|
On October 30 2013 16:42 M2 wrote:
I just want to share a slightly different story from a personal experience, I am Silver 1-2 and I have a friend who was Bronze 5, he was unable to surface more than Bronze 4 without shortly falling to 5 again. I watched his games and he was doing miserably: 1-7, 4-11 etc. One day I took his account coz I wanted to practice some champs in rank, without jeopardizing my elo and in 3 weeks his account was in silver 5. Then he took over and he easily reached silver 3 and he even went for promotions for silver 2 once. His scores now are 5-2, 7-3, 8-5 etc. of course he has some bad games but overall he is performing much much better. When I asked him how is this possible, he said: Man, here is so much easier, my teams listen when they have to take drakes, they gather for turrets, they dont chase kills in enemy jungle when we are behind 10 kills and 4 turrets, they kind of respect pick order and dont troll pick a lot- things like this, here is so much more organised and so much funnier to play, now I enjoy playing without focusing on reporting/arguing from minute one of the game.
Your friend sucks at this game, most likely he improved a tiny bit (i sense some toxicity in him), but no way in hell (even elo hell) does this mean that an improvement from low-bronze to low-silver made him a better player. If you seriously think that he suddenly improves better, because you carried him a tiny bit up (yes a tiny bit, only 1 tier division difference) then i feel sorry for you bro.
|
On October 30 2013 17:53 Sponkz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 16:42 M2 wrote:
I just want to share a slightly different story from a personal experience, I am Silver 1-2 and I have a friend who was Bronze 5, he was unable to surface more than Bronze 4 without shortly falling to 5 again. I watched his games and he was doing miserably: 1-7, 4-11 etc. One day I took his account coz I wanted to practice some champs in rank, without jeopardizing my elo and in 3 weeks his account was in silver 5. Then he took over and he easily reached silver 3 and he even went for promotions for silver 2 once. His scores now are 5-2, 7-3, 8-5 etc. of course he has some bad games but overall he is performing much much better. When I asked him how is this possible, he said: Man, here is so much easier, my teams listen when they have to take drakes, they gather for turrets, they dont chase kills in enemy jungle when we are behind 10 kills and 4 turrets, they kind of respect pick order and dont troll pick a lot- things like this, here is so much more organised and so much funnier to play, now I enjoy playing without focusing on reporting/arguing from minute one of the game.
Your friend sucks at this game, most likely he improved a tiny bit (i sense some toxicity in him), but no way in hell (even elo hell) does this mean that an improvement from low-bronze to low-silver made him a better player. If you seriously think that he suddenly improves better, because you carried him a tiny bit up (yes a tiny bit, only 1 tier division difference) then i feel sorry for you bro.
Actually my point was that after the boost he is enjoying the game more and his teammates enjoy having him on their team more as well, since he went from strictly negative kill/death ratios in bronze to mostly positive in silver. The idea is that in some cases elo boosting could be a positive action I guess. Surely I am not trying to claim that he improved or something like that.
|
On October 30 2013 15:42 ReketSomething wrote:
In the end slusher is right. People hate elo boosters because they are jealous that they are getting something with money that they can't get themselves. In terms of gameplay experience, nothing has changed for anyone at all. Its the same fallacy where if you gave everyone in the world 5 dollars you would be happy but giving you 3 dollars and no one else anything makes you so much happier.
In the end, the elo boosted lose because they wasted money looking cool but how does that affect you? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Pretty much. I don't get the crusade against elo boosting at all.
|
Yeah I dont think it is much of a problem.
I also dont get why it exists though. Pay money to lose more games? What?
At the same time other people actually create alternative accounts to get lower Elo and easier games, which I can at least comprehend.
|
FWIW, I despise elo boosting. And this isn't because I think it attributes to me being stuck in "elo hell" (hint - I'm not). I just think it's incredibly foolish and stupid. It's not because of the booster himself (smurfing is the same thing essentially). It's all of the fallout that comes when the buyer gets back into ranked on that account. It really does make things awful and kills the "integrity" of a ranked system.
Now, I can't do anything about it, and I am happy that Riot cracked down on pros doing it. So I'm not going to complain much about it, just throwing my $.02 in.
|
I don't give a shit, cause if I get some on my teams, I get some in the enemy team in other games, so who cares
|
I can understand paying for skins/champs/runepages/pixels because it's supporting a company that made something I enjoy and rune pages are quite useful. But paying random guy#12321 for some temporary pixels is pretty dumb imo and they'll tank their rating pretty fast after they get their account back so it's obvious to see who bought their pixels.
It also takes they joy out of achieving something (improvement in playing soloQ in this case) so it's a really hollow reward.
Overall the impact is quite minor though, same concept as elo hell, if someone's playing at their skill level it's more likely for a boosted/bad person to be on the other team over a large sample of games.
|
On October 31 2013 00:47 The_Unseen wrote:
I don't give a shit, cause if I get some on my teams, I get some in the enemy team in other games, so who cares
or, ya know, no one elo boosts and then no one has them on their team (ideal scenario, obviously)
being complacent to the problem doesn't make it ok
|
On October 31 2013 01:01 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 00:47 The_Unseen wrote:
I don't give a shit, cause if I get some on my teams, I get some in the enemy team in other games, so who cares or, ya know, no one elo boosts and then no one has them on their team (ideal scenario, obviously) being complacent to the problem doesn't make it ok
That'd be pretty close to impossible.Pretty much every guy who is at least d5(a lot of lower too) have boosted a few times.It's a lot more common that you would think.
|
On October 31 2013 01:03 nafta wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 01:01 jcarlsoniv wrote:On October 31 2013 00:47 The_Unseen wrote:
I don't give a shit, cause if I get some on my teams, I get some in the enemy team in other games, so who cares or, ya know, no one elo boosts and then no one has them on their team (ideal scenario, obviously) being complacent to the problem doesn't make it ok That'd be pretty close to impossible. Pretty much every guy who is at least d5(a lot of lower too) have boosted a few times.It's a lot more common that you would think.
I would LOVE some evidence on this, because that's an absolutely wild and idiotic claim.
also, the "everyone's doing it, so whatever" idea is stupid and still doesn't make it ok
|
On October 31 2013 01:09 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 01:03 nafta wrote:On October 31 2013 01:01 jcarlsoniv wrote:On October 31 2013 00:47 The_Unseen wrote:
I don't give a shit, cause if I get some on my teams, I get some in the enemy team in other games, so who cares or, ya know, no one elo boosts and then no one has them on their team (ideal scenario, obviously) being complacent to the problem doesn't make it ok That'd be pretty close to impossible. Pretty much every guy who is at least d5(a lot of lower too) have boosted a few times.It's a lot more common that you would think. I would LOVE some evidence on this, because that's an absolutely wild and idiotic claim. also, the "everyone's doing it, so whatever" idea is stupid and still doesn't make it ok
Well those aren't facts or anything just people I know.Out of the 120 or so people in diamond I know like 110 elo boost regularly.
All I am saying is it is quite popular nothing else.It boggles my mind that people actually care enough to pay considering how expensive most people charge lol.
|
I am away that it's popular, that's the problem. Also, you really need hard evidence there. What you're saying may be true, but 120 people is hardly an acceptable sample size for a game of this popularity, and I refuse to believe that 92% of Diamond+ elo boosts.
|
definitely not for pay, but possibly 'smurf' lower ranked friends' accounts. grinding up a second level 30 is a total pain and playing lower elo ranked is a relaxing environment that's less mindless than a normal
also how does one go about being on good enough terms with 100+ diamond level players to know if they're boosting
to come back to the original question of how to deal with paid boosts, the best way would probably be to address the motivations for players to buy them (namely end of season rewards and undroppable d5), as punishing offenders is very resource intensive, if not impossible, to do on a large scale. the season 4 change of making it possible to drop leagues should help, but end of season rewards are probably here to stay, with people buying boosts to obtain them being an acceptable tradeoff due to how relatively rare that is
elo boosting is a bit like gold selling - some baddies will buy their way into video game 'success', some people will be victims forced into slaving away in computer farms for shady businesses, but in the end it isn't of concern to most
|
On October 30 2013 22:28 Redox wrote:
Yeah I dont think it is much of a problem.
I also dont get why it exists though. Pay money to lose more games? What?
At the same time other people actually create alternative accounts to get lower Elo and easier games, which I can at least comprehend.
Which I did on my main account. Hue.
|
United States47024 Posts
On October 31 2013 01:51 Clinic wrote:
definitely not for pay, but possibly 'smurf' lower ranked friends' accounts. grinding up a second level 30 is a total pain and playing lower elo ranked is a relaxing environment that's less mindless than a normal
I think this is important to highlight. When the term elo boosting is used, most people think of the paid service, and I don't think that is as common as nafta says. But in terms of having played on a smurf or a lower elo account that might not belong to them, I don't think it's far-fetched to say a lot of high elo players have done one of those things. Obviously from our perspective, paid elo boosting seems worse, but from the "account integrity" side, paid elo boosting and playing on a friend's lower elo account is basically the same thing.
|
There appear to be varying definitions and scopes regarding the term 'Elo boosting'.
This discussion has four obvious points of contention (there may be more):
1) The act of paying another user to sign on to, and raise the Elo of, your account.
2) The act of allowing, without payment, another user to sign on to, and *raise the Elo of, your account*.
3) The act of duo queueing with another user, on their ("their") smurf, **to raise the Elo of your account**.
4) The act of duo queueing with another user, on their main account, ***to raise the Elo of your account***.
--
Case (1) is cut and dry only in a vacuum - you are paying someone to accomplish what you could otherwise not achieve. This is wrong ("wrong" meaning, against the rules; punishable) if, and only if, case (2) is also wrong.
Case (2) requires a bright-line rule, which by definition would encapsulate case (1), or else the definition of Elo boosting would then turn on a transfer of goods, which is arbitrary and hurts users who lack access to high Elo users.
There are three options.
In option A, all users are punished for signing on to, and playing, another users account.
In option B, all users of higher rank are punished for signing on to, and playing, another users account.
In option C, users are only punished if they intend to Elo boost the account they are signed on to (good luck, Riot).
Each of cases (2), (3), and (4) are asterisked to show their limits. A fair and unbiased rule must either feature a blanket ban on account sharing, and/or a blanket ban on duo queueing with a user outside of your Elo range, or a defined process wherein Riot must prove intent to Elo boost (good luck, Riot).
|
What's wrong with duo-queueing with someone outside your elo range, you know riot tries to balance out the elo of both team right? Ex. When I duoed with my friend in gold (I was in bronze; he was gold iv), everybody on the other team was in silver 1 and the rest of my team were in silver III/ iv -ish. Complaining about elo boosting is pointless, it's like the 'war' on drugs.
|
I don't think Elo boosting is that big of an issue. To echo a few others I think most people who complain about it do so because it's a convenient excuse as to why they have a bad teammate.
I don't think Riot would give a shit about it if their community didn't complain about it every week.
|
The only problem that I have with ELO boosting other than the obvious moral aspect of it, is getting noobs on my team. I don't mind losing to a challenger player while playing in Silver, but I hate losing because I have a silver player when I'm playing in Diamond.
|
Not a big deal imo, it reminds me of the complains of warcraft3 casuals because people were smurfing and stomping them from time to time.
Also you forgot to mention that Riot has shown that they were already aware of it and afaik handling a lot of bans already (stripping rewards, banning accounts...). Imo punishments are already hard enough, a 1 or 2 years competitive ban for someone trying to go pro is quite harsh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
