Ban Family Library Sharing

[Rammstein]

Anyone with experience in this game and community knows why, but for everyone else I will briefly lay it out:

1) Intermediate to pro players make new accounts to avoid losing 1/2 of their matches when they are tilted. They simply need a new email address for Steam and can share their library. The new account has no rating, so they stomp on noobs for 30-100 games until their ELO catches up to where it ought to be. Then they make a new account.

2) They can make a new account to play with their friends. The team's ELO rating is averaged out, but the new account is low rated. Not only does this ruin the game for most players, it cheats to boost their friend's main account ELO up.

This is the bane of DE's community (aside from the horrendous multiplayer lag). The developers should find a way to have it removed for their game or, at the very least, its multiplayer. What do you think?

[DMg Halt]

Ban it for ranked multiplayer, but not unranked or single player, would that be a good solution?

[Blindsorcerer]

Originally posted by DMg Halt:

Ban it for ranked multiplayer, but not unranked or single player, would that be a good solution?

yes x10000. Its such an easy fix to smurfing that this game desperately needs

[Sanctus]

Lock people out of ranked matches unless their account owns the game. Shouldn't be too hard to implement.

[DMg Halt]

To come clean with you guys, I do smurf A lot. I had no idea about the Family share feature until very recently. I buy another copy of the game on a completely different account. I have 1 copy on xbox live and 2 on steam. Is this the type of smurfing you're trying to eradicate and am I part of the problem?

When I smurf I am not trying to artificially inflate my main accounts ELO. I don't Trade points and I don't use a low ELO to match my team against lower skilled opponents My 3 game accounts never interact with eachother within the game (unless I let someone else use it) I like to start from the bottom and grow, then use a different account with all of the new knowledge I've gained and use it to start again from the bottom and grow, but better.

[Mannenbrough]

Originally posted by DMg Halt:

To come clean with you guys, I do smurf A lot. I had no idea about the Family share feature until very recently. I buy another copy of the game on a completely different account. I have 1 copy on xbox live and 2 on steam. Is this the type of smurfing you're trying to eradicate and am I part of the problem?

When I smurf I am not trying to artificially inflate my main accounts ELO. I don't Trade points and I don't use a low ELO to match my team against lower skilled opponents My 3 game accounts never interact with eachother with the game (unless I let someone else use it) I like to start from the bottom and grow, then use a different account with all of the knew knowledge I've gained and use it to start again from the bottom and grow, but better.

I would say it’s unfair to the players you’re matched against before your smurf account has climbed back to your actual ELO. They would probably prefer an opponent whose real skill matches theirs.

But I assume that buying new copies of the game is not a widespread method for smurfing.

[Blindsorcerer]

Originally posted by DMg Halt:

To come clean with you guys, I do smurf A lot. I had no idea about the Family share feature until very recently. I buy another copy of the game on a completely different account. I have 1 copy on xbox live and 2 on steam. Is this the type of smurfing you're trying to eradicate and am I part of the problem?

When I smurf I am not trying to artificially inflate my main accounts ELO. I don't Trade points and I don't use a low ELO to match my team against lower skilled opponents My 3 game accounts never interact with eachother with the game (unless I let someone else use it) I like to start from the bottom and grow, then use a different account with all of the knew knowledge I've gained and use it to start again from the bottom and grow, but better.

Honestly I am fine if people want to spend the money to play a new acct, at least it goes to the devs and hopefully future updates and maintenance. But family share lets soooooo many people smurf completely for free. It would go a long way to at least make smurfing a monetized part of the game, as many people would not want to pay the cost.

[McLerristarr]

If there's a way to ban the method from ranked multiplayer, sure, but obviously people should be allowed use family library sharing for its intended purpose.

[DMg Halt]

Originally posted by Blindsorcerer:

Honestly I am fine if people want to spend the money to play a new acct, at least it goes to the devs and hopefully future updates and maintenance. But family share lets soooooo many people smurf completely for free. It would go a long way to at least make smurfing a monetized part of the game, as many people would not want to pay the cost.

You underestimate what people would spend money on to get ahead, even if it is just a game. :)

[Blindsorcerer]

Originally posted by DMg Halt:

Originally posted by Blindsorcerer:

Honestly I am fine if people want to spend the money to play a new acct, at least it goes to the devs and hopefully future updates and maintenance. But family share lets soooooo many people smurf completely for free. It would go a long way to at least make smurfing a monetized part of the game, as many people would not want to pay the cost.

You underestimate what people would spend money on to get ahead, even if it is just a game. :)

Would still drastically reduce numbers. There are a lot more people who can't justify a second copy of the same game than people who will, especially when they are players who will ultimately never go pro anyways.

[_WALT_]

dont think it would work as this is only steam specific...

[Blindsorcerer]

Originally posted by _Walt_:

dont think it would work as this is only steam specific...

Anything helps. They could probably do this on their other platforms too.

[DMg Halt]

Yea i agree that it would significantly reduce the problem. I suppose the question is, how often a player comes across a smurf is considered tolerable? One in every 10 games, 1 in 20? Then a decision would have to be made to implement some sort of enforcement mechanism or if the reduction in smurfs is sufficient.

[[PK]Clown]

What's the purpose or objective of family sharing? I would argue that a good part of the people who are looking to play ranked multiplayer are a bit more serious than the "casuals" even if they are not specifically the pros who play for big money in big events or tournaments. And so, I think a better compromise needs to be achieved that promotes a higher level of competitive fairness within the ranked player given that the people who play a lot of ranked are more likely to be more committed to play.

[Rammstein]

Originally posted by DMg Halt:

Yea i agree that it would significantly reduce the problem. I suppose the question is, how often a player comes across a smurf is considered tolerable? One in every 10 games, 1 in 20? Then a decision would have to be made to implement some sort of enforcement mechanism or if the reduction in smurfs is sufficient.

At average ELO, I face smurfs probably 75% of matches in 1v1, around 25% of team games are 3x or 4x smurfs, and around 75% of team games have one clear smurf in them. Some things I look for are things such as: 1) Being into Feudal minutes before everyone else and micro'ing scouts + archers by themselves before most players at that ELO have walled or built a production building. 2) Having a 90%+ win rate while having played fewer than 50 games. Often I see an entire team who is, say, 45-5 at or below average ELO -- below 1700 (the team game average is slightly inflated as of this writing). 3) Having zero multiplayer games played, but they are ready to turn pro! :)

[Blindsorcerer]

Originally posted by DMg Halt:

Yea i agree that it would significantly reduce the problem. I suppose the question is, how often a player comes across a smurf is considered tolerable? One in every 10 games, 1 in 20? Then a decision would have to be made to implement some sort of enforcement mechanism or if the reduction in smurfs is sufficient.

Extremely often. Especially in team games, there is almost always someone smurfing on the enemy team. And I mean obvious 90-100% winrate with below 50 games played kinds of smurfs. The kind that should be super easy to detect and stop to maintain ladder integrity.