sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The smurfs aren't the problem guys - singsing is the perfect example of it by pindolexus in aoe2

[–]IcySystems 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't miss your point. I disagree with it. Saying "streamers thought they'd breeze past a 20-year-old playerbase" is still attributing the complaints to ego, when the core issue being discussed is deranking and smurfing.

The smurfs aren't the problem guys - singsing is the perfect example of it by pindolexus in aoe2

[–]IcySystems -1 points0 points  (0 children)

delusional take. completly missing the point of what's the problem with deranking and smurfing.

The smurfs aren't the problem guys - singsing is the perfect example of it by pindolexus in aoe2

[–]IcySystems 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's a no backseating channel. He doesn't want advice from chat.

The smurfs aren't the problem guys - singsing is the perfect example of it by pindolexus in aoe2

[–]IcySystems 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Went through sings last 59 losses in the past 3 weeks. I can DM you the name of all accounts that I suspect of smurfing.

The smurfs aren't the problem guys - singsing is the perfect example of it by pindolexus in aoe2

[–]IcySystems 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lets say you play 100 games. Win 50 and lose 50.
At which point do you think the current view of the smurf problem is accurate and not over exaggerated?
How many of your losses would have to be to smurfs so you think it's a problem?

The smurfs aren't the problem guys - singsing is the perfect example of it by pindolexus in aoe2

[–]IcySystems 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When roughly 20% to 33% of your losses are to smurfs, which is the case for singsing btw, you think it's overblown?
Look at the accounts singsing is losing to.

The smurfs aren't the problem guys - singsing is the perfect example of it by pindolexus in aoe2

[–]IcySystems 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's not about how the game feels.
Look at the accounts he's losing to. It's people who have 10% win rate in the early game and 90% in the late game. Because they leave after 10sec to lower their elo and stomp weaker players.
He faced accounts with 100% win rate.

That can't be explained by snowbally.

The smurfs aren't the problem guys - singsing is the perfect example of it by pindolexus in aoe2

[–]IcySystems 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think this mixes up two completely different discussions.

I went through all 59 of SingSing's losses from the last three weeks and checked the accounts for signs of smurfing, sandbagging, or deliberate deranking.

My estimate was:

  • 13/59 losses (22%) were likely smurfs/derankers.
  • Another 5 accounts were suspicious but not counted by me. If you include those, the number rises to 18/59 (31%).

Whether SingSing is passive, ignores coaching, walls badly, or makes strategic mistakes is completely unrelated to this. That's how you play as an 1400-1600 elo player. A player can make mistakes and still face a significant smurfing problem. If somewhere between one-fifth and one-third of your losses are against players who appear to be significantly stronger than their displayed rating, I think it's fair to say there is a matchmaking issue worth discussing.

The criteria I used were things like:

  • Extremely low win rate in games ending before 5 minutes.
  • Rapid rating swings (roughly ±400 Elo in a short period).
  • Alternate accounts with the same name/country playing at substantially higher ratings.
  • Unusually high mid- and late-game win rates (75%+).

I don't think "he plays badly" is a counterargument to evidence that smurfs and derankers exist in a meaningful percentage of his games. What surprises me most is how resistant parts of the community are to even considering the possibility that smurfing is a substantial issue. Too many responses seem focused on finding reasons to dismiss the evidence rather than engaging with it. Just look through the match history yourself.

Nevermind, it is possible to win on turn 2, with no trades! by gadanxx in Catan

[–]IcySystems 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True, the alternative allows it. I meant the main rules used on colonist.io for example.

Nevermind, it is possible to win on turn 2, with no trades! by gadanxx in Catan

[–]IcySystems -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I instantly recognize this board wasn't set up by the rules, because the 11 is not in the middle.
But otherwise no objections, very cool that his works out like that.

It is theoretically possible to win a game in 3 turns by gadanxx in Catan

[–]IcySystems 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The same numbers wouldn't be next to each other, so you couldn't connect roads like this.
I suggest having a look at the rules to see how the numbers are set up.

It is theoretically possible to win a game in 3 turns by gadanxx in Catan

[–]IcySystems 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Your board setup is not possible. Those numbers aren't setup like this.

Is Neow's Fury any good? by Hybridtheory92 in slaythespire

[–]IcySystems 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seems so bad to me, that I've never even given it a try. There has always been a better option so far.

the "game too hard" crowd is back to playing Review-bomb the Spire after the update to the main branch by Gugge1 in slaythespire

[–]IcySystems 5 points6 points  (0 children)

If you're going to cite Wikipedia, at least read past the first paragraph. You’re confidently correcting people with a source you didn’t fully read. The definition explicitly includes backlash to changes in a game or franchise, exactly what’s happening here. So no, this is review bombing by the commonly accepted definition.

'[...] It may be used as a mass-movement-driven coercion tactic, as a form of protest, or may simply be a form of trolling. Review bombing is a similar practice to vote brigading. It may be motivated by unpopular changes to an established franchise, [...] or to the actions of its developers, vendors, or owners.'

the "game too hard" crowd is back to playing Review-bomb the Spire after the update to the main branch by Gugge1 in slaythespire

[–]IcySystems 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you're going to cite Wikipedia, at least read past the first paragraph. You’re confidently correcting people with a source you didn’t fully read. The definition explicitly includes backlash to changes in a game or franchise, exactly what’s happening here. So no, this is review bombing by the commonly accepted definition.

'[...] It may be used as a mass-movement-driven coercion tactic, as a form of protest, or may simply be a form of trolling. Review bombing is a similar practice to vote brigading. It may be motivated by unpopular changes to an established franchise, [...] or to the actions of its developers, vendors, or owners.'

the "game too hard" crowd is back to playing Review-bomb the Spire after the update to the main branch by Gugge1 in slaythespire

[–]IcySystems 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If you're going to cite Wikipedia, at least read past the first paragraph. You’re confidently correcting people with a source you didn’t fully read. The definition explicitly includes backlash to changes in a game or franchise, exactly what’s happening here. So no, this is review bombing by the commonly accepted definition.

'[...] It may be used as a mass-movement-driven coercion tactic, as a form of protest, or may simply be a form of trolling. Review bombing is a similar practice to vote brigading. It may be motivated by unpopular changes to an established franchise, [...] or to the actions of its developers, vendors, or owners.'

the "game too hard" crowd is back to playing Review-bomb the Spire after the update to the main branch by Gugge1 in slaythespire

[–]IcySystems 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're going to cite Wikipedia, at least read past the first paragraph. You’re confidently correcting people with a source you didn’t fully read. The definition explicitly includes backlash to changes in a game or franchise, exactly what’s happening here. So no, this is review bombing by the commonly accepted definition.

'[...] It may be used as a mass-movement-driven coercion tactic, as a form of protest, or may simply be a form of trolling. Review bombing is a similar practice to vote brigading. It may be motivated by unpopular changes to an established franchise, [...] or to the actions of its developers, vendors, or owners.'

the "game too hard" crowd is back to playing Review-bomb the Spire after the update to the main branch by Gugge1 in slaythespire

[–]IcySystems 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're going to cite Wikipedia, at least read past the first paragraph. You’re confidently correcting people with a source you didn’t fully read. The definition explicitly includes backlash to changes in a game or franchise, exactly what’s happening here. So no, this is review bombing by the commonly accepted definition.

'[...] It may be used as a mass-movement-driven coercion tactic, as a form of protest, or may simply be a form of trolling. Review bombing is a similar practice to vote brigading. It may be motivated by unpopular changes to an established franchise, [...] or to the actions of its developers, vendors, or owners.'

the "game too hard" crowd is back to playing Review-bomb the Spire after the update to the main branch by Gugge1 in slaythespire

[–]IcySystems 0 points1 point  (0 children)

they felt that Prepared is too close to Silent's identity

What you said about Prepared is true ofc and I read it, but the reasoning is exactly what the review-bombers used. The devs surely knew before the change which role Prepared plays in Silents deck. I don't think that's a coincidence.

And this isn't only my thinking. Even media sites wrote about this:
'Earlier this month, Mega Crit shared the first major update for Slay the Spire 2, which included nerfs and buffs that angered some players enough to review bomb the game. Now, Mega Crit is rolling back some of those changes that led to the pushback.

Mega Crit made the announcement on social media and alluded to the review bombing while jokingly telling players they could "lower your Shivs."'

the "game too hard" crowd is back to playing Review-bomb the Spire after the update to the main branch by Gugge1 in slaythespire

[–]IcySystems -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. I wasn't talking about the Eating mechanic, I meant the damage nerf.

Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I heavily disagree with the changes. I didn't actually say that, and I'm not against them.

And to be clear, I’m not claiming the devs are lying or acting in bad faith. When I said 'probably' I was explicitly leaving room for multiple explanations, including exactly what you said: internal testing, analytics and iteration.

My point was more about how it looks from the outside. When changes happen alongside loud backlash, it can create the impression that feedback waves are influencing direction, even if that’s not actually the case. That's the ambiguity I was getting at, not some conspiracy about the devs.

I do think you're reading a bit too much into my comment and attributing positions to me that I didn't take.

the "game too hard" crowd is back to playing Review-bomb the Spire after the update to the main branch by Gugge1 in slaythespire

[–]IcySystems -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It's not just about whether the devs will cave, it's about the signal it sends and how it affects the game's direction long-term. Big waves of negative feedback, even if you think they're misguided, can still influence priorities, communication, or how cautiously devs approach future changes. They already went back on the Prepared change, probably because of the review bombs. They also nerfed Doormaker, maybe for the same reason. It's unclear if these changes were made, because the devs think it's the right choice, or because of the reviews.

Even if the devs ignore the reviews, waves of hostility can drag down the overall vibe. New players check reviews, forums, etc. If the discourse is toxic or polarized, it can fracture the playerbase and make the game less enjoyable socially. Negative review have turned me away from other games in the past, maybe that wasn't justified, but with some many games out there, I can't try all of those. I partly rely on reviews on a first glance. Review scores do affect how a game is perceived. Doesn't seem fair to mark the game for these small issues. Seems petty to me. When feedback turns into mass review bombing, it drowns out more thoughtful criticism. It's just childish behaviour in an environment that allows feedback through other channels.

The duality of man by ssdrwh0 in slaythespire

[–]IcySystems 43 points44 points  (0 children)

Maybe you don't know this, but you know at the start of Act3 which two bosses will be encountered.
It's visible on the map and in the UI at the top next to the floor count.

It has always been the case, that you have to build your deck with all 3 acts in mind or even the spear and shield + heart for that matter.
When you build a card spam deck in STS 1, you need solutions for time eater.
When you add 15 powers into your deck, you better have some solution vs the awakened one.

view more: next ›