EPTBlizzard warns HuK/TLO for account sharing - Page 52
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Doppelganger
488 Posts
| ||
|
SayHello
Czech Republic147 Posts
| ||
|
Geordie
United Kingdom653 Posts
On June 26 2011 10:13 SayHello wrote: Huk has EU acc, so he can use his... He is using TLO's account because he can not use his own as his huk account has too high MMR that he can not find a game. | ||
|
holynorth
United States590 Posts
On June 26 2011 10:04 Doppelganger wrote: The only real stupid thing is to immediately threaten the probably most liked member of the community with a closure of his account. I got no problem with the "no sharing"policy but you know these pro gamers and you can talk to them. I mean or you can threaten them and look like a total d**kh**d to the entire community. No, it was brilliant. Blizzard cannot and will not enforce this with smaller players and small teams. By threatening one of the larger entities, all of the smaller teams and players are now scared and are more likely to buy another account instead of sharing. | ||
|
Xorphene
United Kingdom492 Posts
| ||
|
crown77
United States157 Posts
| ||
|
x6Paramore
Canada130 Posts
On June 26 2011 01:37 ShadowWolf wrote: Non-minor children can buy their own account? I don't see why a 19 year old really needs to be sharing daddy's account anymore. Yeah, actually quoting the ToS *is* my argument because it answers your question of "What about children". I'd rather that people not abuse the ladder because of an MMR bug that, for all I can tell and reports, they didn't even bother to report in the first place. From what I can tell, Blizzard didn't even know there was an issue with HuK's account in terms of MMR until a poster put something on the EU forums. Maybe they were aware before that, but it seems that's not the case. And Blizzard's actions are *definitely* acceptable because the ladder is where I put my time. Maybe you don't care, but I don't really appreciate playing Grandmaster players in diamond because they're boosting their friend's account. Nothing I've said makes CombatEX's actions acceptable. Should they punish him? Yes, hopefully they choose to do so soon. ed: I do understand why HuK chose to play on TLO's account and I don't blame him. In his situation, I might be inclined to do the same thing; however, I think some understanding of Blizzard's PoV and not over-dramatizing the situation is in order. Actually, ToS is not an argument. Its just a contract that we pretty much had no choice to accept if we wanted to play the game. Not allowing multiple names on one account (like in the past with other blizzard games, except maybe WoW) is pretty much a huge gouge-fest by blizzard to get more money. Either way, an argument is not a copy and paste of something you read. Its dialogue. There's a reason that oil prices are tightly regulated in some countries. Not saying that blizzard pricing needs to be regulated, but some more acceptable pricing scheme would be better. Not to mention the fact that you can't even change your name. You can't even change your name for a clan tag without buying a new account (if you've used your ONE free account change). As for Grandmaster players playing at Diamond level once ever 200 games. Well tough fucking luck, its going to happen. You should actually be happy to learn a couple things by getting owned since you don't learn by winning. Regardless, Blizzard's action = bullshit. God only knows when the expansion comes out and nobody is willing to fork out another 30-40 per copy to upgrade each account, we'll all have a shit-ton of smurfs with no use. Lets do the math on that. 50 + 30 = 80ish (lets be conservative with pricing for your benefit). Probably the 2nd expansion is another 30ish so = 110. So even if one person had one smurf, for him to keep his smurf useful, he'll have to spend another 60 dollars, on top of the 50 that he already spent on buying a SECOND account, just to find games on ladder. If you wanted even two accounts to alternate between (both probably would be in high-master or grandmaster, by the time 2nd expansion rolls around) since ELL is basically irreversible unless you lose 50 games in a row on purpose, you won't even have the problem of playing me or anybody that ever bought a smurf in Wings of Liberty. Wouldn't you say its Blizzard's responsibility to make sure that you can find games on ladder since if you can't you basically can't play the game on one-copy? Let alone two? Edit: Sorry, I forgot to add in the quip about playing on multiple servers. So basically just multiply the above by however many servers you decide to play on. Maybe give or take a smurf or two. Even without smurfs, its pretty ridiculous. I remember when my single Warcraft 3 Frozen Throne account could log on all 4 servers and have unlimited number of accounts tied to a single e-mail address. | ||
|
JerKy
Korea (South)3013 Posts
| ||
|
Clog
United States950 Posts
On June 26 2011 06:23 starcraft911 wrote: The scenario that the OP painted was a half truth in that Huk wasn't using TLO's account to simply warmup because his main ID was unable to find games as stated. If you watch Huk's stream you'd know that he had been using TLO's ID to keep him from dropping out of GM while TLO recovered. While this is a noble thing for Huk to do, Blizzard sees it as undermining their ladder at a time when doing so is particularly bad. If you were one of the masters players who are 1700+ and had a goal to get into grandmasters but because the system is inherently flawed and allows inactive people with MUCH lower MMR rating to sit in GM when players with higher MMR are stuck in masters how then do you think you'd feel about this? Wow he actually did that? I'd be counting myself lucky it was just a warning... I mean nice thing to do sure but yeah, that's not how the ladder is supposed to work | ||
|
ShadowWolf
United States197 Posts
On June 26 2011 12:52 x6Paramore wrote: Actually, ToS is not an argument. Its just a contract that we pretty much had no choice to accept if we wanted to play the game. Not allowing multiple names on one account (like in the past with other blizzard games, except maybe WoW) is pretty much a huge gouge-fest by blizzard to get more money. Either way, an argument is not a copy and paste of something you read. Its dialogue. There's a reason that oil prices are tightly regulated in some countries. Not saying that blizzard pricing needs to be regulated, but some more acceptable pricing scheme would be better. Not to mention the fact that you can't even change your name. You can't even change your name for a clan tag without buying a new account (if you've used your ONE free account change). As for Grandmaster players playing at Diamond level once ever 200 games. Well tough fucking luck, its going to happen. You should actually be happy to learn a couple things by getting owned since you don't learn by winning. Regardless, Blizzard's action = bullshit. God only knows when the expansion comes out and nobody is willing to fork out another 30-40 per copy to upgrade each account, we'll all have a shit-ton of smurfs with no use. Lets do the math on that. 50 + 30 = 80ish (lets be conservative with pricing for your benefit). Probably the 2nd expansion is another 30ish so = 110. So even if one person had one smurf, for him to keep his smurf useful, he'll have to spend another 60 dollars, on top of the 50 that he already spent on buying a SECOND account, just to find games on ladder. If you wanted even two accounts to alternate between (both probably would be in high-master or grandmaster, by the time 2nd expansion rolls around) since ELL is basically irreversible unless you lose 50 games in a row on purpose, you won't even have the problem of playing me or anybody that ever bought a smurf in Wings of Liberty. Wouldn't you say its Blizzard's responsibility to make sure that you can find games on ladder since if you can't you basically can't play the game on one-copy? Let alone two? If I get pasted by a few GM players, that's fine; however, one thing I really appreciate is that I've probably encountered 1 or maybe 2 players who had no business in Diamond, so it's really no big deal. But boosting is an issue and it sucks when people do it. To me, boosting and people keeping their MIA friends in GM league are basically one and the same. If I want to get decimated by a GM or high-masters player then I can probably just hang in a couple of chat channels that a few of those guys play in and pick up an offer to be a target dummy for them. But I don't see how disallowing Grandmasters players from manipulating the ladder hurts the community ( in this case, Huk wasn't just practicing imo since he played a ton of games on TLO's account. They were really good games, but they also reset TLO's activity level ). As far as charging for Smurfs, I have two accounts atm. I am not looking forward to buying 2 copies of Swarm. Since it doesn't affect minors, at least the relevant parties should be able to afford the cost to own the product. I have no argument that having to buy accounts to play on EU, etc. is crappy and Blizzard could drastically reduce account sharing with policies that are slightly more reasonable ( imo they should let you add-on an account for $5 - $10 as long as you own 1 copy and all add-on accounts are the same version as your main account; the idea is that it provides all the benefits while still reducing mass smurfing and abuse that was rampant in old BW B.NET ). Everything, nowadays, is a money grab. For whatever reason the software industry has evolved to the point where it's a competition in which each company is trying to figure out how many menial things they can charge for. I work in the SW industry; I'll admit I'm likely largely desensitized by this stuff since I've seen things 1,000 times worse than this ( e.g. a company used to offer something for free decides it's now a "premium feature" and the premium edition is another $2.5k on top of a $2k software X_X ). At the same time, running Battle.net costs money and so they're probably looking at numbers 3+ years down the line where companies in the past were inclined to not do things like that. Lastly, on the MMR issue, as far as I have read and found, Huk never reported the bug. It's been reported now so I expect Blizzard should address it. If, after a couple of weeks, Blizzard still hasn't addressed it with at least some kind of message to you guys then yeah: that's a massive disservice to pro-gamers. | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On June 26 2011 08:27 oBlade wrote: The ladder is not open to innovation by third parties (no gamei, iccup, fish), and the monopolistic ladder we got is barely usable. One ID per account, no clans, bad (also, late after release) chat. Worrying about the integrity of the single global ladder, well, it's assigning value to something that players actually think is meaningless. In this way using it alone for tournament qualifications is a mistake, whether by Blizzard's own tournaments or any other league. Regardless of whether professional players consider tournament performance to be the true test of a person's skill and the ladder to be a secondary matter, the fact is that the ladder is generally quite effective at measuring people's performance in the games played there, and Blizzard has an interest in making choices that will preserve that. The single, solitary reason for limiting users to one ID per account is to prevent ladder manipulation by making clear that all the ladder games you play affect your ladder standing. You can't just make a new ID and tank your placement matches if you want to beat up lower-league players for an afternoon, and that improves its integrity by ensuring that matches are likely to be actually even. That's one reason account sharing is forbidden (also to ensure that two players buy two accounts, of course, but that's not an issue with HuK and TLO) and it's the reason that deliberately leaving games to manipulate one's rating is forbidden as well. To the guy who was talking about calling "someone on another continent," the guy who made the phone call is a European community manager who I think lives in Germany. He contacted Take almost certainly because he was the listed contact for the tournament from the tournament application, and it was his stream where they saw this. WIthout hearing the conversation word for word, it's impossible to tell whether this was a friendly, informal "please don't do this, since the company's been known to close people's accounts over this" or, as the OP suggested, a flat-out threat to close the account. I do personally have the perception from my time following the WoW community that the European community managers are somewhat more sticklers for the rules than their U.S. counterparts, however the issue of HuK laddering on TLO's account to keep him in GM league (and bumping him up to one of the top two spots which will wind up being the criterion for a Blizzcon tournament invite, if they do it like last year) is a legitimate concern. | ||
|
Spacely
United States108 Posts
| ||
|
Zyori
United States48 Posts
| ||
|
TheOnlyOne
Germany155 Posts
Players ignore rulez to have fun. Some rulez make sence, others do not. In the end Blizzard can enforce rulez to hope for some extra money, or ignore rulez to make players a little more happy. In this case, Blizzard choose the dick head money way, hopefully they get a clear mind in the future ... | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On June 26 2011 10:16 Geordie wrote: He is using TLO's account because he can not use his own as his huk account has too high MMR that he can not find a game. Again, TLO is rank 1 on EU. So using TLO's account will make it take even longer to find a game. And the AMM already widens the matching criteria as search time increases, what more do you want Blizzard to do? | ||
|
ZAiNs
United Kingdom6525 Posts
On June 26 2011 17:58 paralleluniverse wrote: Again, TLO is rank 1 on EU. So using TLO's account will make it take even longer to find a game. And the AMM already widens the matching criteria as search time increases, what more do you want Blizzard to do? Read the first post... Huk searched for 15 minutes before giving up on his account, there is obviously something wrong with it. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On June 26 2011 18:03 ZAiNs wrote: Read the first post... It took Huk 15 minutes to find a game on his account, there is obviously something wrong with his account. Nowhere in the OP does it say that it took 15 minutes to find a game on HuK's account, and even so I don't see how using TLO's account would have made it quicker on average, since TLO is ranked 1. It could just be dumb luck that during those 15 minutes no one with such a high MMR was searching, but when he changed accounts someone with a high MMR happened to also be searching. The AMM already widens the matching criteria, so again, what more do you want Blizzard to do? | ||
|
ZAiNs
United Kingdom6525 Posts
On June 26 2011 18:09 paralleluniverse wrote: Nowhere in the OP does it say that it took 15 minutes to find a game on HuK's account, and even so I don't see how using TLO's account would have made it quicker on average, since TLO is ranked 1. It could just be dumb luck that during those 15 minutes no one with such a high MMR was searching, but when he changed accounts someone with a high MMR happened to also be searching. The AMM already widens the matching criteria, so again, what more do you want Blizzard to do? "For 15 minutes Chris 'HuK' Loranger was looked at the gleaming yellow little man, waited for his next Battle.net opponent." MMA =/= Ladder Points. Obviously there is something wrong, my brother in GM searched at 6am for a game, it took 5 minutes and he played against a mid-Diamond player (who he got 1 point for beating), a few days later he played Happy who was ranked second on ladder. Under no circumstances should Huk have to wait anywhere near 15 minutes. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On June 26 2011 18:17 ZAiNs wrote: "For 15 minutes Chris 'HuK' Loranger was looked at the gleaming yellow little man, waited for his next Battle.net opponent." MMA =/= Ladder Points. Obviously there is something wrong, my brother in GM searched at 6am for a game, it took 5 minutes and he played against a mid-Diamond player (who he got 1 point for beating), a few days later he played Happy who was ranked second on ladder. Under no circumstances should Huk have to wait anywhere near 15 minutes. OK, I see it now. MMR is essentially the same thing as ladder points in GM since you have to remain active (which mostly takes out bonus pool as a factor) and there are no division tiers. I still find it harder to believe that there's a bug with the matchmaking only in this specific situation, than there simply being no one else searching at the time. But there's no way for us to ever know. | ||
|
bradfield
Belize23 Posts
Also, on Team Leagues, players from the same team play on the same account. Whose account is that? Does blizzard call Mr.Chae over that? | ||
| ||
At the end of the day, who really gives a shit. 
