Smurfing Thought Experiment

Since smurfing is now the latest hot topic these days, it’s led me to think about what exactly defines smurfing and the ethics behind it, what about it makes it so unfair or not, and if it is so bad, then why is it actually bad? And honestly, I think it led to some pretty interesting conclusions that I didn’t really expect. So if you’d like, come with me as I share my musings.

So first of all, what is smurfing, specifically? I think actual definitions are pretty vague and don’t really hold up to real scrutiny. Most people’s definition would be something like “a player who makes an alternate account to play against lower rank players” or something like that. Issue is, that still leaves a lot of room for ambiguity that I don’t think people realize.

In any case though, let’s establish some background for our hypothetical thought experiment before I take you down my mind journey. Let’s say you and your friends used to play Overwatch all the time, climbed to Masters in OW and it was all great. You guys then get interested in Marvel Rivals and give it a shot.

First you solo queue to GM or Celestial and then those friends start the game after you and want to climb ranked with you like you guys did in OW. So you make an alt account, stomp through bronze-diamond with them and eventually reach GM together. Is that considered smurfing? I think most would say yes. That is pretty by-the-book definition smurfing, I think.

So then alternatively, for a similar situation, let’s say you start the game with those same friends, but this time you all start playing at the same time and all queue for comp together as a trio and hit GM together. Are you still "smurfing" when you play ranked together and stomp your way up from Bronze through Diamond from your prior experience with hero shooters and OW before hitting GM in this game? 

I think most people would say no, but then technically, what is the difference? You guys are still clearly GM players better than those around you playing in bronze, silver, gold, etc lobbies. Is that not smurfing? Is it because you’re on a main and don’t have an alt? But that’s a bit arbitrary isn’t it?

If the issue is that it’s so unfair for others to have to fight GM-level players in bronze, silver, etc, then why is it okay to have them be there in the first place? How is you climbing the ranks with your 2 friends from OW on an alt any different than your 2 friends starting the game with you fresh, or your 2 friends starting competitive Rivals with a 3rd Masters OW friend? Should you and your friends just never play comp at all because it would be unfair having you fight bronze players period? 

But that's silly of course, that's just where the game puts you. You're just climbing as intended. That would be ridiculous. It just can’t be helped that it’s just the way the game’s ranked system works. But if that’s true, then thinking about it objectively, what about that situation is different that makes the second scenario okay but not the first? The end result is the same; it’s 3 GM players stomping their way up to the top through the lower ranks. There are always new players significantly better than others starting the game at any point in time, and if Rivals matchmaking decides it’s okay to have them be fighting bronze newbies regardless, how is you being one of them any different? 

For a lot of people, I guess the answer would be the existence of the alt account. That makes some level of intuitive sense, after all you don’t you don’t need to have an alt. So then I guess you could argue the key thing that makes playing on a smurf bad is the existence of the smurf account, right? So we can just go "okay, alt accounts bad.” Evil! Banned! Case closed, slam the judge's gavel? Well, setting aside the fact that alts are still the only real way to get real practice in new roles without throwing, what if I told you that you can still smurf in unbalanced lobbies without ever needing a second account at all? Let's look at another example:

Let's say you and your friends are in a trio or 6 stack or whatever and only play comp with each other. You think you're probably better at the game than your friends, but who knows or really cares, ya know? You just play the game to have fun with friends, and you all hit plat together.

Then let's say you end up getting laid off from your job or something and have some time on your hands. So you figure hey, why not see how far I can get solo queueing? So you leave your main account as the group one that queues with friends, but make an alt account for your little solo queue journey. You then play the same heroes the same way you would normally do, just solo, and then you hit GM.

For now, ignore the alt account, it's not important. Call it a smurf, whatever, you were a plat player on your main, now playing in bronze, silver, gold lobbies, sure, I don’t care. More interestingly and more importantly, are you now "smurfing" on your main account after hitting GM on your alt? After all, you discovered you're actually a GM player yet playing in a plat lobby with your friends now. If you tried to join your friends on your alt, you wouldn't be able to queue together, but yet you can on your main. Is that not smurfing?

Now even more interestingly, what if you hadn't made that alt account? After all, we established alt accounts are supposedly inherently evil and reprehensible and should be banned, right? So what happens here? What if you only ever played with your friends, and didn't ever make that alt that got GM? Now, you still only have the one main account, but hm, interesting. You're still actually a GM-level player decimating a plat lobby with your friends. Is that not smurfing? You’re a high rank player, playing in a lower rank lobby that the game would not normally allow.

It's not like your fundamental skill as a player dramatically shifted. You're still the same player as before. Does that make it okay now, because you only have the one main account? Is that really the defining distinction for what constitutes a smurf? Or is it still unfair? Is it only unfair if you "know" that you’re a smurf, and otherwise fair for you to play with others outside of your skill bracket? After all, objectively, the situation is unchanged; you're still the same skill player queuing in a lobby outside of what rank/skill bracket usually allowed. Is that not smurfing?

Even more interestingly, where does that leave us now from an ethical or moral standpoint? Are you somehow morally obligated to grind competitive solo queue away from your friends when you can't play together to make it "fair" to other people? Even if the game allows you to queue with your friends, are you ethically forbidden to play the game with the ones that you think are worse than you? After all, as we’ve established, if you don't do that, then it leads to unbalanced unfair matches doesn’t it? Is that not what smurfing is, or what makes smurfing bad? 

But then also, what if you can't prove it? What if you just think you're better than your friends, but actually that’s copium and you’re all just mid? And how much better do you need to be? What's the acceptable threshold and how do you measure that? Not with an alt apparently, cuz those are bad. Should you just not play with your friends at all then? Ban group queueing and allow solo only? It all just gets kind of ridiculous. So then where does that leave us exactly?

Frankly, I don’t really know. I just thought it was interesting that alts don’t necessarily equate to smurfs, smurfing doesn’t even require an alt, how arbitrary Marvel Rivals is in what it allows and considers for “fair matchmaking”, how arbitrary it is on what people consider smurfing or not, and how just playing in a group makes the whole thing wack, and how just playing the game regularly naturally results in “smurfing” in low rank lobbies just cuz how the ranked system works.