SMURF must be stopped

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
42

that whats everyone things but a large majority allready spoke out in several topics that people that are leave or delete everything after 5minutes are maliciously throwing and hindering the game

3 Likes
43

The irony, you are being malicious by throwing baseless accusations while ignoring any argument that comes your way. You can only reduce the debate to it’s most vapid form. Just a bad troll.

44

I mean you been around you should know how many topics there were and if i remember correctly 2 people got banned from forum one even permanent

So i got bases and dont you come me with that i would lie same happend in an heated debate about nomad and you act the same trying to ignore factors and throw blame rather then listen to people why they think its bad that people leave or stay to minute 5 to delete everything

45

Ok so that wasn’t me, so correct your claim. And I was not aware of this. Last months I’ve been staying away from this forum as much as possible.

No one is saying the fact that people are dodging is good. Is that really the level you think on? This entire conversation has been about the INTENT behind it, you claim it is malicious intent which means deliberately wanting to do harm. While in reality world no one who dodges maps wants to do this and this phenomenon clearly started happening after the introduction of the current system. Maybe you should think about the meaning of words.

You’re extremely disingenuous in discusssions. You haven’t made a single argument in this topic

To the point that I am confident you are a troll because it’s not possible that a genuine person would be this dishonest. At least put a little effort into your posts before hitting enter.

Again a baseless accusation. Why don’t you link this topic?
Saying I ignore things when I always over-respond to every detail lol, I would rather make one good conversation per week than many small trivial comments.

46

Ok im just gonna try this once since im a patient man but dont wa t to argue with someone who ignores most facts

Disclaimer: i am usually someone who would play all maps so i try to bring this in aswell

So lets say i manage like 30 games in a week 18 actual games played 7 wins 11 losses i would there for still have a month of a ban of this system (atleast)

I would dodged 12 games with unfavourqble maps and had more of an elo loss then gain. Now tell me in which World wouldt it had made sense to play these 12 matches maybe win maybe loose and not screw over my team 12 times and be currently timeouted from playing

Ok i see some maps seem unfavourable but i feel like its no excuse to not try it and see how it goes

And as always i would go with the gut feeling that the people you play with just as you try their best and wouldt like to play an unfavourable 3v4 or 2v4 so yea afterall i stay with that its malicious and should be punished but rather only the person who left not the rest

2 Likes
47

Can someone tell me, why age devs cant implement same thing what valve did to dota 2 ? Smurfs get their own que, or they get qued with other smurfs etc. Making games more a bit fair teamwise.
Also other way to maybe fix tg games, if you que as a team, maybe make a box for separate team teamgame elo and own elo for soloq tg elo? It’s getting a bit frustrating/annoying to play constantly against players who have 90% winrate on 1500-1800 elo who also have 15x 1v1 rates with 80% or some ■■■■

2 Likes
48

I think the problem rather would be smurfs complaining about themself and cry in the forum if they get their own queue

Aswell as i think it would be more of a mess to seperate team games and rather find a logical solution to smurfs first and their malicious intends

49
  1. All maps are added to the queue which removes the need for map votes and all the bickering over what actually fits in the standard ranked queue.
  2. You may ban up to 50% - 1 of the maps.
  3. You may star up to 50% + 1 of the maps.
  4. The standard start maps well-outnumber any offshoots that don’t belong, so the map bans will be more than plentiful and sufficient for what must be done on the individual level.
  5. May this be done for both team games and 1 vs 1.
    Though with team games probably allow 1/8 -1 of the maps to be banned per player to avoid increased queue times. Regardless it should be enough bans, and they’d still be able to star up to 50%+1 maps if wanted.
  6. Maps starred by both players gain priority.
50

Thats basicly opt-in right and i think there are many people against it tho

51

I think there are many people both for and against - controversial doesn’t necessarily mean unpopular

52

aoe drama i like! x20

53

Not really drama just a fair discussion

2 Likes
55

Just saw that video now. It’s so sad it’s hilarious. Both because it seems the Devs are unwilling or unable to do anything about it, and because someone has such a sad life that they actually feel the need to smurf like that.

Some kind of cycle of abuse? They hate their lives so much that they need to go to that effort to be number 1?

And it’s not like they snuck in out of nowhere and did this in a day, so Devs should’ve actually been able to stop it ( and the many occurrences like it) or at least acknowledge that they are aware of it…

1 Like
56

They go to number one and stream in their local twitch-like platform to earn (a lot).
Simply adjust the elo system so that that 5000 rank player win against a 1800 game can only gain 0 rating is a perfect solution

57

What is new about this? We talked several months earlier about that team smurf elo boost exploit.
It’s only viable cause we still have the wrong calc for team elo. It has to be the exponential average @Mercy9545 proposed like 2 years ago or so.

Elo is a logarithmic projection of the strength distribution, that means if you want to “add up” you have to use the correct methods for logarithmic functions we learned in school. That’s all.

A) Log(10) + log(10) = 2, but log(10 + 10) = log(20) ~= 1.3
B) log(1) + log(100) = 2, but log(1+100) = log(101) ~= 2

And that’s what is abused with the showed method. On the left side is the wrong current calc and on the right side how it should be calced.

Explanation: Team A as 2 members with the same elo whilst team B has two with different elo. The current system says they are “evenly matched” but it’s actually wrong, Team B is way stronger than team A cause the current calculation method underestimates stronger players and overestimates weaker playsers impact.

3 Likes
58

Thanks for your perfect explanation. That’s actually what I want to mention

60

Insulting the devs is hardly the way to go if you want them to do something for you. Just going to point that out.

2 Likes
61

Since when lazy is considered as a “insult”?

63

This may be a slight exaggeration, but when I read your previous post, it basically comes across as “I don’t think the devs can be bothered doing anything to fix this issue, and their current system is a sign of pure incompetence,” which is hardly what you want to lead with if you’re requesting something from them. Yes, the system might have a few issues. Yes, the devs aren’t great with communications and often take a long time to fix stuff, but overtly calling them lazy and saying their work has been trash in this regard is hardly an encouraging statement if you want them to do something, regardless of the accuracy of your statements. I’m not saying you have to sugarcoat everything, just that this kind of comment may not be the best way to go about encouraging the devs to make changes.

64

I actually thought about the concept mercy proposed and I think devs stepped away from it is at it looks like there is an arbitrary variable we need to “find” or define.
But I actually don’t think so. I just wrote it down a bit differently and used the two “arbitrary” variables we have in the standard elo system - and the results look quite promising.

In the Elo system we have the factor 400 which is set as difference for 100 : 10 win ratio, so effectively “10 times stronger” player and we use the logarithm base of 10. So if we use this method we get a formula for the “real strength of a player” which is:

S = e ^ (elo / 400 / ln(10))
And then in reverse:
Team Elo = ln ( SUM(S)) * 400 * ln(10)

Note that I don’t divide the team Elo by the amount of players now, cause it isn’t an “average” Team elo anymore but instead the real Strength of the Team alltogether. This “allows” to make teams with different sizes like 2 v 3 or 3 v 5 or whatever you want.

Some Results how this would influence the elo calc of various 2 player parites:

P1 P2 P1 P2 P1 P2 P1 P2 P1 P2 P1 P2
Elo 5100 500 2800 2800 3078 2400 3200 2077 3400 500 2890 2700
Real Elo 2800 2800 2800 2800 3078 2400 3200 2077 2800 2800 2890 2700
Shown Strength 253.98 1.72 20.91 20.91 28.27 13.54 32.28 9.54 40.11 1.72 23.05 18.76
Real Strength 20.91 20.91 20.91 20.91 28.27 13.54 32.28 9.54 20.91 20.91 23.05 18.76
Current Team Elo 2800 2800 2739 2638.5 1950 2795
New Team Elo 5106.22 3438.41 3438.44 3438.41 3438.70 3438.30

I used the 5100 / 500 elo pairing of the team elo abuser as reference. Currently they are calculated as if they were both 2800 elo players, so I assumed they have both about that team elo “in reality” as one of them is clearly a smurf. With the new team elo calc method this team would be calced as 5106.22 elo which is almost 1.5 as high as they currently are dsiplayed at. On the 2nd to last team I calced what they could theoretically achieve if they would use the same method with the proposed calculation. Then the pushed player could in theory get up to 3400 elo instead of the correct 2800, which is only a factor of about 1.2 : 1. And it would be harder to make a smurf account cause you would need to lose way more matches to hold such a bad 500 elo.

The other Teams are only to display which pairings of elos would be seen as “evenly matched” then.
So 2800/2800, 3078/2400, 3200/2077, 3400/500 and 2890 /2700 would be seen as “at the same level” by the system.

2 Likes