On January 16 2011 11:57 Torpedo.Vegas wrote:
I think a better solution would be to give each account 4 1v1 ladder standings depending on Race used.

actually this is what I was thinking when I voted yes. I would not want multiple accounts just different 1v1 ranks based on race.

Wr3k

Canada2533 Posts

January 16 2011 18:38 GMT

#62

I want people to have to spend 60 bucks every time they smurf.

So no.

ThaZenith

Canada3116 Posts

January 16 2011 19:12 GMT

#63

Either separate 1v1 rankings based on race, or let us make multiple characters.

Why, when you log in, do you have to choose your character if you can only make one? It seems like they designed the interface for multiple characters, but never put that in.

I'd love to try protoss, but I'd just get rolled over for like 20 games in a row before i was fighting nubs like me again.

Stropheum

United States1124 Posts

January 16 2011 19:15 GMT

#64

On January 16 2011 12:00 woozie wrote:

Show nested quote +

That would also be just as good, except in the case of "sibling wants to play a little bit" scenario

Have them play customs or deal with losing a few points lol

ucbEntilZha

United States96 Posts

January 16 2011 19:23 GMT

#65

With Bnet letting players lookup up other player's match history and BO history, smurfing is a necessity if you want to hide new BOs. That is not even considering that some people, such as Day9, want an account where they can play for fun and not be spammed.

universalwill

United States654 Posts

January 16 2011 19:47 GMT

#66

one for each race, but i don't think anything more than that is necessary.

Sein

United States1811 Posts

January 16 2011 20:03 GMT

#67

On January 17 2011 04:23 EnderPR wrote:
With Bnet letting players lookup up other player's match history and BO history, smurfing is a necessity if you want to hide new BOs. That is not even considering that some people, such as Day9, want an account where they can play for fun and not be spammed.

They should just give people an option to disable BO showing.

teh_longinator

Canada725 Posts

January 16 2011 20:10 GMT

#68

I think they should just make a "practice ladder". A league that is random matchings, like the ladder, but provides no laddering system, or at least not an official one. This way people can practice without the need to smurf.

BrickTop

United States37 Posts

January 16 2011 20:12 GMT

#69

They shouldn't implement multiple characters per account because the stat-obsessed 15 year olds can't handle it. They will think that a win ratio below 90% is bad and only happened because they were cheesed/unlucky/imba!!!/etc., and will start new characters all the time.

The main argument by people supporting multiple characters is that they get matched unfairly when they off-race. But think about it... if the ladder is full of smurfs, you get matched unfairly potentially all the time.

Of course different ratings for all the races would solve everyone's problems, but I doubt they implement this simply because it would lead to a lot more complicated interface, and would not be as noob-friendly as they want BNet 2.0 to be.

Torpedo.Vegas

United States1890 Posts

January 16 2011 20:23 GMT

#70

What about a perpetual practice server similar to the 50 practice matches you are given prior to laddering. Depending on how you are ranked ladder (Bronze, Silver, Gold, etc.) You unlock a practice server or group associated with your current rank and below.

If you are Gold, you unlock Silver and Bronze. If you are promoted you get Platinum and below and if you are demoted you drop down to Silver and below. Just an example.

This would still allow for the grief from smurfs unfortunately, but at least it would not count at would allow a player or his/her family to play some worthless games.

Sworn

Canada920 Posts

January 16 2011 20:31 GMT

#71

It's just another Blizzard way to make money which is stupid because the community suffers from it and the game doesn't advance as well as it could.

Torpedo.Vegas

United States1890 Posts

January 16 2011 20:33 GMT

#72

Blizzard is a business. Blizzard is also owned by Activision. This is what they do now.

Ghad

Norway2551 Posts

January 16 2011 20:34 GMT

#73

I would rather not be griefed by pros, thank you. The current system maintains accountability.

OminouS

Sweden1343 Posts

January 16 2011 20:37 GMT

#74

I want cross region play, but I can live without the smurfs.

sushiman

Sweden2691 Posts

January 16 2011 20:48 GMT

#75

I don't see a problem with smurfing and never have. All Blizzard games, hell, basically all online games, except SC2, have it. It allows people to play around, off-race, try new strategies and all around crazy things. I miss creating silly names with my friends with a common theme and play random games for fun.

Torpedo.Vegas

United States1890 Posts

January 16 2011 20:51 GMT

#76

I honestly only take 1v1 games seriously. Team games are random goofy time.

RyanRushia

United States2748 Posts

January 16 2011 21:04 GMT

#77

On January 16 2011 11:57 danl9rm wrote:
multiple characters? no.

separate ratings per race? maybe.

100% agree with this

Torpedo.Vegas

United States1890 Posts

January 16 2011 21:06 GMT

#78

On January 17 2011 06:04 RyanRushia wrote:

Show nested quote +

100% agree with this

Technically, Blizzard already set the precedent by splitting up the 2v2's, 3v3's and 4v4's based on when you were playing with AutoMM teams or a specific set of recurring players. Although, I not super technically savvy, I don't think it should be too difficult to install a similar system for 1v1's with races.

Zooper31

United States5710 Posts

January 16 2011 21:08 GMT

#79

On January 17 2011 05:33 Torpedo.Vegas wrote:
Blizzard is a business. Blizzard is also owned by Activision. This is what they do now.

Blizzard isn't owned by Activision. It was a joint merger. They are one in the same company but their seperate studios all retained any control that they had beforehand, as to not mess up them putting out quality games.

If anything Blizzard owns Activision because they have majority control.

Torpedo.Vegas

United States1890 Posts

January 16 2011 21:11 GMT

#80

On January 17 2011 06:08 Zooper31 wrote:

Show nested quote +

Oh, thanks for the correction. That puts mind at a bit more ease. I was kind of nervous listening to Activision talk about their ideas for new payment plans and what not and then picturing my precious Blizzard games get Guitar-Hero-ified.