AOE-II DE The smurf problem in DE

[kw1k000000]

What are you trying to argue about? It is based on luck even if it;s investment and decision.
Worst part with laming boars is that sometimes you follow dumb boar and try to block it and it doesn't stop to follow enemy scout. This thing is most annoying, as sometimes feels like you just can't do anything to prevent it. Similar thing with deers, sometimes they just run few tiles randomly and starts moving back right away without even standing idle. Such dumb behaviour of animals should be fixed, so both deers do not back without being idle even for 1 sec and boars become easier to stop from being stolen. Then we might start talking more about skill needed to lame, as now its mainly luck

A forward, on the hill gold is also luck (bad), the strategy is to play around it. All the map elements can be unfair sometimes, why so much outcry only about boars

 

[Lokalo]

A forward, on the hill gold is also luck (bad), the strategy is to play around it. All the map elements can be unfair sometimes, why so much outcry only about boars

Becouse you cant come and steal gold minute 3? You can play around it due being more aggressive and stuff, map is based on luck, but you base strategy on it and think ahead. How that's even similar with stealing boar minute 3?

 

[kw1k000000]

Becouse you cant come and steal gold minute 3? You can play around it due being more aggressive and stuff, map is based on luck, but you base strategy on it and think ahead. How that's even similar with stealing boar minute 3?

You prioritize scouting forward side with scout and decide to take boar early if needed. If stolen then adjust your food eco accordingly.

Randomness is part of aoe2 maps and sometimes it can be unfair to you.

 

[Lokalo]

You prioritize scouting forward side with scout and decide to take boar early if needed. If stolen then adjust your food eco accordingly.

Randomness is part of aoe2 maps and sometimes it can be unfair to you.

I hear that a lot here it seems "take boar early if needed". So when it is needed? How do you decide if it is needed or not? How do you detect if you playing against lamer or not?

unfair is not a number. Losing lots of food and opponent gaining it is huge difference(not like you can't come back out of it, but it's huge deficit). When we are talking about resources, you still have exact same amount of them, you just need to play around it, wall it in, do more army, do a tower or something else, but you can plan it ahead and play around it. While if you lose boar, you lose it, you can adjust eco, can lure deers(although opponent still can lure deers too).

Those two things are just not even near to be equal. When dude comes to tower your gold, you can counter tower, when he comes with army you can have army too. But if he steals your boar, you usually can't steal it back, as his scout is already home and he also lures it due he knows you can come or even has a big possibility to see you going there. And all you can do about it, try to adjust as much as possible.

Also to those "is a skill". Really? Even Memb with his low apm easily steals a boar, what skill we are talking about there lol

 

[IYIyTh]

Had two in last three matches. "Not a problem."

Arguably 3/3, if you count the 56% top 800 player.

Hilariously, one said "I'm actually 1800," after gg and I asked why they were smurfing after seeing their w/l after resigning. They also seem to be smurfing the TG ladder as well. Fun for everyone.

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

Between the clear ELO tankers and obvious more than frequent smurfs I am pretty sure this raises to a level of greater than "It's fiiiiiiiine."

 

[The Bloodless]

Gonna have a hard time getting rid of smurfs. It's pretty common across many games. Some unknown percentage, maybe 50%, are actually Smurfing "harmlessly" by choosing a particular way of playing or playing drunk, whatever, as long as it's a fair game. Usually that still involves easily winning 10-30 games to get to that point but it's not the worst thing ever.

But it's quite obvious when 90% win rate is achieved that you're just bashing noobs (aka killing other's fun) in exchange for your own fun. Same with a win % of 90% if the game is longer than 5 minutes (even if your overall win % is 50%).
I don't personally have an issue with smurfs as I am ok playing against anyone, even if I lose, but it's obvious it ruins a lot of people's games.

The clear solution is for Microsoft to tell steam to disable family sharing for their game. That would remove 90% of Smurfing I would bet. Sure the 10% of people using it legitimately would be angry but if they really need another copy they can always buy one.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

Gonna have a hard time getting rid of smurfs. It's pretty common across many games. Some unknown percentage, maybe 50%, are actually Smurfing "harmlessly" by choosing a particular way of playing or playing drunk, whatever, as long as it's a fair game. Usually that still involves easily winning 10-30 games to get to that point but it's not the worst thing ever.

But it's quite obvious when 90% win rate is achieved that you're just bashing noobs (aka killing other's fun) in exchange for your own fun. Same with a win % of 90% if the game is longer than 5 minutes (even if your overall win % is 50%).
I don't personally have an issue with smurfs as I am ok playing against anyone, even if I lose, but it's obvious it ruins a lot of people's games.

The clear solution is for Microsoft to tell steam to disable family sharing for their game. That would remove 90% of Smurfing I would bet. Sure the 10% of people using it legitimately would be angry but if they really need another copy they can always buy one.

@IYIyTh So what category here does King_Boo's smurfing fall under?

 

[IYIyTh]

When the smurf gets close to losing like King Boo or loses like this fellow you get raw anger.
#wholesomeaoe2community

 

[IYIyTh]

Played a smurf and lost. Second game decide didn't want to play them again, 30 minute ban.

4/17. Pretty consistent holding the 20% amount over the last 40-60 games.

King Boo likes, as he creates another family sharing account.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

Played a smurf and lost. Second game decide didn't want to play them again, 30 minute ban. 4/17. Pretty consistent holding the 20% amount over the last 40-60 games. King Boo likes, as he creates another family sharing account.

He laughes at your post but does not respond which I think can be interpreted as a tacit acknowledgement of the truth. Anyways why did you not play the second game against the smurf and just afk until it was over? There is nothing less enjoyable when smurfing than playing against somebody who isn't trying so by afking you make him waste time playing at least the Dark Age for no real payoff while you go do something productive like chat undistracted with followers on Twitch or try to seduce your wife.

 

[Son of Dad]

Another smurf spotted in the wild:

AOE Nexus | Profile

 

[AttilaTheHun]

How does that picture shows he is a smurf? I don't get it.

 

[Memeluke]

I'm scared to ask how many games his main account played if the smurf has 5000.

 

[IYIyTh]

Take twice in a row for smurfaletta : https://www.aoe2insights.com/user/10172470/

4/10 matches vs smurf.
5/11 if you count the next vs. canary boi

"not a problem."

 

[Q_W_e_r_T_y]

Take twice in a row for smurfaletta : https://www.aoe2insights.com/user/10172470/

4/10 matches vs smurf.
5/11 if you count the next vs. canary boi

"not a problem."

what a phenomenal gaming experience

 

[The Bloodless]

Take twice in a row for smurfaletta : https://www.aoe2insights.com/user/10172470/

4/10 matches vs smurf.
5/11 if you count the next vs. canary boi

"not a problem."

No he's just leveling up while he's recovering from breaking his mouse and getting used to a new one. Either that or he's trying out super unconventional strategies. No problem here. Family Sharing system is working as intended /s

 

[IYIyTh]

I think out of my last ten games I've played canary 2x, 3-4 smurfs.

Something about the 16-1700 range is full of smurfs. I don't get it.

I've had people tell me "they're not smurfs!" Only for the people I'm playing against to literally acknowledge it in chat. "I'm actually 18+" et al

70% win rate, under fifty games.

It's ridiculous and is a massive problem, at least in this range.

 

[Snippy]

As long as family shared accounts is a thing on Steam there will always be smurfs

 

[Tocaraca]

How does that picture shows he is a smurf? I don't get it.

20% winrate for games under 20 mins

 

[HongeyKong]

20% winrate for games under 20 mins

Honestly, I dont think that alone is a solid enough proof. My winrate is also 2X under 20 mins due to instant resigns against lamers / blunders. That being said, that bloke is 2k so hes definitely tanking.

 

[Tocaraca]

Honestly, I dont think that alone is a solid enough proof. My winrate is also 2X under 20 mins due to instant resigns against lamers / blunders. That being said, that bloke is 2k so hes definitely tanking.

Agreed. I played against that guy a few months ago, he instantly resigned in 2/3 games I played vs him

 

[Nicov]

just disable family share for ranked matches.

 

[Lokalo]

just disable family share for ranked matches.

Yeah, problem would be solved with smurfs and they would earn more money as some people would pay for smurfs still, so win/win for devs

 

[SouFire]

Family share is a good thing for the game, whether if you like or not, there are family guys there giving a legit usage to that feature, while for guys like nicov and his kalashnicov1, kalashnicov2 and who knows how many other nicks he uses, a pro player and streamer can easily afford buying more copies of the game without affecting his economy, while in some other regions or users it could affect their economy and we would end up losing those players and it ain't like we have that many active players.

We need game moderation, canary should have been banned long time ago on like on voobly for such behavior, but well it is always easier to hate other users rather than asking for some minimal moderation, there is plenty evidence to ban canary for 20 years, same as ertug.

 

[Nicov]

Family share is a good thing for the game, whether if you like or not, there are family guys there giving a legit usage to that feature, while for guys like nicov and his kalashnicov1, kalashnicov2 and who knows how many other nicks he uses, a pro player and streamer can easily afford buying more copies of the game without affecting his economy, while in some other regions or users it could affect their economy and we would end up losing those players and it ain't like we have that many active players.

We need game moderation, canary should have been banned long time ago on like on voobly for such behavior, but well it is always easier to hate other users rather than asking for some minimal moderation, there is plenty evidence to ban canary for 20 years, same as ertug.

You have regional pricing with aoe. The game is fairly cheap everywhere. It's not like aoe4 with its global 60 dollars or so.
Find a better excuse. Or just don't complain about "smurfs ruining the tg ladder" everyday then. Because this feature you love so much is what allows it to happen.

If they ban canary right now he can just create a new account and play again 5 minutes later for free. Enjoy your family share!

So, my take on this is that there are only a few individuals rightfully using the feature while its being abused and exploited like crazy by a large amount of users. To smurf and kill noobs or to cheat. All of this while the game is not even expensive. So yes, I think forcing these guys to pay for another copy if they want to keep doing that sounds perfectly reasonable. At the same time i'm sure each copy sold helps to keep the game alive much longer. So it's a win win.