|
On July 25 2015 00:21 Numy wrote:
I don't really see how boosting can have a worse effect than smurfing. If the boosted party is far worse they'll quickly drop in MMR to their actual value. Smurf is the same deal. It'll ruin games then even out. Both instances will have games ruined, the only difference I see is that one has cash being exchange but even then smurf accounts can be bought. At the end of the day I don't really care about it that much. Hopefully he just gets community service like the other guy in Korea and a 2 game ban or so.
I am a bit puzzled at why he's suspended while the investigation is going on when Forgiven was notified of the investigation but not suspended during it.
Riot can not sentence anyone to community service. :D
|
Riot does punish buying smurfs as well. It's clearly something they want to deal with but are having trouble finding options.
|
Baa?21244 Posts
Riot's stance on boosting/smurfing is just as ambiguous and inconsistent as a lot of their other decisions though (balance, design, esports, etc. etc.). It's silly to defend it as based on some morally monolithic and self-sufficient logic when it's clearly just a bunch of people making decisions on the fly more often than not.
|
On July 25 2015 00:23 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 00:21 Numy wrote:
I don't really see how boosting can have a worse effect than smurfing. If the boosted party is far worse they'll quickly drop in MMR to their actual value. Smurf is the same deal. It'll ruin games then even out. Both instances will have games ruined, the only difference I see is that one has cash being exchange but even then smurf accounts can be bought. At the end of the day I don't really care about it that much. Hopefully he just gets community service like the other guy in Korea and a 2 game ban or so.
I am a bit puzzled at why he's suspended while the investigation is going on when Forgiven was notified of the investigation but not suspended during it. Riot can not sentence anyone to community service. :D
Riot Korea did? Or is it Kespa that handed down that sentencing. That whole deal was confusing lol.
|
On July 25 2015 00:27 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Riot's stance on boosting/smurfing is just as ambiguous and inconsistent as a lot of their other decisions though (balance, design, esports, etc. etc.). It's silly to defend it as based on some morally monolithic and self-sufficient logic when it's clearly just a bunch of people making decisions on the fly more often than not.
I feel you are using strawmen here, especially by going off on that anti-Riot tangent. And noone said anything about the morals of elo boosting, noone called it evil like you did. It is disruptive to competetive inegrity, it is against the TOS, Elo exists for a reason. Its pretty simple really.
|
People making subjective decisions about subjective topics. If you're expecting something more than that, well, I dunno what to tell you.
Pointing out that Riot's a bunch of different people deciding this stuff is just pedantic at this point. Of course they are. How else would it be?
|
On July 25 2015 00:30 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 00:23 Redox wrote:On July 25 2015 00:21 Numy wrote:
I don't really see how boosting can have a worse effect than smurfing. If the boosted party is far worse they'll quickly drop in MMR to their actual value. Smurf is the same deal. It'll ruin games then even out. Both instances will have games ruined, the only difference I see is that one has cash being exchange but even then smurf accounts can be bought. At the end of the day I don't really care about it that much. Hopefully he just gets community service like the other guy in Korea and a 2 game ban or so.
I am a bit puzzled at why he's suspended while the investigation is going on when Forgiven was notified of the investigation but not suspended during it. Riot can not sentence anyone to community service. :D Riot Korea did? Or is it Kespa that handed down that sentencing. That whole deal was confusing lol.
Pretty sure that was KeSPA, which as a government organization has a little more power beyond the scope of the game.
|
Baa?21244 Posts
On July 25 2015 00:33 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 00:27 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Riot's stance on boosting/smurfing is just as ambiguous and inconsistent as a lot of their other decisions though (balance, design, esports, etc. etc.). It's silly to defend it as based on some morally monolithic and self-sufficient logic when it's clearly just a bunch of people making decisions on the fly more often than not. I feel you are using strawmen here, especially by going off on that anti-Riot tangent. And noone said anything about the morals of elo boosting, noone called it evil like you did. It is disruptive to competetive inegrity, it is against the TOS, Elo exists for a reason. Its pretty simple really.
No the genesis of this conversation was someone questioning why Elo boosting is bad in the first place, and so far the only thing that came up was people handwaving something about how it hurts the competitive integrity of random solo queue games or something. However if that was truly a concern, smurfing, as pointed out, should be banned as well.
On the flip side, one could argue that Elo boosting directly aligns monetary incentive with people improving at the game, and could be said to improve the overall competitiveness of the playerbase.
On July 25 2015 00:35 Caiada wrote:
People making subjective decisions about subjective topics. If you're expecting something more than that, well, I dunno what to tell you.
Pointing out that Riot's a bunch of different people deciding this stuff is just pedantic at this point. Of course they are. How else would it be?
Because if Riot is inconsistent in its treatment of these so-called disruptions of competitive/solo queue integrity, then Riot loses any moral or logical grounding for punishing Elo boosting other than arbitrarily deciding it's bad. IN that case, it is well within the realm of reasonable discussion to question why Elo boosting is bad, if at all, other than "Riot said so."
|
Boosting has the added account security issue, monetary transactions involved, selling of ranked rewards in addition to regular boosting.
Buying accounts got Yusui banned for a month.
Smurfing is also kind of Riot's own issue with extremely high-level matchmaking and how damn long it takes to get to 30.
I mean we can just ignore arguments, but then why the fuck are we discussing in the first place
|
On July 25 2015 00:33 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 00:27 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Riot's stance on boosting/smurfing is just as ambiguous and inconsistent as a lot of their other decisions though (balance, design, esports, etc. etc.). It's silly to defend it as based on some morally monolithic and self-sufficient logic when it's clearly just a bunch of people making decisions on the fly more often than not. I feel you are using strawmen here, especially by going off on that anti-Riot tangent. And noone said anything about the morals of elo boosting, noone called it evil like you did. It is disruptive to competetive inegrity, it is against the TOS, Elo exists for a reason. Its pretty simple really.
Truth is riot don't care unless the public knows about it and someone whines about it.If they did I wouldn't know multiple people who have been boosting multiple hours daily since season 2 for a site that appears on the first page of google if you write elo boost league of legends.All riot do is sometimes remove the rewards of the main accounts of the boosters(?????) and very few of the accounts getting boosted.There has never been an account/ip/w.e ban for people who have boosted 50+ accounts from bronze to gold.
|
On July 25 2015 00:59 nafta wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 00:33 Redox wrote:On July 25 2015 00:27 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Riot's stance on boosting/smurfing is just as ambiguous and inconsistent as a lot of their other decisions though (balance, design, esports, etc. etc.). It's silly to defend it as based on some morally monolithic and self-sufficient logic when it's clearly just a bunch of people making decisions on the fly more often than not. I feel you are using strawmen here, especially by going off on that anti-Riot tangent. And noone said anything about the morals of elo boosting, noone called it evil like you did. It is disruptive to competetive inegrity, it is against the TOS, Elo exists for a reason. Its pretty simple really. Truth is riot don't care unless the public knows about it and someone whines about it.If they did I wouldn't know multiple people who have been boosting multiple hours daily since season 2 for a site that appears on the first page of google if you write elo boost league of legends.All riot do is sometimes remove the rewards of the main accounts of the boosters(?????) and very few of the accounts getting boosted.There has never been an account/ip/w.e ban for people who have boosted 50+ accounts from bronze to gold.
https://elo-boost.net/
damn you weren't kidding about the google search LOL
|
Baa?21244 Posts
On July 25 2015 00:59 Caiada wrote:Show nested quote +Boosting has the added account security issue, monetary transactions involved, selling of ranked rewards in addition to regular boosting.
Buying accounts got Yusui banned for a month.
Smurfing is also kind of Riot's own issue with extremely high-level matchmaking and how damn long it takes to get to 30. I mean we can just ignore arguments, but then why the fuck are we discussing in the first place
You're conflating a bunch of stuff here, but OK fine.
Account security - irrelevant. It's a big deal in Korea for example because it's tied to your ID, but the only thing being compromised by your Riot account is, well, your Riot account. Riot might be upset about it, sure, but Riot doesn't exactly persecute people for playing on their friends' accounts. As such, the "security concerns" are superficial.
Monetary transaction involved - which ones? Boostee paying Booster - doensn't impact Riot at all. Booster spending pre-loaded RP on the account? I mean, sure, but it's not a particularly irreversible issue if it comes to that.
Selling of ranked rewards - Riot isn't the one selling it. Again, you can argue it cheapens the value of ranked rewards for other people, but how is it different from smurfing?
Smurfing is Riot's own issue - sure but that doesn't mean it suddenly doesn't impact competitive integrity. Again, smurfing is equally detrimental to creating disparate games in terms of skill level, and it is pretty much endorsed/OK'ed by Riot.
|
United States47024 Posts
The fact that monetary transactions are involved in boosting have no relevance to any moral argument about the nature of boosting vs. smurfing.
It has practical implications for Riot (since the process of boosting an account provides a lot of in-game content to the boosted player that they might otherwise have paid Riot for instead, rather than the booster), but if we're talking purely about whether Riot is in the right for punishing boosters solely because boosting is morally reprehensible--the issue of money has no impact on that.
On July 24 2015 15:15 Sufficiency wrote:
The problem with eloboosting is that LoL is a competitive PvP game. For most ranked players, there is little benefit from simply playing the game - a huge majority of ranked players already have most of the contents of the game unlocked. The entire "fun" of the game, for these ranked players, is their ladder ranking - it is their purpose of playing and the ranking identifies the "worth" of the player. When you have an unfair system where people can "buy" their ranking while simultaneously unfairly crush lower elo players mercilessly is a serious problem with the game.
The flip side of this is that as a competitive PvP game, the "fun" of the game is one's own improvement and advancement, and players should relish the the opportunity to play with and learn from someone massively better than them when they would not otherwise have the chance to do so.
Emphasis on points and ladder ranking over improvement and challenge isn't the hallmark of a competitive game--it's the hallmark of a toxic and dysfunctional competitive game.
|
On July 24 2015 23:31 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2015 14:30 Amarok wrote:
I think it's a pretty big deal. Worse than "toxicity" imo. A silver game with a masters player is every bit as ruined as a game where someone ragequits or intentionally feeds. Same goes for the masters game with the silver player. I doubt anyone involved enjoys the experience, except the guy raking in the $$. Oking it is essentially saying you're ok with people ruining games for their own personal profit and there's no way Riot should take that stance. Show nested quote +On July 24 2015 14:03 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On July 24 2015 12:57 Zess wrote:
Why is elo boosting such a big deal anyways? You're paying people that are good at the game to try hard at winning soloq, which is miles better for the competitiveness of a region than the current circlejerking everyone whines about. as someone who actually paid people to level my halo 3 account (I was like 15 and pretty dumb dumb) here's my thoughts. elo boosting ruins games for anyone who's actually playing with the account either before or after it got elo boosted, because you're either playing with someone a lot beter or a lot worse then the rank. so if your going to play on the account your automatically ruining the experience for people. there's no real reason to allow it as it doesn't really have any benefit whatsoever (other than having someone make money off of being better at a game and exploiting the fact that games are somewhat anonymous). In real life you can't have someone take a test for you. it's really a problem if the people who you actively are paying to play your game professionally are breaking your rules and making money this way because you are once again paying them an actual salary and so to summarise my thoughts. is ELo boosting the biggest thing in the world? no but it really shouldn't be allowed and if your the company and are paying people to play your game you are perfectly justified handing out serious punishments. Zato made a good point about making punishments harsher for if you get caught being a deterrent if its hard to detect. Show nested quote +On July 24 2015 18:10 Redox wrote:On July 24 2015 12:57 Zess wrote:
Why is elo boosting such a big deal anyways? You're paying people that are good at the game to try hard at winning soloq, which is miles better for the competitiveness of a region than the current circlejerking everyone whines about. Because the the Elo booster ruines the competitiveness of a big number of games. He is playing far outside his own skill level. The result of the game is decided by which side he plays on and barely by how the other players play. So the players in these games randomly lose/gain Elo. Bascially the effect is just the same as a player purpose feeding. Then the same thing happens again when the boosted player is playing on his account again, just the other way around. Again the player is outside his skill region and decides the game's result almost on his own. Only this time by feeding. Again players randomly gain/lose Elo without influencing it much. tldr: Elo matchmaking exists for a reason in LoL. So what's the difference between boosting and smurfing? Both are equally detrimental to the game by these arguments on competitiveness/mismatch in skill/etc.
well smurfing at least I think is trikier because its someones own account and it's kinda hard to prove they intentionally played bad to put the account in a lower ranking than it should be. generally you presumably have more rights with your own account then with someone else's. The only differences really are that boosting has you giving the account to someone else and actually paying them. Their both problems though its just one's a lot easier to ban/deal with than the other one is.
|
On July 24 2015 12:57 Zess wrote:
Why is elo boosting such a big deal anyways? You're paying people that are good at the game to try hard at winning soloq, which is miles better for the competitiveness of a region than the current circlejerking everyone whines about.
The biggest issue is probably just account security. It gives riot an "out" for dealing with security issues that they can't solve "oh you gave your account info to a booster, might as well ban you anyway". Banning it via ToU has two effects for security. The first is that it reduces the raw incidence, and the second is that riot no longer has an obligation to determine who really owns an account when someone gave away their info to be boosted/played by someone else. The account security issue is not some "real money goods transfer issue" but a "customer service has to deal with all these people" issue.
Riot isn't going to go out of the way to ban people sharing accounts because they don't care. But having it as a policy ensures that when those friends have a falling out, riot doesn't have to figure out who gets the account. They just ban the account.
Smurfing doesn't have nearly the effect on MMR because the accounts are new and so the system can quickly adjust to a new player being very good. The system can't adjust as well to someone who has 1000 games in silver 4 suddenly being master for 100 games and then of course being back to silver 4. But it can adjust just fine to players which start good and stay good, even with new ones entering the play pool.
WRT morality; Pro's gotta eat to. Can't fault a man for trying to live off his skills
|
on the morality smurfing vs boosting
1) both are bad in that they ruin games.
2) boosting has the additional effect of a player not 'earning' thier spot in the rankings. If you buying ranks is allowed, skill has no impact on the rankings anymore, when the entire system is supposed to be based on skill. Smurfing, while a stompfest, is still based on your personal skill.
So boosting is worse because it also breaks the integrity of the ranking system.
|
Baa?21244 Posts
On July 25 2015 16:20 Kaneh wrote:
So boosting is worse because it also breaks the integrity of the ranking system.
Riot already did that with the league system so I think we're a bit past that concern, yea?
|
United Kingdom50293 Posts
|
On July 25 2015 23:55 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 16:20 Kaneh wrote:
So boosting is worse because it also breaks the integrity of the ranking system. Riot already did that with the league system so I think we're a bit past that concern, yea?
Yea I was about to say. Riot already sacrificed the integrity of the ranking in order to confuse the player of his or her own ranking. Is "competitive integrity" the new "clarity" or "toxicity"?
|
I thought all the orgs except the big ones have their players boost (except their star names) because that's part of how they fund the team? Why are people assuming there's no involvement from the team when for all purposes, it looks pretty suspicious to have money being funneled to Alex's paypal account and Rush is duoing with a "smurf" lol. Like what?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
