AOE-II DE The smurf problem in DE

[lecracheursagacite]

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

Yeah it's pretty cringe actually. One way you know LoL has a pretty toxic community is by how popular smurf streamers are there.

 

[Lokalo]

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.

You are not learning anything if you getting stomped, you learning when games are close and thinking what you could do better or you rewatch games and look for what you did wrong. All those are viable posibilities. Another one which that you relating to, is learning from better players, but doing that is much easier watching someones stream with them explaining what they are doing and why or downloading top 15 games, not some 2k or even for other like 1.4k who stomps you. I mean currently I'm around 1700, to play against 1850-1900 can be interesting,there is some chance, if smurf is around 2-2.1k there is practically 0 chance even if guy fails. Although I do not mind much, often can clearly see from things in game he is way better player and losing some elo is meh, but it is kind of waste of time anyways. What annoys me most in aoe2 with smurfs, that they not just smurfing a bit, but they keep deleting their tc and vills for like 5-10 games to keep low elo, while in LoL people usually smurf til they reach kind of their rating and they stop/create new account, here they can keep smurfing in one account forever.

As for becoming better, well that is quite lame view too, there always are better players, also you can't really compete with people who play it for a living or for 15 years if you are quite new. I mean I do fully understand the attitude to improve, but reaching 2-2.2k elo is not that simple and probably even not possible for many people even with tons of time invested.

 

[baobab]

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

I hate it as well. I've recently seen @_IamChris started doing it and it was sad to watch honestly.

There is zero difference between this and random people smurfing to bash on noobs. The fact that you're a pro streamer doing it to entertain your viewers is a shitty justification. You're still wasting time and ruining games of weaker players. If you're such a pro, have the balls and do it on your main account. Losing your elo shouldn't be a concern since apparently you don't have a problem with weaker players losing their elo to your smurf account.

I would maybe undertand it if it was done for some kind of educational purposes, like GMs in chess do when they try to explain the game on different elo ranges. But this is just for shits and giggles because CONTENT!

 

[Memeluke]

I would maybe undertand it if it was done for some kind of educational purposes, like GMs in chess do when they try to explain the game on different elo ranges. But this is just for shits and giggles because CONTENT!

GM in chess also do troll challenges like giving away pieces for free or maybe play with a weird rule like "must checkmate with a pawn" all the time, they aren't that much better

 

[baobab]

GM in chess also do troll challenges like giving away pieces for free or maybe play with a weird rule like "must checkmate with a pawn" all the time, they aren't that much better

Of course they do but in unranked games with their viewers, not on the ladder. Lichess has recently completely banned smurfing, and on chess.com they get a special account for educational purposes, like Naroditsky or chessbrah's have for their speedruns. Also their opponents get their elo refunded after the game. There is still argument to be made that they are wasting time of the weaker players but at least there is some value in it. Naroditsky and chessbrah's have created really amazing educational content out of it for basically every elo range which is not based on just playing the best move in a given position.

Now compare that to stomping weaker players with troll strats because "SubsMadeMe". You're not even going to learn anything from games like these.

 

[_Donatello_]

For me personally I don't really care about my rating as long as games are good so been ignoring this topic. like if I loose vs a smurf I can just get my points back so no worries, I play drunk, high and sober on same account.

However this year I hardly got even games, I either stomp my enemy or enemy got 30-70 games and totally outplay me in 20 minuts. Now like last 10 people I played 1v1 all got few games, I lost most of them and only one I beat is actually ratied 200 points more now so seems like Im unlycky and hitting alot of smurf and then again I stomp my enemy when I meet someone with "real" rating because im rated 150 points lower then I normaly sit on.

Sorry just had to rant, can't remember my last good game and today the frustration got to me

 

[IYIyTh]

It's a problem when folks like King Boo are smurfing at 16xx with a 2100 rating. Just not sure what kind of satisfaction there is, maybe they're just tired of getting absolutely crushed at their true ELO?

With any meaningful amount of games played less anomalies due to decay, folks should trend around 50% win percentage unless they make some sort of miraculous skill leap in a short amount of time.

Just doesn't really make sense from any standpoint.

 

[Lokalo]

It's a problem when folks like King Boo are smurfing at 16xx with a 2100 rating. Just not sure what kind of satisfaction there is, maybe they're just tired of getting absolutely crushed at their true ELO?

With any meaningful amount of games played less anomalies due to decay, folks should trend around 50% win percentage unless they make some sort of miraculous skill leap in a short amount of time.

Just doesn't really make sense from any standpoint.

Well to be serious, if he is 2100, then he is 2100, so he will have 50% there too, but thats beside the point.

As for 50%, well if it is new smurf account, then sure, but that's the issue. Those smurfs keep droping elo on purpose, so they will have ~50% win rate, while I do have 59% win ratio, but I'm at elo where I belong. So win rate matters only if account is new.

On what I agree, I would like to know where is that satisfaction too. Seriously, playing against 200 elo lower player can be chill and fun, I fully understand that, but coming to -500 elo, its like stomping against bots. You do not even need to try, idk, people are weird sometimes

 

[lecracheursagacite]

The satisfaction from smurfing comes from being good enough at self-delusion to ignore the context that your stomping is unimpressive because you are expected to win and also from the affirmation that being able to stomp players at what externally is a decent elo means you are good at the game.

 

[MrIster24]

If you want chill games with no challenge just play Wonder Race vs AI or TGs versus Clown Legion or something

 

[HelloWorld]

Bigger problem is that you get stuck on your elo because you lose to a smurf then in the next game, you lose to a one trick pony. Then you have to bash noobs to get to higher elo - then the cycle repeats.

 

[LM_Overlife]

GM in chess also do troll challenges like giving away pieces for free or maybe play with a weird rule like "must checkmate with a pawn" all the time, they aren't that much better

This is not quite true, at least in my country. We have a famous streamer here who created some hype in 1.G4. Recently a Brazilian GM received a donation to make this opening and made it against a WGM, such attitude (fortunately) was not very well received by the professional chess community.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

This is not quite true, at least in my country. We have a famous streamer here who created some hype in 1.G4. Recently a Brazilian GM received a donation to make this opening and made it against a WGM, uch attitude (fortunately) was not very well received by the professional chess community.

What a dumbass.

 

[Memeluke]

"This is not true, at least in my country" *proceeds in bringing up an example of a GM from his country trolling for a donation against a weaker opponent, a WGM*

I'm really confused.

 

[LM_Overlife]

Wow, an individual person took a terrible attitude and an entire community criticized him. I think from this we can say that it is not socially accepted, correct?

 

[felix.feroc]

I was curious about what the current number of games with smurfs might be, so I did some number crunching on data from aoe2.net. This is only for ranked 1v1 random map. I found that roughly 5.5% of the matches between 1600 and 2000 elo played in the last month involved smurfs.

First, after reading the comments, I defined a smurf as someone who has played over thirty games, who has a win rate of more than 65% over all games after the first 20, whose highest rating is over 1600, and whose rating when playing was less than 2000. So we don't count the first 20 games, which should get the player to roughly the correct elo, but only the games after that. And there must be at least 10 games to use to calculate the percentage.

Given this definition, 1615 games played in the last month had a smurf.

To get a sense of scale, I ran the same numbers but without the win rate criterion. So games with at least one player whose highest elo is more than 1600, whose current elo is less than 2000, and who has played at least 30 games. In the last month, 29859 matches meet these criteria.

Which means that roughly 5.5% (1 in 19) games for people facing a 1600 - 2000 elo player involved a potential smurf, which was a lot higher than I expected.

 

[Son of Dad]

I was curious about what the current number of games with smurfs might be, so I did some number crunching on data from aoe2.net. This is only for ranked 1v1 random map. I found that roughly 5.5% of the matches between 1600 and 2000 elo played in the last month involved smurfs.

First, after reading the comments, I defined a smurf as someone who has played over thirty games, who has a win rate of more than 65% over all games after the first 20, whose highest rating is over 1600, and whose rating when playing was less than 2000. So we don't count the first 20 games, which should get the player to roughly the correct elo, but only the games after that. And there must be at least 10 games to use to calculate the percentage.

Given this definition, 1615 games played in the last month had a smurf.

To get a sense of scale, I ran the same numbers but without the win rate criterion. So games with at least one player whose highest elo is more than 1600, whose current elo is less than 2000, and who has played at least 30 games. In the last month, 29859 matches meet these criteria.

Which means that roughly 5.5% (1 in 19) games for people facing a 1600 - 2000 elo player involved a potential smurf, which was a lot higher than I expected.

this doesnt account for players like Canary, who have around 50% win rate, but thats because they've been diligently dropping elo on purpose to beat players roughly 300-400 elo lower than their real elo.

 

[IYIyTh]

I was curious about what the current number of games with smurfs might be, so I did some number crunching on data from aoe2.net. This is only for ranked 1v1 random map. I found that roughly 5.5% of the matches between 1600 and 2000 elo played in the last month involved smurfs.

First, after reading the comments, I defined a smurf as someone who has played over thirty games, who has a win rate of more than 65% over all games after the first 20, whose highest rating is over 1600, and whose rating when playing was less than 2000. So we don't count the first 20 games, which should get the player to roughly the correct elo, but only the games after that. And there must be at least 10 games to use to calculate the percentage.

Given this definition, 1615 games played in the last month had a smurf.

To get a sense of scale, I ran the same numbers but without the win rate criterion. So games with at least one player whose highest elo is more than 1600, whose current elo is less than 2000, and who has played at least 30 games. In the last month, 29859 matches meet these criteria.

Which means that roughly 5.5% (1 in 19) games for people facing a 1600 - 2000 elo player involved a potential smurf, which was a lot higher than I expected.

65% is generous. Your rating is usually fixed fairly appropriately w/in 50-60games. Even a difference of 5-6% (from 50%)at 150+ games is generally suspicious. The assumption that there is just some brand new aoe2 de player who just happens to be plowing through the 16-2k elo range can be viewed fairly suspiciously. Having said that, last 20 matches definitely in the realm of ~25% of matches vs a smurf. Also, as a pervious user said -- there are quite a few users (canary is the worst) who simply drop elo or quit immediately if their perfect build order is disrupted. (rage quits arena if trushed).

 

[TheCapybara]

65% is generous. Your rating is usually fixed fairly appropriately w/in 50-60games. The assumption that there is just some brand new aoe2 de player who just happens to be plowing through the 16-2k elo range can be viewed fairly suspiciously. Having said that, last 20 matches definitely in the realm of ~25% of matches vs a smurf. Also, as a pervious user said -- there are quite a few users (canary is the worst) who simply drop elo or quit immediately if their perfect build order is disrupted. (rage quits arena if trushed).

Checked your last 20 matches - I'd call it 2 in 20 were likely smurfs, and, even then, one of them has a quickly dropping win rate which suggests they've found their true level, so not exactly smurfing by this point. It took another 20 or so matches further back to find another smurf match for you. So 3 in ~40, approximately 7.5%, which isn't far off felix's estimation. Smurfing is annoying and crappy, but it's a relatively minor problem in 1v1s in the grand scheme of things.

 

[IYIyTh]

Checked your last 20 matches - I'd call it 2 in 20 were likely smurfs, and, even then, one of them has a quickly dropping win rate which suggests they've found their true level, so not exactly smurfing by this point. It took another 20 or so matches further back to find another smurf match for you. So 3 in ~40, approximately 7.5%, which isn't far off felix's estimation. Smurfing is annoying and crappy, but it's a relatively minor problem in 1v1s in the grand scheme of things.

Where are you pulling your info from?

Last 10 1v1 matchess

Smurfs:

AoE2.net

Play Age of Empires II: HD (AoE2:HD) and Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition (AoE2:DE) online! Lobby Browser and Leaderboards

aoe2.net

Probable smurfs (>55% win rate, low game rate and/or peak rating is sus af)

AoE2.net

Play Age of Empires II: HD (AoE2:HD) and Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition (AoE2:DE) online! Lobby Browser and Leaderboards

aoe2.net

AoE2.net

Play Age of Empires II: HD (AoE2:HD) and Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition (AoE2:DE) online! Lobby Browser and Leaderboards

aoe2.net

(Funnily enough, beat this whiner with a douche)
https://aoe2.net/#profile-1210686 (peak rating of 1872, even though 50% win rate. Playing at high 1600s)



So 10% containing a smurf, and three of them highly probable containing some element of smurf-like tendencies. Much higher than 7.5%

I don't think it's unreasonable to say even 1/10 matches being a smurf is a problem.

Anecdotal, sure -- but at my elo it's not unusual to run into 1-2 straight players in a series of 8 or so games who just happen to be brand new aoe2 players going 50-10.

 

[TheCapybara]

aoe2.net

 

[IYIyTh]

Really just depends on what your definition of a smurf and what you think an acceptable rate of encountering one is. 7.5% Seems very low based on other factors outside of just playing someone like https://aoe2.net/#profile-9713656, and more like factoring folks who drop 2-300 ELO like canary. Real rate at 16/1700ish probably more than double at 15%.

I happen to err on the side of someone doesn't just fire up DE and play at a top 1-2k current ladder level or go 50-1 on luck.

 

[IYIyTh]

this doesnt account for players like Canary, who have around 50% win rate, but thats because they've been diligently dropping elo on purpose to beat players roughly 300-400 elo lower than their real elo.

View attachment 197977

Ze Wurst. The funny thing is I report him every time and nothing is done about it.

Will just sit for 6-7 mins sometimes and resign, or play and if he encounters any aggression instant resign.

 

[MrIster24]

Ze Wurst. The funny thing is I report him every time and nothing is done about it.

Will just sit for 6-7 mins sometimes and resign, or play and if he encounters any aggression instant resign.

I went full troll in my games vs him last week and highly recommend. Don't give him your genuine effort to waste, waste his time as much as possible.

 

[IYIyTh]

I went full troll in my games vs him last week and highly recommend. Don't give him your genuine effort to waste, waste his time as much as possible.

The problem is he is a legitimately very good player, so if you play him meta you will lose, especially on Arena. He hates being trushed tho