|
On March 20 2009 08:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:
No they'll simply play UMS or buy it for the campaign. If someone can't handle getting stomped once every 20 games (seriously, smurfing progamers are going to stay low rank HOW LONG? not very long at all indeed), they are the kind of whiny bitch that will quit anyway.
Call me elitist if you want, but convenience > the sensibilites of whiny kids.
Going by that logic, I could easily say that pro-gamers who want to take a break can just play UMS instead, and that making a smurf account is completely unnecessary. But of course that isn't the case is it? Pros obviously want to make smurfs for their own reasons, and those reasons happen to put casuals at a disadvantage for enjoying the game. Like I said before, ladder should be open to both pros and casuals alike. Casuals shouldn't be locked out just because a pro wants to "crush noobs" to relax. Your enjoyment is no more important than anyone elses.
|
On March 20 2009 08:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2009 08:03 Spawkuring wrote:On March 20 2009 08:01 FrozenArbiter wrote:"Newbies" outnumber "gosus" by a far margin. In other words they are more important from a business perspective. They are also more sensitive to their online experience. Getting completely stomped when they try to play the game in multiplayer won't encourage them to keep playing. And by the same reasoning this shouldn't matter at all as they have already bought the game.. -_- It WILL however cause them to think twice about buying the expansions. If they can't have fun playing online just because Mr. Oh-So-Important Pro-gamer wants to take break, they will simply not buy any more SC2 games. I think there are ways to cut down on smurfing without harming pro-gamers in the process, but smurfing IS an issue, and it shouldn't be left alone. No they'll simply play UMS or buy it for the campaign. If someone can't handle getting stomped once every 20 games (seriously, smurfing progamers are going to stay low rank HOW LONG? not very long at all indeed), they are the kind of whiny bitch that will quit anyway. Call me elitist if you want, but convenience > the sensibilites of whiny kids.
Ahh, but you see Blizzard want to convert them to multiplayer gamers. People that play the game in multiplayer are usually a more loyal customer that comes back for more, and Blizzard can get increased revenue from them in form of banners, or other monetizing on Bnet.
|
This looks like the blizzard store.
in fact, I logged in with my details from the blizzard store where I had already opted-in to beta before.
|
Their main priority is e-sports. They want to create what BW did in Korea, but with SC2, so they can reap a lot of fucking royalties. (I assume.) Making sc2 not supportable by PC bangs, limiting the activity of gosu's and their ability to practice crazy builds and other races, aswell as not making the game family friendly by forcing your 11 year old son and your 13 year old son to buy separate copies, is just retarded.
Also, did they say anywhere that we can only have 1 ID? ID and Accounts are vastly different, as is shown in Diablo 2. By the way Eury writes it seems as if it's been announced that smurfs are dead and little jimmy and little franky have to buy their own copies to play the game. (on 1 computer.)
|
 .
It has begun.
|
On March 20 2009 08:09 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2009 08:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:
No they'll simply play UMS or buy it for the campaign. If someone can't handle getting stomped once every 20 games (seriously, smurfing progamers are going to stay low rank HOW LONG? not very long at all indeed), they are the kind of whiny bitch that will quit anyway.
Call me elitist if you want, but convenience > the sensibilites of whiny kids. Going by that logic, I could easily say that pro-gamers who want to take a break can just play UMS instead, and that making a smurf account is completely unnecessary. But of course that isn't the case is it? Pros obviously want to make smurfs for their own reasons, and those reasons happen to put casuals at a disadvantage for enjoying the game. Like I said before, ladder should be open to both pros and casuals alike. Casuals shouldn't be locked out just because a pro wants to "crush noobs" to relax. Your enjoyment is no more important than anyone elses.
The key difference is that anti-smurfing would be an entertainment limitation enforced by the company. As long as it's not destructive like hacking, let the players enjoy the game how they want.
Casuals are not forced to play public games against competitive players, and competitive players should not be forced into a single (or linked) account that discourages experimentation/offracing etc just to protect the egos of new players.
Edit: Anyone care to share their opinion regarding whether or not this screenshot is real? I assume it's fake, but my obsession and paranoia seek confirmation  ![[image loading]](http://i40.tinypic.com/etv98k.jpg)
|
On March 20 2009 07:24 Excalibur_Z wrote:
I can tell you why. They tried a beta test of the unified account system (which were called Blizzard Accounts) during the F&F alpha of WotLK. It was an abysmal and utter failure, with the account creation system constantly being down, people getting stuck because they created an account but didn't get a password emailed to them, passwords not being saved by the system, etc. It was horrible and required a lot of intervention by Blizzard customer service reps and account managers.
Technical problems with an alpha system in a alpha is making you uncomfortable?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 20 2009 08:09 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2009 08:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:
No they'll simply play UMS or buy it for the campaign. If someone can't handle getting stomped once every 20 games (seriously, smurfing progamers are going to stay low rank HOW LONG? not very long at all indeed), they are the kind of whiny bitch that will quit anyway.
Call me elitist if you want, but convenience > the sensibilites of whiny kids. Going by that logic, I could easily say that pro-gamers who want to take a break can just play UMS instead, and that making a smurf account is completely unnecessary. But of course that isn't the case is it? Pros obviously want to make smurfs for their own reasons, and those reasons happen to put casuals at a disadvantage for enjoying the game. Like I said before, ladder should be open to both pros and casuals alike. Casuals shouldn't be locked out just because a pro wants to "crush noobs" to relax. Your enjoyment is no more important than anyone elses.
.. You don't smurf to crush noobs, you smurf so that people won't know that it's you. So that you can try out things without people knowing it's you. Essentially, so that you can have some privacy if you are known in the community.
I wasn't super well-known when I played seriously, but I'm sure if you asked anyone with a ToT tag if the people begging for games was annoying, you'd get a resounding YES.
The progamer is OBVIOUSLY not going to stay at a low rank on his smurf account, since he'll be winning every game at the lower ranks -_-
The way you talk about it, it's like you think every good player would be constantly resetting to noob-bash their way to 15-0 and starting over again -_- No, not at all - that's sandbagging. It simply means playing on a different ID. I played 500 games on PGTour season on the ID Jinro. That was me smurfing, as the IDs I was known under were Dream.t)PltO and FrozenArbiter.
|
Also, Blizzard will almost DEFINITELY have a more sophisticated matching system. Unlike iccup, where your points are your only defining skill measure in a lobby, SC2 matching will probably take into consideration w:l ratio. A progamer going 6-0 against players who themselves are 6-2 or so, will certainly have a different impact on the matches. So that progamer will be out of your league in a matter of a few games, instead of lingering in the d/c- area for 20-25 games.
|
On March 20 2009 08:14 404.Nintu wrote:
Their main priority is e-sports. They want to create what BW did in Korea, but with SC2, so they can reap a lot of fucking royalties. (I assume.) Making sc2 not supportable by PC bangs, limiting the activity of gosu's and their ability to practice crazy builds and other races, aswell as not making the game family friendly by forcing your 11 year old son and your 13 year old son to buy separate copies, is just retarded.
Also, did they say anywhere that we can only have 1 ID? ID and Accounts are vastly different, as is shown in Diablo 2. By the way Eury writes it seems as if it's been announced that smurfs are dead and little jimmy and little franky have to buy their own copies to play the game. (on 1 computer.)
Of course it is only speculation, but I suggest you read the FAQ about the new account. It states pretty clear that their intention is to make an unique online ID. That means not sharing the account and there will be features tied to the account that will strongly discourage that.
Do you know what will help e-sport the most? It is to get more players in competitive gaming. To do that you make sure that everyone can easily find an opponent around the same skill level as themself. That means an AMM system that is easy and quick to use. Smurfs doesn't fit in in that system.
|
You will probably have unlimited names, but your stats will be linked, though invisible, across all names.
What this means is that each name has their own stats, but for the purposes of matchmaking, the matchmaker will be using your universal aggregated stats (which are hidden).
|
On March 20 2009 08:17 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2009 08:09 Spawkuring wrote:On March 20 2009 08:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:
No they'll simply play UMS or buy it for the campaign. If someone can't handle getting stomped once every 20 games (seriously, smurfing progamers are going to stay low rank HOW LONG? not very long at all indeed), they are the kind of whiny bitch that will quit anyway.
Call me elitist if you want, but convenience > the sensibilites of whiny kids. Going by that logic, I could easily say that pro-gamers who want to take a break can just play UMS instead, and that making a smurf account is completely unnecessary. But of course that isn't the case is it? Pros obviously want to make smurfs for their own reasons, and those reasons happen to put casuals at a disadvantage for enjoying the game. Like I said before, ladder should be open to both pros and casuals alike. Casuals shouldn't be locked out just because a pro wants to "crush noobs" to relax. Your enjoyment is no more important than anyone elses. .. You don't smurf to crush noobs, you smurf so that people won't know that it's you. So that you can try out things without people knowing it's you. Essentially, so that you can have some privacy if you are known in the community. I wasn't super well-known when I played seriously, but I'm sure if you asked anyone with a ToT tag if the people begging for games was annoying, you'd get a resounding YES. The progamer is OBVIOUSLY not going to stay at a low rank on his smurf account, since he'll be winning every game at the lower ranks -_- The way you talk about it, it's like you think every good player would be constantly resetting to noob-bash their way to 15-0 and starting over again -_- No, not at all - that's sandbagging. It simply means playing on a different ID. I played 500 games on PGTour season on the ID Jinro. That was me smurfing, as the IDs I was known under were Dream.t)PltO and FrozenArbiter.
But the new player that play his first games doesn't care that your smurf will reach its true skill level after 10-20 games. What he cares about is that he got completely raped when he tried to play a multiplayer game.
|
On March 20 2009 08:17 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2009 08:09 Spawkuring wrote:On March 20 2009 08:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:
No they'll simply play UMS or buy it for the campaign. If someone can't handle getting stomped once every 20 games (seriously, smurfing progamers are going to stay low rank HOW LONG? not very long at all indeed), they are the kind of whiny bitch that will quit anyway.
Call me elitist if you want, but convenience > the sensibilites of whiny kids. Going by that logic, I could easily say that pro-gamers who want to take a break can just play UMS instead, and that making a smurf account is completely unnecessary. But of course that isn't the case is it? Pros obviously want to make smurfs for their own reasons, and those reasons happen to put casuals at a disadvantage for enjoying the game. Like I said before, ladder should be open to both pros and casuals alike. Casuals shouldn't be locked out just because a pro wants to "crush noobs" to relax. Your enjoyment is no more important than anyone elses. .. You don't smurf to crush noobs, you smurf so that people won't know that it's you. So that you can try out things without people knowing it's you. Essentially, so that you can have some privacy if you are known in the community. I wasn't super well-known when I played seriously, but I'm sure if you asked anyone with a ToT tag if the people begging for games was annoying, you'd get a resounding YES. The progamer is OBVIOUSLY not going to stay at a low rank on his smurf account, since he'll be winning every game at the lower ranks -_- The way you talk about it, it's like you think every good player would be constantly resetting to noob-bash their way to 15-0 and starting over again -_- No, not at all - that's sandbagging. It simply means playing on a different ID. I played 500 games on PGTour season on the ID Jinro. That was me smurfing, as the IDs I was known under were Dream.t)PltO and FrozenArbiter.
Well in that case I have no problem with smurfing just to conceal your name. That's why I at least support having "secondary" accounts to allow it to some extent.
The problem here is that despite how much you may try to downplay it, a LOT of people smurf just to crush noobs over and over and over again. That's the problem that needs to be solved. Sandbagging, smurfing, whatever it's called, it's needs to be addressed in some way. It shouldn't be removed entirely since smurfing has its benefits, but it also can't be allowed absolute free reign. Catering to casuals and hardcores is what Blizzard is all about. "Cater to pros at all costs no matter how many casuals get caught in the crossfire" is not a philsophy that Blizzard operates by.
|
On March 20 2009 08:23 naventus wrote:
You will probably have unlimited names, but your stats will be linked, though invisible, across all names.
What this means is that each name has their own stats, but for the purposes of matchmaking, the matchmaker will be using your universal aggregated stats (which are hidden).
Yeah, I mentioned that before. I'm not too sure if Blizzard will do that though due to the fact it really doesn't fit in with their one unique online ID philosophy.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 20 2009 08:24 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2009 08:17 FrozenArbiter wrote:On March 20 2009 08:09 Spawkuring wrote:On March 20 2009 08:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:
No they'll simply play UMS or buy it for the campaign. If someone can't handle getting stomped once every 20 games (seriously, smurfing progamers are going to stay low rank HOW LONG? not very long at all indeed), they are the kind of whiny bitch that will quit anyway.
Call me elitist if you want, but convenience > the sensibilites of whiny kids. Going by that logic, I could easily say that pro-gamers who want to take a break can just play UMS instead, and that making a smurf account is completely unnecessary. But of course that isn't the case is it? Pros obviously want to make smurfs for their own reasons, and those reasons happen to put casuals at a disadvantage for enjoying the game. Like I said before, ladder should be open to both pros and casuals alike. Casuals shouldn't be locked out just because a pro wants to "crush noobs" to relax. Your enjoyment is no more important than anyone elses. .. You don't smurf to crush noobs, you smurf so that people won't know that it's you. So that you can try out things without people knowing it's you. Essentially, so that you can have some privacy if you are known in the community. I wasn't super well-known when I played seriously, but I'm sure if you asked anyone with a ToT tag if the people begging for games was annoying, you'd get a resounding YES. The progamer is OBVIOUSLY not going to stay at a low rank on his smurf account, since he'll be winning every game at the lower ranks -_- The way you talk about it, it's like you think every good player would be constantly resetting to noob-bash their way to 15-0 and starting over again -_- No, not at all - that's sandbagging. It simply means playing on a different ID. I played 500 games on PGTour season on the ID Jinro. That was me smurfing, as the IDs I was known under were Dream.t)PltO and FrozenArbiter. But the new player that play his first games doesn't care that your smurf will reach its true skill level after 10-20 games. What he cares about is that he got completely raped when he tried to play a multiplayer game.
That is completely unavoidable tho.. If you want to win right from the get go, uh, don't play RTS games?  I dunno, I can never really emphasize in these topics - I LOVE losing, probably more than winning. Losing 10 games in a row only makes me want to play more, and there's seriously no limit on this.
When I started playing BW in 2002 it took me at least 2-300 games before I had more wins than losses - possibly a lot more (I was 13), but I loved it.
On March 20 2009 08:26 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2009 08:17 FrozenArbiter wrote:On March 20 2009 08:09 Spawkuring wrote:On March 20 2009 08:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:
No they'll simply play UMS or buy it for the campaign. If someone can't handle getting stomped once every 20 games (seriously, smurfing progamers are going to stay low rank HOW LONG? not very long at all indeed), they are the kind of whiny bitch that will quit anyway.
Call me elitist if you want, but convenience > the sensibilites of whiny kids. Going by that logic, I could easily say that pro-gamers who want to take a break can just play UMS instead, and that making a smurf account is completely unnecessary. But of course that isn't the case is it? Pros obviously want to make smurfs for their own reasons, and those reasons happen to put casuals at a disadvantage for enjoying the game. Like I said before, ladder should be open to both pros and casuals alike. Casuals shouldn't be locked out just because a pro wants to "crush noobs" to relax. Your enjoyment is no more important than anyone elses. .. You don't smurf to crush noobs, you smurf so that people won't know that it's you. So that you can try out things without people knowing it's you. Essentially, so that you can have some privacy if you are known in the community. I wasn't super well-known when I played seriously, but I'm sure if you asked anyone with a ToT tag if the people begging for games was annoying, you'd get a resounding YES. The progamer is OBVIOUSLY not going to stay at a low rank on his smurf account, since he'll be winning every game at the lower ranks -_- The way you talk about it, it's like you think every good player would be constantly resetting to noob-bash their way to 15-0 and starting over again -_- No, not at all - that's sandbagging. It simply means playing on a different ID. I played 500 games on PGTour season on the ID Jinro. That was me smurfing, as the IDs I was known under were Dream.t)PltO and FrozenArbiter. Well in that case I have no problem with smurfing just to conceal your name. That's why I at least support having "secondary" accounts to allow it to some extent. The problem here is that despite how much you may try to downplay it, a LOT of people smurf just to crush noobs over and over and over again. That's the problem that needs to be solved. Sandbagging, smurfing, whatever it's called, it's needs to be addressed in some way. It shouldn't be removed entirely since smurfing has its benefits, but it also can't be allowed absolute free reign. Catering to casuals and hardcores is what Blizzard is all about. "Cater to pros at all costs no matter how many casuals get caught in the crossfire" is not a philsophy that Blizzard operates by.
Ok now we can agree with eachother - people that do that are complete idiots. A fine way to solve it would be to allow, say, 3 IDs per master account (one per race !). If you want to create a new one after your 3rd, you have to delete an old one.
|
Yeah, if someone gets raped and puts down the game, that is not blizzard's fault. It's the fault of that quitter. My first 100 games on Bnet were me being raped. It made me excited to be that good so it made me play more.
If these ultra-sensitive casual gamers don't want to lose, or if they do lose, freak out and uninstall, then they shouldn't ladder.
|
On March 20 2009 08:18 404.Nintu wrote:
Also, Blizzard will almost DEFINITELY have a more sophisticated matching system. Unlike iccup, where your points are your only defining skill measure in a lobby, SC2 matching will probably take into consideration w:l ratio. A progamer going 6-0 against players who themselves are 6-2 or so, will certainly have a different impact on the matches. So that progamer will be out of your league in a matter of a few games, instead of lingering in the d/c- area for 20-25 games.
Some relevance might be made with the current wow arena elo system ;
You basicly have an actual (visual) ELO and a hidden ELO, but only your hidden will determine your opponents.
How it works is like this, if you get let's say B- rank, while winning and losing ~100 points a game. You decide to create a new username under the same account, instead of beeing matched agains D opponents, you'll immideatly face B- - C+ opponents, giving each win reward you a greater amount of points (+400), while a loss would only minorly punish you, taking your actual rank into account (-25).
What this enables you to is create a new AKA, while still playing good opponents.
No one has to panic, for beeing faced with B- opponents for that matter when offracing, because I'm quite sure only the rank will be counted for the race itself.
@ Frozenarbiter ; I'm quite certain blizzard intends that you do not share your account even amongst family members. Then again, they are not going to prevent your brothers, sisters or uncle to play on the computer with your ID. You are in the end responsible for your own account. As far as UMS and custom practice games or SP, there is no problem anyone else using your account in the family to just have some fun is there? If they would like to play by themself on the ladder, one could only assume that a copy of starcraft themself is advised.
Think why some people are freaking out, is that just how SC is recording every game you played (vs comp etc) in your public profile, this is highly doubtable to be the case for SC II.
|
On March 20 2009 08:30 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2009 08:24 Eury wrote:On March 20 2009 08:17 FrozenArbiter wrote:On March 20 2009 08:09 Spawkuring wrote:On March 20 2009 08:05 FrozenArbiter wrote:
No they'll simply play UMS or buy it for the campaign. If someone can't handle getting stomped once every 20 games (seriously, smurfing progamers are going to stay low rank HOW LONG? not very long at all indeed), they are the kind of whiny bitch that will quit anyway.
Call me elitist if you want, but convenience > the sensibilites of whiny kids. Going by that logic, I could easily say that pro-gamers who want to take a break can just play UMS instead, and that making a smurf account is completely unnecessary. But of course that isn't the case is it? Pros obviously want to make smurfs for their own reasons, and those reasons happen to put casuals at a disadvantage for enjoying the game. Like I said before, ladder should be open to both pros and casuals alike. Casuals shouldn't be locked out just because a pro wants to "crush noobs" to relax. Your enjoyment is no more important than anyone elses. .. You don't smurf to crush noobs, you smurf so that people won't know that it's you. So that you can try out things without people knowing it's you. Essentially, so that you can have some privacy if you are known in the community. I wasn't super well-known when I played seriously, but I'm sure if you asked anyone with a ToT tag if the people begging for games was annoying, you'd get a resounding YES. The progamer is OBVIOUSLY not going to stay at a low rank on his smurf account, since he'll be winning every game at the lower ranks -_- The way you talk about it, it's like you think every good player would be constantly resetting to noob-bash their way to 15-0 and starting over again -_- No, not at all - that's sandbagging. It simply means playing on a different ID. I played 500 games on PGTour season on the ID Jinro. That was me smurfing, as the IDs I was known under were Dream.t)PltO and FrozenArbiter. But the new player that play his first games doesn't care that your smurf will reach its true skill level after 10-20 games. What he cares about is that he got completely raped when he tried to play a multiplayer game. That is completely unavoidable tho.. If you want to win right from the get go, uh, don't play RTS games? I dunno, I can never really emphasize in these topics - I LOVE losing, probably more than winning. Losing 10 games in a row only makes me want to play more, and there's seriously no limit on this. When I started playing BW in 2002 it took me at least 2-300 games before I had more wins than losses - possibly a lot more (I was 13), but I loved it.
Yes, you describe the high threshold that have plagued previous games, but I think Blizzard wants to change that. I for one applaud that, and it will gain e-sports too. Anything that attracts more players to competitive playing is a good thing in my book.
|
A fine way to solve it would be to allow, say, 3 IDs per master account (one per race !). If you want to create a new one after your 3rd, you have to delete an old one.
I like this idea. Because having only 3 would suck because after a certain time, your friends will know your account and sometimes you wanna play without practice partner obligations or friends wanting to watch replays. So being able to delete an old smurf to create a new one is a nice idea.
|
Definitely signed up!
EDIT: Wow, if you have a valid CD key, you can set it up so you can DL the game when you lose the stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
