 ix United Kingdom. October 24 2009 15:40. Posts 109 | Profile |
| A major problem in WC3 and on ICCUP is how smurf account players crush new players, creating an environment that's impossibly unfriendly and discouraging for players trying to learn the game. A possible solution for SC2, better than the mess Blizzard made of the WC3 ladder would be to use ELO-like skill ratings and have unscored ELO estimating matches (you lose -100 point or equivalent ELO if you're an established rating player and leave the match but no change for winning or losing, matches like this happen when AMMing some of the time), the system matches new accounts to a series of players depending on what they win or lose to estimate their ELO, then their account starts to keep score after say 5 games. This avoids having a section of the ladder that's far harder than it should be for its relative skill level and especially keeps the problem away from the very low levels. |
|
|
 lazz Australia. October 24 2009 15:43. Posts 1393 | Profile Blog |
i see what you're saying. an ELO system means that smurfs will climb the ladder at a much higher rate than the iccup level system, meaning that there will be less smurfs overall. problem is, people can just remake accounts. you have to limit the availability of new accounts to get rid of smurfing.
edit:also in "estimating" games the smurfs will just lose on purpose , making that part of your idea uselessLast edit: 2009-10-24 15:44:42 |
|
|
| Tsagacity United States. October 24 2009 15:45. Posts 1238 | Profile |
Smurfing at all probably won't be very feasible in SC2 because of a one account limitation: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=100357
There are a number of threads like the one above that already discuss the AMM and the Battle.net system by the way, I suggest you go through those before making your own (or maybe just comment in those) |
| | "Everyone worse than me at video games is a noob. Everyone better than me doesn't have a life." |
|
|
 pachi Australia. October 24 2009 15:45. Posts 3729 | Profile |
| I thought the current rumors were that new battle.net linked accounts to keys so you can't smurf as easy. |
|
|
 A3iL3r0n United States. October 24 2009 16:18. Posts 1887 | Profile Blog |
| smurfing isn't a major problem. |
| | The internet ruins everything eventually. |
|
|
| lazz Australia. October 24 2009 16:22. Posts 1393 | Profile Blog |
On October 24 2009 16:18 A3iL3r0n wrote:
smurfing isn't a major problem.
it is for newbies and casual players. it makes the game near inaccessible. |
|
|
 cgrinker United States. October 24 2009 16:46. Posts 2838 | Profile Blog |
| I think that they are doing one account per cd key too so there won't really be smurfing. |
| | Ma Jae Yoon then said "He who has ears to hear, let him hear. The secret to being the Kingdom of Zerg has been given to you" |Liquipedia: Need Help? Send me a pm and I'll do what I can |
|
|
 Bosu United States. October 24 2009 18:05. Posts 997 | Profile Blog |
The war3 ladder does have a hidden level as well as a visible level. The visible level is pretty much meaningless making the war3 ladder pretty bad. Really bad players shouldn't really be matched up against a smurf on a new account unless the smurf has quit a lot of games on purpose to lower there hidden level.
|
| |
|
| 50bani Romania. October 24 2009 18:28. Posts 144 | Profile Blog |
On October 24 2009 15:43 lazz wrote:
i see what you're saying. an ELO system means that smurfs will climb the ladder at a much higher rate than the iccup level system, meaning that there will be less smurfs overall. problem is, people can just remake accounts. you have to limit the availability of new accounts to get rid of smurfing.
edit:also in "estimating" games the smurfs will just lose on purpose , making that part of your idea useless
BS. OP is correct! I share his opinion, in fact wrote about it on iccup forum some time ago. The idea is that noobs are below average, so when you make a new account you should get spawned at the "average" which is way above noob level. The next step is to have a rating system that converges very rapidly with the skill level of the player. So noobs don't have to wait to lose 12 games before they get their rating on par with the skill. Smurfs won't lose games on purpose to bash D like you say but they will have an opportunity to bash D+/maybe a little bit of C- so the smurfing problem is moved to a higher level, where more experienced players are dwelling...
But then again, this is pointless for SC2 since accounts are tied to CD keys. Maybe private servers will implement such features after they crack the game. |
|
|
 BluzMan Russian Federation. October 24 2009 18:55. Posts 2696 | Profile Blog |
Smurfing is not as much harmful to new players as swearing is. When a new guy loses to good player, he gets a healthy refreshing feeling of how he has still much to learn. When he loses and constantly gets messages like "don't play this game anymore idiot" or gets someone swearing at him whenever he fucks up in a team game, then yes, he has very high chances of quitting.
I'd say that smurfs wouldn't scare off a single newbie if they all were friendly to him. One of my first SC games involved a guy rolling me over with mutas, but he was very friendly and gave me advice on how to beat it. Funnily enough, I still remember it and it definetely has connection to me liking the game, I was amazed at how "polite" people were, mandatory saying things like "gl hf" and "gg". Later on it turned out that it was not nearly that good but I had enough skill to stand for myself by then. |
| | Suddenly, the Marines striking seuponingpul twieonawa bop! |
|
|
| Phrujbaz Netherlands. October 24 2009 19:12. Posts 189 | Profile Blog |
BluzMan is absolutely right. Being polite to newbies (especially avoiding elitist manners) is much more important than letting them win games.
On a different note, ELO is a horribly outdated system. Today, we are capable of rankings with more predictive power, that converge much more quickly, and that detect large changes in skill quickly.
The last one is by far the most important for a competitive starcraft environment: you want to see it reflect in your rank when you improve quickly, or you lose motivation to improve. ELO has the tendency to have too much inertia once a player has been at a certain rank for a long time.
Take a look at whole history ranking, one of the newest inventions: http://remi.coulom.free.fr/WHR/Last edit: 2009-10-24 19:13:03 |
| | The board is a mirror of the mind of the players as the moments pass. When a master studies the record of a game he can tell at what point greed overtook the pupil, when he became tired, when he fell into stupidity, and when the maid came by with tea. |
|
|
| TBO October 24 2009 19:32. Posts 7 | Profile |
it is "Elo" not "ELO" its not an abbreviation but named after its developer...
The biggest issue with Elo is that it is not very motivating, especially for new players, and for about 50% of the whole population to end up with a lower rating than what you started with. SC2 will definitely use a system where you start in the bottom, not in the middle - at least when it comes to your visible stats. |
|
|
| Phrujbaz Netherlands. October 24 2009 19:41. Posts 189 | Profile Blog |
On October 24 2009 19:32 TBO wrote:
it is "Elo" not "ELO" its not an abbreviation but named after its developer...
The biggest issue with Elo is that it is not very motivating, especially for new players, and for about 50% of the whole population to end up with a lower rating than what you started with. SC2 will definitely use a system where you start in the bottom, not in the middle - at least when it comes to your visible stats.
WHR, as it happens, is completely comfortable with having new participants start at the bottom. However, in my personal opinion allowing people to set their own initial rank somewhere between bottom and slightly above average is a better solution.
A mark will show when people are not yet ranked by the system and nobody's rating will change against these players, only the unranked players' own rating will be adjusted. |
| | The board is a mirror of the mind of the players as the moments pass. When a master studies the record of a game he can tell at what point greed overtook the pupil, when he became tired, when he fell into stupidity, and when the maid came by with tea. |
|
|
| EximoSua October 24 2009 19:59. Posts 108 | Profile |
| ...or in SC2 you only get one name per purchase of the game. Discussion done! |
| |
|
| BluzMan Russian Federation. October 24 2009 20:15. Posts 2696 | Profile Blog |
On October 24 2009 19:59 EximoSua wrote:
...or in SC2 you only get one name per purchase of the game. Discussion done!
Thank you for contributing dear sir. |
| | Suddenly, the Marines striking seuponingpul twieonawa bop! |
|
|
 4clovers United States. October 24 2009 20:56. Posts 41 | Profile |
On October 24 2009 15:43 lazz wrote:
i see what you're saying. an ELO system means that smurfs will climb the ladder at a much higher rate than the iccup level system, meaning that there will be less smurfs overall. problem is, people can just remake accounts. you have to limit the availability of new accounts to get rid of smurfing.
edit:also in "estimating" games the smurfs will just lose on purpose , making that part of your idea useless
uhm no.
Blizzard explicitly said that each person will have only 1 account on bnet. this makes smurfing pretty hard to do. |
| | become the person you wish to be... and the life that such a person lives will find you. |
|
|
| lowlypawn United States. October 24 2009 21:02. Posts 57 | Profile |
The WC3 ladder is fine, actually I think it’s the best ladder ever created! It does an excellent job of matching players of roughly equal skill. Trust me, I have played thousands of games of WC3. I can tell you the competition varies quite a bit from 3am on a Wednesday VS 9am Saturday (you are much more likely to face a hardcore WC3 nuts at 3am on a weekday). But that’s not really Blizzards fault and I can’t see a way to improve the system. There is only XXX number of players and you have to balance that with acceptable wait times…
But for you “WC3 haters” there are some legitimate grips about WC3’s AMM:
Smurfs making new accounts every 20 games: Problem is most people at TL hate the solution more then the problem, one account per CD key. Smurfing is not a problem for new players since new accounts start at an ELL around level 20.New players who ELL have fallen below level 20 never play the Smurfs. I would face Smurfs fairly often with records of 9-0 or 12-0. Sometimes I lose but then sometimes I win and it sure feels good to give a smurf his 1st lost.
Too many games to get in the top 50: Many of the pro players are not in the top 50 because they won’t or don’t have time to play enough games. But a few years ago Grubby and Tod were able to reach rank 1&2 in around 300 games no problems. I guess the pros just don’t want to keep play the games necessary to say at the top. But IMHO 300 games to reach #1 is not unreasonable…
I hear a lot of players proclaim “they could be in the top 100 if they simply massed games” Bullshit, virtually every player in the top 100 is excellent. I found getting into the top 300 on a mature ladder very challenging. I’m positive I would hit the wall around rank 200. The top 100 players are a lot better then people give credit for.
XP decay annoying: But come up with a better solution?
Summery: The WC3 ladder is the current pinnacle ladder of any RTS. Also most people proclaim they “love” to play much better players so they can “learn”. But from what I can tell this is mostly BS… People want to play players they can beat… Only winning 50+% is tough mentally and it feels like you are only winning 25%. I think this is the real reason people hate the WC3 ladder, players can’t get use to only winning ½ their games. Also WC3 can be difficult to figure out why you lost a battle and WC3 “feels” very imbalanced until you have played thousands of games.
Last edit: 2009-10-24 21:04:14 |
|
|
 [DUF]MethodMan Germany. October 24 2009 21:55. Posts 584 | Profile |
On October 24 2009 21:02 lowlypawn wrote:
People want to play players they can beat…
This sums up every smurf discussion thread. |
|
|
| Phrujbaz Netherlands. October 24 2009 22:00. Posts 189 | Profile Blog |
On October 24 2009 21:02 lowlypawn wrote:
XP decay annoying: But come up with a better solution?.
We did. It's called whole history ranking.
However, decayed history rating is still one of the most accurate rating system. So far, only whole history ranking beats it. It doesn't necessary lead to rating loss if you don't play: only if you have done significantly worse recently than you have done in the past. |
| | The board is a mirror of the mind of the players as the moments pass. When a master studies the record of a game he can tell at what point greed overtook the pupil, when he became tired, when he fell into stupidity, and when the maid came by with tea. |
|
|
 7mk Germany. October 24 2009 22:03. Posts 1570 | Profile Blog |
On October 24 2009 16:18 A3iL3r0n wrote:
smurfing isn't a major problem.
exactly
On October 24 2009 16:22 lazz wrote:
it is for newbies and casual players. it makes the game near inaccessible.
Im far from being a "hardcore" player and half a year ago I was a complete newbie but I never saw it as a major problem |
| | "I like pants more than shirts" - savior |
|
|
| | 1 2 3 4 Next All |
