|
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.
Poll: Do you want multiple characters for one account?Yes (835) 82% No (142) 14% Don't care (47) 5% 1024 total votes Your vote: Do you want multiple characters for one account? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): Don't care
|
I really don't believe this needs a poll bro, its a feature that should have been in the game from the start, shouldnt need to pay $60 just to get a practice account
|
I think a better solution would be to give each account 4 1v1 ladder standings depending on Race used.
|
multiple characters? no.
separate ratings per race? maybe.
|
On January 16 2011 11:57 Torpedo.Vegas wrote:
I think a better solution would be to give each account 4 1v1 ladder standings depending on Race used.
That is exactly what we need, not multiple accounts
|
Smurfing would be too easy to abuse IMO.
|
On January 16 2011 11:58 Thegilaboy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2011 11:57 Torpedo.Vegas wrote:
I think a better solution would be to give each account 4 1v1 ladder standings depending on Race used. That is exactly what we need, not multiple accounts
That would also be just as good, except in the case of "sibling wants to play a little bit" scenario 
|
On January 16 2011 11:59 Rialz wrote:
Smurfing would be too easy to abuse IMO.
What if blizzard can keep track of what accounts are linked to eachother and then instead of placement matches place them in the same division and then go from ther?
|
The seperate rating for each race would be a good idea, or at least you have different MMR's for them.
|
Smurfing is a time honored and cherished tradition that should be kept alive at all costs!
In all seriousness though there needs to be some sort of convenient medium. Personally though I think the cost of having smurfs smashing folks would be worth it to have practice accounts minus the 60$ price tag. The benefit of having a practice ladder that you don't care about as much and a "for the reals" ladder was invaluable.
|
The only thing I can see wrong with making separate ratings for each race is that given the way things display now, I doubt they would keep the race specific win/loss information separate from the random rating (i.e. winning a game as a random protoss would show up as a win for both random and protoss). If the information was separate then I would love having separate MMR.
|
i think they should allow 5 characters for every account! its stupid that a family with 3 kids should buy the game 3 times so that their children can ladder without ruining the stats of their brothers / sisters.
|
i would want different ratings for each race under the same profile alias
|
Agree with the idea of different ladder standings for each race.
|
On January 16 2011 12:00 woozie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2011 11:58 Thegilaboy wrote: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. That is exactly what we need, not multiple accounts That would also be just as good, except in the case of "sibling wants to play a little bit" scenario
Haha my younger brother tried to log in with his e-mail address, because he used to play battle.net on wc3, and he was pissed when I told him he needed to buy another game
I would love to have multiple accounts ugh, why is 2.0 so simple?
|
On January 16 2011 12:39 GiantEnemyCrab wrote:
i would want different ratings for each race under the same profile alias
If you want this, could you still vote "Yes" - since that's one of the key reasons why you might implement multiple characters or seperate race ratings.
(I dunno how to change to poll to include this option, so just vote "Yes" if you believe that we need somekind of feature that fixes these problems.)
|
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.
|
On January 16 2011 12:35 TehForce wrote:
i think they should allow 5 characters for every account! its stupid that a family with 3 kids should buy the game 3 times so that their children can ladder without ruining the stats of their brothers / sisters.
I disagree.
From Blizzards point of view they are a business and in it to make money. The $60 you pay for a copy of starcraft represents the time and effort spent developing the game. Crucially it also pays for the battlenet servers, maintenance and so on. Your $60 buys you an account on their servers. Want multiple accounts? Pay multiple fees.
I totally understand why Blizzard did this, I can also see why people disagree with it, who doesn't want more for less?
Also, down with noobie bashing smurfs!
|
On January 16 2011 12:50 Deja Thoris wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2011 12:35 TehForce wrote:
i think they should allow 5 characters for every account! its stupid that a family with 3 kids should buy the game 3 times so that their children can ladder without ruining the stats of their brothers / sisters.
I disagree. From Blizzards point of view they are a business and in it to make money. The $60 you pay for a copy of starcraft represents the time and effort spent developing the game. Crucially it also pays for the battlenet servers, maintenance and so on. Your $60 buys you an account on their servers. Want multiple accounts? Pay multiple fees.
Yes, but by buying SC2, you get the right to be on 24/7 if that's what you'd want to do. (assuming your superhuman enough to be deprived of all basic needs like sleep )
If you have multiple characters on one account, they're not improving on that offer, since you can't be logged in multiple times and hence only one character at the same time can be played.
So in all fairness, they shouldn't charge because you'd use your procured account more often, since you paid for 24/7 access already. (in the case of multiple people in the family playing on the acc)
About the smurf accs, personally i wouldn't mind getting my ass handed to me occasionally because of a smurf acc passing by on the ladder. The advantage of being able to make a distinction between a charactor to experiment with and a character to take serious would take away so much stress 
|
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
|
That would be a nice feature but I don't see it happening since there are people out there who have enough money or like starcraft enough to buy a second copy. If they gave this feature they'd be missing out on tens of thousands of sales.
|
We SEA guys already have two accounts 
but on the flip side, there isnt too much happening on the sea servers.
|
1 ladder per race would be awesome. i'd mothership rush every single game <3
|
Chile913 Posts
yes! ofcourse yes. To avoid smurfs, well, make it a limit of 3 accounts per acc, or an option to know the other "characters" of the account.
|
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.
but blizzard doesn't falter to common sense...
|
Having multiple accounts would lead to the ladder being even more meaningless than it already is. People will probably be too concerned with their win/loss ratio on their main account. People would also be more inclined to try really dumb strategies or just do things to piss you off. It would not be best for the game as a whole.
|
On January 16 2011 15:38 AirbladeOrange wrote:
Having multiple accounts would lead to the ladder being even more meaningless than it already is. People will probably be too concerned with their win/loss ratio on their main account. People would also be more inclined to try really dumb strategies or just do things to piss you off. It would not be best for the game as a whole.
Well, without this feature I feel that you're kinda "stuck" into one or two main races that you can be competitive with; if you start playing your worst race, you'll probably not have a very good time since you're completely outmatched. Griefers/smurfers could be a problem, but couldn't you just report those people and have their entire account suspended for a while?
|
On January 16 2011 12:50 Deja Thoris wrote:
From Blizzards point of view they are a business and in it to make money. The $60 you pay for a copy of starcraft represents the time and effort spent developing the game. Crucially it also pays for the battlenet servers, maintenance and so on. Your $60 buys you an account on their servers. Want multiple accounts? Pay multiple fees!
This pretty much. While I agree it would be nice to have different rankings for each race, why would Blizzard want to do that when currently you pay for the same feature.
|
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
Exactly, having lived the WC3 smurf festival first hand this is such a superior experience. In WC3 you basically had total anonymity. This lead to tons of griefing, team killing and a ridiculous amount of smurfing. Many probably don't remember when the ladder matched by level only. A decent player could get to level 10,11,12 fairly easy with only a hand full of losses. They could manage record of 90-5 or some crazy shit like that, It was ridiculous. Then right when the smurf actually started to face some real competition they would make a new account and repeat the cycle. It was a new player nightmare.
Then Blizzard came out with the patch 1.15 in WC3 that radically changed the matchmaking system, it matched by skill (ELL, expected ladder level). Oh my $%^^& god, the crying and whining was out of control. In fact it reminds me a lot of this current topic. Eventually people came to accept matchmaking systems that match by skill (like true-skill and SC2), not level or stats that can be easily manipulated.
Which is what brings me to another point. When you bought SC2, YOU bought it so YOU can play it. A single copy of SC2 does not entitle you to multiple accounts for your brother, brothers friends and a few extra accounts you can smuf on... Your family and friends can come over the play the campaign, but if they want to get serious about online they need their own account... I see nothing wrong with this and it make good business sense. I hope Blizzard makes a $%^& ton of money from SC2 so they will continue to make amazing games in the future.
The point about needing other accounts to "practice" your off race is just pure BS. If you are serious about practicing playing people far below your skill level is not good practice, just play the computer until you get the mechanics down. Secondly a diamond Zerg is not going to play Terran at a bronze or silver level. Maybe platinum, maybe, and will probably be back at diamond level within 40 games. And even if you did lose 40 games in a row, who gives a shit (hell I have lost 10 in a row with my main), only stat whores will care. So just suck it up and just take the losses, that's the price you pay for changing races.
If the losses bothers you that bad skip a few meals at in-and-out and buy a second copy of SC2. You want to smurf, you got to pay.
The ONLY thing I prefer over WC3 vs SC2 is on WC3 I could play on any server. Playing a few games on the Asian or European server was kind of fun even with the horrible lag. But other then that the one account per CD is the best solution to combat, smurfing, griefing and all the other shit people do when they have complete anonymity and no accountability.
|
Which is what brings me to another point. When you bought SC2, YOU bought it so YOU can play it. A single copy of SC2 does not entitle you to multiple accounts for your brother, brothers friends and a few extra accounts you can smuf on...
Is there anything wrong with perhaps not being able to buy a game copy of every game for everyone in a family? If they wanted to play together they have to purchase several copies ofc, but it there's only one person playing at one time, I see nothing wrong with it.
the point about needing other accounts to "practice" your off race is just pure BS. If you are serious about practicing playing people far below your skill level is not good practice, just play the computer until you get the mechanics down.
I might have the basics of playing another race down, but I don't want to get matched up with people who are really good with their races when I'm far from as good with my main ... It's all about finding a even match, because is it ever fun to have to lose 40 games in order to find a level where your off race is evenly matched? Isn't this the kind of stuff that discourages playing races you're worse with? Besides, when I feel like playing my main race I have to own people way below my skill level in order to get to diamond, or whatever my skill level happens to be.
Now if there's someone that would repeatedly create new chars in order to smurf, couldn't Blizzard just suspend that account for some time? That way smurfers would get punished for griefing.
|
|
|
I definatley wouyld like multiple accounts, and I can really see how it would effect both the pros and us mere mortals for good.
For the pros, they can have their practice charas wich noone knows who they are, so that they wont give away any BOs/strats before tourneys, and then they can have their real characters when they play in the tourneys/do official matches or whatever.
For the normal user I simply cant see why smurfing/account sharing would be a problem.
If your a family with 3 kids I think it's absoluteley unreasonable that you should buy 1 copy of EVERY SINGLE GAME except for Starcraft 2. It's not fucking cheap either.
If someone could explain to me why Smurf accounts are bad please do so. Just as Day9 often speaks of it's important just to play for the fun and test out new stuiff that you wouldn'd do if you were super seriuos and competitive every game.
|
Seems like the community has forgotten what a huge problem smurfing used to be.
I like the idea of different ranks on the 3 races and random, that would be fine, but several accounts? No, while 5% of the playerbase will use it for good, the other 95% will use it to beat up on Bronze players day and night.
|
On January 16 2011 19:42 Tyree wrote:
Seems like the community has forgotten what a huge problem smurfing used to be.
I like the idea of different ranks on the 3 races and random, that would be fine, but several accounts? No, while 5% of the playerbase will use it for good, the other 95% will use it to beat up on Bronze players day and night.
Not if you have a limited amount of characters.
Say 3?
|
3 characters would be appropriate. to eliminate smurfing / etc. they could be linked to each other in the profile maybe.~
|
if this were allowed, i think nobody will really try in ladder anymore, and it will be rampant with obnoxious cheese builds since everyones trying to pad their record with their new account.
|
On January 16 2011 19:47 b0urne420 wrote:
if this were allowed, i think nobody will really try in ladder anymore, and it will be rampant with obnoxious cheese builds since everyones trying to pad their record with their new account.
Why do you think that this is? It's still the same people laddering, just not the same names.
What will happen is rather tourney results will matter more then ladder stats.
|
On January 16 2011 11:51 woozie wrote:
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.
Let me get this straight. You're saying that you need more characters for things like letting your sibling play --- and the fact that you have to buy another copy of the game for your sibling is too hard/inconvenient that multiple characters is justified. Yet at the same time, you said effectively that smurfers will smurf because 'all it requires' (implying its easy) is to buy another copy of the game --- and that this should mitigate against the (allegedly) only reason to not have multiple characters.
So which is it? Is it hard or is it easy to buy another copy of the game? Sounds like to me if it's too hard for you to buy another game for yourself, then it's too hard for most smurfers to buy another game. Hence one character per account really does limit smurfing a big deal.
Look at both sides of the coin fairly.
Now, as some other people have said in this thread, a better solution would be to have separate stats/MMR for different races. But then again, how about those people who want to race switch after they've already worked their way up and want to keep playing the same opponents? You want to force them to have to work their way up again?
Personally, I would suggest a middle ground. It costs something less than a full copy to buy more characters --- dear enough to deter mass smurfing, but cheap enough that you can afford it if you want to play another race.
|
I'd be down with having one extra account on the profile which by looking at its profile page links you to the original one so smurfing can be detected. This account could be a "practice" account of sort.
|
Again, can someone explain what is bad with smurfing?
|
Smurfing caused problems on the wc3 ladder because a lot of good players kept recreating accounts and casual gamers were fed up being owned by people starting over (you could see tons of whine on the forums, apparently blizzard listened to them). So it's obvious blizzard won't do the same "mistake" again, but what we do need is rankings per race... Anyway it seems obvious blizzard won't do anything about it simply because it would mean less people buying the game twice. Money money money...
|
i think what most people seem to have missed is a massive shift in the way games are delivered to us in this modrern age.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
You dont just break the ladder in 1000's of pieces you also make the matchmaking system useless, you destroy the divisions aswell and pretty much the entire setup of the game.
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
|
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.
|
if you were allowed to make just two or three characters on an account i don't think there would be any problems with people smurfing. The reason you can only have one is probably because they want to prevent people from sharing accounts so that everybody will buy the game
|
On January 16 2011 21:14 B.I.G. wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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
|
or they just fix matchmaking for all the races so you can be 1v1 gold with zerg and plat with terran etc.
we get what we want without smurfs
|
I believe most of you are wrong. Not knowing who the people playing are would lead to much LESS obsession about ladder stats. MeatyOwlLegs wont be known because he is on top of the ladder, Naniwa will be known because he is performing well in tournaments however.
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.
|
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.
|
Voted no as well. The idea of smurfing ruins the ladder. It definitely should be possible to play the off-races, playing 2v2/3v3/4v4/customs do supply that possibility..
|
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.
|
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.
|
i dont want multiple characters for one account, but i want different leagues for each race
|
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.
|
I've always assumed in my mind that when they bring out the expansions you add them to your bnet account and then you'll have an extra profile per expansion on your account.
|
I voted yes with the setup being that you have one profile per race but the same name across all profiles. One profile is your main race and the other profiles have a marker that says it's a practice profile or whatever blizz wants to call it. The markers for what profiles are for practice and which one is your main can be moved around. This marker is displayed on bnet as well as ingame. Still only one account.
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 
|
/agree
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.
|
After reading some of the counter-arguments to why having multiple characters for one account is bad, I kan say that I don't feel as strongly for my opinion anymore, but I still feel that having this feature - in some iteration or another - would be great.
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
|
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.
|
I want people to have to spend 60 bucks every time they smurf.
So no.
|
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.
|
On January 16 2011 12:00 woozie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2011 11:58 Thegilaboy wrote: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. That is exactly what we need, not multiple accounts 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
|
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.
|
one for each race, but i don't think anything more than that is necessary.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Blizzard is a business. Blizzard is also owned by Activision. This is what they do now.
|
I would rather not be griefed by pros, thank you. The current system maintains accountability.
|
I want cross region play, but I can live without the smurfs.
|
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.
|
I honestly only take 1v1 games seriously. Team games are random goofy time.
|
On January 16 2011 11:57 danl9rm wrote:
multiple characters? no.
separate ratings per race? maybe.
100% agree with this
|
On January 17 2011 06:04 RyanRushia wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2011 11:57 danl9rm wrote:
multiple characters? no.
separate ratings per race? maybe. 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.
|
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.
|
On January 17 2011 06:08 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On January 16 2011 12:43 FinestHour wrote:
Agree with the idea of different ladder standings for each race.
I think this is definitely a good idea. I for one would like to learn more than my main race, but I'm reluctant to do so based on the fact that I don't want my ladder ranking to tank while I get better with a different race.
|
no guys Blizzard is owned by Activision.
Vivendi merged with Activision. The company that they formed is called Activision-Blizzard.
Blizzard (the developers) are a company under that.
|
On January 16 2011 11:57 danl9rm wrote:
multiple characters? no.
separate ratings per race? maybe.
This. It wouldn't be fair for bronzies to have to deal with diamond players who have a smurf account to steamroll noobs. You should also be able to selectively hide any account information. That way pros can hide build orders, ranking, or anything else.
|
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.
This is the best solution IMO. Unfortunately this will increase smurfing as well, but not nearly as bad as extra accounts will.
The smurfing was absolutely terrible in BW, not to mention people weren't as accountable for their actions. Now, if you do some stupid shit like hack or harass people, you can't hide behind different accounts. Thank god blizz tied personal info to our accounts, it prevents BNet from falling apart into the cesspool of pornographic maps, hacking, and smurfing that the original did (EDIT: oxford comma FTW).
|
if it results in being able to smurf ( aside from buying another sc2) = no
cant believe people saying they dont mind smurfinge.. That is what destroyed sc1 and wc3 online play for me. No way to play people of my skill lvl and to grow consistently better.
|
4 1v1 ladder standings depending on Race used is the most reasonable but reason is not an argument when considering profit. so it's not likely to happen.
|
I think that there is many smart ways that this could be handled.
For example you could have a system where you had one account, but you had access to maybe 4 "characters". These could be for different races, practice, or whatnot. All of these would share account name and then have unique character names, ie. Flash.Main (whatever in not trying to be creative here) for one character and maybe Flash.Alt for number two. All the characters shared MMR and they all linked to the same account. This way there basically is no smurfing, if you wanted to smurf for real you would still have to buy another copy. BUT it would allow people to practice their off-race or whatever. Like when in WoW, people would exploit changing teams to get points and high ranking, but then blizzard made it so that your MMR stayed even though you changed teams, this is basically the same idea.
It would mean however that people would prolly not care much about their off-characters and hence the ladder experience would be somewhat lower - for some. But since a character name would always be followed by a account "name" so to say, people would still know who they where playing. So say i was in plat and i meet a player called LiquidTLO.Wazzaduude959 i could clearly see that it was in fact just TLO smurfing my plat ass hardcore, but then i won and because TLO's MMR is so high i would intantly be promoted to masters and get an invite for GSl (seeded to semis ofcourse) - nah im just kidding but seriously this would be a system were everybody kinda wins and can have characters for all kinds of stuff. Like also team clans, you could have names like BeyOND.teamTwix for playing with your friends also called teamTwix? yeah? yeah? cool right?! :D
but not to worry, i think someday blizzard will implement something like this, but it will prolly cost us the green. for reals!
anyways!
|
I hate smurfing so I don't mind the one character per account. I don't think it will be implemented in the future anyway, seems like this is how Blizzard wants to roll.
|
Yes I think its general consciencious that people should have a different ladder for each race. Furthermore I have no idea why blizzard won't let us see our win ratios for every matchup. I was looking forward to seeing that since they released the profiles in the beta but I have received no word on it yet
|
I agree i wanna septate ladder rating for other races D:
|
Multiple accounts and full region switching/access should have been in the game since the beginning.
|
On January 17 2011 06:23 danielsan wrote:
4 1v1 ladder standings depending on Race used is the most reasonable but reason is not an argument when considering profit. so it's not likely to happen.
4 1v1 ladder standings is hardly reasonable, would lead to a lot of account sharing and smurfing.
A single additional standing for offracing would be more than enough tbh, and I doubt we'll ever see that.
|
"I actually prefer paying 60 dollars for a new account," he exclaimed with great sarcasm.
|
Smurfing pretty much ruined WC3 ladder for casual players, but yeah seperate race rankings shoulda been in the game.
|
i do want multiple chars per acc, but i can see why blizz wants to go against this. but i really DO WANT clan tag support -_-
|
Smurfs don't really ruin the experience for me and I really enjoy having multiple accounts, so I voted yes. There is probably a much better way to deal with smurfs anyway, its not like each account starts at 0 and works its way up like on iccup, smurfs will have to tank their new accounts to stomp the bottom level players anyway.
|
i voted yes.
this is not the same thing as smurfing you guys. smurfing is to be able to have infinity accounts to constantly reset your ranking when you are not satisfied with your record. keyword, INFINITY.
if you have multiple characters yet the amount you can make is limited, and if you can look at someone's account and see all of the names they have registered under the account, because you are in the end still using 1 master account, at most you can only smurf as many times as you have characters, and then you'll be back to square 1, having to pay money for more smurfs. there will be a sudden influx of players playing higher than their placement ranking if this was implemented but it will come to balance out and there will be nothing like wc3.
MMR is also very strong at ranking your skill, you will be matched against players your level in no time even if your visible ranking doesn't reflect that. you can see it at work if you have ever watched someone like Huk stream when they get a new account on a different server, where they're like rank 1500 diamond but playing korean top 200 players who are ranked 3k+.
alternatively to separate characters, and i think it's a better solution which has been suggested many times, is to have MMR be dependant on the race you're playing on that account. it removes the anonymity but still gives you the proper MMR you would have if you are off-racing, since you are not as good with your off-race and MMR should reflect that.
|
I vote yes so long as your limited to 3 accounts [1 a race].
Keeps smurfing to a minimum, and helps people get more practice with different races without lowering their MMR.
|
3 accounts times how many million sales is still a 2:1 smurf to actual account ratio.
|
|
|
Would be cool, but doubt this is gonna happen as it will cost blizz money without any real reward.
|
No, if you want to stomp noobs that badly pay 60 dollars or do random custom games.
|
Blizz probably gonna add a $10 additional account fee. Mark my words!
|
On January 16 2011 13:16 PraetorianX wrote:
I would vote no 1000 times if I could. I hate smurfing and multiple accounts because:
...
B) It breeds stat-obsession
C) Peope would be less serious about winning and less reliable, especially in random games
Achievements?
|
On January 17 2011 09:22 refraxion wrote:
Blizz probably gonna add a $10 additional account fee. Mark my words!
That wouldn't be too surprising. But I think it would probably higher then $10.00 once they get everything in line what with all the Battle.net 2.0 functionality, map pools, balancing, etc. Not to mention the future 2 expansions. I think extra accounts are probably going to be closer to $15.00-$20.00.
They are planning to charge for future name changes after you use your initial free one after all.
|
Either 4 accs or 4 different 1v1 rankings and im happy. My p is worse than my z but its still diamond so i cant even practice it in customs because i only get horrible opponents.
|
On January 17 2011 09:23 MichaelJLowell wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2011 13:16 PraetorianX wrote:
I would vote no 1000 times if I could. I hate smurfing and multiple accounts because:
...
B) It breeds stat-obsession
C) Peope would be less serious about winning and less reliable, especially in random games Achievements?
a new account would probably start with 0 achievements. it would be like someone just bought the game new, but without actually buying it... at least that's what i think it would be like.
anyways, i like the idea of having multiple accounts. maybe 3 max. my siblings are casual players who just want to play from time to time, so they wouldnt shell out $60 just for a few games.
|
Maybe one for each race and random would be nice?
|
On January 17 2011 10:10 29 fps wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 09:23 MichaelJLowell wrote:On January 16 2011 13:16 PraetorianX wrote:
I would vote no 1000 times if I could. I hate smurfing and multiple accounts because:
...
B) It breeds stat-obsession
C) Peope would be less serious about winning and less reliable, especially in random games Achievements? a new account would probably start with 0 achievements. it would be like someone just bought the game new, but without actually buying it... at least that's what i think it would be like.
I was actually referring to the fact that Achievements are a manifestation of stat-obsession and people being "less serious about winning and less reliable". Unless I missed the point of your post. o.o
|
I think we should be happy Blizzard doesn't make us pay a monthly fee for playing on Battlenet...
It would be totaly awesome to have diferent lader ratings for each race tho.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
