|
Sweden33719 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. Show nested quote +"To impress us though, Blizzard needs to come up with a way to prevent experienced players from re-registering as a newbie so they can stomp true beginners. Is it even possible without the use of rootkits and other unpleasant elements to track how many hours a player has spent with the game? We like to think so." 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.
Are you absolutely INSANE  ?
I'd be extremely pissed off if this happened.
If they want to have a system where you can pay for a premium account (getting access to, say, streamed games over bnet or tournaments or whatever) then yeah, but paying everytime I want to create a smurf to play undisturbed? Fuck that.
If you want to have one "main account" which is tied to your cd-key, and then have multiple bnet ids linked to that, that MIGHT work. But there's a huge problem when there's more than one person playing from the same computer. IE it's not gonna be very fun for the 10 year old brother of *insert future Boxer-equivalent* when he gets matched up with *insert future NaDa-equivalent*.
On July 24 2008 19:55 maybenexttime wrote:
Who says you can't make smurf accounts? WC3 BNet >>> iCCup on such a massive scale.
Maybe but there are some things I wish could be implemented.. Like a re-match button and perhaps a ladder channel for the highest X ranks (and only allowing these people to create a custom ladder game, ie outside the AMM, although this could hurt the AMM for others I guess..).
I just like being able to rematch people 
|
I like the idea of a re-match button. And I think a separate (additional) ladder for top players (Season Finals participants) does the job just fine in WC3.
|
United States42653 Posts
I think basic multiplayer has to be free with the box. You have to be able to pick up starcraft and get online, otherwise you simply won't get hooked. Also think of all those times you "quit" starcraft. It'd be much harder to get back in if you actually had to cancel your subscription. That said, I wouldn't mind paying for separate ladder access if the ladder was actively policed by Blizzard, ran regular events with prizes, had good map rotation, abuser banning and streaming of some top games. Battlenet has to be free because battlenet is at the heart of starcraft but if they want to provide an excellent ladder service too I see no reason why they shouldn't charge for it.
|
omg please big /fuckyou command in new battle 2! and a way to stab people in the face from across the internet!(not serious)
this should be good , looking forward to it, although now i really think the bw scene is going to die ; usually everyone uses the battle.net server for blizzard games D:
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On July 25 2008 04:36 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +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. "To impress us though, Blizzard needs to come up with a way to prevent experienced players from re-registering as a newbie so they can stomp true beginners. Is it even possible without the use of rootkits and other unpleasant elements to track how many hours a player has spent with the game? We like to think so." 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. Are you absolutely INSANE ? I'd be extremely pissed off if this happened. If they want to have a system where you can pay for a premium account (getting access to, say, streamed games over bnet or tournaments or whatever) then yeah, but paying everytime I want to create a smurf to play undisturbed? Fuck that. If you want to have one "main account" which is tied to your cd-key, and then have multiple bnet ids linked to that, that MIGHT work. But there's a huge problem when there's more than one person playing from the same computer. IE it's not gonna be very fun for the 10 year old brother of *insert future Boxer-equivalent* when he gets matched up with *insert future NaDa-equivalent*. Show nested quote +On July 24 2008 19:55 maybenexttime wrote:
Who says you can't make smurf accounts? WC3 BNet >>> iCCup on such a massive scale. Maybe but there are some things I wish could be implemented.. Like a re-match button and perhaps a ladder channel for the highest X ranks (and only allowing these people to create a custom ladder game, ie outside the AMM, although this could hurt the AMM for others I guess..). I just like being able to rematch people
Could be solved with a system of limiting the amount of "hours logged" on a nickname per CD-Key_Based_Account. So if they allowed three resets, you could have four family members playing the game at different times if you wanted. But of course, you couldn't play at the same time as another nickname that uses your same CDKey. If you wanted to do that, you could buy a new CDKey and then transfer your current nickname to your new CDKey_Based_Account.
|
I do not intend to spam but i rly wanna ask you all,
please lets not talk about fees (lets not give this idea to blizz) =] ~
|
On July 25 2008 04:05 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +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 So the system can know what's the guy's highest ladder rank regardless of what name he is using.
You can change your name whenever you want. But the AMM will know you have a name with level 30 even if you start one from level 1. And won't match you against other level 1s.
|
Yeah, and that's totally bad...
What if my brother wants to play SC2 too but he's of different skill level? Why does he have to buy another CD key?
What if I want to learn a new race? I'm definitely not level 30 with Zerg just because I am with Terran, right?
|
On July 25 2008 04:36 FrozenArbiter wrote:Are you absolutely INSANE ?
What?... Rhetoric was cool about 100 years ago... but thanks for your grand alternative solution, I'm just trying to think of ways to prevent the newb-bashing and introduce a means of which to force players to consider their demeanor while online (something which rarely happens on the internet).
$10, are you that poor?
|
On July 25 2008 08:35 prOxi.swAMi wrote:What?... Rhetoric was cool about 100 years ago... but thanks for your grand alternative solution, I'm just trying to think of ways to prevent the newb-bashing and introduce a means of which to force players to consider their demeanor while online (something which rarely happens on the internet). $10, are you that poor?
What made bnet so great is because it's free. If they charge money for Diablo 3/ Starcraft 2, it's seriously going to suck.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 25 2008 08:35 prOxi.swAMi wrote:What?... Rhetoric was cool about 100 years ago... but thanks for your grand alternative solution, I'm just trying to think of ways to prevent the newb-bashing and introduce a means of which to force players to consider their demeanor while online (something which rarely happens on the internet). $10, are you that poor?
No, 10$ isn't a big deal at all to me, I spend like 600$ on yearly subscriptions to pokersites, I'm not at all opposed to paying for content. But that's the thing, I'm not gonna pay for the "privilege" to create a bnet account when I've already paid 50$ for the game..
It's more that I don't think it's a good idea, I don't like the thought of having to find an easy way to ship money everytime I want to create a new account (and I do that on at least a semi-regular basis, at least for different servers). Also worries me that it might hurt the player pool (although, given the success of WoW I guess I shouldn't worry huh?).
If, with the 10$, we'd be getting access to, say, automated tournaments with prizes or things like that, then ya, I'd be up for that - hell I'd pay monthly probably. But I don't think it should be a forced fee..
If you are suggesting that we'd be able to have several IDs (but all tied to one "account") then why the charge? Could just tie account to cd-key instead, seems just as effective.
I have *zero* problem witih smurfing, smurfing meaning playing on a nickname other than what you are most well known as. I don't get the problem of newb-bashing either btw, if they want to start over again and again and get 20-0 records what's the problem exactly? Isn't that their perrogative?
Btw, I didn't mean the first line to be as aggressive as it came out, just meant it sort of playfully.
On July 25 2008 07:18 Klogon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2008 04:36 FrozenArbiter wrote: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. "To impress us though, Blizzard needs to come up with a way to prevent experienced players from re-registering as a newbie so they can stomp true beginners. Is it even possible without the use of rootkits and other unpleasant elements to track how many hours a player has spent with the game? We like to think so." 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. Are you absolutely INSANE ? I'd be extremely pissed off if this happened. If they want to have a system where you can pay for a premium account (getting access to, say, streamed games over bnet or tournaments or whatever) then yeah, but paying everytime I want to create a smurf to play undisturbed? Fuck that. If you want to have one "main account" which is tied to your cd-key, and then have multiple bnet ids linked to that, that MIGHT work. But there's a huge problem when there's more than one person playing from the same computer. IE it's not gonna be very fun for the 10 year old brother of *insert future Boxer-equivalent* when he gets matched up with *insert future NaDa-equivalent*. On July 24 2008 19:55 maybenexttime wrote:
Who says you can't make smurf accounts? WC3 BNet >>> iCCup on such a massive scale. Maybe but there are some things I wish could be implemented.. Like a re-match button and perhaps a ladder channel for the highest X ranks (and only allowing these people to create a custom ladder game, ie outside the AMM, although this could hurt the AMM for others I guess..). I just like being able to rematch people Could be solved with a system of limiting the amount of "hours logged" on a nickname per CD-Key_Based_Account. So if they allowed three resets, you could have four family members playing the game at different times if you wanted. But of course, you couldn't play at the same time as another nickname that uses your same CDKey. If you wanted to do that, you could buy a new CDKey and then transfer your current nickname to your new CDKey_Based_Account.
.. Or we could just do it the hasslefree way of SC and Wc3?
I just don't see the problem of people being able to freely create new nicknames.. But if we have to do it the way you suggest, with nicknames tied to a CD-Key main account or whatever, then having an ELO for each race (or perhaps matchup) might be best so that someone can create a new account for playing another race without being matched up against high level players (and in the process ruining things for his main account since his estimated ladder level will drop, right?).
But then we are back on square one when your little brother wants to play but doesn't want to play vs lvl 50s..
There's a chance I'm misunderstanding what you are saying tho, it's late and I can't quite make sense of what you mean.. When you say reset what do you mean exactly?
|
On July 25 2008 03:42 LordofToast wrote:Show nested quote +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.
so... where is nada gonna play? hes always gonna noob bash no matter what. hes can be best player on all servers with 0-0-0 stats. do you want him to only be able to play some challenger noob?
|
Some of you are too willing to part with your money and all it's going to do in the long run is cause game companies to charge us for the game, the right of playing it, and everything in between. Theres will always be someone out there willing to help a fools part with their money.
|
On July 25 2008 11:15 moebius_string wrote:
Some of you are too willing to part with your money and all it's going to do in the long run is cause game companies to charge us for the game, the right of playing it, and everything in between. Theres will always be someone out there willing to help a fools part with their money.
It's not like you don't _get_ the game when you buy it. Fuck. You think it doesn't cost Blizzard money to maintain Battle.net? Of course people shouldn't be over-generous with their money but don't call people fools for being willing to pay for a service when they receive it. In fact, I believe the opposite of a financially over-generous individual would be a thief. Hi thief.
|
Charging a fee for playing on bnet would be so bad, what about the whole under-18 gaming population with no access to credit cards?
|
Paypal can link directly to your every day bank account, free of charge.
|
On July 25 2008 12:52 prOxi.swAMi wrote:
Paypal can link directly to your every day bank account, free of charge.
its an RTS game. no other RTS game requires money except the money that i used to buy the game. if blizzard does what you are suggesting, MANY people won't play it. are you asking for every computer that progamers use in the pro team house to pay to make an account they fool around on?
|
One of the features I hated about the war3 melee was that it searched for opponents to match me up with. It would take forever (sometimes I'd leave it on for hours) and still it would not join me up with another player. How incredibly annoying. If I want to stomp nubs, why stop me..? In BW I've been stomped by a million people that are better than me, but that only made me better each time. Unless you want to turn this game into a game played by sissy crybabies that can't take a loss, I say keep the system of joining games as with the current BW.
One of the other points mentioned was the account making policy. I'm inclined to agree that changing an account should incur a fee. People seem to abuse it far too much (hackers, cheaters and so on). This would be a good incentive for such people to stop. The fees incurred would most possibly go towards maintanence of the servers/creation of new servers. The current bnet has quite a high latency (as compared to programs such as hamachi even). Which really begs the question of why people should spend good money getting a bnet account in the first place.
|
On July 25 2008 13:20 aupstar wrote:
One of the features I hated about the war3 melee was that it searched for opponents to match me up with. It would take forever (sometimes I'd leave it on for hours) and still it would not join me up with another player. How incredibly annoying. If I want to stomp nubs, why stop me..? In BW I've been stomped by a million people that are better than me, but that only made me better each time. Unless you want to turn this game into a game played by sissy crybabies that can't take a loss, I say keep the system of joining games as with the current BW.
One of the other points mentioned was the account making policy. I'm inclined to agree that changing an account should incur a fee. People seem to abuse it far too much (hackers, cheaters and so on). This would be a good incentive for such people to stop. The fees incurred would most possibly go towards maintanence of the servers/creation of new servers. The current bnet has quite a high latency (as compared to programs such as hamachi even). Which really begs the question of why people should spend good money getting a bnet account in the first place.
blizzard can just include an anti-hack like iccup launcher. ez
|
Why are there STILL people advocating for paying extra money for using bnet? It has been said multiple times on this thread, I thought it would be clear by now that it makes zero sense to pay additional for bnet. If the acc is linked to the cd-key you'd already need to pay for an additional cd-key if you want to smurf. Then only allow to change name/stats within the acc but the server still knows your record. There you go, no more smurfing, problem solved. What are you guys still arguing here, what part of the obvious did you not comprehend?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
