this allows smurfing the other way round: a smurf crushes noobs, and then gets the choice to leave their elo as is.
But he must end his game under 10 minutes. Mybe we could reduce time to 5 minutes. I think, then it’s impossible.
Also this can be done already, he almost wins, then resigns before opponent does.
1 Like
isn’t the whole thing we discuss this that we don’t want the “noobs” to be crushed by the smurfers because it’s bad?
What you propose is basically a “free pass” for toxicity which i don’t support.
I still think the best way is just to make it increasingly difficult to intentionally lose elo via throwing/quitting. And it doesn’t require a staff to continouusly observe the scene.
Ofc we need to design this carefully because people will try to circumvent the mechanic. Some things can be forseen already and be addressed, but other things will prbobably only be figured out when such a system is in place.
you lack reading comprehension.
I am pointing out that the proposal by KnightPandaMage enables smurfing nonetheless
I don’t think so, i was referring to the proposal. Maybe it would have been better to say “that” instead “your” there, but when reading it you could have seen from the context who I meant, the author of the proposal.
Totally agree there, That’s why I stay with the conceptional idea to use an auto detection tool like proposed in this topic. But instead of banning the griefers they just don’t lose elo from the griefing anymore.
then why did you quote me and respond to me?
anyway, glad we agree
the issue with that is, that it rewards map dodging/opponent dodging
It does make you not lose elo there.
Is that a reward? Ofc it’s better than getting banned for it.
But it makes your elo better accoring to your actual level on the maps you ACTUALLY PLAY.
But yes, we need also a better solution for that. If players just can’t enjoy certain maps it makes no sense to force them playing on these.
2 Likes
agreed. unfortunately with the people in charge, nothing will ever be done about either of those issues
Please explain how my idea enables smurfing?
The griefer will just not claim the win for elo gain, so he can stay at whatever elo level he wants to.
He wouldn’t even need to drop games anymore.
1 Like
Unless he is constantly doing Persian douche, he can’t force an opponent to surrender under 5 minutes. After 5 mins he will get elo by winning, there will be no dialog.
If you think 5 minutes is too long, reduce to 3. if dc on start happens in 3 minutes mostly whole team leaves. Than you can get this dialog.
Or you can reduce to 3 minutes for 1v1 4 for 2v2 5 for 3v3 and 6 for 4v4. Than it does not enable smurfing.
Or you still think otherwise?
On a similar topic, have you guys seen that website? https://aoe2analysis.com/hall-of-shame I assume it uses some of the concepts discussed here and more.
5 Likes
i don´t see the problem with someone just playing one map.
if more bans are added to the map selection punishing early quitters is more viable.
i don’t agree to push someone to play a map they don’t like.
when i started playing i dislike other than arena, then i switched to only arabia. then i learned hybrid and water maps, wich i don’t like but i can play.
I guess a lot of people also quit maps they don’t like or want to play.
The fact that playing only one map, in the current environment, leads to 90% winrate on that map.
1 Like
what’s the problem with it?
i use to host arabia 1v1 when i dislike the map pool and i never get games.
you will be match with people of your lvl in that map.