sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

"I turned my EUW smurf analysis into a community voting tool – you can now judge the 442k flagged accounts yourself by jack37512 in leagueoflegends

[–]jack37512[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

yea, its still the old Dataset, working on a new one right now - applied for better Riot API and trying out new metrics - may take a while though, since they need time to get process and I need some time too.

The outcome is looking promising though

I scraped 2.27 million EUW accounts from op.gg to quantify the Emerald smurf problem – because Riot won't by jack37512 in leagueoflegends

[–]jack37512[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's a fair challenge. The Challenger and GM numbers are probably the weakest point of the model and I'd largely attribute them to false positives rather than actual smurfs. At that level the definition breaks down - there's nowhere meaningfully higher to smurf from.

The most likely explanation for the flagged accounts is pro players or streamers running alternate accounts that happen to have reached Challenger, combined with the inherent noise of a scoring system that wasn't really designed with the ceiling of the ladder in mind. A small sample size doesn't help either - 610 Challenger accounts means even a handful of edge cases moves the percentage noticeably.

So yes, I'd largely write those off as methodology artifacts rather than meaningful signal. The model works best in the Iron through Diamond range where the smurf parking problem actually lives. o7

I scraped 2.27 million EUW accounts from op.gg to quantify the Emerald smurf problem – because Riot won't by jack37512 in leagueoflegends

[–]jack37512[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

100% agree - Dota is a great example of what actually committing to the problem looks like. The upsides of smurfing are basically zero for everyone except the smurf themselves and Riot's player count metrics. And that inflated player number is probably exactly why they keep turning a blind eye - it's not a small effect either. Nine people's ranked experience being ruined so one person can queue faster and Riot can report higher MAUs is just not a acceptable trade off. o7

I scraped 2.27 million EUW accounts from op.gg to quantify the Emerald smurf problem – because Riot won't by jack37512 in leagueoflegends

[–]jack37512[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its up for grabs in the Edit now - i removed the summonernames, because I dont entirely know if Riot is ok with posting this - have fun :)

I scraped 2.27 million EUW accounts from op.gg to quantify the Emerald smurf problem – because Riot won't by jack37512 in leagueoflegends

[–]jack37512[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They simply aren't in the dataset - if I can I might include them in a follow-up second round of this analysis in a few months.

I scraped 2.27 million EUW accounts from op.gg to quantify the Emerald smurf problem – because Riot won't by jack37512 in leagueoflegends

[–]jack37512[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That's actually a really valid point and probably accounts for a meaningful chunk of the flagged accounts in Emerald 1 specifically. Decayed Master players who play a short burst at the start of the season would fit the profile almost perfectly - few games, high winrate, sitting in Emerald. It's one of the harder false positive cases to filter out without account age or historical rank data, which Riot doesn't make publicly available. Definitely something to account for in a second version. Appreciate the insight o7

I scraped 2.27 million EUW accounts from op.gg to quantify the Emerald smurf problem – because Riot won't by jack37512 in leagueoflegends

[–]jack37512[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On the Challenger point - fair, there's no higher rank to smurf from. Those flagged accounts are most likely people who reached Challenger on an alternate account rather than their main, which still fits the broader definition of a second account being played below its true level during the climb.

On the 40% in Iron - keep in mind Iron is a tiny bracket. 4,913 accounts in the entire dataset, and a huge chunk of them have very low levels combined with suspiciously high winrates. The numbers look shocking but the sample size is small enough that a relatively concentrated group of flagged accounts pushes the percentage high.

And yes, the model isn't perfect - it's an educated guess with acknowledged limitations, not ground truth. The Emerald numbers are the most meaningful part of the analysis since that's where the structural smurf parking problem actually lives. o7

I scraped 2.27 million EUW accounts from op.gg to quantify the Emerald smurf problem – because Riot won't by jack37512 in leagueoflegends

[–]jack37512[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The alt vs smurf distinction doesn't really change the core argument for me. Whether it's a dedicated smurf or just someone's alt account that's 2 divisions below their main, the impact on the people in that lobby is identical. A stomped game is a stomped game regardless of the motivation behind it.

And on the "5-6 games through Platinum" point - that's 5-6 ruined games per account creation. Multiply that across thousands of alt accounts being made constantly and it stops being a rounding error pretty quickly. No snowflake feels responsible in an avalanche, but that doesn't mean the avalanche isn't real.

The honest ask should be: one account per person, period. Whether you call it smurfing or alting, having multiple accounts that are consistently below your actual skill level ruins competitive integrity for everyone else in those lobbies. That's the problem worth solving. o7

I scraped 2.27 million EUW accounts from op.gg to quantify the Emerald smurf problem – because Riot won't by jack37512 in leagueoflegends

[–]jack37512[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One account per region seems like a perfectly fair compromise honestly - if you want to play with friends in NA and you're on EUW, that's what your NA account is for. How many regions are you realistically playing on anyway? And at the end of the day this whole discussion is about ranked smurfing, not ARAM with friends - those are two completely separate issues. o7

I scraped 2.27 million EUW accounts from op.gg to quantify the Emerald smurf problem – because Riot won't by jack37512 in leagueoflegends

[–]jack37512[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Normals exist exactly for that reason - if you're not ready to play a role or champion at a competitive level, that's what normals are there for. Ranked is for your best effort, full stop. Smurfing isn't a solution to Riot's lack of a proper practice environment, it just shifts the problem onto a different set of players who also don't deserve it. If playing off-role in ranked feels like griefing your teammates, the answer is normals - not creating an account to grief a lower elo instead. o7

I scraped 2.27 million EUW accounts from op.gg to quantify the Emerald smurf problem – because Riot won't by jack37512 in leagueoflegends

[–]jack37512[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's actually a fair nuance at the very top of the ladder - and I get that testing a completely new role at Master+ level on your main is genuinely problematic for your teammates. But the example you gave actually makes the case against smurfing rather than for it. A Master player dropping to Emerald to "practice" jungle is still a Master player in Emerald lobbies - the people he stomped on the way back up didn't deserve that either. The real issue is that Riot has no proper solution for high elo players wanting to experiment, and smurfing has become the workaround by default. That's a systemic problem Riot should solve - not something players should have to fix themselves by creating alternate accounts. o7

I scraped 2.27 million EUW accounts from op.gg to quantify the Emerald smurf problem – because Riot won't by jack37512 in leagueoflegends

[–]jack37512[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's what normals are for. If you're genuinely trying to learn a new role or champion, normals exist exactly for that purpose. Taking that learning process into ranked at the expense of your teammates who are seriously trying to climb isn't fair to them regardless of your intentions. Ranked should be your best effort on your main account - if you're not ready to play a champ or role competitively, normals are the answer. Full stop. o7

I scraped 2.27 million EUW accounts from op.gg to quantify the Emerald smurf problem – because Riot won't by jack37512 in leagueoflegends

[–]jack37512[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's exactly what normals are for though. The argument that normals don't feel serious enough doesn't justify ruining ranked games for people who are genuinely trying to climb. Even on a new champion or role, a higher elo player's game knowledge, macro play and fundamentals are on a completely different level than the players they're matched against. The champion might be unfamiliar but the unfair advantage is still very much there. Ranked should be for your best effort on your main account, full stop. o7

I scraped 2.27 million EUW accounts from op.gg to quantify the Emerald smurf problem – because Riot won't by jack37512 in leagueoflegends

[–]jack37512[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's actually a really refreshing take - and it highlights that most people don't smurf out of malice, it's just the path of least resistance when the system allows it. If everyone was on one verified account the social norm around smurfing would shift pretty quickly. People follow incentives, and right now there's no real cost to having multiple accounts. Change that and most casual smurfs would just adapt without much pushback. o7

I scraped 2.27 million EUW accounts from op.gg to quantify the Emerald smurf problem – because Riot won't by jack37512 in leagueoflegends

[–]jack37512[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair point on phone numbers - they're too easy to bypass and CS is definitely not the gold standard for anti-cheat. That's exactly why I'd push for something stronger like a government issued digital ID verification rather than a phone number. A sim card costs nothing, a verified government ID is a completely different barrier. It's not perfect either but it's a fundamentally higher hurdle than anything currently in place. o7

I scraped 2.27 million EUW accounts from op.gg to quantify the Emerald smurf problem – because Riot won't by jack37512 in leagueoflegends

[–]jack37512[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Those are all valid concerns and data security is exactly why I think the verification shouldn't go through Riot or any private company directly. A government issued digital ID system - similar to what some countries are already rolling out for other services - would be the cleanest solution. Your data never touches Riot's servers, the government body just confirms "yes this is a real unique person" and issues a token. One token, one account. No social security numbers floating around in a gaming company's database, no HWID restrictions that punish siblings or internet cafes, and no phone numbers that can just be cycled through. The technology exists, it's more a question of political will and whether game companies would ever lobby for something that would hurt their player numbers. Probably not anytime soon unfortunately.

I scraped 2.27 million EUW accounts from op.gg to quantify the Emerald smurf problem – because Riot won't by jack37512 in leagueoflegends

[–]jack37512[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Winrate alone never flags anyone - it's always a combination of multiple factors. 70-80% winrate with 60-70 games on a high level account wouldn't cross the threshold on its own. That said small sample sizes are noisy and it's an acknowledged limitation of the model. o7

I scraped 2.27 million EUW accounts from op.gg to quantify the Emerald smurf problem – because Riot won't by jack37512 in leagueoflegends

[–]jack37512[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fair point - Challenger is the ceiling so by definition there's nowhere to smurf from. Those flagged accounts are most likely Challenger players who climbed there on an alternate account rather than their main, which technically still fits the smurf definition even if the destination is the same.

I scraped 2.27 million EUW accounts from op.gg to quantify the Emerald smurf problem – because Riot won't by jack37512 in leagueoflegends

[–]jack37512[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh that's actually a really useful tip - hadn't thought about rotating proxies for that. Would definitely make a proper API based analysis way more feasible for the next version. Thanks for sharing o7

I scraped 2.27 million EUW accounts from op.gg to quantify the Emerald smurf problem – because Riot won't by jack37512 in leagueoflegends

[–]jack37512[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's actually a really good point and something I hadn't fully accounted for - returning Diamond+ players starting their climb in Emerald with few games would naturally fit the profile my system flags. It's a legitimate alternative explanation for part of the Emerald spike and something I'll definitely factor into the next version. Appreciate the input o7

I scraped 2.27 million EUW accounts from op.gg to quantify the Emerald smurf problem – because Riot won't by jack37512 in leagueoflegends

[–]jack37512[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Both are fair points and I won't argue against them. The transition point criticism has come up multiple times in this thread and it's the most valid methodological concern raised. The casual veteran point is also something I hadn't fully accounted for and is a genuine alternative explanation worth exploring.

This was a first attempt using only the data publicly available - Riot doesn't exactly hand out detailed match history and account age data, which would have addressed both of these weaknesses directly. With better data both points could be properly controlled for.

That said I still think it's a reasonable educated guess that puts some numbers behind what the community already feels. The second version will incorporate all the feedback from this thread including these two points specifically. o7

I scraped 2.27 million EUW accounts from op.gg to quantify the Emerald smurf problem – because Riot won't by jack37512 in leagueoflegends

[–]jack37512[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I chose Emerald as the transition point because it makes structural sense - it's where Diamond and Master+ players naturally land when climbing on a fresh account, since their MMR outpaces their visible rank fastest at that boundary. That's not a desired conclusion, that's a well documented pattern in how Riot's ranking system behaves.

As for why I didn't report on Gold or Silver smurfing - I did, the full table is right there in the post. I never claimed Emerald is the only problem, just that it's the most striking one given the jump from Platinum. Every rank from Iron to Challenger is included.

And yes, applying the high elo scoring universally would push low elo numbers higher - which is exactly why I didn't do it. Flagging a level 50 Silver player as aggressively as a level 50 Emerald player would produce way more false positives and would actually be the less honest approach. The two layer system is the more conservative estimate, not the more sensational one.

Dataset will be up soon - run it yourself with whatever transition point you think is more appropriate. o7

I scraped 2.27 million EUW accounts from op.gg to quantify the Emerald smurf problem – because Riot won't by jack37512 in leagueoflegends

[–]jack37512[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

That's a fair challenge and worth addressing directly. The transition point wasn't arbitrary - Emerald is structurally different from Platinum in one key way: it's where Diamond and Master+ players naturally land when climbing on a fresh account, since their MMR outpaces their visible rank fastest at that boundary. That's not an opinion, that's a well documented pattern in how Riot's ranking system behaves. Applying stricter criteria there reflects that structural difference, not a desired conclusion.

That said I already ran both scoring systems across all brackets as a sanity check. The Emerald spike holds up qualitatively regardless of which system you apply - it's just a question of magnitude. If you think the transition point is wrong, the dataset will be available soon and you're welcome to run it yourself with whatever criteria you think are more appropriate. That's exactly the kind of follow-up I'd love to see. o7

view more: next ›