'Smurfing' on the ladder... very un sporting!

Basically...

"You can't play the game the way you want too. You can only play the game the way I/we want you to otherwise it's not "right."

Ha. Isn't that something.

What is it according to you?

The real issue here is that I haven't even logged in to my second account since this whole controversy started and it's still at #10. There's no penalty for going inactive because nobody can break into the top 10 if none of the top 10 are playing.

I agree with this concern.

so. i've read everything now and the biggest issue in this issn't the smurfs, wether to play them or not, but how the ranking functions. I've player 35 games in which i lost 2 against other Ubers and I am still rank 9 after weeks of being inactive. Gandalf on the other hand has 200+ games in and is, I presume, Top 20. Considering he won most of his matches he still iss'nt higher than me. If he can't even take my rank 9 spot even after me being weeks in active and him winning a lot of games. There is no chance for anyone other than maybe the Top 5 to take 1 of Yeagz spots (since his 2nd account has 35 wins IIRC)

This is a problem we needs to be fixed first before any other things are relevant. I don't know the exact fix but it should be along the lines of:

- Adding Bonus Pool to keep players active on 1 acount or lose ranks due to inactivity.
- Better ranking algorithms to ensure people can't get so far ahead that they are pretty much never going to drop a rank anymore.

We can assume that if this is in place, that smurfs will be used less but also that smurfs have less impact on the ranking ladders as they aswell drop ranks overtime.

The solution is not so much about gentlemans rules (although for the time being it is the best way to do it), but through technical desisions and implementation you can make sure that smurfs have less impact on a ladder in a small community.

You can not rule out smurfs, they are here and always will be, you can not stop it from happening. Thus I wish people here just accept that and look for options to make sure smurfs have less impact on the ladder.

ps. I don't have a smurf.

Very much this!
To end my side of the discussion: Yaegz, conondrum and elodea, i don't really have a problem with the smurfing to down your waiting times on the ladder, or to get an even match so to say. This is all perfectly understandable, as the playerbase is still rather small.

What rivii said here actually hits the nail. We need a way to "punish" inactivity more then smurfing. When you guys get good matchups on a very regular basis, the need for smurfing will diminish (not disappear as some of you explained why they smurfed in the first place).

Elodea made me see things a bit clearer since his last post as a reply to mine.
I'll call it quits here and read whatever follows, but i won't butt in anymore

Happy newyear everyone, and lets focus on getting the game bigger in the first place!

EDIT: and just for the record, i'm really curious what the devs think of this shitstorm

It's not so much a shitstorm. It's more that people just need to accept that smurfs will always exist. You cannot stop it, and Uber cannot stop it without it being an armsrace that they will always lose. The thing that Uber needs to do is read this thread, write down the best possible solutions, brainstorm over it, reiterate the mechanics and rince and repeat. It's the first pass of the matchmaking and ladder. NOTHING in games is right on it's first pass and EVERYTHING need reiteration. Somethings more than others but I have no doubt that Uber understands the problem we have here and comes up with a solution. It will just take time as other things probably have priority.

Uber needs to lock this thread is what needs to be done. This thread has swung back and forth from mildly useful discussion to outright worthless flamewar.

This game wasn't even built with 1v1 in mind. Hell, the ladder didn't exist until late gamma. But no, its totally gonna work flawlessly and without any major faults, and that's totally worth having a huge fight over because it's never going to be patched or improved or anything. Nah, lets make amateur mental illness diagnoses and accuse the top ranked players of being thoughtless ego slaves. Cause theres money involved amirite?

This thread is childish in the way that only the internet can be childish, can it please die already?

I might disagree with people in this thread, but lets not throw out this discussion with name calling Obscillesk.

This thread has been more then civil, even if we don't all automatically agree, or even agree at all.

Or... we make it so names aren't displayed until after the match is over in ranked and then the need for smurfing is greatly reduced.

I think only one or two people here were making it personal. For the most part I would say this has been one of the more productive threads we have had in a long time. Maybe we don't all agree on the thread's original point still, but I think we have agreed on a way to help reduce some of the problems. Agreeing on anything after a discussion that people feel so strongly about is a rare and special thing on the internet.

should we all hold hands and sing koom by yah now?

This won't fix anything actually. It will only make sure that you don't know how your opponent is going to play and what his or her playstyle is. The player will still play with his or her mainaccount and afterward you find out who is was. People will still smurf because of the varius reasons they have given in this thread for example being drunk or trying something crazy because, yes, they don't want to lose ladderpoints for it. Because they know that if they play the regular "meta" way, they will most likely win or have the best chance to win.

Also the ladder problems would still exist with smurfs rising the ladder and never going down. Thus taking spots which other players can only take with really hard work. See Yaegz smurf.

That doesn't mean I don't like the idea as it will probably make people practise their own game more than study the play of someone else but that is a diffrent discussion.

I.... are you joking? Or are you under the impression that I'm making insulting accusations rather than referencing this thread?

Fair enough, I realize looking back through it that yes it is largely confined to a few people and only went on for a page or two. But you're right, there is at least tentative agreement here.

Thankfully the temperature of the thread died down after an early warning about ad-homs. I unfortunately had to leave a few of the inital more inflammatory posts intact to preserve the flow of discussion, because this has been a very interesting thread to keep an eye on. I don't think we've had such a polarising discussion since shields. Both sides have done a very good job in engaging in rational and well-thought-out debate for the most part.

So basically the situation is that people want matchmaking, but not always with ranked.

I dont think the playerbase as of now is big enough for another 1v1 option. Decay is a good way to keep players active and also punish the inactive ladder hoggers. As of smurfing the ladder goes, it's going to happen wheter you like it or not. At least some of the players are pretty honest about it, the real idea of a smurf is not to be known. Thats why we make names like clopse and clopsey

You can change your user name in game however, without needing secondary accounts?

Also, the only problem I have with the secondary accounts is the scoring of wins and losses, as they should be account wide when playing ranked mode.

OMG THAT'S YOU?