AOE-II DE The smurf problem in DE

[Lokalo]

Given DE's algorithm you will approach your ELO sooner than 50 games. The idea that there is just a bastion of 2k3 players returning to DE for the first time is laughable.

You can be 1.8-2k and still go like 30:0. Thing is, even if you lose 10-15 games, that 30/0 early start still makes your winrate look way very high.

You completely ignored my reply, which is great example. I have 135 games and around 61% win rate, Even though last 70 games i kind of win/lose 50/50. But that 20/0 start still makes win ratio look good.
As it was pointed out, if people have quite many losses, they are near their elo, unless they purposely losing games, but if they are not, they are close.

 

[rmcoo]

Can you explain this in a little more detail? Specifically how it is leading to that problem. I'm not doubting just curious to learn more.

Since nobody explained it to you in the league of legends example, I might as well do. In AoE2 it might work, in League it faced a completely different issue that practically drove away majority of my friends, including me away from the game:

The way league checks for smurfs is by comparing MMR with actual elo. A new account is almost always placed in lower elo than starting MMR, so with high winrate (let's say 10-1) you will very quickly be placed in smurf queue. Although there is small chance of false positives, overall this is functional.

Now here is by far the biggest issue:

If you stop playing a game for a month or longer and you are diamond+, your elo decays, but your MMR stays the same. So after a month if you want to start playing the game again, you try to queue up, and after 20 mins of queue time in the game you have an experience, where 8 players are non-stop threatening each others, ruining the game, intentionally feeding etc. And 2-3 players are sitting quietly. You check after the game, and all of these 7-8 players are on new accounts, and then the poor 2-3 players are simply players who didn't play on their main account for a month, that now have to go through 20-30 games of this smurf-queue bullshit, without deserving it, before they can start playing in normal ladder again. Which in my, and some of my friends cases lead to us trying for a bit to get back to normal ladder, and then just quitting as we couldn't handle it. (Good decision to quit though)

Of course this is not very related to aoe2, but might as well explain if you're curious 11

 

[Akap]

No problem at all the TG matchmaking is completely broken...

 

[chelodegli]

The approach on the ELO system is not the best. It should take on consideration your streak and your winrate in order to give you a reallistic ranking.

1 bad game (vs smurf) would ruin your entire day experience despite how many others you have succesfully played.

 

[LowEloNobody]

Matchmaking is handled by relic and not forgotten empires right?
Does that include the way the elo system works?

 

[HappyLeaves]

Matchmaking is handled by relic and not forgotten empires right?
Does that include the way the elo system works?

Yes

 

[LowEloNobody]

So basically everything is relic's fault 11

 

[MrIster24]

Freaking smurfs I run into them almost every game. Usually 80%+ win rate but sometimes they are at about 50.5% win rate. No other reason I'm losing to these people other than smurfing!

But seriously I run into a smurf about every 10-15 games lately (15-16x level).

 

[Dkastro]

I don't understand why they don't make a system where everyone gains elo according to the highest elo of the enemy team..

 

[HongeyKong]

I don't understand why they don't make a system where everyone gains elo according to the highest elo of the enemy team..

You mean the system before May 2021?

 

[Dkastro]

You mean the system before May 2021?

Yeah but avoiding the inflation part 11, wich they correctly fixed. So if like a 4k plays with 1k elo friends he won't gain elo because the enemy max elo is probably like 2k, his friends will gain all the available elo to avoid inflation (the available elo calculated just like now, avg vs avg, not against max elo like my previous post) .

 

[HongeyKong]

Yeah but avoiding the inflation part 11, wich they correctly fixed. So if like a 4k plays with 1k elo friends he won't gain elo because the enemy max elo is probably like 2k, his friends will gain all the available elo to avoid inflation.

And thats exactly what resulted inflation.
EG.
TEAM A: 4000 + 1000
TEAM B: 2500 + 2500

If A wins
TEAM A: 4000 + 1200 (I just made this up)
TEAM B: 2500 + 2500

IF B wins
TEAM A: 3800 + 1000
TEAM B: 2700 + 2700

200 elo came out of nowhere.


Most ideal system is probably individual vs opposing teams average elo, I dont know if there are any technical issues tho.


EDIT: Or maybe you mean only gain but not loss, idk.

 

[HongeyKong]

	Individual (Own / Opponents highest)	Average
Individual (Own / Opponents highest)	OLD SYSTEM	IDEAL SYSTEM (?)
Average	IDEAL SYSTEM (?)	CURRENT SYSTEM

 

[Funito]

I never got the smurf problem. Nothing more fun than playing a much better player and learning from him and figuring out with your own skin what makes him good. It's like an eternal state of being bullied and crying instead of doing something about it like hitting the aoe2 gym or joining aoe2 karate lessons.

 

[i_no_english]

I never got the smurf problem. Nothing more fun than playing a much better player and learning from him and figuring out with your own skin what makes him good. It's like an eternal state of being bullied and crying instead of doing something about it like hitting the aoe2 gym or joining aoe2 karate lessons.

That's only true if you are eager to approve. If you just want to have a relaxing game after work there is no fun in being stomped by someone 500 points higher rated than you.

Having said that: will probably launch some games tonight with an account that is around 200 points lower than my actual rating xD

 

[Funito]

That's only true if you are eager to approve. If you just want to have a relaxing game after work there is no fun in being stomped by someone 500 points higher rated than you.

Having said that: will probably launch some games tonight with an account that is around 200 points lower than my actual rating xD

Well, i kind of agree. But also many guys that smurf are just guys that are tired (when i used to smurf was mostly because i was going to play like 300 points below my best level) and want to have some fun relaxed but it just happens they are much better even playing bad for their standards. And still most of the crying comes from people that plays all day but don't want to do nothing about improving even when they care about playing good.

 

[Elvaenor]

I never got the smurf problem. Nothing more fun than playing a much better player and learning from him and figuring out with your own skin what makes him good. It's like an eternal state of being bullied and crying instead of doing something about it like hitting the aoe2 gym or joining aoe2 karate lessons.

Are you saying that if someone's being bullied it's his own fault for not joining the gym?
I think it's different in 1v1 and teamgames btw, in a 1v1 it can be a good challenge and you can rewatch the game to see how he played/ what you could've done, but in a teamgame it's often not so obvious I think.

 

[TheCapybara]

I never got the smurf problem. Nothing more fun than playing a much better player and learning from him and figuring out with your own skin what makes him good. It's like an eternal state of being bullied and crying instead of doing something about it like hitting the aoe2 gym or joining aoe2 karate lessons.

It's a combination of a few things, all of which feel legitimate:
- People generally queue to get an even game. If you're even semi-frequently getting uneven games because people are exploiting the system (which is what smurfing is), that could be frustrating and disappointing;
- Especially in 1v1s, losing more elo than you should because someone is smurfing (e.g. you're a 1700 and play a 2k level player on a 1700 smurf) is annoying. Yes, they're only internet points, you can get them back or whatever, but let's be realistic: people care about their elo, and it's legitimate to do so.
- The frequency with which people run into smurfs, especially on the TG ladder in its current form, is frustrating people. Telling them just to 'deal with it' or 'find ways to enjoy it' isn't really constructive. Especially as there are times when there is such a gap between the smurfer and smurfee that it's not even possible for them to take constructive lessons from the game.

Also really not a fan of this sentiment of blaming a victim of bullying. As was mentioned above, different people play for different reasons, not everyone is hellbent on constant improvement and facing smurfs can just be outright off-putting for some players.

 

[Funito]

Are you saying that if someone's being bullied it's his own fault for not joining the gym?

No, of course i despiece any form of abuse. It's clearly a joke and i'm not of the guys who think there are things you can't joke about. But things never are the way we want them to be and they would never be and is just better doing something about it if that bothers you, and not only expecting or even trying to change the way things are.

I think it's different in 1v1 and teamgames btw, in a 1v1 it can be a good challenge and you can rewatch the game to see how he played/ what you could've done, but in a teamgame it's often not so obvious I think.

Well, yes, can be. I never cared about tgs, and on DE they are totally broken. While it's a bit reductionist, It's not a smurf problem, is just DE matchmaking and the absense of rated lobbies. I don't think it was a Voobly problem.

It's a combination of a few things, all of which feel legitimate:

- Especially in 1v1s, losing more elo than you should because someone is smurfing (e.g. you're a 1700 and play a 2k level player on a 1700 smurf) is annoying. Yes, they're only internet points, you can get them back or whatever, but let's be realistic: people care about their elo, and it's legitimate to do so.

Yes but while i am against smurf abuse, to create an smurf account you have to go through it first. Also a DE ELO system problem: you need like 30 straight wins to reach ur rating if u are kind of good. But once you go through that the problem it's quite similar from both perspectives: The smurfer (many times) just want to smurf because he wants to play chill or he is tired, distracted and probably almost 300 points below his real skill and he don't wanna lose all his points so when he wants to play at his real level he is 300 points below his real rating. Anyway, smurfing will always be there so better dealing with it. There is not a legal way Steam or XBOX can prevent smurfing. Whining seems silly. I personally think smurfing posibilite is a fun aspect of games.

- Telling them just to 'deal with it' or 'find ways to enjoy it' isn't really constructive. Especially as there are times when there is such a gap between the smurfer and smurfee that it's not even possible for them to take constructive lessons from the game.

Also really not a fan of this sentiment of blaming a victim of bullying. As was mentioned above, different people play for different reasons, not everyone is hellbent on constant improvement and facing smurfs can just be outright off-putting for some players.

Well, i kind of dislike adults whining and getting better seems like one of the best and not that unreachable solutions if that bothers you. Also i don't think there is a gap difference on 1vs1 that may not be constructive, maybe depends on how the game develops. I can recall from my starting days the games i got more destroyed were the ones i learned more from, yet was another era and with no that much information as now. Also it's quite hard to totally dissociate the will of trying to get better from being annoyed for being getting destroyed. I play other games that when i get destroyed i just laugh or have fun the same, if i don't care about getting better, or even on my last aoe days.

 

[Elvaenor]

No, of course i despiece any form of abuse. It's clearly a joke and i'm not of the guys who think there are things you can't joke about. But things never are the way we want them to be and they would never be and is just better doing something about it if that bothers you, and not only expecting or even trying to change the way things are.

haha I understood that, I just saw an opportunity to twist your words so obviously I had to take it. Kappa

 

[chelodegli]

(...) Yes but while i am against smurf abuse, to create an smurf account you have to go through it first. Also a DE ELO system problem: you need like 30 straight wins to reach ur rating if u are kind of good. But once you go through that the problem it's quite similar from both perspectives (...)

Exactly, with a better ELO system, the smurf problem would be less annoying. It's main objective is to level players, it shouldn't take 20/30 games to do it, at least for a "not-new" player.

Although for newer players you have the same situation. They have to loose 10 games before getting an even match. Imagine yourself starting a new game in the "hard mode" instead of easy. Next step is uninstalling.

 

[Dkastro]

And thats exactly what resulted inflation.
EG.
TEAM A: 4000 + 1000
TEAM B: 2500 + 2500

If A wins
TEAM A: 4000 + 1200 (I just made this up)
TEAM B: 2500 + 2500

IF B wins
TEAM A: 3800 + 1000
TEAM B: 2700 + 2700

200 elo came out of nowhere.


Most ideal system is probably individual vs opposing teams average elo, I dont know if there are any technical issues tho.


EDIT: Or maybe you mean only gain but not loss, idk.

Lets say it's 200 elo for win or loss then your example would be:

A 4000 1000
B 2500 2500

A WINS:

4000 1200
2400 2400

B WINS

3800 1000
2600 2600

Something like that.

Pros / cons?

 

[sheeesh]

unpopular opinion: I despise watching pros doing silly challenges and troll tactics on smurf accounts

 

[HongeyKong]

Lets say it's 200 elo for win or loss then your example would be:

A 4000 1000
B 2500 2500

A WINS:

4000 1200
2400 2400

B WINS

3800 1000
2600 2600

Something like that.

Pros / cons?

The 1000 player gains 200 because the other teams best player is 2500.
But how do the 2500s lose 100? Splitting the 200?



And what if for some reason these two teams got matched:
A: 4000 1000
vs
B: 3000 0

A is obviously the better team, but the 1000 player is still going to gain tons of elo?

 

[Dkastro]

The 1000 player gains 200 because the other teams best player is 2500.
But how do the 2500s lose 100? Splitting the 200?



And what if for some reason these two teams got matched:
A: 4000 1000
vs
B: 3000 0

A is obviously the better team, but the 1000 player is still going to gain tons of elo?

I was wrong with gaining elo against max elo of enemy team, it's against average elo (just like now) but with the key difference that you gain elo differently within your team (always with the cap to avoid inflation, the 200 in the example).