EPTBattle.net 2.0 rumours - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
prOxi.swAMi
Australia3091 Posts
| ||
|
LonelyMargarita
1845 Posts
On July 24 2008 14:07 Phyre wrote: How can a stalker follow you around? If certain basic features like banning someone from your non-AMM game then I don't see this being a problem. They could give you more than squelch features, like a big /fuckyou command that bans them from your games, squelches, and prevents them from hearing what you say, all in one command. If they only have one name also, they can't really stalk you then can they? Because only the host can ban, and not everyone can host. | ||
|
fighter2g
China11 Posts
I hope they do something more similar to ICCUP but with a choice of random matching or choosing your opponents. IMO The best way to get rid of surfing is to have multiple ladders that run in seasons. The top X from ladder D at end of X time move to ladder C etc (and the bottom down). If you are in ladder C and you create a new account you have to start WAY back at D and can't climb back to A in a week - but rather a month or 2 or 3 (when things reset). It makes accounts worth more as there is a time investment in them, not just a record. Sea wants to start a new account? He'll be bashing noobs for the next month then - not very good practice and not very fun. If it cost $10 / account I think people will just choose to play elsewhere. Not everyone likes to play ladder and smurfs ladder accounts. Some of us like to make new accounts to match our friends (or for clans?!) etc - not necessarily for ladder. Gotta come up with a different solution. | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
Shit, you caught me lol...fixed in my OP now. Wasn't considering MMOs. MMOs are an exception. On July 24 2008 14:33 prOxi.swAMi wrote: Not a continuous payment. Just a one-off cost to purchase an account.... It's really not that big of a deal. To me it is...I bought the game already, and for an RTS game, I think online playability should be included with that. That's more than standard among non-subscription based PC games nowadays... | ||
|
useLess
United States4781 Posts
| ||
|
iPF[Div]
Spain572 Posts
On July 24 2008 13:29 Savio wrote: If they charged a one time fee, I would begrudgingly pay it. But if it was monthly, I would drop out of school, make a sign and protest naked outside of Blizzard's headquarters. hopefully its not very cold there cuz i'll be right there with you. FUCK MONTHLY FEES!!! | ||
MasterOfChaos
Germany2896 Posts
There are some interesting papers by MS on that topic. There every player is characterized by 2 values. Estimated skill level and a measure how sure the system is about your skill level. The rank is simply the estimated skill level minus three times the uncertainity(Standard deviation). At the beginning your skill level is set to average, and your uncertainity to very large. So you are matched against average players at the beginning. After a few lost games you quickly move down to a lower estimated skill level. The more game you play with consistent results the smaller the uncertainity becomes and your rank gets closer to the estimated skill level. | ||
KwarK
United States43934 Posts
| ||
|
True_Spike
Poland3430 Posts
On July 24 2008 18:00 Kwark wrote: I actually really like the bnet system. It's simple. You just make a game and they join. Pure and simple. Leave the ladder stuff to the community because quite frankly, we know what we're doing better. Perhaps, but Blizzard being the owner of Bnet means it has the most tools at its disposal to create an almost perfect gaming environment. Bnet's user base is thousands time bigger than any private server will ever reach, plus there are certain technical difficulties with creating and managing a private ladder. | ||
|
gNs.I-Jasa
United States211 Posts
| ||
|
LordofToast
United Kingdom250 Posts
On July 24 2008 18:00 Kwark wrote: I actually really like the bnet system. It's simple. You just make a game and they join. Pure and simple. Leave the ladder stuff to the community because quite frankly, we know what we're doing better. Terrible system  . You just get dodgers and one mappers as is rife in Command and Conquer 3. What I think would work well is the system that relic uses in Company of Heroes. Where in they take the highest rank out of all of your accounts and match you against that. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43934 Posts
On July 24 2008 19:41 LordofToast wrote: Terrible system . You just get dodgers and one mappers as is rife in Command and Conquer 3. What I think would work well is the system that relic uses in Company of Heroes. Where in they take the highest rank out of all of your accounts and match you against that. Who cares? If someone wants to dodge let them dodge. I dislike the idea of being matched up with opponents against my will. I dislike the idea of having my account constantly tracked to assess my level. I dislike the idea that I can't just create a smurf and mess around. The fewer controls on the player the better in my opinion. And the battlenet system leaves everything (map/opponent/speed/latency) up to the player. I'd rather enjoy the game the way I want to than have a ladder imposed upon me by the interface. | ||
|
LordofToast
United Kingdom250 Posts
How can you have a ladder that means anything if you can choose not to play certain players or match ups. That would be like Leicester City winning the premier league without playing Manchester united etc... | ||
|
Ki_Do
Korea (South)981 Posts
lets avoid speculation guys, when there is lack of information our mind grow very very creative thinking in bad things that -thx to god- never happen | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5801 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43934 Posts
On July 24 2008 19:54 LordofToast wrote: So your saying you want to smash noobs and ruin their day. You still can make a smurf and mess around but you will be messing around vs people of a simular skill level. How can you have a ladder that means anything if you can choose not to play certain players or match ups. That would be like Leicester City winning the premier league without playing Manchester united etc... I want the option to mess around vs noobs, yes. And I see no reason why if I pay for the game I shouldn't be able to play whoever I like. This is exactly why I was saying that Blizzard should impose as little upon the player as possible. As for winning a ladder? That's an absurd term. Nobody wins a ladder. The icc ladder means something because a rank denotes a good win rate at a specific level and if you're curious you can see their game list and notice if they've been avoiding koreans or whatever. | ||
|
LordofToast
United Kingdom250 Posts
However lets use your logic from someone elses perspective. If a someone new to the game who only has a few hours a week in which they can play wants a fair fun game surely that is their right too because they paid just as much as you did. Yes there are ladder winners. Its normally the guy at the top when the season ends.. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43934 Posts
As for ladder winners, ladders don't work like leagues or tournaments. A korean B is better than a non korean B. When you play, who you play and who you avoid changes things. Your winrate in particular matchups change things. Your points are a sign, they are related to how good you are, but they are by no means an absolute measure. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5801 Posts
| ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
Actually, Sirlin has a great article detailing this... it says playing to win at ALL TIMES is counter productive, and I agree. Obviously, you want to play to win a lot, but just not always. See link: http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-3-not-playing-to-win/ | ||
| ||
