|
On July 16 2012 17:23 Mandalor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 17:05 tsango wrote:
For the arguement about GM spaces, its a moot point because accounts have to be active to retain the place - unless you kept your local pro-gamer on a retainer to boost you regularly theres noway your going to maintain it. And even if you did, how would this be different to progamers whom have multiple accounts all in GM? Believe it or not such people do exist, and we dont have a go at them about it People seriously need to educate themselves about the ladder if they want to have a talk in this. Anyone is able to maintain GM for a season. Once you're in, you can lose an infinite amount of games as long as you keep the bonus pool low. You are allowed to lose hundreds of games to then beat a couple of bronzies.
Indeed someone need to educate themselves about the ladder. If you read this very good guide about the ladder you realize that a GM who win against bronzies probably will not get a single point and thus not spend any bonus pool and will within 2 weeks be kicked out of GM. So no unless they pay the pro to keep them in gm they will be gone soon enough.
|
Seems like you just wanted to make a thread then anything else seriously. I doubt most people actually care, I dont see this as a bad thing, If a persons account gets levelled, and hes not good enough for that level then he will end up demoted back anyways.
|
On July 16 2012 21:19 Uracil wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 21:06 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 16 2012 21:03 TechNoTrance wrote:On July 16 2012 20:55 Daniel C wrote:On July 16 2012 20:50 Epoch wrote:On July 16 2012 20:28 Daniel C wrote:
It seems to me that one of the main reasons that people who are defending this practice offer is that "it's just ladder". Sadly, the integrity of ladder continues to suffer precisely because of this attitude. If ladder truly meant nothing, then yeah, who cares. But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification.
In an ideal world, smurf accounts would not be allowed either. Then ladder ranking could actually be used for something meaningful. Let's use a chess analogy: let's say that an amateur player paid a chess grandmaster to obtain a grandmaster title for him. In the process, several aspiring players in the same tournament were unable to achieve their final GM "norm" (points counting towards GM qualification) because they were playing against an elite player. Surely, bot the actual grandmaster and the paying "customer" would be severely punished for such a fraud.
Would you guys be OK with paying someone to take your exams for you? Just because we support pro players and their livelihoods does not mean we have to support their actions.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and the ends do not justify the means, etc. etc. What? Most people who are defending this, and by most I mean 99.9 percent wouldn't even bother having an account levelled. We simply don't care about it. It's a non issue. It's the dumbest thing in the world you could be worrying about. Similarly, we generally wouldn't be cheating on our exams, as we aren't the cheaters in the first place. And that should be handled on a case by case basis anyway. Generally it's not a good idea to cheat on your exams but in some cases it can be fine and dandy like sour candy. If it works for you and doesn't hurt anyone, example the basketball player mentioned above.There is no integrity of the ladder and there never was, it's a pretty decent system that like all pretty decent systems is exploitable to some degree. What more do you want or could you possibly expect? "But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification." If you are good enough, smart enough, savvy enough, cunning enough, then your lack of ability to reach GM when you are trying to become a semi pro isn't going to be any sort of barrier. GM doesn't mean anything. Results do. Ability does. Showcasing your skills, and marketing yourself, developing your value as a gamer to watch is what will get you any level of pro status. And if you can't make it then you aren't cut out for it and it has nothing at all, I repeat, nothing at all to do with the fact that there are cheaters in the game and they are taking up some GM slots. Would you be ok if someone got ahead of you on a promotion because they faked their degree? I disagree with the bolded part. Just because people have gotten over it doesn't mean it was OK. Look, I'm not trying to be morally elitist for the sake of being one. The chess system is pretty good, could we have something like that? Please don't compare the business world with a video game. This comparason is ridiculous. No, it's not a ridiculous comparison. If it is, explain why. This player cheated his way into the highest skilled league in the game, stealing one of the only 200 spots that an otherwise legitimate player could have taken. This is worse than maphack. So what is the reward for this player for being in the "highest skilled league" in the game . He get's nothing for it. Also do you want to ban smurfs too. Smurfs also take spots away from other players. Overall i don't think the GM league is very well structured, but that's blizzards fault.
On July 16 2012 21:28 Gajarell wrote:
I am probably supposed to be against it - not that i have a technical reason no to. But correcting it would probably do more harm than good. This issue is, in the long run, completly self-correcting.
No, the problem is not self-correcting. The problem is that you can stay in GM as long as your bonus pool doesn't exceed a certain threshold. So if this person stays active, he will have a bad record, but he will not get kicked out of GM, even if he's record is 10 wins and 200 losses.
Also, if he had his account leveled near the end of the season, he can camp on his rating until the season ends and stay in GM.
His reward is a permanent record in his profile that he was in GM league. And the status and epeen that comes with being in GM. Ideally, Blizzard should make smurfing also against the rules. But, as I've explained above, part of this is Blizzard's fault in making a flawed GM system. But even if Blizzard fixed this and kicks people out of GM if their MMR drops, it would still not solve the problem of having someone level your profile to GM near the end of the season. And nothing can be done about this, other than banning these cheaters. So it doesn't matter that Blizzard is partly to blame, this cheater should still be banned.
|
On July 16 2012 21:25 Dekoth wrote:
I can honestly say that I am proud of most of the responses in this thread for once. It demonstrates a maturity in thought process that the majority are unconcerned that a few idiots are being parted from their money. The simple fact is that someone leveled won't stay in there long for obvious reasons. It is a self correcting problem.
It's also a self-perpetuating problem if left to itself. If it's 'okay' to do this, why wouldn't every pro player with some free time do it for some extra cash? Why wouldn't every halfwit with some money pay them to? After all, by your understanding it's perfectly okay.
Can you imagine how many accounts could potentially end up being 'levelled' at the same time? This is the kind of nonsense that if allowed and accepted would grow and begin to seriously damage the integrity of high level laddering.
Look further ahead than your nose please, while witch hunting is by nature an entirely destructive practice and should not be done, there's surely no denying that this is against the rules, against the spirit of the ladder and doesn't bring anything positive?
If pro players are honestly so strapped for cash that they have to resort to this, and it's not a case of simple greed, then there's a problem elsewhere and this is not the solution.
|
|
|
On July 16 2012 20:51 Daniel C wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 20:40 rd wrote:On July 16 2012 20:28 Daniel C wrote:
It seems to me that one of the main reasons that people who are defending this practice offer is that "it's just ladder". Sadly, the integrity of ladder continues to suffer precisely because of this attitude. If ladder truly meant nothing, then yeah, who cares. But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification.
In an ideal world, smurf accounts would not be allowed either. Then ladder ranking could actually be used for something meaningful. Let's use a chess analogy: let's say that an amateur player paid a chess grandmaster to obtain a grandmaster title for him. In the process, several aspiring players in the same tournament were unable to achieve their final GM "norm" (points counting towards GM qualification) because they were playing against an elite player. Surely, bot the actual grandmaster and the paying "customer" would be severely punished for such a fraud.
Would you guys be OK with paying someone to take your exams for you? Just because we support pro players and their livelihoods does not mean we have to support their actions.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and the ends do not justify the means, etc. etc. No, I defend it because I don't think anyone should really care what people want to spend their money on. Also, when the number one argument is how leveling accounts degrades the integrity of GM what the fuck else do you expect to hear in response? GM IS very abusable, REGARDLESS of leveling accounts. It's an issue with GM, and the value everyone is placing in it. Comparison isn't relevant. Also, in general everyone needs to stop mentioning pro players, they aren't all pro players offering it. I don't think you understand my point. My point is that I feel that ladder should and could mean something. Just like in the chess world, your FIDE point ranking is rather important. The difficulty is making sure that the person playing behind the account is the person they claim to be. In theory, would it be possible to make GM meaningful, just like a chess grandmaster rating is meaningful? Re: the bolded part. It does matter if it's against the rules and hurts others.
It'd obviously be cool for it to be meaningful, but it currently isn't, and it has nothing to do with leveling accounts. If GM was functioning properly account levelers couldn't affect the top ranking players.
lol @ your re. It's against the rules because you have to share your account, and Blizzard does not want you playing SC2 unless you bought the game. It has never hurt anyone other than those who go out of their way on TL to be hurt by it.
|
On July 16 2012 16:39 IntoTheheart wrote:
How does this work exactly?
So I give my account to fOrGG who will boost my account to GM, at which point I'll lose a ton of games (because I'm personally NOT at Korea GM level) and then eventually lose my spot right?
pretty much...
if people are stupid enough to give other people money for shit like that i just feel happy for the pro who can easily earn some money that way...
stuff like that has been around since wc3 and probably even before and apart from some people being pretty stupid i don't see what's the big deal
|
On July 16 2012 21:18 Epoch wrote:
do you people just like pick a side, and stick to it? this isn't debate team. you can alter your views with the light of new information. there's no reason to like constantly try to reinforce your points that don't even make sense in the first place.
you seriously think someone getting a job over someone more qualified is equally important as this? i guess all matters in the world are just equal then and everything can be compared with everything else? because its all equal? lol get real.
Of course not. In law, different deeds deserve different punishment. Funnily enough though, trivial circumstances do not turn wrongs into rights.
|
I don't think that it will affect gm to much cause in theory the reason they paid for there account to be placed that high is because they can't do so they should fall out. I would rather have people pay someone to level there account than someone hacking there way up the ladder.
|
On July 16 2012 17:23 Mandalor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 17:05 tsango wrote:
For the arguement about GM spaces, its a moot point because accounts have to be active to retain the place - unless you kept your local pro-gamer on a retainer to boost you regularly theres noway your going to maintain it. And even if you did, how would this be different to progamers whom have multiple accounts all in GM? Believe it or not such people do exist, and we dont have a go at them about it People seriously need to educate themselves about the ladder if they want to have a talk in this. Anyone is able to maintain GM for a season. Once you're in, you can lose an infinite amount of games as long as you keep the bonus pool low. You are allowed to lose hundreds of games to then beat a couple of bronzies.
Maybe you should educate yourself. If you are in grandmasters and you are playing against bronzes you get 0 points whenever you win. Good luck on trying to keep your bonus pool down.
|
On July 16 2012 21:38 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 21:19 Uracil wrote:On July 16 2012 21:06 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 16 2012 21:03 TechNoTrance wrote:On July 16 2012 20:55 Daniel C wrote:On July 16 2012 20:50 Epoch wrote:On July 16 2012 20:28 Daniel C wrote:
It seems to me that one of the main reasons that people who are defending this practice offer is that "it's just ladder". Sadly, the integrity of ladder continues to suffer precisely because of this attitude. If ladder truly meant nothing, then yeah, who cares. But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification.
In an ideal world, smurf accounts would not be allowed either. Then ladder ranking could actually be used for something meaningful. Let's use a chess analogy: let's say that an amateur player paid a chess grandmaster to obtain a grandmaster title for him. In the process, several aspiring players in the same tournament were unable to achieve their final GM "norm" (points counting towards GM qualification) because they were playing against an elite player. Surely, bot the actual grandmaster and the paying "customer" would be severely punished for such a fraud.
Would you guys be OK with paying someone to take your exams for you? Just because we support pro players and their livelihoods does not mean we have to support their actions.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and the ends do not justify the means, etc. etc. What? Most people who are defending this, and by most I mean 99.9 percent wouldn't even bother having an account levelled. We simply don't care about it. It's a non issue. It's the dumbest thing in the world you could be worrying about. Similarly, we generally wouldn't be cheating on our exams, as we aren't the cheaters in the first place. And that should be handled on a case by case basis anyway. Generally it's not a good idea to cheat on your exams but in some cases it can be fine and dandy like sour candy. If it works for you and doesn't hurt anyone, example the basketball player mentioned above.There is no integrity of the ladder and there never was, it's a pretty decent system that like all pretty decent systems is exploitable to some degree. What more do you want or could you possibly expect? "But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification." If you are good enough, smart enough, savvy enough, cunning enough, then your lack of ability to reach GM when you are trying to become a semi pro isn't going to be any sort of barrier. GM doesn't mean anything. Results do. Ability does. Showcasing your skills, and marketing yourself, developing your value as a gamer to watch is what will get you any level of pro status. And if you can't make it then you aren't cut out for it and it has nothing at all, I repeat, nothing at all to do with the fact that there are cheaters in the game and they are taking up some GM slots. Would you be ok if someone got ahead of you on a promotion because they faked their degree? I disagree with the bolded part. Just because people have gotten over it doesn't mean it was OK. Look, I'm not trying to be morally elitist for the sake of being one. The chess system is pretty good, could we have something like that? Please don't compare the business world with a video game. This comparason is ridiculous. No, it's not a ridiculous comparison. If it is, explain why. This player cheated his way into the highest skilled league in the game, stealing one of the only 200 spots that an otherwise legitimate player could have taken. This is worse than maphack. So what is the reward for this player for being in the "highest skilled league" in the game . He get's nothing for it. Also do you want to ban smurfs too. Smurfs also take spots away from other players. Overall i don't think the GM league is very well structured, but that's blizzards fault. Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 21:28 Gajarell wrote:
I am probably supposed to be against it - not that i have a technical reason no to. But correcting it would probably do more harm than good. This issue is, in the long run, completly self-correcting. Ideally, Blizzard should make smurfing also against the rules. But, as I've explained above, part of this is Blizzard's fault in making a flawed GM system.
How should blizzard ban smurfs. Do you want that a player can only use one account. Because that would be the consequence. Also pros need the possibilty of hiding their training or to experiment with new stragegies.
I think GM should just update daily and contain the the 200 highest players in terms of ELO.
|
On July 16 2012 21:43 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 20:51 Daniel C wrote:On July 16 2012 20:40 rd wrote:On July 16 2012 20:28 Daniel C wrote:
It seems to me that one of the main reasons that people who are defending this practice offer is that "it's just ladder". Sadly, the integrity of ladder continues to suffer precisely because of this attitude. If ladder truly meant nothing, then yeah, who cares. But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification.
In an ideal world, smurf accounts would not be allowed either. Then ladder ranking could actually be used for something meaniz,ngful. Let's use a chess analogy: let's say that an amateur player paid a chess grandmaster to obtain a grandmaster title for him. In the process, several aspiring players in the same tournament were unable to achieve their final GM "norm" (points counting towards GM qualification) because they were playing against an elite player. Surely, bot the actual grandmaster and the paying "customer" would be severely punished for such a fraud.
Would you guys be OK with paying someone to take your exams for you? Just because we support pro players and their livelihoods does not mean we have to support their actions.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and the ends do not justify the means, etc. etc. No, I defend it because I don't think anyone should really care what people want to spend their money on. Also, when the number one argument is how leveling accounts degrades the integrity of GM what the fuck else do you expect to hear in response? GM IS very abusable, REGARDLESS of leveling accounts. It's an issue with GM, and the value everyone is placing in it. Comparison isn't relevant. Also, in general everyone needs to stop mentioning pro players, they aren't all pro players offering it. I don't think you understand my point. My point is that I feel that ladder should and could mean something. Just like in the chess world, your FIDE point ranking is rather important. The difficulty is making sure that the person playing behind the account is the person they claim to be. In theory, would it be possible to make GM meaningful, just like a chess grandmaster rating is meaningful? Re: the bolded part. It does matter if it's against the rules and hurts others. It'd obviously be cool for it to be meaningful, but it currently isn't, and it has nothing to do with leveling accounts. If GM was functioning properly account levelers couldn't affect the top ranking players. lol @ your re. It's against the rules because you have to share your account, and Blizzard does not want you playing SC2 unless you bought the game. It has never hurt anyone other than those who go out of their way on TL to be hurt by it.
Doesn't affect me. I'm referring to aspiring semipros. and before you go "gm smurfs are plenty"
or 'if he's good it doesn't matter', please answer this: what other mainstream sport would tolerate this kind of impersonation?
|
On July 16 2012 21:54 Daniel C wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 21:43 rd wrote:On July 16 2012 20:51 Daniel C wrote:On July 16 2012 20:40 rd wrote:On July 16 2012 20:28 Daniel C wrote:
It seems to me that one of the main reasons that people who are defending this practice offer is that "it's just ladder". Sadly, the integrity of ladder continues to suffer precisely because of this attitude. If ladder truly meant nothing, then yeah, who cares. But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification.
In an ideal world, smurf accounts would not be allowed either. Then ladder ranking could actually be used for something meaniz,ngful. Let's use a chess analogy: let's say that an amateur player paid a chess grandmaster to obtain a grandmaster title for him. In the process, several aspiring players in the same tournament were unable to achieve their final GM "norm" (points counting towards GM qualification) because they were playing against an elite player. Surely, bot the actual grandmaster and the paying "customer" would be severely punished for such a fraud.
Would you guys be OK with paying someone to take your exams for you? Just because we support pro players and their livelihoods does not mean we have to support their actions.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and the ends do not justify the means, etc. etc. No, I defend it because I don't think anyone should really care what people want to spend their money on. Also, when the number one argument is how leveling accounts degrades the integrity of GM what the fuck else do you expect to hear in response? GM IS very abusable, REGARDLESS of leveling accounts. It's an issue with GM, and the value everyone is placing in it. Comparison isn't relevant. Also, in general everyone needs to stop mentioning pro players, they aren't all pro players offering it. I don't think you understand my point. My point is that I feel that ladder should and could mean something. Just like in the chess world, your FIDE point ranking is rather important. The difficulty is making sure that the person playing behind the account is the person they claim to be. In theory, would it be possible to make GM meaningful, just like a chess grandmaster rating is meaningful? Re: the bolded part. It does matter if it's against the rules and hurts others. It'd obviously be cool for it to be meaningful, but it currently isn't, and it has nothing to do with leveling accounts. If GM was functioning properly account levelers couldn't affect the top ranking players. lol @ your re. It's against the rules because you have to share your account, and Blizzard does not want you playing SC2 unless you bought the game. It has never hurt anyone other than those who go out of their way on TL to be hurt by it. Doesn't affect me. I'm referring to aspiring semipros. and before you go "gm smurfs are plenty" or 'if he's good it doesn't matter', please answer this: what other mainstream sport would tolerate this kind of impersonation?
Ladder means nothing so your comparison doesn't make sense.
|
Honestly the only problem I see in this is GM ladder being an awful system.
|
On July 16 2012 21:45 HeeroFX wrote:
I don't think that it will affect gm to much cause in theory the reason they paid for there account to be placed that high is because they can't do so they should fall out. I would rather have people pay someone to level there account than someone hacking there way up the ladder.
Except people don't fall out of GM until the end of the season unless they go inactive and let their bonus points go rampant. As long as they play like 10 games a week they wont be demoted until the next season. Then as the season is about to end they buy more levling to maintain their account in GM for next season.
As if GM didn't have enough problems being viewed as a legitimate top of the ladder even before all this. I just think they really need to remove the whole "you stay in GM for a full season" kind of deal so that it can truly become the top players or atleast the best active players on that server.
|
On July 16 2012 21:54 Daniel C wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 21:43 rd wrote:On July 16 2012 20:51 Daniel C wrote:On July 16 2012 20:40 rd wrote:On July 16 2012 20:28 Daniel C wrote:
It seems to me that one of the main reasons that people who are defending this practice offer is that "it's just ladder". Sadly, the integrity of ladder continues to suffer precisely because of this attitude. If ladder truly meant nothing, then yeah, who cares. But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification.
In an ideal world, smurf accounts would not be allowed either. Then ladder ranking could actually be used for something meaniz,ngful. Let's use a chess analogy: let's say that an amateur player paid a chess grandmaster to obtain a grandmaster title for him. In the process, several aspiring players in the same tournament were unable to achieve their final GM "norm" (points counting towards GM qualification) because they were playing against an elite player. Surely, bot the actual grandmaster and the paying "customer" would be severely punished for such a fraud.
Would you guys be OK with paying someone to take your exams for you? Just because we support pro players and their livelihoods does not mean we have to support their actions.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and the ends do not justify the means, etc. etc. No, I defend it because I don't think anyone should really care what people want to spend their money on. Also, when the number one argument is how leveling accounts degrades the integrity of GM what the fuck else do you expect to hear in response? GM IS very abusable, REGARDLESS of leveling accounts. It's an issue with GM, and the value everyone is placing in it. Comparison isn't relevant. Also, in general everyone needs to stop mentioning pro players, they aren't all pro players offering it. I don't think you understand my point. My point is that I feel that ladder should and could mean something. Just like in the chess world, your FIDE point ranking is rather important. The difficulty is making sure that the person playing behind the account is the person they claim to be. In theory, would it be possible to make GM meaningful, just like a chess grandmaster rating is meaningful? Re: the bolded part. It does matter if it's against the rules and hurts others. It'd obviously be cool for it to be meaningful, but it currently isn't, and it has nothing to do with leveling accounts. If GM was functioning properly account levelers couldn't affect the top ranking players. lol @ your re. It's against the rules because you have to share your account, and Blizzard does not want you playing SC2 unless you bought the game. It has never hurt anyone other than those who go out of their way on TL to be hurt by it. Doesn't affect me. I'm referring to aspiring semipros. and before you go "gm smurfs are plenty" or 'if he's good it doesn't matter', please answer this: what other mainstream sport would tolerate this kind of impersonation?
What reality allows you to do such impersonations in a mainstream sport in a way the internet can? The two can't be compared.
|
On July 16 2012 21:53 Uracil wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 21:38 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 16 2012 21:19 Uracil wrote:On July 16 2012 21:06 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 16 2012 21:03 TechNoTrance wrote:On July 16 2012 20:55 Daniel C wrote:On July 16 2012 20:50 Epoch wrote:On July 16 2012 20:28 Daniel C wrote:
It seems to me that one of the main reasons that people who are defending this practice offer is that "it's just ladder". Sadly, the integrity of ladder continues to suffer precisely because of this attitude. If ladder truly meant nothing, then yeah, who cares. But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification.
In an ideal world, smurf accounts would not be allowed either. Then ladder ranking could actually be used for something meaningful. Let's use a chess analogy: let's say that an amateur player paid a chess grandmaster to obtain a grandmaster title for him. In the process, several aspiring players in the same tournament were unable to achieve their final GM "norm" (points counting towards GM qualification) because they were playing against an elite player. Surely, bot the actual grandmaster and the paying "customer" would be severely punished for such a fraud.
Would you guys be OK with paying someone to take your exams for you? Just because we support pro players and their livelihoods does not mean we have to support their actions.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and the ends do not justify the means, etc. etc. What? Most people who are defending this, and by most I mean 99.9 percent wouldn't even bother having an account levelled. We simply don't care about it. It's a non issue. It's the dumbest thing in the world you could be worrying about. Similarly, we generally wouldn't be cheating on our exams, as we aren't the cheaters in the first place. And that should be handled on a case by case basis anyway. Generally it's not a good idea to cheat on your exams but in some cases it can be fine and dandy like sour candy. If it works for you and doesn't hurt anyone, example the basketball player mentioned above.There is no integrity of the ladder and there never was, it's a pretty decent system that like all pretty decent systems is exploitable to some degree. What more do you want or could you possibly expect? "But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification." If you are good enough, smart enough, savvy enough, cunning enough, then your lack of ability to reach GM when you are trying to become a semi pro isn't going to be any sort of barrier. GM doesn't mean anything. Results do. Ability does. Showcasing your skills, and marketing yourself, developing your value as a gamer to watch is what will get you any level of pro status. And if you can't make it then you aren't cut out for it and it has nothing at all, I repeat, nothing at all to do with the fact that there are cheaters in the game and they are taking up some GM slots. Would you be ok if someone got ahead of you on a promotion because they faked their degree? I disagree with the bolded part. Just because people have gotten over it doesn't mean it was OK. Look, I'm not trying to be morally elitist for the sake of being one. The chess system is pretty good, could we have something like that? Please don't compare the business world with a video game. This comparason is ridiculous. No, it's not a ridiculous comparison. If it is, explain why. This player cheated his way into the highest skilled league in the game, stealing one of the only 200 spots that an otherwise legitimate player could have taken. This is worse than maphack. So what is the reward for this player for being in the "highest skilled league" in the game . He get's nothing for it. Also do you want to ban smurfs too. Smurfs also take spots away from other players. Overall i don't think the GM league is very well structured, but that's blizzards fault. On July 16 2012 21:28 Gajarell wrote:
I am probably supposed to be against it - not that i have a technical reason no to. But correcting it would probably do more harm than good. This issue is, in the long run, completly self-correcting. Ideally, Blizzard should make smurfing also against the rules. But, as I've explained above, part of this is Blizzard's fault in making a flawed GM system. How should blizzard ban smurfs. Do you want that a player can only use one account. Because that would be the consequence. Also pros need the possibilty of hiding their training or to experiment with new stragegies. I think GM should just update daily and contain the the 200 highest players in terms of ELO.
I don't think it's possible to ban smurfing. That's why I said "ideally". If somehow they magically could determine who is smurfing, then they should close the smurf accounts.
Updating GM daily based on MMR is an infinitely better system than what they're currently doing. But it doesn't solve anything in this case. What if he got his account leveled to GM near the end of the season? Even if GM updates daily, the cheater can still not play any games, so that his MMR doesn't change. You can suggest adding decay, but decay takes time to have an effect. So again, banning these cheaters is necessary.
You also dodged 95% of my post.
|
On July 16 2012 21:55 aTnClouD wrote:
Honestly the only problem I see in this is GM ladder being an awful system.
Again, GM ladder is awful. But there is no way to fix the system in such a way that paying for your account to be leveled to GM becomes a nonissue that is self-correcting.
|
I actually see a big difference between these leveled accounts and actual cheating. This to me only appears to be against the EULA but does not actually do any damage.
You claim it hurts exposure of up and coming semi-pro's. In reality though while it hurts them it is a spot that would otherwise have been taken by a smurf of said pro gamer, the only difference is that this smurf has another owner who uses it in team games.
The coincidence that people that pay to hvae their accounts leveled hack is not an argument on whether the leveling should be legal. It is the same as claiming that the sale of firearms should be illegal because you claim that the people buying them have a tendency to drive over the speed limit. (For the record: I am against selling firearms but that is because of the useage of the gun itself).
|
On July 16 2012 21:55 Technique wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 21:54 Daniel C wrote:On July 16 2012 21:43 rd wrote:On July 16 2012 20:51 Daniel C wrote:On July 16 2012 20:40 rd wrote:On July 16 2012 20:28 Daniel C wrote:
It seems to me that one of the main reasons that people who are defending this practice offer is that "it's just ladder". Sadly, the integrity of ladder continues to suffer precisely because of this attitude. If ladder truly meant nothing, then yeah, who cares. But for aspiring semi-pros, GM may make the difference between getting noticed or not, or tournament qualification.
In an ideal world, smurf accounts would not be allowed either. Then ladder ranking could actually be used for something meaniz,ngful. Let's use a chess analogy: let's say that an amateur player paid a chess grandmaster to obtain a grandmaster title for him. In the process, several aspiring players in the same tournament were unable to achieve their final GM "norm" (points counting towards GM qualification) because they were playing against an elite player. Surely, bot the actual grandmaster and the paying "customer" would be severely punished for such a fraud.
Would you guys be OK with paying someone to take your exams for you? Just because we support pro players and their livelihoods does not mean we have to support their actions.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and the ends do not justify the means, etc. etc. No, I defend it because I don't think anyone should really care what people want to spend their money on. Also, when the number one argument is how leveling accounts degrades the integrity of GM what the fuck else do you expect to hear in response? GM IS very abusable, REGARDLESS of leveling accounts. It's an issue with GM, and the value everyone is placing in it. Comparison isn't relevant. Also, in general everyone needs to stop mentioning pro players, they aren't all pro players offering it. I don't think you understand my point. My point is that I feel that ladder should and could mean something. Just like in the chess world, your FIDE point ranking is rather important. The difficulty is making sure that the person playing behind the account is the person they claim to be. In theory, would it be possible to make GM meaningful, just like a chess grandmaster rating is meaningful? Re: the bolded part. It does matter if it's against the rules and hurts others. It'd obviously be cool for it to be meaningful, but it currently isn't, and it has nothing to do with leveling accounts. If GM was functioning properly account levelers couldn't affect the top ranking players. lol @ your re. It's against the rules because you have to share your account, and Blizzard does not want you playing SC2 unless you bought the game. It has never hurt anyone other than those who go out of their way on TL to be hurt by it. Doesn't affect me. I'm referring to aspiring semipros. and before you go "gm smurfs are plenty" or 'if he's good it doesn't matter', please answer this: what other mainstream sport would tolerate this kind of impersonation? Ladder means nothing so your comparison doesn't make sense.
If you start with that presumption then you will never feel the need to change anything. That's fine. Some people feel differently though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
