EPT[Poll]Multiple Characters for one Account? - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
RouaF
France4120 Posts
| ||
|
emythrel
United Kingdom2599 Posts
We do not buy multiplayer PC games anymore, we buy a licence to play them. Its been this way for a while now, when you buy SC2 you are buying the right to play it for yourself, not for anyone else. With SC2, blizzard decided that one licence would only allow 1 character, this means people will actually play the ladder for real instead of smurfing to smash noobs or whatever, but more over it means you can't buy one licence and then have your entire household play online. Which as far as blizzard is concerned, is little better than theft. From Blizzard's pov you have no right to pass on their work to someone else for free, if they want to play it then they must also pay. Pro's have no problem getting multiple accounts, in fact i would say most people who are likely to ever actually need or want more than one account would have no problem finding the money to do so. I personally have 2 accounts,1 on EU and 1 on US. Was i happy to pay $60 for the US account? No. Do I understand why i can't play on EU and US with one account? No. Would I have paid to have a second account if I didn't need it to play on US? Yes. I think that blizzard have missed out on a trick by not offering a service that allows you to buy extra character slots for perhaps 25% of the full game cost. However, if this system ever were implemented, you wouldn't be able to play at the same time on the two characters, and you would already need to have a copy of SC2 linked to your bnet account (to stop people downloading the game via torrent and then purchasing a character). I played Star Trek Online when it first came out, and if i remember correctly you were limited to only 2-3 characters, but could buy extra character slots. This is the model that I think we will see in the future of multiplayer PC gaming, and I have a sneaky suspicion that this is the direction blizzard is headin with SC2. We may well see a service in the future that allows you to buy extra character slots. | ||
|
B.I.G.
3251 Posts
On January 16 2011 13:16 PraetorianX wrote: I would vote no 1000 times if I could. I hate smurfing and multiple accounts because: A) You never know who's who B) It breeds stat-obsession C) Peope would be less serious about winning and less reliable, especially in random games i totally agree. + if everyone could get multiple account it would double, triple of maybe even quadruple the amount of players in the ladders, although most of them would just be empty accounts. I love the fact that now at least if you see a players account you can be sure that this is it. Its a realistic depiction of this players's skill, rather then in bw where there were a billion accounts out there with just 10 or 20 games. | ||
|
PatouPower
Canada1119 Posts
On January 16 2011 11:51 woozie wrote: The only reason I see to not give us multiple characters is that it would be a lot easier for good players to create smurf accounts. But this still happens - all it requires is to buy another copy of the game. This problem could potentially be twarted by the matchmaker, but maybe not how the matchmaker works in it's current state ... This reason is good enough. Yea, we see a couple of smurfers here and there, but it's a LOT less common than in Starcraft 1 when you could create infinite numbers of accounts. Not everyone is willing to pay 60$ every time he wants to smurf. It's nto rare to see progamers do it, but most of the time it's more to be anonymous when practicing strategies than to reset their stats. If it has to happen one day, the ladder and matchmaking would just become completely meaningless. | ||
|
Tyree
1508 Posts
Aswell as scare new players who are instantly matched with low Diamond players who feel like beating up on new players. You also open the game up for more maphacks, player abuse, griefing players in team games etc Basically you ruin the entire game, only so that people can have more accounts to protect their main race win-loss ratio. It simply is not worth it | ||
|
Allscorpion
United Kingdom319 Posts
On January 16 2011 13:16 PraetorianX wrote: I would vote no 1000 times if I could. I hate smurfing and multiple accounts because: A) You never know who's who B) It breeds stat-obsession C) Peope would be less serious about winning and less reliable, especially in random games 100 % agree with this post. | ||
|
Horsy
Sweden33 Posts
| ||
|
MisterTea
United Kingdom1047 Posts
On January 16 2011 21:14 B.I.G. wrote: i totally agree. + if everyone could get multiple account it would double, triple of maybe even quadruple the amount of players in the ladders, although most of them would just be empty accounts. I love the fact that now at least if you see a players account you can be sure that this is it. Its a realistic depiction of this players's skill, rather then in bw where there were a billion accounts out there with just 10 or 20 games. agree with No I could jsut use a different alias to practice off race and gimicky builds and really not worry about losing at all | ||
|
risk.nuke
Sweden2825 Posts
we get what we want without smurfs | ||
|
GuTTuRaLPanda
Sweden54 Posts
edit: With unlimited characters I guess it would be kind of chaotic but as I have said before with 3 or 4 characters I believe it would work out perfectly. 2nd edit : MeatyOwlLegs wont be known on ladder because no one klnows who he is. It could be Socke, White-Ra or any other good protoss. He is just on top of ladder and that is all. | ||
|
Mikilatov
United States3897 Posts
On January 16 2011 11:57 danl9rm wrote: multiple characters? no. separate ratings per race? maybe. Precisely. I'd really like to be able to play Zerg or Protoss on a seperate rating. | ||
|
Morphs
Netherlands645 Posts
| ||
|
MindRush
Romania916 Posts
Why worry about ruining your stats by playing your off-race? example: Suppose you are platinum/diamond, you play protoss. You play terran as an off-race and drop to gold/platinum. Is this worse than starting from bronze/silver and going through all the cheeses there? You can always play your main race and promote anyways, it's not hard at all. In my case, i have double of the games played custom than the ones played on ladder. Playing off-race as custom does not affect anything. Playing ladder is unimportant and irrelevant. In my case, wanting to practice a certain build order vs a certain race on a certain map is impossible. You never get the expected race and map on ladder, since it's all random. So when you get a nice idea about how to counter a certain race on a certain map, even if you get the race and the map you wanted, you mess something up and then you don't get the chance to try the thing again unless you go through 20 computer-generated ladder match-makes. Clearly not the same as playing vs a clan-mate or RL friend to improve a certain BO, strat, tactic, etc. My vote should be NO or I DON'T CARE, but not knowing which one should I choose, i prefer to not vote at all. | ||
|
Giku
Netherlands368 Posts
On January 16 2011 23:21 MindRush wrote: Ladder is unimportant anyway Why worry about ruining your stats by playing your off-race? example: Suppose you are platinum/diamond, you play protoss. You play terran as an off-race and drop to gold/platinum. Is this worse than starting from bronze/silver and going through all the cheeses there? You can always play your main race and promote anyways, it's not hard at all. In my case, i have double of the games played custom than the ones played on ladder. Playing off-race as custom does not affect anything. Playing ladder is unimportant and irrelevant. In my case, wanting to practice a certain build order vs a certain race on a certain map is impossible. You never get the expected race and map on ladder, since it's all random. So when you get a nice idea about how to counter a certain race on a certain map, even if you get the race and the map you wanted, you mess something up and then you don't get the chance to try the thing again unless you go through 20 computer-generated ladder match-makes. Clearly not the same as playing vs a clan-mate or RL friend to improve a certain BO, strat, tactic, etc. My vote should be NO or I DON'T CARE, but not knowing which one should I choose, i prefer to not vote at all. Problem is, if you drop down to gold from Diamond, playing your main race will suck, because you'll roll over everyone. And if you want to play your main competitively you'll have to promote, making your off-race unplayable. It would take you 100 games, maybe more, to go drop to gold level, then play like 25 games on your off race, and try to promote on your main race. That's hardly fun. | ||
|
Zeon0
Austria2995 Posts
| ||
|
REM.ca
Canada354 Posts
On January 16 2011 19:42 Tyree wrote: Seems like the community has forgotten what a huge problem smurfing used to be. . Or never experienced it. LOOOOOTS of new players playing SC2 right now. I myself voted yes before reading all the well argumented points of the no. Wish I could change my vote. | ||
|
snazbaz
40 Posts
| ||
|
FarbrorAbavna
Sweden4856 Posts
On January 16 2011 11:51 woozie wrote: Hi, So currently there is no option in Battle.net2 to have several characters on just one SC2 account. Why might you need more than one character, you might ask? For me it's mainly that I'm a lot better with my main race then with the other races. So if I would like to start playing a bit of, say, Terran on ladder, I would most likely get matched up with people way over my skill level. So in my case there might be a reason to have another character just for Terran. Also, if you have siblings that want to play trough the game themselves, it would be useful to give them a character of their own, so that they can play their own campaign and have their own ladder stats. The only reason I see to not give us multiple characters is that it would be a lot easier for good players to create smurf accounts. But this still happens - all it requires is to buy another copy of the game. This problem could potentially be twarted by the matchmaker, but maybe not how the matchmaker works in it's current state ... Anyway, I was just wondering what's you opinion about this, and generally research if there's a big demand of this feature or not. The bolded part is called buying a copy of sc2  | ||
|
SoBeDragon
United States192 Posts
I want to try Zerg out, but I can't because I would not be matched against players of my skill level. Sure you can play custom, but you never know what you're gonna get. You could get someone that doesn't challenge you at all, or someone that rofflestomps you. One extra name per account is reasonable. | ||
|
woozie
Sweden53 Posts
Let me start of by saying that I think that having unlimited characters for one account is probably pretty bad. This would make it very easy to create infinitive smurf accounts, and would probably be very bad for the ladder in general, as there will be many more inactive accounts and more accounts in general to keep track of. A few characters, like three, one for each race, might be a lot more balanced. This way it's possible that some people might create a few smurf accounts, but they can't keep it up forever like they can in WC3, for example. When it comes to the "seperate race rankings", I think that might be something that achieves similar results. But one disadvantage of this would be if, say, a diamond level protoss wants to play as a diamond level zerg - then making him work his way up to diamond level zerg on a separate "zerg ladder" might be quite infuriating, but it would on the other hand mean that this zerg player would get matched up with people roughly in his zerg level rather than this protss level of play. If this was a democracy, I guess that something like this would get implemented in the future, as roughly 80% of the people in the poll seem to want this feature. But this ain't a democracy, so I guess that we people that do want this just have to beg Blizz really nicely and hope they might give it to us someday | ||
| ||
