition, as I've said many many times, you can easily have every new account someone makes be TIED to their main account, meaning if your ELL matches you up with A rank players and you make a new account, your starting ELL for that account will be ... A rank. I personally prefer a one name, one account system, but I'm ok with multi ID thing as well. As long as you can't completely whipe your stats like in WC3. The smurfing is a small part in my eyes. I'm much more excited about the stronger community (the reason I one name) and possible anti-hack and anti-abuser/statwhore possibilities. I think it is safe to assume that you will be able to view and match based on separate race stats. Some of that functionality exists already. If you can't then it IS a serious problem.
Hm, I don't mean viewing stats per race, I mean having a seperate Expected Ladder Level for each race (ie the thing they use to determine who you are matched up with).
|
On August 22 2009 22:28 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 22:21 FortuneSyn wrote:On August 22 2009 20:56 FrozenArbiter wrote:On August 22 2009 20:20 Skyze wrote:
what do you mean you cant race pick in wc3 ladder??
You pick whatever race you want to play, simple as that.
The thing I think you mean, is you dont pick what race you play AGAINST.. which is friggin retarded if you do anyways, I cant STAND those guys who play like ZvT, ZvP and TvZ... If you cant play one matchup for your race, you just cant play your race.. Learn all 3 matchups! This will make you HAVE to learn all 3 matchups. Finally! ... Why? I DESPISE PvP. Why shouldn't I get to play TvP if I want to? PvR PvZ PvT TvP is what I would set it to, and I don't get why I wouldn't be allowed to do that - it's a game, shouldn't fun come first? Players should NOT be allowed to racepick on the ladder. Player A: ZvZ TvT PvP Player B: ZvP PvT TvZ How are you going to determine which of these two are better than each other? What if the "proleague ladder" has a finals, and Player A has to play Player B? The objective of a ladder is to see a representation of how good you are. It is a competition. Whether or not you find this fun is up to you. If Blizzard starts taking fun as a priority over competition on ranked ladder games then the ladder will not be where the best players play and it will not truely be a ladder. You have to pick a race to play vs Random. If that situation, it's treated as playing vs random. Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 22:24 keV. wrote:On August 22 2009 21:15 FrozenArbiter wrote:On August 22 2009 15:20 keV. wrote:
I'd love to hear all these people saying "its a terrible stupid decision by blizzard" to actually come up with something more fair and a way to determine someones true skill. I especially love the "What if I want to learn another race argument," when get this: YOU HAVE 3 SEPARATE RECORDS.
(If you think you have a better solution you don't) If you have a different rating for each race then that's fine, but they have not made any indication that this is the case. In addition, as I've said many many times, you can easily have every new account someone makes be TIED to their main account, meaning if your ELL matches you up with A rank players and you make a new account, your starting ELL for that account will be ... A rank. I personally prefer a one name, one account system, but I'm ok with multi ID thing as well. As long as you can't completely whipe your stats like in WC3. The smurfing is a small part in my eyes. I'm much more excited about the stronger community (the reason I one name) and possible anti-hack and anti-abuser/statwhore possibilities. I think it is safe to assume that you will be able to view and match based on separate race stats. Some of that functionality exists already. If you can't then it IS a serious problem. Hm, I don't mean viewing stats per race, I mean having a seperate Expected Ladder Level for each race (ie the thing they use to determine who you are matched up with).
I said view and match.
Edit: Throwing this point in here..
The reason blizzards ladders are not taken seriously is because the stats are inflated or meaningless. An online ladder that was accurate would much likely be taken alot more seriously then the people who think its a training ground are giving it credit for. The only reason WC3 is a joke is because of all the abuse and smurfing going on. A ladder is a ranking system, it is designed to find the best player of their respective races, in any other ladder, you would not be able to pick you opponent. If you truly despise certain matchups, then the ladder is not where you should be playing, even if that were the case with SC1.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Ohhhhhh I thought you said WATCH haha, sorry about that.
Edit: Throwing this point in here..
The reason blizzards ladders are not taken seriously is because the stats are inflated or meaningless. An online ladder that was accurate would much likely be taken alot more seriously then the people who think its a training ground are giving it credit for. The only reason WC3 is a joke is because of all the abuse and smurfing going on. A ladder is a ranking system, it is designed to find the best player of their respective races, in any other ladder, you would not be able to pick you opponent. If you truly despise certain matchups, then the ladder is not where you should be playing, even if that were the case with SC1
You have to explain to me how race picking (ie playing PvZ PvT TvP PvR or some such combination) is ANY different from a competitive standpoint than playing PvZ PvT PvP PvR.
Plz.
I played TvP for years, I only stopped because I was annoyed at people last second switching race, and because my P was getting better overall.
|
ridiculous... Noobs just trying to not get raped cuz they're hurt their ego. How do noobs ever plan on getting better if they keep executing the same horrible strategy against horrible players and working? They need to stop complaining about getting stomped, EVERYONE decent player has been through that. Either change your game to Warcraft3, or get better. Period.
|
On August 22 2009 22:37 YPang wrote:
ridiculous... Noobs just trying to not get raped cuz they're hurt their ego. How do noobs ever plan on getting better if they keep executing the same horrible strategy against horrible players and working? They need to stop complaining about getting stomped, EVERYONE decent player has been through that. Either change your game to Warcraft3, or get better. Period.
Every decent player have gone through getting stomped because previous ladder systems fail at stopping smurfs, NOT because you can only be good by being smurf stomped.
A gentle learning curve increases the games popularity. This creates more competition, more tournament earnings, more sponsorships, etc. Do you want this? If you really cannot see why then let me know and I will type it out for you on this thread.
As for your retarded comment on changing games, it is you that needs to change games because right now you are the one whining.
|
On August 22 2009 22:37 YPang wrote:
ridiculous... Noobs just trying to not get raped cuz they're hurt their ego. How do noobs ever plan on getting better if they keep executing the same horrible strategy against horrible players and working? They need to stop complaining about getting stomped, EVERYONE decent player has been through that. Either change your game to Warcraft3, or get better. Period.
This may come as a shock, but the majority of players are not TL.net members, they want to play fun, not to improve. These players will make up the majority of the ladder. It's ridiculous how ignorant some people posting are.
|
On August 22 2009 22:35 FrozenArbiter wrote:Ohhhhhh I thought you said WATCH haha, sorry about that. Show nested quote +Edit: Throwing this point in here..
The reason blizzards ladders are not taken seriously is because the stats are inflated or meaningless. An online ladder that was accurate would much likely be taken alot more seriously then the people who think its a training ground are giving it credit for. The only reason WC3 is a joke is because of all the abuse and smurfing going on. A ladder is a ranking system, it is designed to find the best player of their respective races, in any other ladder, you would not be able to pick you opponent. If you truly despise certain matchups, then the ladder is not where you should be playing, even if that were the case with SC1 You have to explain to me how race picking (ie playing PvZ PvT TvP PvR or some such combination) is ANY different from a competitive standpoint than playing PvZ PvT PvP PvR. Plz. I played TvP for years, I only stopped because I was annoyed at people last second switching race, and because my P was getting better overall.
How blizzard designs their ladder is their own prerogative, they may very well choose to design it with only w/l in check and can forget about race. I still think they will do it by race, but I could be wrong. I happen to agree about race counter picking being fine. I'm mainly making the point that whipable stats make for a shitty ladder.
The only thing you would have to watch out for is someone with a 50-1 TvZ record and no other match-ups. As long as they can find some means to weigh record value, a counter picking system is fine with me.
Edit: To those at blizzcon, you should totally punch that nerd in the face waiting to make a ret paladin joke and ask this question.
Will there be a WC3 style ladder based on race? Or will counter picking or specializing in certain matchups be allowed on the official ladder?
|
I guess the ladder is going to be like the one in WC3. I ofcourse want to be able to have different names with different levels to play with. I dont want to learn a new race at a high level and screw up my level while having no chance of winning the game. This feature is stupid, very stupid and if this doesn't change I'm not sure if I'll buy the game.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 22 2009 22:52 keV. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 22:35 FrozenArbiter wrote:Ohhhhhh I thought you said WATCH haha, sorry about that. Edit: Throwing this point in here..
The reason blizzards ladders are not taken seriously is because the stats are inflated or meaningless. An online ladder that was accurate would much likely be taken alot more seriously then the people who think its a training ground are giving it credit for. The only reason WC3 is a joke is because of all the abuse and smurfing going on. A ladder is a ranking system, it is designed to find the best player of their respective races, in any other ladder, you would not be able to pick you opponent. If you truly despise certain matchups, then the ladder is not where you should be playing, even if that were the case with SC1 You have to explain to me how race picking (ie playing PvZ PvT TvP PvR or some such combination) is ANY different from a competitive standpoint than playing PvZ PvT PvP PvR. Plz. I played TvP for years, I only stopped because I was annoyed at people last second switching race, and because my P was getting better overall. How blizzard designs their ladder is their own prerogative, they may very well choose to design it with only w/l in check and can forget about race. I still think they will do it by race, but I could be wrong. I happen to agree about race counter picking being fine. I'm mainly making the point that whipable stats make for a shitty ladder. The only thing you would have to watch out for is someone with a 50-1 TvZ record and no other match-ups. As long as they can find some means to weigh record value, a counter picking system is fine with me.
Ah but I don't think you should be able to pick what your OPPONENTS race is. What I mean is, I can pick the race *I* want for each matchup, but I don't get to choose which of my desired matchups I get.
|
On August 22 2009 22:44 PokePill wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 22:37 YPang wrote:
ridiculous... Noobs just trying to not get raped cuz they're hurt their ego. How do noobs ever plan on getting better if they keep executing the same horrible strategy against horrible players and working? They need to stop complaining about getting stomped, EVERYONE decent player has been through that. Either change your game to Warcraft3, or get better. Period. This may come as a shock, but the majority of players are not TL.net members, they want to play fun, not to improve. These players will make up the majority of the ladder. It's ridiculous how ignorant some people posting are.
If the vast majority are casual players then the chances of getting matched up with a good player who reset his stats is greatly diminished to the point where it's stupid to design a ladder around adding such huge limitations in order to eliminate that already small chance
|
On August 22 2009 21:36 PobTheCad wrote:
this game is a joke , blizzard is a shadow of a company they were 10 years ago
fully agree with you, their success with wow corrupted them
|
Neat. Another one of their amazing new b.net 2.0 features we will all love! Oh wait, Blizzard: we're not the ones that love you making money; you are.
Without smurfing, there is no way to get rid of harassment without a serious blow to the online experience. Ignore? Good luck typing it every 5 seconds. Receive messages from only friends? Good luck making new friends without meeting them outside b.net. So we HAVE to use your servers to play on our single account, on which we have all our matchups and every new strategy we are trying to learn tied to a single rating? Why don't you just charge us a buck every time we want to add someone to our friends list, or a nickel for every time we send a whisper? It adds about as much to the game for the players as this does, and you might actually make 3% what you make off of wow with sc2 by implementing it!
MBS, automine, cheesy mechanics, no lan, no chat channels, and now 1 account, all for the low, low price of $150? After playing SC for 11 years, I'm starting to wonder what I could better spend my money on. Unlike an MMORPG, making loads of money off an RTS and an RTS being very good are in fact mutually exclusive. Well...technically they're not, since you're losing more customers with every decision you make. I can't wait for their next announcement. Why don't you make our single account permanently stuck on the race we use for our first game! Better yet, force us to have our real name and contact info in our profile so people can harass us in real life!
I may very well end up a fan of professional SC2, but not a player. In the past I bought Blizzard games I never even played (Diablo series) and ones I knew I'd never play online (WC3), just to support Blizzard. With SC2, I'll be anxiously awaiting cracks so I can play, even on lan, without giving them a dime.
|
On August 22 2009 22:54 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 22:52 keV. wrote:On August 22 2009 22:35 FrozenArbiter wrote:Ohhhhhh I thought you said WATCH haha, sorry about that. Edit: Throwing this point in here..
The reason blizzards ladders are not taken seriously is because the stats are inflated or meaningless. An online ladder that was accurate would much likely be taken alot more seriously then the people who think its a training ground are giving it credit for. The only reason WC3 is a joke is because of all the abuse and smurfing going on. A ladder is a ranking system, it is designed to find the best player of their respective races, in any other ladder, you would not be able to pick you opponent. If you truly despise certain matchups, then the ladder is not where you should be playing, even if that were the case with SC1 You have to explain to me how race picking (ie playing PvZ PvT TvP PvR or some such combination) is ANY different from a competitive standpoint than playing PvZ PvT PvP PvR. Plz. I played TvP for years, I only stopped because I was annoyed at people last second switching race, and because my P was getting better overall. How blizzard designs their ladder is their own prerogative, they may very well choose to design it with only w/l in check and can forget about race. I still think they will do it by race, but I could be wrong. I happen to agree about race counter picking being fine. I'm mainly making the point that whipable stats make for a shitty ladder. The only thing you would have to watch out for is someone with a 50-1 TvZ record and no other match-ups. As long as they can find some means to weigh record value, a counter picking system is fine with me. Ah but I don't think you should be able to pick what your OPPONENTS race is. What I mean is, I can pick the race *I* want for each matchup, but I don't get to choose which of my desired matchups I get.
This is more or less what I meant, but its early. I think it would be fine if pre-matchmaking you set something: as an example, like a protoss player who hates PvZ:
if(opponent == zerg)
myRace = Terran;
I think thats fine.
|
On August 22 2009 22:55 Qeet wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 21:36 PobTheCad wrote:
this game is a joke , blizzard is a shadow of a company they were 10 years ago fully agree with you, their success with wow corrupted them
Incredidumb.
|
On August 22 2009 22:21 FortuneSyn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 20:56 FrozenArbiter wrote:On August 22 2009 20:20 Skyze wrote:
what do you mean you cant race pick in wc3 ladder??
You pick whatever race you want to play, simple as that.
The thing I think you mean, is you dont pick what race you play AGAINST.. which is friggin retarded if you do anyways, I cant STAND those guys who play like ZvT, ZvP and TvZ... If you cant play one matchup for your race, you just cant play your race.. Learn all 3 matchups! This will make you HAVE to learn all 3 matchups. Finally! ... Why? I DESPISE PvP. Why shouldn't I get to play TvP if I want to? PvR PvZ PvT TvP is what I would set it to, and I don't get why I wouldn't be allowed to do that - it's a game, shouldn't fun come first? Players should NOT be allowed to racepick on the ladder. Player A: ZvZ TvT PvP Player B: ZvP PvT TvZ How are you going to determine which of these two are better than each other? What if the "proleague ladder" has a finals, and Player A has to play Player B?
Then they would just have agree on what race they'll pick for the game. There isn't really a good reason why you won't support race-picking.
|
Your account name will have no baring on your Screen name which will be changeable like in steam.
The only people who will be upset by this are smurfs and people anal about their stats.
|
This is a horrible decision by Blizzard if it is true.
On August 22 2009 22:59 keV. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 22:54 FrozenArbiter wrote:On August 22 2009 22:52 keV. wrote:On August 22 2009 22:35 FrozenArbiter wrote:Ohhhhhh I thought you said WATCH haha, sorry about that. Edit: Throwing this point in here..
The reason blizzards ladders are not taken seriously is because the stats are inflated or meaningless. An online ladder that was accurate would much likely be taken alot more seriously then the people who think its a training ground are giving it credit for. The only reason WC3 is a joke is because of all the abuse and smurfing going on. A ladder is a ranking system, it is designed to find the best player of their respective races, in any other ladder, you would not be able to pick you opponent. If you truly despise certain matchups, then the ladder is not where you should be playing, even if that were the case with SC1 You have to explain to me how race picking (ie playing PvZ PvT TvP PvR or some such combination) is ANY different from a competitive standpoint than playing PvZ PvT PvP PvR. Plz. I played TvP for years, I only stopped because I was annoyed at people last second switching race, and because my P was getting better overall. How blizzard designs their ladder is their own prerogative, they may very well choose to design it with only w/l in check and can forget about race. I still think they will do it by race, but I could be wrong. I happen to agree about race counter picking being fine. I'm mainly making the point that whipable stats make for a shitty ladder. The only thing you would have to watch out for is someone with a 50-1 TvZ record and no other match-ups. As long as they can find some means to weigh record value, a counter picking system is fine with me. Ah but I don't think you should be able to pick what your OPPONENTS race is. What I mean is, I can pick the race *I* want for each matchup, but I don't get to choose which of my desired matchups I get. This is more or less what I meant, but its early. I think it would be fine if pre-matchmaking you set something: as an example, like a protoss player who hates PvZ: if(opponent == zerg) myRace = Terran; I think thats fine.
1. Player A: if(opponent == Zerg), myRace = Terran
2. Player B: if(opponent == Terran), myRace = Protoss
3. Player A: if(opponent == Protoss), myRace = Protoss
4. Player B: if(opponent == Protoss), myRace = Zerg
5. See step 1.
|
Annoying and yet another thing in the sucking up to noobs. The game should be easy and you should win everytime regardless of how good you are. Everone gets a price so noone gets sad.
I have no problems getting creamed by better players, it's part of the game.The only time it's annoying to get crushed by better players is when you play teamgames with a friend that is not on the same skill-level as you. On WC3 I used to play with a very skilled friend. It was impossible for us to get equally skilled oponents unless he smurfed. If he did smurf we would play people on our level in like 5 games or so.
|
On August 22 2009 23:09 FirstBorn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 22:21 FortuneSyn wrote:On August 22 2009 20:56 FrozenArbiter wrote:On August 22 2009 20:20 Skyze wrote:
what do you mean you cant race pick in wc3 ladder??
You pick whatever race you want to play, simple as that.
The thing I think you mean, is you dont pick what race you play AGAINST.. which is friggin retarded if you do anyways, I cant STAND those guys who play like ZvT, ZvP and TvZ... If you cant play one matchup for your race, you just cant play your race.. Learn all 3 matchups! This will make you HAVE to learn all 3 matchups. Finally! ... Why? I DESPISE PvP. Why shouldn't I get to play TvP if I want to? PvR PvZ PvT TvP is what I would set it to, and I don't get why I wouldn't be allowed to do that - it's a game, shouldn't fun come first? Players should NOT be allowed to racepick on the ladder. Player A: ZvZ TvT PvP Player B: ZvP PvT TvZ How are you going to determine which of these two are better than each other? What if the "proleague ladder" has a finals, and Player A has to play Player B? Then they would just have agree on what race they'll pick for the game. There isn't really a good reason why you won't support race-picking.
Learn your facts please? It is based on auto matchmaking system (AMM). This means you press a button, and get automatically matched. You cannot "agree" or talk to your opponent before you play him.
FrozenArbiter mentioned a solution which is to default your choice to the PvR but I really don't know how I feel about this. Having to learn ZvZ TvT PvP PvR PvT PvZ? Seems like such an impractical feature for a something that doesn't seem so important.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 22 2009 23:18 parkin wrote:This is a horrible decision by Blizzard if it is true. Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 22:59 keV. wrote:On August 22 2009 22:54 FrozenArbiter wrote:On August 22 2009 22:52 keV. wrote:On August 22 2009 22:35 FrozenArbiter wrote:Ohhhhhh I thought you said WATCH haha, sorry about that. Edit: Throwing this point in here..
The reason blizzards ladders are not taken seriously is because the stats are inflated or meaningless. An online ladder that was accurate would much likely be taken alot more seriously then the people who think its a training ground are giving it credit for. The only reason WC3 is a joke is because of all the abuse and smurfing going on. A ladder is a ranking system, it is designed to find the best player of their respective races, in any other ladder, you would not be able to pick you opponent. If you truly despise certain matchups, then the ladder is not where you should be playing, even if that were the case with SC1 You have to explain to me how race picking (ie playing PvZ PvT TvP PvR or some such combination) is ANY different from a competitive standpoint than playing PvZ PvT PvP PvR. Plz. I played TvP for years, I only stopped because I was annoyed at people last second switching race, and because my P was getting better overall. How blizzard designs their ladder is their own prerogative, they may very well choose to design it with only w/l in check and can forget about race. I still think they will do it by race, but I could be wrong. I happen to agree about race counter picking being fine. I'm mainly making the point that whipable stats make for a shitty ladder. The only thing you would have to watch out for is someone with a 50-1 TvZ record and no other match-ups. As long as they can find some means to weigh record value, a counter picking system is fine with me. Ah but I don't think you should be able to pick what your OPPONENTS race is. What I mean is, I can pick the race *I* want for each matchup, but I don't get to choose which of my desired matchups I get. This is more or less what I meant, but its early. I think it would be fine if pre-matchmaking you set something: as an example, like a protoss player who hates PvZ: if(opponent == zerg) myRace = Terran; I think thats fine. 1. Player A: if(opponent == Zerg), myRace = Terran 2. Player B: if(opponent == Terran), myRace = Protoss 3. Player A: if(opponent == Protoss), myRace = Protoss 4. Player B: if(opponent == Protoss), myRace = Zerg 5. See step 1.
No, here's how 5 should read:
5. Player A: if(opponent == Random), myRace = Protoss
6. Player B: if(opponent == Random), myRace = Zerg
Or something like that. It's not a problem.
On August 22 2009 23:24 FortuneSyn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 23:09 FirstBorn wrote:On August 22 2009 22:21 FortuneSyn wrote:On August 22 2009 20:56 FrozenArbiter wrote:On August 22 2009 20:20 Skyze wrote:
what do you mean you cant race pick in wc3 ladder??
You pick whatever race you want to play, simple as that.
The thing I think you mean, is you dont pick what race you play AGAINST.. which is friggin retarded if you do anyways, I cant STAND those guys who play like ZvT, ZvP and TvZ... If you cant play one matchup for your race, you just cant play your race.. Learn all 3 matchups! This will make you HAVE to learn all 3 matchups. Finally! ... Why? I DESPISE PvP. Why shouldn't I get to play TvP if I want to? PvR PvZ PvT TvP is what I would set it to, and I don't get why I wouldn't be allowed to do that - it's a game, shouldn't fun come first? Players should NOT be allowed to racepick on the ladder. Player A: ZvZ TvT PvP Player B: ZvP PvT TvZ How are you going to determine which of these two are better than each other? What if the "proleague ladder" has a finals, and Player A has to play Player B? Then they would just have agree on what race they'll pick for the game. There isn't really a good reason why you won't support race-picking. Learn your facts please? It is based on auto matchmaking system (AMM). This means you press a button, and get automatically matched. You cannot "agree" or talk to your opponent before you play him. FrozenArbiter mentioned a solution which is to default your choice to the PvR but I really don't know how I feel about this. Having to learn ZvZ TvT PvP PvR PvT PvZ? Seems like such an impractical feature for a something that doesn't seem so important.
I think he was replying to what you said about proleague finals.
And if I were to play PvT PvZ TvP PvR, I would only need to learn one additional matchup to cover people who random - PvP.
If someone wants to play TvT ZvZ PvP (talk about a maschochist...) then they'll just have to live with learning 2 more matchups - just as they would if there was no AMM. It's better to have that choice than to not have it.
|
On August 22 2009 23:24 FortuneSyn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 23:09 FirstBorn wrote:On August 22 2009 22:21 FortuneSyn wrote:On August 22 2009 20:56 FrozenArbiter wrote:On August 22 2009 20:20 Skyze wrote:
what do you mean you cant race pick in wc3 ladder??
You pick whatever race you want to play, simple as that.
The thing I think you mean, is you dont pick what race you play AGAINST.. which is friggin retarded if you do anyways, I cant STAND those guys who play like ZvT, ZvP and TvZ... If you cant play one matchup for your race, you just cant play your race.. Learn all 3 matchups! This will make you HAVE to learn all 3 matchups. Finally! ... Why? I DESPISE PvP. Why shouldn't I get to play TvP if I want to? PvR PvZ PvT TvP is what I would set it to, and I don't get why I wouldn't be allowed to do that - it's a game, shouldn't fun come first? Players should NOT be allowed to racepick on the ladder. Player A: ZvZ TvT PvP Player B: ZvP PvT TvZ How are you going to determine which of these two are better than each other? What if the "proleague ladder" has a finals, and Player A has to play Player B? Then they would just have agree on what race they'll pick for the game. There isn't really a good reason why you won't support race-picking. Learn your facts please? It is based on auto matchmaking system (AMM). This means you press a button, and get automatically matched. You cannot "agree" or talk to your opponent before you play him.
As FA already pointed out, you won't use AMM in a final.
Most racepickers usually have a race they play 2 mu's with and another race for the remaining mu. That makes is quite easy to play with just about anyone. And even if 2 given players play the MU's your specified, AMM will probably match them with different opponents.
|
On August 22 2009 19:25 blade55555 wrote:
lol its not hard to play a clan mate, friend thats your skill.. Yes do unranked this smurf crap don't give me that ^^.
Say for instance, you are a B level player. You START OUT with 1000 points, D. Now, who are you going to play? Let's join Ladder A-B. Oh wait, you can't. Let's find a B player to play against. Why would they risk it? They either get almost no points for beating you, or they lose a hell of a lot of them for losing to you. There is no advantage playing people lower ranked than you. So you MUST go through the D players, then D+,C-,C,C+,B- in order to get to your real rank.
blade55555, I think that you are definitely not suited for competitive SC. All you care about is winning. Let me fill you in on a little secret: You don't get better from winning nearly as much as when losing. Of course, no point in getting raped horribly by some Korean leagues ahead of you, but how often are you going to play them? If you join a D game, 8/10, you WILL play a D. Maybe the D is better than you, then he deserves to reach D+, and see how he fares. but you are playing D players, and if you lose to them, then that is when you focus on improving, not complaining about how he's not really D level, and a smurf.
Basically, people don't smurf just to "own noobs to boost their ego." People smurf to be anonymous, for privacy, entertainment, screwing around, whatever it may be. Sure, sometimes people decide, "Hey! Let's go beat some D- level people for fun!" but that is HARDLY the majority of their time spent. It is simply a waste of time and effort.
EDIT: On a note of the "unranked" games, they are NOT as much as The Holy Grail as you might think. Keep in mind, unranked games are unranked for both players, which should be obvious. Not imagine you are playing a tennis game. You are playing some friend, just chilling, having a nice day, compared you are playing in the US Open finals. Even if you are a player able to compete in the US Open, you wouldn't try nearly as hard in the *unranked* casual game, because it simply doesn't matter. High level players do not play to beat low level players; they play to beat high level players, and preferably with good games, for the fun element. Meaning, for their practice time, when they are testing out new builds, unranked games will hardly be a replacement because there is no guarantee the opponent will try as hard as they'd like. If they play against a person trying their hardest, it would better test the viability of their build. But if they screw around, play carelessly, and mess up their timings, it could very well screw up the build timings that they are trying to test out.
|
Also, Day9 pointed out in one of his podcasts why it's usefull for a player to smurf and bash newbies once in a while.
|
I think this i great, being a very amateur player, i got turned off war 3 because of good players that restarted their accounts every time they drooped under 70-80% win rate.
I do think they should let people be anonymous i they want however.
|
I don't know if this has been addressed already, but is this 1 account/1 game thing going to separate the gateways by nationality finally?
What I mean is: Everybody knows that USWEST is packed with Koreans and non-english speakers. If people are forced to pick a single account, isn't it likely that they will choose the realm with the greatest number of people who speak their own language?
Finally, past 12am I'll be able to read the titles of the games and communicate with my opponent/team!
|
Good idea, except they might want to make that 3 accounts per game... Smurfing is still reduced by that and you can have an offrace account/sibling. As for racepickers, an option may be introduced to find games of precisely one race against another.
Too many of you got mad at the one account/game for questionable reasons, what if you had 3 accounts? Would that make you a little reasonable?
To all serial smurfers: phuck you!!
And you don't get better by playing noobs once in a while, you get better by deliberate practice with people you know.
Also you still get to play stronger opponents in a while, about half the time, don't you?
All in all a good idea that will make Starcraft 2 more enjoyable
|
8748 Posts
I support Blizzard's decision. But there are a lot of specific features that need to be in place in order to make it work. Since we don't know all the details, we'll have to wait and see. I'm sure things can be worked out during beta or soon after release.
The problem with race picking has always been the same: race pickers can't play everybody. They can't always play other race pickers.
|
I like it! Once bannad for hacking, you're gone just like in wow. Awesome!
|
Canada11349 Posts
I'm pretty noobie and got stomped pretty hard on ICCUP. HOWEVER, I support a fair amount of FrozenArbiter's points. I love to change names and if your stats are tied to your master account, then who can complain about smurfing?
If you hack, your master account is banned and you're gone.
Furthermore, I don't see why it would be so hard to have three separate ranks for the three races. Even a noob like me knows I need to play people at a lower level to be competitive when I play an off-race. Heck, you could even have an aggregate score that combines the three for kicks and giggles.
In both cases you're not stomping noobs, so what's the problem?
|
Solution: You can create multiple accounts, and have the option to make one of them a ladder account. You can only have one ladder account, but you can have as many non-ladder accounts as you want (playing custom or non-ladder "melee" style games). This way finding matches with high level people would be just about as difficult as it would be on B.net/iccup, where you would just make a game called "1v1 LT (insert ladder rank here)" and play people of your rank. AMM would be used on the ladder, however.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 23 2009 00:48 hifriend wrote:I like it! Once bannad for hacking, you're gone just like in wow. Awesome!
Yes but you can have that and still allow multiple IDs - just have all IDs tied to one "master account" (like the account you use for the Blizzard store!).
|
On August 23 2009 01:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 00:48 hifriend wrote:I like it! Once bannad for hacking, you're gone just like in wow. Awesome! Yes but you can have that and still allow multiple IDs - just have all IDs tied to one "master account" (like the account you use for the Blizzard store!).
I still believe that's how it's going to be. Until specifically told otherwise, I assume people on your friends list will be able to see like "FrozenArbiter" or whatever your master acct name is and your status would be In Game under a different name. To everyone else you are a mystery
|
Im glad about this, now i wont get raped anymore on B.NET.
+ Show Spoiler +yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!
|
On August 22 2009 23:41 Archaic wrote:
Basically, people don't smurf just to "own noobs to boost their ego." People smurf to be anonymous, for privacy, entertainment, screwing around, whatever it may be. Sure, sometimes people decide, "Hey! Let's go beat some D- level people for fun!" but that is HARDLY the majority of their time spent. It is simply a waste of time and effort.
On August 22 2009 23:41 Archaic wrote:
If they play against a person trying their hardest, it would better test the viability of their build. But if they screw around, play carelessly, and mess up their timings, it could very well screw up the build timings that they are trying to test out.
So it's ok for good players to screw around against weaker players and interfere with their learning process? It's worse for weaker players, too, because a good player testing a new build who loses hands down against someone who is also good but is screwing around has still learned that there is a glaring weakness in his build, while a worse player doing a build perfectly can lose to a good player who is screwing around.
As another thought, some examples of players screwing around for fun in ways that will probably reduce the level of the player who loses to them:
Take for example a B- Protoss smurfing against a D Zerg who does proxy 2-gate outside the Zerg main on heartbreak ridge. Even if the Zerg scouts it right away and reacts properly, they're going to lose because of inferior micro. What they're going to learn is "I need to start more sunkens." or "I need to fight with my Drones." and they'll still lose against smurfs and other D players because they'll have lost too much economy in defending. Eventually, they'll get frustrated with 9 pool, 12 hatch, and overpool because they never win against 2-gate, and try "I need to get my pool out earlier," creating a Zerg who always 5-pools against Protoss, or they'll stop putting their second hatch at their natural and putting it in their main with a safety sunken, creating an inferior Zerg player that standard FE Protoss players laugh at and thank for the easy win.
Another, more excessive example, would be a smurf who builds a single 8 rax against inferior Protoss, then when they have 2 marines pulls all but enough SCVs to continue that marine pump and support a bunker or two and attacks the Protoss, winning because of vastly superior micro. What exactly is the Protoss player learning from this?
|
On August 22 2009 08:14 blade55555 wrote:But of course you guys will complain your probably one of the c-b fag players who can't beat your own rank so you smurf to feel good about yourself. Blizzard made a good decision and you can hate it all you want they won't change it
This, a million times this. I fucking hate getting stomped all over by smurfs, fuck your shit. Fuck. Your. Shit. Try picking on people your own size, you damn cowards.
This is a great decision by Blizzord <333 And your baww/rage is delicious.
|
agreed, this is a great move by blizzard.
|
They should at least have it so that you can run concurrent stats. Like a "Cheese stat" and a "Regular stat" for people who want to test their skills or try out new strategies.
In order to combat smurfing, the profile can be made so that ALL concurrent stats are listed (regular, cheese, etc.) so that anyone can simply look at the profile to see that it's actually a good player.
|
i like this system no more smurffing me !!
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 23 2009 01:14 KinosJourney2 wrote:Im glad about this, now i wont get raped anymore on B.NET. + Show Spoiler +yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!
You realize that the reason you get raped on Bnet is not smurfs right? It's that it's an 11 fucking year old game and if you are new you are gonna get killed.
|
Canada11349 Posts
What exactly is the Protoss player learning from this?
That irregular action sometimes works? Honestly, if it is a experimental build, then by definition the D level will not run across it very much unless they play that player again.
Your post seems to assume that a D level will make drastic changes over one game.
The two gate rush is not experimental, it is a very powerful build at low levels (as I discovered) and doesn't work against a proper modern build (I also discovered.) You seem to assume that the 2-gate was propagated by smurfs pwning noobs. Whereas, I think it was propagated largely by low level protoss (like me) who discovered they can destroy similarly skilled players in 8 minutes.
|
As a bit of a newbie (C/C+) I find smurfing so fucking annoying. I don't see a problem with this at all.
|
<sorry I haven't read the whole thread>
Wouldn't sc2 account system be like in red alert 3 where you have one main account assigned to a single cd key and you can create multiple 'nicks' with individual stats, but every person could easily check which 'nicks' belong to the same account?
|
Blizzard is messing up so bad...
We all know that Blizz wants to squeez bucks outta SCII, but piss off your customers and you wont be getting anything.
If Blizz insits on keeping their WoW-esque login system for SCII, they should make it so that we have one 'SCII User account' (or master account, as another poster mentioned) to login into SC and as many Bnet accounts as we want. Plus, if they put the additional regulation of disabling simultaneous usage of the same "SCII User account" the problem of hacking would be solved...
Gaah... I'm starting to feel like I'm not gonna buy SCII cause its primary objective will be to make Blizz's pockets fat rather than expanding the SC industry (i.e. programing).
|
On August 23 2009 01:42 win8282 wrote:
Blizzard is messing up so bad...
We all know that Blizz wants to squeez bucks outta SCII, but piss off your customers and you wont be getting anything.
If Blizz insits on keeping their WoW-esque login system for SCII, they should make it so that we have one 'SCII User account' (or master account, as another poster mentioned) to login into SC and as many Bnet accounts as we want. Plus, if they put the additional regulation of disabling simultaneous usage of the same "SCII User account" the problem of hacking would be solved...
Gaah... I'm starting to feel like I'm not gonna buy SCII cause its primary objective will be to make Blizz's pockets fat rather than expanding the SC industry (i.e. programing).
Of course Blizz is making the game to make its pockets fat. We can only hope that it aids progaming as well (hey, it's the best shot that's out there -- it's not like any other game is providing a bettery way).
|
what if you join different teams and you want their tag in your name? Like you get sponsored by different companies?
Who actually smurfs because they want to "bash newbies" ???
Some people on here sound VERY bitter about smurfs. VERY. So what if someone "smurfs" you... its just a fucking game.
and FA is exactly right. if you are legitimately new to the game you arent losing because of smurfs you are losing because the game is old as fuck and the only people who are playing it nowadays are people who have played for years.
|
On August 23 2009 01:39 GG.Win wrote:
As a bit of a newbie (C/C+) I find smurfing so fucking annoying. I don't see a problem with this at all.
As a C-/C player I dont understand this at all. Either you play at korean hours and get stomped or you simply want a positive record. At C+, smurfs are B+ and higher - you won't face of these players, and when you do you can find flaws in your play better than when you play vs C. You can learn alot from losing to better players. And I'd be suprised if you have never tried new strategies on another account.
|
I do not like this one account per cd key either. I never smurf just to get easy wins, and i never seem to have a big problem going against smurfs. did blizzard say why they are doing this?
|
wtf is blizzard thinking?
|
I just hope everything works out well at the end...
Oh please...
|
Yeah, those weren't the best examples. ZvZ would probably be a better, where superior micro trumps build order wins, and a new player with bad micro might learn that overpool loses to 9-pool and 12-hatch because he loses to 9-pool players with really good micro a lot.
And yes, D players do change their builds after losing one game. As evidence, I present all of the threads that can be found here and on iccup with "I lost to such-and-such, what build should I do so this doesn't happen anymore?" as the main idea of the initial post.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 23 2009 01:39 Tritanis wrote:
Wouldn't sc2 account system be like in red alert 3 where you have one main account assigned to a single cd key and you can create multiple 'nicks' with individual stats, but every person could easily check which 'nicks' belong to the same account?
That is what I'm hoping, but Blizzard were not clear about this.
|
Like the guy some spots above me, I was wondering how the team/tag stuff will work, will there be something like on WGT, so that you can change your tag in your account settings? I hope they will consider this.
|
On August 23 2009 02:37 NeV wrote:
Like the guy some spots above me, I was wondering how the team/tag stuff will work, will there be something like on WGT, so that you can change your tag in your account settings? I hope they will consider this.
I would assume it would be something like in SOCOM on the Playstation. When you create your team or clan, you input what your tag is, then when you recruit others, the tag you selected automatically appears before their name. Having to manually add it as we do now in Starcraft is really primitive and I wouldn't expect that to stay the same.
|
I am very glad Blizzard did this. I was really hoping they would.
|
You want to learn a new race? Play unrated.
The competitive value of an unranked game is usually close to zero because there is no immediate reason to take it seriously.
|
On August 23 2009 04:21 chas wrote:The competitive value of an unranked game is usually close to zero because there is no immediate reason to take it seriously.
Do you play fastest and bgh seriously? Do you play any UMS seriously? Think before you post plox
|
that's gay man... I wish Blizzard would stop spending useless time and effort on shit like that and focus on finishing off the game and bnet 2.
|
I don't think it took them much time to implement 1 account only...
|
On August 22 2009 08:01 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +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?
This! I've been stomped too much times by some b+/a- players. Its a shame. This way when you get next rank you will really get that rank and play agains that rank REAL players not 3-4 ranks above. I like it, I like it ALOT!
|
Do you play fastest and bgh seriously? Do you play any UMS seriously? Think before you post plox
You don't lose anything from losing those games, so there is no immediate reason to play them seriously, what's the point?
This way when you get next rank you will really get that rank and play agains that rank REAL players not 3-4 ranks above.
You also get those people playing entirely different races, thus performing way below average (maybe your skill level?). I'm sure not even progamers are as good with the other races than with their main, even if they study the other races a lot.
|
It's always the people who only want to win, and nerd rage when they lose (or make up an excuse) to preserve their precious ego. Guess what, if you're new to the game, you're going to lose, and if you don't want to make the effort to learn, the community doesn't really need you. Most people don't even play that many smurfs later in the ICCup season. I've played like 200 games this season on ICCup and I have played 1 B level Korean and a few C+ players. Oh no, I lose a few points!
I don't see how SC players have any right to complain at all. ICCup is so good for this shit. This wasn't implemented because some of you D/D-/D+ players got stomped by A/B/C players, it's because in WC3 the AMM was fucking terrible for high level players, and they were forced to smurf in order to FIND GAMES.
|
On August 23 2009 05:14 chas wrote:Show nested quote +Do you play fastest and bgh seriously? Do you play any UMS seriously? Think before you post plox You don't lose anything from losing those games, so there is no immediate reason to play them seriously, what's the point? Show nested quote +This way when you get next rank you will really get that rank and play agains that rank REAL players not 3-4 ranks above. You also get those people playing entirely different races, thus performing way below average (maybe your skill level?). I'm sure not even progamers are as good with the other races than with their main, even if they study the other races a lot.
i think he is agreeing with you but misread your post.
casual players that want to avoid getting destroyed are pathetic...
the excuse, "im not trying to get better." doesnt work because you are obviously playing the game to win. and how do you acheive wins more consistently? by practicing. winning against other newbs is just a way of self denial, avoiding the fact that you suck compared to the other people in the game.
and to all the newbs, what if you do get better at the game after 10 years hard work but your acc is stained by a bad looking record of 10k//30k?
|
There are definitely plenty of casual players that honestly have no interest in improving their game. Some newbs enjoy having close, funny, or intense games against other newbs. I've been a newb in plenty of games I've played, and honestly enjoyed being able to play it in a relaxing non-competitive fashion. Losing is fine too, but it's never fun for a player if he just gets annihilated in the first 2-3 minutes.
Assuming that everyone is competitive and everyone wants to win and everyone wants to get better is a majorly flawed assumption.
|
Day9 made an excellent podcast on why it is sometimes better to play worse players. Worth checking out.
Anyways, I can't imagine Blizzard would go with this decision the way it sounds right now.
|
yeah, and those players are accommodated by the huge pool of UMS maps that mappers will create. "noobs" who just want to mass huge armies in SC will be satisfied by UMS maps that allow you to mass huge armies faster.
|
It is a good thing, because everyone will always be playing at their skill level*
* which is the best way to improve... the best way to improve is by playing against someone Slightly better or Slightly worse than you. That is what the AMM is designed to do. Playing against someone much better or much worse doesn't teach you anything, and also isn't that much fun (either toying with someone or knowing you ae being toyed with)
Now if you want to play "off-race" then the skill level will be slightly off... But it will adjust as you play with that race (both by your ladder moving down due to loing and your getting better with that race due to practice)
The only bad possibilities are
1) locked in name (which it might not be)
2) no casual multiplayer with/against a friend that doesn't have the game (possibly solved with 'playing as a Guest' )
|
One of the panel speakers used a nice analogy for casual competition:
If I go to the gym on the weekend to play Basketball with a few groups of people, I'll probably be a bit competitive. We'll keep score. I'll try to win, and maybe we'll have a round robin tournament.
At the end of the day though, I know I'm a mediocre basketball player and I'm not really going to try to change that. I'm not trying to become Michael Jordan, and if Michael Jordan shows up at the gym and starts playing against me I'm probably not going to have much fun.
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 23 2009 05:24 ramen247 wrote:
and to all the newbs, what if you do get better at the game after 10 years hard work but your acc is stained by a bad looking record of 10k//30k?
If the rating system works correctly, there's no reason that a bunch of losses from 2-3 years ago should actually affect who you're playing against in a noticeable way. Either stats will get wiped season-by-season, or they'll have a rating system that actually accounts for that. Worrying that results that should be irrelevant won't be is probably one of the less reasonable reasons to be against this.
On August 23 2009 05:34 Krikkitone wrote:
Now if you want to play "off-race" then the skill level will be slightly off... But it will adjust as you play with that race (both by your ladder moving down due to loing and your getting better with that race due to practice)
Even this is reasonably fixed by having the AMM use race-by-race stats rather than global stats. Your skill with Zerg shouldn't affect what opponents you play with Terran, for better or for worse.
On August 23 2009 05:34 Krikkitone wrote:
The only bad possibilities are
1) locked in name (which it might not be)
2) no casual multiplayer with/against a friend that doesn't have the game (possibly solved with 'playing as a Guest' )
Exactly. Most of the conceivable problems with this have easy fixes that are likely either already in place or planned.
|
except take it from the point of view of Michael Jordan. He's on top of the world, top of the AMM, now he's waiting 30 minutes to an hour trying to find a game, and he eventually gets frustrated and leaves.
and blizzard isn't perfect with their ladder. D2 players are whining for a reset, and WC3 players are whining for a reset, so chances are those stats will stay with you for some time.
|
On August 23 2009 05:37 Tsagacity wrote:
One of the panel speakers used a nice analogy for casual competition:
If I go to the gym on the weekend to play Basketball with a few groups of people, I'll probably be a bit competitive. We'll keep score. I'll try to win, and maybe we'll have a round robin tournament.
At the end of the day though, I know I'm a mediocre basketball player and I'm not really going to try to change that. I'm not trying to become Michael Jordan, and if Michael Jordan shows up at the gym and starts playing against me I'm probably not going to have much fun.
Your group of casual basketball players also doesn't play in the NBA, like a professional basketball player would.
Edit: To clarify, in the ladder, everyone will be playing "in your league", there is absolutely no separation. It doesn't really matter whether you're terrible or good. I'm playing in a casual soccer league, we also sometimes get rolled by a team that is full of people playing in clubs and yes, it's not much fun. But the growth of the league by a huge margin every year on top of no one making a real point out of it, the league hasn't taken action against those players yet. Do you really play against _that_ many high ranked players on ICCup or any other ladder? Because I really don't that often.
Now I'm sure your casual basketball group got together because they wanted to play in a more relaxed environment and/or don't have the spare time to join a real club, but you're intentionally separating yourself from the people being serious about their game. To do that, Blizzard would have to introduce two different ladders you have to pick from, one for bads/casuals and one for serious players.
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 23 2009 05:39 FragKrag wrote:
except take it from the point of view of Michael Jordan. He's on top of the world, top of the AMM, now he's waiting 30 minutes to an hour trying to find a game, and he eventually gets frustrated and leaves.
and blizzard isn't perfect with their ladder. D2 players are whining for a reset, and WC3 players are whining for a reset, so chances are those stats will stay with you for some time.
The Michael Jordan analogy is pretty flawed to begin with. At that level, players aren't going to care about their ranking on the AMM, and will more likely be playing planned games, either with other teammates, or with other progamers they know personally. Jaedong isn't going to care that he can't find opponents on the AMM, because he'll be practicing specific builds, and he'll want to do with with Lomo or Backho because they can chat about it afterwards.
|
then why would he care to advance in the ladder in the first place
|
On August 23 2009 05:39 FragKrag wrote:
except take it from the point of view of Michael Jordan. He's on top of the world, top of the AMM, now he's waiting 30 minutes to an hour trying to find a game, and he eventually gets frustrated and leaves.
and blizzard isn't perfect with their ladder. D2 players are whining for a reset, and WC3 players are whining for a reset, so chances are those stats will stay with you for some time.
That problem has to do with the AMM's strictness
Essentially the AMM needs to be less strict when payer's are at a level that causes them to wait a long time.
Actually, the AMM could determine its Strictness based on how many people were online at that time near that level
|
why is a B player bashing a C+ player more acceptable than a B player bashing a D player?
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 23 2009 05:48 FragKrag wrote:
then why would he care to advance in the ladder in the first place
That's part of my point. Anyone at a skill level that might adversely affect the ladder system wouldn't care about the ladder system to begin with. The analogy really doesn't work for or against "casual competition" in any way, because it doesn't describe a realistic scenario.
|
ah, I assumed you were for the antismurf :X
|
why is a B player bashing a C+ player more acceptable than a B player bashing a D player?
Because a C+ player needs to have an idea about how the game works and chances are he wants to improve, thus doesn't post on the forums about his loss. The D players do.
|
On August 22 2009 08:44 FrozenArbiter wrote:Why? You realize it has 0 positive effects that couldn't be achieved by just tieing all your IDs to one "master account"?
It's because he is a dodger. If you play him one time and win.. or even if he wins, he will never ever re you. And he will never ever play a map that is not Pythong. Ever.
So, allowing only one account /cdkey makes dodging that much easier.
Anyway, this is an awful idea, as many have already said.. makes no sense at all. But no one should be surprised.. Blizzard has already made a bunch of fucked up decisions in regards to SC2. Disabling LAN comes to mind, and this SC facebook or w/e they call it.
|
On August 23 2009 05:43 chas wrote:
Edit: To clarify, in the ladder, everyone will be playing "in your league", there is absolutely no separation. It doesn't really matter whether you're terrible or good. I'm playing in a casual soccer league, we also sometimes get rolled by a team that is full of people playing in clubs and yes, it's not much fun. But the growth of the league by a huge margin every year on top of no one making a real point out of it, the league hasn't taken action against those players yet. Do you really play against _that_ many high ranked players on ICCup or any other ladder? Because I really don't that often.
Didnt you watch Blizzcon or readup about Battle.NEt before complaining?
Everyone playing in the ladder wont be in the same league, The ladder is being split up into 6 catagorys (i think it is) then in those 6 catagorys, you are put with 200+ people in a league.. The top people in that league also have a minitournament to decide who is the best.
So no, Battle.Net Ladder wont put everyone in the same league.
Now I'm sure your casual basketball group got together because they wanted to play in a more relaxed environment and/or don't have the spare time to join a real club, but you're intentionally separating yourself from the people being serious about their game. To do that, Blizzard would have to introduce two different ladders you have to pick from, one for bads/casuals and one for serious players.
They've implemented 1 ladder with different skill levels dividing everyone, so yeah they've done basically what you want
|
On August 23 2009 05:55 chas wrote:Show nested quote +why is a B player bashing a C+ player more acceptable than a B player bashing a D player? Because a C+ player needs to have an idea about how the game works and chances are he wants to improve, thus doesn't post on the forums about his loss. The D players do.
You're assuming the D player doesn't want to improve then.
|
United States7166 Posts
On August 23 2009 00:38 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I support Blizzard's decision. But there are a lot of specific features that need to be in place in order to make it work. Since we don't know all the details, we'll have to wait and see. I'm sure things can be worked out during beta or soon after release.
The problem with race picking has always been the same: race pickers can't play everybody. They can't always play other race pickers.
yes, good point.
For normal ladder, this wouldn't be much of a problem except for ranks with a small amount of players (top ranks).
However because they couldn't do race-picking for the automated tournaments, nor for any other league/tournament, especially the pro tourneys/leagues, it wouldn't make sense at all to have players practice only certain matchups on ladder but then for tourneys/leagues, be forced to know the matchups using 1 race only.
for these reasons I think they should just stick with the current system of just picking your race only rather than choosing matchups
|
On August 23 2009 05:27 Tsagacity wrote:
There are definitely plenty of casual players that honestly have no interest in improving their game. Some newbs enjoy having close, funny, or intense games against other newbs. I've been a newb in plenty of games I've played, and honestly enjoyed being able to play it in a relaxing non-competitive fashion. Losing is fine too, but it's never fun for a player if he just gets annihilated in the first 2-3 minutes.
Assuming that everyone is competitive and everyone wants to win and everyone wants to get better is a majorly flawed assumption.
Well if you want to play "in a relaxing non-competitive fashion" maybe ladder is not for you.
Could someone explain to me how wc3 amm is broken? As in why has top players trouble to find games? To me seemed like they canged it so it was more about win% and if you got 100% after 10 games or so you got to play top players.
It wont have to be harder than that. You can create an unlimited amount of accs and after 10 games you'll play people with the same win % as you. Perhaps with a little finetuning with levels and such.
I know it's abused for AT where people lose games with other constallations and then noob bash due to bad stats but still I think it's the best solution. It's also easy to fix this by just setting a AT teams rating to not have anything to do with previous achievments. That way you can play teamgames on the ladder with a friend on a different skill level and quickly get close games.
|
I'm a D level player, but unlike most low level players in this thread I am against this decision.
Few reasons- no one will play unranked seriously therefore taking away the value in trying to get better at different races
-top level players will wait long periods of time waiting to find a match
-n00bs like me need to learn from our mistakes instead of complaining about being smurfed
|
On August 23 2009 06:09 Crompee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 05:43 chas wrote:
Edit: To clarify, in the ladder, everyone will be playing "in your league", there is absolutely no separation. It doesn't really matter whether you're terrible or good. I'm playing in a casual soccer league, we also sometimes get rolled by a team that is full of people playing in clubs and yes, it's not much fun. But the growth of the league by a huge margin every year on top of no one making a real point out of it, the league hasn't taken action against those players yet. Do you really play against _that_ many high ranked players on ICCup or any other ladder? Because I really don't that often.
Show nested quote +
Now I'm sure your casual basketball group got together because they wanted to play in a more relaxed environment and/or don't have the spare time to join a real club, but you're intentionally separating yourself from the people being serious about their game. To do that, Blizzard would have to introduce two different ladders you have to pick from, one for bads/casuals and one for serious players.
They've implemented 1 ladder with different skill levels dividing everyone, so yeah they've done basically what you want
It's not really what I want. I'm just advocating that point of view.
But the division stuff is pointless if you can smurf and join any division you want.
On August 23 2009 06:44 Eatme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 05:27 Tsagacity wrote:
There are definitely plenty of casual players that honestly have no interest in improving their game. Some newbs enjoy having close, funny, or intense games against other newbs. I've been a newb in plenty of games I've played, and honestly enjoyed being able to play it in a relaxing non-competitive fashion. Losing is fine too, but it's never fun for a player if he just gets annihilated in the first 2-3 minutes.
Assuming that everyone is competitive and everyone wants to win and everyone wants to get better is a majorly flawed assumption. Well if you want to play "in a relaxing non-competitive fashion" maybe ladder is not for you. Sorry, I clarified what I meant by "relaxing, non-competitive" later. That probably wasn't a good term for it.
People of all skill levels may be interested in some sort of competition, but not with the same goals or reasons.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 23 2009 06:40 Zelniq wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 00:38 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I support Blizzard's decision. But there are a lot of specific features that need to be in place in order to make it work. Since we don't know all the details, we'll have to wait and see. I'm sure things can be worked out during beta or soon after release.
The problem with race picking has always been the same: race pickers can't play everybody. They can't always play other race pickers. yes, good point. For normal ladder, this wouldn't be much of a problem except for ranks with a small amount of players (top ranks). However because they couldn't do race-picking for the automated tournaments, nor for any other league/tournament, especially the pro tourneys/leagues, it wouldn't make sense at all to have players practice only certain matchups on ladder but then for tourneys/leagues, be forced to know the matchups using 1 race only. for these reasons I think they should just stick with the current system of just picking your race only rather than choosing matchups
You have to pick a race vs random, so if two incompatible race pickers matchup, they both get their "vs random" race.
|
On August 22 2009 13:51 lazz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 13:48 FirstBorn wrote:On August 22 2009 13:19 lazz wrote:On August 22 2009 13:06 FirstBorn wrote:
smurfing is really cool, you can play however and whoever you like without much pressure and have lots of fun. oh god that is so pathetic. if you want to just fuck around (read: i liek to stomp noobies because im a huge loser and it gives me an ego boost) then just play non ranked games. it's pretty fucking straight forward guys. To be honest I'm quite bad. And when I get a terrible recond on Iccup I just make a new account and stomp D players. That boosts up my confidence and it's easier to start playing on my main account right away. It's not about me sitting in the D channel all day stomping newbies, but I can do that whenever I'm on a loss streak and mentally get in shape for when I'm going to play with people my own skill. if you want to "mentally get in shape", then play NON RANKED GAMES. then when you've decided youve bashed enough newbies there you can go play ladder. what's the problem here?
On August 22 2009 15:01 iMate wrote:
this is a amazing idea... and for all the people that say OMG i cant learn a new race or let a friend play.. there is a thing called unranked games... like god
On August 22 2009 08:32 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:30 Koof wrote:
I would rather not have smurfs in SC2, in any form. If you're that prideful about having a totally clean account with wins only, I guess it would be worth it to you to buy that many copies of Starcraft 2. Agreed with you 100%. So far the arguments to why its bad are pretty bad because its really not hard to play unrated for the problems people are saying like trying a new race or strategy don't see how its hard to play unrated but ok then ^^.
OK, so how is bashing noobs in unrated games any better than doing so in ranked games? Where's the logic in that?
You, guys, accuse us (people who want smurfing to be possible) of stat whoring, while this exactly what you are doing yourselves. T_____T
"I don't wanna play against much better opponents, but as long as people get bashed only in custom games, which I don't intend to play, I'm fine with it." How hypocritical. ;;
Also, how come nobody is complaining about the start of the new season? That basically turns everyone into a smurf... Compared to that, regular smurfing is a marginal occurence. T___T
On August 22 2009 11:24 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 11:17 Bosu wrote:
If this is the case ladder will be pretty pointless. Ladder will be for mass gaming, maybe trying new things. However, if you want to try other races, strategies, or play styles you will get worse before you get better. Ladder status will be nothing to brag about.
If I only have one account to play with my friends who will be terrible I won't be worrying about my win %. I shouldn't be forced to not worry though, because I had fun shooting for high ranks and high win % in war3. What kind of logic is this? This will make the ladder more accurate. I really believe some of you guys have never heard of Custom games.....
Yeah, because dropping from B to C when learning a new race, and then having to make your way back up to B after switching back to your main race will make the ladder more accurate...
On August 22 2009 15:20 keV. wrote:
I'd love to hear all these people saying "its a terrible stupid decision by blizzard" to actually come up with something more fair and a way to determine someones true skill. I especially love the "What if I want to learn another race argument," when get this: YOU HAVE 3 SEPARATE RECORDS.
(If you think you have a better solution you don't)
Any evidence for that?
Sure, you've got separate records for all races in WC3, but you still have only one ELL for 1v1. ;;
|
lol this thread is priceless.
|
and you contributed a lot by your own and your friends posts
read again plz:
On August 23 2009 08:24 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 13:51 lazz wrote:On August 22 2009 13:48 FirstBorn wrote:On August 22 2009 13:19 lazz wrote:On August 22 2009 13:06 FirstBorn wrote:
smurfing is really cool, you can play however and whoever you like without much pressure and have lots of fun. oh god that is so pathetic. if you want to just fuck around (read: i liek to stomp noobies because im a huge loser and it gives me an ego boost) then just play non ranked games. it's pretty fucking straight forward guys. To be honest I'm quite bad. And when I get a terrible recond on Iccup I just make a new account and stomp D players. That boosts up my confidence and it's easier to start playing on my main account right away. It's not about me sitting in the D channel all day stomping newbies, but I can do that whenever I'm on a loss streak and mentally get in shape for when I'm going to play with people my own skill. if you want to "mentally get in shape", then play NON RANKED GAMES. then when you've decided youve bashed enough newbies there you can go play ladder. what's the problem here? Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 15:01 iMate wrote:
this is a amazing idea... and for all the people that say OMG i cant learn a new race or let a friend play.. there is a thing called unranked games... like god Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:32 blade55555 wrote:On August 22 2009 08:30 Koof wrote:
I would rather not have smurfs in SC2, in any form. If you're that prideful about having a totally clean account with wins only, I guess it would be worth it to you to buy that many copies of Starcraft 2. Agreed with you 100%. So far the arguments to why its bad are pretty bad because its really not hard to play unrated for the problems people are saying like trying a new race or strategy don't see how its hard to play unrated but ok then ^^. OK, so how is bashing noobs in unrated games any better than doing so in ranked games? Where's the logic in that? You, guys, accuse us (people who want smurfing to be possible) of stat whoring, while this exactly what you are doing yourselves. T_____T "I don't wanna play against much better opponents, but as long as people get bashed only in custom games, which I don't intend to play, I'm fine with it." How hypocritical. ;; Also, how come nobody is complaining about the start of the new season? That basically turns everyone into a smurf... Compared to that, regular smurfing is a marginal occurence. T___T
|
Just about everybody in this thread who is arguing against smurfing is going to be disappointed in the end when they don't get to make a second account.
|
if u wanna bash noobs, mass lose like 20 games then start owning
|
All i got from this thread was "WAH WAH WAH, i can't get out of D because of all those b+ smurfs destorying me , the game lasted 5 minutes and i didn't learn anything from it (I lolled seriously.) New players will give up if they keep losing to smurfs.. If they give up after losing a few times, this means they never truly wanted to play the game competetively. Smurfing happens in every game."
Basically, what i'm trying to say is.. Instead of whining about losing to smurfs, stick with the fucking game and fucking learn.
If you don't understand why Smurfing is good for a game. (Not just SC.) Then just stop complaining and play the game you casual, it's not as if it's going to affect you in the longrun when you fuck off to another game.
If you're offended by any of my language? I do not care.
p.s. I'm not that great at SC.
|
|
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 23 2009 09:08 starPride wrote:
if u wanna bash noobs, mass lose like 20 games then start owning
What if you don't want to bash noobs, but you just don't want to play on the same account ALL the time?
|
the whole smurfing issue is taken care of by ELL. in wc3, if you are a top player in the ladder, and you start a new account, you will start playing the same people you would face if you had an account already at the top of the ladder after about 15-20 wins in a row. you dont have to climb up the ladder like in iccup.
my guess is the reason they are implementing it this way is for some other reason. im not exactly sure what that will be.
im also hoping that if they do implement this system they fix the problems that having only one account will create. one problem that stands out in my mind is finding games. currently, in any bracket that isnt 1v1 (and even in 1v1, search times can get verrrrry long), if you win lots of games in a row eventually the system finds nobody that can match against you. the only remedy to this is to lose games purposefully. for 2v2, that would require that you make a new account.
|
On August 23 2009 09:32 D00dles wrote:All i got from this thread was "WAH WAH WAH, i can't get out of D because of all those b+ smurfs destorying me , the game lasted 5 minutes and i didn't learn anything from it (I lolled seriously.) New players will give up if they keep losing to smurfs.. If they give up after losing a few times, this means they never truly wanted to play the game competetively. Smurfing happens in every game." Basically, what i'm trying to say is.. Instead of whining about losing to smurfs, stick with the fucking game and fucking learn. If you don't understand why Smurfing is good for a game. (Not just SC.) Then just stop complaining and play the game you casual, it's not as if it's going to affect you in the longrun when you fuck off to another game. If you're offended by any of my language? I do not care. p.s. I'm not that great at SC.
All I hear in this thread is "WAH WAH WAH, I can't make another account and smurf what a fail decision by blizzard". Seriously your a fucking moron
|
the entire purpose of the ladder system is for you to be matched with a player of similar skill. smurfing entirely undermines this. by getting rid of smurfing, the ladder will actually function as it was intended. so you can't bash newbs anymore? too bad!
|
Sweden33719 Posts
How many times do I need to bring this up....
Have one master account.
Allow this account to create - let's say - 3 user IDs for SC2.
Have the ELL be tracked by the master account - so if I have a high ranking account and create a new one, the new account will start with the same ELL as my first account (or, at least higher than a completely new account).
No noobs get bashed, and I get to "smurf" without disrupting the accuracy of the ladder.
|
How about this:
Upon reaching Bronze League level you are entitles to creating X additional accounts (tied to your master account?).
This seems like a logical compromise to me - "one account" supporters don't want to have to play smurfs, while people who smurf for valid reasons (i.e. don't just want to bash noobs) don't want that either - in most games it's a necessity, for them in order to be able to play on a new account on their own skill level, to rank up through masses of lower skilled players.
Brozne League players, not unlike C rank players, will mostly be able to appreciate the opportunity to play someone (much) better, so for them it's won't be a problem.
On August 23 2009 10:46 lazz wrote:
the entire purpose of the ladder system is for you to be matched with a player of similar skill. smurfing entirely undermines this. by getting rid of smurfing, the ladder will actually function as it was intended. so you can't bash newbs anymore? too bad!
Yeah, because A- rank Terran having to play other A- players with his D+ Zerg makes the ladder more accurate. T_________T
|
On August 23 2009 01:04 ghermination wrote:
Solution: You can create multiple accounts, and have the option to make one of them a ladder account. You can only have one ladder account, but you can have as many non-ladder accounts as you want (playing custom or non-ladder "melee" style games). This way finding matches with high level people would be just about as difficult as it would be on B.net/iccup, where you would just make a game called "1v1 LT (insert ladder rank here)" and play people of your rank. AMM would be used on the ladder, however.
Actually, no, it's be as difficult as it is in WC3 - close to impossible to find a 1v1 game, not to mention the opponent being on your skill level and wanting to play you. T____T
The vast majority of players are going to play on the ladder, and not host custom games.
edit: sorry, double post
|
On August 23 2009 10:55 FrozenArbiter wrote:
How many times do I need to bring this up....
Have one master account.
Allow this account to create - let's say - 3 user IDs for SC2.
Have the ELL be tracked by the master account - so if I have a high ranking account and create a new one, the new account will start with the same ELL as my first account (or, at least higher than a completely new account).
No noobs get bashed, and I get to "smurf" without disrupting the accuracy of the ladder.
But what if you start a new race. You'll be much worse at it and after you start losing games your ELL will drop for your main race too.
EDIT: They can make it so the ELLs have correlation between each other so when you start with a new account and your master ELL is high you climb very fast on the new one.
|
On August 23 2009 10:23 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 09:32 D00dles wrote:All i got from this thread was "WAH WAH WAH, i can't get out of D because of all those b+ smurfs destorying me , the game lasted 5 minutes and i didn't learn anything from it (I lolled seriously.) New players will give up if they keep losing to smurfs.. If they give up after losing a few times, this means they never truly wanted to play the game competetively. Smurfing happens in every game." Basically, what i'm trying to say is.. Instead of whining about losing to smurfs, stick with the fucking game and fucking learn. If you don't understand why Smurfing is good for a game. (Not just SC.) Then just stop complaining and play the game you casual, it's not as if it's going to affect you in the longrun when you fuck off to another game. If you're offended by any of my language? I do not care. p.s. I'm not that great at SC. All I hear in this thread is "WAH WAH WAH, I can't make another account and smurf what a fail decision by blizzard". Seriously your a fucking moron
You have no clue why people smurf though, so please stop posting your opinion, as it is an uneducated one.
|
On August 23 2009 20:55 Lurgee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 10:23 blade55555 wrote:On August 23 2009 09:32 D00dles wrote:All i got from this thread was "WAH WAH WAH, i can't get out of D because of all those b+ smurfs destorying me , the game lasted 5 minutes and i didn't learn anything from it (I lolled seriously.) New players will give up if they keep losing to smurfs.. If they give up after losing a few times, this means they never truly wanted to play the game competetively. Smurfing happens in every game." Basically, what i'm trying to say is.. Instead of whining about losing to smurfs, stick with the fucking game and fucking learn. If you don't understand why Smurfing is good for a game. (Not just SC.) Then just stop complaining and play the game you casual, it's not as if it's going to affect you in the longrun when you fuck off to another game. If you're offended by any of my language? I do not care. p.s. I'm not that great at SC. All I hear in this thread is "WAH WAH WAH, I can't make another account and smurf what a fail decision by blizzard". Seriously your a fucking moron You have no clue why people smurf though, so please stop posting your opinion, as it is an uneducated one.
Well why DO they? Your argumentation seems to be "If you don´t know why they shouldn´t argue". The main point of this is to make ratings accurate to prevent "wrong" matchups that aren´t fun for anyone but people who essentially are griefers.
What about allowing spoofing? Ergo keep one Account but allow changing the ingame Name?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 23 2009 20:29 MER wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 10:55 FrozenArbiter wrote:
How many times do I need to bring this up....
Have one master account.
Allow this account to create - let's say - 3 user IDs for SC2.
Have the ELL be tracked by the master account - so if I have a high ranking account and create a new one, the new account will start with the same ELL as my first account (or, at least higher than a completely new account).
No noobs get bashed, and I get to "smurf" without disrupting the accuracy of the ladder. But what if you start a new race. You'll be much worse at it and after you start losing games your ELL will drop for your main race too. EDIT: They can make it so the ELLs have correlation between each other so when you start with a new account and your master ELL is high you climb very fast on the new one.
Well for 1, I think every race having a different ELL isn't too bad of an idea (could mess with rankings tho).
But otherwise, then yeah, I think having each new account starting at the same rank as your other account is good.
|
It´s a good idea, I don´t really like smurfing.
Celebrities get harassed? Yea so?
What about all the real life celebrities, tv, movie, rock stars.. they dont have a fkin smurf name, they get harassed all the time by low life losers. That´s what its like being a celebrity. Deal with it or quit teh game.
I´m sure they can handle it, and I´m sure some kind of feature will be added to better handle harassment etc.
Play Unrated if u want to check out new stuff, strategies and races.
I have a hard time understanding where all the whine is coming from, I really do. :/
|
On August 24 2009 00:06 MasterFischer wrote:
It´s a good idea, I don´t really like smurfing.
Celebrities get harassed? Yea so?
What about all the real life celebrities, tv, movie, rock stars.. they dont have a fkin smurf name, they get harassed all the time by low life losers. That´s what its like being a celebrity. Deal with it or quit teh game.
I´m sure they can handle it, and I´m sure some kind of feature will be added to better handle harassment etc.
Play Unrated if u want to check out new stuff, strategies and races.
I have a hard time understanding where all the whine is coming from, I really do. :/
It's not just about celebrities getting harassed there are 9999 reasons for regular players to have smurfing in, that have been said in the thread already. The only issue with smurfing is newbs whining for getting raped. Which can easily be solved with master ELL as FA said.
|
On August 22 2009 08:01 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +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?
because SC has a progaming community?
|
On August 24 2009 00:27 MER wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 00:06 MasterFischer wrote:
It´s a good idea, I don´t really like smurfing.
Celebrities get harassed? Yea so?
What about all the real life celebrities, tv, movie, rock stars.. they dont have a fkin smurf name, they get harassed all the time by low life losers. That´s what its like being a celebrity. Deal with it or quit teh game.
I´m sure they can handle it, and I´m sure some kind of feature will be added to better handle harassment etc.
Play Unrated if u want to check out new stuff, strategies and races.
I have a hard time understanding where all the whine is coming from, I really do. :/ It's not just about celebrities getting harassed there are 9999 reasons for regular players to have smurfing in, that have been said in the thread already. The only issue with smurfing is newbs whining for getting raped. Which can easily be solved with master ELL as FA said.
Last time I checked, you couldn't do /whois Robert DeNiro and it will tell me exactly where he is.
Secondly, the purpose of "smurfing" is not TO BASH NOOBS. The D level players who are against smurfing feel like when they play someone higher level, they are victimizing them, focusing on them specifically, and saying, "HEY I WANNA RUIN THIS GUY'S DAY SO LET ME OWN HIM 1v1 LOLOLOLOLOL."
Last time I checked, the only reason for smurfing is anonymity, practice, and screwing around. Of course you may play seriously occasionally, and yes, you MAY beat a player significantly lower than them, but it is not the primary focus. I'm not speaking for ladder trolls, who do it for fun, all day. They are the exception, but let's take a hypothetical situation.
You are a D level player, on iCCup. You join a game, and you go "gl hf gg," start the game, and 10 minutes later, you get raped. You eventually figure out he's actually B+. Now, how likely is it that you will play B+ players all day long? You all act as if you can't take a loss. If you lose once, then it is the end of the world, and you MUST be playing people that you can beat, or else it is all unfair.
Losing one game to a relatively rare situation is simply tough luck, just like 12 hatch/14CC vs a 9 pool. Deal with it, and start another game, in which your opponent will PROBABLY be D level. You won't be playing noob bashers consistently, maybe occasionally, or once every 20 games. There is no guarantee that they will be your level, but there is probability, and the likelyhood that when you start a 1v1 D game, that they will probably D level.
|
On August 24 2009 00:06 MasterFischer wrote:
It´s a good idea, I don´t really like smurfing.
Celebrities get harassed? Yea so?
What about all the real life celebrities, tv, movie, rock stars.. they dont have a fkin smurf name, they get harassed all the time by low life losers. That´s what its like being a celebrity. Deal with it or quit teh game.
I´m sure they can handle it, and I´m sure some kind of feature will be added to better handle harassment etc.
Play Unrated if u want to check out new stuff, strategies and races.
I have a hard time understanding where all the whine is coming from, I really do. :/
With whom? Have you tried doing that in WC3 (or any game with a good match-making system for that matter)?
Also, what if I end up bashing noobs there? Somehow that's not the problem there?
|
8748 Posts
On August 23 2009 10:55 FrozenArbiter wrote:
How many times do I need to bring this up....
Have one master account.
Allow this account to create - let's say - 3 user IDs for SC2.
Have the ELL be tracked by the master account - so if I have a high ranking account and create a new one, the new account will start with the same ELL as my first account (or, at least higher than a completely new account).
No noobs get bashed, and I get to "smurf" without disrupting the accuracy of the ladder.
I think the amount of extra technical work this involves is not worth the very weak benefit of this feature. I think there are more important features missing from B.Net 2.0.
Also, if you could clarify this scenario:
--Master account has 2000 rating.
--First ID has 2000 rating (all games have been played on this ID)
--Second ID is created. It has 0 rating, but matches against 2000 rated players (based on master account rating)
--Second ID plays against a 2000 rated player (both by ID and master)
Are the point changes (for both the IDs and the masters) calculated based on each player's master account rating, or on the rating of their IDs?
If it's based on master account rating, then the player who plays on only one ID is going to get easier points than he deserves. That is, with this system, it is guaranteed that people are going to get free points when playing their main race and trying their hardest against someone not playing their main race and/or not trying. But if you try to adjust for this by factoring in the 2nd ID's personal rating into the point change calculation, then the guy playing on one ID stands to get screwed when playing against someone's 2nd ID who is playing his best. Either way, it's corrupting the ladder.
If it's based purely on personal ratings, then obviously the guy who uses only one ID is at a huge disadvantage. He is forced to match against people with very low rating who have a much better chance of beating him than their rating reflects.
The bottom line, I think, is that if you are playing rated ladder games, you ought to be trying your hardest every single game. You only need one account for that.
Asking for multiple accounts is purely an aesthetic thing, for both the name of the account and the stats on the account. Such weak aesthetic features aren't worth adding an entire new layer of account registration and management.
|
OK, to clarify
1) Playing someone way out of your level (above OR below) is not fun and won't help you learn: 1 account helps this
2) Long search times for someone at your level is definitely solvable by loosening AMM requirements.. in general it is an AMM issue, and should be solved by makking that AMM search time responsive for the best fun [a poorly matched game is more fun than no game at all]
3) Changing your ID, and/or Privacy options should allow you to avoid papparazzi/having a stupid name, Multiple IDs are not necessary
4) Using different strategies will affect your Ladder Level.... as it should, because that could be anything from a race change to a 20 sec.change in build order. You Ladder Level will adjust as you get better with the new strategy or give it up and go back to your old strategy (in any case your current Ladder Level is the best predictor of yor Ladder Level with a new strategy)
|
On August 23 2009 10:23 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 09:32 D00dles wrote:All i got from this thread was "WAH WAH WAH, i can't get out of D because of all those b+ smurfs destorying me , the game lasted 5 minutes and i didn't learn anything from it (I lolled seriously.) New players will give up if they keep losing to smurfs.. If they give up after losing a few times, this means they never truly wanted to play the game competetively. Smurfing happens in every game." Basically, what i'm trying to say is.. Instead of whining about losing to smurfs, stick with the fucking game and fucking learn. If you don't understand why Smurfing is good for a game. (Not just SC.) Then just stop complaining and play the game you casual, it's not as if it's going to affect you in the longrun when you fuck off to another game. If you're offended by any of my language? I do not care. p.s. I'm not that great at SC. All I hear in this thread is "WAH WAH WAH, I can't make another account and smurf what a fail decision by blizzard". Seriously your a fucking moron
Stop taking your post the last step. And adding smiley faces. You would come off as not a douche, because I agree with your post, but you are just irritating in the way you say it. And the more you speak the more I realize your posts are fine, but in this thread especially they just make me want to punch something.
|
|
|
I have 1 iccup account I use to play a friend for fun. We usually play rvr. I don't care about stats in this account but he does so we play one on one.
I have another "main" account where I play seriously vs everyone else and I care about stats.
I don't want to mix them, how is that gonna be possible in SC2???
Im not smurfing, neither bashing noobs.
|
On August 24 2009 01:02 ZergZoul wrote:
I have 1 iccup account I use to play a friend for fun. We usually play rvr. I don't care about stats in this account but he does so we play one on one.
I have another "main" account where I play seriously vs everyone else and I care about stats.
I don't want to mix them, how is that gonna be possible in SC2???
Im not smurfing, neither bashing noobs.
uhmm...in real ladder...you can't play the same guy over and over again.
your games against him won't count towards ladder, and i'm not sure if your wins and losses will be recorded...
|
On August 24 2009 00:06 MasterFischer wrote:
It´s a good idea, I don´t really like smurfing.
Celebrities get harassed? Yea so?
What about all the real life celebrities, tv, movie, rock stars.. they dont have a fkin smurf name, they get harassed all the time by low life losers. That´s what its like being a celebrity. Deal with it or quit teh game.
I´m sure they can handle it, and I´m sure some kind of feature will be added to better handle harassment etc.
Play Unrated if u want to check out new stuff, strategies and races.
I have a hard time understanding where all the whine is coming from, I really do. :/
Play unrated if you cant hadle losing games on ladder.
The youth of today, get off my lawn, nannystate ect.
|
On August 23 2009 02:01 Piretes wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 01:39 GG.Win wrote:
As a bit of a newbie (C/C+) I find smurfing so fucking annoying. I don't see a problem with this at all.
As a C-/C player I dont understand this at all. Either you play at korean hours and get stomped or you simply want a positive record. At C+, smurfs are B+ and higher - you won't face of these players, and when you do you can find flaws in your play better than when you play vs C. You can learn alot from losing to better players. And I'd be suprised if you have never tried new strategies on another account.
a kindof problem with playing against alot of those korean players besides the fact that they invade our servers is that they will often play 50 or 200 games and then make a new account after acheiving a certain number of wins. there's no way you can recognize them, but they can recognize you if you do not change your name. so they will always have the advantage against those not changing their name. knowing your enemy is very important.
|
solution: stop caring so much about your f*cking record and take a few losses on your main account if you have to
|
On August 22 2009 22:43 FortuneSyn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 22:37 YPang wrote:
ridiculous... Noobs just trying to not get raped cuz they're hurt their ego. How do noobs ever plan on getting better if they keep executing the same horrible strategy against horrible players and working? They need to stop complaining about getting stomped, EVERYONE decent player has been through that. Either change your game to Warcraft3, or get better. Period. Every decent player have gone through getting stomped because previous ladder systems fail at stopping smurfs, NOT because you can only be good by being smurf stomped. A gentle learning curve increases the games popularity. This creates more competition, more tournament earnings, more sponsorships, etc. Do you want this? If you really cannot see why then let me know and I will type it out for you on this thread. As for your retarded comment on changing games, it is you that needs to change games because right now you are the one whining.
Do you know how much experience you get if you play a progamer and get raped? you get to see their psi compared to yours, their economy compared to yours, and their game sense, and game vision when playing against you. Obviously you're the type of person that cannot take losses, nuf said.
There are other options of the "learning curve", i really like iccup's system if players are D-, they get their own channel. Thats a good enough curve. Its a ladder, its for competition, its not for people to complain about losing to better players. Deal with it.
My retarded comment of changing games obviously has gotten you personally, i apologize.
Hey if you want a personal apology letter, please PM me...
|
On August 24 2009 01:27 dcttr66 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 02:01 Piretes wrote:On August 23 2009 01:39 GG.Win wrote:
As a bit of a newbie (C/C+) I find smurfing so fucking annoying. I don't see a problem with this at all.
As a C-/C player I dont understand this at all. Either you play at korean hours and get stomped or you simply want a positive record. At C+, smurfs are B+ and higher - you won't face of these players, and when you do you can find flaws in your play better than when you play vs C. You can learn alot from losing to better players. And I'd be suprised if you have never tried new strategies on another account. a kindof problem with playing against alot of those korean players besides the fact that they invade our servers is that they will often play 50 or 200 games and then make a new account after acheiving a certain number of wins. there's no way you can recognize them, but they can recognize you if you do not change your name. so they will always have the advantage against those not changing their name. knowing your enemy is very important.
same goes even for the 3 names per account idea. it might sound good at first, but really how fair would it be to change your name completely so people can't recognize you? you could play against someone who would normally know you quite well, but instead knows nothing about you because you changed your name. there are all kinds of ways you could use the deception to your advantage. it just doesn't work out as being fair.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 24 2009 00:45 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 10:55 FrozenArbiter wrote:
How many times do I need to bring this up....
Have one master account.
Allow this account to create - let's say - 3 user IDs for SC2.
Have the ELL be tracked by the master account - so if I have a high ranking account and create a new one, the new account will start with the same ELL as my first account (or, at least higher than a completely new account).
No noobs get bashed, and I get to "smurf" without disrupting the accuracy of the ladder. I think the amount of extra technical work this involves is not worth the very weak benefit of this feature. I think there are more important features missing from B.Net 2.0. Also, if you could clarify this scenario: --Master account has 2000 rating. --First ID has 2000 rating (all games have been played on this ID) --Second ID is created. It has 0 rating, but matches against 2000 rated players (based on master account rating) --Second ID plays against a 2000 rated player (both by ID and master) Are the point changes (for both the IDs and the masters) calculated based on each player's master account rating, or on the rating of their IDs? If it's based on master account rating, then the player who plays on only one ID is going to get easier points than he deserves. That is, with this system, it is guaranteed that people are going to get free points when playing their main race and trying their hardest against someone not playing their main race and/or not trying. But if you try to adjust for this by factoring in the 2nd ID's personal rating into the point change calculation, then the guy playing on one ID stands to get screwed when playing against someone's 2nd ID who is playing his best. Either way, it's corrupting the ladder. If it's based purely on personal ratings, then obviously the guy who uses only one ID is at a huge disadvantage. He is forced to match against people with very low rating who have a much better chance of beating him than their rating reflects. The bottom line, I think, is that if you are playing rated ladder games, you ought to be trying your hardest every single game. You only need one account for that. Asking for multiple accounts is purely an aesthetic thing, for both the name of the account and the stats on the account. Such weak aesthetic features aren't worth adding an entire new layer of account registration and management.
Good point. I had been thinking about that briefly but I sort assumed there would be a good way around that, but I can't actually think of one at the moment.
Much better reason to have 1 ID than all the "omg smurfs are killing me" paranoia :[
Ok then maybe allowing 1 name change per season...?
If you want to change your name DURING the season you need to pay like 2~5$ or something (and you could list all name changes in your profile).
On August 24 2009 00:06 MasterFischer wrote:
It´s a good idea, I don´t really like smurfing.
Celebrities get harassed? Yea so?
What about all the real life celebrities, tv, movie, rock stars.. they dont have a fkin smurf name, they get harassed all the time by low life losers. That´s what its like being a celebrity. Deal with it or quit teh game.
I´m sure they can handle it, and I´m sure some kind of feature will be added to better handle harassment etc.
Play Unrated if u want to check out new stuff, strategies and races.
I have a hard time understanding where all the whine is coming from, I really do. :/
Just because there's a limitation IRL, doesnt mean you should bring that limitation to an online platform - that's just stupid!
Don't you think most celebrities would LOVE being able to go out anonymously?
|
Do you know how much experience you get if you play a progamer and get raped? you get to see their psi compared to yours, their economy compared to yours, and their game sense, and game vision when playing against you.
Sure getting beat by a progamer teaches you stuff. So what? The accuracy of a ladder rank should not be reduced in exchange of adding a feature that is supposed to make you improve faster.
Obviously you're the type of person that cannot take losses, nuf said.
Please tell me how you came to that conclusion. Additionally, please tell me how this retarded comment is in any way relevant to this thread.
There are other options of the "learning curve", i really like iccup's system if players are D-, they get their own channel. Thats a good enough curve. Its a ladder, its for competition, its not for people to complain about losing to better players. Deal with it.
C players will still be smurfed by B, D players will still be smurfed by C. Smurfing will still occur, smurfing creates an innacurate ladder (see Nony's excellent post), innacurate ladders are useless ladders.
|
On August 24 2009 00:45 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2009 10:55 FrozenArbiter wrote:
How many times do I need to bring this up....
Have one master account.
Allow this account to create - let's say - 3 user IDs for SC2.
Have the ELL be tracked by the master account - so if I have a high ranking account and create a new one, the new account will start with the same ELL as my first account (or, at least higher than a completely new account).
No noobs get bashed, and I get to "smurf" without disrupting the accuracy of the ladder. I think the amount of extra technical work this involves is not worth the very weak benefit of this feature. I think there are more important features missing from B.Net 2.0. Also, if you could clarify this scenario: --Master account has 2000 rating. --First ID has 2000 rating (all games have been played on this ID) --Second ID is created. It has 0 rating, but matches against 2000 rated players (based on master account rating) --Second ID plays against a 2000 rated player (both by ID and master) Are the point changes (for both the IDs and the masters) calculated based on each player's master account rating, or on the rating of their IDs? If it's based on master account rating, then the player who plays on only one ID is going to get easier points than he deserves. That is, with this system, it is guaranteed that people are going to get free points when playing their main race and trying their hardest against someone not playing their main race and/or not trying. But if you try to adjust for this by factoring in the 2nd ID's personal rating into the point change calculation, then the guy playing on one ID stands to get screwed when playing against someone's 2nd ID who is playing his best. Either way, it's corrupting the ladder. If it's based purely on personal ratings, then obviously the guy who uses only one ID is at a huge disadvantage. He is forced to match against people with very low rating who have a much better chance of beating him than their rating reflects. The bottom line, I think, is that if you are playing rated ladder games, you ought to be trying your hardest every single game. You only need one account for that. Asking for multiple accounts is purely an aesthetic thing, for both the name of the account and the stats on the account. Such weak aesthetic features aren't worth adding an entire new layer of account registration and management.
IMO the purpose of the master account's points should be to determine your overall skill so you wont get bashing noobs whenerever you make a new ID. So when you make a new ID it starts with the same points as your master account.
After a match the point change to your ID is done according to your ID's points. That way if you use this account for offrace/screwing around your ID's points will eventually go down but that wont be bad for the opposing players because you are playing badly on this account.
In the same time, after a match your master account's points get readjusted but not with the same amount as your ID but taking into account your other IDs - if you have another very strong main ID the points wont go down so much after a loss (or to make it simpler the master account's points may be equal to the points of your best ID)
In short the matchmaking is done according to how well you play on your current ID - if you play bad there is no harm for your noob opponents. The master points are to determine your overall skill so that when you make a new account you dont start from 0 points and start bashing weaker players.
Or in other words the purpose of the master account's points is so that when you start a new ID not to start from the bottom and rape weaker opponents till you get high, but to start from your current level and get raped yourself until you go down to the level you are playing at.
|
What you suggest MER, sounds like it might actually work if that is the case.
I have no problem with people changing names (albeit, I fail to understand why), if it means that destroying noobs can be partly if not totally avoided. We are all trying to have fun playing games, whether you make 100.000 dollars in a pro league or you just picked up the game from the store yesterday and sat down with it for 10 minutes in multi.
The better and more skill you have, the greater the impact it will have on possible alternative smurfing accounts, så virtually it does nothing other than relate your account with a different name.
It should probaly display your master account name, on both accounts and what other smurf account u got.
All in all, I might be ignorant, but I don´t understand why it is so terrible important to have smurf accounts to try stuff. I mean, whats the big deal with just handling everything from 1 account? Other than the fact that you might not like your NAME.. but cmon.. that is hardly why people change names nowadays, huh?
Please enlighten me further.
|
I like Mer's idea. That way we could have separate accounts, and practicing another race on another account won't murder your beginning account.
|
mer's idea is pretty much what tons of other usesrs have proposed.
|
Wow Jared is going to hate this
|
|
|
On August 24 2009 03:11 ramen247 wrote:
mer's idea is pretty much what tons of other usesrs have proposed.
Yeah, but FrozenArbiter is just getting ignored now
|
On August 24 2009 02:48 MasterFischer wrote:
All in all, I might be ignorant, but I don´t understand why it is so terrible important to have smurf accounts to try stuff. I mean, whats the big deal with just handling everything from 1 account? Other than the fact that you might not like your NAME.. but cmon.. that is hardly why people change names nowadays, huh?
Please enlighten me further.
It would be purely cosmetical if it was only the ID. But when there's matchmaking system you would want to play high level games with your main account and in the same time be able to offrace/just screw around with friends without this affecting your ELL/stats when you play seriously.
Besides that people often change IDs just because they dont like them anymore, especially in a game that lives for 11 years. I know it because I myself would never use the nick I started with 11 years ago when I was a kid.
On August 24 2009 03:29 FragKrag wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 03:11 ramen247 wrote:
mer's idea is pretty much what tons of other usesrs have proposed. Yeah, but FrozenArbiter is just getting ignored now
I think its what FrozenArbiter also had in mind, I just put it into more concrete words
|
On August 22 2009 11:57 FrozenArbiter wrote:Ye, I got the definition of sandbagging a bit wrong - I thought it could be used for both that and for intentionally lowering your rank to play worse players. Anyhow, the smurfing definition apparently goes for both situations, it is not exclusively used to describe someone griefing (and in fact, this is probably why I have such a problem with the term - I have never used it to describe someone noob-bashing - smurfs to me mean nothing beyond it being someones secret alias). As for the threshold for a new player today, I don't think it has anything to do with smurfing frankly. The game is 10 years old, even someone who is comparatively a noob is going to destroy a REAL noob. It's not disingenous of him to join a "1v1 noobs" game, because he is also a noob... just not to the same degree. Maybe I'm wrong, but I somehow doubt it... I started playing in Brood war in 2002 (played some vanilla SC in 2001), and played probably 300++ games before I had a positive record. These are probably my fondest SC memories because I really, really, really loved the game at that time... I cannot relate AT ALL with people feeling frustrated over losing when just starting... I just do not get it :/ Every win - rare as they were - was awesome, because I had worked so hard for it and I could tell I was improving. I did have the benefit of knowing about the professional scene, of watching replays and VODs for inspiration, so maybe if I hadn't known about the extraordinary level of play that was possible, my ego would have been more easily bruised? The rest I agree with. As I've said, I think having a "master account" that determines your ELL for all your IDs, is the best solution. Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 11:56 Aegraen wrote:On August 22 2009 11:50 Bosu wrote:On August 22 2009 11:24 Aegraen wrote:On August 22 2009 11:17 Bosu wrote:
If this is the case ladder will be pretty pointless. Ladder will be for mass gaming, maybe trying new things. However, if you want to try other races, strategies, or play styles you will get worse before you get better. Ladder status will be nothing to brag about.
If I only have one account to play with my friends who will be terrible I won't be worrying about my win %. I shouldn't be forced to not worry though, because I had fun shooting for high ranks and high win % in war3. What kind of logic is this? This will make the ladder more accurate. I really believe some of you guys have never heard of Custom games..... It is great logic Why should my record be wrecked because I want to play with my RL friends that WILL be terrible? Why should I be forced to play custom games to try new things and new races? It will take hundreds of games to learn a new race. Going from a 70% win rate to 30% because I switched races does not make the ladder more accurate. Really my biggest gripe though is that I will lose HUNDREDS of games playing AT with friends that are terrible. How does that make the ladder more accurate? Who is forcing you to play Ladder with them? Play Custom Games. You aren't forced to play custom games to try new things. You can play custom or ladder its your decision. Win % doesn't mean fuck all in RTS. You could have 25% and still be better than 90% of the SC2 players. Seems to me you are a statophobe (Yes I made that up). In any event, a decrease in smurfing, a more reputable community, and a more accurate ladder because there are not or are very little duplicative names is much more lofty and worthy than the cries of someone who made a bad choice for his name and now regrets it. Pro's vastly outweight the minor inconvenience cons. Playing custom games after getting used to AMM, is absolutely terrible I like playing SC more than WC3, but the AMM for WC3 makes me want to play it more than I want to play SC right now.
The major difference is that I've been playing since 2007, have probably played over 3000 games, and still do not have a positive record on any account. The game atmosphere is different from 2002. I played occasionally online from 99-01 and I was like... 10 or 11, and all I did was make carriers and I had a positive win % account.
Now, I can tell that I've greatly improved, however improving skill does not seem to have any effect any more because I either play people that were worse than me when I had 50 apm or insanely better with 150 eapm+
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Yes but that's a problem with the game being 11 years old, not with smurfing :p
+ I was absolutely obsessed with starcraft when I started playing it - I was like "ok, I'm gonna go pro". I think I downloaded every single PvZ on YaoYuan.com (it was not as big back then as now lol ) and I played 20 games a day + watched a ton of replays. And I had the good fortune to run into a few really nice korean players who taught me a lot about how to play (especially this one guy who went by qqqoooqqq on west, really nice guy).
|
On August 24 2009 00:54 Krikkitone wrote:
OK, to clarify
1) Playing someone way out of your level (above OR below) is not fun and won't help you learn: 1 account helps this
There's no objective way to judge whether something like this is fun.
For some people (including myself) getting to play some gosu is fun.
For some people playing
3) Changing your ID, and/or Privacy options should allow you to avoid papparazzi/having a stupid name, Multiple IDs are not necessary
But they are for other reasons stated before...
4) Using different strategies will affect your Ladder Level.... as it should, because that could be anything from a race change to a 20 sec.change in build order. You Ladder Level will adjust as you get better with the new strategy or give it up and go back to your old strategy (in any case your current Ladder Level is the best predictor of yor Ladder Level with a new strategy)
Again, read our previous posts...
How is getting dragged to C level from A because of simple off-racing making the ladder/your level accurate? You're still an A Terran despite being a C Zerg... T____T
Why should I be unable to practice cetain strategies with a secondary account while being able to use my perfected strategies on a serious account I compete with others on?
How exactly would it represent my current skill level more accurately if I were unable to practice new strategies on a different account? I could simply do the same thing in custom games ,except it's much less convienient to do so...
E.g. let's say I'm a B level Terran and want to practice a new BO, and hence I drop to B-.
Does that represent my current skill level more accurately compared to the situation where I practice that new BO on another account and do not drop to B- thanks to that?
If so, how is that different from practicing it in custom games or with friends in order not to drop to B-? Should Blizzard prevent us from practicing in custom games for the sake of our ladder level being more accurate?
What's next? Fingerprint check before each game just to make sure someone else is not playing on your account? ;;
On August 24 2009 01:27 iamho wrote:
solution: stop caring so much about your f*cking record and take a few losses on your main account if you have to
Hypocrisy much? Why can't you take a few losses from smurfs then?
On August 24 2009 01:38 dcttr66 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 01:27 dcttr66 wrote:On August 23 2009 02:01 Piretes wrote:On August 23 2009 01:39 GG.Win wrote:
As a bit of a newbie (C/C+) I find smurfing so fucking annoying. I don't see a problem with this at all.
As a C-/C player I dont understand this at all. Either you play at korean hours and get stomped or you simply want a positive record. At C+, smurfs are B+ and higher - you won't face of these players, and when you do you can find flaws in your play better than when you play vs C. You can learn alot from losing to better players. And I'd be suprised if you have never tried new strategies on another account. a kindof problem with playing against alot of those korean players besides the fact that they invade our servers is that they will often play 50 or 200 games and then make a new account after acheiving a certain number of wins. there's no way you can recognize them, but they can recognize you if you do not change your name. so they will always have the advantage against those not changing their name. knowing your enemy is very important. same goes even for the 3 names per account idea. it might sound good at first, but really how fair would it be to change your name completely so people can't recognize you? you could play against someone who would normally know you quite well, but instead knows nothing about you because you changed your name. there are all kinds of ways you could use the deception to your advantage. it just doesn't work out as being fair.
How can you even complain about something like this?
How is a known player playing vs. an unknown one fair? The latter can study the former's play style while it's impossible for the former to do the same, he's playing blind...
There's no right or wrong here, it's a matter of preference.
|
Reading though this thread made me think WoW was being described.
On WoW, though you technically can make multiple usernames (different characters), you technically only have one username, as you will likely only one one raiding character, perhaps two or more if you are really hardcore. Over time, name recognition spreads over the server, along with guild recognition, so the fact that you can't randomly change your name without paying $15 does something good there. However, each server has a limited population, which is what makes this feasible. I don't see this particular benefit being very useful in SC2.
A few people mentioned unrated matches: WoW has that for arena matches; you can play rated or unrated. The unrated games are a complete PoS, it's worse than smurfing. Depending on the comp you run, if you are not really well geared, you will probably get alternatively rofl stomped or rofl stomping, with few good games in between. Perhaps the system can be improved, but I don't like the idea of resorting to unrated games. Something like different rating for MUs, which has been mentioned, is certainly better.
Also, bads who q.q all the time almost certainly remain bads, as they do not really care to improve and just want free loot (or wins, in SC). Curiously, blizzard has started catering more to them, probably because of their greater population. I won't get into the details here although I have a long q.q concerning what has happened to raiding as a result.
Having different ratings for different matchups might solve the problem of smurfing, but like FA said, I don't at all understand people who really get discouraged by losing to a smurf. Those games are actually more enlightening than playing someone ranked the same as you, if you are bad. From my experience the people who cry about that are just like the people on WoW who tell you to stfu because you told them how to correct the bad rotation you see them doing based on Recount data.
I just hope the rating system doesn't evolve along the lines of the MMR rating system used in WoW arena. It went from ehhh problems to an ok system with a few problems to a system that rewards low ranked people but fucks over the high rated people (rediculously long queues, constantly playing teams 500-1000 points below you; arena has a 3000 point cap) just as PvE got a HUGE shift to casuals. I of course can't judge the hardmodes yet of the newest raid as they are not out yet, but the normal modes are so much easier than the previous patch's content that I can see people clearing 3.3 content before 3.2, which is pretty sad. I'm hoping that SC2 isn't taking the same turn as WoW has.
|
On August 24 2009 04:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:Yes but that's a problem with the game being 11 years old, not with smurfing :p + I was absolutely obsessed with starcraft when I started playing it - I was like "ok, I'm gonna go pro". I think I downloaded every single PvZ on YaoYuan.com (it was not as big back then as now lol ) and I played 20 games a day + watched a ton of replays. And I had the good fortune to run into a few really nice korean players who taught me a lot about how to play (especially this one guy who went by qqqoooqqq on west, really nice guy).
Yeah, it probably wouldn't be as bad sc2 regardless, but it's kind of annoying on iccup. I don't mind playing like A or A+ zergs, but when I'm playing pvz all that's going to happen if a C or higher zerg plays me (at d/d+ level) is "runby/hydrabust/lingall-in/2 hatch mutas/5/6/7pool" because they want a fast win and you learn nothing from this other than that C and higher players can deny scouting well.
edit: Also, I did watch tons of pro replays when just starting, but recent and relevant pro replays are a bit harder to find. Haven't really found anyone better than me to play with other than fanaticist, and we just went 1/1 in the last pvp we played.
|
On August 24 2009 02:04 MER wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 00:45 Liquid`NonY wrote:On August 23 2009 10:55 FrozenArbiter wrote:
How many times do I need to bring this up....
Have one master account.
Allow this account to create - let's say - 3 user IDs for SC2.
Have the ELL be tracked by the master account - so if I have a high ranking account and create a new one, the new account will start with the same ELL as my first account (or, at least higher than a completely new account).
No noobs get bashed, and I get to "smurf" without disrupting the accuracy of the ladder. I think the amount of extra technical work this involves is not worth the very weak benefit of this feature. I think there are more important features missing from B.Net 2.0. Also, if you could clarify this scenario: --Master account has 2000 rating. --First ID has 2000 rating (all games have been played on this ID) --Second ID is created. It has 0 rating, but matches against 2000 rated players (based on master account rating) --Second ID plays against a 2000 rated player (both by ID and master) Are the point changes (for both the IDs and the masters) calculated based on each player's master account rating, or on the rating of their IDs? If it's based on master account rating, then the player who plays on only one ID is going to get easier points than he deserves. That is, with this system, it is guaranteed that people are going to get free points when playing their main race and trying their hardest against someone not playing their main race and/or not trying. But if you try to adjust for this by factoring in the 2nd ID's personal rating into the point change calculation, then the guy playing on one ID stands to get screwed when playing against someone's 2nd ID who is playing his best. Either way, it's corrupting the ladder. If it's based purely on personal ratings, then obviously the guy who uses only one ID is at a huge disadvantage. He is forced to match against people with very low rating who have a much better chance of beating him than their rating reflects. The bottom line, I think, is that if you are playing rated ladder games, you ought to be trying your hardest every single game. You only need one account for that. Asking for multiple accounts is purely an aesthetic thing, for both the name of the account and the stats on the account. Such weak aesthetic features aren't worth adding an entire new layer of account registration and management. IMO the purpose of the master account's points should be to determine your overall skill so you wont get bashing noobs whenerever you make a new ID. So when you make a new ID it starts with the same points as your master account. After a match the point change to your ID is done according to your ID's points. That way if you use this account for offrace/screwing around your ID's points will eventually go down but that wont be bad for the opposing players because you are playing badly on this account. In the same time, after a match your master account's points get readjusted but not with the same amount as your ID but taking into account your other IDs - if you have another very strong main ID the points wont go down so much after a loss (or to make it simpler the master account's points may be equal to the points of your best ID) In short the matchmaking is done according to how well you play on your current ID - if you play bad there is no harm for your noob opponents. The master points are to determine your overall skill so that when you make a new account you dont start from 0 points and start bashing weaker players.
Or in other words the purpose of the master account's points is so that when you start a new ID not to start from the bottom and rape weaker opponents till you get high, but to start from your current level and get raped yourself until you go down to the level you are playing at.
I really like the idea, although, I see one problem with it: how do you prevent people from creating additional accounts (way) before they reach their peak level? E.g. let's say I'm capable of reaching A rank (which I'm not, but for the sake of the example, let me dream ), but I create a new account when my master account is at D+. Now I have a duplicate D+ account, and I can easily bash newbs on that level, while I comfortably level my main account.
The potential solution:
I suggested to FA on MSN that maybe you should be able to create new accounts as soon as you reach Bronze League (an equivalent of C rank or so), so that the vast majority of people that complain about smurfing are left out of the equation; obviously, any new account would always start at Brozne League level or your highest account level, as you suggested.
What do you think?
|
On August 24 2009 05:01 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 02:04 MER wrote:On August 24 2009 00:45 Liquid`NonY wrote:On August 23 2009 10:55 FrozenArbiter wrote:
How many times do I need to bring this up....
Have one master account.
Allow this account to create - let's say - 3 user IDs for SC2.
Have the ELL be tracked by the master account - so if I have a high ranking account and create a new one, the new account will start with the same ELL as my first account (or, at least higher than a completely new account).
No noobs get bashed, and I get to "smurf" without disrupting the accuracy of the ladder. I think the amount of extra technical work this involves is not worth the very weak benefit of this feature. I think there are more important features missing from B.Net 2.0. Also, if you could clarify this scenario: --Master account has 2000 rating. --First ID has 2000 rating (all games have been played on this ID) --Second ID is created. It has 0 rating, but matches against 2000 rated players (based on master account rating) --Second ID plays against a 2000 rated player (both by ID and master) Are the point changes (for both the IDs and the masters) calculated based on each player's master account rating, or on the rating of their IDs? If it's based on master account rating, then the player who plays on only one ID is going to get easier points than he deserves. That is, with this system, it is guaranteed that people are going to get free points when playing their main race and trying their hardest against someone not playing their main race and/or not trying. But if you try to adjust for this by factoring in the 2nd ID's personal rating into the point change calculation, then the guy playing on one ID stands to get screwed when playing against someone's 2nd ID who is playing his best. Either way, it's corrupting the ladder. If it's based purely on personal ratings, then obviously the guy who uses only one ID is at a huge disadvantage. He is forced to match against people with very low rating who have a much better chance of beating him than their rating reflects. The bottom line, I think, is that if you are playing rated ladder games, you ought to be trying your hardest every single game. You only need one account for that. Asking for multiple accounts is purely an aesthetic thing, for both the name of the account and the stats on the account. Such weak aesthetic features aren't worth adding an entire new layer of account registration and management. IMO the purpose of the master account's points should be to determine your overall skill so you wont get bashing noobs whenerever you make a new ID. So when you make a new ID it starts with the same points as your master account. After a match the point change to your ID is done according to your ID's points. That way if you use this account for offrace/screwing around your ID's points will eventually go down but that wont be bad for the opposing players because you are playing badly on this account. In the same time, after a match your master account's points get readjusted but not with the same amount as your ID but taking into account your other IDs - if you have another very strong main ID the points wont go down so much after a loss (or to make it simpler the master account's points may be equal to the points of your best ID) In short the matchmaking is done according to how well you play on your current ID - if you play bad there is no harm for your noob opponents. The master points are to determine your overall skill so that when you make a new account you dont start from 0 points and start bashing weaker players.
Or in other words the purpose of the master account's points is so that when you start a new ID not to start from the bottom and rape weaker opponents till you get high, but to start from your current level and get raped yourself until you go down to the level you are playing at. I really like the idea, although, I see one problem with it: how do you prevent people from creating additional accounts (way) before they reach their peak level? E.g. let's say I'm capable of reaching A rank (which I'm not, but for the sake of the example, let me dream ), but I create a new account when my master account is at D+. Now I have a duplicate D+ account, and I can easily bash newbs on that level, while I comfortably level my main account. The potential solution: I suggested to FA on MSN that maybe you should be able to create new accounts as soon as you reach Bronze League (an equivalent of C rank or so), so that the vast majority of people that complain about smurfing are left out of the equation; obviously, any new account would always start at Brozne League level or your highest account level, as you suggested. What do you think?
Yes, you make a good point. And your suggestion will be in accord with the achievement system Blizzard are adding. There might be an achievement: You got to rank X, additional 5 IDs available.
Another solution, though not perfect, may be to make a small cap to the IDs (e.g. 3) you can make per account. That way if you make the max 3 IDs in the beginning, when you start using them later youll be able to climb through weaker players only 3 times.
|
Maybe this will make melle custom games much more popullar ? I dont like it either but you cant blame them for making the ladder more "serious"
|
Wasn't there a "pratice league" or something listed as one of the leagues? That sounds like a place you could go if you just want to fuck around with a random build or offrace; did they clarify at BlizzCon?
|
On August 24 2009 04:44 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 04:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:Yes but that's a problem with the game being 11 years old, not with smurfing :p + I was absolutely obsessed with starcraft when I started playing it - I was like "ok, I'm gonna go pro". I think I downloaded every single PvZ on YaoYuan.com (it was not as big back then as now lol ) and I played 20 games a day + watched a ton of replays. And I had the good fortune to run into a few really nice korean players who taught me a lot about how to play (especially this one guy who went by qqqoooqqq on west, really nice guy). Yeah, it probably wouldn't be as bad sc2 regardless, but it's kind of annoying on iccup. I don't mind playing like A or A+ zergs, but when I'm playing pvz all that's going to happen if a C or higher zerg plays me (at d/d+ level) is "runby/hydrabust/lingall-in/2 hatch mutas/5/6/7pool" because they want a fast win and you learn nothing from this other than that C and higher players can deny scouting well. edit: Also, I did watch tons of pro replays when just starting, but recent and relevant pro replays are a bit harder to find. Haven't really found anyone better than me to play with other than fanaticist, and we just went 1/1 in the last pvp we played.
FA/MER's solution should prevent the vast majority of smurfing/noob bashing. The thing is that the A level players will ALWAYS have to go through someone to get to their A level. If they really want to spend all their time bashing noobs, then they can, but I don't think that represents very many people. Second, as I stated before, they have to go through someone. Similar to beginning of the iCCup season, where everyone, D- to A+ are all at D. You will play a game and get raped by some A level Korean, because they have to get to A someway.
Going up ranks involves a logical process that inevitably will involve some form of noob bashing. Of course it isn't the focus (unless some guy wants it to be). Beating 10 D players to get to D+ means that you ARE better than the Ds, and you deserve the D+. And you repeat that until you can no longer bash everyone in that rank, in which you would go 80-50 to get from A to A+, or something of that sort. My point is that some D level players are always going to get steamrolled, but later in the seasons, when things settle down, and each player is in their respective rank, then it would drop down to a minimum, assuming FA/MER's solution is implemented.
|
Something else interesting:http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/starcraft2/video/6215996/battle-net-panel-highlights
If you go to about ~10:00 in the video, Rob Pardo talks about how the Real ID provides achievements that "span characters". This sounds a lot like alternate sub-accounts are possible.
|
It's amazing how so many in this thread is bashing Blizzard for something that isn't even done yet. If anyone here is dumb enough to think that Blizzard is going to let pro gamers get identified and harassed without anything to protect them then they deserve to get trolled.
Edit: I'm also happy to see there will be some anti-smurfing measures in this new b-net. Ideally you want to play in a ladder where you are as evenly matched with your opponent as possible, and as often as possible. This is the entire point of a ladder. Players who smurfs just to stomp newbies basically bypasses the entire point of having a ladder in the first place.
|
8748 Posts
MER: Let's say a high rated player wants to make a second ID because he's going to do something that'll cause him to get more losses, like play a different race, play on a laptop or do weird strategies. When he tried his best, he reached a 2000 rating on his first ID. But because of the self-imposed disadvantages, he's only capable of a 1500 rating on his second ID. If you allow him to match against 2000 rated players when he starts his second ID, it's true that he won't have to newb bash his way from 0-1500. That's good. The problem is that his opponents, 2000 rated players, are going to bash him from 2000 down to 1500. I'm sure he doesn't care about that -- in fact it's why he made a second ID. But all of his opponents during his descension to 1500 got good points that they did not deserve.
In other words, every time a high rated player makes a second ID on which he plans to achieve a lower ranking, your system allows for high rated players to essentially newb bash and get free points when they're already near the top of the ladder.
|
On August 24 2009 08:33 Archaic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 04:44 Nevuk wrote:On August 24 2009 04:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:Yes but that's a problem with the game being 11 years old, not with smurfing :p + I was absolutely obsessed with starcraft when I started playing it - I was like "ok, I'm gonna go pro". I think I downloaded every single PvZ on YaoYuan.com (it was not as big back then as now lol ) and I played 20 games a day + watched a ton of replays. And I had the good fortune to run into a few really nice korean players who taught me a lot about how to play (especially this one guy who went by qqqoooqqq on west, really nice guy). Yeah, it probably wouldn't be as bad sc2 regardless, but it's kind of annoying on iccup. I don't mind playing like A or A+ zergs, but when I'm playing pvz all that's going to happen if a C or higher zerg plays me (at d/d+ level) is "runby/hydrabust/lingall-in/2 hatch mutas/5/6/7pool" because they want a fast win and you learn nothing from this other than that C and higher players can deny scouting well. edit: Also, I did watch tons of pro replays when just starting, but recent and relevant pro replays are a bit harder to find. Haven't really found anyone better than me to play with other than fanaticist, and we just went 1/1 in the last pvp we played. FA/MER's solution should prevent the vast majority of smurfing/noob bashing. The thing is that the A level players will ALWAYS have to go through someone to get to their A level. If they really want to spend all their time bashing noobs, then they can, but I don't think that represents very many people. Second, as I stated before, they have to go through someone. Similar to beginning of the iCCup season, where everyone, D- to A+ are all at D. You will play a game and get raped by some A level Korean, because they have to get to A someway. Going up ranks involves a logical process that inevitably will involve some form of noob bashing. Of course it isn't the focus (unless some guy wants it to be). Beating 10 D players to get to D+ means that you ARE better than the Ds, and you deserve the D+. And you repeat that until you can no longer bash everyone in that rank, in which you would go 80-50 to get from A to A+, or something of that sort. My point is that some D level players are always going to get steamrolled, but later in the seasons, when things settle down, and each player is in their respective rank, then it would drop down to a minimum, assuming FA/MER's solution is implemented.
I'm actually referring to the past 4 weeks or so on iccup as to my experience, if I'm playing at the beginning of the ladder I know what to expect. (I run into way more C/C+ players now than I ever did at the beginning, but fewer B- or higher based on eapm/apm alone).
|
|
|
A player cannot always play at his peak performance. He needs a warmup/strategy testing/less serious area. Nony points it out very clearly. there will be "ladder inflation" if people are allowed more than one account on the same ladder.
So how can this be solved?...
1) have a "practice/warmup ladder"
2) allow groups to create their own ladders. For example, teamliquid could create a ladder. Not sure if this would work though, as there needs to be many many people in it for AMM to work...
3) play unranked custom games with teammates/friends/strangers.
bad thing with many ladders is that you segregate people into small pockets, that potentially screws up competition etc.
One account many ladders OR many accounts one ladder?
|
On August 24 2009 00:06 MasterFischer wrote:
It´s a good idea, I don´t really like smurfing.
Celebrities get harassed? Yea so?
What about all the real life celebrities, tv, movie, rock stars.. they dont have a fkin smurf name, they get harassed all the time by low life losers. That´s what its like being a celebrity. Deal with it or quit teh game.
I´m sure they can handle it, and I´m sure some kind of feature will be added to better handle harassment etc.
Play Unrated if u want to check out new stuff, strategies and races.
I have a hard time understanding where all the whine is coming from, I really do. :/
I do not mind the rule as much, as I believe changing names will be available.
IMO the analogy of tv/rock stars getting harassed is not really appropriate here because:
1)We are not low life losers... we are educated gamers.
2) They said it was going to be like facebook, so they have to accept a friend request to be able to talk to them.
3) Have you noticed a trend with the top Korean/foreign players? They are all well mannered, and the only other way of meeting someone like JD on battle net 2 is through the ladder. No doubt that he will be playing in the best league in the ladder, along with other top and well mannered people. This statement excludes IdrA (however, his time in Korea has made more mannered than when he was in the USA, which means he is amongst top players which means that some of their gm with rub off on him as well). This means the pros wont be harrassed.
However I do agree with why this is a big deal. I honestly think Bnet in general will function like steam (except bnet isnt a seperate program), and steam is amazing.
|
(Half of a) Solution : make practice mode, where you would play practice games agaisnt someone of your current league.
Really, anti-smurfing is here to stay, and I think everyone here saw it coming, as Blizzard's intention of making their games much more accessible to beginners has always been clear.
|
United States7166 Posts
On August 24 2009 05:01 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 02:04 MER wrote:On August 24 2009 00:45 Liquid`NonY wrote:On August 23 2009 10:55 FrozenArbiter wrote:
How many times do I need to bring this up....
Have one master account.
Allow this account to create - let's say - 3 user IDs for SC2.
Have the ELL be tracked by the master account - so if I have a high ranking account and create a new one, the new account will start with the same ELL as my first account (or, at least higher than a completely new account).
No noobs get bashed, and I get to "smurf" without disrupting the accuracy of the ladder. I think the amount of extra technical work this involves is not worth the very weak benefit of this feature. I think there are more important features missing from B.Net 2.0. Also, if you could clarify this scenario: --Master account has 2000 rating. --First ID has 2000 rating (all games have been played on this ID) --Second ID is created. It has 0 rating, but matches against 2000 rated players (based on master account rating) --Second ID plays against a 2000 rated player (both by ID and master) Are the point changes (for both the IDs and the masters) calculated based on each player's master account rating, or on the rating of their IDs? If it's based on master account rating, then the player who plays on only one ID is going to get easier points than he deserves. That is, with this system, it is guaranteed that people are going to get free points when playing their main race and trying their hardest against someone not playing their main race and/or not trying. But if you try to adjust for this by factoring in the 2nd ID's personal rating into the point change calculation, then the guy playing on one ID stands to get screwed when playing against someone's 2nd ID who is playing his best. Either way, it's corrupting the ladder. If it's based purely on personal ratings, then obviously the guy who uses only one ID is at a huge disadvantage. He is forced to match against people with very low rating who have a much better chance of beating him than their rating reflects. The bottom line, I think, is that if you are playing rated ladder games, you ought to be trying your hardest every single game. You only need one account for that. Asking for multiple accounts is purely an aesthetic thing, for both the name of the account and the stats on the account. Such weak aesthetic features aren't worth adding an entire new layer of account registration and management. IMO the purpose of the master account's points should be to determine your overall skill so you wont get bashing noobs whenerever you make a new ID. So when you make a new ID it starts with the same points as your master account. After a match the point change to your ID is done according to your ID's points. That way if you use this account for offrace/screwing around your ID's points will eventually go down but that wont be bad for the opposing players because you are playing badly on this account. In the same time, after a match your master account's points get readjusted but not with the same amount as your ID but taking into account your other IDs - if you have another very strong main ID the points wont go down so much after a loss (or to make it simpler the master account's points may be equal to the points of your best ID) In short the matchmaking is done according to how well you play on your current ID - if you play bad there is no harm for your noob opponents. The master points are to determine your overall skill so that when you make a new account you dont start from 0 points and start bashing weaker players.
Or in other words the purpose of the master account's points is so that when you start a new ID not to start from the bottom and rape weaker opponents till you get high, but to start from your current level and get raped yourself until you go down to the level you are playing at. I really like the idea, although, I see one problem with it: how do you prevent people from creating additional accounts (way) before they reach their peak level? E.g. let's say I'm capable of reaching A rank (which I'm not, but for the sake of the example, let me dream ), but I create a new account when my master account is at D+. Now I have a duplicate D+ account, and I can easily bash newbs on that level, while I comfortably level my main account. The potential solution: I suggested to FA on MSN that maybe you should be able to create new accounts as soon as you reach Bronze League (an equivalent of C rank or so), so that the vast majority of people that complain about smurfing are left out of the equation; obviously, any new account would always start at Brozne League level or your highest account level, as you suggested. What do you think?
um there's still the problem where people can create a new account, mass lose (on purpose or just screwing around/new race), then play seriously and bash newbies.
not to mention that this system just makes things complicated with a lot of 'what if' scenarios and has holes/issues (such as the one nony posted just above)
really the system blizzard has is fine especially if they have separate ELL ratings for each race, and nonrated or some such type of game you can play if you wanna screw around
|
I think a lot of people have a false idea of what a rating should be, mostly because of easy account restarts in most online games, and the whole online mentality of bragging and your worth being measured by records.
What I mean is that many people think if they try a new strategy or a new race, their rating/record shouldn't take a hit because of that. And this is where I ask: why not? If you suck at that other strategy/race/whatever, then you rating should reflect it, because it's a part of your game. A rating is not a measurement of your best skills, but a measurement of your skills overall. Of course I think they should have seperate ratings for the different races, but trying unorthodox or just new builds/etc in ladder games should cause a small rating/record hit, because they reveal a weakness in your gameplay.
So I don't really see any problem that can't be solved by allowing name changing and privacy settings. You can have several names, you can hide from your friends with some of those names, have privacy, etc., but your rating will always reflect your personal skill level. Because that is what a rating should do.
|
hmm i dont really care -__-
|
I love this decision. Its really gonna cut down on the trolling. The final blow to trolling should be a permanent ignore list. That would make b.net so much better.
|
Since people (oh, noobs I meant) are so against smurfing, and as it is now, it wont be allowed. I'll take the time to lose alot of games just to drop my rating down to beginners level, and then bash them. Why? Because you're crying about smurfs wanting clean records, while you yourself obviously want the same. If you want a good game with people your own rank, and don't care about stats, just leave the game when you sense that the player is much higher rank than you (he obviously deserve the points to get there anyway..). You could also take the time to look for a player of your own level, and play unrated with him/her.
Ladders wont get inaccurate because some people are smurfing, the majority of the players will still make the large impact on how the ladder is.
|
On August 24 2009 17:54 Noe wrote:
Since people (oh, noobs I meant) are so against smurfing, and as it is now, it wont be allowed. I'll take the time to lose alot of games just to drop my rating down to beginners level, and then bash them. Why? Because you're crying about smurfs wanting clean records, while you yourself obviously want the same. If you want a good game with people your own rank, and don't care about stats, just leave the game when you sense that the player is much higher rank than you (he obviously deserve the points to get there anyway..). You could also take the time to look for a player of your own level, and play unrated with him/her.
Ladders wont get inaccurate because some people are smurfing, the majority of the players will still make the large impact on how the ladder is.
lol ok have fun with that. Not many people will want to have their rating hit like that all the time so only the select few people (oh, idiots I meant) will lose on purpose, smurf so thats 1 smurf compared to 70% of people getting smurfed. Hmm 1 out of every 20 or so games or 1 out of 2-3 games. I like my odds
|
On August 24 2009 17:54 Noe wrote:
Since people (oh, noobs I meant) are so against smurfing, and as it is now, it wont be allowed. I'll take the time to lose alot of games just to drop my rating down to beginners level, and then bash them. Why? Because you're crying about smurfs wanting clean records, while you yourself obviously want the same. If you want a good game with people your own rank, and don't care about stats, just leave the game when you sense that the player is much higher rank than you (he obviously deserve the points to get there anyway..). You could also take the time to look for a player of your own level, and play unrated with him/her.
Ladders wont get inaccurate because some people are smurfing, the majority of the players will still make the large impact on how the ladder is.
Well, obviously the lower you're in the food chain, the higher are your chances of being matched with someone much better, if there's nothing done to prevent smurfing.
Sure, if you're C+ on ICCUP right now, you'll meet B, B+, A- players once in a while, but you'll be outmatched much less frequently than if you're a D player, who will get raped by any player from D+ to A- who just reseted his stats. This can be extremely discouraging to new players, when they feel only 1 out of 3 games they play are actually on their own level. It really isnt about the records as much as trying to have fair games for everyone.
Some people will say ''omg playing against better ppl will make you better in the long run!!!'. It's true, but frankly there's really not much a D will learn from a B when the game doesnt even get to mid game, this will just frustrate the D player more than anything.
Bottomline, I agree with Blizzard's effort to keep newbies in this kind of ''newbie zone''. After all, don't we want to encourage the less skilled to play regular maps, instead of going back to money maps that were so popular in SC1? Isnt the goal of the whole community, not only Blizzard, to make the game as accessible as possible for anyone?
Also, FrozenArbiter's suggestion to be able to have many accounts all tied to the main account with shared stats is really the most logical solution, I can't think of any downside to this idea.
|
On August 24 2009 17:54 Noe wrote:
I'll take the time to lose alot of games just to drop my rating down to beginners level, and then bash them. Why? Because you're crying about smurfs wanting clean records, while you yourself obviously want the same.
Wrong. What I want is that rating should represent a player's skill level as accurately as possible
|
I like having multiple names/accounts. I always have liked my privacy at times.
The way I view it is that blizzard simply wants the best ladder with the least amount of admin work load. 1 account essentially eliminates a lot of potential stats abuse. I can't think of an easier or more effective way of managing a ladder as large as sc2's will be. Iccup is constantly recruiting.
I don't see this being changed.
What would be nice is if before your first game of a new ladder season you had the option of changing your name, preferably for free ;;
|
On August 24 2009 04:44 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 04:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:Yes but that's a problem with the game being 11 years old, not with smurfing :p + I was absolutely obsessed with starcraft when I started playing it - I was like "ok, I'm gonna go pro". I think I downloaded every single PvZ on YaoYuan.com (it was not as big back then as now lol ) and I played 20 games a day + watched a ton of replays. And I had the good fortune to run into a few really nice korean players who taught me a lot about how to play (especially this one guy who went by qqqoooqqq on west, really nice guy). Yeah, it probably wouldn't be as bad sc2 regardless, but it's kind of annoying on iccup. I don't mind playing like A or A+ zergs, but when I'm playing pvz all that's going to happen if a C or higher zerg plays me (at d/d+ level) is "runby/hydrabust/lingall-in/2 hatch mutas/5/6/7pool" because they want a fast win and you learn nothing from this other than that C and higher players can deny scouting well. edit: Also, I did watch tons of pro replays when just starting, but recent and relevant pro replays are a bit harder to find. Haven't really found anyone better than me to play with other than fanaticist, and we just went 1/1 in the last pvp we played.
dude, its a ladder. people play to win there. go on bnet if you dont wanna win or dont wanna face players who play to actually win. lol
|
Blizzard is only following a natural trend in that all the great ideas always come with bad ones =)
|
On August 24 2009 08:35 TheTuna wrote:
Something else interesting:http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/starcraft2/video/6215996/battle-net-panel-highlights
If you go to about ~10:00 in the video, Rob Pardo talks about how the Real ID provides achievements that "span characters". This sounds a lot like alternate sub-accounts are possible.
Afaik he's talking about different games' characters.
|
On August 24 2009 18:14 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 17:54 Noe wrote:
Since people (oh, noobs I meant) are so against smurfing, and as it is now, it wont be allowed. I'll take the time to lose alot of games just to drop my rating down to beginners level, and then bash them. Why? Because you're crying about smurfs wanting clean records, while you yourself obviously want the same. If you want a good game with people your own rank, and don't care about stats, just leave the game when you sense that the player is much higher rank than you (he obviously deserve the points to get there anyway..). You could also take the time to look for a player of your own level, and play unrated with him/her.
Ladders wont get inaccurate because some people are smurfing, the majority of the players will still make the large impact on how the ladder is. lol ok have fun with that. Not many people will want to have their rating hit like that all the time so only the select few people (oh, idiots I meant) will lose on purpose, smurf so thats 1 smurf compared to 70% of people getting smurfed. Hmm 1 out of every 20 or so games or 1 out of 2-3 games. I like my odds
I didn't really get your point there, only that a few people would take record hits to bash noobs. The rest made no sense at all to me. But sure, not alot of people would go through this process to kill less experienced players, because this is not even the point in smurfing.
On August 24 2009 18:17 lepape wrote:
Bottomline, I agree with Blizzard's effort to keep newbies in this kind of ''newbie zone''. After all, don't we want to encourage the less skilled to play regular maps, instead of going back to money maps that were so popular in SC1? Isnt the goal of the whole community, not only Blizzard, to make the game as accessible as possible for anyone?
Sure, it's good to encourage new players. But if it is like Starcraft, where alot of knowledge and no speed/apm plays a huge character in the beginning, even slightly better players will 'roll' over these beginners. Then there will be whine again over something else instead of smurfing.
|
On August 24 2009 19:11 Noe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 18:14 blade55555 wrote:On August 24 2009 17:54 Noe wrote:
Since people (oh, noobs I meant) are so against smurfing, and as it is now, it wont be allowed. I'll take the time to lose alot of games just to drop my rating down to beginners level, and then bash them. Why? Because you're crying about smurfs wanting clean records, while you yourself obviously want the same. If you want a good game with people your own rank, and don't care about stats, just leave the game when you sense that the player is much higher rank than you (he obviously deserve the points to get there anyway..). You could also take the time to look for a player of your own level, and play unrated with him/her.
Ladders wont get inaccurate because some people are smurfing, the majority of the players will still make the large impact on how the ladder is. lol ok have fun with that. Not many people will want to have their rating hit like that all the time so only the select few people (oh, idiots I meant) will lose on purpose, smurf so thats 1 smurf compared to 70% of people getting smurfed. Hmm 1 out of every 20 or so games or 1 out of 2-3 games. I like my odds I didn't really get your point there, only that a few people would take record hits to bash noobs. The rest made no sense at all to me. But sure, not alot of people would go through this process to kill less experienced players, because this is not even the point in smurfing. Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 18:17 lepape wrote:
Bottomline, I agree with Blizzard's effort to keep newbies in this kind of ''newbie zone''. After all, don't we want to encourage the less skilled to play regular maps, instead of going back to money maps that were so popular in SC1? Isnt the goal of the whole community, not only Blizzard, to make the game as accessible as possible for anyone? Sure, it's good to encourage new players. But if it is like Starcraft, where alot of knowledge and no speed/apm plays a huge character in the beginning, even slightly better players will 'roll' over these beginners. Then there will be whine again over something else instead of smurfing.
Wow. Just wow I am not even going to bother wasting my time responding to this in an actual response.
|
On August 24 2009 16:46 Zelniq wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 05:01 maybenexttime wrote:On August 24 2009 02:04 MER wrote:On August 24 2009 00:45 Liquid`NonY wrote:On August 23 2009 10:55 FrozenArbiter wrote:
How many times do I need to bring this up....
Have one master account.
Allow this account to create - let's say - 3 user IDs for SC2.
Have the ELL be tracked by the master account - so if I have a high ranking account and create a new one, the new account will start with the same ELL as my first account (or, at least higher than a completely new account).
No noobs get bashed, and I get to "smurf" without disrupting the accuracy of the ladder. I think the amount of extra technical work this involves is not worth the very weak benefit of this feature. I think there are more important features missing from B.Net 2.0. Also, if you could clarify this scenario: --Master account has 2000 rating. --First ID has 2000 rating (all games have been played on this ID) --Second ID is created. It has 0 rating, but matches against 2000 rated players (based on master account rating) --Second ID plays against a 2000 rated player (both by ID and master) Are the point changes (for both the IDs and the masters) calculated based on each player's master account rating, or on the rating of their IDs? If it's based on master account rating, then the player who plays on only one ID is going to get easier points than he deserves. That is, with this system, it is guaranteed that people are going to get free points when playing their main race and trying their hardest against someone not playing their main race and/or not trying. But if you try to adjust for this by factoring in the 2nd ID's personal rating into the point change calculation, then the guy playing on one ID stands to get screwed when playing against someone's 2nd ID who is playing his best. Either way, it's corrupting the ladder. If it's based purely on personal ratings, then obviously the guy who uses only one ID is at a huge disadvantage. He is forced to match against people with very low rating who have a much better chance of beating him than their rating reflects. The bottom line, I think, is that if you are playing rated ladder games, you ought to be trying your hardest every single game. You only need one account for that. Asking for multiple accounts is purely an aesthetic thing, for both the name of the account and the stats on the account. Such weak aesthetic features aren't worth adding an entire new layer of account registration and management. IMO the purpose of the master account's points should be to determine your overall skill so you wont get bashing noobs whenerever you make a new ID. So when you make a new ID it starts with the same points as your master account. After a match the point change to your ID is done according to your ID's points. That way if you use this account for offrace/screwing around your ID's points will eventually go down but that wont be bad for the opposing players because you are playing badly on this account. In the same time, after a match your master account's points get readjusted but not with the same amount as your ID but taking into account your other IDs - if you have another very strong main ID the points wont go down so much after a loss (or to make it simpler the master account's points may be equal to the points of your best ID) In short the matchmaking is done according to how well you play on your current ID - if you play bad there is no harm for your noob opponents. The master points are to determine your overall skill so that when you make a new account you dont start from 0 points and start bashing weaker players.
Or in other words the purpose of the master account's points is so that when you start a new ID not to start from the bottom and rape weaker opponents till you get high, but to start from your current level and get raped yourself until you go down to the level you are playing at. I really like the idea, although, I see one problem with it: how do you prevent people from creating additional accounts (way) before they reach their peak level? E.g. let's say I'm capable of reaching A rank (which I'm not, but for the sake of the example, let me dream ), but I create a new account when my master account is at D+. Now I have a duplicate D+ account, and I can easily bash newbs on that level, while I comfortably level my main account. The potential solution: I suggested to FA on MSN that maybe you should be able to create new accounts as soon as you reach Bronze League (an equivalent of C rank or so), so that the vast majority of people that complain about smurfing are left out of the equation; obviously, any new account would always start at Brozne League level or your highest account level, as you suggested. What do you think? um there's still the problem where people can create a new account, mass lose (on purpose or just screwing around/new race), then play seriously and bash newbies. not to mention that this system just makes things complicated with a lot of 'what if' scenarios and has holes/issues (such as the one nony posted just above) really the system blizzard has is fine especially if they have separate ELL ratings for each race, and nonrated or some such type of game you can play if you wanna screw around
But 'one account per cd key' has just as many issues. ;/
If there are enough people playing unrated games for you to be able to practice/mess around/whatever, then there are definitely enough people for you to be able to bash noobs.
How is bashing noobs in unrated games not a problem if doing so in rated ones is?
In my opinion, the Blizzard ladder should, first and foremost, be a practice platform. Maybe they should have a separate ladder meant specifically for competition, with one acc per cd key allowed, where accuracy is of utmost importance. From my experience, the vast majority of players playing on the ladder do not care about such accuracy as much as Nony does, because they don't aim to reach top 100 or so - for them it's just a tool to get games quick.
On August 24 2009 17:34 BrickTop wrote:
I think a lot of people have a false idea of what a rating should be, mostly because of easy account restarts in most online games, and the whole online mentality of bragging and your worth being measured by records.
What I mean is that many people think if they try a new strategy or a new race, their rating/record shouldn't take a hit because of that. And this is where I ask: why not? If you suck at that other strategy/race/whatever, then you rating should reflect it, because it's a part of your game. A rating is not a measurement of your best skills, but a measurement of your skills overall. Of course I think they should have seperate ratings for the different races, but trying unorthodox or just new builds/etc in ladder games should cause a small rating/record hit, because they reveal a weakness in your gameplay.
So I don't really see any problem that can't be solved by allowing name changing and privacy settings. You can have several names, you can hide from your friends with some of those names, have privacy, etc., but your rating will always reflect your personal skill level. Because that is what a rating should do.
bold added
I already explained why such a point of view is completely wrong.
Let's say I'm an A Terran, B Zerg and D Protoss.
Scenario #1: I decide to play only with my A Terran.
The result is: my account is A rank; it does not reflect my overall skill level, but it does reflect my peak skills.
Scenario #2: I decide to play only with my A Terran and B Zerg
The result is: my account is A-/B+ rank; it does not reflect my overall skill level not does it reflect my peak skills.
Scenario #3: I decide to play with all races.
The result is: my account is C- rank; it does reflect my overall skill level, but it does not reflect my peak skills.
You can swap "Zerg"/"Protoss" with "mech TvZ"/"unorthodox play"/whatever
The point is, if somebody does not want his account to reflect his overall skill level or/nor his peak skill level, there's no way Blizzard can force them to. There's no way to make the ladder as accurate as you or Nony want...
If somebody can prevent his rank from dropping by practicing in unrated games, why not let him do this on ladder, with another account, for the sake of much greater convenience?
Also, Nony, I've suggested an alternate solution: upon reaching Brozne League, you're entitled to creating 2-3 additional accounts, each starting as Brozne League account, leaving the vast majority of people complaining about smurfs out of the equation, without forcing you to give free points to too strong opponents.
Anyway, I still have not seen the issue of the start of a new season addressed.
It should be a much bigger of a problem for everyone complaining about smurfs...
|
One account would be awesome in one way but I feel bad for the progamers.
|
On August 24 2009 09:59 Liquid`NonY wrote:
MER: Let's say a high rated player wants to make a second ID because he's going to do something that'll cause him to get more losses, like play a different race, play on a laptop or do weird strategies. When he tried his best, he reached a 2000 rating on his first ID. But because of the self-imposed disadvantages, he's only capable of a 1500 rating on his second ID. If you allow him to match against 2000 rated players when he starts his second ID, it's true that he won't have to newb bash his way from 0-1500. That's good. The problem is that his opponents, 2000 rated players, are going to bash him from 2000 down to 1500. I'm sure he doesn't care about that -- in fact it's why he made a second ID. But all of his opponents during his descension to 1500 got good points that they did not deserve.
In other words, every time a high rated player makes a second ID on which he plans to achieve a lower ranking, your system allows for high rated players to essentially newb bash and get free points when they're already near the top of the ladder.
Ahh I see your point now. And theres no way to know how well you'll play on the new account in advance. Damn a mindfuck .
EDIT:
On August 24 2009 19:32 maybenexttime wrote:
The point is, if somebody does not want his account to reflect his overall skill level or/nor his peak skill level, there's no way Blizzard can force them to. There's no way to make the ladder as accurate as you or Nony want...
QFT. People will try new races/strategies either way so they'll give free points to opponents with or without having smurf accounts. The smurf account just keeps intact your own score.
If we want truly accurate ladder the system should be made so that neither of the opponents gain free advantage. I cant think of another way except practicing only in unrated games but the quality of play there will always suck big time.
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 24 2009 20:14 MER wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 09:59 Liquid`NonY wrote:
MER: Let's say a high rated player wants to make a second ID because he's going to do something that'll cause him to get more losses, like play a different race, play on a laptop or do weird strategies. When he tried his best, he reached a 2000 rating on his first ID. But because of the self-imposed disadvantages, he's only capable of a 1500 rating on his second ID. If you allow him to match against 2000 rated players when he starts his second ID, it's true that he won't have to newb bash his way from 0-1500. That's good. The problem is that his opponents, 2000 rated players, are going to bash him from 2000 down to 1500. I'm sure he doesn't care about that -- in fact it's why he made a second ID. But all of his opponents during his descension to 1500 got good points that they did not deserve.
In other words, every time a high rated player makes a second ID on which he plans to achieve a lower ranking, your system allows for high rated players to essentially newb bash and get free points when they're already near the top of the ladder. Ahh I see your point now. And theres no way to know how well you'll play on the new account in advance. Damn a mindfuck . EDIT: Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 19:32 maybenexttime wrote:
The point is, if somebody does not want his account to reflect his overall skill level or/nor his peak skill level, there's no way Blizzard can force them to. There's no way to make the ladder as accurate as you or Nony want...
QFT. People will try new races/strategies either way so they'll give free points to opponents with or without having smurf accounts. The smurf account just keeps intact your own score. If we want truly accurate ladder the system should be made so that neither of the opponents gain free advantage. I cant think of another way except practicing only in unrated games but the quality of play there will always suck big time.
There is a compromise, which is that the system could significantly diminish the point gains/losses associated with alternate accounts (whether you're playing with or against them). Not perfect, but workable. This way, players trying new strategies don't lose as many points when doing so on their alternate accounts (though they don't gain as many points either), and players playing against someone's alternate account doesn't gain as many points as they would by playing someone's main account.
|
OK, another issue:
Blizzard has put so much effort in limiting smurfing, but how exactly are they gonna prevent people from noob-bashing by joining this whole Casual League they'll have? It's practically a huge sign saying "WE'RE NEWBIES, COME HERE AND RAPE US"...
|
On August 24 2009 18:48 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 04:44 Nevuk wrote:On August 24 2009 04:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:Yes but that's a problem with the game being 11 years old, not with smurfing :p + I was absolutely obsessed with starcraft when I started playing it - I was like "ok, I'm gonna go pro". I think I downloaded every single PvZ on YaoYuan.com (it was not as big back then as now lol ) and I played 20 games a day + watched a ton of replays. And I had the good fortune to run into a few really nice korean players who taught me a lot about how to play (especially this one guy who went by qqqoooqqq on west, really nice guy). Yeah, it probably wouldn't be as bad sc2 regardless, but it's kind of annoying on iccup. I don't mind playing like A or A+ zergs, but when I'm playing pvz all that's going to happen if a C or higher zerg plays me (at d/d+ level) is "runby/hydrabust/lingall-in/2 hatch mutas/5/6/7pool" because they want a fast win and you learn nothing from this other than that C and higher players can deny scouting well. edit: Also, I did watch tons of pro replays when just starting, but recent and relevant pro replays are a bit harder to find. Haven't really found anyone better than me to play with other than fanaticist, and we just went 1/1 in the last pvp we played. dude, its a ladder. people play to win there. go on bnet if you dont wanna win or dont wanna face players who play to actually win. lol
The reason I play on a ladder is because I want to improve. The skill level is higher than on battle.net and doesn't vary quite as much. People who just want to win and don't care about improving their skill at all are people I'm not interested in playing, ever. In general C+ or so players will not improve their skills playing a D level player, thus resetting stats late in the season doesn't really help them. I do actually play more on hamachi than iccup now due to this.
|
On August 22 2009 08:16 pokerface wrote:
and we waited waited holding our breath,hoping that they will announce SOMETHING that could ease our pain...guess what we didnt get shit.This is aweful
OWNED!
|
Actually, the best reaon to play on the Ladder is to take advantage of the AMM so you get....
Fun Games
a competitive (non custom/v. AI) game is fun if it is very competitive ie playing someone at your level... 50% win/loss
(for a fun/easy win you play v. an Easy AI, for a fun weird game you play custom)
This also happens to be the best way to improve (playing people about as good as you)
As for the Casual league, well there are things there to limit that like
1) not played on fastest speed (lowers the APM usefulness... and makes it more annoying to pros)
2) rush blockers
3.... possibly players on a high level in the casual league can't join....
OR
Even better, the AMM based on your regular ladder level still works, so if you go in the casual league to noob bash... you will be paired against the other noob bashers of your level. (unless you Never leave the Casual league)
Basically the idea is that high level players should ONLY be playing v. noobs in custom/private games
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Krikkitone, I think after a (few) year(s), this might work. The problem? At release, ANYONE who has played SC or WC3 before, and joins the noob league, is gonna stomp the people in it :-(
And, @Nony:
How about instead of starting him at his highest ELL, he starts at a higher than 0 ELL (how much higher depending on how high his highest is I guess)?
Also, instead of having the ELL adjust like it would under normal circumstances, make it hyper sensitive during your first 10 games (like how you used to gain/lose a ton of points in your first 25 games on Game-i).
I'm still not sure how to solve the Ranking vs ELL issue, if someone makes a new account and is matched with a pretty high ranking player due to ELL, does that mean the high ranking player could potentially drop really far in rank.. or do you win/lose the same amount regardless of how far below/above you the person you lose to/beat is ranked?
And, as maybenexttime said, you should not be able to create a new account until you hit a certain ELL level (or maaaaybe 1, letting your siblings create their own account without buying a new game SHOULD be possible, regardless of what the bean counting department at Blizzard thinks).
|
I think a lot of us are losing privileges because of a few of us being assholes.
The story of just about everything nowadays.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 25 2009 07:59 gumbum8 wrote:
I think a lot of us are losing privileges because of a few of us being assholes.
The story of just about everything nowadays.
Hehe, yes I have lamented this fact multiple times over the past few days
|
Everyone who is against this idea, prepare to be countered:
Play custom or unrated.
Brother wants to play? Unrated
New Race? Unrated
New Strategy? Unrated
I'm expected they'll just gloss over this and argue with the others, but you can't say I didn't try.
|
On August 25 2009 07:59 gumbum8 wrote:
I think a lot of us are losing privileges because of a few of us being assholes.
The story of just about everything nowadays.
Talk bout hitting the nail in the head ...
Still, I think the 1 acc is more about the online marketplace than to prevent smurfing
Me personally I hate having horrible ratings, and I love ceating new accounts, trying new races and weirds builds.
Now ill play 90% of my melle games as custom games because Ill want to give ladder only my A game.
The noob ladder will be at a horribly slow speed, and therefore being good at it wont really improve your game.
It all leads me to think that this system doesnt fix noob bashing at all (and nothing will they are noobs!) its more about having control over ones content and making ladder more serious.
|
On August 25 2009 08:43 Rakanishu2 wrote:
Everyone who is against this idea, prepare to be countered:
Play custom or unrated.
Brother wants to play? Unrated
New Race? Unrated
New Strategy? Unrated
I'm expected they'll just gloss over this and argue with the others, but you can't say I didn't try.
The answer is: Why should I?
Why should I be forced to do that if noob bashing can be prevented even while allowing multiple accounts? Why should there be only one account available "for the sake of ladder accuracy" when I already proved that there's no way to make sure the ladder is accurate anyway despite it?
On August 25 2009 08:53 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2009 07:59 gumbum8 wrote:
I think a lot of us are losing privileges because of a few of us being assholes.
The story of just about everything nowadays. Talk bout hitting the nail in the head ... Still, I think the 1 acc is more about the online marketplace than to prevent smurfing
Well, the marketplace would be handled through one's master account.
The noob ladder will be at a horribly slow speed, and therefore being good at it wont really improve your game.
Yeah, but the people who actually do enjoy bashing noobs shouldn't really mind that.
It all leads me to think that this system doesnt fix noob bashing at all (and nothing will they are noobs!) its more about having control over ones content and making ladder more serious.[/QUOTE]
The top of the ladder will be serious regardless of multiple accounts allowed, while the middle and bottom of it won't due to the attitude of players (the bottom especially so).
|
Canada11349 Posts
On August 25 2009 06:43 Krikkitone wrote:
Actually, the best reaon to play on the Ladder is to take advantage of the AMM so you get....
Fun Games
a competitive (non custom/v. AI) game is fun if it is very competitive ie playing someone at your level... 50% win/loss
(for a fun/easy win you play v. an Easy AI, for a fun weird game you play custom)
This also happens to be the best way to improve (playing people about as good as you)
But this is exactly why others are arguing for a separation of the race stats so that it is "competitive ie playing at your level... 50% win/loss" An 'A' level zerg may be a 'B' or 'C' level toss or terran. There is no competition if your playing your offrace against another A level player.
On August 25 2009 08:43 Rakanishu2 wrote:
Everyone who is against this idea, prepare to be countered:
Play custom or unrated.
Brother wants to play? Unrated
New Race? Unrated
New Strategy? Unrated
I'm expected they'll just gloss over this and argue with the others, but you can't say I didn't try.
But if the purpose is solely to prevent noob stomping, how does playing unrated help at all? The multi id/master account (in theory) allows an A level to drop down to their proper level when they off race/ try a new strategy. No noob stomping there.
|
I think that allowing a second SC2 account with reduced xp gain (as mentioned earlier) would be a decent idea. At the very least, this new account would allow people the freedom to experiment while under less pressure to win. This system would simultaneously make it more difficult for a smurfer to advance (e.g. at a 50% cut in experience per game, you would need to gain ~twice as many wins as usual to be able to achieve the desired rank).
I don't think that players' stats should be penalized if they want to practice a new strategy or pick up a new race in a competitive setting. I would agree that an unrated "ladder" would be a good place to start practicing a new race or strategy, but even then I doubt that anyone can get completely realistic feedback about his/her performance until he/she tests the new race or strategy in a competitive setting. I imagine that it would be frustrating to have to go from A rank to C rank just because one wants to try Terran seriously for a while or attempt to introduce innovations to the meta-game.
Alternately, perhaps Blizzard could reset the ladder stats and allow a name change after each season (i.e. every three months) This would still curb the smurfing issue (the hypothetical smurfer would still only have one fresh account each season with no way of manual stat reset), and this way, if you wanted to pick up a new race or has just come back from a long hiatus, you would be starting over at the appropriate level of difficulty.
|
if any of you have played arena in wow, I imagine it might it would work similar to that
|
On August 25 2009 10:36 lazz wrote:
if any of you have played arena in wow, I imagine it might it would work similar to that
I don't think it would. WoW is an RPG (thought I have never played it), so I assume each character will start out at the starting level, no matter what you main account is. So wouldn't you be able to match individually simply based off of level? Please explain more.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 25 2009 10:36 lazz wrote:
if any of you have played arena in wow, I imagine it might it would work similar to that
I am not familiar with that system - could you elaborate?
|
On August 25 2009 08:53 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2009 07:59 gumbum8 wrote:
I think a lot of us are losing privileges because of a few of us being assholes.
The story of just about everything nowadays. Talk bout hitting the nail in the head ... Still, I think the 1 acc is more about the online marketplace than to prevent smurfing Me personally I hate having horrible ratings, and I love ceating new accounts, trying new races and weirds builds. Now ill play 90% of my melle games as custom games because Ill want to give ladder only my A game. The noob ladder will be at a horribly slow speed, and therefore being good at it wont really improve your game. It all leads me to think that this system doesnt fix noob bashing at all (and nothing will they are noobs!) its more about having control over ones content and making ladder more serious.
No in most of it's ways it takes care of hardcore smurfing. I believe that you will not be able to play in lower level ladders once you get to the next level.
Anyway yea, gumbum8 summed it up.
And of course they want to make the ladder more serious. I remember in one interview Dustin said the mothership wont be used in "B/B+ level games." I am not sure how the original ladder worked, but I am sure now that Blizzard knows of PGT and iCCup. People love this ladders because they are very serious ladders, and they showcase your true skill. A serious and accurate ladder will help them in their mission to spread e-sports in America.
|
On August 25 2009 10:59 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2009 10:36 lazz wrote:
if any of you have played arena in wow, I imagine it might it would work similar to that I am not familiar with that system - could you elaborate?
In WoW, when you want to play an arena game, you have 2 choices: Rated and Unrated games.
Rated games count (ELOish system), and unrated don't. However, for both, the search is automatic, and you are matched automatically.
Generally people will play a few unrateds before jumping into rated games, making it so there are always a great quantity of unrated games available. No problem with search times whatsoever.
This, IMO, would be perfect for SC2 too. Especially if they add thumbs down and thumbs up for matchups (like, say, I wanna play TvT and TvZ, but no TvP, or I just wanna practice TvZ)), like for maps in WC3 (you can choose to never play a map in WC3).
It would just make sense and would be a natural evolution.
In my opinion, if the only thing that really gets public on your account is your rating, and a solid unrated game system (better than OMG MASS MONEY games spam) is available, 1 key 1 account system is a significant step forward.
Also: In account info, in the SS, losses are not visible. Only Wins. My guess is that it's for icon winning purposes (a la WC3). No % given. E-Penis is safe.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Almost sure there's a bunch more detailed stats if you click the "statistics" tab.
|
On August 25 2009 11:41 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Almost sure there's a bunch more detailed stats if you click the "statistics" tab.
Most likely. Whether they will be available to other players directly online with a /stats command or not remains to be seen.
Frankly, I can't wait for it to be released. I feel like I'm babbling to no end over speculations on something I actually know nothing about but a couple screenshots ^_^
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On August 25 2009 07:59 gumbum8 wrote:
I think a lot of us are losing privileges because of a few of us being assholes.
The story of just about everything nowadays.
In a way true, but it goes beyond that subject.
- real i.d. is also is there to try to limit pirating; if people want to play online people they are going have to pay for the game.
- it's also about the distinction between "sport" and "game". For example you don't see Micheal Jordan or Lim Yo-Hwan smurfing in their respective sports when they compete - and neither has the privilege either from hiding from their fame. If sc2 is going to be treated as a sport and there is to be an honest attempt at minimizing cheating, social engineering methods are at the core, i.e. real i.d - just like in "real" sports - specially in the online sphere were everything is at the whim of people that rather play with code than the game itself regardless of how full proof the methods to prevent cheating and pirating are..
If one wants sc2 exclusively as a "game" then of course real i.d. hinders the definition of fun for your average gamer.
Anyway I would rather have sc2 to have a solid foundation for online competition out of the bat without having to deal with the myriad of failed ladders, phucking cheaters and hackers out there to the extent that we have endured all these years. I disagree that we will lose any privileges - unless of course you count playing for free, without paying for the game.
So real i.d. all the way here : ) -
|
On August 25 2009 12:10 Physician wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2009 07:59 gumbum8 wrote:
I think a lot of us are losing privileges because of a few of us being assholes.
The story of just about everything nowadays. In a way true, but it goes beyond that subject. - real i.d. is also is there to try to limit pirating; if people want to play online people they are going have to pay for the game. - it's also about the distinction between "sport" and "game". For example you don't see Micheal Jordan or Lim Yo-Hwan smurfing in their respective sports when they compete - and neither has the privilege either from hiding from their fame. If sc2 is going to be treated as a sport and there is to be an honest attempt at minimizing cheating, social engineering methods are at the core, i.e. real i.d - just like in "real" sports - specially in the online sphere were everything is at the whim of people that rather play with code than the game itself regardless of how full proof the methods to prevent cheating and pirating are.. If one wants sc2 exclusively as a "game" then of course real i.d. hinders the definition of fun for your average gamer. Anyway I would rather have sc2 to have a solid foundation for online competition out of the bat without having to deal with the myriad of failed ladders, phucking cheaters and hackers out there to the extent that we have endured all these years. I disagree that we will lose any privileges - unless of course you count playing for free, without paying for the game. So real i.d. all the way here : ) -
actually, isnt it real ID + nickname? remember the enoyles account? I think that was his nickname (like in Facebook, you can set 1 nickname for yourself). This way the average gamer can have fun as well.
|
I wouldn't mind real ID if it had time-based stats, too. It would be fun to track our progress over time (EG your win rate increases, etc.).
|
On August 24 2009 18:17 lepape wrote:
Also, FrozenArbiter's suggestion to be able to have many accounts all tied to the main account with shared stats is really the most logical solution, I can't think of any downside to this idea.
how about the one i mentioned about the fact that the hidden identity makes the player unrecognizable? so he can play someone who hasn't changed his name and know how he plays and the other guy knows nothing about him...that's a downside.
|
On August 25 2009 08:43 Rakanishu2 wrote:
Everyone who is against this idea, prepare to be countered:
Play custom or unrated.
Brother wants to play? Unrated
New Race? Unrated
New Strategy? Unrated
I'm expected they'll just gloss over this and argue with the others, but you can't say I didn't try.
Or,
Don't want to lose points to people better than you? Unrated
that way we can both be bigots
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 25 2009 11:38 BlackSphinx wrote:
Generally people will play a few unrateds before jumping into rated games, making it so there are always a great quantity of unrated games available. No problem with search times whatsoever.
This, IMO, would be perfect for SC2 too. Especially if they add thumbs down and thumbs up for matchups (like, say, I wanna play TvT and TvZ, but no TvP, or I just wanna practice TvZ)), like for maps in WC3 (you can choose to never play a map in WC3).
It would just make sense and would be a natural evolution.
The problem with unrated games is not the quantity of players, but the quality. Unrated is rarely played by those with established ratings, at least not in any significant numbers, and that makes it hard for higher level players to utilize it well. A B- Terran might have a C Zerg, or be practicing a new build that he plays like a C+, but if unrated is filled with Ds and D+s, he can't really effectively practice.
|
On August 25 2009 14:13 FragKrag wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2009 08:43 Rakanishu2 wrote:
Everyone who is against this idea, prepare to be countered:
Play custom or unrated.
Brother wants to play? Unrated
New Race? Unrated
New Strategy? Unrated
I'm expected they'll just gloss over this and argue with the others, but you can't say I didn't try. Or, Don't want to lose points to people better than you? Unrated that way we can both be bigots
Empiraclly more often than not it is the higher ranked players that whine the most about losing. Most of the players on the lower rungs of the ladder don't mind losing, they just want to have a fun time in the process. Getting absolutely demolished isn't fun to them.
I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but the poster you quoted at least has a point. Additionally, if you want to be hidden, then toggle the anonymous feature like every IM has such as MSN (I'm sure they'll have a "show offline" mode) (To the inordinate amount of people not understanding a show offline feature).
I'll pose this question. Would you 5 years from now rather have a larger more competitive community, or a more sheltered competitive community? By allowing the newbs to play other newbs more often than not it'll get them into the competitive spirit because they figure it isn't hopeless and they will eventually start to get better and better and have more interest in the game. This at least to me empiraclly has been emphatically seen in the MMO's I've played in. Many of the casual players once reaching Endgame (LotRO / FFXI) became hardcore oriented. Now, if the game started off that way there is no way that would have been the case.
It is an inconvenience however as I've said time and time again the Pro's of Real ID vastly outweigh the Cons.
|
On August 25 2009 14:13 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2009 11:38 BlackSphinx wrote:
Generally people will play a few unrateds before jumping into rated games, making it so there are always a great quantity of unrated games available. No problem with search times whatsoever.
This, IMO, would be perfect for SC2 too. Especially if they add thumbs down and thumbs up for matchups (like, say, I wanna play TvT and TvZ, but no TvP, or I just wanna practice TvZ)), like for maps in WC3 (you can choose to never play a map in WC3).
It would just make sense and would be a natural evolution.
The problem with unrated games is not the quantity of players, but the quality. Unrated is rarely played by those with established ratings, at least not in any significant numbers, and that makes it hard for higher level players to utilize it well. A B- Terran might have a C Zerg, or be practicing a new build that he plays like a C+, but if unrated is filled with Ds and D+s, he can't really effectively practice.
Ever stop to think that in SC and WC3 that not many people play Custom/unrated is exactly because they can have as many accounts as they want thereby allowing them to bypass the need to use such an outlet.
Now with Real ID more people looking for those things instead of playing on the ladder will be...guess where? Custom/unrated...bingo!
It's not going to be a problem in SC2 finding competitive unrated games for this reason (Real ID).
|
maybenexttime wrote: "In my opinion, the Blizzard ladder should, first and foremost, be a practice platform. Maybe they should have a separate ladder meant specifically for competition, with one acc per cd key allowed, where accuracy is of utmost importance. From my experience, the vast majority of players playing on the ladder do not care about such accuracy as much as Nony does, because they don't aim to reach top 100 or so - for them it's just a tool to get games quick."
Good idea, interestingly enough they are kindof doing this with wc3...with their automated tournaments. The thing I don't like about it though is the tournaments fall at awkward times and whatever. IDK how they would do it in sc2 exactly but I hope they do it better.
On August 25 2009 07:53 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Krikkitone, I think after a (few) year(s), this might work. The problem? At release, ANYONE who has played SC or WC3 before, and joins the noob league, is gonna stomp the people in it :-(
what the? and that's a problem because...? dude they can be like the WoW players' mentors, that's no problem at all.
On August 24 2009 09:10 Noah wrote:
It's amazing how so many in this thread is bashing Blizzard for something that isn't even done yet. If anyone here is dumb enough to think that Blizzard is going to let pro gamers get identified and harassed without anything to protect them then they deserve to get trolled.
Edit: I'm also happy to see there will be some anti-smurfing measures in this new b-net. Ideally you want to play in a ladder where you are as evenly matched with your opponent as possible, and as often as possible. This is the entire point of a ladder. Players who smurfs just to stomp newbies basically bypasses the entire point of having a ladder in the first place.
yeah...in wc3 for example there is a command like /dnd or something else maybe which makes it so no one can message you. of course you'll still get the chat from a game you're in.
which reminds me of another thing. what i wouldn't mind seeing is an ignore opponent thing for a 1v1. sometimes i see a player type in "from?" and i just want to turn them off immediately. so distracting and rude for them to say that, but that's probably a topic for another thread....
On August 25 2009 14:22 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2009 14:13 TheYango wrote:On August 25 2009 11:38 BlackSphinx wrote:
Generally people will play a few unrateds before jumping into rated games, making it so there are always a great quantity of unrated games available. No problem with search times whatsoever.
This, IMO, would be perfect for SC2 too. Especially if they add thumbs down and thumbs up for matchups (like, say, I wanna play TvT and TvZ, but no TvP, or I just wanna practice TvZ)), like for maps in WC3 (you can choose to never play a map in WC3).
It would just make sense and would be a natural evolution.
The problem with unrated games is not the quantity of players, but the quality. Unrated is rarely played by those with established ratings, at least not in any significant numbers, and that makes it hard for higher level players to utilize it well. A B- Terran might have a C Zerg, or be practicing a new build that he plays like a C+, but if unrated is filled with Ds and D+s, he can't really effectively practice. Ever stop to think that in SC and WC3 that not many people play Custom/unrated is exactly because they can have as many accounts as they want thereby allowing them to bypass the need to use such an outlet. Now with Real ID more people looking for those things instead of playing on the ladder will be...guess where? Custom/unrated...bingo! It's not going to be a problem in SC2 finding competitive unrated games for this reason (Real ID).
that's what i've been trying to say.
|
On August 25 2009 14:22 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2009 14:13 TheYango wrote:On August 25 2009 11:38 BlackSphinx wrote:
Generally people will play a few unrateds before jumping into rated games, making it so there are always a great quantity of unrated games available. No problem with search times whatsoever.
This, IMO, would be perfect for SC2 too. Especially if they add thumbs down and thumbs up for matchups (like, say, I wanna play TvT and TvZ, but no TvP, or I just wanna practice TvZ)), like for maps in WC3 (you can choose to never play a map in WC3).
It would just make sense and would be a natural evolution.
The problem with unrated games is not the quantity of players, but the quality. Unrated is rarely played by those with established ratings, at least not in any significant numbers, and that makes it hard for higher level players to utilize it well. A B- Terran might have a C Zerg, or be practicing a new build that he plays like a C+, but if unrated is filled with Ds and D+s, he can't really effectively practice. Ever stop to think that in SC and WC3 that not many people play Custom/unrated is exactly because they can have as many accounts as they want thereby allowing them to bypass the need to use such an outlet. Now with Real ID more people looking for those things instead of playing on the ladder will be...guess where? Custom/unrated...bingo! It's not going to be a problem in SC2 finding competitive unrated games for this reason (Real ID).
In Sc I see lots of unrated games. So I am assuming you mean just wc3 because I always see plenty of unrated and whenever I host an unrated I get someone to join instantly. If its only 1 account I bet more of the higher up players will also be doing it
|
Osaka27148 Posts
Account =! ID ? One account, many IDs. Each ID probably has its own rating. Problem solved. How does this thread need 25 pages.
|
On August 25 2009 16:25 Manifesto7 wrote:
Account =! ID ? One account, many IDs. Each ID probably has its own rating. Problem solved. How does this thread need 25 pages.
As far as I know you cant create more than 1 ID per account, nowhere they stated a desire for allowing it.
|
On August 25 2009 16:30 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2009 16:25 Manifesto7 wrote:
Account =! ID ? One account, many IDs. Each ID probably has its own rating. Problem solved. How does this thread need 25 pages. As far as I know you cant create more than 1 ID per account, nowhere they stated a desire for allowing it.
Plus, from this:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=100568
Slashdot: It looks like the new league system is going a long way toward making the play experience much better across the board, and will allow people to grow at their own pace. What can you tell us about how this system works?
Dustin Browder: We think this system will really help a lot of players. Even if you are going to stay down in the copper league forever, at least you are playing against your skill level and can hope to win something. In Warcraft 3, minus the "Smurfs" who would come through and ruin everybody's day, we had a pretty good matchmaking system and you could win about half your games. I know most people would prefer to win about 70% of their games, but that would mean someone else has to lose 70% of their games, and we don't want that. If we can match you against your skill level, I think that's where you wanna be and you'll have a good time. So now, if I can put you in a bronze league of 100 players and all those players are your skill level, that means you have a shot of being number one in that league at the end of the season. I think that is going to be a lot more fun for people. When you go to play intramural softball, you know Sammy Sosa isn't showing up. While it might be fun for about two minutes, it would ruin the game and no one would have a good time. If we can keep everyone organized into the skill level they belong I think everyone will have a lot more fun.
it looks like they are compeletely killing off smurfing, which would mean no multiple IDs
however, there are still easy ways to abuse these tournaments, though they would require a tiny bit more effort or money...
|
Osaka27148 Posts
Well that is fucking stupid then. Flame on people, flame on!
|
On August 25 2009 14:11 dcttr66 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2009 18:17 lepape wrote:
Also, FrozenArbiter's suggestion to be able to have many accounts all tied to the main account with shared stats is really the most logical solution, I can't think of any downside to this idea. how about the one i mentioned about the fact that the hidden identity makes the player unrecognizable? so he can play someone who hasn't changed his name and know how he plays and the other guy knows nothing about him...that's a downside.
How about the fact that a known player play an unknown one? The latter was able to study the former's play style in depth, whereas the former does not know anything about the latter.
How is that not a downside? ;;
On August 25 2009 14:22 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2009 14:13 TheYango wrote:On August 25 2009 11:38 BlackSphinx wrote:
Generally people will play a few unrateds before jumping into rated games, making it so there are always a great quantity of unrated games available. No problem with search times whatsoever.
This, IMO, would be perfect for SC2 too. Especially if they add thumbs down and thumbs up for matchups (like, say, I wanna play TvT and TvZ, but no TvP, or I just wanna practice TvZ)), like for maps in WC3 (you can choose to never play a map in WC3).
It would just make sense and would be a natural evolution.
The problem with unrated games is not the quantity of players, but the quality. Unrated is rarely played by those with established ratings, at least not in any significant numbers, and that makes it hard for higher level players to utilize it well. A B- Terran might have a C Zerg, or be practicing a new build that he plays like a C+, but if unrated is filled with Ds and D+s, he can't really effectively practice. Ever stop to think that in SC and WC3 that not many people play Custom/unrated is exactly because they can have as many accounts as they want thereby allowing them to bypass the need to use such an outlet. Now with Real ID more people looking for those things instead of playing on the ladder will be...guess where? Custom/unrated...bingo! It's not going to be a problem in SC2 finding competitive unrated games for this reason (Real ID).
Except you can't even make a game name in SC2. T___T
And AMM is still MUCH more convenient.
On August 25 2009 14:20 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2009 14:13 FragKrag wrote:On August 25 2009 08:43 Rakanishu2 wrote:
Everyone who is against this idea, prepare to be countered:
Play custom or unrated.
Brother wants to play? Unrated
New Race? Unrated
New Strategy? Unrated
I'm expected they'll just gloss over this and argue with the others, but you can't say I didn't try. Or, Don't want to lose points to people better than you? Unrated that way we can both be bigots Empiraclly more often than not it is the higher ranked players that whine the most about losing. Most of the players on the lower rungs of the ladder don't mind losing, they just want to have a fun time in the process. Getting absolutely demolished isn't fun to them.
Funnily, I've got the opposite impression.
It's newbs who whine about things like "Hunts imba" or that they've got bashed by an A/B player whereas in fact it was a mere D+ or C-. ;/
On August 25 2009 16:34 blue_arrow wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2009 16:30 D10 wrote:On August 25 2009 16:25 Manifesto7 wrote:
Account =! ID ? One account, many IDs. Each ID probably has its own rating. Problem solved. How does this thread need 25 pages. As far as I know you cant create more than 1 ID per account, nowhere they stated a desire for allowing it. Plus, from this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=100568Show nested quote +Slashdot: It looks like the new league system is going a long way toward making the play experience much better across the board, and will allow people to grow at their own pace. What can you tell us about how this system works?
Dustin Browder: We think this system will really help a lot of players. Even if you are going to stay down in the copper league forever, at least you are playing against your skill level and can hope to win something. In Warcraft 3, minus the "Smurfs" who would come through and ruin everybody's day, we had a pretty good matchmaking system and you could win about half your games. I know most people would prefer to win about 70% of their games, but that would mean someone else has to lose 70% of their games, and we don't want that. If we can match you against your skill level, I think that's where you wanna be and you'll have a good time. So now, if I can put you in a bronze league of 100 players and all those players are your skill level, that means you have a shot of being number one in that league at the end of the season. I think that is going to be a lot more fun for people. When you go to play intramural softball, you know Sammy Sosa isn't showing up. While it might be fun for about two minutes, it would ruin the game and no one would have a good time. If we can keep everyone organized into the skill level they belong I think everyone will have a lot more fun. it looks like they are compeletely killing off smurfing, which would mean no multiple IDs however, there are still easy ways to abuse these tournaments, though they would require a tiny bit more effort or money...
So they kill all the positive and/or unharmful aspects of smurfing while hardly limiting the actual noob bashing (Casual League, players with RTS experience vs. complete newcomers, mass dropping games to play lower ranked opponents, start of the season)?
Great job, Blizzard!
On August 25 2009 14:25 dcttr66 wrote:
what the? and that's a problem because...? dude they can be like the WoW players' mentors, that's no problem at all.
That's the prime argument one account per game supporters have - it supposedly limits noob bashing.
|
How about this! Everyones name is simply ???
There now you have no fucking clue who you are playing nor the style they use until after the game when the name is displayed.
|
On August 25 2009 19:16 Aegraen wrote:
How about this! Everyones name is simply ???
There now you have no fucking clue who you are playing nor the style they use until after the game when the name is displayed.
Why? The vast majority of people would not want that, and even people who smurf do that only occasionally...
And how would you meet new people, seeing as there are no chat channels. ;;
|
On August 25 2009 19:36 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2009 19:16 Aegraen wrote:
How about this! Everyones name is simply ???
There now you have no fucking clue who you are playing nor the style they use until after the game when the name is displayed. Why? The vast majority of people would not want that, and even people who smurf do that only occasionally... And how would you meet new people, seeing as there are no chat channels. ;;
I love how you know the oppinion of the vast majority of people.
|
Maybe it will make the bnet experience less douchy.
|
On August 25 2009 20:09 Ota Solgryn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2009 19:36 maybenexttime wrote:On August 25 2009 19:16 Aegraen wrote:
How about this! Everyones name is simply ???
There now you have no fucking clue who you are playing nor the style they use until after the game when the name is displayed. Why? The vast majority of people would not want that, and even people who smurf do that only occasionally... And how would you meet new people, seeing as there are no chat channels. ;; I love how you know the oppinion of the vast majority of people.
I am not the one saying that smurfs are in the minority...
If the majority of people do not smurf, they would not want everybody to basically turn into a smurf. Simple logic... T_________T
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 25 2009 16:09 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2009 14:22 Aegraen wrote:On August 25 2009 14:13 TheYango wrote:On August 25 2009 11:38 BlackSphinx wrote:
Generally people will play a few unrateds before jumping into rated games, making it so there are always a great quantity of unrated games available. No problem with search times whatsoever.
This, IMO, would be perfect for SC2 too. Especially if they add thumbs down and thumbs up for matchups (like, say, I wanna play TvT and TvZ, but no TvP, or I just wanna practice TvZ)), like for maps in WC3 (you can choose to never play a map in WC3).
It would just make sense and would be a natural evolution.
The problem with unrated games is not the quantity of players, but the quality. Unrated is rarely played by those with established ratings, at least not in any significant numbers, and that makes it hard for higher level players to utilize it well. A B- Terran might have a C Zerg, or be practicing a new build that he plays like a C+, but if unrated is filled with Ds and D+s, he can't really effectively practice. Ever stop to think that in SC and WC3 that not many people play Custom/unrated is exactly because they can have as many accounts as they want thereby allowing them to bypass the need to use such an outlet. Now with Real ID more people looking for those things instead of playing on the ladder will be...guess where? Custom/unrated...bingo! It's not going to be a problem in SC2 finding competitive unrated games for this reason (Real ID). In Sc I see lots of unrated games. So I am assuming you mean just wc3 because I always see plenty of unrated and whenever I host an unrated I get someone to join instantly. If its only 1 account I bet more of the higher up players will also be doing it
Of course you see a lot of unrated games in SC - THERE ARE NO RATED GAMES ;(
Unless you play on ICCUP, then it's only rated games pretty much.
|
|
|
I have an idea that might solve this:
They said they just dont want n00b/newbie bashers right? But what if the pros want to smurg inorder to train for like the Proleague, and they have this amazing startegy that they want to use, but because you are forced to be known as Lee Jae Dong, everyone will know.
However, it is still possible to play anonymously. Maybe, they will allow you to change your game ID (ex. mine is Sharp-eYe), and there can be an option were you can turn off "reveal my real ID." This way, the top leagues's players will have no idea who you are, and you will not be able to noob bash because you are not allowed to go into the smaller leagues. Also, this option to change your game ID can be unlimited. Either that or allow multiple game ID's.
I have faith in Blizzard. Besides, they have platforms like steam to compete with, so they might as well do something like this.
Taking away smurfing = good.
Taking away anonymity = horrible.
|
i don't see how anyone can actually be against this, if you have to bash noobs to boost your ego then you're a loser anyways
|
Canada11349 Posts
@Pacer and iamho.
Reading this thread, I have yet to see someone in favour of bashing noobs (with the sole exception of one individual who was feeling contrary enough to threaten to purposefully drop his stats.) There are reasons to be against this and it has nothing to do with bashing noobs. (I am a noob myself.)
Taking away smurfing = good.
Taking away anonymity = horrible.
Here, here.
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 26 2009 05:34 iamho wrote:
i don't see how anyone can actually be against this, if you have to bash noobs to boost your ego then you're a loser anyways
Most of the people that are arguing against this in a logical fashion have other legitimate reasons to want multiple accounts other than noob-bashing. Either you're trolling, or you aren't making enough of an effort to see both sides of this.
Personally, I have faith that Blizzard will find some compromise that will please both sides, but both extremes are pretty unacceptable at this point.
|
On August 25 2009 16:38 Manifesto7 wrote:
Well that is fucking stupid then. Flame on people, flame on!
Lol and yeah wtf why are they moneygrubbing SC the reason it was such a huge success in korea was that it was cheap, the only reason they are doing this is so they can make money off name changes and new accounts. pretty sad imo.
|
I mean they already make what like 150 million per month off wow subscribers.
|
Osaka27148 Posts
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 26 2009 06:46 d(O.o)a wrote:
Lol and yeah wtf why are they moneygrubbing SC the reason it was such a huge success in korea was that it was cheap, the only reason they are doing this is so they can make money off name changes and new accounts. pretty sad imo.
As I said in another thread, I don't think Blizzard is dumb enough to be doing this as a moneygrubbing tactic. Even if they like money, they're also smart enough to do it in a way that keeps people coming back for more (see WoW), that they don't need to resort to petty measures that make people hate them. If they're set on doing this, it's as a feature that there's legitimate support in the fanbase for (even if it's not people at TL).
|
On August 26 2009 07:07 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2009 06:46 d(O.o)a wrote:
Lol and yeah wtf why are they moneygrubbing SC the reason it was such a huge success in korea was that it was cheap, the only reason they are doing this is so they can make money off name changes and new accounts. pretty sad imo. As I said in another thread, I don't think Blizzard is dumb enough to be doing this as a moneygrubbing tactic. Even if they like money, they're also smart enough to do it in a way that keeps people coming back for more (see WoW), that they don't need to resort to petty measures that make people hate them. If they're set on doing this, it's as a feature that there's legitimate support in the fanbase for (even if it's not people at TL).
Yeah but the thing is the support (assuming you mean ways to change it or something) is because they can charge money for name changes.
|
this is stupid like xbox live accounts.
-__-
they can do something to prevent smurfing but at least let people make 1 new account every week or so...
|
On August 26 2009 09:22 Mykill wrote:
this is stupid like xbox live accounts.
-__-
they can do something to prevent smurfing but at least let people make 1 new account every week or so...
And how would that fix smurfing in the least bit?
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 26 2009 09:22 Mykill wrote:
this is stupid like xbox live accounts.
-__-
they can do something to prevent smurfing but at least let people make 1 new account every week or so...
Or, its like Steam, which works.
The CONCEPT of 1-account-per-game is fine, and Steam has it pretty well established that it works. The key is making sure that the appropriate options are available to make it a convenient alternative to unlimited accounts, like privacy options, name changing, race-by-race stats, sub-accounts, etc.
|
My first post on teamliquid, hi guys!
I think the system where you only can only have on ID is nice, since it will fix various issues:
- Hacking/maphacking - if you get banned, your ID gets banned, thus loosing your other connected blizz games and forcing you to buy a new game. It's going to be so nice playing SC2 and not be worrying about someone using maphack.
- Smurfing. Ah well. You wont have 70-30-2 in stats, but you will most likly have 50-50-2. You will get opponents which most likly is on same skill level as you and because of this you will have a more steady learning curve.
And most likly you will be able to change ur name, but you will keep all achivements/stats.
|
Why not give three ID's per account? Opportunity cost, right? You COULD use it as one ID per race, or you COULD use it as one ID per style, or you COULD use it for one ID for each sibling (2.2 children per household av right?).
This way, you have 3 accounts, and it is your choice how to use them?
|
|
|
On August 26 2009 17:58 Tyraz wrote:
Why not give three ID's per account? Opportunity cost, right? You COULD use it as one ID per race, or you COULD use it as one ID per style, or you COULD use it for one ID for each sibling (2.2 children per household av right?).
This way, you have 3 accounts, and it is your choice how to use them?
How would this prevent smurfing and noob bashing?
Let's say your ID's are forcefully limited to one race per ID. The mechanics and game experience and game sense of an A+ player would still transfer with the player as he switches races, thus allowing him to easily kill off newbs and D- players. Also, how could you possibly limit a certain style to a single ID? You can't expect the game to prevent the player from executing certain builds or using specific hotkey combinations...
Blizzard's stated main reason for 1 ID per game is to minimize noob bashing and to promote games between players of similar skill levels.
EDIT: Also somebody mentioned something about ID-concealing options and features; I think this is a great idea and might actually work... noobs don't get raped and pros don't get dodged! Of course if you were a pro, you might have to hide your status and ID from your friends as well, as you wouldn't want anybody accidently letting slip that you're online. Oh well w/e, that's getting into kinda insignificant stuff.
|
Looking through the thread here are the two main reasons people want to smurf and create multiple accounts:
1. Anonymity
2. Practice New Builds/Screwing Around
As said before, number one can easily be addressed by Blizzard; hell even if they don't do anything the current BNET 1.0 features are probably enough: /dnd, /squelch, etc. Now you may say "Then I won't be able to make any friends/training partners, etc. on BNET." Look if you're well known enough to get people to constantly harass you chances are you don't need to use BNET to find your practice partners and friends. Blizzard can also easily implement a feature that allows you to hide your user name in ranked matches.
As for number 2, I just don't see the argument. Pro-smurfers tell newbies to "suck it up and take some losses, it'll be good for you." However, when it's time to loose some games themselves to test out new builds, they whine and claim they must use smurfs. If you don't want to lose points, than unranked is always available. I highly doubt unranked would be the nightmare described paranoid users in this thread. How would beating newbies in ranked matches be better than playing random people in unraked? Even if you somehow can'tt find good matches, It probably isn't hard to find a practice partner of your skill level on the internet these days anyways.
This thread is really typical of this site; users just jump on the latest news of SC2 and loudly proclaim that the Blizzard made an idiotic decision and the game is ruined forever. People need to broaden their perspectives a bit. Starcraft II does not completely revolve around the competitive gaming scene. Lots of arguments goes like this: "Newbies can suck it up and suffer for a bit, so I can have the features I wanted."
Looking at the one-account-per-game method, the pros outweighs the supposed cons by a large large margin. Only hardcore competitive long-time players would object; you guys are not as relevant as you think.
|
On August 26 2009 18:25 Stripe wrote:
As for number 2, I just don't see the argument. Pro-smurfers tell newbies to "suck it up and take some losses, it'll be good for you." However, when it's time to loose some games themselves to test out new builds, they whine and claim they must use smurfs. If you don't want to lose points, than unranked is always available. I highly doubt unranked would be the nightmare described paranoid users in this thread. How would beating newbies in ranked matches be better than playing random people in unraked? Even if you somehow can'tt find good matches, It probably isn't hard to find a practice partner of your skill level on the internet these days anyways.
Or you could set up a practice server/game room where none of the games count for points but players are still segregated by their rank/skill level. Players could still remain anonymous like in the actual servers that count for points.
|
On August 22 2009 08:10 jimminy_kriket 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? I dont think you understand how much this will fuck up progamers. Maybe from a newbie D- point of view its fine, but when your a player like nada or boxer or even jainfei your going to get harrassed to shit from people wanting to play you, or even people wanting to just bother the shit out of you because they dont like you. With that said, I dont think they will actually go through with this. At least I believe they will have some system in place to avoid harassment/allow anonymity.
/dnd and thats all.
|
On August 26 2009 17:58 Tyraz wrote:
Why not give three ID's per account? Opportunity cost, right? You COULD use it as one ID per race, or you COULD use it as one ID per style, or you COULD use it for one ID for each sibling (2.2 children per household av right?).
This way, you have 3 accounts, and it is your choice how to use them?
Why would you want one ID per race, when b.net 2.0 will clearly (with all its advanced features) track your stats using each race individually anyway?
If the ToC of SC2 are anything like that of wow you are only permitted to allow one sibling play it. Licences (WoW at least) are per person not per computer. I bet its like wow in the fact that they don't care how many computers you install it on, or track the CD key being used. It's all about what user you are logged on as.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 26 2009 18:20 blue_arrow wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2009 17:58 Tyraz wrote:
Why not give three ID's per account? Opportunity cost, right? You COULD use it as one ID per race, or you COULD use it as one ID per style, or you COULD use it for one ID for each sibling (2.2 children per household av right?).
This way, you have 3 accounts, and it is your choice how to use them? How would this prevent smurfing and noob bashing? Let's say your ID's are forcefully limited to one race per ID. The mechanics and game experience and game sense of an A+ player would still transfer with the player as he switches races, thus allowing him to easily kill off newbs and D- players. Also, how could you possibly limit a certain style to a single ID? You can't expect the game to prevent the player from executing certain builds or using specific hotkey combinations... Blizzard's stated main reason for 1 ID per game is to minimize noob bashing and to promote games between players of similar skill levels. EDIT: Also somebody mentioned something about ID-concealing options and features; I think this is a great idea and might actually work... noobs don't get raped and pros don't get dodged! Of course if you were a pro, you might have to hide your status and ID from your friends as well, as you wouldn't want anybody accidently letting slip that you're online. Oh well w/e, that's getting into kinda insignificant stuff.
I know this thread is big, but I'm getting tired of repeating this:
1 Real ID -> 3-5 usernames. You can't make a new username (or perhaps you can only make 1 extra username, dunno) until you've reached an expected ladder level of X. Once you reach rank X, all your new usernames start at that expected ladder level.
Ta-da - no noob bashing, but you get new accounts.
Only thing we need to know is how many points you win / lose depending on rank, or if you lose the same regardless (ie player #10 on the ladder has the same ELL as player #25, do they win/lose the same number of points?).
On August 26 2009 20:47 DeCoup wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2009 17:58 Tyraz wrote:
Why not give three ID's per account? Opportunity cost, right? You COULD use it as one ID per race, or you COULD use it as one ID per style, or you COULD use it for one ID for each sibling (2.2 children per household av right?).
This way, you have 3 accounts, and it is your choice how to use them? Why would you want one ID per race, when b.net 2.0 will clearly (with all its advanced features) track your stats using each race individually anyway? If the ToC of SC2 are anything like that of wow you are only permitted to allow one sibling play it. Licences (WoW at least) are per person not per computer. I bet its like wow in the fact that they don't care how many computers you install it on, or track the CD key being used. It's all about what user you are logged on as.
Yes it will track your RECORD for each race individually, but will your ELL differ between the races? If you will, then great - but we have the same problem I described above about actual positions on the ladder and points won/lost.
If that's not a problem, then having multiple IDs isn't one either - you can just make any new ID start off at your highest ELL.
On August 26 2009 19:17 ProoM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 08:10 jimminy_kriket wrote: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? I dont think you understand how much this will fuck up progamers. Maybe from a newbie D- point of view its fine, but when your a player like nada or boxer or even jainfei your going to get harrassed to shit from people wanting to play you, or even people wanting to just bother the shit out of you because they dont like you. With that said, I dont think they will actually go through with this. At least I believe they will have some system in place to avoid harassment/allow anonymity. /dnd and thats all.
But I want to talk to and meet people. I just wouldn't want to deal with 5000 kids everyday going "OMGGGGGGGGGGG SLAYERS'BOXER HAVE MY BABIES".
|
ablsarghf
When did this happend Ô_ö, seems like Im missing alot what's going on.
I don't see the big deal about this thou.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Talking to Daigomi about the problem with having a separate ELL for each of your races, he presented me with a very simple solution:
Have each race have a separate ELL *and* a separate ladder ranking. So if you are 1st rank with Protoss it doesn't get affected if you go 0-10 as zerg.
Only problem (plz someone suggest how to work around this):
I want Blizzard to implement matchup picking (IE I don't like PvP, so I prefer playing PvT PvZ TvP and PvR). How do you reconcile this with the above?
|
People are exaggerating the idea of getting spammed by people just from being high ranked. But lets assume it did happen. Then you would have a few options. Option 1) /dnd now no one can message you. Option 2) /ignore now whoever was messaging you cannot message you anymore without buying a new cdkey. Option 3) just get over it and don't respond. These options are all assuming no new hide or ignore features are added.
Also smurfing or 'sandbagging' is a huge issue in wc3 laddering, and somewhat in BW. If you're good it doesn't really effect you, but I know it pisses off a lot of people when they are first starting to verse someone who has been playing for 3 years but isn't quite good enough to actually be satisfied and goes to bash noobs for fun or to clean out his precious record.
If you want to play an off race you could just 1) play. 2) Go into a popular chat channel and ask for a game. 3) Ask your friends for a game. 4) Host a custom game. 5) Buy a 2nd off-race/fun account.
|
|
|
On August 26 2009 23:08 Medzo wrote:
People are exaggerating the idea of getting spammed by people just from being high ranked. But lets assume it did happen. Then you would have a few options. Option 1) /dnd now no one can message you. Option 2) /ignore now whoever was messaging you cannot message you anymore without buying a new cdkey. Option 3) just get over it and don't respond. These options are all assuming no new hide or ignore features are added.
Also smurfing or 'sandbagging' is a huge issue in wc3 laddering, and somewhat in BW. If you're good it doesn't really effect you, but I know it pisses off a lot of people when they are first starting to verse someone who has been playing for 3 years but isn't quite good enough to actually be satisfied and goes to bash noobs for fun or to clean out his precious record.
If you want to play an off race you could just 1) play. 2) Go into a popular chat channel and ask for a game. 3) Ask your friends for a game. 4) Host a custom game. 5) Buy a 2nd off-race/fun account.
If you want to avoid smurfs you could just 1) play. 2) Go into a popular chat channel and ask for a game. 3) Ask your friends for a game. 4) Host a custom game. 5) Buy a 2nd off-race/fun account.
Ok maybe it didnt work with poing #1. But I dont understand why people want to play ladder but not facing good players. If I want to compete in the elite class in sports I pay the ranking fee and compete in the elite class. People who are just in it for fun and cant compete have other classes to have fun in.
The best solution would be to have the same system as in a game called starcraft. One ladder with seperate stats and then a normal game thingy with just wins-losses-disc. Both having matchmaking but normal games does not have matchmaking according to stats.
Please tell me whats wrong with that idea. Not that people seem to read any other posts anyway.
|
well battle.net now works decently with the smurfing.
cant these developers just make sure its "unhackable"
|
On August 27 2009 00:32 Eatme wrote:
If you want to avoid smurfs you could just 1) play. 2) Go into a popular chat channel and ask for a game. 3) Ask your friends for a game. 4) Host a custom game. 5) Buy a 2nd off-race/fun account.
Ok maybe it didnt work with poing #1. But I dont understand why people want to play ladder but not facing good players. If I want to compete in the elite class in sports I pay the ranking fee and compete in the elite class. People who are just in it for fun and cant compete have other classes to have fun in.
The best solution would be to have the same system as in a game called starcraft. One ladder with seperate stats and then a normal game thingy with just wins-losses-disc. Both having matchmaking but normal games does not have matchmaking according to stats.
Please tell me whats wrong with that idea. Not that people seem to read any other posts anyway.
"But I dont understand why people want to play ladder but not facing good players."
...hypocritical much? If you want to lose so badly why bother smurfing? But seriously...
Part the legit point of smurfing (for offracing) is one or both of two things: not having your hard-earned rank decline, or not having to face players so good that they steamroll you in 3 minutes and you're just wondering WTF can I do better. Both can be solved by separate ranks for each race, and if you're so hardcore that you want to face awesome players the instant you roll zerg, well, eventually you'll get up there, right?
As for your own suggestion to use SC's system, it depends. If people can't create more than one screen name, then it does indeed solve the offracing problem. In that case it would only have two issues left: the anonymity issue, and what do I do if I want to play an unranked match against someone of my skill level.
If you can still create more than one screenname or account, than your solution wouldn't work, since smurfing itself is motivated by newb stomping, which is most effectively accomplished by trolling the ranked ladder.
Getting to the original five points:
1) yeah, doesn't work when you suck
2) If smurfing is a problem in the ladder you will still have people with 0-0 accounts showing up in newb custom games and owning people until they start getting kicked. Either way, ladder or no ladder, smurfs will show up.
3) What happens if none of your friends are your skill level and you want an even game? Also, your friends can't be on call all the time. This argument actually goes both ways... but for newbs who aren't as socially established it's a bit more of a problem.
4) See 2
5) Doesn't work because if you buy another account because you're getting smurfed, all that bloody happens is you get smurfed on your new account! But frankly, I think the whole idea of forcing someone to buy a second copy of the game just to address a hole in battle.net is ridiculous in the first place.
More in general on the topic:
Rather than telling new players to "go play in the chaos of custom games if you don't want to face players much better than you", why don't we just eliminate smurfing from the ranked matches? Isn't ranking people what ranked matches are for, and smurfing a subversion of that ranked system?
Look: if, as a pro player, you want to remain anonymus, offrace, or whatever on battle.net, that's great. But smurfing is not the only answer to those problems. Smurfing is just the answer that people _happened to find_. Since battle.net is getting a revamp they might as well get different answers that don't involve mediocre players roflstomping all the newbies.
It may be that you can create new screennames and their stats go with you, but you can hide your stats to some extent (in case you're server famous). This doesn't change how you get ranked in ranked matches, but could allow good players to meet new people while not getting spammed a ton. For those worried about hidden stats allowing you to smurf custom games, just make sure that everyone who joins isn't hiding their stats and you're good to go, or restrict hidden stats to rating and rank. win/loss is pretty good for singling out newbies if you don't have new accounts with new win/losses popping up all the time.
See, it's not that hard to come up with ideas that don't involve newbies getting owned by smurfers with nothing better to do. The solutions are there, you just have to look for them rather than jumping on the complaining bandwagon because you can't imagine that there could be a better idea that could involve new features in Battle.net 2.0.
|
On August 27 2009 00:32 Eatme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2009 23:08 Medzo wrote:
People are exaggerating the idea of getting spammed by people just from being high ranked. But lets assume it did happen. Then you would have a few options. Option 1) /dnd now no one can message you. Option 2) /ignore now whoever was messaging you cannot message you anymore without buying a new cdkey. Option 3) just get over it and don't respond. These options are all assuming no new hide or ignore features are added.
Also smurfing or 'sandbagging' is a huge issue in wc3 laddering, and somewhat in BW. If you're good it doesn't really effect you, but I know it pisses off a lot of people when they are first starting to verse someone who has been playing for 3 years but isn't quite good enough to actually be satisfied and goes to bash noobs for fun or to clean out his precious record.
If you want to play an off race you could just 1) play. 2) Go into a popular chat channel and ask for a game. 3) Ask your friends for a game. 4) Host a custom game. 5) Buy a 2nd off-race/fun account. If you want to avoid smurfs you could just 1) play. 2) Go into a popular chat channel and ask for a game. 3) Ask your friends for a game. 4) Host a custom game. 5) Buy a 2nd off-race/fun account. Ok maybe it didnt work with poing #1. But I dont understand why people want to play ladder but not facing good players. If I want to compete in the elite class in sports I pay the ranking fee and compete in the elite class. People who are just in it for fun and cant compete have other classes to have fun in. The best solution would be to have the same system as in a game called starcraft. One ladder with seperate stats and then a normal game thingy with just wins-losses-disc. Both having matchmaking but normal games does not have matchmaking according to stats. Please tell me whats wrong with that idea. Not that people seem to read any other posts anyway.
Has it ever occurred to you that noobs would want a competitive ladder where they can compete and improve with people of similar skill and not get stomped by people with egos as small as their dicks.
Anyways I think FA's system would be more reasonable then the current one however the idea of excluding match ups is not a good idea for a truly competitive ladder.
|
On August 27 2009 00:32 Eatme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2009 23:08 Medzo wrote:
People are exaggerating the idea of getting spammed by people just from being high ranked. But lets assume it did happen. Then you would have a few options. Option 1) /dnd now no one can message you. Option 2) /ignore now whoever was messaging you cannot message you anymore without buying a new cdkey. Option 3) just get over it and don't respond. These options are all assuming no new hide or ignore features are added.
Also smurfing or 'sandbagging' is a huge issue in wc3 laddering, and somewhat in BW. If you're good it doesn't really effect you, but I know it pisses off a lot of people when they are first starting to verse someone who has been playing for 3 years but isn't quite good enough to actually be satisfied and goes to bash noobs for fun or to clean out his precious record.
If you want to play an off race you could just 1) play. 2) Go into a popular chat channel and ask for a game. 3) Ask your friends for a game. 4) Host a custom game. 5) Buy a 2nd off-race/fun account. If you want to avoid smurfs you could just 1) play. 2) Go into a popular chat channel and ask for a game. 3) Ask your friends for a game. 4) Host a custom game. 5) Buy a 2nd off-race/fun account. Ok maybe it didnt work with poing #1. But I dont understand why people want to play ladder but not facing good players. If I want to compete in the elite class in sports I pay the ranking fee and compete in the elite class. People who are just in it for fun and cant compete have other classes to have fun in. The best solution would be to have the same system as in a game called starcraft. One ladder with seperate stats and then a normal game thingy with just wins-losses-disc. Both having matchmaking but normal games does not have matchmaking according to stats. Please tell me whats wrong with that idea. Not that people seem to read any other posts anyway.
Well if you want to be competitive I agree with your point. But if you want to play casually yet somewhat competitive still or are new and don't enjoy getting face stomped in half your games because the matching system sucks then this is a good thing. Noobs want to have reliable stats too, not just stats that show that they are getting creamed by people who are in actuality in other tiers.
Arguers just don't want to ruin their records. The only thing 1 acct per person keeps you from doing is bashing noobs in rated games, even with your off race. How about you just take some losses on your record to try an offrace? Is it because you dont want to ruin your record playing people better than you are with that race? That is the same reason why they are trying to eliminate smurfing and 'sandbagging'. So the new players don't play people way better than them 75% of the time. I am 99.9% positive you can find someone who is willing to 1on1 from a chat channel or even a great website like TL.net
I might add that this is a great thing for custom games and custom maps. If you don't like playing with someone then you can blacklist them. The same can be said if you're one of the many players that likes to do arrange team games with a wide variety of people that you sometimes meet in random channels.
EDIT:
Thought I would add that I am concerned about how long it might take to find games when you're in the top rankings. I remember the times I would create new accounts in wc3 was when it took over an hour to find a single game.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Anyways I think FA's system would be more reasonable then the current one however the idea of excluding match ups is not a good idea for a truly competitive ladder.
Why? You still play vs every race in my system, you just don't have to play PvP if you'd rather play TvP.
PvZ
PvT
TvP
PvR
I play vs all races. If any matchup is so boring that nobody ends up playing it, isn't it a good thing that you don't have to ;p?
|
How do you handle ladder matches if you end up with an identical race picker? Or do you mean picking which race you want to play against before the match search starts?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 27 2009 05:26 Tsagacity wrote:
How do you handle ladder matches if you end up with an identical race picker? Or do you mean picking which race you want to play against before the match search starts?
You default to your vR race.
You pick your race or matchups before you start doing AMM search anyway... And I don't mean picking your opponents race, I mean you pick what race YOU want to play AS.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Arguers just don't want to ruin their records. The only thing 1 acct per person keeps you from doing is bashing noobs in rated games, even with your off race. How about you just take some losses on your record to try an offrace? Is it because you dont want to ruin your record playing people better than you are with that race? That is the same reason why they are trying to eliminate smurfing and 'sandbagging'. So the new players don't play people way better than them 75% of the time. I am 99.9% positive you can find someone who is willing to 1on1 from a chat channel or even a great website like TL.net
....
25 pages.
TWENTY FIVE GOD DAMNED PAGES.
I am so fucking sick of restating my position because people have selective god damned reading. No, I'm not afraid of losing.
PGTour season 6 and 7, I played a combined 800 games, finishing the seasons at A- and A+ respectively. I dodged nobody, I rematched anyone who asked, and asked anyone who beat me for a rematch.
But when I wanted to play some off-races, I created a new account.
Why? Because my protoss is fucking A rank and my Zerg is like D+ -_- Do I care one shit about losing to the other A ranks? NO. But losing with my main account means it goes down in rank, meaning I can't play as good players (as protoss) without going back up in rank, which I don't want to do because it's a waste of my time.
So I make a new ID.
What if I'm Slayers'Boxer and I'm a little bit tired of everyone messaging me or friend requesting me as soon as I log onto battle.net? Maybe I just want to play some damned 2v2s with a friend, and not have to deal with being *THE* slayers'boxer?
Make a new ID. Make a new ID, but keep the ELL of your master account, I don't care if that means getting raped a few times with your new race.
What if I just want to make a new ID because I don't like the way my old one goes with the new clan I joined?
For instance, FrozenArbiter does not fit very well with the tag iD. does it? iD.FA does.
number9dream doesn't go well with Dream.t, right? Dream.t)PltO does.
Furthermore, why should I have to play custom games when I could play AMM? You have NO WAY of knowing you are matched with a player of equal skill in customgames, and even if I'm just gonna fuck around I'd of course prefer to fuck around with someone about as good as me.
Having a separate ELL / ranking for each race solves the first issue, but doesn't begin to take care of issue #2. And no, /dnd is not the answer, ok? You want some people to be able to talk to you, you want to meet new people - you just don't want to meet all of bloody battle.net at once.
|
United States22883 Posts
FA, what if ladders become irrelevant? Ladders are a viable way of competition when you've only got disorganized leagues, but on the release of SC2 CEVO, ESL and all the other major leagues are going to set up divisions for real competitive play, similar to the Korean scene with bigger numbers. I honestly think your first argument is moot because of this. No one's going to care about Blizzard's ladder system.
If we have to rely on Blizzard to organize competitive play, then that's a much bigger problem.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
I'm 100% sure that you are wrong.
If for nothing else, then because they will invite the top finishers to blizzcon, like they've done for WC3 for years, in addition to the ladder finals.
In addition to that, with no LAN and presumably better support than in the past, I think the ladder will be where you play for at least the first few years.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 27 2009 06:08 FrozenArbiter wrote:
I'm 100% sure that you are wrong.
If for nothing else, then because they will invite the top finishers to blizzcon, like they've done for WC3 for years, in addition to the ladder finals.
In addition to that, with no LAN and presumably better support than in the past, I think the ladder will be where you play for at least the first few years.
Blizzard could as easily invite from private leagues, just like they did with GOM finalists, and it surely won't be the only major tournament (Blizzcon is just exhibition matches anyways.) Why don't you think there will be real leagues? Competitive play needs to differentiate between practice and matches and ladders don't do that. They're all about grading practice. That's the real problem if you don't want to be graded for trying new things. Smurfing is just an inefficient workaround.
If you're going to use ladders, they should just be a preliminary cut-off point because of size limitations with running lower level leagues. At the top 20%, or whatever cut-off chosen, the numbers will be perfectly suited for league play.
|
On August 27 2009 05:21 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +
Anyways I think FA's system would be more reasonable then the current one however the idea of excluding match ups is not a good idea for a truly competitive ladder.
Why? You still play vs every race in my system, you just don't have to play PvP if you'd rather play TvP. PvZ PvT TvP PvR I play vs all races. If any matchup is so boring that nobody ends up playing it, isn't it a good thing that you don't have to ;p?
For starters I don't think with all of the things added to each race will allow the game to have boring/bland match ups nor do I think blizzard would allow it this time around. Second tournaments are gonna be playing a much larger part of the game and you're gonna eventually run into issues and have to play match ups that you don't want which will obviously be a weaker match up for you as you haven't been playing it often or at all. So even if you're the better player you could end up losing which is not what it should be especially since we have no idea how serious some of these tournaments could be.
|
FA, while I respect your position as an admin here, I will have to point out afew things I find totally wrong in your thread.
First off, in regards to changing name on clan/tag purposes, if you played War3, You would see they had your clan tag on the side of the chat room/screen. I imagine the idea that one ID would have would mean it will show your clan tag when you enter games and such (I believe it already did that on the load screen for war3 but I could be mistaken, its been awhile).. So while I would choose the name Skyze, while my team on bnet would be rS, so I dont have to make rS.Skyze, because if I did that, in the game/channels, my name would be rS.Skyze [rS] , where if it was just Skyze, it would just be Skyze [rS].. If I happen to leave them, and that day join ESC, my name would be Skyze [ESC] . If you used your name, under my team itd show up as FrozenArbiter [rS] in games/chat.. That is what I am understanding and makes the most sense for blizzard to do (basically how War3 had it)
Also if I am mistaken, I thought the whole purpose of this new friends list/ IM system was to block out non-friends from constantly whispering you. So if THE Slayers_Boxer didnt want random msgs, he would do like a /dnd that would block out anyone NOT on his Friends list. How do people deal with it now on iccup (other than smurfing?) like, We know the times that Mondragon is playing his clanleague matchs, why doesnt 100 people just blast msgs his way during the game to get their name on the stream?? DND solves. And with the seperation of friends lists, it should be fine.
Im on the fence about this whole subject, in one regard it is good but I do understand the offracing argument, although I must say thats the only one that I see as a legitament concern at the moment. I do like the idea of being able to 2-3 IDs, but whatever your ELL accumulates to on one account, will tie to the other account, that way if you are indeed A+ protoss, and you start your 2nd account with zerg, even though you will start at D, you will be matched up against D players who are like 7-0 and high ELL also, rather than the 2-40 D players. That way, you still have to climb but you aren't trampling total newbs in the process, and you can make 3-4 accounts per CDkey, one for each race, but no more (unless you delete all stats and change name from one of those 4)
The main issue with War3 ELL system lately has been actually FINDING games with the high ELL's, so that is the main concern I have for SC2's AMM, If someone really good goes 100-0 and the #2 ranked player is 70-30, it should try to find 90%+ people within their rank for the first 10 minutes but after that, start opening it up to potentially anyone also searching for a game, after a set number of minutes (like 10).. because waiting over 15 minutes to find a game at the top of the ladder is bullshit.
|
i hope there will be more obs features so we can watch top players duke it out
|
On August 27 2009 06:02 Jibba wrote:
FA, what if ladders become irrelevant? Ladders are a viable way of competition when you've only got disorganized leagues, but on the release of SC2 CEVO, ESL and all the other major leagues are going to set up divisions for real competitive play, similar to the Korean scene with bigger numbers. I honestly think your first argument is moot because of this. No one's going to care about Blizzard's ladder system.
If we have to rely on Blizzard to organize competitive play, then that's a much bigger problem.
And this is 100% wrong too.
The SC2 Ladder will be THE ladder for the next 5+ years after release. There will be no WGT, PGT, Iccup, CL or anything until probably 10 years after release, when blizzard stops monitoring it, but I can PROMISE there will be nothing other than the SC2 ladder for at least the first 5 years.
In terms of Team leagues, such as Iccup Clan league and etc, Sure, there will be afew of those, but it wont stop people from playing the SC2 ladder. Actually, To get noticed enough to be picked up by a high-profile team, you will most likely NEED to be in the top ranks of the SC2 ladder.
Regardless if CEVO or ESL or anyone sets up a different LADDER, it will NOT beat blizzards. The only thing outside organizations will run is Clan leagues, No ladders at all.
|
I m confused??
If u r put in a division..... and u always play ranked agaist then. How u r gonna smurf??
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 27 2009 06:36 Skyze wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2009 06:02 Jibba wrote:
FA, what if ladders become irrelevant? Ladders are a viable way of competition when you've only got disorganized leagues, but on the release of SC2 CEVO, ESL and all the other major leagues are going to set up divisions for real competitive play, similar to the Korean scene with bigger numbers. I honestly think your first argument is moot because of this. No one's going to care about Blizzard's ladder system.
If we have to rely on Blizzard to organize competitive play, then that's a much bigger problem. And this is 100% wrong too. The SC2 Ladder will be THE ladder for the next 5+ years after release. There will be no WGT, PGT, Iccup, CL or anything until probably 10 years after release, when blizzard stops monitoring it, but I can PROMISE there will be nothing other than the SC2 ladder for at least the first 5 years. In terms of Team leagues, such as Iccup Clan league and etc, Sure, there will be afew of those, but it wont stop people from playing the SC2 ladder. Actually, To get noticed enough to be picked up by a high-profile team, you will most likely NEED to be in the top ranks of the SC2 ladder. Regardless if CEVO or ESL or anyone sets up a different LADDER, it will NOT beat blizzards. The only thing outside organizations will run is Clan leagues, No ladders at all.
They will run LEAGUES and offer PRIZES and entry to TOURNAMENTS. LEAGUE > LADDER. How many times does this need to be COVERED?
HOW can you possibly THINK leagues won't be established? There's already INFRASTRUCTURE and sponsors who are WILLING to support any popular COMPETITIVE game for the sake of E-SPORTS, for the same reason they've supported CS leagues. PLUS SC2 actually needs new Nvidia/Intel hardware, which makes it EASY to sponsor, 1.6 DOES not.
|
Based on their discussion regarding the "Real ID," I see the account stuff working very similar to steam. I have one login to Steam that I use for every game, but within that game I can modify my alias.
When you buy SC2, you will get one account and create one login ID. This ID won't change (at least not easily), but you will still have lots of options for in-game screennames. Players should be able to contact you regularly using your current screen-name, but only the mutuals on your friends list will be able to see where you are regardless of game/account.
Obviously your ELL would be tied to the main ID. Smurfing would be very easy, but it won't allow you to magically start bashing the D- players.
|
umm nice try jibba. Like caps? Here you go.
The BNet Leagues will be a facet, and sure, they will have prizes, but the LADDER is still the #1 FOCAL POINT OF ALL OF BNET 2.0.
ANYONE can play the BNet Ladder, where not everyone can play leagues. And guess what? TO GET INTO LEAGUES, You need to BE AT THE TOP OF THE LADDER! Make sense??
There will be outside leagues, sure, providing more prizes to teams/already good players.. but the BASIS OF EVERYTHING IN STARCRAFT TWO WILL BE ITS LADDER, as that is where you find your top players, able to play in leagues.
Leagues dont just start out of no where, If there wasnt an Iccup ladder on BW, you wouldnt find good players to recruite to all the teams like ToT), ESC, eX, Fosc, etc.. the SC2 LADDER will be a hack-free place to play that is SUPPORTED and MONITORED by BLIZZARD.
Case and point.. the LADDER is the backbone of SC2. End of discussion. Without that, Theres no place to get players for leagues, hence leagues wont exist. Its not that hard to understand.
|
On August 27 2009 07:05 Skyze wrote:
umm nice try jibba. Like caps? Here you go.
The BNet Leagues will be a facet, and sure, they will have prizes, but the LADDER is still the #1 FOCAL POINT OF ALL OF BNET 2.0.
ANYONE can play the BNet Ladder, where not everyone can play leagues. And guess what? TO GET INTO LEAGUES, You need to BE AT THE TOP OF THE LADDER! Make sense??
There will be outside leagues, sure, providing more prizes to teams/already good players.. but the BASIS OF EVERYTHING IN STARCRAFT TWO WILL BE ITS LADDER, as that is where you find your top players, able to play in leagues.
Leagues dont just start out of no where, If there wasnt an Iccup ladder on BW, you wouldnt find good players to recruite to all the teams like ToT), ESC, eX, Fosc, etc.. the SC2 LADDER will be a hack-free place to play that is SUPPORTED and MONITORED by BLIZZARD.
Case and point.. the LADDER is the backbone of SC2. End of discussion. Without that, Theres no place to get players for leagues, hence leagues wont exist. Its not that hard to understand. Did you watch the Bnet 2.0 panel at Blizzcon? Honestly it looked like the leagues WERE the ladder.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 27 2009 07:05 Skyze wrote:
umm nice try jibba. Like caps? Here you go.
The BNet Leagues will be a facet, and sure, they will have prizes, but the LADDER is still the #1 FOCAL POINT OF ALL OF BNET 2.0.
ANYONE can play the BNet Ladder, where not everyone can play leagues. And guess what? TO GET INTO LEAGUES, You need to BE AT THE TOP OF THE LADDER! Make sense??
There will be outside leagues, sure, providing more prizes to teams/already good players.. but the BASIS OF EVERYTHING IN STARCRAFT TWO WILL BE ITS LADDER, as that is where you find your top players, able to play in leagues.
Leagues dont just start out of no where, If there wasnt an Iccup ladder on BW, you wouldnt find good players to recruite to all the teams like ToT), ESC, eX, Fosc, etc.. the SC2 LADDER will be a hack-free place to play that is SUPPORTED and MONITORED by BLIZZARD.
Case and point.. the LADDER is the backbone of SC2. End of discussion. Without that, Theres no place to get players for leagues, hence leagues wont exist. Its not that hard to understand.
Have you ever played a competitive game that wasn't released in 1997? I don't think you understand how CEVO/CAL/UGS/ESL/etc. have worked in the past. Ladders are easy to manipulate and discourage creativity. Leagues give you real benchmarked results, where you aren't punished for practicing new things because only matches count.
And if you don't think the infrastructure is in place, look how long it took TF2 and Halo 3 leagues to get started. SC2 is big enough that it'll be featured at launch.
Also, good job editing in my name instead of calling me "kid." Classy!
|
umm.. Have you played a BLIZZARD game since 1997?? Warcraft 3 functioned 100% with its ladder. SC2 will be exactly the same.
CEVO/CAL/ESL is all FPS games, They failed horribly for RTS.. I should know, being in the CAL-M (think it was main, or CAL-I, i forget) for War3 and they stopped it midway thru the season pretty much cause no one was playing the games. Its a poor system, Everything will be run by BLIZZARD in SC2, none of this outsider ladder crap.
I'll call you what you deserve to be called, and without proving any facts and arguing for the sale of arguing, That is childish behavior, kid. Show me some PROOF that CEVO/CAL/UGS/ESL will be running SC2, and that Blizzard ladder will be "irrelevant"..
I dont think you have even played Warcraft 3, have you? That is the most logical comparison to what Blizzard is doing, since it is a Blizzard RTS release that was somewhat recent. They didn't have clan-league support yet, but their AMM system was THE top form of War3 competitive play until about the start of 2008 when they stopped monitoring hackers from it. If you were anybody on the War3 scene, you were in the top 20 on the BLIZZARD run Warcraft 3 ladders. Moon, Remind, Sky, Shy, Focus, etc were all at the top of the BNet asia ladder as recent as this past year, how is that irrelevant?
|
On August 27 2009 05:51 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +Arguers just don't want to ruin their records. The only thing 1 acct per person keeps you from doing is bashing noobs in rated games, even with your off race. How about you just take some losses on your record to try an offrace? Is it because you dont want to ruin your record playing people better than you are with that race? That is the same reason why they are trying to eliminate smurfing and 'sandbagging'. So the new players don't play people way better than them 75% of the time. I am 99.9% positive you can find someone who is willing to 1on1 from a chat channel or even a great website like TL.net .... 25 pages. TWENTY FIVE GOD DAMNED PAGES. I am so fucking sick of restating my position because people have selective god damned reading. No, I'm not afraid of losing. PGTour season 6 and 7, I played a combined 800 games, finishing the seasons at A- and A+ respectively. I dodged nobody, I rematched anyone who asked, and asked anyone who beat me for a rematch. But when I wanted to play some off-races, I created a new account.
Why? Because my protoss is fucking A rank and my Zerg is like D+ -_- Do I care one shit about losing to the other A ranks? NO. But losing with my main account means it goes down in rank, meaning I can't play as good players (as protoss) without going back up in rank, which I don't want to do because it's a waste of my time.
So I make a new ID. What if I'm Slayers'Boxer and I'm a little bit tired of everyone messaging me or friend requesting me as soon as I log onto battle.net? Maybe I just want to play some damned 2v2s with a friend, and not have to deal with being *THE* slayers'boxer? Make a new ID. Make a new ID, but keep the ELL of your master account, I don't care if that means getting raped a few times with your new race. What if I just want to make a new ID because I don't like the way my old one goes with the new clan I joined? For instance, FrozenArbiter does not fit very well with the tag iD. does it? iD.FA does. number9dream doesn't go well with Dream.t, right? Dream.t)PltO does. Furthermore, why should I have to play custom games when I could play AMM? You have NO WAY of knowing you are matched with a player of equal skill in customgames, and even if I'm just gonna fuck around I'd of course prefer to fuck around with someone about as good as me. Having a separate ELL / ranking for each race solves the first issue, but doesn't begin to take care of issue #2. And no, /dnd is not the answer, ok? You want some people to be able to talk to you, you want to meet new people - you just don't want to meet all of bloody battle.net at once.
Okay so I did read "25 PAGES ZOMG." And my point still sticks. I bolded your reasoning and really its no different from the one you quoted of me. You don't want to waste your time, but you feel that its okay to waste a noobs time steamrolling them? Unless you're trying to say that your off race is so bad that you lose all RTS knowledge and suddenly become a 30-50apm clueless noob, then you should just go about off racing in a different manner than ladder rated games.
I understand that for a specific situation it might be an inconvenience, but I am arguing that its a greater convenience for the majority (casuals and the like).
|
A reminder, FPS and RTS competitive systems are TOTALLY different.. What is more work, Setting up every single account on a website, playing the game on bnet, then uploading your replay on ESL or CEVO, or Going on SC2, Clicking "Play game" and everything is done for you??
CEVO/ESL/CAL will have a very small if not non-existant SC2 competitive division. The only thing I see from any of those sites, are Clan leagues, which dont reward single players, which is the whole process of team-less players getting on teams in the first place..
Just face it, Regardless of what happens, SC2's ladder will be the backbone of the whole SC2 community, Everyone will start there, climb the SC2 ladder then get picked up by the top teams for league play. Anyone with half a brain understands that.
|
United States22883 Posts
The WC3 competitive scene is infantile if you're not at the very top, that's why it died in CAL. CEVO offers $$$. Like more $$$ for you to buy cool new sunglasses or another necklace.
Why do you think a ladder is fundamentally better than a league format? Or do you not know the difference? Why is it that WC3L and Clanbase work perfectly fine for teams, but you don't think it can be extended to individual format? Especially when SC2 is going to have much better sponsorship than WC3 does, therefore more tournaments and better prizes.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 27 2009 07:25 Skyze wrote:
A reminder, FPS and RTS competitive systems are TOTALLY different.. What is more work, Setting up every single account on a website, playing the game on bnet, then uploading your replay on ESL or CEVO, or Going on SC2, Clicking "Play game" and everything is done for you??
If you're content with a ladder format, then have at it. If you want a system where you're still allowed to practice your shitty D Zerg and only having your A Protoss counted, and be offered cash prizes for online tournies (CEVO is $7,500 for 1.6 P league atm, per season) then you join a league.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 27 2009 07:24 Medzo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2009 05:51 FrozenArbiter wrote:Arguers just don't want to ruin their records. The only thing 1 acct per person keeps you from doing is bashing noobs in rated games, even with your off race. How about you just take some losses on your record to try an offrace? Is it because you dont want to ruin your record playing people better than you are with that race? That is the same reason why they are trying to eliminate smurfing and 'sandbagging'. So the new players don't play people way better than them 75% of the time. I am 99.9% positive you can find someone who is willing to 1on1 from a chat channel or even a great website like TL.net .... 25 pages. TWENTY FIVE GOD DAMNED PAGES. I am so fucking sick of restating my position because people have selective god damned reading. No, I'm not afraid of losing. PGTour season 6 and 7, I played a combined 800 games, finishing the seasons at A- and A+ respectively. I dodged nobody, I rematched anyone who asked, and asked anyone who beat me for a rematch. But when I wanted to play some off-races, I created a new account.
Why? Because my protoss is fucking A rank and my Zerg is like D+ -_- Do I care one shit about losing to the other A ranks? NO. But losing with my main account means it goes down in rank, meaning I can't play as good players (as protoss) without going back up in rank, which I don't want to do because it's a waste of my time.
So I make a new ID. What if I'm Slayers'Boxer and I'm a little bit tired of everyone messaging me or friend requesting me as soon as I log onto battle.net? Maybe I just want to play some damned 2v2s with a friend, and not have to deal with being *THE* slayers'boxer? Make a new ID. Make a new ID, but keep the ELL of your master account, I don't care if that means getting raped a few times with your new race. What if I just want to make a new ID because I don't like the way my old one goes with the new clan I joined? For instance, FrozenArbiter does not fit very well with the tag iD. does it? iD.FA does. number9dream doesn't go well with Dream.t, right? Dream.t)PltO does. Furthermore, why should I have to play custom games when I could play AMM? You have NO WAY of knowing you are matched with a player of equal skill in customgames, and even if I'm just gonna fuck around I'd of course prefer to fuck around with someone about as good as me. Having a separate ELL / ranking for each race solves the first issue, but doesn't begin to take care of issue #2. And no, /dnd is not the answer, ok? You want some people to be able to talk to you, you want to meet new people - you just don't want to meet all of bloody battle.net at once. Okay so I did read "25 PAGES ZOMG." And my point still sticks. I bolded your reasoning and really its no different from the one you quoted of me. You don't want to waste your time, but you feel that its okay to waste a noobs time steamrolling them? Unless you're trying to say that your off race is so bad that you lose all RTS knowledge and suddenly become a 30-50apm clueless noob, then you should just go about off racing in a different manner than ladder rated games. I understand that for a specific situation it might be an inconvenience, but I am arguing that its a greater convenience for the majority (casuals and the like).
... I'm saying I think any new account you make should start at a higher ELL rank - perhaps at your highest achieved ELL -_- All I want is to be able to play with my non-main races without dropping 200 ranks on the ladder
Even if you can't do what I suggested (let people start new accounts with a higher than zero ELL) then I actually do not think it's a big deal if someone can make, let's say 3 accounts per Real ID.
It's not like they can newbbash for very long that way, and you can easily flag any account that auto-leaves any game to drop in rank.
+ Noobs will have to deal with getting stomped at the start of every season anyway, since everything resets..
I have NO interest in steamrolling noobs lol
Nothing more boring in the world.
|
8748 Posts
Here are the two possible solutions I now think are good:
1. The standard ladder is like iccup insofar as it's a great place for competition and practice but the only advantage to having a high ranked account is instant access to high level play. Ideally, there are constantly other ladders and competitions running so that, in the long run, high level players won't need this standard ladder and won't care about it. Important practice is played with teammates and important competitions are played elsewhere. They can mess with other races on the standard ladder and it does not matter. They could get high ranked on it again with a day's worth of games anyway.
2. Let each player have a separate ranking for each race (+ random). Some fancy coding might be necessary for race pickers. Or maybe Blizzard can just tell them that they're not supposed to be able to pick their race based on their opponent's race
|
On August 27 2009 07:24 Medzo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2009 05:51 FrozenArbiter wrote:Arguers just don't want to ruin their records. The only thing 1 acct per person keeps you from doing is bashing noobs in rated games, even with your off race. How about you just take some losses on your record to try an offrace? Is it because you dont want to ruin your record playing people better than you are with that race? That is the same reason why they are trying to eliminate smurfing and 'sandbagging'. So the new players don't play people way better than them 75% of the time. I am 99.9% positive you can find someone who is willing to 1on1 from a chat channel or even a great website like TL.net .... 25 pages. TWENTY FIVE GOD DAMNED PAGES. I am so fucking sick of restating my position because people have selective god damned reading. No, I'm not afraid of losing. PGTour season 6 and 7, I played a combined 800 games, finishing the seasons at A- and A+ respectively. I dodged nobody, I rematched anyone who asked, and asked anyone who beat me for a rematch. But when I wanted to play some off-races, I created a new account.
Why? Because my protoss is fucking A rank and my Zerg is like D+ -_- Do I care one shit about losing to the other A ranks? NO. But losing with my main account means it goes down in rank, meaning I can't play as good players (as protoss) without going back up in rank, which I don't want to do because it's a waste of my time.
So I make a new ID. What if I'm Slayers'Boxer and I'm a little bit tired of everyone messaging me or friend requesting me as soon as I log onto battle.net? Maybe I just want to play some damned 2v2s with a friend, and not have to deal with being *THE* slayers'boxer? Make a new ID. Make a new ID, but keep the ELL of your master account, I don't care if that means getting raped a few times with your new race. What if I just want to make a new ID because I don't like the way my old one goes with the new clan I joined? For instance, FrozenArbiter does not fit very well with the tag iD. does it? iD.FA does. number9dream doesn't go well with Dream.t, right? Dream.t)PltO does. Furthermore, why should I have to play custom games when I could play AMM? You have NO WAY of knowing you are matched with a player of equal skill in customgames, and even if I'm just gonna fuck around I'd of course prefer to fuck around with someone about as good as me. Having a separate ELL / ranking for each race solves the first issue, but doesn't begin to take care of issue #2. And no, /dnd is not the answer, ok? You want some people to be able to talk to you, you want to meet new people - you just don't want to meet all of bloody battle.net at once. Okay so I did read "25 PAGES ZOMG." And my point still sticks. I bolded your reasoning and really its no different from the one you quoted of me. You don't want to waste your time, but you feel that its okay to waste a noobs time steamrolling them? Unless you're trying to say that your off race is so bad that you lose all RTS knowledge and suddenly become a 30-50apm clueless noob, then you should just go about off racing in a different manner than ladder rated games. I understand that for a specific situation it might be an inconvenience, but I am arguing that its a greater convenience for the majority (casuals and the like). If you can't offrace with separate rating, you waste your time every interval in which you offrace and then have work your rating back up. If the offrace rating is separate, you're only going to waste the time of noobs once because once you're in the appropriate range you stay there.
You can't stop noobstomping as a whole, but it should be easy to strictly limit how many noobstomping games someone can play before they're placed in their appropriate skill bracket.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 27 2009 06:24 ManWithCheese wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2009 05:21 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Anyways I think FA's system would be more reasonable then the current one however the idea of excluding match ups is not a good idea for a truly competitive ladder.
Why? You still play vs every race in my system, you just don't have to play PvP if you'd rather play TvP. PvZ PvT TvP PvR I play vs all races. If any matchup is so boring that nobody ends up playing it, isn't it a good thing that you don't have to ;p? For starters I don't think with all of the things added to each race will allow the game to have boring/bland match ups nor do I think blizzard would allow it this time around. Second tournaments are gonna be playing a much larger part of the game and you're gonna eventually run into issues and have to play match ups that you don't want which will obviously be a weaker match up for you as you haven't been playing it often or at all. So even if you're the better player you could end up losing which is not what it should be especially since we have no idea how serious some of these tournaments could be.
Someone is always gonna prefer one matchup over another, why force them to not play?
It's their decision to run into potentially bad situations in tournaments (in fact, this is one of the reasons I stopped playing TvP, since it put me in an awkward position vs random players).
On August 27 2009 06:19 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2009 06:08 FrozenArbiter wrote:
I'm 100% sure that you are wrong.
If for nothing else, then because they will invite the top finishers to blizzcon, like they've done for WC3 for years, in addition to the ladder finals.
In addition to that, with no LAN and presumably better support than in the past, I think the ladder will be where you play for at least the first few years. Blizzard could as easily invite from private leagues, just like they did with GOM finalists, and it surely won't be the only major tournament (Blizzcon is just exhibition matches anyways.) Why don't you think there will be real leagues? Competitive play needs to differentiate between practice and matches and ladders don't do that. They're all about grading practice. That's the real problem if you don't want to be graded for trying new things. Smurfing is just an inefficient workaround. If you're going to use ladders, they should just be a preliminary cut-off point because of size limitations with running lower level leagues. At the top 20%, or whatever cut-off chosen, the numbers will be perfectly suited for league play.
If we were talking about SC, maybe they'd do that. But this is SC2, given all that they've done, I'm pretty sure they aren't interested in having someone else run their shit.
And I think that's how they do it for WC3 now - top X% each server is invited to invite ladder. Still doesn't change much.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 27 2009 06:27 Skyze wrote:
FA, while I respect your position as an admin here, I will have to point out afew things I find totally wrong in your thread.
First off, in regards to changing name on clan/tag purposes, if you played War3, You would see they had your clan tag on the side of the chat room/screen. I imagine the idea that one ID would have would mean it will show your clan tag when you enter games and such (I believe it already did that on the load screen for war3 but I could be mistaken, its been awhile).. So while I would choose the name Skyze, while my team on bnet would be rS, so I dont have to make rS.Skyze, because if I did that, in the game/channels, my name would be rS.Skyze [rS] , where if it was just Skyze, it would just be Skyze [rS].. If I happen to leave them, and that day join ESC, my name would be Skyze [ESC] . If you used your name, under my team itd show up as FrozenArbiter [rS] in games/chat.. That is what I am understanding and makes the most sense for blizzard to do (basically how War3 had it)
I know this - but as far as I know, players STILL add their clan tags to their name when they play (at the very least they do on LAN, which wont exist in SC2... so they would HAVE to add support for your clan tag to show up in game somehow or they get no exposure) when they play.
Also, I don't want my ID to be FrozenArbiter [Dream.t], that looks stupid :[ Different names look good with different tags.
Also if I am mistaken, I thought the whole purpose of this new friends list/ IM system was to block out non-friends from constantly whispering you. So if THE Slayers_Boxer didnt want random msgs, he would do like a /dnd that would block out anyone NOT on his Friends list. How do people deal with it now on iccup (other than smurfing?) like, We know the times that Mondragon is playing his clanleague matchs, why doesnt 100 people just blast msgs his way during the game to get their name on the stream?? DND solves. And with the seperation of friends lists, it should be fine.
Yes, it's a fine solution during single games! But not for general bnet use - I have no interest in never getting a chance to meet anyone new due to being drowned in useless chatter the minute I turn off /dnd.
I'm also not interested in being unable to whisper anyone who is not on your friendslist but that's another story.
Im on the fence about this whole subject, in one regard it is good but I do understand the offracing argument, although I must say thats the only one that I see as a legitament concern at the moment. I do like the idea of being able to 2-3 IDs, but whatever your ELL accumulates to on one account, will tie to the other account, that way if you are indeed A+ protoss, and you start your 2nd account with zerg, even though you will start at D, you will be matched up against D players who are like 7-0 and high ELL also, rather than the 2-40 D players. That way, you still have to climb but you aren't trampling total newbs in the process, and you can make 3-4 accounts per CDkey, one for each race, but no more (unless you delete all stats and change name from one of those 4)
The main issue with War3 ELL system lately has been actually FINDING games with the high ELL's, so that is the main concern I have for SC2's AMM, If someone really good goes 100-0 and the #2 ranked player is 70-30, it should try to find 90%+ people within their rank for the first 10 minutes but after that, start opening it up to potentially anyone also searching for a game, after a set number of minutes (like 10).. because waiting over 15 minutes to find a game at the top of the ladder is bullshit.
Only problem with carrying over ELL (which is something I've been a proponent of), is that it may have you playing people ranked much higher than you, who would lose more from a loss than they would gain from a win (presumably, I'm not sure how the system works, maybe each win/loss gives you the same amount of points).
Oh and, uhm, I never ban anyone I'm arguing with, so don't worry lol
In fact, some would say I never ban anyone at all. But that's a filthy lie.
I've banned people. Maybe even several.
|
Jibba do you even read my posts? I say LEAGUES are totally different than ladders.
The SC2 blizzard run ladder will be the backbone of everything, much like the War3 one was before they stopped supporting it. I said there will be outside leagues like WC3L, but in the end, the WC3L teams are made up by the top of the SC2 ladder. Thats the whole point.
The SC2 ladder will be the ONLY ladder, there will be no iccup or CAL/ESL/CEVO. Leagues? as in five 1v1 matchs in a clan-league format, Sure, there will be those, but thats not what we're talking about. We're talking about the SC2 ladder. The SC2 ladder will not be "irrelevant" like you put it, just like ICCup isnt irrelevant to the SC scene right now outside of korea.
Outside of Korea, where else can foreigners meet to play eachother in a semi-controlled (hack-free) envirnment outside of their close practice partners?? Iccup. Now in SC2, since blizzard will have an AMM system that is hack free, the SC2 ladder takes that spot, and not only for foreigners, but for pretty much everyone including koreans until they develope their own SC2 private gaming houses (A-level teams like SKT, CJ, etc) but everyone outside of there, will still play majority of SC2 ladder.
|
On August 27 2009 08:25 Skyze wrote:
Jibba do you even read my posts? I say LEAGUES are totally different than ladders.
The SC2 blizzard run ladder will be the backbone of everything, much like the War3 one was before they stopped supporting it. I said there will be outside leagues like WC3L, but in the end, the WC3L teams are made up by the top of the SC2 ladder. Thats the whole point.
The SC2 ladder will be the ONLY ladder, there will be no iccup or CAL/ESL/CEVO. Leagues? as in five 1v1 matchs in a clan-league format, Sure, there will be those, but thats not what we're talking about. We're talking about the SC2 ladder. The SC2 ladder will not be "irrelevant" like you put it, just like ICCup isnt irrelevant to the SC scene right now outside of korea.
Outside of Korea, where else can foreigners meet to play eachother in a semi-controlled (hack-free) envirnment outside of their close practice partners?? Iccup. Now in SC2, since blizzard will have an AMM system that is hack free, the SC2 ladder takes that spot, and not only for foreigners, but for pretty much everyone including koreans until they develope their own SC2 private gaming houses (A-level teams like SKT, CJ, etc) but everyone outside of there, will still play majority of SC2 ladder.
No. The ladder will never be "the place to play" competitively. Leagues will take precedence (as they always do) with popular mainstream games that are desirable for sponsors to sponsor. They may be used as a qualifier, but the "GRAND FINALS" are never going to be 2 anonymous players being AMM'd against each other.
Edit: Good players are just going to play where the money is. If Blizzard throws enough of it down, then maybe they will stay on the ladder, but historically, that isn't usually the case.
|
It seems most of the issues are VERY simply solved by allowing people to change the ID that goes with their account.
As for the other ones.
Ladder=all non-custom AMM games that you play against other humans in SC2
And it should stay that way because that helps ensure that the AMM matches up people of near equal skill.
That is what it needs to do, it might need to be less equal when wait times are long, but that would be needed anyways
Now Tournaments could use something separate from the ladder so that only certain game counted in their ranking (although initial ladder might be a good starting point) That way if you are in a tournament, "practice" games won't affect your tournament results, although they will affect your ladder rank for future tournaments.
The problem of "Off-racing" Could be solved by having a race specific ladder rating. You would probably need a system where if you win/lose a game as Protoss that gives/loses you 100 points, you should get/lose fraction of that number of points in your Terran and Zerg ladder levels (indicating the 'general' part of your skill). So that an A+ pure Protoss' first Zerg game would not match them against a D- pure Protoss' first Terran game.
This is probably more of a concern at higher levels though.
.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 27 2009 08:33 keV. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2009 08:25 Skyze wrote:
Jibba do you even read my posts? I say LEAGUES are totally different than ladders.
The SC2 blizzard run ladder will be the backbone of everything, much like the War3 one was before they stopped supporting it. I said there will be outside leagues like WC3L, but in the end, the WC3L teams are made up by the top of the SC2 ladder. Thats the whole point.
The SC2 ladder will be the ONLY ladder, there will be no iccup or CAL/ESL/CEVO. Leagues? as in five 1v1 matchs in a clan-league format, Sure, there will be those, but thats not what we're talking about. We're talking about the SC2 ladder. The SC2 ladder will not be "irrelevant" like you put it, just like ICCup isnt irrelevant to the SC scene right now outside of korea.
Outside of Korea, where else can foreigners meet to play eachother in a semi-controlled (hack-free) envirnment outside of their close practice partners?? Iccup. Now in SC2, since blizzard will have an AMM system that is hack free, the SC2 ladder takes that spot, and not only for foreigners, but for pretty much everyone including koreans until they develope their own SC2 private gaming houses (A-level teams like SKT, CJ, etc) but everyone outside of there, will still play majority of SC2 ladder. No. The ladder will never be "the place to play" competitively. Leagues will take precedence (as they always do) with popular mainstream games that are desirable for sponsors to sponsor. They may be used as a qualifier, but the "GRAND FINALS" are never going to be 2 anonymous players being AMM'd against each other. Edit: Good players are just going to play where the money is. If Blizzard throws enough of it down, then maybe they will stay on the ladder, but historically, that isn't usually the case.
Sigh, it's going to be the place to play for competitive practice.
I don't understand why anyone feels the need to drag in 1 day/week leagues (or hell, things as big as the OSL) into this.
The Bnet ladder is gonna take about the same role as ICCUP. That is, the competitive go to place for more or less everyone outside the Korean pro houses, and hell even a lot of those guys play on ICCUP.
|
On August 27 2009 08:45 Krikkitone wrote:
Ladder=all non-custom AMM games that you play against other humans in
Pretty sure you have the option to play non-ranked games. it is almost a requirement for experimentation of builds and practicing off-races. I don't believe for a second that they would not have non-ranked games. Also, if you want to play with friends who are far outside your skill range, they would need that to not effect rank too.
Most likey (IMO) if you click quickmatch you will be placed in your recomended ladder. Or if you choose to you can either pick a ladder of your choice to play on or choose 'non-ranked game' to see a list or make non-ranked games.
As far as I am aware there is a limited map pool for each ladder season. Ladder maps are generally chosen for their relatively good race balances. I doubt they would allow the ranking of any match that was on a map outside that seasons map pool, as it may be very unbalanced.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Eh, I doubt they would have an "unranked" AMM - it goes completely against their design philosophy of "too many buckets = bad".
|
On August 27 2009 09:07 DeCoup wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2009 08:45 Krikkitone wrote:
Ladder=all non-custom AMM games that you play against other humans in Pretty sure you have the option to play non-ranked games. it is almost a requirement for experimentation of builds and practicing off-races. I don't believe for a second that they would not have non-ranked games. Also, if you want to play with friends who are far outside your skill range, they would need that to not effect rank too. Most likey (IMO) if you click quickmatch you will be placed in your recomended ladder. Or if you choose to you can either pick a ladder of your choice to play on or choose 'non-ranked game' to see a list or make non-ranked games. As far as I am aware there is a limited map pool for each ladder season. Ladder maps are generally chosen for their relatively good race balances. I doubt they would allow the ranking of any match that was on a map outside that seasons map pool, as it may be very unbalanced.
"unranked" games would only be non-AMM ones, ie ones where you chose all your allies and opponents yourself.
If you are playing as a team with your much lower ranked friend and your opponents/some allies are chosen by AMM, then you have a "team rank" based on your individual ranks.
|
United States47024 Posts
I'm curious as to what the effect might be of allowing unrated play on the ranked ladder (e.g. the AMM still pairs you with opponents playing ranked games, and they still gain/lose a number of points appropriate to your rank, but you don't gain/lose any points for playing an unrated game)?
|
On August 27 2009 07:53 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2009 07:24 Medzo wrote:On August 27 2009 05:51 FrozenArbiter wrote:Arguers just don't want to ruin their records. The only thing 1 acct per person keeps you from doing is bashing noobs in rated games, even with your off race. How about you just take some losses on your record to try an offrace? Is it because you dont want to ruin your record playing people better than you are with that race? That is the same reason why they are trying to eliminate smurfing and 'sandbagging'. So the new players don't play people way better than them 75% of the time. I am 99.9% positive you can find someone who is willing to 1on1 from a chat channel or even a great website like TL.net .... 25 pages. TWENTY FIVE GOD DAMNED PAGES. I am so fucking sick of restating my position because people have selective god damned reading. No, I'm not afraid of losing. PGTour season 6 and 7, I played a combined 800 games, finishing the seasons at A- and A+ respectively. I dodged nobody, I rematched anyone who asked, and asked anyone who beat me for a rematch. But when I wanted to play some off-races, I created a new account.
Why? Because my protoss is fucking A rank and my Zerg is like D+ -_- Do I care one shit about losing to the other A ranks? NO. But losing with my main account means it goes down in rank, meaning I can't play as good players (as protoss) without going back up in rank, which I don't want to do because it's a waste of my time.
So I make a new ID. What if I'm Slayers'Boxer and I'm a little bit tired of everyone messaging me or friend requesting me as soon as I log onto battle.net? Maybe I just want to play some damned 2v2s with a friend, and not have to deal with being *THE* slayers'boxer? Make a new ID. Make a new ID, but keep the ELL of your master account, I don't care if that means getting raped a few times with your new race. What if I just want to make a new ID because I don't like the way my old one goes with the new clan I joined? For instance, FrozenArbiter does not fit very well with the tag iD. does it? iD.FA does. number9dream doesn't go well with Dream.t, right? Dream.t)PltO does. Furthermore, why should I have to play custom games when I could play AMM? You have NO WAY of knowing you are matched with a player of equal skill in customgames, and even if I'm just gonna fuck around I'd of course prefer to fuck around with someone about as good as me. Having a separate ELL / ranking for each race solves the first issue, but doesn't begin to take care of issue #2. And no, /dnd is not the answer, ok? You want some people to be able to talk to you, you want to meet new people - you just don't want to meet all of bloody battle.net at once. Okay so I did read "25 PAGES ZOMG." And my point still sticks. I bolded your reasoning and really its no different from the one you quoted of me. You don't want to waste your time, but you feel that its okay to waste a noobs time steamrolling them? Unless you're trying to say that your off race is so bad that you lose all RTS knowledge and suddenly become a 30-50apm clueless noob, then you should just go about off racing in a different manner than ladder rated games. I understand that for a specific situation it might be an inconvenience, but I am arguing that its a greater convenience for the majority (casuals and the like). ... I'm saying I think any new account you make should start at a higher ELL rank - perhaps at your highest achieved ELL -_- All I want is to be able to play with my non-main races without dropping 200 ranks on the ladder Even if you can't do what I suggested (let people start new accounts with a higher than zero ELL) then I actually do not think it's a big deal if someone can make, let's say 3 accounts per Real ID. It's not like they can newbbash for very long that way, and you can easily flag any account that auto-leaves any game to drop in rank. + Noobs will have to deal with getting stomped at the start of every season anyway, since everything resets.. I have NO interest in steamrolling noobs lol Nothing more boring in the world.
Well if you could pump out new accounts based on ELL you could very easily win trade. And if they had some sort of regulation on playing against someone for X period a time it would only slow, not stop, win trading.
Once again im not really trying to say your reasons are bad for wanting to create a new account, but I know the majority of people want to noob bash or leave their 50% record and pretend to be good with a clean %.
Honestly your best bet is to just play against people on the forum, in random channels, or friends. And I believe that is worth the benefit to the game overall of having 1 account per cdkey.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 27 2009 09:04 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2009 08:33 keV. wrote:On August 27 2009 08:25 Skyze wrote:
Jibba do you even read my posts? I say LEAGUES are totally different than ladders.
The SC2 blizzard run ladder will be the backbone of everything, much like the War3 one was before they stopped supporting it. I said there will be outside leagues like WC3L, but in the end, the WC3L teams are made up by the top of the SC2 ladder. Thats the whole point.
The SC2 ladder will be the ONLY ladder, there will be no iccup or CAL/ESL/CEVO. Leagues? as in five 1v1 matchs in a clan-league format, Sure, there will be those, but thats not what we're talking about. We're talking about the SC2 ladder. The SC2 ladder will not be "irrelevant" like you put it, just like ICCup isnt irrelevant to the SC scene right now outside of korea.
Outside of Korea, where else can foreigners meet to play eachother in a semi-controlled (hack-free) envirnment outside of their close practice partners?? Iccup. Now in SC2, since blizzard will have an AMM system that is hack free, the SC2 ladder takes that spot, and not only for foreigners, but for pretty much everyone including koreans until they develope their own SC2 private gaming houses (A-level teams like SKT, CJ, etc) but everyone outside of there, will still play majority of SC2 ladder. No. The ladder will never be "the place to play" competitively. Leagues will take precedence (as they always do) with popular mainstream games that are desirable for sponsors to sponsor. They may be used as a qualifier, but the "GRAND FINALS" are never going to be 2 anonymous players being AMM'd against each other. Edit: Good players are just going to play where the money is. If Blizzard throws enough of it down, then maybe they will stay on the ladder, but historically, that isn't usually the case. Sigh, it's going to be the place to play for competitive practice. I don't understand why anyone feels the need to drag in 1 day/week leagues (or hell, things as big as the OSL) into this. The Bnet ladder is gonna take about the same role as ICCUP. That is, the competitive go to place for more or less everyone outside the Korean pro houses, and hell even a lot of those guys play on ICCUP. IRC? Special scrim channels? It doesn't work on B.net because it uses an archaic 1 channel chat system, but I don't think finding practice will be that hard, especially with an influx of gamers who are used to doing that to find competitive practice. I don't know if Blizzard is planning to add in real chat support, but that'd make it even easier. I'd still rather search an opponent than get auto-matched.
|
I really don't mind it, bust someone for hacking and their done for. They can't just change their id and pretend it wasn't them. Make people take some sense of responsibility for how they act.
|
I'm really not looking forward to this. What if I want to stomp some newbs? Witht his system I won't be able to make a new account and bash newbies. Blizzard, I am disappoint.
|
The whole concept of 'smurfing' is utterly ridiculous. This is a terrible change.
|
On August 27 2009 13:28 garmule2 wrote:
The whole concept of 'smurfing' is utterly ridiculous. This change will do terrible, terrible damage to it.
fixed.
|
I didnt bother to read whether it was already mentioned or not since there's too much to read through, but cant u just play as a guest when u want to learn a new race or something? or does signing in as a guest not allow u to play online?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
pretty terrible. makes playing games less interesting.
it is not an idiotic decision, it is just bad for players. maybe inconsiderate is the word here.
|
FrozenArbiter wrote:
"TWENTY FIVE GOD DAMNED PAGES.
I am so fucking sick of restating my position because people have selective god damned reading. No, I'm not afraid of losing.
PGTour season 6 and 7, I played a combined 800 games, finishing the seasons at A- and A+ respectively. I dodged nobody, I rematched anyone who asked, and asked anyone who beat me for a rematch.
But when I wanted to play some off-races, I created a new account.
Why? Because my protoss is fucking A rank and my Zerg is like D+ -_- Do I care one shit about losing to the other A ranks? NO. But losing with my main account means it goes down in rank, meaning I can't play as good players (as protoss) without going back up in rank, which I don't want to do because it's a waste of my time."
If your protoss is rank a you have no business complaining about how bad your zerg skills are. either you're a pro or you're not. if you're not, play zerg for fun, and don't care about your overall record. in wc3, your undead and orc stats are seperate. so it will be with starcraft 2 most likely. people will still see your mighty rank a worthy protoss stats and your lousy d rank worthy zerg stats.
furthermore, you would not have to keep restating your position so much if you bothered to read everyone's posts. like mine. or don't you recall me telling you that changing a name would inhibit the opponent's ability to know who he is playing against?
back to what you were talking about...the distinction with wins and losses depending on what races you are using is shown in warcraft 3. in starcraft 2 they will probably take it a step further and show you your wins and losses for each matchup.
that will be something to look forward to. the details are up to blizzard about all that math with the AMM and whatever else as far as i'm concerned.
TheYango wrote:
"The CONCEPT of 1-account-per-game is fine, and Steam has it pretty well established that it works. The key is making sure that the appropriate options are available to make it a convenient alternative to unlimited accounts, like privacy options, name changing, race-by-race stats, sub-accounts, etc."
exactly. it's just so simple. too simple for some ro realize, i guess. it's really going to work out ok i think.
|
If your protoss is rank a you have no business complaining about how bad your zerg skills are. either you're a pro or you're not. if you're not, play zerg for fun, and don't care about your overall record. in wc3, your undead and orc stats are seperate. so it will be with starcraft 2 most likely. people will still see your mighty rank a worthy protoss stats and your lousy d rank worthy zerg stats.
furthermore, you would not have to keep restating your position so much if you bothered to read everyone's posts. like mine. or don't you recall me telling you that changing a name would inhibit the opponent's ability to know who he is playing against?
back to what you were talking about...the distinction with wins and losses depending on what races you are using is shown in warcraft 3. in starcraft 2 they will probably take it a step further and show you your wins and losses for each matchup.
that will be something to look forward to. the details are up to blizzard about all that math with the AMM and whatever else as far as i'm concerned.
TheYango wrote:
"The CONCEPT of 1-account-per-game is fine, and Steam has it pretty well established that it works. The key is making sure that the appropriate options are available to make it a convenient alternative to unlimited accounts, like privacy options, name changing, race-by-race stats, sub-accounts, etc."
exactly. it's just so simple. too simple for some ro realize, i guess. it's really going to work out ok i think.
Great point. Furthermore, this is a great decision because it does stop that kind of abuse of lower level players. I have no doubt that with today's technology you'll be able to change clan tags, change account names, etc... without any trouble so you don't have to make new accounts. Furthermore, stats are going to be kept separate by race (and probably separate by match up). They already separate them by race in WC3, so why not in SC2? If you need to play an off race or test out any new strats or anything, do it on your damn main account. You don't need to be a douchebag and abuse lower ranked players.
|
dcttr66 wrote:
"TheYango wrote:
"The CONCEPT of 1-account-per-game is fine, and Steam has it pretty well established that it works. The key is making sure that the appropriate options are available to make it a convenient alternative to unlimited accounts, like privacy options, name changing, race-by-race stats, sub-accounts, etc."
exactly. it's just so simple. too simple for some ro realize, i guess. it's really going to work out ok i think."
at any rate some of that stuff won't make it, and some stuff is already available and people are too ignorant to realize that. like for example, privacy options are already available in wc3, like i already stated, and also for the aforementioned reason that i keep repeating sub-accounts would never work...unless of course they did the VERY awkward thing where they gave you two names which showed up in every screen, with the main account in parenthesis and the sub account as the main display name, kinda like dota names with those heroes and player names or something like that i guess....THAT'S THIS ONLY WAY sub accounts would work. otherwise people wouldn't get recognized when they changed accounts and that would screw people over. even it being a way it could work, i'll admit that, there's no way it would actually look good, it would be a hideous solution to the problem that i keep mentioning. but it's the only solution i can come up with, and like i said, with the race matchup statistics something like a sub account is completely unnecessary and unproductive. especially with the achievement system that blizzard is bringing to bnet.
maybenexttime wrote:
"On August 25 2009 14:11 dcttr66 wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Show nested quote +
On August 24 2009 18:17 lepape wrote:
Also, FrozenArbiter's suggestion to be able to have many accounts all tied to the main account with shared stats is really the most logical solution, I can't think of any downside to this idea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
how about the one i mentioned about the fact that the hidden identity makes the player unrecognizable? so he can play someone who hasn't changed his name and know how he plays and the other guy knows nothing about him...that's a downside.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about the fact that a known player play an unknown one? The latter was able to study the former's play style in depth, whereas the former does not know anything about the latter.
How is that not a downside? ;;"
if he's a known player then it's his responsibility to stay known. you can't go throwing around crazy suppositions like, "dude, i could totally take on superman, he's got nothing on me, i read all his comic books, watched all his movies...i know him better than the back of my hand...haha...he's going to be so scared to not wear a mask like batman does if he has to go up against me, muahahahahahaha!!!"
i mean really, that's what you sound like, dude.
|
so... i need 2 cd's keys for me and my brother to play?
|
On August 27 2009 14:16 mysticism wrote:
so... i need 2 cd's keys for me and my brother to play? Both of you can play with one CD key, but if you want separate ladder accounts you probably need two.
I guess if races have separate ratings you could each have your own race
|
On August 27 2009 14:20 Tsagacity wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2009 14:16 mysticism wrote:
so... i need 2 cd's keys for me and my brother to play? Both of you can play with one CD key, but if you want separate ladder accounts you probably need two. I guess if races have separate ratings you could each have your own race
thankfully we do, but honestly i would want my own ladder account...
this is really stupid of blizzard, should make it atlest two per cd key.. or atleast something else
|
On August 27 2009 14:34 mysticism wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2009 14:20 Tsagacity wrote:On August 27 2009 14:16 mysticism wrote:
so... i need 2 cd's keys for me and my brother to play? Both of you can play with one CD key, but if you want separate ladder accounts you probably need two. I guess if races have separate ratings you could each have your own race thankfully we do, but honestly i would want my own ladder account... this is really stupid of blizzard, should make it atlest two per cd key.. or atleast something else
Well, that defeats pretty much every reason for them to make it 1 per CD key....
|
They want you and your brother to buy the game.
BNET Terms of use :
https://eu.battle.net/account/creation/tos.xml
You agree that you will not, under any circumstances: let any third person (except for a minor for whom you opened an account on the Service) use your account on the Service or for a Game, but not limited to, using so-called power-leveling services;
|
The battle.net SC2 Ladder will be the place where day-to-day competitive play takes place. This was the case with the WC3 ladder and the majority of games showcased on replay sites were b.net games between famous names.
Somewhere along the line Blizzard made changes that made search times too long, or I forget what, but the pros abandoned the ladder. It sort of coincided with a general decline in the scene, and now most replays are from online leagues/tournaments.
This idea of preventing smurfing by only having one account is really throwing the baby out with the bath water.
There are loads more reasons for having multiple accounts than just smurfing.
One of the reasons that pro's used to smurf, was before the AMM was fixed it was possible to go close to 50-0 on the old ladder without meeting a serious opponent. So what these guys would do is create a new account once they dropped below 80%. Because anything less than 80% was considered noob.
The new AMM fixed this because it elevated you fairly quickly to play with high ranked players if you were doing well. This pissed off the old "high percentage" players because they couldn't get their high percentages against similarly skilled players. It was too hard for them to shake off the idea that their stats would be 50% and they rage-quit the ladder.
The AMM fixes smurfing. It just needs to be tweaked, because as others have mentioned, trying to find games at high level resulted in long search times, because there is a smaller pool of players. What needs to be done is have it search initially in your player pool. After a reasonable period of time searching it will extend the search to your next best opponent. That is all.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
If your protoss is rank a you have no business complaining about how bad your zerg skills are. either you're a pro or you're not. if you're not, play zerg for fun, and don't care about your overall record. in wc3, your undead and orc stats are seperate. so it will be with starcraft 2 most likely. people will still see your mighty rank a worthy protoss stats and your lousy d rank worthy zerg stats.
So because I'm good at this game, I can't play for fun? What kind of twisted logic is that?
Of course the stats are separate, but if my ranking or overall ELL goes down, why would I care? I don't care about having "perfect stats", I care about being able to play vs as good opponents as possible.
furthermore, you would not have to keep restating your position so much if you bothered to read everyone's posts. like mine. or don't you recall me telling you that changing a name would inhibit the opponent's ability to know who he is playing against?
But, I think that's a good thing? Privacy is good. If you are absolutely dead set against allowing people anonymity, then you can simply have each account link to your master ID.
back to what you were talking about...the distinction with wins and losses depending on what races you are using is shown in warcraft 3. in starcraft 2 they will probably take it a step further and show you your wins and losses for each matchup.
that will be something to look forward to. the details are up to blizzard about all that math with the AMM and whatever else as far as i'm concerned.
Again, it's not about whether your stats are shown separately for each race, it's about whether you have a separate ranking for each race. If you don't, then losing with your bad race means you drop in rank and play worse players with your good race. Not good.
Btw, instead of using citation marks you can just write [quote ] text [/ quote] without the spaces, it makes it easier to read
On August 27 2009 18:06 Nitro68 wrote:They want you and your brother to buy the game. BNET Terms of use : https://eu.battle.net/account/creation/tos.xmlShow nested quote +
You agree that you will not, under any circumstances: let any third person (except for a minor for whom you opened an account on the Service) use your account on the Service or for a Game, but not limited to, using so-called power-leveling services;
Yes, that's what they want.
But I don't think anyone with one computer is stupid enough to buy 2 copies of a game just to satisfy some ridiculous ToS
On August 27 2009 11:26 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2009 09:04 FrozenArbiter wrote:On August 27 2009 08:33 keV. wrote:On August 27 2009 08:25 Skyze wrote:
Jibba do you even read my posts? I say LEAGUES are totally different than ladders.
The SC2 blizzard run ladder will be the backbone of everything, much like the War3 one was before they stopped supporting it. I said there will be outside leagues like WC3L, but in the end, the WC3L teams are made up by the top of the SC2 ladder. Thats the whole point.
The SC2 ladder will be the ONLY ladder, there will be no iccup or CAL/ESL/CEVO. Leagues? as in five 1v1 matchs in a clan-league format, Sure, there will be those, but thats not what we're talking about. We're talking about the SC2 ladder. The SC2 ladder will not be "irrelevant" like you put it, just like ICCup isnt irrelevant to the SC scene right now outside of korea.
Outside of Korea, where else can foreigners meet to play eachother in a semi-controlled (hack-free) envirnment outside of their close practice partners?? Iccup. Now in SC2, since blizzard will have an AMM system that is hack free, the SC2 ladder takes that spot, and not only for foreigners, but for pretty much everyone including koreans until they develope their own SC2 private gaming houses (A-level teams like SKT, CJ, etc) but everyone outside of there, will still play majority of SC2 ladder. No. The ladder will never be "the place to play" competitively. Leagues will take precedence (as they always do) with popular mainstream games that are desirable for sponsors to sponsor. They may be used as a qualifier, but the "GRAND FINALS" are never going to be 2 anonymous players being AMM'd against each other. Edit: Good players are just going to play where the money is. If Blizzard throws enough of it down, then maybe they will stay on the ladder, but historically, that isn't usually the case. Sigh, it's going to be the place to play for competitive practice. I don't understand why anyone feels the need to drag in 1 day/week leagues (or hell, things as big as the OSL) into this. The Bnet ladder is gonna take about the same role as ICCUP. That is, the competitive go to place for more or less everyone outside the Korean pro houses, and hell even a lot of those guys play on ICCUP. IRC? Special scrim channels? It doesn't work on B.net because it uses an archaic 1 channel chat system, but I don't think finding practice will be that hard, especially with an influx of gamers who are used to doing that to find competitive practice. I don't know if Blizzard is planning to add in real chat support, but that'd make it even easier. I'd still rather search an opponent than get auto-matched.
Have you ever played WC3? I'm not asking this in a snarky kind of way, I'm just curious. I get the feeling you don't realize how extremely convenient it is to be able to matchup, in less than a minute most of the time, with a player of your skill level.
Why would I want to bother with IRC? That's a lot of alt tabbing. Scrim channels have existed for BW, and yes they are good, but they are not as good as AMM. Especially if you are either slightly too bad or slightly too good.
AMM won't replace custom game practice with someone you know, playing the same small set of maps over and over in preparation for leagues and tournaments, but it will be the most used platform for getting games (unless, maybe, blizzard doesn't do anything about the latency and you have to use chaoslauncher style plugins).
if he's a known player then it's his responsibility to stay known. you can't go throwing around crazy suppositions like, "dude, i could totally take on superman, he's got nothing on me, i read all his comic books, watched all his movies...i know him better than the back of my hand...haha...he's going to be so scared to not wear a mask like batman does if he has to go up against me, muahahahahahaha!!!"
i mean really, that's what you sound like, dude.
Honestly dcttr, I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
|
they should just have it like d2 account name//character name
ONE MASTER ACCOUNT
and then you have character names aka sub accounts...
each sub account carries its own record with what you've done but they are all linked together so your master account would show your overall record while the sub account would just show the record on that account.
|
On August 22 2009 07:59 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Difference between this and steam is that you can still LAN on Steam games. :> Steam works because it's not intrinsically tied to a specific game like this seems to be, and that's gonna trip this up.
you can't start cs if you can't connect to steam. you cannot lan with steam, but you can play lan hosted games with it.
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 27 2009 22:45 dNo_O wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 07:59 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Difference between this and steam is that you can still LAN on Steam games. :> Steam works because it's not intrinsically tied to a specific game like this seems to be, and that's gonna trip this up. you can't start cs if you can't connect to steam. you cannot lan with steam, but you can play lan hosted games with it.
Offline mode.
|
Another problem with being good and wanting to offrace on only one acc is that you will drop your rating and face players you are better than after being creamed on you offrace. So you are somewhat back were you started, you cant play vs good players since you lost games on you offrace and you will kick everyones ass since you are on a higher level than they are until you rank up to your original level again.
Personally I just want to create lots of accounts for no real reason. I got atleast 13 accounts on various servers. And no I'm not good at this game, I should be crying about being beaten by good players on D but I'm not since that is what playing in a ladder is about. Being competitive.
|
On August 27 2009 23:40 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2009 22:45 dNo_O wrote:On August 22 2009 07:59 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Difference between this and steam is that you can still LAN on Steam games. :> Steam works because it's not intrinsically tied to a specific game like this seems to be, and that's gonna trip this up. you can't start cs if you can't connect to steam. you cannot lan with steam, but you can play lan hosted games with it. Offline mode.
when was the last time you actually tried to use it? it hasn't worked for me for 3 months.
|
United States7166 Posts
On August 27 2009 05:21 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +
Anyways I think FA's system would be more reasonable then the current one however the idea of excluding match ups is not a good idea for a truly competitive ladder.
Why? You still play vs every race in my system, you just don't have to play PvP if you'd rather play TvP. PvZ PvT TvP PvR I play vs all races. If any matchup is so boring that nobody ends up playing it, isn't it a good thing that you don't have to ;p?
well if blizzard doesnt let you pick your matchups, at least you can hope that blizzard is working towards making mirrors and all matchups fun.. i think it's going to be a lot better in that regard than sc1.
|
i have never played sc, but strategy games are my favorite.....if sc2 has 1 acct. per cd key as did aoe3 i may try it....if its a totall rape the newbee policy then forget this game.
smurfing must be outlawed.
|
On August 29 2009 08:03 dupsky wrote:
i have never played sc, but strategy games are my favorite.....if sc2 has 1 acct. per cd key as did aoe3 i may try it....if its a totall rape the newbee policy then forget this game.
smurfing must be outlawed.
you should try starcraft if you like Age of Empires... its a lot better gameplay wise (graphics arent the latest though).
I think the reason this decision is being flamed is because Blizzard did not explain themselves properly. For sure they have taken anonymity into consideration, and I just hope they give an answer soon :/
|
On August 27 2009 21:29 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +If your protoss is rank a you have no business complaining about how bad your zerg skills are. either you're a pro or you're not. if you're not, play zerg for fun, and don't care about your overall record. in wc3, your undead and orc stats are seperate. so it will be with starcraft 2 most likely. people will still see your mighty rank a worthy protoss stats and your lousy d rank worthy zerg stats. So because I'm good at this game, I can't play for fun? What kind of twisted logic is that? Of course the stats are separate, but if my ranking or overall ELL goes down, why would I care? I don't care about having "perfect stats", I care about being able to play vs as good opponents as possible.
Your argument about not being able to offrace at a lower level is a perfectly valid one, but I think when you consider the broader implications of what this does, you'll agree that your problem is outweighed by other concerns.
When Blizzard makes this change, the people who are most affected are:
1) People like you, who are good at one race, but want to offrace for fun without losing rank on their main account, and without getting their mediocre offrace stomped.
2) Smurfers who want to beat up on newbies.
3) Newbies who get beat up by smurfers.
Nobody cares about the concerns of smurfers who want to beat up on newbies. Those people ruin the experience for others, and I don't think their style of play is one worth protecting. So the tradeoff is between good players who want to offrace and bad/new players who don't want to get stomped by smurfs.
There are two reasons we should choose to favor the concerns of bad/new players over this particular concern of players like you. First, there are many, many more bad/new players than there are good players, and it makes sense that the concerns of the many should outweigh those of the few. Second, look at the downside for each category of people. Good players who can't offrace will probably keep playing. Maybe a very few will quit, but most will just suck it up and not offrace or buy a second copy of the game if it's really that important to them to be able to offrace. Bad players or new players who get stomped on by smurfers over and over again will probably quit playing entirely.
Maybe a compromise position would be to have specific rankings for each race, such that you could be a B- protoss player and a D zerg player or whatever on the same account. The key thing to keep in mind, though, is that any compromise position has to protect newbies from smurfers first, and then can empower good players to offrace second.
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 30 2009 04:53 Matrijs wrote:
Maybe a compromise position would be to have specific rankings for each race, such that you could be a B- protoss player and a D zerg player or whatever on the same account. The key thing to keep in mind, though, is that any compromise position has to protect newbies from smurfers first, and then can empower good players to offrace second.
From looking at the stuff about different leagues, this seems like it could be the case. While I'm not 100% sure, I think which league you are in is tracked race-by-race, so your off-race shouldn't affect your position in your main race's league.
|
I don't see anything in those leagues about race tracking.
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 30 2009 06:29 Krikkitone wrote:
I don't see anything in those leagues about race tracking.
Well I remember seeing somewhere in one of the panels, the sample profile had "Bronze Zerg" implying that which league you're in is race-specific.
|
smurfing is a cancer on the community....eradication is in order.
|
Hmm... is it just one name? Or is it like Relic Online (Company of Heroes), where you log into your main account, and then you can select from a list of names. The ladder in that game is tied to your highest ranked name (on that account), so even if you make a new one to start smurfing to test new strats or whatnot you're still paired up with someone of like skill.
For instance... if I rank up to level 10 and make a new name that's level 1, my level one will still get paired up with level ~10ish or so.
|
I don't like this idea... But If they don't decide to change it we'll just have to see were it goes from there! =(
|
On August 30 2009 08:10 400lb White Girl wrote:
Hmm... is it just one name? Or is it like Relic Online (Company of Heroes), where you log into your main account, and then you can select from a list of names. The ladder in that game is tied to your highest ranked name (on that account), so even if you make a new one to start smurfing to test new strats or whatnot you're still paired up with someone of like skill.
For instance... if I rank up to level 10 and make a new name that's level 1, my level one will still get paired up with level ~10ish or so. This is what I assume. You'll have a single account name with multiple possible screen names. Your account is what has a rating, and that rating is linked to every screen name you create. This also allows for tiered communication consisting of a mutal friends agreement between unique account names and the standard public interaction between screen names.
This solution seems pretty obvious and Blizzard has probably already thought of it by now. Is there some other better option I'm missing?
|
On August 29 2009 08:03 dupsky wrote:
i have never played sc, but strategy games are my favorite.....if sc2 has 1 acct. per cd key as did aoe3 i may try it....if its a totall rape the newbee policy then forget this game.
smurfing must be outlawed.
haha, see what i mean guys? even ppl who no play the game agree that there's too much damn cheating going on...quit being scam artists and play with honor!
|
FrozenArbiter wrote:
"But, I think that's a good thing? Privacy is good. If you are absolutely dead set against allowing people anonymity, then you can simply have each account link to your master ID"
I already mentioned that you already have more than one privacy option in wc3...for one, there is the option to not enter the chat feature, for another, there is the /dnd command which does not allow people to message you.
hopefully sc2 will have a plethora of new cool commands carried over from WoW...which since it should be modeled quite well after EQ i suppose then keeping in mind EQ was miles ahead of cool chat features compared to even war3 then sc2 should have some sweet privacy options that go way beyond what war3 has.
And allowing your sort of preferred anonymity is very disruptive. Players shouldn't have to do a command /account playername to get the all the player names of a player because he's got more names on his account. and Blizzard doesn't want to add another command like that. They've too much else to do. The players shouldn't have to type in a command just to figure out who their opponent is.
Why bother having names at all if people are allowed to change names? Just make everyone try to figure out who everyone is is where we would be if everyone used your preferred feature. It's utter chaos. Restricting someone to one name means that he's instantly identifiable. IDK about you, but there are ways of knowing who you're talking to in real life, you can remember a person's name, you can remember their face, or their hair, maybe they have a cute body or an ugly one that really stands out...or maybe you recognize their voice...Well, it's the same thing online. People shouldn't be able to just, basically more or less SHAPESHIFT like a DS9 CHANGELING so people can't identify them. That's basically what Smurfing allows people to do. If they let you change your name every once in a while, like say, once a year or something like that, and listing their previous names, that's ok I suppose...although I would PREFER the names be permanent...I can see where it could be rather undesirable if you just couldn't think of a good name at the time and a year or two down the line you came up with a perfect name that you totally wanted to change to but couldn't. So I can see letting the player change his name, rarely. And reference his previous name on his profile. That's fine, I suppose. But you can't go letting people change their name like every 3-6 months or more often, that's just utterly ridiculous. And there should probably be a limit on how many times total you can change your account name if they did it, like, you can only change it once or twice would be best.
|
Anonymity is a good thing. There's no reason why the internet needs to resemble real life interaction. I don't see a reason why anyone on battle.net should be able to instantly track someone down whenever they're online. Think about it from a top player's perspective, he would be getting constantly harassed and there would be a lot of pressure joining games where every stranger in the game room instantly knows who he is. And no, /DND definitely doesn't cut it.
The only people who should be able to easily follow, interact, and recognize me whenever they want should be the people I have on a mutual friends list.
The whole ugly side of smurfing comes from newbie stomping. It's perfectly fine if you don't know who you're playing against.
Smurfing on it's own is harmless as long as it can't be used to newbstomp. Why try to prevent it?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
EDIT: Tsaga posted while I was posting, so you can just read his post, it covered pretty much everything I wanted to say.
You will be able to change your name. Most likely as many times as you want.
You'll just have to pay for it. (Or at least that's the example they've used)
I don't really get the whole "You can't hide IRL so why be able to hide online" argument personally :/
As I've said multiple times, I bet if Federer could pop down town anonymously, he would.
/Dnd solves nothing - just because you don't want to meet every fan/person on Bnet doesn't mean you don't want to meet anyone new at all.
|
i feel for you FA ha-ha-ha
|
Lots of wow players think that blizzard making them pay to change their names is just Blizzard being greedy or capitalising on what they have. They don't realise that a monetary cost for features such as name change is designed to prevent people from wanting to Smurf, or (in wow's case) rip people off and change names. (Even server transfer costs are more of a explot block than a way to make money. It costs crap all for Blizzard to rename or copy/paste a file).
IF you can change your name I hope it is a paid feature, and expensive enough to make people only do it if they really do want a new name and not a way to exploit.
|
On August 30 2009 11:27 dcttr66 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2009 08:03 dupsky wrote:
i have never played sc, but strategy games are my favorite.....if sc2 has 1 acct. per cd key as did aoe3 i may try it....if its a totall rape the newbee policy then forget this game.
smurfing must be outlawed. haha, see what i mean guys? even ppl who no play the game agree that there's too much damn cheating going on...quit being scam artists and play with honor!
You still don't get it. The people who beat you up on ICC aren't A+ not even C probably. It's just you being completely new to SC and getting your ass handed for that. This game is way too old to just jump into the scene and be medium skilled after some months. People like me who played this game forever since it was released and never stopped are around C+/B-. According to your logic I should be around Olympic because I play this long but it's not that easy.
You can't compare trash games like AoE or C&C, not even WC3 to the current state of SCs competitiveness. See people like Kolll, being 14 yrs old, playing for 1 year or some but already at the top of foreign gaming (or at least scratching it). You think this has anything to do with talent or shit? No, it's just him playing a crazy amount of games (around 1k per ICC season), watching fuckloads of replays and actually practising, not just fucking around and having fun.
You can't be good, you can't even climb out D levels without serious practise and being thoughtful about your play. You don't want that? I can understand, I don't like this way either. So why don't you just get off of ICC and play on B.Net? There are loads of ppl playing the game like you do. I for myself get on Europe whenever I'm tired of laddering/getting smashed too hard. There I got several ppl to play with in a very casual environment and just fuck around.
If you read and understood everything I wanted to say with this you may get to think there won't be any problem with "smurfing" (which is the completely wrong term you're using here, more appropriate would be "newb-bashing") because the game is brand new and noone will have this kinda advantage you have nowadays in SC, meaning the knowledge of several years, probably 1000s of watched VODs/replays and having played the same amount of games.
In the early days of SC having several accounts was very useful and much fun because you could just fuck around. Smurfing then was a term used to describe the situation when a player would create a new ID and then maybe join some other Clan or just fuck around. Maybe you're sensitive to this but I think this was one major part of B.Net being so much fun and why in the end I kept on playing this game.
|
Having an AMM option for practice games would solve the off racing problem I think.
|
Its ridiculously easy to solve the off-race problem. Blizzard can (and already does in War3) track what race you are when you launch a game, and keep the win-loss stats separated by race. All they have do is create and track a separate ELO for each race you play. So when you launch with your main race Protoss you get appropriate opponents, and when you launch your offrace Zerg you get matched differently. Problem solved. Lots of crying for nothing. Of course if they don't do this, that would be fucking stupid.
|
Well there is the issue of what leve you start off with in your first 10 or so "off race" games.
Your "Offrace" ELL should be based on your "other race" ELL until you have at least 10 games or so with the Offrace.
ie if you have 30 Protoss games, your first Zerg game should start with the same ELL as your Protoss ELL.
|
even with race separate ratings there's still something about this that makes me wanna say 
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 31 2009 00:45 Krikkitone wrote:
Well there is the issue of what leve you start off with in your first 10 or so "off race" games.
Your "Offrace" ELL should be based on your "other race" ELL until you have at least 10 games or so with the Offrace.
ie if you have 30 Protoss games, your first Zerg game should start with the same ELL as your Protoss ELL.
We have no idea how the first 10 games used to determine your league level for your main are set up anyway (e.g. how it chooses opponents for it) so speculating on how it will do it for your off-race is pointless.
|
Even if the off-race ELL starts from scratch, it shouldn't be a big deal. It's an extra 20ish games of *potential* uneven matchups for the entire lifetime of the account. Starting your offrace at your highest ELL would have the same potential too (although that way is still probably better).
|
wow that would be so bad!
like if someone "STOLE" you're nickname which happens way to often, you will never be able to remake it at all ? that will really suck imo
|
On August 31 2009 07:31 SiGurD wrote:
wow that would be so bad!
like if someone "STOLE" you're nickname which happens way to often, you will never be able to remake it at all ? that will really suck imo
But there will be a lot more nicknames out since you aren't able to bind up a million ones yourself.
|
On August 31 2009 07:34 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2009 07:31 SiGurD wrote:
wow that would be so bad!
like if someone "STOLE" you're nickname which happens way to often, you will never be able to remake it at all ? that will really suck imo But there will be a lot more nicknames out since you aren't able to bind up a million ones yourself.
yes but people would want to stick to their nickname used in BW/SC as they were known d as. So if people installs it fast and just "steal" or take the name, people will not have the chance to create their names they've used for ages.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
There's absolutely nothing you can do about that tho?
You can't have the names carry over, there are tonnes of inactive names, tonnes of people with lots of different active names etc...
|
Blizz has mot confirmed if Nick names are unique or not, and during the last interview in which it was mentioned they were leaning towards non-unique nicks.
|
yea but it sucks imo that people actually can take other ppls names and just has it as their own ones.
|
On August 31 2009 07:54 SiGurD wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2009 07:34 Klockan3 wrote:On August 31 2009 07:31 SiGurD wrote:
wow that would be so bad!
like if someone "STOLE" you're nickname which happens way to often, you will never be able to remake it at all ? that will really suck imo But there will be a lot more nicknames out since you aren't able to bind up a million ones yourself. yes but people would want to stick to their nickname used in BW/SC as they were known d as. So if people installs it fast and just "steal" or take the name, people will not have the chance to create their names they've used for ages.
It would be like that regardless of 1 or 50 IDs per name. First come first serve.
Some of these arguments are just getting plain retarded.
|
the best option i have come across, to allow multiple names as well as anti-smurf protection, is what i have termed "smurf alert".........basically it is a option that EVERY player has to switch on or off (although i cant imagine why anyone would choose the latter) which allows the player to view ALL NAMES AND RANKINGS linked to the player who is in your game, or be blind to your opposition.
....best of both worlds?....(the only opposition, i can see, would be from the bottom feeders that thrive on a tilted playing field in thier favor.)
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 31 2009 08:52 dupsky wrote:
the best option i have come across, to allow multiple names as well as anti-smurf protection, is what i have termed "smurf alert".........basically it is a option that EVERY player has to switch on or off (although i cant imagine why anyone would choose the latter) which allows the player to view ALL NAMES AND RANKINGS linked to the player who is in your game, or be blind to your opposition.
....best of both worlds?....(the only opposition, i can see, would be from the bottom feeders that thrive on a tilted playing field in thier favor.)
This is basically sub-accounts. How would you tell which player a new account is being made by unless its tied to some master account?
|
Lol at all noobs so afraid of getting owned that they actually encourage blizzard to milk the customers even more than they are doing.
Hey noobs, getting owned is not a bad thing. It makes you better. I am not a great player by any means but it pisses me off when I see game names like "3v3 noobs only." WTF? Don't you want to be better than you are? Every person should always stride to better themselves, whether it's something as trivial as getting better at Starcraft, or in life. So what if somone smurfs and owns you? their skills decrease with every noob they play while your skill increases. How is this a bad thing? It should be considered a privilege to play someone better than you. I bet 99% of the whiners about smurfing will never amount to anything in SC2. They're skills will stay relatively the same years into playing the game.
That said, obviously there should be a casual server for people who just want to play custom games, games with their friends and for fun. But when you enter a ladder, the main purpose is to win, to compete, to test your skills against others. Yet you noobs want the best of both world? You want ladders (which are compettitive in nature) to be noob-friendly, yet remain competitive? Isn't a newb-friendly ladder an oxymoron?
So what's with all the whining about smurfing, noob bashing, blah blah blah...Don't be scared of losing, newbs. You gain more from losing than you will ever gain from winning, even though many frown upon it, unfortunately.
|
On August 31 2009 10:27 ZeitgeistMovie wrote:
Lol at all noobs so afraid of getting owned that they actually encourage blizzard to milk the customers even more than they are doing.
Hey noobs, getting owned is not a bad thing. It makes you better. I am not a great player by any means but it pisses me off when I see game names like "3v3 noobs only." WTF? Don't you want to be better than you are? Every person should always stride to better themselves, whether it's something as trivial as getting better at Starcraft, or in life. So what if somone smurfs and owns you? their skills decrease with every noob they play while your skill increases. How is this a bad thing? It should be considered a privilege to play someone better than you. I bet 99% of the whiners about smurfing will never amount to anything in SC2. They're skills will stay relatively the same years into playing the game.
That said, obviously there should be a casual server for people who just want to play custom games, games with their friends and for fun. But when you enter a ladder, the main purpose is to win, to compete, to test your skills against others. Yet you noobs want the best of both world? You want ladders (which are compettitive in nature) to be noob-friendly, yet remain competitive? Isn't a newb-friendly ladder an oxymoron?
So what's with all the whining about smurfing, noob bashing, blah blah blah...Don't be scared of losing, newbs. You gain more from losing than you will ever gain from winning, even though many frown upon it, unfortunately.
are you f...ing kidding ?????
if you need cheap wins by tricking newcomers into a annihilation fest dont try making lame excuses by telling us what is good for us.
i play games PRIMARILLY FOR THE FUN FACTOR and i rather play people my own level to try and get better at my own pace. i certainly dont need your pathetic excuses to change the game to your favor at the cost of mine.
|
On August 31 2009 11:02 dupsky wrote:
are you f...ing kidding ?????
if you need cheap wins by tricking newcomers into a annihilation fest dont try making lame excuses by telling us what is good for us.
i play games PRIMARILLY FOR THE FUN FACTOR and i rather play people my own level to try and get better at my own pace. i certainly dont need your pathetic excuses to change the game to your favor at the cost of mine.
Moron, don't read only what you want to read.
On August 31 2009 10:27 ZeitgeistMovie wrote:
Lol at all noobs so afraid of getting owned that they actually encourage blizzard to milk the customers even more than they are doing.
Hey noobs, getting owned is not a bad thing. It makes you better. I am not a great player by any means but it pisses me off when I see game names like "3v3 noobs only." WTF? Don't you want to be better than you are? Every person should always stride to better themselves, whether it's something as trivial as getting better at Starcraft, or in life. So what if somone smurfs and owns you? their skills decrease with every noob they play while your skill increases. How is this a bad thing? It should be considered a privilege to play someone better than you. I bet 99% of the whiners about smurfing will never amount to anything in SC2. They're skills will stay relatively the same years into playing the game.
That said, obviously there should be a casual server for people who just want to play custom games, games with their friends and for fun. But when you enter a ladder, the main purpose is to win, to compete, to test your skills against others. Yet you noobs want the best of both world? You want ladders (which are compettitive in nature) to be noob-friendly, yet remain competitive? Isn't a newb-friendly ladder an oxymoron?
So what's with all the whining about smurfing, noob bashing, blah blah blah...Don't be scared of losing, newbs. You gain more from losing than you will ever gain from winning, even though many frown upon it, unfortunately.
|
On August 31 2009 10:27 ZeitgeistMovie wrote:
Lol at all noobs so afraid of getting owned that they actually encourage blizzard to milk the customers even more than they are doing.
Hey noobs, getting owned is not a bad thing. It makes you better. I am not a great player by any means but it pisses me off when I see game names like "3v3 noobs only." WTF? Don't you want to be better than you are? Every person should always stride to better themselves, whether it's something as trivial as getting better at Starcraft, or in life. So what if somone smurfs and owns you? their skills decrease with every noob they play while your skill increases. How is this a bad thing? It should be considered a privilege to play someone better than you. I bet 99% of the whiners about smurfing will never amount to anything in SC2. They're skills will stay relatively the same years into playing the game.
That said, obviously there should be a casual server for people who just want to play custom games, games with their friends and for fun. But when you enter a ladder, the main purpose is to win, to compete, to test your skills against others. Yet you noobs want the best of both world? You want ladders (which are compettitive in nature) to be noob-friendly, yet remain competitive? Isn't a newb-friendly ladder an oxymoron?
So what's with all the whining about smurfing, noob bashing, blah blah blah...Don't be scared of losing, newbs. You gain more from losing than you will ever gain from winning, even though many frown upon it, unfortunately.
You know, there is a lot of people, who play games for fun. And then, there is a small percentage of people like you who fail at life...
|
what about smurfing to try out different strategies?
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 31 2009 11:08 ZeitgeistMovie wrote:
Moron, don't read only what you want to read.
Because clearly people shouldn't be allowed to play casually on a ladder? Isn't that what offracing usually IS?
|
dcttr66 wrote:
"I can see where it could be rather undesirable if you just couldn't think of a good name at the time and a year or two down the line you came up with a perfect name that you totally wanted to change to but couldn't."
I take that back...Starcraft 2 is taking a long time to come out so everyone has plenty of time to figure out what name they want.
On August 30 2009 12:17 Tsagacity wrote:
Anonymity is a good thing. There's no reason why the internet needs to resemble real life interaction. I don't see a reason why anyone on battle.net should be able to instantly track someone down whenever they're online. Think about it from a top player's perspective, he would be getting constantly harassed and there would be a lot of pressure joining games where every stranger in the game room instantly knows who he is. And no, /DND definitely doesn't cut it.
The only people who should be able to easily follow, interact, and recognize me whenever they want should be the people I have on a mutual friends list.
The whole ugly side of smurfing comes from newbie stomping. It's perfectly fine if you don't know who you're playing against.
Smurfing on it's own is harmless as long as it can't be used to newbstomp. Why try to prevent it?
dude unless someone is a mutual friend you cannot know where he is...you can't go track him down, it's impossible if he's not your mutual friend.
On August 30 2009 12:17 FrozenArbiter wrote:
/Dnd solves nothing - just because you don't want to meet every fan/person on Bnet doesn't mean you don't want to meet anyone new at all.
that's where you're wrong. they only need to activate it if they are getting harrassed, or if they don't want to meet anyone new at all. it solves exactly what it needs to solve.
On August 30 2009 21:30 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2009 11:27 dcttr66 wrote:On August 29 2009 08:03 dupsky wrote:
i have never played sc, but strategy games are my favorite.....if sc2 has 1 acct. per cd key as did aoe3 i may try it....if its a totall rape the newbee policy then forget this game.
smurfing must be outlawed. haha, see what i mean guys? even ppl who no play the game agree that there's too much damn cheating going on...quit being scam artists and play with honor! You still don't get it. The people who beat you up on ICC aren't A+ not even C probably. It's just you being completely new to SC and getting your ass handed for that. This game is way too old to just jump into the scene and be medium skilled after some months. People like me who played this game forever since it was released and never stopped are around C+/B-. According to your logic I should be around Olympic because I play this long but it's not that easy. You can't compare trash games like AoE or C&C, not even WC3 to the current state of SCs competitiveness. See people like Kolll, being 14 yrs old, playing for 1 year or some but already at the top of foreign gaming (or at least scratching it). You think this has anything to do with talent or shit? No, it's just him playing a crazy amount of games (around 1k per ICC season), watching fuckloads of replays and actually practising, not just fucking around and having fun. You can't be good, you can't even climb out D levels without serious practise and being thoughtful about your play. You don't want that? I can understand, I don't like this way either. So why don't you just get off of ICC and play on B.Net? There are loads of ppl playing the game like you do. I for myself get on Europe whenever I'm tired of laddering/getting smashed too hard. There I got several ppl to play with in a very casual environment and just fuck around. If you read and understood everything I wanted to say with this you may get to think there won't be any problem with "smurfing" (which is the completely wrong term you're using here, more appropriate would be "newb-bashing") because the game is brand new and noone will have this kinda advantage you have nowadays in SC, meaning the knowledge of several years, probably 1000s of watched VODs/replays and having played the same amount of games. In the early days of SC having several accounts was very useful and much fun because you could just fuck around. Smurfing then was a term used to describe the situation when a player would create a new ID and then maybe join some other Clan or just fuck around. Maybe you're sensitive to this but I think this was one major part of B.Net being so much fun and why in the end I kept on playing this game.
you're grossly ignorant. try learning something about the forum poster before throwing this much irrelevant information at him
On August 31 2009 07:31 SiGurD wrote:
wow that would be so bad!
like if someone "STOLE" you're nickname which happens way to often, you will never be able to remake it at all ? that will really suck imo
well...i think people were able to steal your nicknames because your accounts could get deleted by blizzard because of inactivity and then someone else swept in and took the name since it didn't exist anymore. if the names are permanent then they won't be deleted and we won't have this problem.
On August 31 2009 10:27 ZeitgeistMovie wrote:
Lol at all noobs so afraid of getting owned that they actually encourage blizzard to milk the customers even more than they are doing.
Hey noobs, getting owned is not a bad thing. It makes you better. I am not a great player by any means but it pisses me off when I see game names like "3v3 noobs only." WTF? Don't you want to be better than you are? Every person should always stride to better themselves, whether it's something as trivial as getting better at Starcraft, or in life. So what if somone smurfs and owns you? their skills decrease with every noob they play while your skill increases. How is this a bad thing? It should be considered a privilege to play someone better than you. I bet 99% of the whiners about smurfing will never amount to anything in SC2. They're skills will stay relatively the same years into playing the game.
That said, obviously there should be a casual server for people who just want to play custom games, games with their friends and for fun. But when you enter a ladder, the main purpose is to win, to compete, to test your skills against others. Yet you noobs want the best of both world? You want ladders (which are compettitive in nature) to be noob-friendly, yet remain competitive? Isn't a newb-friendly ladder an oxymoron?
So what's with all the whining about smurfing, noob bashing, blah blah blah...Don't be scared of losing, newbs. You gain more from losing than you will ever gain from winning, even though many frown upon it, unfortunately.
i totally agree with all your points, but you're missing something.
you say this like you have no experience in ladder. if you did have the experience, you would DEFINITELY FEEL DIFFERENTLY
I feel like the division in opinion on the matter occurs there. and precisely there.
you see, many of you haven't played wc3 ladder. wc3 ladder IS WARCRAFT THREE.
SC ladder was pathetic and not popular. when you guys are talking about smurfing in starcraft...you're talking about custom games...and indeed, no one gives a damn about smurfing in custom games...but in warcraft 3...custom games don't give you any wins or losses, it's unranked. like i said WARCRAFT THREE LADDER IS WARCRAFT 3.
Starcraft 2 will be something like that. Smurfing is a gigantic problem in warcraft 3 ladder, as it would be in Starcraft 2 if it was allowed.
|
On August 31 2009 11:34 dcttr66 wrote:
i totally agree with all your points, but you're missing something.
you say this like you have no experience in ladder. if you did have the experience, you would DEFINITELY FEEL DIFFERENTLY
I feel like the division in opinion on the matter occurs there. and precisely there.
you see, many of you haven't played wc3 ladder. wc3 ladder IS WARCRAFT THREE.
SC ladder was pathetic and not popular. when you guys are talking about smurfing in starcraft...you're talking about custom games...and indeed, no one gives a damn about smurfing in custom games...but in warcraft 3...custom games don't give you any wins or losses, it's unranked. like i said WARCRAFT THREE LADDER IS WARCRAFT 3.
Starcraft 2 will be something like that. Smurfing is a gigantic problem in warcraft 3 ladder, as it would be in Starcraft 2 if it was allowed.
.
I still fail to see how smurfing is a "problem." If you are saying that smurfing is a problem because higher skilled players can make new accounts and "bash" new players, then no, it is NOT a problem (as I stated why in the earlier post). If there are other elements to this that I did not mention then let me know. What is the difference between the ICCUP and the w3 ladder? And how does smurfing affect these two things differently (I don't know about the W3 Ladder)?
I saw a thread on ICCUP about how newbs would be turned off if they play a ladder and get stomped by smurfers. It's a ladder, it's going to be competitive. Like an ICCUP admin said, if you're not not getting stomped now (in the early ranks), you will later. You think that just because you can beat real D players, it better prepares you for C- players? Some people think losing to a smurf D player is somehow worse than beating a real D player. Guess what, you're going to meet that smurf D player (or atleast other players of his skill level) in the future anyways, so why not get it over that hump right away? If you just want to have fun, then play unranked matches. Why care about ranks, if you want to have fun, right? Ladders are for people who want to compete, which gives them joy.
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 31 2009 12:19 ZeitgeistMovie wrote:
I saw a thread on ICCUP about how newbs would be turned off if they play a ladder and get stomped by smurfers. It's a ladder, it's going to be competitive. Like an ICCUP admin said, if you're not not getting stomped now (in the early ranks), you will later. You think that just because you can beat real D players, it better prepares you for C- players? Some people think losing to a smurf D player is somehow worse than beating a real D player.
Are you serious? How about, when you get to C- you'll be a better player. It's pretty well accepted that you improve the most when you're playing people near your skill level. Smurfs screwing up the accuracy of the ladder only serves to slow down the rate at which players at the low end of the ladder improve, and decrease the amount of fun they have doing. Win or lose, close games are more fun to play or watch than complete rapes, at any level.
On August 31 2009 12:19 ZeitgeistMovie wrote:
Guess what, you're going to meet that smurf D player (or atleast other players of his skill level) in the future anyways, so why not get it over that hump right away?
1) This isn't necessarily true. If your skill levels out at C-, getting roflstomped by C+ smurfs isn't an experience you're guaranteed to have in the future.
2) A smurf completely rolling over you isn't going to improve your gameplay as much as close games with someone near your level.
On August 31 2009 12:19 ZeitgeistMovie wrote:
If you just want to have fun, then play unranked matches. Why care about ranks, if you want to have fun, right? Ladders are for people who want to compete, which gives them joy.
Ladders are for people who want to practice and improve. Getting raped by a smurf gives you less improvement than a close game with someone near your actual skill level.
|
On August 31 2009 11:34 dcttr66 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2009 21:30 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:On August 30 2009 11:27 dcttr66 wrote:On August 29 2009 08:03 dupsky wrote:
i have never played sc, but strategy games are my favorite.....if sc2 has 1 acct. per cd key as did aoe3 i may try it....if its a totall rape the newbee policy then forget this game.
smurfing must be outlawed. haha, see what i mean guys? even ppl who no play the game agree that there's too much damn cheating going on...quit being scam artists and play with honor! You still don't get it. The people who beat you up on ICC aren't A+ not even C probably. It's just you being completely new to SC and getting your ass handed for that. This game is way too old to just jump into the scene and be medium skilled after some months. People like me who played this game forever since it was released and never stopped are around C+/B-. According to your logic I should be around Olympic because I play this long but it's not that easy. You can't compare trash games like AoE or C&C, not even WC3 to the current state of SCs competitiveness. See people like Kolll, being 14 yrs old, playing for 1 year or some but already at the top of foreign gaming (or at least scratching it). You think this has anything to do with talent or shit? No, it's just him playing a crazy amount of games (around 1k per ICC season), watching fuckloads of replays and actually practising, not just fucking around and having fun. You can't be good, you can't even climb out D levels without serious practise and being thoughtful about your play. You don't want that? I can understand, I don't like this way either. So why don't you just get off of ICC and play on B.Net? There are loads of ppl playing the game like you do. I for myself get on Europe whenever I'm tired of laddering/getting smashed too hard. There I got several ppl to play with in a very casual environment and just fuck around. If you read and understood everything I wanted to say with this you may get to think there won't be any problem with "smurfing" (which is the completely wrong term you're using here, more appropriate would be "newb-bashing") because the game is brand new and noone will have this kinda advantage you have nowadays in SC, meaning the knowledge of several years, probably 1000s of watched VODs/replays and having played the same amount of games. In the early days of SC having several accounts was very useful and much fun because you could just fuck around. Smurfing then was a term used to describe the situation when a player would create a new ID and then maybe join some other Clan or just fuck around. Maybe you're sensitive to this but I think this was one major part of B.Net being so much fun and why in the end I kept on playing this game. you're grossly ignorant. try learning something about the forum poster before throwing this much irrelevant information at him
Even if you're not the whining D player you're still advocating for them (I saw you being registered since 03 but you should know this means nothing). So where's my post irrelevant? Just because you don't agree? Now who's being ignorant?
Edit: As you suggested I tried to learn something about "the forum poster" and I couldn't find you on ICC to judge your skill level nor could I find any relevant posts of you outside the SC2 forum.
|
On August 31 2009 12:19 ZeitgeistMovie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2009 11:34 dcttr66 wrote:
i totally agree with all your points, but you're missing something.
you say this like you have no experience in ladder. if you did have the experience, you would DEFINITELY FEEL DIFFERENTLY
I feel like the division in opinion on the matter occurs there. and precisely there.
you see, many of you haven't played wc3 ladder. wc3 ladder IS WARCRAFT THREE.
SC ladder was pathetic and not popular. when you guys are talking about smurfing in starcraft...you're talking about custom games...and indeed, no one gives a damn about smurfing in custom games...but in warcraft 3...custom games don't give you any wins or losses, it's unranked. like i said WARCRAFT THREE LADDER IS WARCRAFT 3.
Starcraft 2 will be something like that. Smurfing is a gigantic problem in warcraft 3 ladder, as it would be in Starcraft 2 if it was allowed.
. I still fail to see how smurfing is a "problem." If you are saying that smurfing is a problem because higher skilled players can make new accounts and "bash" new players, then no, it is NOT a problem (as I stated why in the earlier post). If there are other elements to this that I did not mention then let me know. What is the difference between the ICCUP and the w3 ladder? And how does smurfing affect these two things differently (I don't know about the W3 Ladder)?
There are two reasons why Blizzard should want to prevent noob bashing.
1) Everyone should be able to find a level of competitive, ranked play, where they are closely matched with opposing players in terms of skill. Smurfing frustrates this legitimate design goal by making it difficult to determine the skill of any given player.
2) If it comes right down to it, and we face a stark tradeoff (which I'm fairly certain we do not) Blizzard should value the prevention of noob bashing over pretty much any concerns of top players simply because if the initial online experience (the noob experience) is poor, the scene will not grow. People will buy the game, go online, get crushed by smurfers, and quit. They won't get their friends to buy the game and play online. They won't practice and get better.
I saw a thread on ICCUP about how newbs would be turned off if they play a ladder and get stomped by smurfers. It's a ladder, it's going to be competitive. Like an ICCUP admin said, if you're not not getting stomped now (in the early ranks), you will later. You think that just because you can beat real D players, it better prepares you for C- players? Some people think losing to a smurf D player is somehow worse than beating a real D player. Guess what, you're going to meet that smurf D player (or atleast other players of his skill level) in the future anyways, so why not get it over that hump right away? If you just want to have fun, then play unranked matches. Why care about ranks, if you want to have fun, right? Ladders are for people who want to compete, which gives them joy.
Ladders with extensive smurfing are not competitive. The word competitive implies that both sides have a reasonable chance. A game between an A player and a D player is uncompetitive. Smurfers do not compete - they have fun. In fact, if anything, your argument should flow the other way:
If you just want to have fun (and beat up on noobs), then play unranked matches. Otherwise, suck it up and play at your real rank.
|
Canada11349 Posts
Wow. Major impasse anyone? 30 pages and still no closer to a mutual understanding.
For those of you saying that the 'againsts' are idiots to assume there will be no name changing capabilities, look no further than this thread. We can't agree that simple feature is beneficial.
For those concerned about newb-bashing, as far as I can tell, none of the 'againsts' are arguing for a reinstatement of the unlimited id wipes of ICCUP. It had it's place, but I think we can agree that it's beneficial for all to move on. As far as we can tell (emphasis on the first part), Blizzard is moving to a different extreme- one real id. What we're proposing is some sort of compromise. The ability for some name changing capabilities. The ability to separate stats to some degree, whether it's by race or whether it's you get 3 id's once you've reached bronze level.
Nobody is proposing that these limited new ids start at the bottom ranks. They start at you're current rank and work down (as you offrace, try new strategies etc.) Newbs are not getting stomped, but the player is dropping down down to a more appropriate level with the off-race.
dnd I assume refers to do not display- but as was said before- we're looking for a compromise from being invisible and being bombarded by annoying people- a limited separate id linked to a master account would accomplish that function.
|
On August 31 2009 12:19 ZeitgeistMovie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2009 11:34 dcttr66 wrote:
i totally agree with all your points, but you're missing something.
you say this like you have no experience in ladder. if you did have the experience, you would DEFINITELY FEEL DIFFERENTLY
I feel like the division in opinion on the matter occurs there. and precisely there.
you see, many of you haven't played wc3 ladder. wc3 ladder IS WARCRAFT THREE.
SC ladder was pathetic and not popular. when you guys are talking about smurfing in starcraft...you're talking about custom games...and indeed, no one gives a damn about smurfing in custom games...but in warcraft 3...custom games don't give you any wins or losses, it's unranked. like i said WARCRAFT THREE LADDER IS WARCRAFT 3.
Starcraft 2 will be something like that. Smurfing is a gigantic problem in warcraft 3 ladder, as it would be in Starcraft 2 if it was allowed.
. I still fail to see how smurfing is a "problem." If you are saying that smurfing is a problem because higher skilled players can make new accounts and "bash" new players, then no, it is NOT a problem (as I stated why in the earlier post). If there are other elements to this that I did not mention then let me know. What is the difference between the ICCUP and the w3 ladder? And how does smurfing affect these two things differently (I don't know about the W3 Ladder)? I saw a thread on ICCUP about how newbs would be turned off if they play a ladder and get stomped by smurfers. It's a ladder, it's going to be competitive. Like an ICCUP admin said, if you're not not getting stomped now (in the early ranks), you will later. You think that just because you can beat real D players, it better prepares you for C- players? Some people think losing to a smurf D player is somehow worse than beating a real D player. Guess what, you're going to meet that smurf D player (or atleast other players of his skill level) in the future anyways, so why not get it over that hump right away? If you just want to have fun, then play unranked matches. Why care about ranks, if you want to have fun, right? Ladders are for people who want to compete, which gives them joy.
Smurfing is a problem because it doesn't make you better. If I was to play games against Jaedong, I'd get completely destroyed. I wouldn't learn anything because the skill difference is so vast that he'd pick me apart with anything he tried to do. You get better by playing people that are your skill level, by playing games that are difficult to win but winnable. You don't get better by getting completely destroyed every game.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
that's where you're wrong. they only need to activate it if they are getting harrassed, or if they don't want to meet anyone new at all. it solves exactly what it needs to solve.
No, no it does not solve anything. I activate DnD (Do not disturb) and I now can't receive messages from ANYONE.
Let's say they implement an "ignore messages from non-friends" option (which I think they will, assuming you can even message non-friends, which I hope you can), even this is not sufficient because it effectively stops you from meeting anyone new -.-
On August 31 2009 08:52 dupsky wrote:
the best option i have come across, to allow multiple names as well as anti-smurf protection, is what i have termed "smurf alert".........basically it is a option that EVERY player has to switch on or off (although i cant imagine why anyone would choose the latter) which allows the player to view ALL NAMES AND RANKINGS linked to the player who is in your game, or be blind to your opposition.
....best of both worlds?....(the only opposition, i can see, would be from the bottom feeders that thrive on a tilted playing field in thier favor.)
Here's an even better solution:
All new accounts you make, start at a higher ELL than 0, so you will never be matched up with noobs unless you are off-racing and your off-race sucks. In which case you are not noob bashing.
Falling's post pretty much covered everything.
|
On August 31 2009 12:42 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2009 11:34 dcttr66 wrote:On August 30 2009 21:30 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:On August 30 2009 11:27 dcttr66 wrote:On August 29 2009 08:03 dupsky wrote:
i have never played sc, but strategy games are my favorite.....if sc2 has 1 acct. per cd key as did aoe3 i may try it....if its a totall rape the newbee policy then forget this game.
smurfing must be outlawed. haha, see what i mean guys? even ppl who no play the game agree that there's too much damn cheating going on...quit being scam artists and play with honor! You still don't get it. The people who beat you up on ICC aren't A+ not even C probably. It's just you being completely new to SC and getting your ass handed for that. This game is way too old to just jump into the scene and be medium skilled after some months. People like me who played this game forever since it was released and never stopped are around C+/B-. According to your logic I should be around Olympic because I play this long but it's not that easy. You can't compare trash games like AoE or C&C, not even WC3 to the current state of SCs competitiveness. See people like Kolll, being 14 yrs old, playing for 1 year or some but already at the top of foreign gaming (or at least scratching it). You think this has anything to do with talent or shit? No, it's just him playing a crazy amount of games (around 1k per ICC season), watching fuckloads of replays and actually practising, not just fucking around and having fun. You can't be good, you can't even climb out D levels without serious practise and being thoughtful about your play. You don't want that? I can understand, I don't like this way either. So why don't you just get off of ICC and play on B.Net? There are loads of ppl playing the game like you do. I for myself get on Europe whenever I'm tired of laddering/getting smashed too hard. There I got several ppl to play with in a very casual environment and just fuck around. If you read and understood everything I wanted to say with this you may get to think there won't be any problem with "smurfing" (which is the completely wrong term you're using here, more appropriate would be "newb-bashing") because the game is brand new and noone will have this kinda advantage you have nowadays in SC, meaning the knowledge of several years, probably 1000s of watched VODs/replays and having played the same amount of games. In the early days of SC having several accounts was very useful and much fun because you could just fuck around. Smurfing then was a term used to describe the situation when a player would create a new ID and then maybe join some other Clan or just fuck around. Maybe you're sensitive to this but I think this was one major part of B.Net being so much fun and why in the end I kept on playing this game. you're grossly ignorant. try learning something about the forum poster before throwing this much irrelevant information at him Even if you're not the whining D player you're still advocating for them (I saw you being registered since 03 but you should know this means nothing). So where's my post irrelevant? Just because you don't agree? Now who's being ignorant? Edit: As you suggested I tried to learn something about "the forum poster" and I couldn't find you on ICC to judge your skill level nor could I find any relevant posts of you outside the SC2 forum.
lol...that was entirely my point i'm not on ICC...why don't you read the rest of my posts?
for example, the one at the top of this page would be a good start. it tells you i'm a (OH NO, REALLY?!) Warcraft 3 player.
to frozen arbiter:
if you want to talk with people with /dnd on all you gotta do is talk with people in the same channel, same arranged team, same game lobby, same game that you're in...with sc2...you can even probably still get messages from friends as wells as clanmates. via something like /f msg and /c msg i would suppose. it would only be people you don't know. that's what i think they're going to do. like i said they're going to improve over the features that they have in wc3.
and i don't see why you gotta complain about not meeting new people...if that's a concern the player with that concern won't have DND on all the time...they'll only turn it on if they feel like they need it on because someone is bothering them.
true, i can see how if everyone had dnd on then no one could whisper eachother but i think they'll have it off more than on...if they had it on more than off then i guess they really don't want to meet YOU, and if that's the case you can whisper someone like you who has dnd off more than on.
anyway, if they're smart about it...they'll take it a step further and allow players to ignore the /dnd thing, by way of allowing players to send like mail messages through bnet to the players. this could result in large fanmail inboxes for good players, of which they could be proud, although possibly annoyed as well. this sortof thing exists in facebook, and from what i could tell with the new blizzcon a lot of their features look like facebook features so i wouldn't be surprised if they put this in, and if they did, you could then msg the guy who has his DND off who doesn't want to meet you, since it seems that's what you're complaining about. the big difference would be you can't bug him while he's playing a game, but he has to check his mail to see what you're saying.
i think that's pretty cool, and maybe could even be applied with the new /dnd option where even friends would get their regular messages that they try to send to you sent to your inbox instead of to you in the game. this would allow for less distractions while playing game and encourage a more competitive environment.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
No, I'm not complaining that I can't annoy progamers.
If I was Boxer/Grubby/NaDa/Moon/whomever, I would want to be able to play IN PEACE, without having everyone on Battle.net recognizing me, is that REALLY too much to ask?
|
Then why aren´t you demanding proper privacy options instead?
Any player that is honest or should I say naive to have only one account is being victimised by griefers/hackers that utilise the protection of anonymity. Just that smurfing is the only current protection against harrasment doesn´t mean its GOOD.
For many player the ladder is completely irrelevant and a higher ranking player bashing noobs is not the only abuse possible with several identeties. If some idiot cyberstalks me should I be forced to create a new account? Or should he be held responsible, even if it´s just a squelch that he can´t avoid with a new account?
Smurfs are a relic of a broken system. Their existence is a problem and to make Bnet2 a success Blizzard not only has to make them impossible/costly but more importantly unneccessary to HONEST players.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
But he wouldn't be newb-bashing - with the proposed system (proposed by me and countless others) any new account you create would start with an Expected Ladder Level (or whatever they use this time) way above that of a completely fresh account.
It would be tied to his master account (though not necessarily visible to all, but Blizzard would know), the one you use for their store etc.
Hell, you could have it so that if you squelch one account, you squelch ALL his accounts.
Oh and give me some examples of "proper privacy options"? How exactly do you magically make people forget your screen name is "Slayers`Boxer"?
|
Well then you just need an ability to change your Name... not anything else
|
What if there was some kind of password to get past /dnd? So like you type /dnd pass i_like_pancakes and when anyone writes /w pass i_like_pancakes yournick message then this message will arrive even though dnd (because there is pasword after "pass" phrase)? That would make it possible for friends to communicate with v.good players and impossible for fans/noobs/anyone who you don't like to pm you. Wouldn't that solve problem of "pro's being harrased"?
|
All new accounts you make, start at a higher ELL than 0, so you will never be matched up with noobs unless you are off-racing and your off-race sucks. In which case you are not noob bashing.
The problem with this idea is that if you're under the standard starting level on the ladder, your best option if you're looking to points is to simply not play. Obviously over time that will change, but imagine how crushing it would be if you were worse than zero.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 01 2009 01:38 L wrote:Show nested quote +All new accounts you make, start at a higher ELL than 0, so you will never be matched up with noobs unless you are off-racing and your off-race sucks. In which case you are not noob bashing. The problem with this idea is that if you're under the standard starting level on the ladder, your best option if you're looking to points is to simply not play. Obviously over time that will change, but imagine how crushing it would be if you were worse than zero.
I'm not sure what you mean? Your ELL isn't even visible (well, it is to blizzard obviously) I think, it just determines who you get matched up with.
|
Maybe this will help ease some of the people here. We have some systems we have planned to prevent that from occurring, sort of remembering your skill level when you reroll and stuff like this so that you can't just do this kind of destroying all the noobs. We think we have got most of the ways stamped out to prevent you from running into guys who are way more hardcore than you. From Browder in this interview: http://www.joystiq.com/2009/08/17/interview-dustin-browder-talks-starcraft-2-development-and-dela/
So it seems that you keep one master account, you can then make new mini accounts that start with similar skill levels.
|
On September 01 2009 01:20 Kaniol wrote:
What if there was some kind of password to get past /dnd? So like you type /dnd pass i_like_pancakes and when anyone writes /w pass i_like_pancakes yournick message then this message will arrive even though dnd (because there is pasword after "pass" phrase)? That would make it possible for friends to communicate with v.good players and impossible for fans/noobs/anyone who you don't like to pm you. Wouldn't that solve problem of "pro's being harrased"? That's really complicated
You could just have a mutual friends list, kind of like the one on steam, which is exactly what the bnet panel made it look like
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 01 2009 02:17 unsmart wrote:Maybe this will help ease some of the people here. Show nested quote +We have some systems we have planned to prevent that from occurring, sort of remembering your skill level when you reroll and stuff like this so that you can't just do this kind of destroying all the noobs. We think we have got most of the ways stamped out to prevent you from running into guys who are way more hardcore than you. From Browder in this interview: http://www.joystiq.com/2009/08/17/interview-dustin-browder-talks-starcraft-2-development-and-dela/So it seems that you keep one master account, you can then make new mini accounts that start with similar skill levels.
That seems perfect to me =]
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 01 2009 02:17 unsmart wrote:Maybe this will help ease some of the people here. Show nested quote +We have some systems we have planned to prevent that from occurring, sort of remembering your skill level when you reroll and stuff like this so that you can't just do this kind of destroying all the noobs. We think we have got most of the ways stamped out to prevent you from running into guys who are way more hardcore than you. From Browder in this interview: http://www.joystiq.com/2009/08/17/interview-dustin-browder-talks-starcraft-2-development-and-dela/So it seems that you keep one master account, you can then make new mini accounts that start with similar skill levels.
So basically this is the ideal solution that both sides reached separately like 20 pages ago without realizing it.
EDIT: Reading that interview some more, Battle.net 2.0 is sounding more and more like Steam, which I can't say is a bad thing.
|
I have a fundamental belief that noobs need to be bashed to be put in their places.
Does anyone actually believes SC2 will not be the greatest game ever even with noob bashing ?
Sounds more like they want to prevent massive migration to UMS, and that will happen anyway, because noobs cant handle having all the fault of their defeat on them and thats why the play mostly 2v2+ or UMS
|
On September 01 2009 03:19 D10 wrote:
I have a fundamental belief that noobs need to be bashed to be put in their places.
This is an excellent way to stifle the game's growth. Noobs who get bashed over and over don't "get put in their places," they quit playing entirely and tell their friends that the game sucks.
If you're actually interested in a vibrant online scene, noob-bashing needs to be prevented.
|
On September 01 2009 04:54 Matrijs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2009 03:19 D10 wrote:
I have a fundamental belief that noobs need to be bashed to be put in their places.
This is an excellent way to stifle the game's growth. Noobs who get bashed over and over don't "get put in their places," they quit playing entirely and tell their friends that the game sucks. If you're actually interested in a vibrant online scene, noob-bashing needs to be prevented.
Not at all, just look at WC3FT, noobs got bashed, migrated to DOTA, both rocked and overall the game only started dying when SC2 was announced.
QQ more noobs, it works.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Ehhh, I don't think encouraging actual newb-bashing is good... Huge difference between smurfing for privacy (fine) and smurfing to newb-bash (... kind of stupid).
|
On September 01 2009 02:38 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2009 02:17 unsmart wrote:Maybe this will help ease some of the people here. We have some systems we have planned to prevent that from occurring, sort of remembering your skill level when you reroll and stuff like this so that you can't just do this kind of destroying all the noobs. We think we have got most of the ways stamped out to prevent you from running into guys who are way more hardcore than you. From Browder in this interview: http://www.joystiq.com/2009/08/17/interview-dustin-browder-talks-starcraft-2-development-and-dela/So it seems that you keep one master account, you can then make new mini accounts that start with similar skill levels. So basically this is the ideal solution that both sides reached separately like 20 pages ago without realizing it. EDIT: Reading that interview some more, Battle.net 2.0 is sounding more and more like Steam, which I can't say is a bad thing.
not exactly...they are just referring to what they're PLANNING to do...bnet 2.0 isn't out yet so they're not done with it and so those things aren't finalized yet.
but anyway i do think they'll make it all work out somehow. they put their best effort into starcraft, and now they seem to be doing it again with sc2. this time they see potential for a perfect ladder system...haha. and i don't think it's going to happen, but just because it's been delayed so long should encourage us to think that it'll be better than they initially planned.
|
On September 01 2009 06:06 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2009 04:54 Matrijs wrote:On September 01 2009 03:19 D10 wrote:
I have a fundamental belief that noobs need to be bashed to be put in their places.
This is an excellent way to stifle the game's growth. Noobs who get bashed over and over don't "get put in their places," they quit playing entirely and tell their friends that the game sucks. If you're actually interested in a vibrant online scene, noob-bashing needs to be prevented. Not at all, just look at WC3FT, noobs got bashed, migrated to DOTA, both rocked and overall the game only started dying when SC2 was announced. QQ more noobs, it works. I'm sure there are plenty that quit entirely instead of switching to DOTA.
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 01 2009 06:06 D10 wrote:
Not at all, just look at WC3FT, noobs got bashed, migrated to DOTA, both rocked and overall the game only started dying when SC2 was announced.
QQ more noobs, it works.
There's not really a logical connection there. Just because newbs got bashed in WC3 and it did well doesn't in any way mean it was good for the game.
|
On September 01 2009 06:13 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2009 06:06 D10 wrote:
Not at all, just look at WC3FT, noobs got bashed, migrated to DOTA, both rocked and overall the game only started dying when SC2 was announced.
QQ more noobs, it works. There's not really a logical connection there. Just because newbs got bashed in WC3 and it did well doesn't in any way mean it was good for the game.
Wheres the evidence that noobs wont quit anyway ?
|
Thats some great bussiness sense. "If they don´t like it bad for them." It is inherently a flaw in the system if the customers don´t like it.
Blizzard knows how to make popular games. Somehow that doesn´t include a "like it or leave it" mentality regarding new players, just look at WoW.
|
On September 01 2009 07:01 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2009 06:13 TheYango wrote:On September 01 2009 06:06 D10 wrote:
Not at all, just look at WC3FT, noobs got bashed, migrated to DOTA, both rocked and overall the game only started dying when SC2 was announced.
QQ more noobs, it works. There's not really a logical connection there. Just because newbs got bashed in WC3 and it did well doesn't in any way mean it was good for the game. Wheres the evidence that noobs wont quit anyway ? Some noobs will quit. Some hardcore will quit too. People will quit every day for various reasons. It should be obvious that noob stomping will encourage people to quit though.
People don't have fun getting roflstomped -> roflstomping is rampant -> game is significantly less fun for those players -> those players quit because the game isn't very fun.
Without a doubt, Blizzard can't hope to retain every noob, but it shouldn't take empirical evidence to convince you that players are more likely to quit if they aren't having fun.
|
I dont agree that newbies dislike getting roflstomped.
Its about more about a persons capacity to resist frustration than the skill level in itself.
Most people will get frustrated that they are not leet, and will migrate to UMS or quit, and newb stomping may hasten this effect, but let me argue that with AMM, a hugeee player base, and tons and tons of newbies, newbie games versus smurfs will represent only a small % of the games said newbie will play, and therefore ill say that newbies complain not of being stomped by smurfs, but try to justify losing in itself on others abusing the system, other than their own faults
they are so noob they cant distinguish a legitimate loss against a loss from a smurf.
Therefore, bash em out, they wont even know the difference
|
On September 01 2009 07:40 D10 wrote:
I dont agree that newbies dislike getting roflstomped. A newby's penchant for getting roflstomped isn't something you can agree or disagree with.
but let me argue that with AMM, a hugeee player base, and tons and tons of newbies, newbie games versus smurfs will represent only a small % of the games said newbie will play The smaller the number, the better, which is exactly what this system is doing.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 01 2009 07:01 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2009 06:13 TheYango wrote:On September 01 2009 06:06 D10 wrote:
Not at all, just look at WC3FT, noobs got bashed, migrated to DOTA, both rocked and overall the game only started dying when SC2 was announced.
QQ more noobs, it works. There's not really a logical connection there. Just because newbs got bashed in WC3 and it did well doesn't in any way mean it was good for the game. Wheres the evidence that noobs wont quit anyway ?
Ugh, regardless, why make their experience as painful as possible?
Anti-noob bashing is GOOD. Stopping people from creating multiple accounts, is bad.
They solve this easily by simply having new accounts start at a higher level.
Why would you have a problem with the newest players being protected from getting totally destroyed in their first game? For every player who it doesn't bother, there's gonna be a ton that just wanted to have a nice, even game and is now put off by the whole experience.
Sooner or later everyone is gonna run into someone much, much better than them. Having it happen outside of your first 10 games is probably a good idea, however.
|
Theres not way to guarantee that 100%
If I start playing the game and my first match is against some super newbie and I stomp him that prevented this how ?
My point is, dont try to stop the sun from rising.
Newbie bashing is the essence of being a newbie.
It doesnt need to happen everytime, but since it will happen anyway, why try to take away this ?
What If I make a newbie bashing accout with 10% win ratio, where I dc/lose on purpose only to stay in newbie range and stomp them ?
|
On September 01 2009 07:50 D10 wrote:
Theres not way to guarantee that 100%
Just because it's not guaranteed preventable, doesn't mean you shouldn't try to discourage it.
Seriously, most annoying excuse ever, and people are using it ALL the damn time. It's the same as the people saying "People will still hack the game so why try to stop piracy?"
No one here has claimed it's a cure-all destined to dawn a new era of the noob, we're just saying these are good measures for DISCOURAGING something bad.
Newbie bashing is the essence of being a newbie. Not if the newbies are playing other newbies.
What If I make a newbie bashing accout with 10% win ratio, where I dc/lose on purpose only to stay in newbie range and stomp them? You could also buy multiple accounts, or get account info from a friend who has a worse record. Once again, the system isn't a panacea for noobs, but it's a hell of a lot friendlier for them than something like iccup where someone's ego-binge is only a clearstats away.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 01 2009 07:50 D10 wrote:
Theres not way to guarantee that 100%
If I start playing the game and my first match is against some super newbie and I stomp him that prevented this how ?
My point is, dont try to stop the sun from rising.
Newbie bashing is the essence of being a newbie.
It doesnt need to happen everytime, but since it will happen anyway, why try to take away this ?
What If I make a newbie bashing accout with 10% win ratio, where I dc/lose on purpose only to stay in newbie range and stomp them ?
Why have police, they aren't going to be able to stop every murder anyway.
In fact, why do anything, we are all gonna die anyway.
EDIT: Why write this post, when TsagaCity already covered everything?
|
On September 01 2009 02:20 Tsagacity wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2009 01:20 Kaniol wrote:
What if there was some kind of password to get past /dnd? So like you type /dnd pass i_like_pancakes and when anyone writes /w pass i_like_pancakes yournick message then this message will arrive even though dnd (because there is pasword after "pass" phrase)? That would make it possible for friends to communicate with v.good players and impossible for fans/noobs/anyone who you don't like to pm you. Wouldn't that solve problem of "pro's being harrased"? That's really complicated You could just have a mutual friends list, kind of like the one on steam, which is exactly what the bnet panel made it look like
What is complicated in that? IDK about programming part, but i dont think that this isn't doable.
If we really think that only 1 account is bad thing, then we can't hope that Blizz will change their decision. Instead we have to focus on what's bad with that. IMO only problem is "lessenned privacy" and putting pass to pm you fixes this problem ideally.
|
Its not up to me to decide whats the best course of action.
And I agree with the measures taken by Blizzard.
Im just saying, newbies will get stomped, and im wondering what they will cry about this time.
|
honestly how many people do you think will smurf and noob bash? Sure people would do it once in a while or when they want to off race or whatever, but like D10 is saying it wont be some overwhelming amount that turns every other game into a roflstomp. More flexibility is always good.
|
On September 01 2009 08:03 Kaniol wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2009 02:20 Tsagacity wrote:On September 01 2009 01:20 Kaniol wrote:
What if there was some kind of password to get past /dnd? So like you type /dnd pass i_like_pancakes and when anyone writes /w pass i_like_pancakes yournick message then this message will arrive even though dnd (because there is pasword after "pass" phrase)? That would make it possible for friends to communicate with v.good players and impossible for fans/noobs/anyone who you don't like to pm you. Wouldn't that solve problem of "pro's being harrased"? That's really complicated You could just have a mutual friends list, kind of like the one on steam, which is exactly what the bnet panel made it look like What is complicated in that? IDK about programming part, but i dont think that this isn't doable. If we really think that only 1 account is bad thing, then we can't hope that Blizz will change their decision. Instead we have to focus on what's bad with that. IMO only problem is "lessenned privacy" and putting pass to pm you fixes this problem ideally. I don't mean technically. Your solution is probably a lot easier in terms of programming
I mean it's complicated in the part where you and all your friends are memorizing DND passwords. It's a lot easier to just have a full-feature friend's list.
On September 01 2009 08:15 gameguard wrote:
honestly how many people do you think will smurf and noob bash? If you did nothing to prevent it, and had easy things like new accounts or a /clearstats, my answer would be "A shit ton."
|
They want people to play the game. They dont' want the exact same people that play SC2 to just run everyone off by smashing their faces off!
|
Maybe what you need to make people persist in playing the game is not anti smurfing, but AMM OBS, ever think about that ?
If noobs can just log in and watch some skilled players facing each other without fear of being kicked of the match before it beggins might make the Esport aspect of it much better
|
On September 01 2009 08:32 D10 wrote:
Maybe what you need to make people persist in playing the game is not anti smurfing, but AMM OBS, ever think about that ?
If noobs can just log in and watch some skilled players facing each other without fear of being kicked of the match before it beggins might make the Esport aspect of it much better People have thought about and discussed some sort of AMM-type obs alot, but the inclusion of that mechanism wouldn't replace the anti-smurfing mechanism.
They could include that AMM obs, AND include this anti-smurfing stuff, and then the noobs have even more incentive to stick around than if you only had one or the other
|
On September 01 2009 07:50 D10 wrote:
If I start playing the game and my first match is against some super newbie and I stomp him that prevented this how ?
this is not a problem, just an occurrence when 2 new players start playing, nothing else.
your trying to twist this into something else to try and confuse others into a false truth.
......nice try.
|
On September 01 2009 08:35 Tsagacity wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2009 08:32 D10 wrote:
Maybe what you need to make people persist in playing the game is not anti smurfing, but AMM OBS, ever think about that ?
If noobs can just log in and watch some skilled players facing each other without fear of being kicked of the match before it beggins might make the Esport aspect of it much better People have thought about and discussed some sort of AMM-type obs alot, but the inclusion of that mechanism wouldn't replace the anti-smurfing mechanism. They could include that AMM obs, AND include this anti-smurfing stuff, and then the noobs have even more incentive to stick around than if you only had one or the other
I Agree.
|
|
|
Its not gonna be any problem. If your brother want to play, or you just want to "lame" some games, you can click a buttom saying "dont count" which means it wont be shown in your stats....
like Peabody says, dont be hysterial... Blizzard's staff was not born yesterday... have some faith in them!
|
/thread
Hopefully they stick to that.
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
lol @ all the idiots in this thread saying 'getting newb bashed' is gunna make someone quit playing sc2
roflmao idiots
anyways, i like and hate this decision
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 02 2009 19:53 Rekrul wrote:
lol @ all the idiots in this thread saying 'getting newb bashed' is gunna make someone quit playing sc2
roflmao idiots
anyways, i like and hate this decision
But it is.
There really are people who are gonna go "fuck this shit". Yes, they are likely the same people who will go "fuck this shit" the first time they play someone slightly, slightly, slightly better than them, but still.
Stopping A ranked people from bashing D- beginners is an admirable goal, just as long as it doesn't infringe on the other aspects of your playing experience - and with each account having access to a few IDs, it doesn't sound like it will.
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
On September 02 2009 20:07 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2009 19:53 Rekrul wrote:
lol @ all the idiots in this thread saying 'getting newb bashed' is gunna make someone quit playing sc2
roflmao idiots
anyways, i like and hate this decision But it is. There really are people who are gonna go "fuck this shit". Yes, they are likely the same people who will go "fuck this shit" the first time they play someone slightly, slightly, slightly better than them, but still. Stopping A ranked people from bashing D- beginners is an admirable goal, just as long as it doesn't infringe on the other aspects of your playing experience - and with each account having access to a few IDs, it doesn't sound like it will.
yeah and if they are the type of people that say 'fuck this shit' just cause they got raped a couple times they are worthless for the community anyways so they can go fuck themselves. then they can quit sc2 and go buy WOW or diablo3
less idiots for us
more money for blizzard
winwin
|
United States12235 Posts
You beat me to it. I was going to post this same article. It's full of great information, and definitely worth the full read.
|
On September 01 2009 07:45 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2009 07:01 D10 wrote:On September 01 2009 06:13 TheYango wrote:On September 01 2009 06:06 D10 wrote:
Not at all, just look at WC3FT, noobs got bashed, migrated to DOTA, both rocked and overall the game only started dying when SC2 was announced.
QQ more noobs, it works. There's not really a logical connection there. Just because newbs got bashed in WC3 and it did well doesn't in any way mean it was good for the game. Wheres the evidence that noobs wont quit anyway ? Ugh, regardless, why make their experience as painful as possible? Anti-noob bashing is GOOD. Stopping people from creating multiple accounts, is bad. They solve this easily by simply having new accounts start at a higher level.Why would you have a problem with the newest players being protected from getting totally destroyed in their first game? For every player who it doesn't bother, there's gonna be a ton that just wanted to have a nice, even game and is now put off by the whole experience. Sooner or later everyone is gonna run into someone much, much better than them. Having it happen outside of your first 10 games is probably a good idea, however.
i don't think so. what's to stop people from creating 3 accounts and playing 1, then the second, then the third? at any rate they're having newbie leagues or game modes or whatever anyway, so they aren't doing the one account only thing because they care about new players. they're doing it for the benefit of all their players. that's one thing that a lot of you seem to miss, and you keep going on and on and on about new players this, new players that, when one account per player applies to everyone, not just new players. basically all making a new account does it make a player make a new identity. he would do it for being ashamed perhaps of his ladder record or whatever. well i say that's kindof pathetic if you let your ego drop for being bad at a video game that you have to go smurfing. but whatever.
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.
|
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, What? It looks like you just contradicted yourself in the very next sentence >.<
|
Sweden33719 Posts
i don't think so. what's to stop people from creating 3 accounts and playing 1, then the second, then the third?
Simple: You can't make a new account until you have played X games or reached a certain rank.
OR:
If you create 3 accounts and play on 1, the other accounts will still start at a higher rank once you actually start playing on them.
|
On September 02 2009 20:22 Rekrul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2009 20:07 FrozenArbiter wrote:On September 02 2009 19:53 Rekrul wrote:
lol @ all the idiots in this thread saying 'getting newb bashed' is gunna make someone quit playing sc2
roflmao idiots
anyways, i like and hate this decision But it is. There really are people who are gonna go "fuck this shit". Yes, they are likely the same people who will go "fuck this shit" the first time they play someone slightly, slightly, slightly better than them, but still. Stopping A ranked people from bashing D- beginners is an admirable goal, just as long as it doesn't infringe on the other aspects of your playing experience - and with each account having access to a few IDs, it doesn't sound like it will. yeah and if they are the type of people that say 'fuck this shit' just cause they got raped a couple times they are worthless for the community anyways so they can go fuck themselves. then they can quit sc2 and go buy WOW or diablo3 less idiots for us more money for blizzard winwin
I Like you!
|
Great article. Actually this is a excellent compromise between having all the features we want and simplicity. You can have multiple IDs but there will be different level leagues.
And asking you questions when you create your ID to seed you right is very good because high good players can easily start at higher ranks and noobs at lower (I honestly dont think there are many ppl that bash noobs because they enjoy it, its mostly because they reset their accounts because of bad stats). And it wont need a complicated formula (or starting at 0 or at current master ELO or smth) to put you in a lvl where youll be most comfortable playing.
|
On September 01 2009 08:29 Nokeboy wrote:
They want people to play the game. They dont' want the exact same people that play SC2 to just run everyone off by smashing their faces off!
Alright? and?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 03 2009 02:14 MER wrote:Great article. Actually this is a excellent compromise between having all the features we want and simplicity. You can have multiple IDs but there will be different level leagues. And asking you questions when you create your ID to seed you right is very good because high good players can easily start at higher ranks and noobs at lower (I honestly dont think there are many ppl that bash noobs because they enjoy it, its mostly because they reset their accounts because of bad stats). And it wont need a complicated formula (or starting at 0 or at current master ELO or smth) to put you in a lvl where youll be most comfortable playing.
Only problem is people 1) Lie and 2) Are too stupid/arrogant to accurately judge their own skill ;p
|
The best system for "where to start people out" is to have it adjust as time goes on.
If a new player wins their first game, then the system should adjust the starting level of future new players up.
If new player loses their first game the system should adjust the starting level of future new players down.
This way the 'starting level' will be such that the 'average new player' will start with a 50% win/loss rate.
But Questions can help.... especially if they aren't "how good are you" but... "Have you played SC/WC3/other RTSs before (and how often), Have you played them in multiplayer before (and how often), have you beaten the Level X AI? etc.
The Leagues worry me though, especially as a Very occasional player.
Will the AMM rely on the Leagues that only change from season to season or a measure of the Players skill level determined on a game to game basis?
|
It's game to game basis (you can change division or league during the season).
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Do you have a link where they talk about it in some more detail? I don't remember them being very specific during the presentation.
- Are you always playing in a league when you ladder via AMM?
- How long is a season?
- How does it determine if you should move up or not?
|
Nothing really specific :/
|
United States7166 Posts
i'd assume they'd always have you playing in one of their leagues, that's what they'd want to have at least
for season length, if they keep going as they have been before, they'd probably just end the season whenever they want to end it, rather than have it predetermined
ive no idea for the last question
|
United States12235 Posts
On September 03 2009 04:59 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Do you have a link where they talk about it in some more detail? I don't remember them being very specific during the presentation.
- Are you always playing in a league when you ladder via AMM?
- How long is a season?
- How does it determine if you should move up or not?
It's probably going to be very similar to WoW's arena system. It uses a Bayesian algorithm to produce a matchmaking rating, or MMR. Your MMR fluctuates greatly, and determines the opponents you will face (they will have a similar MMR). If you win a lot, your MMR will skyrocket and suddenly you'll start facing very good players. Conversely, if you lose a lot, your MMR will plummet. Eventually a confidence value cements your rating as you approach a 50% win ratio, wherever that places you on the absolute spectrum.
WoW arena uses an ELL-style system that awards rating based on the difference in rating between you and your opponent, but it is not zero sum. So if you're a 1500 team fighting an 1800 team and you both have MMRs of 2000, they would lose less than you would gain if you won.
I'm thinking they'll apply this same principle to SC2 by just splitting it up arbitrarily and keeping your rating hidden. Say your hidden rating is 1000-1400, that might be the Copper bracket. Maybe 1400-1600 is the Silver bracket. 1600-1800 might be the Gold, and so forth. So let's say you're at 1330 and your MMR is 1500, and you play against a 1500 player whose MMR is also 1500. You'd be a Copper player playing against a Silver-level player, and once your rating got up to 1400, you'd move up into the Silver bracket.
|
Eventually a confidence value cements your rating as you approach a 50% win ratio, wherever that places you on the absolute spectrum. I hope this doesn't cement your rating too much These things remind me of Halo 3, where it's ridiculously hard to rank up after you've played a lot of games.
My little brother who was already 50 got a new account to help his friend from school. In two days my little brother went from 1 to 50, and his friend had remained at 48 the whole time >.<
My worry is that at some point after mass-gaming or screwing around it might get hard to continue a steady rise, but I guess that's where the fancy math comes into play to average out the two
I guess a more visible rating system helps too. It's better if you see yourself go from 1500 to 1600, as opposed to Halo where you're still just 48 with no visible improvement.
|
On September 02 2009 20:22 Rekrul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2009 20:07 FrozenArbiter wrote:On September 02 2009 19:53 Rekrul wrote:
lol @ all the idiots in this thread saying 'getting newb bashed' is gunna make someone quit playing sc2
roflmao idiots
anyways, i like and hate this decision But it is. There really are people who are gonna go "fuck this shit". Yes, they are likely the same people who will go "fuck this shit" the first time they play someone slightly, slightly, slightly better than them, but still. Stopping A ranked people from bashing D- beginners is an admirable goal, just as long as it doesn't infringe on the other aspects of your playing experience - and with each account having access to a few IDs, it doesn't sound like it will. yeah and if they are the type of people that say 'fuck this shit' just cause they got raped a couple times they are worthless for the community anyways so they can go fuck themselves. less idiots for us more money for blizzard winwin
translation:
less idiots for us....... smaller community, less potential strat development.
more money for blizzard.......less money for blizzard (less sales)
winwin.......loselose
p.s. if there is no anti-smurfing measure blizzard can kiss my $50 bucks goodbye. this i promise.....also i will trash this game to all i know while i play another strategy game that cares about fair play.
|
United States12235 Posts
Well your MMR will always continue to fluctuate beyond your normal rating, so if you get a solid streak of wins, it will probably reduce that confidence value until it can solidify you at your new rating.
|
On September 03 2009 07:31 dupsky wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2009 20:22 Rekrul wrote:On September 02 2009 20:07 FrozenArbiter wrote:On September 02 2009 19:53 Rekrul wrote:
lol @ all the idiots in this thread saying 'getting newb bashed' is gunna make someone quit playing sc2
roflmao idiots
anyways, i like and hate this decision But it is. There really are people who are gonna go "fuck this shit". Yes, they are likely the same people who will go "fuck this shit" the first time they play someone slightly, slightly, slightly better than them, but still. Stopping A ranked people from bashing D- beginners is an admirable goal, just as long as it doesn't infringe on the other aspects of your playing experience - and with each account having access to a few IDs, it doesn't sound like it will. yeah and if they are the type of people that say 'fuck this shit' just cause they got raped a couple times they are worthless for the community anyways so they can go fuck themselves. less idiots for us more money for blizzard winwin translation: less idiots for us....... smaller community, less potential strat development. more money for blizzard.......less money for blizzard (less sales) winwin.......loselose p.s. if there is no anti-smurfing measure blizzard can kiss my $50 bucks goodbye. this i promise.....also i will trash this game to all i know while i play another strategy game that cares about fair play.
Really? That is what would make you play another game ? lol
|
On September 03 2009 09:54 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2009 07:31 dupsky wrote:On September 02 2009 20:22 Rekrul wrote:On September 02 2009 20:07 FrozenArbiter wrote:On September 02 2009 19:53 Rekrul wrote:
lol @ all the idiots in this thread saying 'getting newb bashed' is gunna make someone quit playing sc2
roflmao idiots
anyways, i like and hate this decision But it is. There really are people who are gonna go "fuck this shit". Yes, they are likely the same people who will go "fuck this shit" the first time they play someone slightly, slightly, slightly better than them, but still. Stopping A ranked people from bashing D- beginners is an admirable goal, just as long as it doesn't infringe on the other aspects of your playing experience - and with each account having access to a few IDs, it doesn't sound like it will. yeah and if they are the type of people that say 'fuck this shit' just cause they got raped a couple times they are worthless for the community anyways so they can go fuck themselves. less idiots for us more money for blizzard winwin translation: less idiots for us....... smaller community, less potential strat development. more money for blizzard.......less money for blizzard (less sales) winwin.......loselose p.s. if there is no anti-smurfing measure blizzard can kiss my $50 bucks goodbye. this i promise.....also i will trash this game to all i know while i play another strategy game that cares about fair play. Really? That is what would make you play another game ? lol
I have a lot of friends who I tried to talk into getting into SC1. Every single one of them played thru the campaign, but they all rage quit because of the sheer number of people rolling them online. None of them would even think about going back without systems to stop that from happening. You have to remember that not everyone is as hardcore as some of the TL community.
I would expect it to be upwards of 90% (Maybe more like 99%) of the people who blizzard are targeting for SC2 would take a similar view to that of friends than the more pro/elitist views. That is why Blizzard is taking the time to do these things. Because pleasing the pro's and elitists (which come up to what... 1-5% of the potential customers) and letting everyone else be disappointed or angered by online play is bad business.
Having a system which does not negatively impact on the esport/pro level of play AND makes online play for beginners great is the only sensible choice. The only people this hurts is assholes. And honestly, I'd prefer noobs that I don't see (because of the league difference) to assholes I do see in this game.
|
DUDE, SC1 didnt have MBS, automining, 3d, a gazillion awesome UMS, and etc...
Its like trying to convince your friends to try to get into a wrestling match against the game itself before you can actually have fun with it.
Hardcore interface that drives away players /= smurfing.
Also AMM.
|
United States7166 Posts
On September 03 2009 10:18 DeCoup wrote:
I would expect it to be upwards of 90% (Maybe more like 99%) of the people who blizzard are targeting for SC2 would take a similar view to that of friends than the more pro/elitist views.
he's got a point, the vast majority definitely does not enjoy getting completely destroyed online, it's no fun at all and there's no motivation to try and learn from such complete destruction. and nearly all who experience this will simply quit playing. this is assuming of course that the system is setup so that nearly every new player will get raped by a smurf within a few games.
yes apparently it's hard for all of us to understand this kind of behavior, but we are the small minority here. even though i enjoy getting thoroughly destroyed when i play a new game online, i can understand why people dont, and dont bother trying.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
This is ridiculous. While Blizzard may coninue to make the game more newbie-friendly, let us not forget how ridiculous it is in any other sport for a beginner to whine that he doesn't have a good winrate. Any measure that allows people to rock online after beating the campaign will be to the game's demise.
I don't have anything about smurfing. It allows easy preliminary testing of strategems and lifts the pressure. Yes, sometimes even better players need some relief from always facing a very strong opponent. Anyway, smurfing is benefical for both sides - only when you get beat by someone really much better than you, you can see a clear direction to go. It's somewhat easier to tell why you have lost and you lose the illusion that "there's nothing to get better at, I only lose due to bad shape/luck". This is important.
Besides, imagine yourself switching races. While you don't start out totally newb, you still need waaay lower rankings to be able to win. Inability to make an account will totally lock you into place with your better rank you probably wouldn't wanna spoil.
|
On September 03 2009 16:58 BluzMan wrote:
This is ridiculous. While Blizzard may coninue to make the game more newbie-friendly, let us not forget how ridiculous it is in any other sport for a beginner to whine that he doesn't have a good winrate. Any measure that allows people to rock online after beating the campaign will be to the game's demise.
I don't have anything about smurfing. It allows easy preliminary testing of strategems and lifts the pressure. Yes, sometimes even better players need some relief from always facing a very strong opponent. Anyway, smurfing is benefical for both sides - only when you get beat by someone really much better than you, you can see a clear direction to go. It's somewhat easier to tell why you have lost and you lose the illusion that "there's nothing to get better at, I only lose due to bad shape/luck". This is important.
Besides, imagine yourself switching races. While you don't start out totally newb, you still need waaay lower rankings to be able to win. Inability to make an account will totally lock you into place with your better rank you probably wouldn't wanna spoil.
You are contradicting yourself ie
Paragraph 2
noob getting smurfed: good because you need to get beat by someone way better than you to improve
Paragraph 3
'pro' playing off race: I need to play people much worse than me to learn, playing people much better than me is no fun.
NO
The way to maximize learning and fun for a multiplayer is to play against people close to your own level.
If you want an easy relaxing game, play against the computer.
Ideally, Every single AMM game that is played should have a 50% of each side winning because you are playing someone equal to your level.
Now it might be a good idea to have seperate rankings for seperate races, but your ranking should be stuck to you as a person and you should not be able to remove it.
|
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.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 03 2009 07:31 dupsky wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2009 20:22 Rekrul wrote:On September 02 2009 20:07 FrozenArbiter wrote:On September 02 2009 19:53 Rekrul wrote:
lol @ all the idiots in this thread saying 'getting newb bashed' is gunna make someone quit playing sc2
roflmao idiots
anyways, i like and hate this decision But it is. There really are people who are gonna go "fuck this shit". Yes, they are likely the same people who will go "fuck this shit" the first time they play someone slightly, slightly, slightly better than them, but still. Stopping A ranked people from bashing D- beginners is an admirable goal, just as long as it doesn't infringe on the other aspects of your playing experience - and with each account having access to a few IDs, it doesn't sound like it will. yeah and if they are the type of people that say 'fuck this shit' just cause they got raped a couple times they are worthless for the community anyways so they can go fuck themselves. less idiots for us more money for blizzard winwin translation: less idiots for us....... smaller community, less potential strat development. more money for blizzard.......less money for blizzard (less sales) winwin.......loselose p.s. if there is no anti-smurfing measure blizzard can kiss my $50 bucks goodbye. this i promise.....also i will trash this game to all i know while i play another strategy game that cares about fair play.
Just FYI, there's a good chance you'll get completely rolled anyway.
I think it's fine that they are implementing some ways to prevent people from really abusing, but I have a feeling people really overrate the amount of people who actually do this.
Most of the time when you get destroyed by some guy at low ranks, at least in SC, it's not because he's cheating, it's because the game is 11 years old.
|
As a C- scrub, I love playing B- and higher players as every time I do, I find some flaw in my game that I can fix.
|
On September 03 2009 00:30 Tsagacity wrote:Show nested quote +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, What? It looks like you just contradicted yourself in the very next sentence >.<
the point is they're explaining that they're looking for positive things...they aren't focused on taking out bad things, but putting in good things...
i think they should do both, but, oh well that's just my opinion.
On September 03 2009 00:37 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +i don't think so. what's to stop people from creating 3 accounts and playing 1, then the second, then the third? Simple: You can't make a new account until you have played X games or reached a certain rank. OR: If you create 3 accounts and play on 1, the other accounts will still start at a higher rank once you actually start playing on them.
that second option still wouldn't work they can still play like 10 games each right? then 200 games each after that...
as for your first idea i don't really like it, but it's reasonable...but don't you think it would be important for them to lock down the first while they play the second? it would mean you can only be using them one at a time...i guess that's to be expected, and you're still changing your name...which is still something i don't like...i still think this sort of thing should only be done once a year, no more often than that. any more often than once a year and it's too hard to keep track of the players for other players.
if all 3 accounts are tied to the master account that's fine for blizzard's computers, which can handle all that data...but i can't think of anybody that would rather want this system thinking about how it will affect getting to know your opponents.
why is that? for every extra name tied to your account, that's one less name of another opponent that someone will remember. so let's say someone can remember 500 names. instead of remembering 500 different opponents, if 200 of those had 3 different names each...just remembering those 200 would take up his ability to remember 600 names...something BEYOND what he is capable of.
it's simple math. i don't see how it's hard to understand. to me it just makes it so hard. i don't see how you can come to any other conclusion than smurfing is wrong.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Maybe because I don't think forcing everyone to be buddy-buddy with eachother is a great thing?
The people interested in that will stick to one ID, then when you feel like playing "in peace", you hop on your alt. account.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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 States12235 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
|
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 States11390 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
|
Canada11349 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 States12235 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.
|
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
If you actually Listened to the mp3, you would notice he concludes with...
...if you are playing player Slightly better than you and slightly worse then you, you will be Skyrocketing in improvement...
That is what smurfing prevents, and that it is what a one account based AMM helps....You always are playing people slightly better than you or slightly worse than you. (even if you play someone at your exact skill level, they will be slightly better than you in somethings and slighty worse than you in others)
|
This discussion makes no sense.
Win/loss doesn't matter anymore.
All that counts is your rank on the AMM ladder... which for all we know might (may, will) have a complex formula behind it to eliminate outliers.
On a basic level, it would pay more attention to your recent performance, eventually making those shameful first games from back when you massed templars to storm a cc scroll off and vanish from your record.
As for outliers, if you play at a high level consistently for 100 games and then lose in the first three minutes 5 straight times, the game could well chalk it up to the 'little brother effect', indeed drop you to newbie rank but propel you back up at high speed when you start winning again.
It could even take into consideration the race you've been playing and decide that since you're a god at terran and useless at zerg, it'll take into account your terran rank anyway. After all, you'd only switch to zerg if you're better with zerg than terran after some practice and you can't find out just by stomping on newbies.
|
it was in WC3, worked out damn well, this is just the natural step forward. good thing
|
|
|
On September 07 2009 07:21 Brother Laz wrote:
This discussion makes no sense.
Win/loss doesn't matter anymore.
wins/loses may not matter , if they are not shown , that's fine....as long as an indicator of skill is, along with a non concealment system for that indicator.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
I'm pretty sure you will be able to see someones exact stats by clicking the statistics tab. It's retarded if they don't show wins AND losses, especially when they have such a solid statistical profile for wc3 (check the ladder profiles of people over att battle.net, really detailed stats - like what heroes were most used, how often you win for every map vs every race, with every hero, how much you win depending on if you went solo hero, dual hero, tri hero etc.. good stuff).
|
as long as they give those stats for people who have to go through a couple levels of fluff, or have to be on friends lists and such like that, until then you just get thier basic ranking/skill level
|
Sweden33719 Posts
.. -- Why?
Looking at statistics is fun, and a pretty nice tool when determining balance (especially of maps). These stats are public in WC3, why not in SC2? They are also public on ICCUP.
|
After reading some posts, this sounds pretty fun can't wait
|
this is great.
anyone who doesn't like this system either doesn't understand it or are ego-whores.
this system is best for: every player improving their skill, and protecting newer players from having a repeatedly aweful experience with this game.
the only players it hurts are players who like to have useless and meaningless shiny records with high win percentages.
anonymity issues will be handled. it's blizzard.
|
On September 09 2009 09:53 FrozenArbiter wrote:
.. -- Why?
Looking at statistics is fun, and a pretty nice tool when determining balance (especially of maps). These stats are public in WC3, why not in SC2? They are also public on ICCUP.
Well, what they could do is to not show win% in the ingame tab and instead just on the B-net page. That will lower a lot of the stigma concerning win percentages.
|
I like multiple iccup acounts
|
On September 09 2009 14:20 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2009 09:53 FrozenArbiter wrote:
.. -- Why?
Looking at statistics is fun, and a pretty nice tool when determining balance (especially of maps). These stats are public in WC3, why not in SC2? They are also public on ICCUP. Well, what they could do is to not show win% in the ingame tab and instead just on the B-net page. That will lower a lot of the stigma concerning win percentages.
assuming their AMM system works as intended (and i'm expecting it to be better than war3), it will be rare for people to diverge from 50:50. Not that you won't see players who DO have better win/loss ratios, they will just be so rare that i don't think anyone will care about it - when 90% of players you see have between 45-55% win percentages, the stigma will disappear.
|
It isn't fun to get stomped by a comparative pro when you're a newb. Good move on Blizzard's part. I applaud.
|
On September 09 2009 06:07 FrozenArbiter wrote:
I'm pretty sure you will be able to see someones exact stats by clicking the statistics tab. It's retarded if they don't show wins AND losses, especially when they have such a solid statistical profile for wc3 (check the ladder profiles of people over att battle.net, really detailed stats - like what heroes were most used, how often you win for every map vs every race, with every hero, how much you win depending on if you went solo hero, dual hero, tri hero etc.. good stuff).
got screenshots? i don't remember blizzard doing this...though i've seen some pretty wild stuff in custom obs maps...
|
|
|
holy crap i've played on a lot of different ladder maps compared to you!
different races too...but i guess that's my style. this is only for the current season, right?
lol at getting twice as much experience in a 6 win 13 losses with night elf on cherry wood compared to orc 8 wins 0 losses on icey battleground
not sure why blizzard doesn't try to make new and more balanced maps because of this feature...that's right i remember this all now but because blizzard doesn't do anything about it anymore nowadays the feature is kindof pointless...eh...maybe we should protest more about the imbalances! but no one complains about echo isles they all love it but i went 4/0 with human on it, it's too easy for humans... ah i know mine's a poor example but there might be better ones out there...or maybe i'm just an idiot but whatever...i know the map well enough to know it's one of the worst ladder maps out there. they only like it because it lets the games go by really fast.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
I dunno if that account is Nitro68 - becauseofyou is the #1 ranked player on Northrend
|
|
|
|
|
haha...
what happens if you join/leave a clan?
you're FUCKED
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Well, no, the clan name appears separate from your ID, it's that way in WC3 (but I've still seen people change their account name to add the tag to their physical id ;P).
Anyway, since you'll be able to make 1 account and 2-3 IDs there's no worries.
|
|
|
On September 10 2009 10:30 D10 wrote:
Why not infinite ID's ?
because people will go on one ID, be a completely fucking retard, then log off an create another where they're not held accountable.
while the Starcraft community largely accepts 'bad manner' as part of the experience, this experience is often a deterrent to new players. By making players accountable for who they are online - even if it's only by community measure - they are more inclined to behave accordingly.
|
oh...cuz i was about to say...you got that human imbalanced advantage thing taken care of...that guy has really high win percentage and mostly plays human, haha.
hmm...wasn't that some kindof tournament game?
wow man northrend and lordaeron are completely different...in northrend ppl mostly play 1v1 and 2v2...in lordaeron 3v3 is most popular, followed by 1v1 then 4v4...
plus in northrend the blademaster isn't the most used orc hero...haha...he's actually third. and your archmage is 43 percent, wowzer
|
On September 10 2009 11:52 Mora wrote:because people will go on one ID, be a completely fucking retard, then log off an create another where they're not held accountable.
i personally don't have a problem with multiple ID'S, as long as the skill level is tied to them as a whole.... in other words , as long as you don't destroy my gaming experience by tricking me with a false skill level, you can act as retarded as you want.
|
On August 22 2009 11:59 BabyRhino wrote:
Jaedong joins the game for the first SC2 MSL Finals...
"All available slots have been closed"
Announcer: "sorry our game is flooded by pubs, will try to ban as many as possible"
i fell over out of my chair and laughed so hard at this comment
|
On September 11 2009 12:56 Twilight Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2009 11:59 BabyRhino wrote:
Jaedong joins the game for the first SC2 MSL Finals...
"All available slots have been closed"
Announcer: "sorry our game is flooded by pubs, will try to ban as many as possible" i fell over out of my chair and laughed so hard at this comment
the sad thing is something like this is bound to happen. what with the bnet servers failing at some point or what not. i know this gets repeat a lot, but no LAN is absolutely absurd.. getting off topic though
i like the idea of hidden rating like in WoW. i know it wasn't exactly perfect but it's better than the iccup system of being able to restart at D and stomp newbs. like if you make a new ID you'd have the hidden rating of your account as a whole and get matched based on that. then your actual ID rating would scale with the account rating and eventually they'd meet up again.
|
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.
Win - Loss doesn't matter in SC2. At all. Only thing that matters is your rank, and how many games you've been playing (which allows more accurate fine-tuning of the rank).
The only reason Win-Loss matters is EGO now. Warcraft 3 has the same system, where the system tries to move you to your "skill cap"- i.e. the point where you start breaking even against opponents. If you start dominating, you move onto better opponents where you begin struggling again. Etc.
Its exactly like the true purpose of ICCUP should be... minus the huge number of players who simply reroll accounts and stomp on noobs when they get to their "skill cap" (i.e. I get to C+ and now I'm running into huge trouble-> wahh, my win-loss sucks-> reroll, yay!)
|
On August 22 2009 08:06 sushiman wrote:
It's just pathetic how people complain about smurfing. If you want to play someone seriously, you should always give it your all, no matter stats, names or whatever. Allowing only one name is stupid beyond belief; what if I suddenly decide my name is no good? What if I want to be part of a small clan on the side of my main account, or just play some teamgames with my friends with a common theme for our names?
I can think of NO valid reason to why they'd limit it to one account per game. None whatsoever.
They just want less and less theft is all. Extremely poor decision by Blizzard. This has got to be retraced.. No way it wont.
|
On September 10 2009 09:14 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Well, no, the clan name appears separate from your ID, it's that way in WC3 (but I've still seen people change their account name to add the tag to their physical id ;P).
Anyway, since you'll be able to make 1 account and 2-3 IDs there's no worries.
Frozen forgive me, I havent really read the past 10 pages here, I tried reading the last 2-3 but couldnt find what I am looking for.. My question:
Has this been confirmed from blizzard? (the 1 account and 2-3 IDs) ?? Not saying its a good or bad idea (I think its a great idea) just wanna know if it was confirmed.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
|
hmm Alright. 3 would be fine with me honestly. That'd give me my main name, a practice name and an off-race name, like the setup I use for ICCup.
Fun. I cant wait til SC2 gets here, even tho I failed to get a beta key in every freakin contest so far =/
|
Well it depends if the 2-3 IDs each have their own level for AMM/ladder OR if it is just a different Name you get... and the Account is what has a particular level/AMM
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 11 2009 17:43 FieryBalrog wrote:
Win - Loss doesn't matter in SC2. At all. Only thing that matters is your rank, and how many games you've been playing (which allows more accurate fine-tuning of the rank).
The only reason Win-Loss matters is EGO now. Warcraft 3 has the same system, where the system tries to move you to your "skill cap"- i.e. the point where you start breaking even against opponents. If you start dominating, you move onto better opponents where you begin struggling again. Etc.
Its exactly like the true purpose of ICCUP should be... minus the huge number of players who simply reroll accounts and stomp on noobs when they get to their "skill cap" (i.e. I get to C+ and now I'm running into huge trouble-> wahh, my win-loss sucks-> reroll, yay!)
That's not even the issue I was talking about if you bothered to read our exchange. My point is that if you are at B, and you need to practice a build that you play at the C- level, there's no convenient way for you to get to that level. You have to join-quit games repeatedly (which also screws with the ladder system anyway because it's handing out free wins), and waste a bunch of time. Win-loss doesn't factor into it at all. The issue is finding your appropriate skill level conveniently if you have some rapid decrease in your appropriate skill level for some reason or another.
|
On September 12 2009 14:42 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2009 17:43 FieryBalrog wrote:
Win - Loss doesn't matter in SC2. At all. Only thing that matters is your rank, and how many games you've been playing (which allows more accurate fine-tuning of the rank).
The only reason Win-Loss matters is EGO now. Warcraft 3 has the same system, where the system tries to move you to your "skill cap"- i.e. the point where you start breaking even against opponents. If you start dominating, you move onto better opponents where you begin struggling again. Etc.
Its exactly like the true purpose of ICCUP should be... minus the huge number of players who simply reroll accounts and stomp on noobs when they get to their "skill cap" (i.e. I get to C+ and now I'm running into huge trouble-> wahh, my win-loss sucks-> reroll, yay!)
That's not even the issue I was talking about if you bothered to read our exchange. My point is that if you are at B, and you need to practice a build that you play at the C- level, there's no convenient way for you to get to that level. You have to join-quit games repeatedly (which also screws with the ladder system anyway because it's handing out free wins), and waste a bunch of time. Win-loss doesn't factor into it at all. The issue is finding your appropriate skill level conveniently if you have some rapid decrease in your appropriate skill level for some reason or another.
If you want to practice a new build, play non-ladder custom games. It might be a little more effort than just creating a new nickname and rolling your way up to the level where you play this new build, but it has the added bonus of preventing you from crushing all those people on the way up from the starting point to C- or whatever, and of preventing people from maliciously stomping newer players.
Seriously, this is a no-brainer. Smurfing is actively harmful to creating a vibrant and competitive online community, and this solution eliminates it with, at worst, very minor collateral damage.
|
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.
Another rebuttal to a argument a while back - loosing against better players smurfing their way up teaches you stuff. Well unless they cheese which is apparently very popular if this thread is any indication: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=101498.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Lol Unentschieden, bad players cheese just as much as good players (actually, they cheese more). Just because he died to cheese doesn't mean he got smurfed -__-
Also, he's a big baby
|
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 am still nervous whether or not all these other accounts will be considered within the ladder. If so, then it is impossible to know your real rank amongst others, if people have multiple accounts above u.
|
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 States12235 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 States12235 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?
|
O September 23 2009 05:05 Excalibur_Z wrote:
snip
yea am a sirlinist i guess you could call it that, but thats how it is when it comes to higher level play.
On September 23 2009 05:23 Matrijs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 01:53 TheYango wrote: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?
But what if i wanted a competitive atmosphere for my current build while still wanting to retain my old account if i wanted to go back and be competitive at that level. Why should we have to choose between having playing our A game and playing for another reason. We want to smurf for the same reason "casuals" don't want us to smurf. We want to be in a more competitive atmosphere for our off race/build/friend/whatever. We want to be able to start a new account to gauge how well our (for the sake of this argument we will say build) build is.
besides if we force lose/ or just regularly lose trying out our new build to be more well rounded we will have to eventually earn our way back up to be competitive with our A game which is simply as good as smurfing to newb bash in the first place.
|
On September 23 2009 05:43 _PulSe_ wrote:yea am a sirlinist i guess you could call it that, but thats how it is when it comes to higher level play. Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 05:23 Matrijs wrote:On September 23 2009 01:53 TheYango wrote: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? But what if i wanted a competitive atmosphere for my current build while still wanting to retain my old account if i wanted to go back and be competitive at that level. Why should we have to choose between having playing our A game and playing for another reason. We want to smurf for the same reason "casuals" don't want us to smurf. We want to be in a more competitive atmosphere for our off race/build/friend/whatever. We want to be able to start a new account to gauge how well our (for the sake of this argument we will say build) build is. besides if we force lose/ or just regularly lose trying out our new build to be more well rounded we will have to eventually earn our way back up to be competitive with our A game which is simply as good as smurfing to newb bash in the first place.
The whole point of ladder is to bring your A game and compete with it. That's why it's called a competitive system. If you don't bring your A game, then you'll start to lose more often and get a lower rank. This is working as intended. All Blizzard is doing is lowering the initial barrier that often stops new players from wanting to compete.
If your wish is to practice an off-build, then play on custom games. It's not like you're the only person in the world who wants to practice. Games will be easy to come by for both casual and competitive players alike.
|
On September 23 2009 06:35 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 05:43 _PulSe_ wrote:O September 23 2009 05:05 Excalibur_Z wrote:
snip yea am a sirlinist i guess you could call it that, but thats how it is when it comes to higher level play. On September 23 2009 05:23 Matrijs wrote:On September 23 2009 01:53 TheYango wrote: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? But what if i wanted a competitive atmosphere for my current build while still wanting to retain my old account if i wanted to go back and be competitive at that level. Why should we have to choose between having playing our A game and playing for another reason. We want to smurf for the same reason "casuals" don't want us to smurf. We want to be in a more competitive atmosphere for our off race/build/friend/whatever. We want to be able to start a new account to gauge how well our (for the sake of this argument we will say build) build is. besides if we force lose/ or just regularly lose trying out our new build to be more well rounded we will have to eventually earn our way back up to be competitive with our A game which is simply as good as smurfing to newb bash in the first place. The whole point of ladder is to bring your A game and compete with it. That's why it's called a competitive system. If you don't bring your A game, then you'll start to lose more often and get a lower rank. This is working as intended. All Blizzard is doing is lowering the initial barrier that often stops new players from wanting to compete. If your wish is to practice an off-build, then play on custom games. It's not like you're the only person in the world who wants to practice. Games will be easy to come by for both casual and competitive players alike.
actually while reading your post i was thinking that you wouldn't be able to be matched against someone of equal skill toward your build if you used the custom matches. I would want someone that was just as good as the build i was using. that way like all the so called casual players want you would be able to play someone of equal skill to have good games.
Well what if blizzard implimented a feature to use the AMM system to set up non ranked games also? if i recall correctly the only time you would use the AMM in WC3 was to use the ladder for random opponents. Well what if they implemented the use of the AMM for non ranked play as well. this would help solve it. I would still want mulitple accounts but im trying to think toward the middle.
What i was thinkin was that you would have essentially 2 ladderish accounts. The first was your official account as monitored by blizzard for their official ladder. The second account was the one you used for the non ladder AMM service. You would use this to be matched up with random opponents. But the twist here is that you could either do one of the following or a mixture of the options:
1. you could simply reset the stats of your off account when ever you want to play the non ranked AMM. it would use the same ELL system as the other one to pair you up but you can reset it when you want to try new stuff from the beggining.
2. You could choose what level of opponent you want to play against. Take iccup for example. Maybe you could choose that you want to play an A/b/c/d player for the next match and it would try to pair it up. That way you can try to gauge where your play is without risking your ladder ranking. This obviously has the downside of dragging the other player to play with someone they may not have wanted to be matched against. They could add a dont care option so that they would be used to fill in spots that the AMM system wouldnt be able to find for people.
3. just make your ELL the same as your regular account and just have it not affect the rankings.
i don't know what exactly to say. maybe you other people out there can have some more imput on it. As of now i still believe it is a step backward to limit people to one account to prevent such trivial things like "newb bashing." but im willing to compromise if its done right.
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 23 2009 05:23 Matrijs wrote:
No. You play custom games outside the ranked automated matchmaker system until you can play that build at your existing rank.
This is iffy at best. people keep resorting to the argument going on faith that there will actually be reasonable opponents of a measurable level that you can find on unranked games. Maybe there will be maybe their won't, but seeing as player skill fluctuation by change of builds is a common thing, accomodating that is not something I'd want to put solely on faith.
On September 23 2009 05:23 Matrijs wrote:
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?
I don't agree with the first paragraph, and I was not implying what you said in the second paragraph. For one, the matchmaking system places you in an appropriate level based on the first ten games you play. Presumably, if a stats-reset were implemented, it would simply reapply the process. You don't newb-bash your way up--by your 4th or 5th game, if you're playing consistently and legitimately trying to work out your build, you're already at your appropriate level. That's less ladder inaccuracy than the freewins you dish out from naturally falling to that level. Hell, I don't even care if the first 10 stats-reset games start you off by putting you against players at your original skill level and bumps you down, instead of starting you at the bottom and bumping you up. But some way to adjust your level of play when you know you're playing worse (whether it's a new build, or a 2-week hiatus from the game) should be available.
The key purpose of the ladder is to arrange players according to their skill level. If a player has to lose their way down to an appropriate level when they change play-styles or come back from a hiatus from the game (because it's not guaranteed that custom games will be a viable way of finding practice games) that undermines that goal, both by creating a lag-time for placing that player at an appropriate level, and by artificially propping up the rank of anyone he faces along the way.
On September 23 2009 06:35 Spawkuring wrote:
The whole point of ladder is to bring your A game and compete with it. That's why it's called a competitive system. If you don't bring your A game, then you'll start to lose more often and get a lower rank. This is working as intended. All Blizzard is doing is lowering the initial barrier that often stops new players from wanting to compete.
If your wish is to practice an off-build, then play on custom games. It's not like you're the only person in the world who wants to practice. Games will be easy to come by for both casual and competitive players alike.
The problem with practicing on non-ladder games is that the lack of incentive from a game inherently makes players not bring their A-game. No one is going to play standard builds in custom games just for the hell of it (because if that's what they wanted to do, why not just do it on ladder and gain rank from it?), and there's no chance in hell you're going to create a game like "Silver League Player looking for Bronze League Zerg PLAY STANDARD" or something absurd like that. It's silly to think people will join games like that and on good faith play their best game.
|
Yeah, BW progamers also practice their new builds against newbies...
Seriously, why do you even think that hardcore practicing build orders will be necessary in SC2? Perhaps, when we get to see the actual game, you'll notice that it is quite easy to off-race and that you don't need to practice too much for your initial build orders?
Besides, is losing a couple games such a drama?
If you fear that there won't be enough practice partners readily available online then join some clan and practice with them, participate in clanwars and a bazillion other non-ranked tournaments which will most likely be available through ESL or something. There are many ways to find a non-ranked match against an opponent of your choosing. Why do you want it all to be automated? Takes out a lot of fun out of it.
|
On September 23 2009 07:36 TheYango wrote:
The problem with practicing on non-ladder games is that the lack of incentive from a game inherently makes players not bring their A-game. No one is going to play standard builds in custom games just for the hell of it (because if that's what they wanted to do, why not just do it on ladder and gain rank from it?), and there's no chance in hell you're going to create a game like "Silver League Player looking for Bronze League Zerg PLAY STANDARD" or something absurd like that. It's silly to think people will join games like that and on good faith play their best game.
This doesn't make sense. Of course people aren't going to do something ridiculous like what you used. The point I'm making is that if people want to play to rank up, they will play on ladder, and practice on custom.
You seem skeptical that people will want to practice on custom, but personally I think that we will be seeing a lot of it than previous games. The reason why people practiced on official ladder games rather than custom games was simply because smurfing was easier to do, and it was often hard to find a custom game since everyone just smurfed instead. Now that smurfing is no longer an option, people who want to practice without screwing their rank will move on to custom games instead. Human beings adapt by nature, and if they can't create their "practice" culture on the ladder, then they'll simply move it somewhere else.
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 23 2009 07:51 Spawkuring wrote:
This doesn't make sense. Of course people aren't going to do something ridiculous like what you used. The point I'm making is that if people want to play to rank up, they will play on ladder, and practice on custom.
The problem is that someone practicing a new build will need the exact specificity that title implies. The game name sounds absurd of course. But how else would you word it in such a way that you don't get people outside the parameters you're looking for joining your game?
On September 23 2009 07:51 Spawkuring wrote:
You seem skeptical that people will want to practice on custom, but personally I think that we will be seeing a lot of it than previous games. The reason why people practiced on official ladder games rather than custom games was simply because smurfing was easier to do, and it was often hard to find a custom game since everyone just smurfed instead. Now that smurfing is no longer an option, people who want to practice without screwing their rank will move on to custom games instead. Human beings adapt by nature, and if they can't create their "practice" culture on the ladder, then they'll simply move it somewhere else.
Ladder ensures a large volume of games, at a fairly consistent game level. Practicing on custom games gives you questionable volume of games, no specificity (you're at the mercy of whoever the hell joins your game), and a lot of white noise (UMS games fill up the custom games list, and people who join games you host just to screw with you). Ladder isn't just a practice enviroment because it's easy to access, but because those features in place actually promote practicing on it, coupled with the guarantee that people will play seriously. Basically, you're saying people should settle for less when they don't need to. A little tweaking with how stats-resetting works could very easily make the ladder a suitable practice environment without screwing up the gaming experience for new players.
A more formal presentation of my ideas, in case you didn't get them from my previous post:
1) Stats-resetting is a useful feature. Due to the fact that people leave and enter the player pool, and the fact that people may dramatically shift their skill level, the ability for a player to change his league position when he is conscious of a noticeable change in his play skill is one that should be available.
2) It is a given that such a feature is prone to abuse. Therefore, there should be some form of system in place to prevent that abuse. Removing the ability to stats-reset at all is just an easy-way-out that leaves a bunch of problems.
3) From what Blizzard has told us, players are initially placed at their appropriate skill levels by a small sample of 10 games across the player pool, so that one can initially be quickly placed at their appropriate level. There is no working up from the bottom. This both saves the player's time, and prevents his advancement from affecting the accuracy of the ladder too much. It also means he plays a minimum of games against players far below his level.
4) A stats-reset feature that uses a similar 10-game sampling could be used to reslot a player who believes his level of play has changed drastically since the last time he played (reasons for such are not limited to simply practicing a new build--a player who got up to silver league, but left the game for two years should not be stuck in silver league when he comes back). This, likewise, limits the number of games a player has to play outside of his appropriate level.
5) The above feature has the obvious flaw that a player looking to abuse it could simply throw a bunch of the test games, to drastically lower his ladder position. To prevent this from happening, any ladder reset should factor in the player's previous skill level--instead of starting the sampling with players at the bottom, it starts sampling with players at the original skill level, and works down from there. Furthermore, multiple resets that happen close to one another should have reduced effect. A player should not have unlimited versatility with his resets. A flat-out cap on the number of resets per day/week/month could work as well, but this runs the risk of the number of resets available not being adequate, depending on the dynamics of the Starcraft II metagame.
The fact that you even brought up rank shows you don't know the issue at hand. It's not an issue of being able to practice without losing rank at all. I don't think anyone who'd actually want this level of practice specificity gives a damn about their rank. A stats-reset is fine. What shouldn't need to happen is a bunch of free-winning to move down the ladder. I don't see how free-winning your way down is any worse than free-winning your way up (via smurfing). You disrupt ladder accuracy equally in either direction.
|
On September 23 2009 04:03 EchOne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2009 05:23 dupsky wrote: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.
the analogy is valid. reason being, learning with or without violence is not the primary point. learning opportunities may not materialize when such "ego" devastation takes place, especially when it becomes a common and repetitive occurrence, just as a outright physical beating will discourage initially. the degree of dissatisfaction may vary with each individual as will each scenario, however the result will remain. i view your argument as nitpicking, rather than a reasonable view to this dilemma.
|
On September 23 2009 08:10 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 07:51 Spawkuring wrote:
This doesn't make sense. Of course people aren't going to do something ridiculous like what you used. The point I'm making is that if people want to play to rank up, they will play on ladder, and practice on custom. The problem is that someone practicing a new build will need the exact specificity that title implies. The game name sounds absurd of course. But how else would you word it in such a way that you don't get people outside the parameters you're looking for joining your game?
I understand that, but how exactly does smurfing solve this? It's not like I'll be able to join a ladder game and say "Play standard please, I'm trying out a new build". The problem you're describing will exist regardless of whether smurfing is allowed or not.
On September 23 2009 08:10 TheYango wrote:
Ladder ensures a large volume of games, at a fairly consistent game level. Practicing on custom games gives you questionable volume of games, no specificity (you're at the mercy of whoever the hell joins your game), and a lot of white noise (UMS games fill up the custom games list, and people who join games you host just to screw with you). Ladder isn't just a practice enviroment because it's easy to access, but because those features in place actually promote practicing on it, coupled with the guarantee that people will play seriously. Basically, you're saying people should settle for less when they don't need to. A little tweaking with how stats-resetting works could very easily make the ladder a suitable practice environment without screwing up the gaming experience for new players.
The fact that you even brought up rank shows you don't know the issue at hand. It's not an issue of being able to practice without losing rank at all. I don't think anyone who'd actually want this level of practice specificity gives a damn about their rank. A stats-reset is fine. What shouldn't need to happen is a bunch of free-winning to move down the ladder. I don't see how free-winning your way down is any worse than free-winning your way up (via smurfing). You disrupt ladder accuracy equally in either direction.
Most of the problems you describe are pretty much being fixed in the new Battle.Net. You say that there's a lot of white noise due to other custom games, but you forget that the new Bnet allows you to filter games at your leisure. You bring up players screwing around, but again that's something of a risk regardless of smurfing being allowed or not. Jerks will be jerks, and there's always an ignore list if necessary.
You also say that people won't care about their rank, but I think that this is false. People don't care about their rank on ladders not because they want to practice, but because the ladders provided are optional for the most part. Nobody cares about the Bnet ladder because it's full of flaws, and it's importance was supplanted by Korean leagues. Korean leagues are the ladders that people actually care about, and that's when your rank and performance are extremely important. Battle.Net is going to be the new e-Sports platform, so I definitely believe that people are going to take their ranks a lot more seriously than before because those with high ranks gain the potential for real-life fame and money. Hell this isn't even speculation; just look at WoW and see how obsessive players get over arena ranking. It's a very big deal over there.
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 23 2009 08:27 Spawkuring wrote:
stuff
Before I respond to what you wrote, please take note of the edit I made to my post. You keep referring back to smurfing, but I'm not making any arguments in favor of smurfing. Rather, I'm saying the ability to reset one's rank should still be in (when it seems to be the case that it isn't). There are ways to make stats-reset hard to abuse, while at the same time useful to those who need to adjust their level of play. I want to make sure we're on the same page before I continue.
|
On September 23 2009 08:10 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 07:51 Spawkuring wrote:
This doesn't make sense. Of course people aren't going to do something ridiculous like what you used. The point I'm making is that if people want to play to rank up, they will play on ladder, and practice on custom. The problem is that someone practicing a new build will need the exact specificity that title implies. The game name sounds absurd of course. But how else would you word it in such a way that you don't get people outside the parameters you're looking for joining your game? Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 07:51 Spawkuring wrote:
You seem skeptical that people will want to practice on custom, but personally I think that we will be seeing a lot of it than previous games. The reason why people practiced on official ladder games rather than custom games was simply because smurfing was easier to do, and it was often hard to find a custom game since everyone just smurfed instead. Now that smurfing is no longer an option, people who want to practice without screwing their rank will move on to custom games instead. Human beings adapt by nature, and if they can't create their "practice" culture on the ladder, then they'll simply move it somewhere else. Ladder ensures a large volume of games, at a fairly consistent game level. Practicing on custom games gives you questionable volume of games, no specificity (you're at the mercy of whoever the hell joins your game), and a lot of white noise (UMS games fill up the custom games list, and people who join games you host just to screw with you). Ladder isn't just a practice enviroment because it's easy to access, but because those features in place actually promote practicing on it, coupled with the guarantee that people will play seriously. Basically, you're saying people should settle for less when they don't need to. A little tweaking with how stats-resetting works could very easily make the ladder a suitable practice environment without screwing up the gaming experience for new players. A more formal presentation of my ideas, in case you didn't get them from my previous post: 1) Stats-resetting is a useful feature. Due to the fact that people leave and enter the player pool, and the fact that people may dramatically shift their skill level, the ability for a player to change his league position when he is conscious of a noticeable change in his play skill is one that should be available. 2) It is a given that such a feature is prone to abuse. Therefore, there should be some form of system in place to prevent that abuse. Removing the ability to stats-reset at all is just an easy-way-out that leaves a bunch of problems. 3) From what Blizzard has told us, players are initially placed at their appropriate skill levels by a small sample of 10 games across the player pool, so that one can initially be quickly placed at their appropriate level. There is no working up from the bottom. This both saves the player's time, and prevents his advancement from affecting the accuracy of the ladder too much. It also means he plays a minimum of games against players far below his level. 4) A stats-reset feature that uses a similar 10-game sampling could be used to reslot a player who believes his level of play has changed drastically since the last time he played (reasons for such are not limited to simply practicing a new build--a player who got up to silver league, but left the game for two years should not be stuck in silver league when he comes back). This, likewise, limits the number of games a player has to play outside of his appropriate level. 5) The above feature has the obvious flaw that a player looking to abuse it could simply throw a bunch of the test games, to drastically lower his ladder position. To prevent this from happening, any ladder reset should factor in the player's previous skill level--instead of starting the sampling with players at the bottom, it starts sampling with players at the original skill level, and works down from there. Furthermore, multiple resets that happen close to one another should have reduced effect. A player should not have unlimited versatility with his resets. A flat-out cap on the number of resets per day/week/month could work as well, but this runs the risk of the number of resets available not being adequate, depending on the dynamics of the Starcraft II metagame. The fact that you even brought up rank shows you don't know the issue at hand. It's not an issue of being able to practice without losing rank at all. I don't think anyone who'd actually want this level of practice specificity gives a damn about their rank. A stats-reset is fine. What shouldn't need to happen is a bunch of free-winning to move down the ladder. I don't see how free-winning your way down is any worse than free-winning your way up (via smurfing). You disrupt ladder accuracy equally in either direction.
It seems you don't quite understand how the ladder works,
the first 10 games aren't the only ones that matter.
Any time you play 10 games, the system will shift you around... now if it is not your First 10 games it might not move you as fast, but I'm pretty sure you could work your way from Pro al the way down to Copper by losing 30-40 games straight (or the other way if you won 30-40 games straight). And if you actually PLAY those games then you get any practice you need While you are falling (also unless it is a trully stupid strategy or a race you are incapable of playing, I doubt you would lose 30-40 games straight).... Play losing games until you figure out how to win with the strategy.... and if it is harder then switch back to your standard strategy and enjoy a few easy wins while you move back up to your appropriate level.
|
On September 23 2009 08:31 TheYango wrote:Before I respond to what you wrote, please take note of the edit I made to my post. You keep referring back to smurfing, but I'm not making any arguments in favor of smurfing. Rather, I'm saying the ability to reset one's rank should still be in (when it seems to be the case that it isn't). There are ways to make stats-reset hard to abuse, while at the same time useful to those who need to adjust their level of play. I want to make sure we're on the same page before I continue.
Ok, I've read you post about stats-resetting. It's certainly an interesting idea that I wouldn't mind having, but I'm kinda curious as to how much you expect people to use it.
One of the main points behind my argument is that players overall are going to be much more serious about their rank and position of the ladder when it comes to SC2. And I feel this way because Bnet is being treated as the new e-Sports platform where high-ranked players will have the opportunity to become pro-gamers and possibly make a career out of it. This isn't the old Bnet where most people couldn't care less about their record, and because of that I can't imagine too many people being willing to throw their rank away when something like pro-gaming status is at stake. Maybe if the ladder is rigged to screw you over permanently if you lose too much, but I find that unlikely.
|
ladder is not for training. It was used for that because blizzard dont put another option . Lets hope they put otherwise just join a clan and train there.
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 23 2009 08:55 Krikkitone wrote:
It seems you don't quite understand how the ladder works,
the first 10 games aren't the only ones that matter.
Any time you play 10 games, the system will shift you around... now if it is not your First 10 games it might not move you as fast, but I'm pretty sure you could work your way from Pro al the way down to Copper by losing 30-40 games straight (or the other way if you won 30-40 games straight). And if you actually PLAY those games then you get any practice you need While you are falling (also unless it is a trully stupid strategy or a race you are incapable of playing, I doubt you would lose 30-40 games straight).... Play losing games until you figure out how to win with the strategy.... and if it is harder then switch back to your standard strategy and enjoy a few easy wins while you move back up to your appropriate level.
The thing is, 30-40 games is a LONG freaking time. It's not an efficient use of time, and it gives people freewins along the way. If it's possible to implement a system that can reduce those 40 games to 10 games with minimal exposure to abuse, why NOT do it?
Also, you still haven't addressed what happens when someone gets to Silver league, leaves the game, and comes back in 2 years. What then? How many games do they have to lose to get back to the absolute beginning?
On September 23 2009 08:58 Spawkuring wrote:
One of the main points behind my argument is that players overall are going to be much more serious about their rank and position of the ladder when it comes to SC2. And I feel this way because Bnet is being treated as the new e-Sports platform where high-ranked players will have the opportunity to become pro-gamers and possibly make a career out of it. This isn't the old Bnet where most people couldn't care less about their record, and because of that I can't imagine too many people being willing to throw their rank away when something like pro-gaming status is at stake. Maybe if the ladder is rigged to screw you over permanently if you lose too much, but I find that unlikely.
I am honestly very skeptical about how much Blizzard will be able to promote Battle.net as the progaming jump-off point, for a couple reasons.
1) The people who control who becomes progamers are the people who control the salaries. It's the SK Telecoms, Samsungs, and Hites that have ultimate control. Kespa is, ultimately a proxy for those organizations (as it basically came together under the control of the corporations involved). Blizzard doesn't have the money to be paying Bisu, Flash, Jaedong, Fantasy, etc. their salaries, and it doesn't have the clout to bring all the potential sponsors into line. If they can't control the money flow, the don't control who gets paid.
2) Similarly, Blizzard's ladder platform is not something that the sponsors have any control over. Effectively, you are expecting sponsors who fund progamers to be taking on faith that the players Blizzard say are good are actually good. If you're putting down the cash for a lineup of players PLUS coaching, PLUS facilities, you're not going to want to just take it on good faith that someone's giving you good product. You'll want your own experts to check them out. This is why a generic ladder system can't supplant a league. A league (particularly an offline league) lets the sponsor get their own people in to actually see who has talent. They can send their Coach Parks and Coach Chos, and Iloveoovs, and actually see the players play, as opposed to having a pile of replays show up in their inbox.
3) The best players don't come out of numbers, and everyone knows this. Bisu and Flash's TLPD ELOs are higher than Jaedong's, but Jaedong's still the player that deserves to be called number 1 and brings in the results to warrant higher salaries. A system where your ladder ELO actually has a direct effect on your progaming status is obviously flawed by similar logic.
|
On September 23 2009 09:00 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 08:55 Krikkitone wrote:
It seems you don't quite understand how the ladder works,
the first 10 games aren't the only ones that matter.
Any time you play 10 games, the system will shift you around... now if it is not your First 10 games it might not move you as fast, but I'm pretty sure you could work your way from Pro al the way down to Copper by losing 30-40 games straight (or the other way if you won 30-40 games straight). And if you actually PLAY those games then you get any practice you need While you are falling (also unless it is a trully stupid strategy or a race you are incapable of playing, I doubt you would lose 30-40 games straight).... Play losing games until you figure out how to win with the strategy.... and if it is harder then switch back to your standard strategy and enjoy a few easy wins while you move back up to your appropriate level. The thing is, 30-40 games is a LONG freaking time. It's not an efficient use of time, and it gives people freewins along the way. If it's possible to implement a system that can reduce those 40 games to 10 games with minimal exposure to abuse, why NOT do it? Also, you still haven't addressed what happens when someone gets to Silver league, leaves the game, and comes back in 2 years. What then? How many games do they have to lose to get back to the absolute beginning?
You Never get back "to the beginning" (unless they have a system where long strings of win/losses make you begin to 'move faster')
I wouldn't be surprised if they set it so that 5 straight wins/losses in a row make you begin to move increasingly fast with additional wins/losses (until the streak is broken then you adjust at normal speed again)
so that way it would never be more that 20 or so games to reach your new 'true level' for the strategy/race you are trying (of course your 'true level' would change over those 20 games, because you would also be practicing the strategy.)
As for being away, they did say that if you had been away for a while then they would do something to reflect that (whether it is automatically dropping you a level or having you start moving faster when you get back in)
So how "fast you move" through the system could be based on
1. Number of games you have played [Confirmed]
2. How long it has been since your last game [Suggested]
3. how many wins/losses you have had in a streak [Sensible... they are having a statistician come up with this]
|
On September 23 2009 08:10 TheYango wrote:
A flat-out cap on the number of resets per day/week/month could work as well, but this runs the risk of the number of resets available not being adequate, depending on the dynamics of the Starcraft II metagame.
I still think it would be a mistake to allow any resets at all, as it's my view that custom games are quite adequate for the sort of "new build practice" you describe. That said, at the very least, a cap on resets would be necessary to prevent abuse. Without such a cap, a smurfer could simply stats reset, lose by quitting out 10 times in a row, then smash his way through the low level ladder. Once he gets to a level where he might actually lose a game, he can just do the same thing over again. The limit should probably be 1 per week maximum, maybe fewer.
|
On September 23 2009 09:00 TheYango wrote:
I am honestly very skeptical about how much Blizzard will be able to promote Battle.net as the progaming jump-off point, for a couple reasons.
1) The people who control who becomes progamers are the people who control the salaries. It's the SK Telecoms, Samsungs, and Hites that have ultimate control. Kespa is, ultimately a proxy for those organizations (as it basically came together under the control of the corporations involved). Blizzard doesn't have the money to be paying Bisu, Flash, Jaedong, Fantasy, etc. their salaries, and it doesn't have the clout to bring all the potential sponsors into line. If they can't control the money flow, the don't control who gets paid.
2) Similarly, Blizzard's ladder platform is not something that the sponsors have any control over. Effectively, you are expecting sponsors who fund progamers to be taking on faith that the players Blizzard say are good are actually good. If you're putting down the cash for a lineup of players PLUS coaching, PLUS facilities, you're not going to want to just take it on good faith that someone's giving you good product. You'll want your own experts to check them out. This is why a generic ladder system can't supplant a league. A league (particularly an offline league) lets the sponsor get their own people in to actually see who has talent. They can send their Coach Parks and Coach Chos, and Iloveoovs, and actually see the players play, as opposed to having a pile of replays show up in their inbox.
3) The best players don't come out of numbers, and everyone knows this. Bisu and Flash's TLPD ELOs are higher than Jaedong's, but Jaedong's still the player that deserves to be called number 1 and brings in the results to warrant higher salaries. A system where your ladder ELO actually has a direct effect on your progaming status is obviously flawed by similar logic.
Funny that you point those issues out since I'm actually in full agreement with them. I'm still in a wait-and-see mode right now, but I do agree with you that making Bnet an e-Sports platform has a high chance of failure simply because of all the third-party efforts needed to make it a reality. Of course, this all depends on exactly how much control Blizzard wants to have over it.
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 23 2009 09:14 Krikkitone wrote:
So how "fast you move" through the system could be based on
1. Number of games you have played [Confirmed]
2. How long it has been since your last game [Suggested]
3. how many wins/losses you have had in a streak [Sensible... they are having a statistician come up with this]
I actually wouldn't mind with an effectively-implemented number 3 in place. It's functionally equivalent to a stats-reset if done well, and is a lot cleaner implementation than reset caps and whatnot.
On September 23 2009 09:16 Matrijs wrote:
I still think it would be a mistake to allow any resets at all, as it's my view that custom games are quite adequate for the sort of "new build practice" you describe. That said, at the very least, a cap on resets would be necessary to prevent abuse. Without such a cap, a smurfer could simply stats reset, lose by quitting out 10 times in a row, then smash his way through the low level ladder. Once he gets to a level where he might actually lose a game, he can just do the same thing over again. The limit should probably be 1 per week maximum, maybe fewer.
Again, new builds aren't the only scenario that someone might need to make use of a stat reset. But after some thought, I think it's likely that 1 per week might be more than enough. The most relevant times at which one might need to stats reset is when a new map enters the map pool or when there's a drastic metagame change (e.g. post-Incruit TvZ). That happens far less often than once a week.
|
On September 23 2009 09:16 Matrijs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 08:10 TheYango wrote:
A flat-out cap on the number of resets per day/week/month could work as well, but this runs the risk of the number of resets available not being adequate, depending on the dynamics of the Starcraft II metagame.
I still think it would be a mistake to allow any resets at all, as it's my view that custom games are quite adequate for the sort of "new build practice" you describe. That said, at the very least, a cap on resets would be necessary to prevent abuse. Without such a cap, a smurfer could simply stats reset, lose by quitting out 10 times in a row, then smash his way through the low level ladder. Once he gets to a level where he might actually lose a game, he can just do the same thing over again. The limit should probably be 1 per week maximum, maybe fewer.
Actually, that is another thing, losing by "quitting out" early might not move you down as fast as a normal loss (its no reflection of your skill, just of how much of a jerk you are)
Ideally, super early quits and back stabbing your team, etc. would count for something entirely different than "ladder level", they should count against 'sportsmanship' so that you get AMM'ed against people with similar sportsmanship as well as similar ladder levels
|
United States12235 Posts
On September 23 2009 09:25 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 09:16 Matrijs wrote:On September 23 2009 08:10 TheYango wrote:
A flat-out cap on the number of resets per day/week/month could work as well, but this runs the risk of the number of resets available not being adequate, depending on the dynamics of the Starcraft II metagame.
I still think it would be a mistake to allow any resets at all, as it's my view that custom games are quite adequate for the sort of "new build practice" you describe. That said, at the very least, a cap on resets would be necessary to prevent abuse. Without such a cap, a smurfer could simply stats reset, lose by quitting out 10 times in a row, then smash his way through the low level ladder. Once he gets to a level where he might actually lose a game, he can just do the same thing over again. The limit should probably be 1 per week maximum, maybe fewer. Actually, that is another thing, losing by "quitting out" early might not move you down as fast as a normal loss (its no reflection of your skill, just of how much of a jerk you are) Ideally, super early quits and back stabbing your team, etc. would count for something entirely different than "ladder level", they should count against 'sportsmanship' so that you get AMM'ed against people with similar sportsmanship as well as similar ladder levels
That is actually a really good idea, and fits right in with their ideals for the new Battle.net. If it was the system itself that determined whether you were a player of good or poor manners, rather than an exploitable "reporting" or "avoid/prefer" user system, that would be great.
EDIT: I think it should only flag you for really egregious infractions though, like killing dozens of your teammates' units intentionally, or a bunch of their structures, or leaving the game very early as you said.
|
On September 23 2009 09:44 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 09:25 Krikkitone wrote:On September 23 2009 09:16 Matrijs wrote:On September 23 2009 08:10 TheYango wrote:
A flat-out cap on the number of resets per day/week/month could work as well, but this runs the risk of the number of resets available not being adequate, depending on the dynamics of the Starcraft II metagame.
I still think it would be a mistake to allow any resets at all, as it's my view that custom games are quite adequate for the sort of "new build practice" you describe. That said, at the very least, a cap on resets would be necessary to prevent abuse. Without such a cap, a smurfer could simply stats reset, lose by quitting out 10 times in a row, then smash his way through the low level ladder. Once he gets to a level where he might actually lose a game, he can just do the same thing over again. The limit should probably be 1 per week maximum, maybe fewer. Actually, that is another thing, losing by "quitting out" early might not move you down as fast as a normal loss (its no reflection of your skill, just of how much of a jerk you are) Ideally, super early quits and back stabbing your team, etc. would count for something entirely different than "ladder level", they should count against 'sportsmanship' so that you get AMM'ed against people with similar sportsmanship as well as similar ladder levels That is actually a really good idea, and fits right in with their ideals for the new Battle.net. If it was the system itself that determined whether you were a player of good or poor manners, rather than an exploitable "reporting" or "avoid/prefer" user system, that would be great. EDIT: I think it should only flag you for really egregious infractions though, like killing dozens of your teammates' units intentionally, or a bunch of their structures, or leaving the game very early as you said.
Well I would "flag" a lot, but have those "flags" (call them Poor Player Points) PPP build up
So in a team game,
Killing team mate units (with something other than Splash/Area spell damage) would earn you bad points.... more if it was early... and more the more units you killed
Killing a teammates structure... same thing, more if early... structures worth more PPP than units for killing
Not moving any units/buildings at the start of the game... not necessarily that you are being a jerk you are just aren't there to help your teammates (more PPP the longer+earlier the nonmovement time is)
Quitting early in the game...(assuming noone else in the game has earned any PPP then you can quit without penalty, because the game is ruined anyways.)
So that even a "good" player may have a few PPP, but those would wear off with 'good' games played. (ie each game played might give you -1 PPP automatically), but attacking your ally's initial CC/nexus/Hatchery might give you 50-100.... attacking your own (if you are in a team game)... might give you 20-50
Killing a teammates unit mid-late game (not counting splash/Psistorm/Nuke) would probably only be 1 PPP, so you could kill about 1 allied unit per game... not doing anything for the first 5-10 sec of the game... probably 1 PPP (if you want a brb, you should have a means of giving your ally's temporary control so they can at least get your resourcing going)
|
oh well looks like i'll have to buy a bunch of copies
|
I think being able to smurf is A LOT less important than having the option of disabling the replay function for all your games (I have no idea if there is such an option). If people can't really review your game, then your strategy is not so easily exposed. Even as smurf your strategy is exposed, learnt, countered within hours. So if someone has seen something cool/interesting/weird you did, then the chances are that soon everyone will know about it no matter if you're smurfing or not.
|
I´m against giving Players ANY direct control over their rank. Practive is no reason to reduce your rank, your actuall skill didn´t decrease. You rank decays naturally if you have to take long "breaks" from ranked matches to perfect your new build or if lacking said build causes you to loose.
I´m all for fast rank adjustments but against "suddenly I´m bad (he he)" buttons.
Blizzard should support matchup options for trainingpurposes - outside of the ladder. The ladder is only for "playing to win".
The "ideal" ladder participant plays on the ladder to the best of his ability. He will usually stick to the stuff that works unitll it stops to do so. If he wants to try new stuff and is conscious enough about his rank not wanting to risk it with the new strategy he will start a custom game with someone from his f-list or uses the (hopefully existent) unranked matchup system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://api.ning.com/files/OWalY4UavzMdoo7egA4FjDmPoLF8SeShdalnvPtJsl8TL*okLiDanusOpXkspkLdGA9n2uRwz6zdZFR3vkxrAerRH**H29pK/smurfs3.jpg)
