EPT
Is the Blizzard Ladder Hurting SC2? - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
GenesisX
Canada4267 Posts
| ||
|
RandomAccount#49059
United States2140 Posts
| ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 Posts
2.0 is worth it if for nothing else we have a good match making system. And yes, it is good even if you can't understand it. The best are at the top, the worst are at the bottom, what else do you want? Can we just be satisfied for a few moments? It's not like they threw their hands in the air after release and said they were done. It's an ongoing project. I'm not blindly in favor of every move blizzard makes, but give them some time - geez, they have, after all, given us several of the best games ever made. I'm done  | ||
|
FrostOtter
United States537 Posts
On February 13 2011 02:16 stormtemplar wrote: Without the ability to name things like "Masters only metalopolis" custom games are really irritating. Would that be like the totally-always-honestly-named "noob only" custom games from BW? | ||
|
Spekulatius
Germany2413 Posts
On February 12 2011 19:26 Arisen wrote: "Maps," my friend continued on "aren't even the only problem. Why can't I choose to play on metalopolis, instead of getting a random map? Why Can't I choose to play vs. Terran instead of vs a random race? In Brood War, I'd spend entire practice sessions on specific maps on a specific matchup I was having trouble with, and it lead to interesting play. You couldn't do the exact same thing ZvT on python as you could ZvT on Fighting Spirit. The way the ladder itself was structured led to more interesting plays based on maps. Do you know how hard it is to develop a specific style on a specific map in star2 without a lot of very good practice partners? You have to pray that map/match up comes up on the random ladder to get some practice." Once again interesting. I tend to agree with this sentiment. Why do I have to play vs a random opp race on a random map. I think you'd see allot more interesting strategies pumped out of your average player if there was a better system, like the iCCup ladder in place. First of all, I agree with all the issues that I deleted in the OP. I think it represents the feeling a lot of players, including me. But this one point seems problematic to me. The ladder is constructed to allow the best players to advance. If a laddering player could now choose to play one single matchup or on one single map, he could probably advance fast because he figured out all the details of this matchup or this certain map. Problem is this doesn't make him an overall better player in comparison to those with the same rank. It seems kind of exploitive if there were the possibility for a player to focus on such a small part of the game and advancing on the ladder on such low effort only. A player who only plays one map and one matchup might get an insane win ratio there, but he's not really a better player than those who earned their advance in the ladder by playing all matchups and maps. Those are the ones who might have a chance in tournaments and those are the ones who are considered the better players and are therefore awarded with a higher ranking. I read the op well, and i know that is not the intention of your friend. He doesn't want to be able to exploit a thumbs up on maps and matchups to abuse this system to advance on the ladder; he rather wants specific training and improvement. And I agree that playing a lot of games in a row on a certain map in a certain matchup helps your play a lot. But you gotta keep in mind that if this possibility is allowed to all players to have ranked games on one map and in one matchup, this fact is unfair to those who play all matchups and maps. It is one of those changes that could mean an improvement to most players but would open it to abuse by a few. My advice is: just get a practice partner and play games with him. That's what Day9 often advises and it makes sense. Custom games aren't ranked (which is a good thing considering the possible abuse), but you can practice as much as u want. | ||
|
KillerPlague
United States1386 Posts
-Second if you're going to abbreviate StarCraft 2, it's SC2, NOT star2. That's just gay. -Plenty of other blatant spelling, puntuation, and grammar errors makes this look less professional :/ -Learn effect vs. affect etc, how to properly compare contrast, how to create an arguments not solely based on a discussion revolving around just you and your friends, etc. ------------------Actual Problems With Your Thread----------------------- The conversation lasted all of 5 or so minutes, but it has really go me to thinking as to the longevity of sc2. -Five minutes of two noobs is not a good balance discussion. Discussing SC2's longevity is nearly pointless. We're all still playing after a year, there are two more expansions to be released, and contrary to what you think Blizzard does in fact listen! Allot of people (me included) feel that the unwillingness to allow custom maps into the map pool for the ladder is making the laddering experience allot less fun. -Blizzard DOES have plans to adopt community maps in the future. How annoying would it be if we had maps switched on us every two weeks! 3-4 months per map rotation is a good thing. -ICCUP was a joke in that you only had to know one map with one race to be good. No citation needed. It may have had more maps to choose from, but was far from having current/new maps. + Show Spoiler + On February 13 2011 02:40 Antoine wrote: People always say no new maps is the problem compared to ICCUP, but ICCUP maps are majority old. like, really old. Python, HBR, and FS are 3 of the most played maps, if not the most played, and all are 18+ months old, and python is 4 years old. Why can't I choose to play on metalopolis, instead of getting a random map? Why Can't I choose to play vs. Terran instead of vs a random race? + Show Spoiler + On February 13 2011 02:24 Spekulatius wrote: First of all, I agree with all the issues that I deleted in the OP. I think it represents the feeling a lot of players, including me. But this one point seems problematic to me. The ladder is constructed to allow the best players to advance. If a laddering player could now choose to play one single matchup or on one single map, he could probably advance fast because he figured out all the details of this matchup or this certain map. Problem is this doesn't make him an overall better player in comparison to those with the same rank. It seems kind of exploitive if there were the possibility for a player to focus on such a small part of the game and advancing on the ladder on such low effort only. A player who only plays one map and one matchup might get an insane win ratio there, but he's not really a better player than those who earned their advance in the ladder by playing all matchups and maps. Those are the ones who might have a chance in tournaments and those are the ones who are considered the better players and are therefore awarded with a higher ranking. I read the op well, and i know that is not the intention of your friend. He doesn't want to be able to exploit a thumbs up on maps and matchups to abuse this system to advance on the ladder; he rather wants specific training and improvement. And I agree that playing a lot of games in a row on a certain map in a certain matchup helps your play a lot. But you gotta keep in mind that if this possibility is allowed to all players to have ranked games on one map and in one matchup, this fact is unfair to those who play all matchups and maps. It is one of those changes that could mean an improvement to most players but would open it to abuse by a few. My advice is: just get a practice partner and play games with him. That's what Day9 often advises and it makes sense. Custom games aren't ranked (which is a good thing considering the possible abuse), but you can practice as much as u want. -If you want to practice a single map vs a single race you CAN play custom maps! TA-DA!! Doing this in ladder however would be too abusable. Also by Blizzard so called forcing you to play more than one map, it allows Blizzard to test for balance issues across a wide range of maps. (Imagine if we only played on 2-3 maps and got all our statistics off those maps) If I'm a competitive player vying for top 200 and I want to play around with protoss on the ladder, I'm risking allot of points...Suck it up and get my ass handed to me a bunch? -Yes, if you are a competitive player you probably will have multiple accounts. You mistake your friends casual play as someone who competes in tournaments for a living. Before I went inactive I was in the top 200 fairly often, and I never felt the need for a smurf account, except for when I was bored. (Imagine how ridiculous it would be if we have one person with 10 different accounts in the same ladder! Too much clutter.) I really didn't want to commit this much time to one article, but I think a lot of people will jump on your bandwagon without properly thinking trough the arguments. :[ edited with other peoples points to make arguments more sound/explained. | ||
|
MichaelJLowell
United States610 Posts
On February 13 2011 02:17 danl9rm wrote: For those of you that think bnet2.0 is a downgrade, I'd like for you to go play some BW on bnet again. Look, I don't mean to be rude, but has anyone on this forum ever played Warcraft III and used its iteration of Battle.net, or does everybody just pretend it never existed? 2.0 may not be all rainbows and butterflies yet, but it certainly is an upgrade, and programming the new battlenet will take some time. You can't write this stuff over night. You're correct that they can't write this stuff overnight. According to news articles written during the development of Starcraft II, the game was delayed approximately nine months so Battle.net could be overhauled. Blizzard attributed the delay to needing additional time to produce the new version of Battle.net, its online gaming service. Though few details are available on the new portal, Activision CEO Bobby Kotick likened it to Xbox Live in its combination of gameplay and social networking features. "Over the past couple of weeks, it has become clear that it will take longer than expected to prepare the new Battle.net for the launch of the game," said Blizzard in a statement. Added the company: "The upgraded Battle.net is an integral part of the StarCraft II experience and will be an essential part of all of our games moving forward. This extra development time will be critical to help us realize our vision for the service." That's why people are disappointed with the service. They didn't delay the game so the service could be superior to anything out there. They delayed it so all future Blizzard games could be routed through the service a la World of Warcraft. We were also told that the service would be so good that we wouldn't want LAN. “While this was a difficult decision for us, we felt that moving away from LAN play and directing players to our upgraded Battle.net service was the best option to ensure a quality multiplayer experience with StarCraft II and safeguard against piracy.” – Bob Colyaco, Blizzard Public Relations Representative I just turned this into a Battle.net 2.0 pissing match, didn't I? Dammit so much. | ||
Antoine
United States7481 Posts
| ||
|
DusTerr
2520 Posts
On February 12 2011 19:51 Resolve wrote: I think the ladder is fine (except maybe the map-pool), it would be lame for it to be called a "ladder" if you can choose your match-up and map... people would just choose the match-up they're best at and the maps most advantageous to their race if they wanted to gain points in the ladder If you want to practice a specific matchup on a specific map, there is the custom game... BUT blizzard should allow you to name your game instead of this crap we have now... Yes, if we could name custom game. I'd even be a lot happier if they added a league qualifier 1v1 lost temple - diamond. I think people forget what b.net 1.0 really was like. 2.0 is far from perfect, but I being able to queue up a game and get matched up against similarly skilled opponents is awesome! Regarding multiple accounts, I bet within the next 6 months we can add accounts - for a price... | ||
|
PhiliBiRD
United States2643 Posts
| ||
|
Arisen
United States2382 Posts
On February 13 2011 02:36 KillerPlague wrote: -First off it's a lot*. -Second if you're going to abbreviate StarCraft 2, it's SC2, NOT star2. That's just gay. -Plenty of other blatant spelling, puntuation, and grammar errors makes this look less professional :/ -Learn effect vs. affect etc, how to properly compare contrast, how to create an arguments not solely based on a discussion revolving around just you and your friends, etc. ------------------Actual Problems With Your Thread----------------------- -Five minutes of two noobs is not a good balance discussion. Discussing SC2's longevity is nearly pointless. We're all still playing after a year, there are two more expansions to be released, and contrary to what you think Blizzard does in fact listen! -Blizzard DOES have plans to adopt community maps in the future. How annoying would it be if we had maps switched on us every two weeks! 3-4 months per map rotation is a good thing. -ICCUP was a joke in that you only had to know one map with one race to be good. No citation needed. + Show Spoiler + On February 13 2011 02:24 Spekulatius wrote: First of all, I agree with all the issues that I deleted in the OP. I think it represents the feeling a lot of players, including me. But this one point seems problematic to me. The ladder is constructed to allow the best players to advance. If a laddering player could now choose to play one single matchup or on one single map, he could probably advance fast because he figured out all the details of this matchup or this certain map. Problem is this doesn't make him an overall better player in comparison to those with the same rank. It seems kind of exploitive if there were the possibility for a player to focus on such a small part of the game and advancing on the ladder on such low effort only. A player who only plays one map and one matchup might get an insane win ratio there, but he's not really a better player than those who earned their advance in the ladder by playing all matchups and maps. Those are the ones who might have a chance in tournaments and those are the ones who are considered the better players and are therefore awarded with a higher ranking. I read the op well, and i know that is not the intention of your friend. He doesn't want to be able to exploit a thumbs up on maps and matchups to abuse this system to advance on the ladder; he rather wants specific training and improvement. And I agree that playing a lot of games in a row on a certain map in a certain matchup helps your play a lot. But you gotta keep in mind that if this possibility is allowed to all players to have ranked games on one map and in one matchup, this fact is unfair to those who play all matchups and maps. It is one of those changes that could mean an improvement to most players but would open it to abuse by a few. My advice is: just get a practice partner and play games with him. That's what Day9 often advises and it makes sense. Custom games aren't ranked (which is a good thing considering the possible abuse), but you can practice as much as u want. -If you want to practice a single map vs a single race you CAN play custom maps! TA-DA!! Doing this in ladder however would be too abusable. Also by Blizzard so called forcing you to play more than one map, it allows Blizzard to test for balance issues across a wide range of maps. (Imagine if we only played on 2-3 maps and got all our statistics off those maps) -Yes, if you are a competitive player you probably will have multiple accounts. You mistake your friends casual play as someone who competes in tournaments for a living. Before I went inactive I was in the top 200 fairly often, and I never felt the need for a smurf account, except for when I was bored. (Imagine how ridiculous it would be if we have one person with 10 different accounts in the same ladder! Too much clutter.) I really didn't want to commit this much time to one article, but I think a lot of people will jump on your bandwagon without properly thinking trough the arguments. :[ edited with other peoples points to make arguments more sound/explained. umadbro? Seriously though, you're a tool. You don't know my friend, or me, or any facets of our play, yet your write us off as though you do. Also, really, "that's gay?" I hear gaybashing is cool. But seriously, though, allot of people call it star2 (IdrA off the top of my head), I have no idea what your problem is. So many of your presumptions are flawed. I wasn't making an argument, I was posting a conversation between my friend and I that I found interesting, and posted it to see the communities opinion. If iCCup was such a joke, why are many pros today dissatisfied with bnet 2.0 vs. the iccup ladder then? There are so many points in your post that are just flawed/crass rantings of a douchenozzel who gets off on trying to appear intellectually superior to someone else over the internet. Thanks to all the constructive posts, though. | ||
|
RandomAccount#49059
United States2140 Posts
| ||
|
lilky
United States131 Posts
this game is NOT young. on the contrary, it is 13 years old. starcraft TWO is exactly what the name sugguests: A SEQUEL 12 years of "testing" with starcraft 1 should have given blizzard ample time to customize sc2 to its full potential | ||
|
vizir
Finland154 Posts
.. sounds impossible | ||
|
raf3776
United States1904 Posts
On February 13 2011 03:02 lilky wrote: ppl need to stop using the excuse "the game is still young" this game is NOT young. on the contrary, it is 13 years old. starcraft TWO is exactly what the name sugguests: A SEQUEL 12 years of "testing" with starcraft 1 should have given blizzard ample time to customize sc2 to its full potential No Starcraft 2 =/= starcraft 1. | ||
|
Arisen
United States2382 Posts
On February 13 2011 02:50 DusTerr wrote: I think people forget what b.net 1.0 really was like. 2.0 is far from perfect, but I being able to queue up a game and get matched up against similarly skilled opponents is awesome! I think allot of people are making this argument, but, no one is contesting bnet 1.0 is better than bnet 2.0. There are several people, however, that feel that iCCup was superior to bnet 2.0, as bnet basically died when custom ladders (I believe PGtour was the first) hit the scene. These ladders similarly allowed play against people of the same relative skill level, while allowing custom maps, and several other features (custom games were much easier, lobbies, etc. I just feel that blizzard should have been building on the successes of iCCup, not the failures of Bnet 1.0. | ||
|
KillerPlague
United States1386 Posts
On February 13 2011 02:56 Arisen wrote: umadbro? Seriously though, you're a tool. You don't know my friend, or me, or any facets of our play, yet your write us off as though you do. Also, really, "that's gay?" I hear gaybashing is cool. But seriously, though, allot of people call it star2 (IdrA off the top of my head), I have no idea what your problem is. So many of your presumptions are flawed. I wasn't making an argument, I was posting a conversation between my friend and I that I found interesting, and posted it to see the communities opinion. If iCCup was such a joke, why are many pros today dissatisfied with bnet 2.0 vs. the iccup ladder then? There are so many points in your post that are just flawed/crass rantings of a douchenozzel who gets off on trying to appear intellectually superior to someone else over the internet. Thanks to all the constructive posts, though. bahaha point well taken. perhaps i do get overly annoyed at minor details. iccup was actually a great design, but SC2's ladder makes it near obsolete in that it automatically finds someone near your level, quickly, and displays your ranking in a fairly obvious manner. A-D system wasn't bad, but it seemed as though 90% of the population was C- or below... As far as problem I have, I just highly disagree with you and your friends opinion. Everyone is quick to criticize, but nobody is willing to offer any better suggestions. Pointing to a ICCUP and saying "do that instead" isn't exactly constructive /signed douchenozzel | ||
|
clickrush
Switzerland3257 Posts
| ||
|
idonthinksobro
3138 Posts
On February 12 2011 19:26 Arisen wrote: 1. "Maps," my friend continued on "aren't even the only problem. Why can't I choose to play on metalopolis, instead of getting a random map? Why Can't I choose to play vs. Terran instead of vs a random race? In Brood War, I'd spend entire practice sessions on specific maps on a specific matchup I was having trouble with, and it lead to interesting play. You couldn't do the exact same thing ZvT on python as you could ZvT on Fighting Spirit. The way the ladder itself was structured led to more interesting plays based on maps. Do you know how hard it is to develop a specific style on a specific map in star2 without a lot of very good practice partners? You have to pray that map/match up comes up on the random ladder to get some practice." 2. "Why," he exclaimed "can I only have one account per game? If I'm a competitive player vying for top 200 and I want to play around with protoss on the ladder, I'm risking allot of points. Why can't I just have a separate account? What if I'm having allot of problems with a specific map, and I'm really struggling with zvp on one of these new maps that blizz puts out, what am I going to do? Suck it up and get my ass handed to me a bunch? In BW I'd reset my account, play against some D players and really find some timings that I could abuse at those higher levels without being worried all the time about all the stuff those better players could do to me." 3. "It seems," he concluded, "they're just trying to create a situation where they can ream the game for as much money as it's worth. People will clamor for LAN latency for months, then they'll come along and say 'good news, we'll be releasing a patch that implements LAN latency...for a fee'. They'll start selling map packs, or whatever they can get away with. I hope I'm wrong, but that just seems the direction things are going, and if that's the case, I'm fine with going back to BW." 1. everyone avoided mirrors, everyone only played 1 of the featured maps. That was quite horrible in BW, it was so incredible hard to find someone willing to ZvZ on iccup. Also it was quite hard to get a game on monthy hall because noone like that map. I think its a good Idea that you cannot choose your matchup also its a good idea that you cant only play on specific maps/mu - just think about terrans only playing vs Z on steppes of war. 2. Another huge ass problem in BW were smurf accounts, think back if you ever player BW D tournaments were a lot harder than C-C+ tournaments were just because you could make an account within a minute. Yes i agree that there should be 3 different rankings for each race one (random counts to the race u spawned as) so you can easily offrace without your top position endangered. 3. Blizzard wont ever charge anything for lan latency or map packs - thats not like blizzard works. They rather charge horrific amounts for an expansion pack to give you 1 more units in multiplayer. | ||
|
Arisen
United States2382 Posts
On February 13 2011 03:26 clickrush wrote: guys if you really think that the ICCup system is better than bnet2.0 then freaking make one for sc2. complaining doesnt get you anywhere. That's against the TOS, so it's illegal to create one. iCCup was as well, but blizzard had long since stopped caring about BW, so they never pursued legal recourse. | ||
| ||
