How do you remove posts

Workshop
21

there are indeed alts now. the difference being, they required work to get back to their current rank. youve surely seen those unranked to gm challenges right? 16 hours of qp to get to 25 plus the 5-9 hours it takes to get back to gm, even for t500 players. do you think many people want to spend 5-9 hours grinding for an alt? no.
the system would benefit gold and plat. that’s literally it. it would make every other rank objectively worse.
especially bronze. having one brozne account and being able to link other accounts and just suddenly be bronze again? bronze to gm streams would be the new meta.

no one is defending smurfing dude. if a gm is in bronze then they would have had to actively throw.

i mean, you do you, just be aware that its not the act of smurfing they are being banned for.

22

The point is that they wouldn’t have to grind, and they would reach the higher ranks faster.

E.g. unranked to GM would take 5 placement matches instead of the number of matches those players ruin for lower ranks by basically reseting their MMR.

Their alt would be around the same rank as their main in a shorter time.

My point was more that they’re making rank meaningless by doing that. Which was your criticism of my idea.

But my idea would do the opposite.

This would make Blizzard’s philosophy on smurfing even better for the majority of players.

“A few weeks ago one of the Pro Overwatch players created a smurf account and was streaming from it. We were able to watch his MMR internally and compare it against his “main” account. Within 15 games, the MMR’s were equal. I know there is a very bad perception of Smurfing. But the reality is, skilled players are moved rapidly out of lower skill situations.”

It’s kind of funny that Blizzard is happy that 15 games get ruined for one person’s enjoyment tbh.

Pretty much sums up their approach to smurfing perfectly.

My idea also makes it so if people are throwing on their alt, they can be punished on their main.

1 Like
23

You know that was the first 15 games in quick play right… ie up to about account level 2-3 at most.

They aren’t ruining any games in quick play like that.

24

my point being that those who want to be gm on an alt will. the number of games they will ruin is far less than youd think. youre not likely to run into the same player multiple times due to the boosted sr gains/losses new accounts get. all it would do is prevent a few people from plat - masters getting a single undeserved loss while making masters+ a rank that isnt worth reaching.

yes… and the criticism i have of smurfing.

no it wouldnt. it would make the most prestigious rank worthless.

its 15 games and 15 different teams. at most they are costing people 25sr. all they are doing is the same thing a genuinely new player would.

25

They wouldn’t cost anyone SR.

The example the devs gave was a fresh account. It was the first 15 quick play games.

26

It does that anyway.

They’re doing the exact same thing right now with alt accounts.

You could make your same argument for the top 6 right now, which is all the same person.

They would just have to change it so only one slot is taken by your account, despite your MMR.

So in Jeff’s example, it was 15 matches (for a PRO player)

That’s 90 people who:

  1. Have their game ruined
  2. Waste their time, essentially
  3. Get an undeserved loss

And that’s 90 people on the enemy team. I hate having smurfs on my team too.

If it wasn’t a pro player, it would take even longer, but still be smurfing. More matches.

Are people just there as a tool for better players to get enjoyment, by abusing the MMR reset of a new account?

It’s still sacrificing the fun of 90 people for the fun of 1. I don’t know how to make it clearer that that is a pretty toxic way of having things.

You’ve also got to consider the more general sense of peoples experience playing the game, learning it, and also progressing in terms of rank.

You can have a completely normal balanced match. Maybe a Tank makes a mistake, or someone throws an ult. It’s fine. You’re at your level and things are kind of consistent. Which helps you make sense of what’s happening and helps you improve.

Next match you’re against ****ing Kabaji for no reason.

You probably waited like 6-15 minutes for the match, and there’s nothing you can do about it. You can’t learn anything and can’t improve, because your entire team is probably getting stomped, and you don’t learn fights when it’s 3v6 and you have 2 people on you.

Don’t worry, only 84 more people will have this experience.

Next match someone throws an Ult. Wow such a fun game! :slight_smile:

1 Like
27

the highest Ive ever seen an account place is 3200. stop it with the misinformation dude.

its one person that went through the effort of climbing and then getting 6 different phone numbers to attach.
you remove one of those steps if you let him just place as rank 1.

depends on how you look at it. smurfs exploit weaknesses. if you take the time to reflect on what was being exploited then it isnt really ruined.

same as above.

is it really undeserved? they got beaten by a better player. if anything is an undeserved win for those who got the smurf on their team.

they arent abusing anything. they are simply engaging with the system that is in place.
but to answer your question, yes. but not only for better players. if that wasnt the case then everyone would play against bots.

you think this is a toxic way of having things?
lets look at it this way.
should the game come down to the better team? yes.
does that usually happen? no. the game typically comes down to who has the worst player, not who has the best.
smurfs can only carry because they are significantly more skilled. how can you expect people to climb when the impact you need to have in order to carry is so high? you cant.
smurfs only change the win condition.
instead of who has the worst player, it comes down to who has the best and I’d argue that that is a much healthier win condition.

youre at the level the game thinks you should be at. I have a low diamond account. the game seems to think i should be low diamond. I also have a 4k account. the game seems to think that account should be at 4k. I dont play much differently, the only differences are to compensate for the lower level of play of my teammates. which mmr is correct?

it goes both ways dude. sometimes without someone being on an alt. plats/diamonds in gm games as part of natural matchmaking.

do you ever wonder why hero choice / one tricking isnt reportable? its because the player payed for the game and should be allowed to play it how they like, according to blizzard. the whole needs of the many argument means nothing when that is their mindset.

28

I’ve seen 3275.

But the 15 games being discussed are QP games. Nothing to do with placements, or ranked.

29

no one cares about the qp matches dude. what happens when that account touches ranked? they place 3200 max. hence the issue

30

Lol. You mentioned the 15 games quote and misinterpreted it. So the QP part is on you 2.

Yeah. Or a little higher, or a little less.

And they quickly find there place in the SR and all is good.

Unless they throw games then that is naughty.

You saying when you placed your account you placed perfectly where you are now. Or did you win/lose a bunch of games after and bounce about.

31

It was your argument.

Mine was that they could make it so only one slot is taken by your account and joint accounts, so you just play on MMR as an alt. That would make it better than it is now, as noone would take up anyone elses slots.

Also it’s not just one person. People all over the ladder have alts, doing exactly the thing you claimed the system I suggested would do already.

It does though. Are you suddenly for smurfs?

You was the one who said it was an “undeserved loss”.

It’s undeserved because there’s clearly a matchmaking system trying to create balance, and you’re abusing that by reseting your MMR.

Your argument could literally be applied to anything. E.g. a team with 4 leavers. The better team still won.

It completely ignores the experience of those games and boils them down to simply winning and losing, regardless of what factors go into that.

And that’s literally what we’re saying sucks about smurfs and boosted players.

We’re not talking about better players within a skill range though, we’re talking about adding better players from outside of a skill range, when the majority of other people within that game are balanced to play against each other.

That question was based on a very specific argument and scenario, and not just a the general idea of the game.

So you’re for smurfs now?

My opinion on this, is that GM players shouldn’t be in gold games, because of the skill disparity in a game where 4 people on each team have less carry potential.

I dunno what you’re talking about here. I was making a point about the skill disparity and the negative experience that can be brought about by drastic inconsistency in matchmaking.

As above.

I don’t understand the point your making in regard to the point of mine you’ve quoted.

1 Like
32

i think you misinterpreted this part. im saying im fine with the dude having 6 spots on the leaderboard because he went through the effort of climbing.

with an added 20 hours of time wasted on top of that. at the very least there is some level of deterrence.

im for taking an optimistic outlook on a loss.
if you want to see it as a waste of time then you will, but i can almost guarentee that those who take the time to figure out what they could have done better will improve faster.

you cant abuse something when you are simply interacting with it. they arent doing anything to game the system other than spending $15 on a new account. if they could place higher im sure the vast majority of them would but they cant. if you see it as abuse then i really dont know what to tell you.

see now this is just wrong. a

smurf just plays the game.
leavers change the format. at a base level they are fundamentally different.

it depends on how you view a ladder. is a ladder something that is meant for someone to climb or is it a system to keep matches even?

and the answer to that specific argument and scenario also happens to apply to the whole game.

im for having the better player win.

I agree but I don’t think giving away rank based on someone’s previous achievement is the way around this.
impliment a better placement system before giving away slots on the ladder.

and im saying matchmaking is incosistant anyway. which of my mmrs is the correct one? the 4k account or the 3.2? they are both correct in the eyes of the game. how can you expect matchmaking to be consistent when you can have an 800sr discrepancy between accounts?

gonna be 100%, neither do i. i can only assume I misquoted but I cant find something that seems related.
i stand by it, not sure why I brought it up though

edit: maybe it was something along the lines of the 84 left are meaningless in the eyes of blizzard because all that matters is that the individual payed for the game and therefore has as much a right to play the game how they want to as the 84.

33

Ok, well I’m not ok with the part where the R1 player was probably facing gold/plat people and ruining their games, when it was unnecessary. He could have started at GM, and it wouldn’t have harmed anyone.

Wasting 20 hours of other peoples lives, yeah.

Yes.

But those matches are almost always complete garbage, where you end up going 1v2 or more. Like what are you even supposed to do at this point other than learn how to play more defensively than you ever would in a normal match?

And being optimistic doesn’t justify a garbage system that lets this happen.

It’s as abusive as people buying boosted accounts. The same thing in reverse.

There’s no reason it wouldn’t be the same argument. You’re talking about massively changing the handicap of one side either way.

Both. Also, I thought you wasn’t bothered by slots because effort had been put in?

It isn’t implemented, so this isn’t a problem that has occured.

I don’t think 90 people should have their games ruined for one person to have fun.

1 Like
34

well as it stands, thats just unfortunate bud.

and their own.

which one is it? you dont climb from fair games.

if you’re dying because you are too aggressive then yes, learn to play more defensively.
if youre losing 1v1s, then learn to disengage or position in a way where those 1v1s are avoidable. depending on rank you could also learn to take those fights as a 2v1, for example.
even if you can do this during the game, take the time to watch the replay and learn what the smurf was doing and why they were able to hard carry.

most games are garbage. even without the smurfs.

how so? selling accounts is against tos, purchasing fresh keys is not.
if you buy an account, you bypass the ladder, you could even possibly argue for alteration of sr. tos doesnt like that. tos does like people engaging with the systems that are in place.

its really not.
by removing a player(s) you fundimentally change the format of the game. one team has more abilities, damage sources, people able to push cart/contest. all a smurf does is play well.

do you think that its that black and white?
with a better placement system there would still be effort required.
if you just gave people high ranks then the ladder becomes inflated and everyone’s sr becomes meaningless.

what isnt implemented? you made a point about skill disparity and the negative experience that can be brought about by such a thing. i gave you an example of how it is already inconsistent. my skill doesnt change when I swap account. but my mmr on the accounts are apparently different, or inconsistent. skill disparity isnt something the game can accurately detect.

I dont think blizzard cares. smurfs bring in money in an otherwise dead game.
even more so now that owl sponsors are dropping left and right.

35

On that last point. New accounts barely do anything for them. Unless that new account goes and buys a lot of loot boxes/OWL tokens, it really doesn’t do anything for them.

And they report the amount of players as MAUs (monthly active users), which they calculate by taking the number of accounts that played that month and dividing it by 3.

This nullifies the impact of people with multiple accounts in terms of financial reporting and game activity.

Last reported MAUs for OW was around 9.3million.

(this is all explained in their annual statements)
h ttps://investor.activision.com/annual-reports

36

Not really interested in continuing. I think we’ll just go in circles. This sums it up anyway.

37

does the report state how much was made from account purchases and lootbox purchases? I can only information on the net bookings of blizzard / battle net as a whole. granted I only skimmed it so I could and most likely did just miss it

38

No. But you can look through the ins and outs and figure it out.

OW is making its $$$ from the licencing and merchandise, with bit on the side from loot boxes.

This is why they will probably change the model eventually. Capitalise on the media and in-game purchases.

39

could you point me to what makes you think lootboxes are making them any money? im genuinely curious how you came to the conclusion you did

40

They made over $1billion dollars last year from loot boxes.