Lol what. Dude, the parent account and the authorized accounts can’t play the games online at the same time.
Because technically they are sharing the same game library. If they want to do it, they have to have the game in their own library.
Exactly! 
What happens is that you get good players, usually +2500 TG creating new accounts to play vs ~1000 players and completely dominate! Once the smurf account reaches their normal elo, let’s say +2500 TG, they abandon it and create another one, and on and on it goes.
Another thing that happens is some ppl create a new account, lose games on purpose to have really low elo, then play with another good player to game the system.
If family Shared accounts stop playing multiplayer, these problems are solved. To smurf ppl would need to buy the game again. More money for the devs, less smurfs for us. i only see advantages here.
1 Like
Lol those are problems covered on other threads as well.
The current TG smurfers use 1 high elo account and 1 low elo account in the team to inflate their points. That can be done without family sharing by manipulating the matchmaking (like 3 players in cahoots + 1 random player) like it was done when the game was released. The problem exacerbated now with the recent elo change without reset; because they kept their inflated accounts that allowed them to abuse. TG smurfing can be solved with elo reset, better elo calculation, elo limiters; as it’s always suggested.
1vs1 smurfing solves itself after the smurfer hits the elo ceiling. After that they have to lose on purpose. But that can be done without family sharing anyway.
As you can see banning family sharing won’t have a high impact on those problems.
1 Like
guys, dont waste your time on him.
Even with a vote, talking about 1v1, most of the people hating smurf as well.
And instead this guy said there’s no problem at all.
Those TG improvement are just a joke, TG reset and ban the smurf are the only way out.
It’s just trying to lower the smurf advantages only.
It’s alright to keep family share, but only if there is a permanent ban with the family shares accounts for using smurf. I will 100% supporting this.
If there’s a voobly, no one will ever play with smurf at all. They are just like a rat which is so hateful.
2 Likes
Who said there is no problem at all. Do you even read, bro?
I’m telling you it’s a bad decision that will cause more harm than good. Specially when you yourself didn’t even know how family sharing worked before today, and keep ignoring the consequences.
You have eyes but you can’t see mount tai.
1 Like
I have told you my standpoint before:
It’s alright to keep family share, but only if there is a permanent ban with the family shares accounts for using smurf. I will 100% supporting this.
1 Like
Lol yeah right, you wrote that after you realized you were proposing non-sense. And I’m not talking about this thread. Before that, you wanted to ban family sharing completely as shown on your posts on other threads here in the front page.
Do you think the management will waste their time to investigate smurf?
Do you know how much time is wasted to 100% prove a player who played smurf by checking macaddress, IP address, user activity?
Even a hacker they wont get a permanent ban in here, do you think smurf will be permanent ban in here?
I have also said that if banning family share on multiplayer features, it will be good as well. But the fact is not possible.
This is a statement testing your respond on smurf, and clearly, you didnt agree with that at all because as a pathetic smurf, this agreement won’t come out from you.
So, as what I have said at the start, banning family share is defintely a valid request, just like the game “New World” just did.
Yes, please do not reply in this thread at all, I believe most of the people who want this game to stay alive DO NOT want to see smurfs justifying their bullshits.
Lol what.
Sure. Because kicking out players always is good for the game.
Because forcing people has always brought great results in the game industry.
How about we implement real solutions like elo reset. It’s not like those fake internet points matter until the ranked scene settles in 3~4 weeks lmao. Compared to all these months full of smurfing and hacking, those weeks are nothing.
Serious games don’t have family share.
3 Likes
Serious dying games do because the game doesnt get that much attention
But on a serious note
-ban family share
-reset elo
-change ranked so its randon map but civ picks (dont know if bans should stay or not)
-punish alt f4 and not everyone
-fix the lobbies
-introduce lobby ranked
1 Like
Looks like the majority of people want this implemented, I hope the devs take notice of this thread
Yea but the minority who are smurfers and abuser of the system and alot who speaked out against it
Again with the minority stuff? Why don’t you see the top 100 1x1 and stop talking nonsense for once, it’s full with smurfs even at 1x1, every single 2k player has several smurf accounts that behavior has been a thing always in aoe2, the devs can’t remove family sharing cause only HUGE MP games can give the luxury to remove family sharing like fall guys, cs go, etc.
This game is full with nachos, nacho is a guy who just came back half a year ago and reached 1800 in 1x1 and 2900 in tg, then nacho stops playing 6 months or even 1 year, when nacho comes back starting playing where he was at wouldn’t make sense, cause he will get crushed by obvious reasons, nacho needs an alternative to recover his skills without getting humiliated or losing entirely his rank, buying again the game wouldn’t make sense either, if nacho can’t start playing until gain confidence nacho might just stay on retirement, things are simple like that.
If you in the other hand are in constant pain cause vivi and their friends are crushing you in team games and ruining your experience, you need to change your anger towards the real problem, the broken tg ladder and the silly tg elo calculation, also missing the option to avoid certain players, if we had 3-5 ban options, we could ban the cheaters or smurfs and don’t face them in our ranked games, now you see the difference??it is not about thinking with the head full of hate, think better, be smart before attempting to affect others with silly proposals.
lol what? refuse to get humiliated and refuse to pay to avoid that? you are a good role model
1 Like
The examples you mentioned is definitely justify your selfishness.
I will also blame some of the players in top 100 brining this toxic smurf culture and made fools like you believe it’s justified and right.
Most of the reasons I found for people who play smurf are simply because they dont want their main account dropping the win rate, or they want a casual win games.
A player who havent played a while so he plays smurf to gain back his confident?
Have you fukin thought about the opponents who lost the game, who cares about their confident?
especaially his first few games, the oppoents are just around 1000 to 1300?
A player who is 2400 elo playing a smurf, take him around 30 to 50 games to climb back.
Iamgine how many games are ruined?
If you think you arent at the level of current elo at the moment , find you friends to practice, or let your elo drop, accept a lose game. Soon or later you will get it back.
Playing a smurf with 20 or 30 games to climb back the elo is defintely time wasting for his own and the opponents.
Dont try to sperate the 1v1 smurf and the TG smurfs, they are all disgusting.
4 Likes
I think its funny that people not just take it and drop to a elo they can comeback better they dont need smurfs for that
2 Likes
Lol whaaaaaat. You don’t even need to do that to get this so called “alternative”. Nacho just needs to get better at the game; perhaps, you know, keep playing and practicing?? In fact, your example defeats the purpose of playing ranked to gain/lose points. Thus even the reasons to smurf.
I wonder what’s your elo lmao. it’s rare to struggle against smurfers after 1550~1600 in 1vs1 because most of them quit when things don’t go their way. That’s why they drop their elo on purpose, to play against noobs (1000~1600). You don’t even need smurfs for that. Unlike in TGs where smurfers just want to boost their points as much as possible.
The real smurfing problem happens in TGs lol. I think Nacho needs a therapist.
I just gave an example of why some users have more than one account without actually smurfing, after a long hiatus without playing your are going to start in a really low level no matter who you are, i have known people that does that since zone, gamepark,voobly and here.
You should also check the top 100 1x1 like 60-45 real players are there with multiple accounts, for whatever the reason they have, they are less liked to buy another copy of the game but rather play less, next time send that therapist to capoch or mbl or the several guys with 5 nicks 11, you gotta accept that having multiple accounts(smurfing) is a thing in all elos, no exception and actually that boost the activity, without that option less games will be played, less active players, there has been a war about smurfing for decades now and it has done more good than bad to this small community.
So add that to the list of negative impacts that such change could do.
You are trying to use the examples to defend the smurf in 1v1, telling me there is a difference between 1v1 and TG.
DO NOT trying to use those pro’s toxic behaviors to justify, it’s totally not valid.
If a guy would easily give up to keep playing the game because he couldnt play a smurf account to gain the confidence, soon or later he will leave the game.
TG is definitely an example what it goes when smurfing goes to extreme.
I have raised the smurf issue a year before but people dont give a ■■■■ because it’s not serious at that moment.
(so sounds familiar? if you are telling me 1v1 smurf is not serious now, I am talking to you about right and wrong and gaming sportsmanship, long term impacts)
ALSO, you said that smurfing bringing good > bad.
It’s totally not true, as we know the majority elo in AOE is around 1200, 1300 elo.
so now smurfing is a small group of players affecting the huge community.
Do you get the point?
Those people you mentioned is typically mostly above 1600, which is already top 5% of the players.
Have you ever consider those 1200, 1300 players lost the interests of playing the game against smurf?
A 2100 elo player want to gain his confidence, played 50 games to reach 2100 now
So can I can assume there are around 50 players quit the game because of the smurfs?
Probably it won’t, but it’s definitely affecting 50 players gaming experience and if the cases becomes serious, people start quitting the game just like TG did.
Again, and I quoted here before, how many games are ruined when you sort the win rate here?
2 Likes