|
I found an article in this months pcpowerplay about the new battle.net. Nothing groundbreaking yet, but there wasnt a thread on bnet speculations so i made this.
"Before the announcement of Diablo III, the Diablo related channels of Battle.net were fairly quiet. Hours later, they were jam-packed with players reacquainting themselves with one of PC’s most fondly remembered IPs.
Yet Battle.net is a creaky service indeed. Yes, it’s free, but it still lags far behind the online offerings from Xbox Live! and even some of the features of steam.
Blizzard promises a complete rejuvenation of Battle.net – which they already refer to as Battle.net 2 – to coincide with the launch of Starcraft II.
Specific details? Sadly, Blizzard remains quiet, and the reaction to the colour scheme in Diablo III won’t fill the developer with confidence when it comes to announcing actual important stuff like anti-cheating systems.
But we’re promised a much more sophisticated player-finding service, as well as the full suite of features we now take for granted elsewhere. Finding friends, organising matches, reserving space, filtering noobs, it’s all on the to-do list.
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.
The new Battle.net will also be more explicitly tuned to what Blizzard calls “e-sports” or professional tournaments. The existing ladder system is very mature, so it remains to see this fleshed out and integrated with the burgeoning spectator side of professional play. Starcraft II tournament championships, in real time, on your PC, in engine, only a few clicks away? Yes please!"
There is also another rumour that the new battle.net won't be able to interact with the old ones.
here
Blizzard will announce new bnet features when Starcraft 2 goes into beta.
+ Show Spoiler +
Are there any other rumours I'm missing?
|
Hopefully they code some sort of AI that can analyze how people play. If a new account is managing their economy very well, attacking expertly, has a fairly decent APM and wins their first game, then they shouldn't be playing the other new accounts who sloppily play and win their first game by luck. Those two players will have the same rank after one game, but they shouldn't play each other in auto-matchmaking.
As long as Bnet2 has a nice UI, a good system for clans and tournaments, intelligent auto-matchmaking and a more useful/responsive listing of games... I'll be a happy player.
|
They better do something about the empty gamelist screen lag.
|
On July 24 2008 11:32 alien3456 wrote:
Hopefully they code some sort of AI that can analyze how people play. If a new account is managing their economy very well, attacking expertly, has a fairly decent APM and wins their first game, then they shouldn't be playing the other new accounts who sloppily play and win their first game by luck. Those two players will have the same rank after one game, but they shouldn't play each other in auto-matchmaking.
lol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_ladder
|
While attending Blizzcon 07', I recall Pardo (Pretty sure it was Pardo, I don't fully remember) stating that the Starcraft 2 Battle.net's features will be comparable to the difference between the original Starcraft Battle.net and Warcraft III Battle.net. As you know, this is quite a big jump. Let's hope they follow through with it. I'm sure they will. =)
|
I don't see how they'd fix the pros making new names and smashing issue. When I ultimately rule the BW2 scene and my brother decides he wants to get into it, is he gonna be forced to play other good people just because of how many hours are spent on the game?
|
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.
|
Hopefully smurfs are dealt with in the same manner as War3...
The first game is unpredictable, the system can't know who's supposed to be good and who isn't.
But every game thereafter the system can make fairly good guesses... If you keep winning, you'll keep playing people with better and better records. In War3 (at least, it used to be) if you went about 10 or 15-0, you'd be then playing the best players on the ladder. If they lost, they didn't lose that much rating (I don't think), but if you won, you would gain a lot. If you kept on winning, technically you're one of the "best" players, so the system will keep giving you bonus rating, eventually you'll reach the top of the ladder and voila!
The same goes for the opposite direction. If you win some and lose some, then the system is working. It wants to pair you up with people of near equal skill.
Of course, sometimes it can take several games before you reach your niche, but that's fine...
I can foresee some people bashing War3's ladder, particularly in regards to search times... This is mainly due to inactivity of the ladder, it's not really a flaw in the system. At least, I think so...
|
I don't think limiting accounts or having the same stats on all your accounts is a good idea. There's a need for auto-matchmaking, but there's also a need for regular melee games. On top of that, there's a need for anonymity. If you only have one set of stats, even in AMM you're kind of screwed. What if you want to play two races at two different levels? You'll never improve your worst race if you're stuck at the higher level that your wins from your best race put you at. And multiple accounts also allows Blizzard not to have to worry about anonymity. Just get a new account if someone is harassing you, and Blizzard doesn't have to control a million immature 13 year olds as much. If ban works by ip address/cd key, and especially if it allows you to save a list of blacklisted players/ips, then you don't have to worry about smurfs. They have little impact on AMM games because they'll quickly move up in rank if they are good, and everyone has to start at the same rank for his first game, whether he plays like Sea or Craftmatic2.
|
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.
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.
|
Loved the Craftmatic2 reference 
But about anonymity... why is it so necessary? You can squelch mofos, and knowing they can't just make another account, it would make people act a lot more responsibly if they know they're stuck with the reputation they build for themself. Nothing wrong with that IMO.
|
On July 24 2008 11:59 Hawk wrote:
I don't see how they'd fix the pros making new names and smashing issue. When I ultimately rule the BW2 scene and my brother decides he wants to get into it, is he gonna be forced to play other good people just because of how many hours are spent on the game?
make it cost money
that is...
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.
OR you can just tie to to each CD key. The bnet price is in the cost of the game
|
On July 24 2008 13:30 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Loved the Craftmatic2 reference But about anonymity... why is it so necessary? You can squelch mofos, and knowing they can't just make another account, it would make people act a lot more responsibly if they know they're stuck with the reputation they build for themself. Nothing wrong with that IMO.
Because Blizzard is legally liable for online harassment on their servers. The more trivial ways they have for people to avoid harassment (like making a new account), the better they are from a legal standpoint. Internet harassment laws are becoming stricter (and criminal), and more often-enforced.
And even with squelch, a stalker can still follow you around as much as he wants.
|
From a legal standpoint, I am of the opinion that whining boo-hoo'ers should shut the fuck up. No offense intended.
|
On July 24 2008 13:48 LonelyMargarita wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2008 13:30 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Loved the Craftmatic2 reference But about anonymity... why is it so necessary? You can squelch mofos, and knowing they can't just make another account, it would make people act a lot more responsibly if they know they're stuck with the reputation they build for themself. Nothing wrong with that IMO. Because Blizzard is legally liable for online harassment on their servers. The more trivial ways they have for people to avoid harassment (like making a new account), the better they are from a legal standpoint. Internet harassment laws are becoming stricter (and criminal), and more often-enforced. And even with squelch, a stalker can still follow you around as much as he wants.
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?
|
Paying for Bnet?
I think that's retarded...there's no RTS/FPS PC game out right now that requires a fee to play online...bnet should be NO different.
|
On July 24 2008 14:09 PH wrote:
Paying for Bnet?
I think that's retarded...there's no PC game out right now that requires a fee to play online...bnet should be NO different.
MMO's? :/
|
On July 24 2008 14:09 PH wrote:
Paying for Bnet?
I think that's retarded...there's no PC game out right now that requires a fee to play online...bnet should be NO different.
Not a continuous payment. Just a one-off cost to purchase an account.... It's really not that big of a deal.
|
This is what I am looking forward to most about sc2, the new b.net. Hoping for all the new features and bug fixes (because that shit is so annoying, Black list anyone?).The reason why this is the main thing i'm waiting for is because even if the new games suck at least bw will have the new bnet! ^_-
|
On July 24 2008 12:05 SoleSteeler wrote:
Hopefully smurfs are dealt with in the same manner as War3...
The first game is unpredictable, the system can't know who's supposed to be good and who isn't.
But every game thereafter the system can make fairly good guesses... If you keep winning, you'll keep playing people with better and better records. In War3 (at least, it used to be) if you went about 10 or 15-0, you'd be then playing the best players on the ladder. If they lost, they didn't lose that much rating (I don't think), but if you won, you would gain a lot. If you kept on winning, technically you're one of the "best" players, so the system will keep giving you bonus rating, eventually you'll reach the top of the ladder and voila!
The same goes for the opposite direction. If you win some and lose some, then the system is working. It wants to pair you up with people of near equal skill.
Of course, sometimes it can take several games before you reach your niche, but that's fine...
I can foresee some people bashing War3's ladder, particularly in regards to search times... This is mainly due to inactivity of the ladder, it's not really a flaw in the system. At least, I think so...
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).
|
I find myself agreeing with OakHill and struggle to see how SoleSteeler's explanation prevents smurfing... I think SoleSteeler is making the assumption that people aren't dicks.
|
On July 24 2008 14:07 Phyre wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2008 13:48 LonelyMargarita wrote:On July 24 2008 13:30 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Loved the Craftmatic2 reference But about anonymity... why is it so necessary? You can squelch mofos, and knowing they can't just make another account, it would make people act a lot more responsibly if they know they're stuck with the reputation they build for themself. Nothing wrong with that IMO. Because Blizzard is legally liable for online harassment on their servers. The more trivial ways they have for people to avoid harassment (like making a new account), the better they are from a legal standpoint. Internet harassment laws are becoming stricter (and criminal), and more often-enforced. And even with squelch, a stalker can still follow you around as much as he wants. 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.
|
The Warcraft 3 AMM sucks. You have to basically start at the beginning of a new ladder season in order to get to the top - the experience gained for wins was too little. Oh you'll be playing top players as your hidden level is top 10, but the level showing is lvl 5 or something. This was terrible for ladder, not to mention it became impossible to find games and made most people (such as myself) move to more populated servers like Asia, move off battlenet, or have 25 15-0 accounts. Why not just custom game in this case? It became pointless.
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.
|
On July 24 2008 14:32 SoleSteeler wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2008 14:09 PH wrote:
Paying for Bnet?
I think that's retarded...there's no PC game out right now that requires a fee to play online...bnet should be NO different. MMO's? :/
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:Show nested quote +On July 24 2008 14:09 PH wrote:
Paying for Bnet?
I think that's retarded...there's no PC game out right now that requires a fee to play online...bnet should be NO different. 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...
|
eh, rumors and speculation, with nothing new to add to the discussion or happenings
|
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!!!
|
Germany2896 Posts
Imo seperating rank from estimated skill level is a good system when combined with automatch.
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.
|
United States42676 Posts
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.
|
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.
|
why not make it like iccup ^_^ its hard and u get to play people ur same level. almost. i mean i can see how people might abuse but so make it random and maybe more letters. i hate the level thing its very complicated and does it even mean anything in wc3? im still confuse how that works. haha iono just a suggestion
|
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.
|
United States42676 Posts
On July 24 2008 19:41 LordofToast wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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...
|
if it was world of starcraft, a monthly fee would be reasonable, but as an rts i dont think so, an acc registration fee wouldnt be good, not for the first account at least....
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
|
Who says you can't make smurf accounts? WC3 BNet >>> iCCup on such a massive scale.
|
United States42676 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.
|
Im going to stop posting arguments after this as its derailing the thread.
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..
|
United States42676 Posts
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.
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.
|
How is noobbashing not unfair? Stop being oblivious...
|
I can see both sides of the argument, but one thing that I don't think has been mentioned is how smurfing fosters creativity. I love to smurf b/c I love to try weird things that may lead to good builds/strats/tactics eventually, and you can't try out something new and weird if you are always playing stiff competition.
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/
|
Wow, you guys are way too concerned with smurfing... paying $10 for fucking name registration? Fuck that. Paying anything beyond the 50 or 60$ I'd be paying for the cd is ridiculous. Blizzard isn't running low on money and certainly won't need it to run their servers, since it's not huge like an MMO.
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.
|
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.
This is an interesting idea and it could work because you could get given one free battlenet account with your purchase of SC2.
|
Unfortunately you can't ban un-gentlemanly behaviour.
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.
|
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.
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.
|
They'll never limit # of accts on BNet because of PC Bangs.
|
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
|
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!
|
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*.
|
take it easy guys, there is no fee , it was only a speculaation
|
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.
|
On July 24 2008 14:55 OakHill wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2008 12:05 SoleSteeler wrote:
Hopefully smurfs are dealt with in the same manner as War3...
The first game is unpredictable, the system can't know who's supposed to be good and who isn't.
But every game thereafter the system can make fairly good guesses... If you keep winning, you'll keep playing people with better and better records. In War3 (at least, it used to be) if you went about 10 or 15-0, you'd be then playing the best players on the ladder. If they lost, they didn't lose that much rating (I don't think), but if you won, you would gain a lot. If you kept on winning, technically you're one of the "best" players, so the system will keep giving you bonus rating, eventually you'll reach the top of the ladder and voila!
The same goes for the opposite direction. If you win some and lose some, then the system is working. It wants to pair you up with people of near equal skill.
Of course, sometimes it can take several games before you reach your niche, but that's fine...
I can foresee some people bashing War3's ladder, particularly in regards to search times... This is mainly due to inactivity of the ladder, it's not really a flaw in the system. At least, I think so...
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). 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:
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.
|
Smurfing's a pretty big problem in Wc3. Another problem that I hope blizzard addresses is 2v2 Arranged Team abuse. One guy would go like 0-100 with another partner so him and his current partner can play noobs and go like 150-0 in ladder.
|
Why do you guys care about smurfing so much, sure you get owned once in a while but thats fine. Charging money to remake a battle.net account is ludicris. When I played war3 I made accounts all the time, not to smurf but to play with my friends or join different clans, there is no reason to impose "restrictions" on a person who bought the game and wants to play on net.
|
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.
|
Smurfing is a problem in any kind of ladder. Not just Warcraft 3. The whole point of a ladder system is to serve as an avenue for player to prove their skills against one another. Matching up a super skilled person against a complete newbie proves nothing and is only fun for one party.
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.
|
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
|
Playing people at a level where they are a challenge to play, but possible to beat is fun. Playing people where you have no hope whatsoever of winning is not fun, and only serves to infuriate new players, causing them to quit the game (I may be exaggerating a bit here. They might not all quit outright, but if a player keeps getting smurfed, it's not unreasonable to think that they'd assume that they'll never be good enough to play the game online and quit). This is kind of counterproductive if you're trying to develop a large community. Just sayin'.
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).
|
On July 24 2008 19:49 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2008 19:41 LordofToast wrote: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. 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.
|
Bad idea. What if I wanted to learn a new race?
|
if you don't want to ladder.. play a custom melee game. Custom games don't always have to be UMS maps.. you can just as easily create a custom game and play a melee map as opposed to playing in the ladder/automatch system.
|
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 States42676 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?
|
maybe the best way to do it is to start B.Net2 off with a huge online tourney. GIve awesome prizes that link to the account for how well you finish and thus encourage players to play their best. This way, a player that would be tempted to multi will instead keep playing on his account to maintain prestige and such.
|
I think people get so intimidated by stats. I think stats should be only visible for personal viewing and have just have rank or grade visible. Maybe a system like Top 1000 players certain rank/grade and next grade for like 1001~5000, 5001~10000, 10001~20000, etc.. So you wont have to worry about not being able to find opponent since there's always couple thousand people with your rank.
|
On July 25 2008 14:36 VIB wrote:
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?
No, that only creates new problems:
"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?"
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 25 2008 15:56 nullmind wrote:
I think people get so intimidated by stats. I think stats should be only visible for personal viewing and have just have rank or grade visible. Maybe a system like Top 1000 players certain rank/grade and next grade for like 1001~5000, 5001~10000, 10001~20000, etc.. So you wont have to worry about not being able to find opponent since there's always couple thousand people with your rank.
I love stats but there's a point to this.. Nothing annoys me more than retards joining a 3v3, checking the stats of their team mates, and leaving just before the countdown starts.
They can go diagf imo.
|
who the heck cares about stats. stats dont mean crap. do you know how much abuse this will lead to?
|
just link account names to cd key and make an option to formally reset it or formally change the name to blizzard...
or have a master account like steam
and just be able to make little names under it... but everyone will still be able to see the master account
|
On July 25 2008 12:29 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Show nested quote +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.
SC Battle.net in it's current state is just a match-making service, it's not like WoW where tons of data is stored on the servers. Charging money for a peer-to-peer matchmaking service is bullshit. I have no idea how Microsoft gets away with it on XBOX LIVE, but if Blizzard makes me pay for peer-to-peer then I'm going to say "fuck b.net" and play on private servers as soon as they come out.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 26 2008 00:26 ramen247 wrote:
who the heck cares about stats. stats dont mean crap. do you know how much abuse this will lead to?
I love stats because I love keeping track of my winning % on map X with race Y vs race Z
|
On July 25 2008 17:44 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2008 14:36 VIB wrote:
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? No, that only creates new problems: "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?" - According to the EULA your brother has to buy another CD-key anyway, this is also valid for sc1, wc3 and pretty much any commercial proprietary game.
- The server has access to your stats per race, there is no reason to not let you play with a different race at a different skill level
|
On July 25 2008 12:29 prOxi.swAMi wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Blizzard maintains battle.net good enough for free. You call me a theif, but your a what the corporations call easy money.
|
On July 25 2008 14:36 VIB wrote:
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?
Cause people make the mistake in assuming that paying more guarantees you better quality. Smart people know thats a fallacy.
|
On July 25 2008 19:56 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2008 15:56 nullmind wrote:
I think people get so intimidated by stats. I think stats should be only visible for personal viewing and have just have rank or grade visible. Maybe a system like Top 1000 players certain rank/grade and next grade for like 1001~5000, 5001~10000, 10001~20000, etc.. So you wont have to worry about not being able to find opponent since there's always couple thousand people with your rank. I love stats but there's a point to this.. Nothing annoys me more than retards joining a 3v3, checking the stats of their team mates, and leaving just before the countdown starts. They can go diagf imo.
It is disruptive to leave before a game starts. But you know what's more annoying than that? Sticking around to watch your 3-win, 12-loss teammate build an array of pylons and 3 forges as his first buildings. Joining a random public team game is hairy business, at any rate..
|
On July 24 2008 11:32 alien3456 wrote:
Hopefully they code some sort of AI that can analyze how people play. If a new account is managing their economy very well, attacking expertly, has a fairly decent APM and wins their first game, then they shouldn't be playing the other new accounts who sloppily play and win their first game by luck. Those two players will have the same rank after one game, but they shouldn't play each other in auto-matchmaking.
As long as Bnet2 has a nice UI, a good system for clans and tournaments, intelligent auto-matchmaking and a more useful/responsive listing of games... I'll be a happy player.
hah, so i actually started reading this thread and this is the first response i see.
you should read up on statistics, sample sizes, etc
|
I want the old ladder rating back No AMM, I loved the game names 1250++ lt no disc
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 26 2008 05:58 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2008 17:44 maybenexttime wrote:On July 25 2008 14:36 VIB wrote:
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? No, that only creates new problems: "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?" - According to the EULA your brother has to buy another CD-key anyway, this is also valid for sc1, wc3 and pretty much any commercial proprietary game. - The server has access to your stats per race, there is no reason to not let you play with a different race at a different skill level
It's retarded to force people in the same house to own multiple copies of the same game. Just absolutely beyond retarded.
And it's obviously something that's never been reinforced by blizzard.
|
On July 26 2008 01:09 Sir.Kimmel wrote:just link account names to cd key and make an option to formally reset it or formally change the name to blizzard... or have a master account like steam and just be able to make little names under it... but everyone will still be able to see the master account
yeah this was basically my idea as well.
On July 25 2008 02:16 teamsolid wrote:
They'll never limit # of accts on BNet because of PC Bangs.
i think my aforementioned idea is still valid because if you consider, the pc bangs will be buying copies of starcraft anyway, the issue is that the players will not be able to use the names that they want on bnet when they go to a pc bang. but if you think about it, that could be good for the pc bang for advertising. they could make names that include their bang name, or address, phone number, etc...whatever they do it will stand out that those bnet guys are at a pc bang right? it would be kindof like clans maybe. each bang might have a bang tag or something on the names...perhaps the first players to play sc2 at those bangs will get to name those accounts, and then everyone else has to play on those or some more generic names.
i mean, when you go to a bang you really aren't playing from home anyway, so why make it look like you're playing from home as usual?
of course anytime you see a bang name you'll know it's a shared account so you won't know who to expect to play against.
i guess though this would be a problem for someone who wants to do ladder and can only play at bangs or has to spend most of their time there...but perhaps he can register with the bang to get his own private account. anyway you have to consider all the names are going to have passwords anyway, right? so theorhetically, it could definitely work. so the generic names everyone would have access to but the others only the regular ladder bang players would, or something like that.
previously posted:
"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!"
yes and well, with my idea you can have 2 smurf accounts.
but, only if you add another idea. you have to allow the smurfers to disable the part that shows other people the other account names tied to the cd key.
by the way...i think you guys should call people who smurf posers.
it makes sense, because they are posing as level one players.
|
On July 27 2008 00:18 dcttr66 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2008 01:09 Sir.Kimmel wrote:just link account names to cd key and make an option to formally reset it or formally change the name to blizzard... or have a master account like steam and just be able to make little names under it... but everyone will still be able to see the master account yeah this was basically my idea as well. Show nested quote +On July 25 2008 02:16 teamsolid wrote:
They'll never limit # of accts on BNet because of PC Bangs. i think my aforementioned idea is still valid because if you consider, the pc bangs will be buying copies of starcraft anyway, the issue is that the players will not be able to use the names that they want on bnet when they go to a pc bang. but if you think about it, that could be good for the pc bang for advertising. they could make names that include their bang name, or address, phone number, etc...whatever they do it will stand out that those bnet guys are at a pc bang right? it would be kindof like clans maybe. each bang might have a bang tag or something on the names...perhaps the first players to play sc2 at those bangs will get to name those accounts, and then everyone else has to play on those or some more generic names. i mean, when you go to a bang you really aren't playing from home anyway, so why make it look like you're playing from home as usual? of course anytime you see a bang name you'll know it's a shared account so you won't know who to expect to play against. i guess though this would be a problem for someone who wants to do ladder and can only play at bangs or has to spend most of their time there...but perhaps he can register with the bang to get his own private account. anyway you have to consider all the names are going to have passwords anyway, right? so theorhetically, it could definitely work. so the generic names everyone would have access to but the others only the regular ladder bang players would, or something like that. previously posted: "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!" yes and well, with my idea you can have 2 smurf accounts. but, only if you add another idea. you have to allow the smurfers to disable the part that shows other people the other account names tied to the cd key. by the way...i think you guys should call people who smurf posers. it makes sense, because they are posing as level one players.
i want to be able to create as many smurfs as i want.
|
then go play starcraft.
as i was trying to say at the end of my post, in warcraft 3, perhaps people call those people smurfs, like they did in starcraft, but the term posers works better, and i imagine with the amm if it's anything like wc3's then it will be just as bad as posers.
so although you want to create many smurfs, you can't do so with wc3, not with the ladder system anyway. you'd just be a poser.
as for making smurfs...
maybe they could enable for the cd key besides the 3 or 4 or however many normal names/accounts some custom/ums only names/accounts which you can use for smurfing. these would not be able to play ladder, but you could change your name up and look anonymous. in fact, that could be how the pros disable the link to their bnet account. if that's what they're going to do.
|
As FA already said, limiting people as to how many accounts they can make is just retarded. My bor's not gonna pay for another copy, and I'm not willing to pay to play my off-race on an adequate level either...
|
On July 27 2008 00:54 dcttr66 wrote:
then go play starcraft.
as i was trying to say at the end of my post, in warcraft 3, perhaps people call those people smurfs, like they did in starcraft, but the term posers works better, and i imagine with the amm if it's anything like wc3's then it will be just as bad as posers.
so although you want to create many smurfs, you can't do so with wc3, not with the ladder system anyway. you'd just be a poser.
as for making smurfs...
maybe they could enable for the cd key besides the 3 or 4 or however many normal names/accounts some custom/ums only names/accounts which you can use for smurfing. these would not be able to play ladder, but you could change your name up and look anonymous. in fact, that could be how the pros disable the link to their bnet account. if that's what they're going to do.
You might mean abusers... I think most of smurfs are peaceful guys who just want to be anonymous; what is wrong with that?
About abusers what about flagging them at some set time?
It would last like 2 weeks, if someone would be flagged by quite a number of people comparing to number of his games, it would be easier to distinguish who should be avoided and who not.
Flags older than 2 weeks would be accessible to see too...
Or after 2 weeks half of them would disappear, half stay for next 2 weeks and so on.
Flags given or taken would trigger warnings if same player (same account) would be met again.
If someone would remake accounts all the time and all / most of them would be flagged enough, his ability to create new accounts would be temporarily disabled.
|
this topic totally derailed into a 'how to deal with smurfs' topic.
|
Well I can provide some useful info at least. Age of Empires 3 used one account per key and worked just fine because whether you joined a different a team or not it just added the tag. It really didn't bother me a single bit, everyone knew each other MUCH MUCH better because of no smurfing, if you saw that name it was that guy. Also only had to add/ignore people once, really I prefer it, why people feel they need to hide and be annoymous in a game is silly.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Because being instantly recognized by all of bnet is gonna be annoying as fuck for the future BoxeR?
And because my brother probably wont want to play on the same account as me..?
|
On July 27 2008 17:39 Alizee- wrote:
Well I can provide some useful info at least. Age of Empires 3 used one account per key and worked just fine because whether you joined a different a team or not it just added the tag. It really didn't bother me a single bit, everyone knew each other MUCH MUCH better because of no smurfing, if you saw that name it was that guy. Also only had to add/ignore people once, really I prefer it, why people feel they need to hide and be annoymous in a game is silly.
AoE3 community is over ten times smaller than SC, and SC2 is going to be probably much, much bigger than SC. That is the reason people knew one another much better.
The problems mentioned several times still remain.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
gawd I hope it will have multiple language support by default.
or is that acutally a bad idea, idk.
well it sure wouldnt make sense to have korean support but no other foreign language support for a brand new game with worldwide appeal - made sense to "add" korean at 1.13 patch since at that point it was the only relevant non-roman input of importance, but I cant imagine they can justify such a thing for sc2 right off the get-go.
|
Naw i think multi lang support by default is sweet at lest i cant learn parts of Korean text that might be common instead of game names where ionno wtf they are atlest korean would make scene not sure about other non roman text.
As far as account names doesn't apply to me, but if the guys don't wanna see constant whispers of random shit there should be like allow only these people to whisper to me list. That be the easiest way.
|
Smurfing is for the craven. That's the last thing I'll say on this matter.
|
On July 28 2008 08:43 prOxi.swAMi wrote:
Smurfing is for the craven. That's the last thing I'll say on this matter.
Yeah, totally! I mean, who wants to be able to practice without having to worry about people bugging them!?
|
On July 29 2008 01:06 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2008 08:43 prOxi.swAMi wrote:
Smurfing is for the craven. That's the last thing I'll say on this matter. Yeah, totally! I mean, who wants to be able to practice without having to worry about people bugging them!?
A person who knows how to type squlech/ignore, that's who!
|
Sweden33719 Posts
"hi I have a question"
x 500
during every game.
Lots of squelching.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
##exclude friendlist
/dnd
huh?
Not that I approve 1 aka per key policy (it's terrible), but that would be a solution, right?
|
On July 24 2008 13:34 caution.slip wrote:
OR you can just tie to to each CD key. The bnet price is in the cost of the game
that's how its going to be
You didnt hear it from me, but last comic-con I talked with Karune in person and he said that you can make as many accounts as you want, but each record with each race will be recorded and saved to your CD key. Kinda like how Diablo and WoW are set up, you have an account tethered to you email address and cd key, and you can choose which name you want to go by when you log in. I would assume there is more to it than this, but thats all I was told.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
They need a reply command for any incoming whispers. /reply
|
On July 29 2008 07:11 Klogon wrote:
They need a reply command for any incoming whispers. /reply
alrdy in wc3 bnet
/r
|
WELL ITS NOT IN STARCRAFT! AND THATS ALL THAT MATTERS!
|
On July 24 2008 11:36 riotjune wrote:
They better do something about the empty gamelist screen lag.
amen..
|
they have that in gunz too
also have a block public chat/ all whispers/invitations and clan chat
they also have MACROS ... press f5f6f7f8f9f10f11f12 in the game and u can preset... a message, so like
"help enemy sighted"
"BRB Reloading"
"Staplez, THAT WAS EZ"
"HP Red, BLue, Yellow, Etc"
its pretty entertaining lol
|
On July 29 2008 09:05 paper wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2008 07:11 Klogon wrote:
They need a reply command for any incoming whispers. /reply alrdy in wc3 bnet /r
last i checked it wasn't.
edit:
oh hey it's /r
you hit space after the /r and it changes to /w nameofwhisperer
that's cool
does it work in game though?
|
On July 27 2008 17:39 Alizee- wrote:
Well I can provide some useful info at least. Age of Empires 3 used one account per key and worked just fine because whether you joined a different a team or not it just added the tag. It really didn't bother me a single bit, everyone knew each other MUCH MUCH better because of no smurfing, if you saw that name it was that guy. Also only had to add/ignore people once, really I prefer it, why people feel they need to hide and be annoymous in a game is silly.
Nowadays, AOE3 has one of the most advanced online experiences amongst RTS games. Everything is just so much easier and quicker. I don't need to get into a channel to access friends list etc. I hope Blizzard takes a look at it and bases some of it's ideas on it. I hope Battle.net for Starcraft II is just something truly revoloutionary. I mean imagine, if we could watch like Starcraft TV over it or something like that. It needs to stay outside the square of the regular online services. It needs to bring something revoloutionary as Battle.net is that element that will give the game esports. And the better the online service, the better the esports.
|
On July 29 2008 13:26 dcttr66 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2008 09:05 paper wrote:On July 29 2008 07:11 Klogon wrote:
They need a reply command for any incoming whispers. /reply alrdy in wc3 bnet /r last i checked it wasn't. edit: oh hey it's /r you hit space after the /r and it changes to /w nameofwhisperer that's cool does it work in game though?
works everywhere o_O
|
United States17042 Posts
On July 30 2008 17:10 paper wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2008 13:26 dcttr66 wrote:On July 29 2008 09:05 paper wrote:On July 29 2008 07:11 Klogon wrote:
They need a reply command for any incoming whispers. /reply alrdy in wc3 bnet /r last i checked it wasn't. edit: oh hey it's /r you hit space after the /r and it changes to /w nameofwhisperer that's cool does it work in game though? works everywhere o_O
I didn't know that either- I guess you learn something new every day.
More on the topic of smurfing- I'm not sure how much of a problem it is in starcraft. The only reason that it may be a problem is because of how easy it is to hack in b-net games. If they made sc2 harder to hack, then smurfing wouldn't be as large of a problem.
|
lol automatic match matker? i think thats retarded... SC bnet has a tradition of a noob joining a game and going through the drama of being beat by gosus, whether or not hes smart enough to save replays and copy the people who rapes them, or just go on and BM them about hacks that the player doesn't even have or never used in his life.... i always thought it was sc's bnet's way of separating dedicated players from noobs who just come because its a hot new game to play.
i think bnet is PERFECT the way it is just take out latency so that more people can host games with no problems with routers, or lag between key strokes and reaction of units.
|
idk why you people are complaining about smurfs.... even though people hate when other people smurf you gotta keep in mind you have the option to do the same thing.
smurfing i feel is a gosu's way to expiriment new strats without having to worry about their "reputation", to vanish from everyones watchful gaze and be less stressed.
you've gotta learn to tolerate the smurfing and BM of SC i feel. its what makes sc and sc players what it is today.
"This is SC, if you can't handle the shit talking, then go play chess" -dontblink
|
On July 31 2008 19:15 Crimson)S(hadow wrote:
lol automatic match matker? i think thats retarded... SC bnet has a tradition of a noob joining a game and going through the drama of being beat by gosus, whether or not hes smart enough to save replays and copy the people who rapes them, or just go on and BM them about hacks that the player doesn't even have or never used in his life.... i always thought it was sc's bnet's way of separating dedicated players from noobs who just come because its a hot new game to play.
You don't think that that will happen with a matchmaker? And you don't realize that the noobs wont get to the higher tiers of the ladder so that its just as good at weeding them out? An autoladder atleast opens up for a lot of players who do not want to have the hassle of picking their opponent and thus will introduce much more players to the real game starcraft instead of the moneymap galore of the current starcraft.
An autoladder is the best and most fair way to have a ladder, period. The details on how the autoladder should work can be discussed of course but the only real reason against an autoladder is that you can't spam some matchups in it to train or that you can't fool around as much, but then I can say the same as you say to the "noobs": Use a training partner! Don't got one? Learn to socialize!
|
On July 31 2008 19:20 Crimson)S(hadow wrote:
idk why you people are complaining about smurfs.... even though people hate when other people smurf you gotta keep in mind you have the option to do the same thing.
smurfing i feel is a gosu's way to expiriment new strats without having to worry about their "reputation", to vanish from everyones watchful gaze and be less stressed.
you've gotta learn to tolerate the smurfing and BM of SC i feel. its what makes sc and sc players what it is today.
"This is SC, if you can't handle the shit talking, then go play chess" -dontblink
Just because something was in Starcraft doesn't automatically make it good. A competitive ladder system shouldn't match up pros against newbs, period.
If a gosu wants to experiment strats, he can do it in custom and non-ranked games. Most Korean pros already do this, so I fail to see how smurfing benefits them. I admit it can be fun to crush a newbie every once in a while, but those moments should only happen in non-ranked games. Starcraft 2 is supposed to be the "ultimate, competitive strategy game". There's nothing competitive about pros breaking newbies apart for the fun of it.
|
Never read past page 4 but wouldn't it be good to have your stats linked to your account and make your user name changeable to however you want it to be. Saving friends could be by account and for the stalking issues (trust me, it is fairly annoying on wc3), a ignore list could be present that blocks all your information(or maybe a list of options) to be blocked to the person or maybe to the public.
For example, if you're boxer, you can play UMS maps without ppl going ZOMG boxer playing marine defence, etc. Additionally, lets you play people you choose on ladder based on your statistics.
Make two game choosing rooms, one for ladder and the other for UMS maps or w/e you want. The one on the ladder lets you see the other persons stats and the UMS room doesn't let you see stats. Make it so if the other person wants to see your stats you have to send them it using /sendstats "user name" or something. (no more /stats XYZplayer) You should be able to select your own opponents according to a bnet analysis statistics page.
ie. win ratio, race specific, games won against people above player level, games won against people below player level, average game time(keke, cheesey people), map win %, etc.
additionally, this would allow people to challenge each other. Like if player A has a 100 win % on a certain map, maybe people would want to play him on the map to know different strategies they use etc. I see this as more of a, good player will challenge other good players, while bad players get to choose lesser opponents.
This way, if people want to smurf (I actually don't know what this specifically means but im going to guess in my proposed bnet, the player loses intentionally to keep their stats low), they can but they will never score high on the ladder and I whole-heartedly believe if they want to waste that much time.. they deserve to be able to kill nubs.
make a stat-wipe after every season and make seasons short like every 4 months so that smurfers are happy and given a chance to real ladder. =]
i really think this system is pretty nice and close to perfection. Like a semi-capitalist economy, let the players decide the market within the limitations. I personally think AMM is a stupid idea, like how in theory communism works, but in reality only causes more problems.
PS: badly structured post, but I don't feel like editing any more... and... 'whole-heartedly' isnt a word ?
|
??? don't suck and you won't get bashed by pros?
do you see jaedong going AW FUCKING SMURFS IN MY WCG GRAND FINALS
|
2 accs is a must have, one to learn how to play, and another TO PLAY
|
Kakisama a smurf is a good player (or rather just anyone) on a second, secret ID, that no one knows so they can play/hack/shittalk/"experiment" in peace. Whatever their reason is.
Listing average lenght game lenght on the stats page is a bit ridiculous -_-
|
On July 29 2008 04:04 BluzMan wrote:
##exclude friendlist
/dnd
huh?
Not that I approve 1 aka per key policy (it's terrible), but that would be a solution, right?
They already have that on battle.net.
/o igw
|
lol 10 fee an account. you guys who want this. you guys will destroy any game company that ever hires you. lolz. stupid. peoples positive view of blizzard will be tarnished hard. and it will affect how people view the company and every game they make as a whole. profits will dwindle. lolz whoever support the 10 dollar fee an account idea for sc. LOL dont kno shit about business.
|
a good reputation is important for a company. some of you maybe very good sc players. but u make shit business men.
|
Well, you know deep down you only say this because you personally wouldn't pay it, and assume that your view represents all others.
|
you have to remember that blizzard makes games for a very wide range of consumers, from all ages. kids and teens that ask their parents, or save up there allowance to buy that "sc2 blizzard game box" many times don't have access to credit/debit cards. this fee will only be another hoop for these type of players (which is a very important market). its bad business, and it ruins blizzards image of great games for everyone to get hooked on since you were 10 years old. its really a bad idea. and it will never happen.
|
Make each box come with three accounts, then.
Solved.
|
not only that but blizzard is on top right now. they wont risk there reputation by doing some micro-tedious-account name transactions for sc2. they are on top and doing something like micro transaction for accounts in sc2 is really out of the question and risk there great reputation.
|
would it be possible to make a server for competitive ladder only? (ie. no melee, no ums, all games count and can only be ladder, but users can choose to have observers, etc.). On this server, i guess blizz can apply the 10 dollar charge for an account, or tie the account to your cdkey,.. wutever the clever idea they may have..
then another server dedicated for casual gamers where it's basically battlenet for sc. users can fuck around all they want, but hopefully in sc2, more severe counter hacking measures are taken... east server these days is just pathetic.
|
|
|
On August 21 2008 13:58 zimz wrote:
you have to remember that blizzard makes games for a very wide range of consumers, from all ages. kids and teens that ask their parents, or save up there allowance to buy that "sc2 blizzard game box" many times don't have access to credit/debit cards. this fee will only be another hoop for these type of players (which is a very important market). its bad business, and it ruins blizzards image of great games for everyone to get hooked on since you were 10 years old. its really a bad idea. and it will never happen.
Of course you'd get an account with your game. The $10 is just for additional accounts. So no, this would not be a hurdle at all for the young'ins who don't have money.
|
Hello.
I started playing Starcraft as soon as it came out and BW as soon as that came out. I never had an issue with the ladder system because most people who played played for fun.
It just so happens that this is a TL.net forum and "pros" tend to gather here.
I played a quite a few ladder matches and also played some Custom Melee matches, the game was very fun and enjoyable.
The following is just my opinion and idea**
People did get absurd records and when I would see them we would be like "shit this one is gonna be tough", about half the time they weren't tough it was just some newb that hand selected his matches or whatever to get his stats up. I know you all remember the disconnects scores on some of those custom melee matches : ) .
The old Bnet was good back then.
This is is not the summer of 98, the new Bnet should obviously be upgraded and changed.
Most of u are worried about the "smurfing" wtf? Let the newbs stat pad or whatever. Let them make as many profiles as they want on an account.
But---- add some small functions:
Heres an example of one. . .
My Account - 'SomeRandomLogin'
Password - 'SomeRandomPw'
Profiles
Easley 56-34 Ladder Profile (My ranked Ladder Profile)
Maximus 234-25-17 Normal (My Smurf Profile lol)
SeAMoStLikely 75-123-0 Normal (My mooch friend thats too cheap to buy it)
AlmOst172 12-0 Normal
Rahki 23-7 Normal (My Bros Profile)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** - 1profile for Ladder Games/ ranked AMM (if you want to create a new one, you must delete and lose all your stats) If you play ladder games you need to know that, that is where the "pros" are and if your afraid of losing or "feel bad", then oh well qq more newb.
*** - Other counts will have their own stats, and they can play scrimmage ladder games or ranked AMM games and just use that profiles' stats to find matches. Or they can create Custom Melee games and build up stats that way. You may practice and try new strategies on any of these profiles.
In short there can be 3 tiers of Bnet.
Ladder Play
Only 1 active Ladder Profile (Pros* as Ladder play should be) Stats are monitored for tournaments and whatnot. The Majors
Practice/Scrimmage Ladder
Type of ladder that allows multiple profiles, let the smurfers smurf. This ladder can use simple stats to match players. This ladder will have no use other than for fast match making*. If the smurfs want to smurf they can, but they will know this ladder means nothing. ** Let stats match these players, so if a smurfer wants to smurf he will move up in compeition as he "smurfs".
If I'm just a newb, all i need to do to avoid some smurfers is get some wins, say like 1-40 a bracket,t 40-100 another bracket. If the random Practice/Scrimmage Ladder cant find a match within your bracket after say 2 minutes then round up or down to the other brackets. Again this system and its stats are just for the Practice/Scrimmage Ladder and Custom Melee Games and have nothing to do with Ladder Matches. This ladder system would be for Auto Match Making ONLY. Minor Leagues
Custom Melee Games
This will allow played to play against their friends or play custom melee matches with the people they choose. Same old style Bnet has. These stats will be shared with the Practice/Scrimmage Ladder, and can allow the players to kinda gauge their own opponents.Minor Leagues
Last NoTe* Im sure blizard intends to support separate Leagues such as the ones Jaedong/Flash etc. etc. play in. So in all actuality those will be the ones that "truly count". So instead of 3 tiers there can be like 6 tiers and you could move up through the tiers and if u delete your profile then u will restart from tier 1 or 3 or whatever, based on your rank/original stats.
Even something like the Current ARENA SYSTEM IN WOW . . . ::gasp:: : )
|
Vatican City State491 Posts
On August 01 2008 01:15 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2008 19:20 Crimson)S(hadow wrote:
idk why you people are complaining about smurfs.... even though people hate when other people smurf you gotta keep in mind you have the option to do the same thing.
smurfing i feel is a gosu's way to expiriment new strats without having to worry about their "reputation", to vanish from everyones watchful gaze and be less stressed.
you've gotta learn to tolerate the smurfing and BM of SC i feel. its what makes sc and sc players what it is today.
"This is SC, if you can't handle the shit talking, then go play chess" -dontblink Just because something was in Starcraft doesn't automatically make it good. A competitive ladder system shouldn't match up pros against newbs, period. If a gosu wants to experiment strats, he can do it in custom and non-ranked games. Most Korean pros already do this, so I fail to see how smurfing benefits them. I admit it can be fun to crush a newbie every once in a while, but those moments should only happen in non-ranked games. Starcraft 2 is supposed to be the "ultimate, competitive strategy game". There's nothing competitive about pros breaking newbies apart for the fun of it.
I like playing vs people better than me : <
|
I hope it has a good built in voice chat so I don't have to pay for my vent server.
|
iccup has a very good system imho.
Bnet2 could emulate that plus have additional controls in the game lobby, such as select points range for opponents to be accepted in, ban lists, aftergame screens should have choice to add opponent to banned list if desired, also feedback could be taken in account.
Gosu vs noobs situation is unavoidable and does not present that big of a problem.
And with the release of SC2 there will be enough noobs to play noob to noob without being hammered by gosus all the time.
Perhaps an option would be to enable CD-key discrimination to join your game, this way that person you got beaten by wont be able to smurf you anymore.
|
Lol I raelly dont think filtering noobs and separating gamer to gamer is a problem.
It's not a problem in SC1 B.net.
How often do good people play with complete noobs to stomp them? That's boring. People on SC want to play with people on their level.
With the APM suggestion on the first post lol. There's the problem of hours played and high APM doesn't make a good player. I know players who has over 10,000 games played with a 170+ APM who still suck.
I really think filtering players based on skills is something that should not be implemented. It's hard to do and it would be buggy.
Noobs wouldn't want to join decent player games. And decent players don't want noobs in their games. If it ends up like that, I'm sure the only way to solve that is to F10-Q-Q
|
On September 12 2008 02:35 stanners wrote:
Lol I raelly dont think filtering noobs and separating gamer to gamer is a problem.
It's not a problem in SC1 B.net.
How often do good people play with complete noobs to stomp them? That's boring. People on SC want to play with people on their level.
With the APM suggestion on the first post lol. There's the problem of hours played and high APM doesn't make a good player. I know players who has over 10,000 games played with a 170+ APM who still suck.
I really think filtering players based on skills is something that should not be implemented. It's hard to do and it would be buggy.
Noobs wouldn't want to join decent player games. And decent players don't want noobs in their games. If it ends up like that, I'm sure the only way to solve that is to F10-Q-Q
Players being matched with opponents better than themselves is the biggest contributing reason why new RTS players do not play multiplayer.
People do not like playing games that make them feel unskillful, stupid, or intimidated. RTS games' multiplayer suffers greatly for this reason.
|
|
|
Sweden33719 Posts
|
why not just implement an iccup style ladder system?
|
United Arab Emirates492 Posts
I just want to suggest few ideas myself for Battle.net v2.0
1) Able to join multiple chat rooms and being able to toggle between them instantly (similar to irc), and It would be great if the rooms are still able run in background even if you are in a game.
2) Along with the four usual servers / realms (ie. useast/useast/asia/europe), blizzard should make one central server which acts as an a hub.
*All the battle.net features (chat rooms, friend list functions, advertisement, clan functions and etc) could be hosted on this central server excluding games which should be hosted on there respected realms.
Benefits:
1)This would allow bandwidth of the sub realms (useast, etc) to be used only for gaming and this would decrease latency.
2)This would allow all the players connected to starcraft2 to communicate in 1 central hub, meaning a bigger and better community which is not divided by four usual realms.
|
In Company of Heroes you register your CD key to your account. You can have up to like 5 names on that account, your highest record is taken into account whilst finding an automatch game. Pretty effective against smurfing but makes it hard to start a new race...
|
it'll be nice if they have bnet 2.0 that can be ran like a regular client.. kind of similar to steam, so you can always see which of your friends are playing and who is available to play no matter what.
|
Ouch, thats nasty. If I play mainly Terran I wan't the matchmaker to put me up against lower skill players if I play Zerg, or not rank me at all. the difference in my skill between races is huge.
|
is awesome32274 Posts
|
is awesome32274 Posts
nevermind, its working now!
|
On November 02 2008 06:37 DeCoup wrote:
Ouch, thats nasty. If I play mainly Terran I wan't the matchmaker to put me up against lower skill players if I play Zerg, or not rank me at all. the difference in my skill between races is huge.
Perhaps Blizzard should separate rank based on race, so that way a single player can have three separate ranks and not have to worry about one ranking screwing up matchmaking on another.
|
On November 02 2008 07:12 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 06:37 DeCoup wrote:
Ouch, thats nasty. If I play mainly Terran I wan't the matchmaker to put me up against lower skill players if I play Zerg, or not rank me at all. the difference in my skill between races is huge. Perhaps Blizzard should separate rank based on race, so that way a single player can have three separate ranks and not have to worry about one ranking screwing up matchmaking on another.
Create another account ?
|
On November 02 2008 06:59 IntoTheWow wrote:
nevermind, its working now!
how did you get it working? I cant seem to get any of their articles working
|
is awesome32274 Posts
dunno i just tried and tried. There are 4 relevant links in that long list.
One is a place where all of them are linked, and 3 are for each section of battle.net 2.0 (rumours, facts and something else) When you open one of them click on the "battle.net 2.0" picture. I did that in all 4 links until i got something lol
|
|
|
I wouldn't mind paying for an offical channel bot to manage clan channel. The bot alone could be a cheap yearly subscription base.
|
Meh im sure Stealthbot will come out with a FREE channel moderator... a cd key will probably be chaeper to buy at target than any subscription blizzard has to offer... they make enough money, charge the wow players up the ass let us benefit from it haha
|
Elaborate on the LDK and everyone will be happy that leagues are left to the community.
|
How are the things at the moment? I thought releasing SC2 as a trilogy would eliminate monthly costs for Battle.Net.....
Actually, I don't know how they think they could manage that. If there's a possibility to play in the network, you can play over Hamachi or VPN.
I'm somehow a little bit confused 
|
I soo want separeted game counts for ladder and melee games as in SC/BW. Feels so do or die to be forced to play ladder and if you dont you cant keep track of your games at all. Also might get some newbies to stay and not get scared away by ladder play. I assume there is a reason why most of us play melee and tvb on bnet and not ums when playing pubbies.
|
On December 17 2008 04:03 AdunToridas wrote:How are the things at the moment? I thought releasing SC2 as a trilogy would eliminate monthly costs for Battle.Net..... Actually, I don't know how they think they could manage that. If there's a possibility to play in the network, you can play over Hamachi or VPN. I'm somehow a little bit confused
Blizzard has said that the plan for BattleNet is still being finalized, They have never claimed that it would have a monthly fee OR that they would have ads in the game. This is speculation and rumours from various players and websites.
|
On December 17 2008 05:42 Eatme wrote:
I soo want separeted game counts for ladder and melee games as in SC/BW. Feels so do or die to be forced to play ladder and if you dont you cant keep track of your games at all. Also might get some newbies to stay and not get scared away by ladder play. I assume there is a reason why most of us play melee and tvb on bnet and not ums when playing pubbies.
This is true, however what is even more true is that here is where all of the moneymappers belong.
Also having an automatcher makes ladder games a lot less personal and random team ladders make it even easier to just join a game and play without being serious about it. The old moneymappers will now play mostly in the 4v4/3v3 RT ladders and if you care about stats and want to relax just smurf.
This is a good thing since it will extinguish the moneymapping ideal currently running in a lot of people.
|
"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."
This is a stupid idea entirely. There's nothing wrong with a player wishing to make a new account. In Warcraft III where this matching system already exists players constantly create them. The only people that complain are the absolutely pathetic players.
|
Many of these posts make me sick. Why? Because I hate these retarded concepts:
- that 'newbies' should somehow be protected from 'vets' who are 'smurfing'. Who cares? Jesus? Like vets really want to spend their time doing this, or there's so many smurfs stomping newbies that nobody can play. So ridiculous!
- that newbies 'getting stomped' makes them not want to play RTS multiplayer. Newbies never had a problem getting into RTS multiplayer before, and, if they did, then they probably aren't in the RTS multiplayer demographic. Think about it. If 'getting stomped' a few times makes someone cry and quit, wouldn't they be happier playing the Sims?
- that AMM for anything other than melee/ladder is a good thing. It's not. Half the fun of Bnet is the ability to find the perfect kind of game you want to play from the list of games, being able to chat before the game starts, and being able to QUIT before a game starts if I don't like it.
|
On December 17 2008 06:02 garmule2 wrote:
- that newbies 'getting stomped' makes them not want to play RTS multiplayer. Newbies never had a problem getting into RTS multiplayer before, and, if they did, then they probably aren't in the RTS multiplayer demographic. Think about it. If 'getting stomped' a few times makes someone cry and quit, wouldn't they be happier playing the Sims?
You know the best solution to this? Let them play 3v3 and 4v4 random team ladder!!!!
All smurfing problems gone since they will still have 3/4 retards!
No, really, that is true, RT is a huge noobmagnet, in wc3 there are more 2v2 games played than 1v1 games in total, and then you can add the 3v3 and 4v4 on top of that.
|
more players=more fun; 2v2 and more is very fun
Hope the editor can support up to 16 players though, so I/map makers can make some cool interesting maps.
|
wrong, people flock to 2v2/3v3/4v4/etc. because angst-ridden prepubescent kids can't take the pressure of having the entire success of the game depend on themselves alone.
Having a random anonymous nobody on your team gives you someone to yell/swear/make obscenities at when things go wrong, and soothes the wounded pride of the collective RTS masses.
Klockan3 is right, kids play 1v1, get stomped, and find it easier to play on 2v2/3v3/4v4 random team ladder. Just look at the ladder games: http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/reports/last-week/Azeroth/w3xp-reports-game-type-usage.shtml
Only 21.42% of games are 1v1 games. Random Team ladder games combine for a total of (24.38 % + 17.69 % + 12.14 %) = 54.21%, over half of all ladder games.
|
what actually is confirmed or is this all speculations
|
why does blizzard need us to pay for b.net? they got 10$/mo coming at them from the 10 million WoW players in the world. i dont know about a matchmaking system like halo3, part of the fun in gaming is stomping noobs and being able to show off the skill you worked so hard to obtain. The reason i quit halo3 is because whenever i wanted to play i would have to play against people at or above my skill lvl, and i didnt always feel like trying that hard. sometimes i just felt like chilling out and racking up some kills.
|
On July 24 2008 11:36 riotjune wrote:
They better do something about the empty gamelist screen lag.
yes please
|
also, fastest map possible should be the only ladder map allowed. Oh, and an inscreen chat window like the one found in Steam would be nice so I don't have to /f m anymore
|
On December 17 2008 08:11 BlasiuS wrote:wrong, people flock to 2v2/3v3/4v4/etc. because angst-ridden prepubescent kids can't take the pressure of having the entire success of the game depend on themselves alone. Having a random anonymous nobody on your team gives you someone to yell/swear/make obscenities at when things go wrong, and soothes the wounded pride of the collective RTS masses. Klockan3 is right, kids play 1v1, get stomped, and find it easier to play on 2v2/3v3/4v4 random team ladder. Just look at the ladder games: http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/reports/last-week/Azeroth/w3xp-reports-game-type-usage.shtmlOnly 21.42% of games are 1v1 games. Random Team ladder games combine for a total of (24.38 % + 17.69 % + 12.14 %) = 54.21%, over half of all ladder games.
using stats that haven't been updated in 3 years makes this pertinent.
|
On December 17 2008 16:56 shavingcream66 wrote:
also, fastest map possible should be the only ladder map allowed. Oh, and an inscreen chat window like the one found in Steam would be nice so I don't have to /f m anymore
I think Steam has several Multiplayer applications which are amazing, nice user profiles, an ingame instant messaging window with contact list, joining your friends game by clicking a button near his name, that sort of stuff would be really nice.
|
On December 17 2008 13:22 siggy wrote:
why does blizzard need us to pay for b.net?
Who says they do? Didn't you notice the post saying:
They have never claimed that it would have a monthly fee OR that they would have ads in the game. This is speculation and rumours from various players and websites
|
On December 17 2008 17:26 the.dude wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2008 08:11 BlasiuS wrote:wrong, people flock to 2v2/3v3/4v4/etc. because angst-ridden prepubescent kids can't take the pressure of having the entire success of the game depend on themselves alone. Having a random anonymous nobody on your team gives you someone to yell/swear/make obscenities at when things go wrong, and soothes the wounded pride of the collective RTS masses. Klockan3 is right, kids play 1v1, get stomped, and find it easier to play on 2v2/3v3/4v4 random team ladder. Just look at the ladder games: http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/reports/last-week/Azeroth/w3xp-reports-game-type-usage.shtmlOnly 21.42% of games are 1v1 games. Random Team ladder games combine for a total of (24.38 % + 17.69 % + 12.14 %) = 54.21%, over half of all ladder games. using stats that haven't been updated in 3 years makes this pertinent.
Those statistics would probably be the same today, at least for US East and US West. He's right, there are far more Random Team and DotA games than solo and that is because of the low difficulty. Solo is far more difficult and so most newbs would rather avoid it.
|
On December 17 2008 13:22 siggy wrote:
why does blizzard need us to pay for b.net? they got 10$/mo coming at them from the 10 million WoW players in the world. i dont know about a matchmaking system like halo3, part of the fun in gaming is stomping noobs and being able to show off the skill you worked so hard to obtain. The reason i quit halo3 is because whenever i wanted to play i would have to play against people at or above my skill lvl, and i didnt always feel like trying that hard. sometimes i just felt like chilling out and racking up some kills.
Thats is another reason why I want win/loss stats for non laddergames. So you get something back for just fooling around and you can bash (or get bashed) random people. Otherwise you'll have to make a smurf that will face good players in just 3-5games or so and you prettymuch have to find games from friends or in channels since not many people play random pubbie 1:1 games. Atleast that was the feeling I got when I played WC3 but maybe that has changed. Really hard to just play for fun and not caring about ladderrating ect when there are no real options but ladder play.
|
the sad part is stuff like garnera already offers spect view.. iono y blizzard has yet to just get it done...
tehy eitehr seriously need ot hire more ppl or stop being lazy
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.diii.net/gallery/data/500/Battle_net_2_0_Diii_art.jpg)
