Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Not if you don't tell anyone!
The devs. are against smurfs, and so are its consumers.
Read the sticky before even engaging in these topics.
I've also reported this post.
I don't find smurfs that annoying, but I'm Silver 4 so most smurfs I see are at best just 3 star Nova ranks.
no to the idea of payed smurfs, I think a better idea would be allow players to pay a monthly fee or something and let them play against the Pros. Set up schedule 10 man scrims or something. People would flock to that.
Do you mean ESEA?
the consumer may be against it but its still there, and its not exactly an unpopular practice.
i played 7 competive games today and in 5 there was a confirmed smurf.
they are increasing in numbers and continue to ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ silvers. so if given the option, i would use a smurf to counter act another smurf.
no matter what there will be smurfs because this system is broken, so why not use them to conteract them?
im not really looking for boosting so much as making the game fair.