The question is unclear. Could you clarify what you mean by "which are worse?" and the context?
The question is unclear. Could you clarify what you mean by "which are worse?" and the context?
I was wondering what you think is worse or more disliked: Smurfs Hackers or Boosters. Not high ranks playing with low ranks. I prefer boosters because usually it's a smurf or hacker boosting others, and it affects more players negatively. In the game, boosted opponents lose ELO, and the person being boosted often struggles in their higher rank, leading to team losses and ELO drops for those who might have otherwise won with better teammates.
Smurfs. Since hackers get blocked and boosters often fall short, they just manage to boast.
I get why "smurfs" get frustrated, but after years of playing CS, the game feels pretty consistent. It doesn’t seem like the changes are really affecting the experience. He’s just naturally stronger than me. The only real issue is when someone deliberately joins low-rank servers to trash them. That’s something I’ve seen often. Still, it’s not about altering the game itself—it’s just a big gap in skill levels. My support goes to the hackers. I don’t care about boosters at all.