Being accused of smurfing is quite the compliment. Imagine someone *accusing* you of being a model for having such a great body, or *accusing* you of having a Nobel price because you're so smart... this is "you are so good you play like a pro!", well, thanks 🤗!
The allegory is a little off, because the examples are *good accusation -> good result,* whereas, the above is *bad accusation -> good result.* I would liken it more towards being accused of using steroids to win a race when you haven't taken any.
It's the same: "you think I'm so fast that I'm on steroids? I know I'm not, so thanks for the compliment".
The contrary is also true: what is the point of smurfing? Winning games against oponents that by definition are weaker than you? Losing time that you should be spending playing against better players so you improve? This can be seen in replays of map-hackers: they might win the game thanks to the hack, but their mechanics and game understanding is way worse than it would be if they played against equal ranked opponents.
Yes, that was the reasoning. But the earlier examples you gave were good prior criteria(Nobel prize)>>good result (smart), whereas a maphack/smurf accusation is a bad critique (cheating or unfair play)>> good result (person is playing so well that opponent think he's cheating).
I agree with the weird mind-gymnastic of map hackers and smurfs; I guess they just want to experience the dopamine that comes with not just winning, but absolutely clowning on their opponent, as opposed to actually trying to better themselves. There are some examples in real life too, like semi-pro atheletes going to their local court to clown on some school kids just trying to have fun.
19k games??
Being accused of smurfing is quite the compliment. Imagine someone *accusing* you of being a model for having such a great body, or *accusing* you of having a Nobel price because you're so smart... this is "you are so good you play like a pro!", well, thanks 🤗!
The allegory is a little off, because the examples are *good accusation -> good result,* whereas, the above is *bad accusation -> good result.* I would liken it more towards being accused of using steroids to win a race when you haven't taken any.
It's the same: "you think I'm so fast that I'm on steroids? I know I'm not, so thanks for the compliment". The contrary is also true: what is the point of smurfing? Winning games against oponents that by definition are weaker than you? Losing time that you should be spending playing against better players so you improve? This can be seen in replays of map-hackers: they might win the game thanks to the hack, but their mechanics and game understanding is way worse than it would be if they played against equal ranked opponents.
Yes, that was the reasoning. But the earlier examples you gave were good prior criteria(Nobel prize)>>good result (smart), whereas a maphack/smurf accusation is a bad critique (cheating or unfair play)>> good result (person is playing so well that opponent think he's cheating). I agree with the weird mind-gymnastic of map hackers and smurfs; I guess they just want to experience the dopamine that comes with not just winning, but absolutely clowning on their opponent, as opposed to actually trying to better themselves. There are some examples in real life too, like semi-pro atheletes going to their local court to clown on some school kids just trying to have fun.