Once again, Blizzard is against people having lives. One or two hours apparently isn't enough for them. Will it be World of Warcraft an RTS form? It wouldn't surprise me considering how much time they seem to think is an ideal gaming experience. They should at least give an option for both.Greg Tito said:
Battle.net StarCraft II Matchmaking Too Good?
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
The best way of getting better at a game, is getting your ass kicked tons of times until you realize how to prevent it. That's how I learned to play Starcraft and eventually my name was feared throughout the community.
Don't remind meNoelveiga said:
.I miss old RTS style. It's sad it went out for the new ADD style with 0 resource management and basically nonstop combat.
I liked it when Warhammer did it...it made sense...but when EVERYONE switched I was pretty dismayed.
Blizzard has never been against people having lives. I've got a full time job, I write poetry and am working on a fictional novel, as well as enjoying a social life, reading all sorts of literature, all this while raiding and leveling alternate characters (as well as playing other games).Lonan said:
It isn't their fault some people are shit at time management. If anything over the years their games have required LESS time. With each major update I find myself having to do far less to accomplish the same amount of tasks. I think their goal with SCII will be that the time you DO put in will be as pleasurable as possible instead of feeling like a tiring chore.
Not speaking against you in particular, just anyone who blames blizzard for their inactive lifestyle.
Myself and my close friend stomped the other kids in High School at Smash Brothers Melee everyday for the entire year.Fingolfin High-King of the Noldor said:
Them getting utterly destroyed every match, 5-10 matches a day, never once seemed to make them better. It helped us out though.
So I'm not entirely sure that your idea is the best for everybody. Maybe you though?
If they have to sidestep the smurfing problem by limiting you to one account (which I think is unfair, I can't even share the game with my brother) I argue their matchmaking is not good enough. If ranking-based match making isn't working, then have the game actually detect how well someone is likely playing.
If you crush an opponent in next to no time and are clicking like a maniac, it shouldn't be a stretch to say you know what you are doing. If you make a new account and its being played exactly like your other high-ranking account, the game should pick up on it (abusive chat should be a big tip-off). It should be fairly obvious if someone is winning by landslide half the time then throwing matches.
If they want to limit accounts, maybe limit it to one new account per week. In tandem with a matchmaking system that can actually detect smurfing within the first couple matches it should minimize the problem to a point its a non-issue. The occasional crushing defeat isn't really that bad, some players won't like it but others will be driven to get better. You can't entirely please everyone (well maybe if you asked them about their playing preferences?).
That said the way they are handling this I dislike a lot. I wanted to share this game with my brother, but apparently we will need a copy each now.
If you crush an opponent in next to no time and are clicking like a maniac, it shouldn't be a stretch to say you know what you are doing. If you make a new account and its being played exactly like your other high-ranking account, the game should pick up on it (abusive chat should be a big tip-off). It should be fairly obvious if someone is winning by landslide half the time then throwing matches.
If they want to limit accounts, maybe limit it to one new account per week. In tandem with a matchmaking system that can actually detect smurfing within the first couple matches it should minimize the problem to a point its a non-issue. The occasional crushing defeat isn't really that bad, some players won't like it but others will be driven to get better. You can't entirely please everyone (well maybe if you asked them about their playing preferences?).
That said the way they are handling this I dislike a lot. I wanted to share this game with my brother, but apparently we will need a copy each now.
Age of Empires III basically has a system like this already. You start at level 10, and when you create or join a game you can limit the levels of your opponents to within two, five, ten, twenty or unlimited.
If you win against another level ten, you might level up, but probably not. However, if you beat a level 50-60 (which I think was around the highest level), you would probably gain many, many levels.
So if you're better than all the other people of your current level, you'll quickly level up and leave them behind. If you are truly around level ten then you'll stay around there. Losing to someone of your own level didn't make you rank down as much as losing to someone a lot lower. So it was okay if you were playing and your skill level and had a 50% win record, because you would stay around that level and continue playing those who were your equals.
Each few levels had a different name. I believe 10 was Private, and then somewhere around 12 you moved to Corporal, 15-16 was Sergeant and 20 was Lieutenant or something like that.
I played for a few months with my friend and it worked out well. We didn't play too often, so we only got to around level 15-16. If we wanted a challenge we'd look for a level 19-20, who were always willing to fight someone who looked weaker than themselves, and if we wanted less of a challenge we'd join games with people our level or slightly lower. There was rarely any total noob stomping. N00b stomping barely contributed to your ranking too, so if you cared about your ranking, (which I guess noob stompers usually don't, they just want to win games) then it didn't pay to beat people way lower than you.
Also, two people could play on account. It would work okay if the two people are somewhere around the same skill level, you would just have a combined ranking. It would get a lot harder if you were very different skill levels.
If you win against another level ten, you might level up, but probably not. However, if you beat a level 50-60 (which I think was around the highest level), you would probably gain many, many levels.
So if you're better than all the other people of your current level, you'll quickly level up and leave them behind. If you are truly around level ten then you'll stay around there. Losing to someone of your own level didn't make you rank down as much as losing to someone a lot lower. So it was okay if you were playing and your skill level and had a 50% win record, because you would stay around that level and continue playing those who were your equals.
Each few levels had a different name. I believe 10 was Private, and then somewhere around 12 you moved to Corporal, 15-16 was Sergeant and 20 was Lieutenant or something like that.
I played for a few months with my friend and it worked out well. We didn't play too often, so we only got to around level 15-16. If we wanted a challenge we'd look for a level 19-20, who were always willing to fight someone who looked weaker than themselves, and if we wanted less of a challenge we'd join games with people our level or slightly lower. There was rarely any total noob stomping. N00b stomping barely contributed to your ranking too, so if you cared about your ranking, (which I guess noob stompers usually don't, they just want to win games) then it didn't pay to beat people way lower than you.
Also, two people could play on account. It would work okay if the two people are somewhere around the same skill level, you would just have a combined ranking. It would get a lot harder if you were very different skill levels.
Yes, they may just throw matches, but it at least makes it harder to do it. I'd presume that any game that doesn't last an obligatory 2-3 minutes (or whatever ends up being considered the smallest period someone can actually win in) won't count towards increasing or decreasing your rating. Also, as long as the algorithm held enough strength on your record vs. previous opponents, then after a while of smurfing, throwing games won't do jack to lower you back down.Credge said:
The issue I have though is that obviously it's another 1 person = 1 account thing, which makes it annoying for families who wish to play it, but still not a large gripe compared to actually having an enjoyable competitive gaming experience. I do like the "extra accounts being cheaper" idea, as it should allow for families to experience it a lot easier, while still making it expensive for a smurf to do so.
There's also one other thing I'm a bit unsure on. I like to play noobs sometimes, not for the fact of kicking their ass in 3 seconds, but for working on a new strategy, or trying out certain unit combinations, or even changing from T to Z for a bit, or Z to P. If your account is bound by one unmovable rating, then if you are an experienced Zerg player, and want to change it around a bit, you'll be thrown up against a much stronger opponent, get your ass handed to you, and learn very little about how to play Zerg.
I suppose I could relate it to learning and playing a new opening line in chess. You don't know the theory, or the positions that the middle game develops into like you would with an opening line that you play day after day after day. When learning you're going to be a little bit less sure. Also getting them tested out by lower rated players helps you get that experience and memory.
It's funny, because I think the majority of players who will play the game are going to be "on the lower end of the skill chart". Despite the "leet" players having much more voice on these topics and on the community, I really do think that again (such as with WoW currently), most players are rather casual gamers. I think this applies to most games at this point though. I think that if anything, this game will attract the new RTS players, much moreso than the new style of RTS like CC4, since it allows for an easier learning curve, and much more depth. The replay tool is going to be an amazing asset for those who are really interested in learning though.Neptunus Hirt said:
I think there needs to be a small amount of wiggle room. It's nice to go in thinking it will be a hard fight and finding an easy one and then the next game you get waxed. However, getting waxed every game because an expert decides to play as a noob is not very fun.
That being said, an account should slowly fall off the skill ladder if the account sits idle to reflect that player not practicing. There is nothing worse that leaving a game for a time and coming back and getting your ass handed to you because you were Chuck Norris back in the day and now you are just Chris Farley.
That being said, an account should slowly fall off the skill ladder if the account sits idle to reflect that player not practicing. There is nothing worse that leaving a game for a time and coming back and getting your ass handed to you because you were Chuck Norris back in the day and now you are just Chris Farley.
Well this also solves the problem of the "banning" issue in WC3 and SC just make a new account. When you ruined your reputation just make a new one. Each of which I did multiple times. Haha. Easy ways to get past rules.
EDIT: Not gonna lie either I did this a couple time just to "stomp noobs" who I met in custom games, and they thought they were better than everyone else because they won the custom game. So I made a new account and "stomped" him in like 2 minutes. He tried to rush and I countered with zealot squad... Annihilation.
EDIT: Not gonna lie either I did this a couple time just to "stomp noobs" who I met in custom games, and they thought they were better than everyone else because they won the custom game. So I made a new account and "stomped" him in like 2 minutes. He tried to rush and I countered with zealot squad... Annihilation.
while seeing the starcraft thing coming out I've been getting into rts(es?) and I have noticed a few things
A. THEY ARE DAMN HARD against good opponents
B. They get boring if both sides are at a stand still
C. Asians are good at rts (es?)
D. Zerg rushes while being funny as hell don't always work. you also need some weird word I heard called strategy?
E. they have this thing were one thing counters the other and cheap moves make you win.
this is why I normally dont play rts(es). Just that some one said hey your stupid I bet you send in all your guys in an rts at once so I want to prove him wrong by kicking his ass in starcraft 2 the game he loves.
A. THEY ARE DAMN HARD against good opponents
B. They get boring if both sides are at a stand still
C. Asians are good at rts (es?)
D. Zerg rushes while being funny as hell don't always work. you also need some weird word I heard called strategy?
E. they have this thing were one thing counters the other and cheap moves make you win.
this is why I normally dont play rts(es). Just that some one said hey your stupid I bet you send in all your guys in an rts at once so I want to prove him wrong by kicking his ass in starcraft 2 the game he loves.
Are you arguing that buying used is the same thing as stealing from the developers? The law doesn't see it that way. The first-sale doctorine [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine] says that we have the right to do what we want with what we purchase, including reselling it. It also says the EULA crap about it being licensed, not sold, cannot be enforced.evilentity said:
If I buy a movie, watch it once, then sell it to a friend, is that stealing? What about a movie store that buys a copy and rents it out? What about buying a car, using it for 5 years, then selling it? Sure, in all of these cases the producer could have made more money by eliminating the possibility of buying used or renting, but these are things which are legally allowed and that we do every day. Are you arguing that they shouldn't be allowed?
Remember, we have to balance the rights of the producer with the rights of the consumer. They have a right to sell their software and make money from it. I have a right to get value out of what I purchase. If they don't allow me to try it, return it, or even resell it, how do I know what I'm getting and what its value is? What do I do it if doesn't work, or if it's incompatible with my system, or if I just don't like it?
Those profit margins the retailers get are a natural part of the free market economy. When I have something that's worth more to you than it is to me, you give me money and I give you the item: it's as simple as that. A retailer can buy a used game for $5 and sell it for $20 because there is somebody who doesn't want it and there is somebody who does, and without the retailer, it would be hard for those two to meet. The difference is what the retailer gets for their trouble. Now, if you ask me, the retailer is taking more than their fair share -- the person should have been given far more than $5 for the game -- but that's how our free market economy works, love it or leave it. The same free market that lets the publisher sell a game for $70 is the same market that lets a retailer buy and sell used games at a profit.
Why the hell would you sometimes want an easy game? Does someone really need more than two hours straight of playing a competitive multiplayer game in one sitting? If someone wants to relax and do something easier, then they should just stop playing the game for a little while and go do something else.
Call of Duty has turned my friends into wimps. They love to play Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer, because they're really good at it. As soon as they have to face OTHER people who are really good at it, they just get really pissed off and quit the game so they can find easier people to shoot. There's no point in a competitive multiplayer game if there's no competitive edge or difficulty.
Call of Duty has turned my friends into wimps. They love to play Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer, because they're really good at it. As soon as they have to face OTHER people who are really good at it, they just get really pissed off and quit the game so they can find easier people to shoot. There's no point in a competitive multiplayer game if there's no competitive edge or difficulty.
Pick me! Pick me! I am a glutton for punishment. Company of Heroes was my most loved and most hated game. I am so bad at it, but when I win, its the best game ever. =DFoggy_Fishburne said:...snip...It's like you just described me. I'd love to meet someone that's equally as shitty as me (doubt that's possible, I'm horrible at RTS
I am so excited to play SCII.
Im kinda mixed with this one. I avoided the multiplayer aspect in the Original because of these people who get off to beating noobs. I have never been very good at ANY based strategy game, but I still love them. My problem is a mix of making my base look aesthetically pleasing and having and even number of some units. OCD. Anyways, but I have a friend who, well he can't afford to get the newest game and still doesn't have a 360 or PS3 or Wii, so when he comes over we usually play some random games, but he also enjoys going online and if I let him, he'll have to use my account. Which I could be pit against people WAAAAAAY higher then if the Spartans fought the care bears.