Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a tonne of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out Boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

GO TO BOARDS


Give ban for smurfing finally

123
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Unicornqua

Senior Member

10-08-2014

I am sure Riot have their ways how to identify smurfs. But they use it only when they suspect some breaking of rules, they will hardly track every player and his accounts just in case they will need it some day.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Sénpai Màrko

Junior Member

10-08-2014

Learn the game - stop crying


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

warmachine1

Member

10-08-2014

Quote:
Adrenalotr:
A different answer: what does the user agreement say about playing on other people's accounts? If your brother stopped playing a while ago, and only started playing again when your account is banned, that would raise a red flag on someone else using his account. You playing on it would make it a smurf account. They'd look for correlations between this returned player and the related, recently banned account, to see if they're the same player. If they are, they'll ban that one as well.

Riot likely has a database of accounts and the ties between them. Friends they've played with, and friends they haven't played with. Friends who have played simultaneously, friends who haven't. Friends from the same area, friends from afar. Friends added by name, friends added from "add friend" buttons in lobbies. Friends of friends who have never been online at the same time. Friends of friends who have performed terribly or inconsistently when they've been online at the same time. Players who are not friends, but have logged in from the same IP. IP's that a lot of people have logged in from, and all the players who have logged in from that IP. Players with ISPs that assign them dynamic or static IP addresses... From this they'd likely ban the main account and study the suspected smurfs if there's some suspicious new activity on them now that their suspected main was banned. If there is, they investigate further, and possibly ban those smurf accounts as well.

There's never a 100% certainty. But with their information, it's difficult to see how they would end up being wrong.

I highly dubt Riot actually hold complete history of logins, with 20M active users worldwide it would need enormous amount of resources.
U are dealing with playerbase larger than many countries


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Adrenalotr

Senior Member

10-08-2014

Quote:
warmachine1:
I highly dubt Riot actually hold complete history of logins, with 20M active users worldwide it would need enormous amount of resources.
U are dealing with playerbase larger than many countries


Per server, it's really just a few millions. Ranked players on EUNE, for example, are just slightly over 1 million. Let's say there's another million who don't play ranked. Let's say each login contains a timestamp and IP address. That's less than a hundred kB. Over the course of a year, maybe each player logs in twice per day. 200kB per day, 365 days per day, makes it around 70 MB per player per year. This estimate is probably a lot greater, since for every player that logs in multiple times per day, there are players who spend days without logging in. On average, I suspect these numbers are way greater than they need to be. But it's a safe upper estimate, imo.

70 MB * 2 million players = 140 000 000 MB, or 140 TB. While that's a lot of data, Amazon's server pricing (as an example) would offer this amount of storage for $4200 per month, which isn't much for a company like Riot. Not that enormous amount of resources really, considering Amazon's storage server tiers range up to 5000TB. While user data would likely contain a lot more, per account, than login data, I don't think it's unrealistic to except that Riot stores plenty of data like this. No idea how efficiently it's stored, how much, for how long, or when they started logging everything, but I have no doubt they have plenty of data on every user.

20M users worldwide? Using the same math, that amounts to a 1400TB, which Amazon would cover at a cost of $0.028 per GB per month, or just shy of 40 000 dollars a month. Riot made about 900 million last year.

The only reason not to have this data is if they only started collecting it more recently, or if was redundant - that their system can just store "same place as usual" instead of the IP address or something like that.

tldr: storage is cheap, and Riot makes plenty of money for it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Adraenius

Member

10-08-2014

Quote:
Adrenalotr:
Per server, it's really just a few millions. Ranked players on EUNE, for example, are just slightly over 1 million. Let's say there's another million who don't play ranked. Let's say each login contains a timestamp and IP address. That's less than a hundred kB. Over the course of a year, maybe each player logs in twice per day. 200kB per day, 365 days per day, makes it around 70 MB per player per year. This estimate is probably a lot greater, since for every player that logs in multiple times per day, there are players who spend days without logging in. On average, I suspect these numbers are way greater than they need to be. But it's a safe upper estimate, imo.

70 MB * 2 million players = 140 000 000 MB, or 140 TB. While that's a lot of data, Amazon's server pricing (as an example) would offer this amount of storage for $4200 per month, which isn't much for a company like Riot. Not that enormous amount of resources really, considering Amazon's storage server tiers range up to 5000TB. While user data would likely contain a lot more, per account, than login data, I don't think it's unrealistic to except that Riot stores plenty of data like this. No idea how efficiently it's stored, how much, for how long, or when they started logging everything, but I have no doubt they have plenty of data on every user.

20M users worldwide? Using the same math, that amounts to a 1400TB, which Amazon would cover at a cost of $0.028 per GB per month, or just shy of 40 000 dollars a month. Riot made about 900 million last year.

The only reason not to have this data is if they only started collecting it more recently, or if was redundant - that their system can just store "same place as usual" instead of the IP address or something like that.

tldr: storage is cheap, and Riot makes plenty of money for it.


You are overthinking this too much. Smurf accounts are not against the rules, and they really dont cause any problems. If a good player makes a smurf, he is bound to advance very quickly. That means that it is not so common to find smurfs playing against you. Not to mention the fact that you may get a smurf in your team.

Anyway, as I said, you are overthinking it. No real reason to ban smurfs, and every single proposition you made was dead wrong mate. You obviously dont care if people get banned by mistake, but everyone else does.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Unicornqua

Senior Member

10-09-2014

Smurfs are ok as long as people can behave. The situation is not as bad as it used to be since people are not banned for their behavior but they get chat restriction. But before that, banned people used to come to play on low level smurfs, destroying the games for newbies and spreading toxicity there.

So again, I don't mind smurfs too much (although they are creating very uneven games which is unfair and demotivating). But I do mind experienced people making fun of newbies or flame them for not being good enough.

Also, not every good player is smurf and not everyone who claim he is a smurf is saying the truth.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Adrenalotr

Senior Member

10-09-2014

Quote:
Adraenius:
You are overthinking this too much. Smurf accounts are not against the rules, and they really dont cause any problems. If a good player makes a smurf, he is bound to advance very quickly. That means that it is not so common to find smurfs playing against you. Not to mention the fact that you may get a smurf in your team.

Anyway, as I said, you are overthinking it. No real reason to ban smurfs, and every single proposition you made was dead wrong mate. You obviously dont care if people get banned by mistake, but everyone else does.


1) Please don't put words in my mouth. I never addressed the extent to which smurfs are or aren't a problem, only the extent to which I assume Riot tracks user accounts.

2) Nor did I say smurfing was against the rules. You're still putting words in my mouth.

3) I didn't address the frequency of encountering smurfs. Why are you answering something I never said anything about... again?

4) The only post where I even mentioned bans was my response to warmachine1's hypothetical. Besides that I'm convinced Riot has the tools necessary to identify them, you know _nothing_ of my stance on smurfs, so please stop putting words in my mouth.

5) Your statement of "every single propostion you made was dead wrong" is wrong. Even as hyperbole, it's wrong. Either you didn't actually read my posts, or you didn't understand them; in any case, you allege that I am fully wrong about _every_ proposition I've made. Really now. Name one thing I said that is actually wrong.

6) You allege that I don't care whether people get banned by mistake (and that _everyone_ else does, hyperbole again). Again, you know _nothing_ of my stance on smurfs, bans, accuracy, and just about anything. Don't put words in other people's mouths.

--

So let me address these points, for clarity:

1) Smurfs being a problem: There is a type of smurf that's a problem in low levels when leveling up accounts. This smurf is toxic and as such a problem. There is a type of smurf that belongs to higher Elo players, that skews results during placement and promo games, although more rare. This smurf is more rare and less of a problem. There is a type of smurf that people derp around on, being toxic and not caring if the account gets banned because "it's not my main account". This smurf is toxic and as such a problem.

2) I haven't checked Riot's user agreement on smurfs, and can't find where Riot has made a statement regarding smurfs. nevertheless, I recall many cases of Riot acknowledging that people smurf, most recently calling out a player on the forum as not using his main account in that discussion. But as far as I know, it's not against the rules to have multiple accounts. I do.

3) Smurfs are more common, statistically, on the enemy team, by 25%. This is the same as with leavers, toxic players, and any other specific type of player, because there are more open slots on the enemy team than on yours... because _you_ occupy one of your team's slots. But the odds of actually having a smurf in your game is very low, for the reason you said yourself - they'll climb faster. This doesn't apply to the other types of smurfs, unfortunately.

4) Banning smurfs is only necessary if the main account needs to be banned and there's subsequently a lot of activity on suspected smurf accounts. In the case of permabanning a highly toxic player, these smurfs can be banned right away if Riot are certain that they're smurf accounts, or after this sudden new activity confirms it.

5) Everything you said about me was false. Please don't misrepresent other people like that. It's a dishonest arguing tactic, and it weakens any good points you may have because people notice you're using "straw man arguments", they won't trust anything you say.

6) I do care, which is why I went to great lengths to explain the kinds of things Riot would have to do to identify smurf accounts with some amount of certainty, rather than just ban everything from a single IP address. warmachine1's example of a toxic player and his brother is a good example of this. What did I suggest in my response to that post, a blanket ban of that IP address and all accounts associated with it? That's not what I wrote.

--

tldr: Almost everything _you_ said is false. Please read more thoroughly before posting.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Adraenius

Member

10-16-2014

Quote:
Adrenalotr:
1) Please don't put words in my mouth. I never addressed the extent to which smurfs are or aren't a problem, only the extent to which I assume Riot tracks user accounts.

2) Nor did I say smurfing was against the rules. You're still putting words in my mouth.

3) I didn't address the frequency of encountering smurfs. Why are you answering something I never said anything about... again?

4) The only post where I even mentioned bans was my response to warmachine1's hypothetical. Besides that I'm convinced Riot has the tools necessary to identify them, you know _nothing_ of my stance on smurfs, so please stop putting words in my mouth.

5) Your statement of "every single propostion you made was dead wrong" is wrong. Even as hyperbole, it's wrong. Either you didn't actually read my posts, or you didn't understand them; in any case, you allege that I am fully wrong about _every_ proposition I've made. Really now. Name one thing I said that is actually wrong.

6) You allege that I don't care whether people get banned by mistake (and that _everyone_ else does, hyperbole again). Again, you know _nothing_ of my stance on smurfs, bans, accuracy, and just about anything. Don't put words in other people's mouths.

--

So let me address these points, for clarity:

1) Smurfs being a problem: There is a type of smurf that's a problem in low levels when leveling up accounts. This smurf is toxic and as such a problem. There is a type of smurf that belongs to higher Elo players, that skews results during placement and promo games, although more rare. This smurf is more rare and less of a problem. There is a type of smurf that people derp around on, being toxic and not caring if the account gets banned because "it's not my main account". This smurf is toxic and as such a problem.

2) I haven't checked Riot's user agreement on smurfs, and can't find where Riot has made a statement regarding smurfs. nevertheless, I recall many cases of Riot acknowledging that people smurf, most recently calling out a player on the forum as not using his main account in that discussion. But as far as I know, it's not against the rules to have multiple accounts. I do.

3) Smurfs are more common, statistically, on the enemy team, by 25%. This is the same as with leavers, toxic players, and any other specific type of player, because there are more open slots on the enemy team than on yours... because _you_ occupy one of your team's slots. But the odds of actually having a smurf in your game is very low, for the reason you said yourself - they'll climb faster. This doesn't apply to the other types of smurfs, unfortunately.

4) Banning smurfs is only necessary if the main account needs to be banned and there's subsequently a lot of activity on suspected smurf accounts. In the case of permabanning a highly toxic player, these smurfs can be banned right away if Riot are certain that they're smurf accounts, or after this sudden new activity confirms it.

5) Everything you said about me was false. Please don't misrepresent other people like that. It's a dishonest arguing tactic, and it weakens any good points you may have because people notice you're using "straw man arguments", they won't trust anything you say.

6) I do care, which is why I went to great lengths to explain the kinds of things Riot would have to do to identify smurf accounts with some amount of certainty, rather than just ban everything from a single IP address. warmachine1's example of a toxic player and his brother is a good example of this. What did I suggest in my response to that post, a blanket ban of that IP address and all accounts associated with it? That's not what I wrote.

--

tldr: Almost everything _you_ said is false. Please read more thoroughly before posting.


What can I say. I think it is quite obvious that what I quoted and what I wrote, are two totally different things with no correlation whatsoever between them. I am shocked that you went into the trouble of defending yourself from thing that OBVIOUSLY you didnt even imply.
So no, I didnt put words into your mouth, I was simply referrign to the OP and misquoted (to be exact I didnt even want to quote, I just thought that I was replying normally).
See? There is always a logical explanation. (though its really weird that you didnt find anything unsual about my post.)
Peace brother, and may we meet in the fields of justice.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Adrenalotr

Senior Member

10-16-2014

Quote:
Adraenius:
What can I say. I think it is quite obvious that what I quoted and what I wrote, are two totally different things with no correlation whatsoever between them. I am shocked that you went into the trouble of defending yourself from thing that OBVIOUSLY you didnt even imply.
So no, I didnt put words into your mouth, I was simply referrign to the OP and misquoted (to be exact I didnt even want to quote, I just thought that I was replying normally).
See? There is always a logical explanation. (though its really weird that you didnt find anything unsual about my post.)
Peace brother, and may we meet in the fields of justice.


As I saw it, you were quoting me because you were responding to me. This is how you usually specify whom you're talking to on a forum where there can be multiple conversations happening at the same time between different people in the same thread. Quoting me and seeming so dismissive of what I said was indeed weird, but people on the internet _are_ weird. If you go back and re-read your post in as if directed to me and as a response to my previous post, you'll find my response is quite in line.

Needlessly so, apparently.

No harm no foul, dude.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Adraenius

Member

10-16-2014

Mate, I did try to read my post as a response to yours and I failed miserably Anyway, there are more pressing matters than smurf accounts (inb4 new thread).

Oh, just remembered. Smurfing is not so terrible guys. A friend that is challenger rank runs a smurf, and he just relaxes when playing, occasionaly feeding too (it is hillarious when it happens). So, to recap, Adrenalotr said it, the problem is toxicity, nothing else. And I think that I found the cure.... (I already said it, inb4 thread, keep your eyes open).


123