EPTI want SC2, but not bad enough that I'd pay money for names or mothly fee's. I'd rather just stick with BW if that's the case.
Battle.net 2.0 rumours - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
QuanticHawk
United States32084 Posts
I want SC2, but not bad enough that I'd pay money for names or mothly fee's. I'd rather just stick with BW if that's the case. | ||
|
leviathan400
United Kingdom393 Posts
On July 24 2008 12:04 prOxi.swAMi wrote: Battle.net 2.0 is almost just as exciting as StarCraft 2 itself. I can't wait for the new features. I think it would be acceptable to charge a $10 (shut up! it's just ten bucks, jeez get over it) fee to register a Battle.net account. Allow players to change their gaming id, but their account is tied to their email and the statics tied to the account, not their gaming id. This is an interesting idea and it could work because you could get given one free battlenet account with your purchase of SC2. | ||
|
teacake
Afghanistan12 Posts
The WC3 AMM works well for the most part. If a good player starts a new account he should be taken out of the noob pool within a few games. But if players want to be ass hats they can work around it. If you want to grief noobs you just lossbot and you will face noobs for ever. Part of the problem was that people built up unreasonable expectations from the old ladder. Old ladder it was not uncommon for good players to go 80-20 or something. The aim of the new AMM was to even out the match-making to 50-50 as the ideal, because you should end up playing opponents of the same skill as you, like a mirror. Those stats sound awful compared to old ladder, but your ladder rank should indicate your prowess, not your win ratio. | ||
|
dcttr66
United States555 Posts
On July 24 2008 12:04 prOxi.swAMi wrote: Battle.net 2.0 is almost just as exciting as StarCraft 2 itself. I can't wait for the new features. I think it would be acceptable to charge a $10 (shut up! it's just ten bucks, jeez get over it) fee to register a Battle.net account. Allow players to change their gaming id, but their account is tied to their email and the statics tied to the account, not their gaming id. It would certainly reduce the amount of people who just create new names spontaneously. And a convenient way for Blizzard to make some cash. there's no way not to like this idea unless you like too many names for blizzard to watch and register. it's a good idea. even if you don't want to charge extra money then just make the game ten bucks less. it would be kinda odd though having your friend make a new account and paying ten bucks to have him play and then he hates the game and never plays it again or something like that. well i'm sure that's what the single player is for. maybe a better solution though would be to just have one account per cd key and only let people have up to 5 names that they can use on their cd key. so no matter what name you log on with, the other 4 names are referenced at the profile. and if you want more than those five, you're going to have to buy another game. but maybe five people sharing a computer is too many right? probably three is a better number. two might be too small and obviously 1 isn't going to work for a shared comp. so i think they should limit each cd key to 3 names on bnet and no more. and i think the other names should be referenced when looking at the player profile. i think my idea is a fair and reasonable solution because players who have shared comps can share two accounts with others and that's enough for 3 shifts of 8 hours in a day so you really don't need anymore than that i think...if you do, then buy another cd key. and then of course the comps with only one player can have 2 accounts just to play around with and not be serious and/or do your lame bashing newbs thing. but it won't last long cuz you'll only be able to do it twice. | ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
| ||
|
Siders
United States3 Posts
On July 25 2008 02:16 teamsolid wrote: They'll never limit # of accts on BNet because of PC Bangs. Thats a really good point. PC bangs and internet cafe's are the homes of many SC/WC/diablo players | ||
|
ramen247
United States1256 Posts
i agree with kwark. there is an excitement in not knowing how good your opponent is. sometimes, when you join an obs game, there is someone with a weird name in the player slot and he doesnt talk. you /stats him, and it comes 0-0-0. you are curious and you decide to play. countdown. 5.4.3.2. gg glhf he blurts 1. 0. mission briefing. you are nervous and shaking. you go about doing whatever you always do and suddenly, the guy performs some amazing feats that destroy you. he uses 2 scvs to kill your spawning pool or something idk. this makes starcraft online exciting and it really keeps the community alive. having some matching system with no smurfs also prevents good players from being able to express themselves in other ways. HERES ANOTHER EXAMPLE! you are nada and you want to go on b.net for a break. you realize you can't noob bash because the system won't let you play even against the best player on US WEST because his stats are better than his. this is mucho gay. and what if nada wants to keep his identity a secret to prevent fans from flooding him? he can't. unless he makes an account that has nothing to do with nada. and nada wont be able to be the guy in the player slot of the random obs game that doesnt talk and says ggglhf just before the ame starts and totally own some random noob.... seriously, starcraft's b.net works fine. b.net 2 shouldnt have much more improvements than these: -less server lag for more ppl being able to host -better speed and latency -ability for more than 8ppl a game (more obs) -slight graphical improvements -more friend list space -better way to reply to whispers from random person with weird name -better friend add system -ability to create clan -ability to join clan without new account SMURFING IS PART OF STARCRAFT! | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On July 24 2008 20:53 Kwark wrote: There is nothing unfair about newbbashing. That is the glory of starcraft. When the game starts everything is equal. It is the decisions that separate the gosu from the newb. And in the current system the new player can simply choose not to play a better player. The right works both ways. You're arguing in favour of less choice for everyone. Intimidation and being beaten too hard is the #1 reason single-player RTS players do not play multiplayer (or don't for very long). Blizzard will make their automatch system so they can accomodate the majority of their player base, not so that the .05% of people who like to 'mess around' are happy. I don't think Blizzard gives a fuck about your feeling like you have less choice. At least they shouldn't*. | ||
|
Ki_Do
Korea (South)981 Posts
| ||
|
LordofToast
United Kingdom250 Posts
On July 25 2008 02:30 ramen247 wrote: WTF BLIZZARD! WORST IDEA EVER. i agree with kwark. there is an excitement in not knowing how good your opponent is. sometimes, when you join an obs game, there is someone with a weird name in the player slot and he doesnt talk. you /stats him, and it comes 0-0-0. you are curious and you decide to play. countdown. 5.4.3.2. gg glhf he blurts 1. 0. mission briefing. you are nervous and shaking. you go about doing whatever you always do and suddenly, the guy performs some amazing feats that destroy you. he uses 2 scvs to kill your spawning pool or something idk. this makes starcraft online exciting and it really keeps the community alive. having some matching system with no smurfs also prevents good players from being able to express themselves in other ways. HERES ANOTHER EXAMPLE! you are nada and you want to go on b.net for a break. you realize you can't noob bash because the system won't let you play even against the best player on US WEST because his stats are better than his. this is mucho gay. and what if nada wants to keep his identity a secret to prevent fans from flooding him? he can't. unless he makes an account that has nothing to do with nada. and nada wont be able to be the guy in the player slot of the random obs game that doesnt talk and says ggglhf just before the ame starts and totally own some random noob.... seriously, starcraft's b.net works fine. b.net 2 shouldnt have much more improvements than these: -less server lag for more ppl being able to host -better speed and latency -ability for more than 8ppl a game (more obs) -slight graphical improvements -more friend list space -better way to reply to whispers from random person with weird name -better friend add system -ability to create clan -ability to join clan without new account SMURFING IS PART OF STARCRAFT! Urgh I tried to resist making another post. Smurfing isnt a problem. I can see why youd want to have a practice account. Id also expect people to make smurf accounts for tournaments so people cant expect their play style/strategy. The problem is when people use smurf accounts for by passing the automatch system. Seriously do you punch babies in the street to show off your might? Maybe you would if you had a smurf disguise? What I was suggesting earlier is that when you play automatch it matches you against people equal to your highest ranking account. That way you can still do about of R&D or start a clean slate and if you are good your rank will sky rocket very fast. I do appologise about the use of that extreme analogy. It just annoys me that people dont understand that SC is a game! The winning and the losing sides are ment to be have a good time . An unfairly matched game is both disheartening for the Newbie and does very little to advance the skill of the smurf. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On July 24 2008 14:55 OakHill wrote: Why not simply make it so that 0-0 to 10-0 players have a better chance playing against other 0-0 to 10-0ish type of players instead of versus 0-10 to 20-20ish type of players (which are the ones who are really concerned of). So it would be more like:The system does nothing to prevent smurfing at all. If anything it causes more frequent smurfing. An example: Average players: 1.14 AMM: Player goes 25-0 solo, realizes he had reached skill level where he can no longer win easily, makes new account. 1.15 AMM Player goes 10-0 solo, loses, makes new account. Good players: 1.14 AMM: Player goes 25-0 solo, stops playing bad players and then proceeds to find games against moderately skilled opponents, then eventually other good players. 1.15 AMM: Player goes 15-0 solo, has to search for 30 minutes to 2 hours to find a game. Makes new account or stops laddering (or waits). Obviously it does not work for Warcraft III. Even if Starcraft 2 has 20x the user base (it will), the very best players (lets say some Koreans play on east) will only be able to match each other with the new AMM, since it has such a low range of matching. With the old AMM he would be able to match a range of players and would not wait. An Orc player named Zacard went 150-2 solo on Azeroth in 1.14, he wouldn't be able to find a game after 50-0 most likely with the new AMM. Anyways, I'm positive Blizzard will incorporate a Valve like system for the new Battle.net that at the very least ties cd keys to one e-mail address (look at the new Blizzard store if that's any indication). Average player: Starts 0-0. Wins first few games against other smurfs till 10-0. Then starts fighting better players. Bad player: Starts 0-0. Loses first few games to better players, get 0-5. Plays other bad players, wins a couple loses another while he slowly gets to like 20-20. So bad players will only fights smurfs for the first few games. Enough to calculate that he is not a smurf himself (since smurfs would make another account once they start losing). Then the guy would only start playing against other bad players who lost their first few games as well. This is just one idea. Personally I think there are tons of different ways to calculate if a guy is a smurf or not, and keep the number of games bad players have against smurfs to a minimum. There is no need for paid accounts. | ||
|
holy_war
United States3590 Posts
| ||
|
Retsukage
United States1002 Posts
| ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
| ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
A previous poster mentioned that smurfing causes "excitement" in the game because you are unaware of what the other person is capable of. Speaking from personal experience, I can say that it's more frustrating than exciting. The most exciting games are always the ones that involve equally skilled players going at each other. You don't see major league football team playing against kinder gardeners do you? Getting dominated one game might make me impressed, but I can guarantee you that the feeling instantly turns into annoyance after that. If people really want to trash newbies, then you're more than welcome to do so in a custom or unranked "just for fun" game, but such gameplay has no place in a competitive ladder system. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5656 Posts
On July 25 2008 03:53 VIB wrote: And for the love of god stop confusing account to screen name. They can very well allow one account per cd-key but let you reset your name/stats or have multiple names for practicing, yet all linked the the same cd-key. Stop using this excuse of needing different names for clans, practice or tournaments. One thing have nothing to do with the other, you can still be limited to one account and have multiple names/stats. What would be the reason for limiting accounts then? :O | ||
|
Aarnog
Canada6 Posts
Also, I think the best way to prevent Smurfing is to give out 4 accounts with every copy of Starcraft (so everyone in the family can have an account that is not linked to the other accounts), and allow the individual accounts to do things like change their name, reset their stats, etc. However, if they do reset their stats, don't reset their points all the way. eg: someone with 2500 points resets their stats, instead of starting off with the default 1000, they get bumped back a bit to 1500 or 1800 or something like that. That way they still have to play people with enough skill to make the game a bit of a challenge, instead of letting them effortlessly ruin some newcomers' day. Also, I think it's especially important to prevent smurfing while SC2 is new. Especially while it is developing its userbase - too much smurfing could brand the online game as "elitist" or "impossible" which is really counter-productive to building a good online community. You really do have to keep in mind that the vast majority of the people playing SC2 will be the sort of people who haven't played Starcraft since 2000, or people who never played the original game. These aren't really the sort of people that will enjoy being thoroughly beaten by someone smurfing them, and take the opportunity to learn from it. They will instead get pissed off and throw their monitors through windows, and stomp on their pcs until their feet are bloody and broken. (If you can't tell, I am exaggerating a little bit here). | ||
|
OakHill
United States168 Posts
On July 24 2008 19:49 Kwark wrote: 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. I don't see the problem. You do NOT have to use the ladder and can simply play custom games. You can dislike the idea of a ladder all you want, but having it as an option is much more logical than not having one at all. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5656 Posts
| ||
|
yangstuh
United States120 Posts
| ||
| ||
. You just get dodgers and one mappers as is rife in Command and Conquer 3. 
