I don’t understand how it is so difficult for you to understand the, in my opinion, pretty clear wording of the code of conduct, while even laying out the definition.
To do something Deliberately; on propose means that you do something for that exact reason or outcome.
If you play a hero you’re bad at with the intent to learn that hero(i.e. not throwing; trying to win) you do not violate the rule out of the code of conduct that states “Behavior that intentionally detracts from others’ enjoyment (such as griefing, throwing, feeding, etc.) is[…]” a actionable offence.
What do you mean with they might be anecdotal?
That’s why I said:
Where did I say that?
.
.
.
tfw I can’t even have links in quotes PepeHands
Oh, I see. I have understood the definition the wrong way, my bad.
Those are threads by other players who say they got banned for one-tricking. Since they can’t show concrete evidence, their statements might be anecdotal. Even if it isn’t “real evidence”, it is still odd that multiple players report the same case. Nonetheless, there is some ambiguity in those cases because there might be other factors that lead to the penalty.
You never have said that. I was just trying to move the discussion over to another topic. If we keep discussing the “legality” of learning a new hero, we would start to run in circles.
You can preformat the link using ` or you can use that little index:
With my might I meant that they are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence they can’t be anything else and anecdotal evidence is completely irrelevant especially in a case like this.
You can’t say that for sure. If a company says the product is fine but some consumers say the products are not fine, should you disregard the arguments by the consumers because they were anecdotal?
Anecdotal arguments never prove anything without any doubt but when having multiple anecdotal arguments which are similar, they might hint a clue which would have been overlooked.
Anyways, to disregard that topic, I doubt that players got banned for one tricking only. There are definitely other factors that caused the penalty because - Jeff Kaplan mentioned that - playing only one hero doesn’t make you banned.
Back to the smurf topic, something I personally don’t understand why learning a new hero should be as good or even better than learning a new hero on an alt account.
If you learn a new hero on your main account, you slingshot your stats the whole time, causing you to have matches which are too difficult to play with a new hero and matches which are too easy to play with your mains. Some might argue “you play with your new hero anyway” but that’s not the case since you still play on your main account and thus you play the other heroes, too.
Not necessarily. SR systems like this aren’t linearly increasing. For example, it’s much easier to imrove enough to go from Plat to Diamond than it is to go from Masters to GM.
Oh right, this is because from bronze to plat, your SR distribution depends on your performance compared to the average player in your rank.
Now I see the problem with alt-accounts. While it does have a smaller impact on rank plat or below, it will be more difficult to climb up at diamond or higher. This leads to bigger skill differences in those ranks, doesn’t it?
If you are a GM player and you learn a new hero, once it clicks, you’ll climb up quickly but when reaching diamond, the SR increase now is as fast as if you were climbing regularly.
Though would that problem really be so big? After all, they are climbing back to their supposed rank. It’s not like they’re stuck in their starting rank forever, is it?
Smurfing alone is not bad as long as the player(smurf) is not toxic. Toxic meaning that they do not throw but also do not talk crap to other players. I also think it is not okay if they boost low SR ppl to high rank because boosted ppl always lose again.
