|
Blazinghand
United States25563 Posts
On September 02 2011 02:43 1.01 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 02:13 brutality wrote:On September 02 2011 00:54 1.01 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 02 2011 00:09 Darclite wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2011 20:35 Yiska wrote:On September 01 2011 20:30 Double Letters wrote:On September 01 2011 20:04 Highways wrote:This is why I don't ladder anymore. So much time and effort required for going backwards and losing all your ladder points. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cQ87h.jpg) tip: you would have lost whether or not the little -9 appeared next to the loss, so creating an unranked ladder won't help Do you lack the cognitive skills to understand the concept people have been describing here, are you trolling or do you just want to be a jackass? +10000 I said I don't like getting 6 pooled and losing if I scout it last, and even if I scout it and hold it, which I said I don't have a problem with, I don't enjoy the game. His response was that it is easy to hold 6 pools. Nice job not reading. I don't know if you can understand this, but it is ENTIRELY YOUR FAULT if you scout a 6 pool last. You claim that you are competent, but the fact that you can SCOUT A 6 POOL LAST IS CLEARLY A SIGN OF INCOMPETENCE. This is exactly what I meant when I said that 6 pools separate good from bad players. A good player knows that the possibility of a 6 pool exists on 4 player maps, and will compensate by sending out an additional scout probe if the first probe does not scout the Zerg player at close ground positions. Keep in mind that sending the second probe is only required on maps such as Shakuras Plateau, Typhon Peaks, Tal'Darim, etc., due to a lack of close air positions. A bad player, such as yourself, would never send out the additional probe. Instead, you would tag it as poor game design. It's not an autolose unless you make the conscious decision to allow it to be so. Like I said, you can continue to play by your own little rules, and pretend that you are anywhere near good at the game. Yes, I could be #1 in my little world too. It's players who believe they are godlike while being the direct opposite that fear ladder. They cannot grasp how it is possible for them to win versus certain strategies (ie, DT rush --we all know that guy who thinks DTs are overpowered) , so they believe must be a fault of the game itself. In response, they create their own set of rules to play with their equally incompetent "practice" partners. They win these games, but are unable to win ladder games. Rather than seeing that it's these "special rules" that allow them to win games, they falsely lead themselves to believe that the ladder system is flawed, and that they really are godlike players. Ladder fear is a direct product of incompetence and the inability to recognize such, rather than flaws in the actual game's design. Players, such as myself, who accept that losses are a result of their own failures, do not fear ladder. I don't lose because of imbalances, or poor game design. I lose because I made it so. Knowing this, I can continue to grow as a player. Ladder is the medium for this growth, so there is no reason I should fear it. edit: grammar I'm just gonna talk about what you said right here while flaming with incorrect knowledge to why that player was bad for not sending a second probe. "This is exactly what I meant when I said that 6 pools separate good from bad players. A good player knows that the possibility of a 6 pool exists on 4 player maps, and will compensate by sending out an additional scout probe if the first probe does not scout the Zerg player at close ground positions. Keep in mind that sending the second probe is only required on maps such as Shakuras Plateau, Typhon Peaks, Tal'Darim, etc., due to a lack of close air positions." Shak is a 3 player map. only bad players, prob like yourself, would scout close pos shak lol Sending a second probe is a bad thing b/c you lose plenty of minerals for the start of the game, which is huge. 6 pool is not that common on 4 player maps. sure i see it from time to time, and it sucks when you scout it last, but in general it's not worth losing that extra money when chances are they're not 6 pooling you... how many games in gsl, mlg, or any other league have we seen pros send 2nd probes for fear of being 6 pooled? nill Ofc I am a bad player, but unlike others, I realize that. Thank you for pointing out that close position spawns is not possible on Shakuras; it was not something I had noticed with only ~220 1v1s under my belt. The reason that pros do not send a send probe is because the metagame does not typically involve 6 pooling. This is a risk-reward scenario where the reward outweighs the risks. However, this is precisely the reason why players cannot blame the game if a 6 pool does occur. They are taking a risk, and of course there are consequences associated with said risk. For example, if I were to 15 nexus in every PvP, would I be in any position to complain or cry about how "ladder is ruining my fun"? No. I would be taking a risk, and then paying for it. This would not be a result of skewed game design or ladder flaws. This is equivalent to being 6 pooled on a 4 player map: you risk losing if you choose to not play safely. Similarly, players are in no position to complain about 6 pools "being no fun and ruining their ladder experience" in this case. The only reason why we don't see 15 nexus in PvP, but frequently see players skimp on the second scouting probe is simply that the current metagame allows for the reward of skipping the second scout to be much greater than the risk, as opposed to the tremendously high risk associated with 15 nexing in PvP.
So, wait-- is it possible to hold a 6 pool if you scout it last? I play Terran so I really don't get how PvZ works, not playing either of the races. 6 pool lets you make 3 pairs of zerglings, right? couldn't you hold that using probe drill to stall for a zealot or something? Or if it's not scouted, does it always win? How about a full wall-off?
|
On September 02 2011 02:47 1.01 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 02:31 ExO_ wrote:On September 02 2011 00:54 1.01 wrote:On September 02 2011 00:09 Darclite wrote:On September 01 2011 20:35 Yiska wrote:On September 01 2011 20:30 Double Letters wrote:On September 01 2011 20:04 Highways wrote:This is why I don't ladder anymore. So much time and effort required for going backwards and losing all your ladder points. tip: you would have lost whether or not the little -9 appeared next to the loss, so creating an unranked ladder won't help Do you lack the cognitive skills to understand the concept people have been describing here, are you trolling or do you just want to be a jackass? +10000 I said I don't like getting 6 pooled and losing if I scout it last, and even if I scout it and hold it, which I said I don't have a problem with, I don't enjoy the game. His response was that it is easy to hold 6 pools. Nice job not reading. I don't know if you can understand this, but it is ENTIRELY YOUR FAULT if you scout a 6 pool last. You claim that you are competent, but the fact that you can SCOUT A 6 POOL LAST IS CLEARLY A SIGN OF INCOMPETENCE. This is exactly what I meant when I said that 6 pools separate good from bad players. A good player knows that the possibility of a 6 pool exists on 4 player maps, and will compensate by sending out an additional scout probe if the first probe does not scout the Zerg player at close ground positions. Keep in mind that sending the second probe is only required on maps such as Shakuras Plateau, Typhon Peaks, Tal'Darim, etc., due to a lack of close air positions. A bad player, such as yourself, would never send out the additional probe. Instead, you would tag it as poor game design. It's not an autolose unless you make the conscious decision to allow it to be so. Like I said, you can continue to play by your own little rules, and pretend that you are anywhere near good at the game. Yes, I could be #1 in my little world too. It's players who believe they are godlike while being the direct opposite that fear ladder. They cannot grasp how it is possible for them to win versus certain strategies (ie, DT rush --we all know that guy who thinks DTs are overpowered) , so they believe must be a fault of the game itself. In response, they create their own set of rules to play with their equally incompetent "practice" partners. They win these games, but are unable to win ladder games. Rather than seeing that it's these "special rules" that allow them to win games, they falsely lead themselves to believe that the ladder system is flawed, and that they really are godlike players. Ladder fear is a direct product of incompetence and the inability to recognize such, rather than flaws in the actual game's design. Players, such as myself, who accept that losses are a result of their own failures, do not fear ladder. I don't lose because of imbalances, or poor game design. I lose because I made it so. Knowing this, I can continue to grow as a player. Ladder is the medium for this growth, so there is no reason I should fear it. edit: grammar Referring to the sending out 2 scouts: the above is spoken truly like somebody who watches streams and games, but has never played at a pro level. And there is a reason for practice partners that goes beyond "creating false rules to make you feel like you're a good player blah blah blah". If you do not see the value in them, then it's hardly worth arguing with you. If you understood the context in which I used the term "practice partner", as well as the reasoning behind the scare quotes surrounding the term "practice", you would not have posted such a blatantly ignorant section regarding the true purpose of practice partners. Allow me to refer you my post, and I would like you to read carefully the quotation that I reference: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=227113¤tpage=26#506
Yes, obviously nothing can be gained from a game where your opponent doesn't marine/scv all-in. Those are the only games that matter.
|
On September 02 2011 02:48 blagoonga123 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 02:41 icJuice wrote:
So Tortoise, you're ok with less people playing/watching SC2 as long as the scared players quit? ladder fear doesn't affect people who want to watch sc2. A lot of people stop playing and start watching when they realize how impossibly high the skill ceiling is.
Perhaps you are right, I after all do fall under that category. I personally feel like a lot of people stop watching when they stop playing, but that is purely speculative.
|
On September 02 2011 02:47 1.01 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 02:31 ExO_ wrote:On September 02 2011 00:54 1.01 wrote:On September 02 2011 00:09 Darclite wrote:On September 01 2011 20:35 Yiska wrote:On September 01 2011 20:30 Double Letters wrote:On September 01 2011 20:04 Highways wrote:This is why I don't ladder anymore. So much time and effort required for going backwards and losing all your ladder points. tip: you would have lost whether or not the little -9 appeared next to the loss, so creating an unranked ladder won't help Do you lack the cognitive skills to understand the concept people have been describing here, are you trolling or do you just want to be a jackass? +10000 I said I don't like getting 6 pooled and losing if I scout it last, and even if I scout it and hold it, which I said I don't have a problem with, I don't enjoy the game. His response was that it is easy to hold 6 pools. Nice job not reading. I don't know if you can understand this, but it is ENTIRELY YOUR FAULT if you scout a 6 pool last. You claim that you are competent, but the fact that you can SCOUT A 6 POOL LAST IS CLEARLY A SIGN OF INCOMPETENCE. This is exactly what I meant when I said that 6 pools separate good from bad players. A good player knows that the possibility of a 6 pool exists on 4 player maps, and will compensate by sending out an additional scout probe if the first probe does not scout the Zerg player at close ground positions. Keep in mind that sending the second probe is only required on maps such as Shakuras Plateau, Typhon Peaks, Tal'Darim, etc., due to a lack of close air positions. A bad player, such as yourself, would never send out the additional probe. Instead, you would tag it as poor game design. It's not an autolose unless you make the conscious decision to allow it to be so. Like I said, you can continue to play by your own little rules, and pretend that you are anywhere near good at the game. Yes, I could be #1 in my little world too. It's players who believe they are godlike while being the direct opposite that fear ladder. They cannot grasp how it is possible for them to win versus certain strategies (ie, DT rush --we all know that guy who thinks DTs are overpowered) , so they believe must be a fault of the game itself. In response, they create their own set of rules to play with their equally incompetent "practice" partners. They win these games, but are unable to win ladder games. Rather than seeing that it's these "special rules" that allow them to win games, they falsely lead themselves to believe that the ladder system is flawed, and that they really are godlike players. Ladder fear is a direct product of incompetence and the inability to recognize such, rather than flaws in the actual game's design. Players, such as myself, who accept that losses are a result of their own failures, do not fear ladder. I don't lose because of imbalances, or poor game design. I lose because I made it so. Knowing this, I can continue to grow as a player. Ladder is the medium for this growth, so there is no reason I should fear it. edit: grammar Referring to the sending out 2 scouts: the above is spoken truly like somebody who watches streams and games, but has never played at a pro level. And there is a reason for practice partners that goes beyond "creating false rules to make you feel like you're a good player blah blah blah". If you do not see the value in them, then it's hardly worth arguing with you. If you understood the context in which I used the term "practice partner", as well as the reasoning behind the scare quotes surrounding the term "practice", you would not have posted such a blatantly ignorant section regarding the true purpose of practice partners. Allow me to refer you my post, and I would like you to read carefully the quotation that I reference: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=227113¤tpage=26#506The 2 scouts method is a way to reduce the risk of scouting a 6 pool last to 0%. This is the problem the poster had. He wanted to take risks, but did not want to face the consequences. I simply pointed out a solution to this problem, which is to not take risks if one cannot handle the various outcomes.
Perhaps it is you who does not understand what I am saying. Who are you to say what his practice partners do or do not do, and furthermore how do you know what kinds of "special rules" are created. You are acting as an elitist: "I am better than you and therefore know what you are doing is wrong and trashy." Ladder can be used as practice, but I would say playing with friends (provided they are around your level) can be much more beneficial than playing on the ladder. Again, who are you to say his practice with friends is trash. Is not getting cheesed really gonna hurt you THAT much (not like it's hard to practice against cheese if you want to).
And risks are a major part of starcraft 2. Sending out 2 scouting probes just to eliminate the possibility of 1 strategy, sounds to me like a bigger risk than scouting at 9 and getting caught off guard because he was doing one strategy in the one position u didn't scout.
|
Blazinghand
United States25563 Posts
On September 02 2011 02:55 icJuice wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 02:48 blagoonga123 wrote:On September 02 2011 02:41 icJuice wrote:
So Tortoise, you're ok with less people playing/watching SC2 as long as the scared players quit? ladder fear doesn't affect people who want to watch sc2. A lot of people stop playing and start watching when they realize how impossibly high the skill ceiling is. Perhaps you are right, I after all do fall under that category. I personally feel like a lot of people stop watching when they stop playing, but that is purely speculative.
I spent most of Season 2 watching tons of streams and all the GSLs, even though I barely played (though I did my placement match for the season, with a few team games as well) any 1v1 laddering. I think there are a lot of people who play casually and watch professionally, so to speak. Sc2 is pretty fun to watch :D
|
wow, still alot of people missing the point. Maybe I'll word it a bit differently.
First off, not everyone who ladders fear of being demoted. I've played against 2 of my master friend 1v1 in customs and have yet to lost to them once when my current ranking is plat, yet I play 2s/3s/4s much more than 1v1. Simply because 2s/3s/4s are viewed as noncompetitive environment, so I enjoy playing them more so than 1v1. By adding a unranked 1v1 ladder, it will also create the same illusion as being noncompetitive just as 2s/3s/4s. Not alot of gamers like to play in competitive environment.
Your opinion is WORTHLESS. The "I have no fear of being ranked therefore other must not have it too" attitude and criticizing those that do will not stop it from existing. When you put ranking and values into things that are meant to be fun, it drains all the fun out of it for alot of people. Simple fact
your opinion is worthless because you are looking at a prospect of someone who prefers to play in a competitive environment and be ranked. An additional unranked ladder would help grab casual interests and it would not affect the competitive environment of ladder. Nobody needs your opinion on how they should live their life or what you believe is right, people have different feelings as to what constitute gaming. For me and many others, we don't need to have values and labels into everything that we do in order to have fun. If anything, fun things mostly happen when you can enjoy the game and not have to worry about ranks.
|
Just in regards to the 6 pool thing:
I have a very economy focussed start where I chrono on 10, chrono and gateway on 13, gas on 14, chrono and pylon on 16, core on 18. The late core is great against a 6 pool because you can just drop a second gateway instead. Also, it is easy to scout it on most maps. On Shattered temple send a probe to the edge of your base on 14 and you will see his overlord if he is close by air. On shakuras you can scout both spawns in time. On taldarim his lings have to run so far that I dont really care whether I scout it or not.
|
I remember playing chess on early versions of the internet chess server. The matching system there was very simple. First, everyone has a rating and the rating is public. Second, if you want to find a game you put in a "seek" command with the parameters you want to play in. If another player who fits those parameters then they can accept and play you.
I wonder why Blizzard doesn't do this? It would be cool if I could go on bnet and do a "seek zvt diamond unrated" and then if a diamond t wants to accept my seek they can do so. If none want to play me then I guess I have to do a broader search.
|
I may be in the minority but I watch Starcraft content much more than I actually I play. I'd say I spend 2-3 hours a day watching SOTG, OneMoreGame, EG/IPL/MLG/whatever tournament, but play maybe 2-3 hours a week. I enjoy watching high level games but acknowledge I'll never be good at this game.
I enjoy it at a casual level as I'm sure many enjoy other sports at a casual level. Many people can find joy in Starcraft without the need to excel at it.
That being said, I hate playing 1v1 ladder. It stresses me the hell out. I could try to play out hundreds of games in the hopes of overcoming my stress, but why? I already enjoy the spectator aspect and I love custom maps and casual team games.
|
On September 02 2011 00:09 Darclite wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2011 20:35 Yiska wrote:On September 01 2011 20:30 Double Letters wrote:On September 01 2011 20:04 Highways wrote:This is why I don't ladder anymore. So much time and effort required for going backwards and losing all your ladder points. tip: you would have lost whether or not the little -9 appeared next to the loss, so creating an unranked ladder won't help Do you lack the cognitive skills to understand the concept people have been describing here, are you trolling or do you just want to be a jackass? +10000 I said I don't like getting 6 pooled and losing if I scout it last, and even if I scout it and hold it, which I said I don't have a problem with, I don't enjoy the game. His response was that it is easy to hold 6 pools. Nice job not reading.
my point is that the problem you're talking about cannot be solved by anyone but you
no change could be made to the ladder to accommodate you, and this thread has mostly been about proposing changes to the ladder
in fact, your problem isn't even ladder fear, you just don't enjoy the ladder. so why even post in this topic? sorry to be rude but if there's a problem here, people like you are clouding the issue
to everyone else arguing for a second unranked ladder, how would this ladder differ besides the lack of the tiny little icon telling you what league you are, and the lack of the tiny number telling you what rank you are? i'll answer for you and tell you that any good design will have no difference. so why not just play the regular ladder and not look at the league/rank?
if there is a big enough difference to actually warrant a second ladder, why are you ignoring the harm that will come to the game from half the player base never playing the other half, due to the separate ladders?
|
On September 02 2011 06:27 Double Letters wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 00:09 Darclite wrote:On September 01 2011 20:35 Yiska wrote:On September 01 2011 20:30 Double Letters wrote:On September 01 2011 20:04 Highways wrote:This is why I don't ladder anymore. So much time and effort required for going backwards and losing all your ladder points. tip: you would have lost whether or not the little -9 appeared next to the loss, so creating an unranked ladder won't help Do you lack the cognitive skills to understand the concept people have been describing here, are you trolling or do you just want to be a jackass? +10000 I said I don't like getting 6 pooled and losing if I scout it last, and even if I scout it and hold it, which I said I don't have a problem with, I don't enjoy the game. His response was that it is easy to hold 6 pools. Nice job not reading. my point is that the problem you're talking about cannot be solved by anyone but youno change could be made to the ladder to accommodate you, and this thread has mostly been about proposing changes to the ladder in fact, your problem isn't even ladder fear, you just don't enjoy the ladder. so why even post in this topic? sorry to be rude but if there's a problem here, people like you are clouding the issue to everyone else arguing for a second unranked ladder, how would this ladder differ besides the lack of the tiny little icon telling you what league you are, and the lack of the tiny number telling you what rank you are? i'll answer for you and tell you that any good design will have no difference. so why not just play the regular ladder and not look at the league/rank? if there is a big enough difference to actually warrant a second ladder, why are you ignoring the harm that will come to the game from half the player base never playing the other half, due to the separate ladders?
Fair enough.
People, from what I see, want an option to have unranked games for when they want to practice a certain matchup, practice on a certain map, try something different, test a build, or offrace. This would allow them to practice something new without inevitably losing a few games in the process.
|
On September 02 2011 06:27 Double Letters wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 00:09 Darclite wrote:On September 01 2011 20:35 Yiska wrote:On September 01 2011 20:30 Double Letters wrote:On September 01 2011 20:04 Highways wrote:This is why I don't ladder anymore. So much time and effort required for going backwards and losing all your ladder points. tip: you would have lost whether or not the little -9 appeared next to the loss, so creating an unranked ladder won't help Do you lack the cognitive skills to understand the concept people have been describing here, are you trolling or do you just want to be a jackass? +10000 I said I don't like getting 6 pooled and losing if I scout it last, and even if I scout it and hold it, which I said I don't have a problem with, I don't enjoy the game. His response was that it is easy to hold 6 pools. Nice job not reading. to everyone else arguing for a second unranked ladder, how would this ladder differ besides the lack of the tiny little icon telling you what league you are, and the lack of the tiny number telling you what rank you are? i'll answer for you and tell you that any good design will have no difference. so why not just play the regular ladder and not look at the league/rank? if there is a big enough difference to actually warrant a second ladder, why are you ignoring the harm that will come to the game from half the player base never playing the other half, due to the separate ladders?
I've already answered this multiple times, but you seem to be intentionally ignoring them. There is a big difference in atmosphere in something as simple as not having that number and league next to your name.
|
Blazinghand
United States25563 Posts
On September 02 2011 07:04 Darclite wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 06:27 Double Letters wrote:On September 02 2011 00:09 Darclite wrote:On September 01 2011 20:35 Yiska wrote:On September 01 2011 20:30 Double Letters wrote:On September 01 2011 20:04 Highways wrote:This is why I don't ladder anymore. So much time and effort required for going backwards and losing all your ladder points. tip: you would have lost whether or not the little -9 appeared next to the loss, so creating an unranked ladder won't help Do you lack the cognitive skills to understand the concept people have been describing here, are you trolling or do you just want to be a jackass? +10000 I said I don't like getting 6 pooled and losing if I scout it last, and even if I scout it and hold it, which I said I don't have a problem with, I don't enjoy the game. His response was that it is easy to hold 6 pools. Nice job not reading. my point is that the problem you're talking about cannot be solved by anyone but youno change could be made to the ladder to accommodate you, and this thread has mostly been about proposing changes to the ladder in fact, your problem isn't even ladder fear, you just don't enjoy the ladder. so why even post in this topic? sorry to be rude but if there's a problem here, people like you are clouding the issue to everyone else arguing for a second unranked ladder, how would this ladder differ besides the lack of the tiny little icon telling you what league you are, and the lack of the tiny number telling you what rank you are? i'll answer for you and tell you that any good design will have no difference. so why not just play the regular ladder and not look at the league/rank? if there is a big enough difference to actually warrant a second ladder, why are you ignoring the harm that will come to the game from half the player base never playing the other half, due to the separate ladders? Fair enough. People, from what I see, want an option to have unranked games for when they want to practice a certain matchup, practice on a certain map, try something different, test a build, or offrace. This would allow them to practice something new without inevitably losing a few games in the process.
I think that this is meant to be done via custom games. You can join a custom game and have a random matchup against an opponent of random skill level, OR, if you have a practice partner, you can practice with them.
Ideally, blizzard would implement a custom game system where you could host with names like "1v1 Shattered Temple TvT only Masters+" and other people could browse this list and join, Warcraft 3 style. I think this would probably solve practice problems without having to resort to a secondary ladder.
That being said, it's entirely possible to find practice partners around your skill level and play private customs with them if you're looking to off-race or test a new build without using the ladder system.
|
The point here is we all agree the people posting here are pretty dedicated to sc2. We can all agree that Laddering for people here is less threatening to those people that already ladder. We all understand that laddering using the setup of the current system isn't geared toward casual gamers. Taking all these things into consideration we should look at the intelligent and informed things we are saying. Many many casual gamers dont' (blasphemy) watch day9, they don't know that laddering shouldn't make you feel bad when you lose. Most casual gamers won't probably bother to dig through custom games or conduct a search on a website forum they dont' know about to solicit a practice partner of the same skill level. The point here is of the 3million + copies of sc2 sold where are the vast majority of casual gamers? Could the user interface be used to make casual gamers more at ease playing "fun games" for them?
|
On September 02 2011 07:17 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 06:27 Double Letters wrote:On September 02 2011 00:09 Darclite wrote:On September 01 2011 20:35 Yiska wrote:On September 01 2011 20:30 Double Letters wrote:On September 01 2011 20:04 Highways wrote:This is why I don't ladder anymore. So much time and effort required for going backwards and losing all your ladder points. tip: you would have lost whether or not the little -9 appeared next to the loss, so creating an unranked ladder won't help Do you lack the cognitive skills to understand the concept people have been describing here, are you trolling or do you just want to be a jackass? +10000 I said I don't like getting 6 pooled and losing if I scout it last, and even if I scout it and hold it, which I said I don't have a problem with, I don't enjoy the game. His response was that it is easy to hold 6 pools. Nice job not reading. to everyone else arguing for a second unranked ladder, how would this ladder differ besides the lack of the tiny little icon telling you what league you are, and the lack of the tiny number telling you what rank you are? i'll answer for you and tell you that any good design will have no difference. so why not just play the regular ladder and not look at the league/rank? if there is a big enough difference to actually warrant a second ladder, why are you ignoring the harm that will come to the game from half the player base never playing the other half, due to the separate ladders? I've already answered this multiple times, but you seem to be intentionally ignoring them. There is a big difference in atmosphere in something as simple as not having that number and league next to your name.
...yeah i get it, but i mean functionality-wise, what is the difference between this new ladder and the current one? It seems like you should really be asking for a checkbox to hide ranking information if the only thing you want is to not see ranking information.
|
On September 01 2011 20:00 Tyree wrote:
Why dont people fear playing say Black Ops even tough they are "terrible", yet fear SC2?
Because its 1on1? Well most of my friends play fighters online which are also 1on1, Third Strike Online, Tekken 6, Marvel etc. Yet SC2 still strikes fear into them
The big reason is the social aspect, i have recorded over 6000 matches in Tekken 5 DR Online, and have recieved 0 messages, 0 insults, 0 people raging at me.
In SC2 i cant play 3-4 games without getting 1 guy who makes it his bussiness to be an asshat, its not that i am offended, its that i am bored looking at it.
Having an option to remove all incomming text, chat in SC2 would make ladder far more accessible for people who just want to listen to music and play the damn game, the actual RTS game called Starcraft 2, and not play "Who can bust out the most 4chan memes in a row!".
I understand there is a certain joy in going "U MAD BROSKI!?" but if you enjoy that kind of crap then just enable chat and go to town with it.
That is my suggestion to solving this problem
You already can block off someone from chatting with you.
Fighting games also take a lot less of a commitment per match.
|
On September 02 2011 08:30 Double Letters wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 07:17 iky43210 wrote:On September 02 2011 06:27 Double Letters wrote:On September 02 2011 00:09 Darclite wrote:On September 01 2011 20:35 Yiska wrote:On September 01 2011 20:30 Double Letters wrote:On September 01 2011 20:04 Highways wrote:This is why I don't ladder anymore. So much time and effort required for going backwards and losing all your ladder points. tip: you would have lost whether or not the little -9 appeared next to the loss, so creating an unranked ladder won't help Do you lack the cognitive skills to understand the concept people have been describing here, are you trolling or do you just want to be a jackass? +10000 I said I don't like getting 6 pooled and losing if I scout it last, and even if I scout it and hold it, which I said I don't have a problem with, I don't enjoy the game. His response was that it is easy to hold 6 pools. Nice job not reading. to everyone else arguing for a second unranked ladder, how would this ladder differ besides the lack of the tiny little icon telling you what league you are, and the lack of the tiny number telling you what rank you are? i'll answer for you and tell you that any good design will have no difference. so why not just play the regular ladder and not look at the league/rank? if there is a big enough difference to actually warrant a second ladder, why are you ignoring the harm that will come to the game from half the player base never playing the other half, due to the separate ladders? I've already answered this multiple times, but you seem to be intentionally ignoring them. There is a big difference in atmosphere in something as simple as not having that number and league next to your name. ...yeah i get it, but i mean functionality-wise, what is the difference between this new ladder and the current one? It seems like you should really be asking for a checkbox to hide ranking information if the only thing you want is to not see ranking information.
I've also explain the difference and i don't feel like repeating your same argument over and over.
having a checkbox to hide ranking is not the same as having a ladder thats not ranked. If you can't grasp over the differences or attempt to understand my previous points, then there's no more reason to continue discussing this with you
|
On September 02 2011 03:00 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 02:55 icJuice wrote:On September 02 2011 02:48 blagoonga123 wrote:On September 02 2011 02:41 icJuice wrote:
So Tortoise, you're ok with less people playing/watching SC2 as long as the scared players quit? ladder fear doesn't affect people who want to watch sc2. A lot of people stop playing and start watching when they realize how impossibly high the skill ceiling is. Perhaps you are right, I after all do fall under that category. I personally feel like a lot of people stop watching when they stop playing, but that is purely speculative. I spent most of Season 2 watching tons of streams and all the GSLs, even though I barely played (though I did my placement match for the season, with a few team games as well) any 1v1 laddering. I think there are a lot of people who play casually and watch professionally, so to speak. Sc2 is pretty fun to watch :D
this is pretty much the way I do it too. Although I would play more if their was an unranked auto matching of people close to the same skill level. At this point and time, I am way behind where I was when i was playing actively, and people are probably better, so if I did ladder I would almost certainly get demoted.
|
I'm trying to 1v1 more in Season 3. In Season 1 I didn't really care so I played a bunch of 1v1s, 3v3s and 4v4s, but in Season 2 that fear of dropping my 1v1 made me stop them. I played like 10 games 1v1. But I kept up a good amount of 4v4s. This season I'm trying to change that, but it's not working so far.
So yes, ladder fear is slightly hurting the game for me.
That said, I still find it fun and enjoyable to follow the game, even if I don't play as much or at a super high level. I roll over first place Platinum players a lot, so it's not that I'm terrible. I just don't like pressing the Find Match button.
I actually force myself to play by pressing Find Match and then lifting my hand off the mouse so I can't press Cancel.
You can call it ladder fear or anything you'd like, but there's something there that prevents a bunch of players, it seems, from pressing that button and playing 1v1 ladder.
If it were easier, I think a lot of players would still be playing. Or they would still leave because it's often more fun player DOTA and LOL and BF and COD with friends than grinding on ladder, which is an element I really miss from other games.
|
I had to problem to play 1v1 ladder during the beta and half though season 1, but I developed a severe fear of laddering after that. My way of handeling it when season 3 came around was to smack myself in the face and started to stream all my laddering on scheduled times. I set daily goals, such as "I will play a minimum of 2 games / evening", and as time went, the fear of laddering just vanished. I still hook up my stream each and every time I go online on battle.net, as it work as a motivator to have 5-20 people watch each and every move you make.
I don't know, it worked for me at least :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
