What does reporting for smurfing do?

[76561198295703414]

We already know it doesn't decrease your behavior score and doesn't show on the report. What we don't know is what it actually does? Valve should be clear about what they do with people who get reported as smurfs and should actually not do anything given that everyone likes to claim smurfs when they get stomped.

[76561198295703414]

What is this assumption based on? Did Valve release any such information? It seems like a terrible solution, hurting matchmaking in the long run. People have no clue how to identify a smurf, it's nothing but a scapegoat. I get 2-3 reports for smurfing every day (they let you know that they are reporting you, it makes them feel better I guess). Does that means I'm stuck to play vs other people who also stomp in their bracket? That makes MMR completely irrelevant, the more you make separate pools like that, the worse matchmaking gets. And I'm clearly not playing ONLY with and vs good players.

So if you're right and Match Making essentially forces me to stay in a lower bracket, I'll stay there and keep stomping people, who will report me for smurfing, making me play vs other people too good for the rank, keeping me at 50% winrate and keeping me in the same bracket so I keep stomping people who will again report me for smurfing... and so-on... and so-on.

The only reasonable action to take on "Report for smurfing" is nothing, a no-op. Keep the button, make it a placebo that helps people relieve their frustration. I'd actually even display the number of reports on the reported player conduct summary as a measure of progress.

[Absche]

Yes, smurfs are now the scapegoats for everything wrong with the game. This way nobody has to tackle the real problems or let‘s say challenges. Just a modern witch hunt.

[Dark Sun Gwyndolin]

Originally posted by Absche:

Yes, smurfs are now the scapegoats for everything wrong with the game. This way nobody has to tackle the real problems or let‘s say challenges. Just a modern witch hunt.

Out of curiosity, what do you think IS the 'real problem' in Dota 2? Granted, I may be misunderstanding you, but many of your posts have implied, in a sidelong way, that the root cause of smurfing is that people don't have legitimate alternatives such as regrinding or rank resets. Which, in my opinion, suggests that smurfing (or at least the attitudes that lead to it) IS the root cause of problems in Dota 2.

[Absche]

Originally posted by Venti:

Originally posted by Absche:

Yes, smurfs are now the scapegoats for everything wrong with the game. This way nobody has to tackle the real problems or let‘s say challenges. Just a modern witch hunt.

Out of curiosity, what do you think IS the 'real problem' in Dota 2? Granted, I may be misunderstanding you, but many of your posts have implied, in a sidelong way, that the root cause of smurfing is that people don't have legitimate alternatives such as regrinding or rank resets. Which, in my opinion, suggests that smurfing (or at least the attitudes that lead to it) IS the root cause of problems in Dota 2.

I think smurfing is the straight forward consequence of Dota2 design’s focus on game modes with mmr as overarching matchmaking/balancing factor. Since the introduction of ranked mode in 2013 the mode developed from an amendment to the normal mode to the new standard mode. With mmr being originally a matchmaking factor developing into the game‘s most prestigious and main reward. It is designed as a life-long account bound value with no real saisonal recalibration. And this in a game with a broad range of skills where some people can easily regrind mmr again and again and others struggle to climb the first steps of the ladder even once.

Thus, all in the game is focused on climbing this ladder which needs winning more than losing. Everybody is looking for the 50+ win rate (if not, no candy (mmr)). But in every game there are 5 that win and 5 that lose. No win-win situations. And what does the game offer for players that are outleveled and have reached the end of their ladder, some very short, some long ladders? Nobody likes to get stuck at a stagnation point. Neither newbies nor very experienced players.

In summary, bad game design focused on a low effort prestige reward corrupting it’s technical matchmaking function, the lack of rewards besides mmr, the focus on winning without granting any win-win situations, the life-long design of mmr without any saisonal or other regrinding chances, all modes (besides bot-coop) based on this life-long value without any chance to breakout of this jail. To excuse their bad game mode design they call it competitive, so that everybody thinks this is a must in competitive gaming. But this is not true. There is a general failure to grant end-of-line players a similar satisfying gaming experience than for still developing players. Dota2 only grants satisfaction on basis of dissatisfaction of others.

[Dark Sun Gwyndolin]

Originally posted by Absche:

Originally posted by Venti:

Out of curiosity, what do you think IS the 'real problem' in Dota 2? Granted, I may be misunderstanding you, but many of your posts have implied, in a sidelong way, that the root cause of smurfing is that people don't have legitimate alternatives such as regrinding or rank resets. Which, in my opinion, suggests that smurfing (or at least the attitudes that lead to it) IS the root cause of problems in Dota 2.

I think smurfing is the straight forward consequence of Dota2 design’s focus on game modes with mmr as overarching matchmaking/balancing factor. Since the introduction of ranked mode in 2013 the mode developed from an amendment to the normal mode to the new standard mode. With mmr being originally a matchmaking factor developing into the game‘s most prestigious and main reward. It is designed as a life-long account bound value with no real saisonal recalibration. And this in a game with a broad range of skills where some people can easily regrind mmr again and again and others struggle to climb the first steps of the ladder even once.
Thus, all in the game is focused on climbing this ladder which needs winning more than losing. Everybody is looking for the 50+ win rate (if not, no candy (mmr)). But in every game there are 5 that win and 5 that lose. No win-win situations. And what does the game offer for players that are outleveled and have reached the end of their ladder, some very short, some long ladders? Nobody likes to get stuck at a stagnation point. Neither newbies nor very experienced players.

In summary, bad game design focused on a low effort prestige reward corrupting it’s technical matchmaking function, the lack of rewards besides mmr, the focus on winning without granting any win-win situations, the life-long design of mmr without any saisonal or other regrinding chances, all modes (besides bot-coop) based on this life-long value without any chance to breakout of this jail. To excuse their bad game mode design they call it competitive, so that everybody thinks this is a must in competitive gaming. But this is not true. There is a general failure to grant end-of-line players a similar satisfying gaming experience than for still developing players. Dota2 only grants satisfaction on basis of dissatisfaction of others.

Such is the way with every PvP game ever. Someone wins, and someone loses.

Mind naming a game that you think handles 'competitive' (whatever that word means to you) matchmaking well? Cause every game I can think of has the same problem as Dota, to a greater or lesser extent.

[Absche]

Originally posted by Venti:

Originally posted by Absche:

I think smurfing is the straight forward consequence of Dota2 design’s focus on game modes with mmr as overarching matchmaking/balancing factor. Since the introduction of ranked mode in 2013 the mode developed from an amendment to the normal mode to the new standard mode. With mmr being originally a matchmaking factor developing into the game‘s most prestigious and main reward. It is designed as a life-long account bound value with no real saisonal recalibration. And this in a game with a broad range of skills where some people can easily regrind mmr again and again and others struggle to climb the first steps of the ladder even once.
Thus, all in the game is focused on climbing this ladder which needs winning more than losing. Everybody is looking for the 50+ win rate (if not, no candy (mmr)). But in every game there are 5 that win and 5 that lose. No win-win situations. And what does the game offer for players that are outleveled and have reached the end of their ladder, some very short, some long ladders? Nobody likes to get stuck at a stagnation point. Neither newbies nor very experienced players.

In summary, bad game design focused on a low effort prestige reward corrupting it’s technical matchmaking function, the lack of rewards besides mmr, the focus on winning without granting any win-win situations, the life-long design of mmr without any saisonal or other regrinding chances, all modes (besides bot-coop) based on this life-long value without any chance to breakout of this jail. To excuse their bad game mode design they call it competitive, so that everybody thinks this is a must in competitive gaming. But this is not true. There is a general failure to grant end-of-line players a similar satisfying gaming experience than for still developing players. Dota2 only grants satisfaction on basis of dissatisfaction of others.

Such is the way with every PvP game ever. Someone wins, and someone loses.

Mind naming a game that you think handles 'competitive' (whatever that word means to you) matchmaking well? Cause every game I can think of has the same problem as Dota, to a greater or lesser extent.

If you ask me if there is a better Dota2 out there, I say no.

But yes, in my actual favourite game I get nice (and valuable) rewards based on my positive gaming contributions even if I lose. The rewards are not pure cosmetically but offer some in-game advantages. The developers know that every minute I play I fill their servers and feed their business model. I can even grind progress in bot-coop matches and also fulfill missions there. Standard Pvp mode is random matchmaking which shifts the winrate from being balanced around 50% of ideal Elo based matchmaking to like 45% for bad players and 55% for good players. That’s fair that you lose more if you are not so good, isn’t it? Nothing wrong with it because you gain in-game progress even if you lose.

And the ranked mode needs saisonal qualification and consists of short sprint to gain progress. And in every season you start from scratch and in every sprint from the bottom of your bracket (bronze, silver, gold). In general it is skill based matchmaking, with a short expiration date but of course prestigious saisonal/sprint badges.

In addition you can regrind units (the equivalent of heroes) for more rewards which is basically an extended (and by the way much better) version of Dota+. And I enjoy a nice Clan feature which is comparable to an extended Dota2 guild system combined with the battle cup feature of Dota2.

[Dark Sun Gwyndolin]

Originally posted by Absche:

Originally posted by Venti:

Such is the way with every PvP game ever. Someone wins, and someone loses.

Mind naming a game that you think handles 'competitive' (whatever that word means to you) matchmaking well? Cause every game I can think of has the same problem as Dota, to a greater or lesser extent.

If you ask me if there is a better Dota2 out there, I say no.

But yes, in my actual favourite game I get nice (and valuable) rewards based on my positive gaming contributions even if I lose. The rewards are not pure cosmetically but offer some in-game advantages. The developers know that every minute I play I fill their servers and feed their business model. I can even grind progress in bot-coop matches and also fulfill missions there. Standard Pvp mode is random matchmaking which shifts the winrate from being balanced around 50% of ideal Elo based matchmaking to like 45% for bad players and 55% for good players. That’s fair that you lose more if you are not so good, isn’t it? Nothing wrong with it because you gain in-game progress even if you lose.

And the ranked mode needs saisonal qualification and consists of short sprint to gain progress. And in every season you start from scratch and in every sprint from the bottom of your bracket (bronze, silver, gold). In general it is skill based matchmaking, with a short expiration date but of course prestigious saisonal/sprint badges.

In addition you can regrind units (the equivalent of heroes) for more rewards which is basically an extended (and by the way much better) version of Dota+. And I enjoy a nice Clan feature which is comparable to an extended Dota2 guild system combined with the battle cup feature of Dota2.

I definitely don't feel that World of Warships (I think that's the game you're referring to) is a shining example over Dota. Yes, having some sort of progression does a lot to take away the sting of defeat. But it can also make someone feel like their time (or their wallet) is what's holding them back.

I get it, different strokes for different folks and all that. But the thing is, Valve (or any other dev) can't tell players what they like. Players need to figure that out for themselves. If you prefer World of Warships to Dota 2, that's great. Go play that. Myself, Dota 2 is basically the only PvP game I consistently play these days. I mainly play MMO, ARPG's, strategy games, and roguelikes. Mechanics-driven co-op or singleplayer games, because that's what I know I like.

Point is, if people aren't getting what they want from Dota 2, the onus is on them, not Valve, to realize that. People don't get to roflstomp noobs because their angry Valve isn't giving them the rank they 'deserve'. If Dota is truly unworkable, than it will die like all the naysayers claim. But I am content with what Dota gives me.

[ʍolɟ ǝɥʇ ǝsɹǝʌǝɹ]

Valve would have to be transparent with the numbers for us to really know if anything is happening. That's unlikely to happen.

The salty players posting here for their permanent bans seems to have slowed down so maybe that's evidence of something. Probably evidence they eased off instead of them getting rid of smurfs. But since players can make new accounts, I don't see how smurfs would really ever go away.

[76561198295703414]

There's also a question of what the definition of a smurf is. Is the mere fact of having multiple accounts enough to make you a smurf (even if both accounts have exactly the same rank) or do you have to be way outside of your natural rank? Which begs the question, what about being way outside of your rank and still having only one account? Surely we can't assume that people's relative skills remain constant. People improve and get worse at the game. If you can move faster across ranks part of the problem disappears. It would however bring back more account selling/buying.

I'm personally quite fine with someone creating a new account for many reasons, other than just "pwn noobs". Say you had activated API data access on your profile and you want to create a new one that doesn't share your data publicly (Valve's fault really). Or maybe you just want to clear out your stats because most of it has little relevance since you were still learning. There are so many talks about "shadow pools" that one might want to start a new account because they believe they're flagged for whatever reason.

I can't believe high ranks playing in low-tier games is that big of an issue since they'd end up at the rank you belong soon enough. People are just complaining about getting stomped by people who just got better and now need to "rank up".

They have to be transparent with the players.