: Guesses on how long before new champ gets a rework?
Riot employee no 1: How about this champion that has 5 different weapons and all his spells change with each weapon and he can hold 2 weapons at once? Riot employee no 2: Sure sure, but how do we avoid another Irelia/Akali fiasco? I don't like balancing at all mate. Riot employee no 1: What if I told you we don't even need to balance him? Bob here used to work with the TfT team, he will explain. Bob: i GoT tHRee LeTteRs foR yOu gENtS, r N G
CyberPhobic (EUNE)
: Ok so can we stop pretending Mordekaiser is fine?
IDK there are champs with bonkers winrates in other lanes (like ahri and nami in mid and support) and they are never addressed. Morde suffers from the one thing that SUPPOSEDLY riot wouldn't introduce to the game.. He is a fucking statcheck. He can never be balanced. Add to this the fact that 1300g makes him not able to ult you... Gj riot, really easily balancable champion.
HalexUwU (NA)
: Is it worth it to take summon arey on Nami?
Aery is the most popular choice for nami. Adds a shield to her E (and also passive I think) so she has better access to censer too. I think it's the clear winner. Edit: honourable mention to guardian, that can be useful in a handful of hard lanes
Kai Guy (NA)
: That game Match average was P1. Looking at each players Prior 5 you find them all to be inside 1 division above and below P1. OP had 2 Duos on his team and the Enemy had 1. Op's highest Rated Duo (Kah and Sion) had the worst win rate of any premade despite being the only "Diamond" player Premade. The other Team Does have a Diamond premade now but at the time of the game it looks like both Players on the enemy team Had been P1. MMR and the Win vs Op Was just 1 game in his promo series. So, you seem to have used the players current Ranks not the ones from when the match was made. Which looks like this when corrected. (D4,P2) P1 (P3, P1) vs D4 D4 D4 (P1 P1) Of which the enemy has D4 {{champion:238}} with last 7 games being plat Average. {{champion:64}} Being a Mix of D4 and P1. And {{champion:150}} Being a Bunch of P1 with some D4 games. Not really that shocking of a Range when you look at Match averages Thou the negative impact of Duoing does seem to be rearing its ugly head yet considering a match with 3 premades this was pretty ok far as quality goes. So... Looks like Demotion Protection given that all 4 Diamond Players in that game are playing at Plat MMR pretty frequently.
Well, when I was talking about the people's rank, I was checking MMR, number of games and current rank. I don't think the plat player that is now diamond and has 60% winrate in 200 games should be taken to be a "plat player". I don't think their last 2 games changed their MMR so drastically. I just think that simply by looking at those 10 players' winrates and number of games, you can easily tell that one team has the advantage over the other. But I do agree that duoing messes up the system VERY MUCH, and imo there should be a solo only queue so that games are more equal.
: They're still balanced, just not to the same degree. Normals MMR is generally more inaccurate to actual skill because more people who are more skilled (or who at least *think* of themselves as more skilled, or who just want to be better at the game) *tend* to spend more time in ranked than in norms. It has the same system, it's just less obvious and less effective.
I said they are not _designed_ to be balanced. If they were, ranked and normal would have the same MMR.
: All supports should be like Senna/Thresh.
Janna is already overperforming and you want to buff her? xD
: One sided games prove that the matchmaking is bad?
1st of all. Normal matches are not designed to be balanced games. So, you would need to add the word RANKED to your title.
Kai Guy (NA)
: There is a Massive demotion protection in place for Division 4. You can Consistently can find people in Match averages 2-3 Divisions lower then division 4. I am not a Fan of it but that's what's visably done by Riot because (my guess) folks often lose their shit when they drop down a rank. What was the non D4 player on Team A? I am curious if it was P4-P2 yea? > Edit: The D4 player in OP's team was also autofilled. You can't tell me this game was within the 49% 51% spectrum that riot says games are created. D4 D4 D4 D4 ? vs D4 P3 P2 P1 P1. Link me the game as Id like to look at it. Always happy to get more Data on how games are made.
It is the 2/2 vlad game OP was in. Check his opponent's and allys winrates and rank.
: Is All-Mid-Push the Fastest Way to Win in Intermediate Coop vs. AI?
I've won vs intermediate in less than 12 but I had picked ziggs with TP and sheen lost chapter kleptomancy just to get the win as fast as possible. I was bot lane
Theorex (NA)
: Tier 1 should be diamond 3 to challenger. Tier 2 should be plat 3 to diamond 3. Tier 3 should be gold 3 to plat 3. Tier 4 should be silver 3 to gold 3. Tier 5 should be Everything below silver 3. The tiers should be weighed by the average of all members of the team, since Riot did say that they were aiming to "not allow" smurfs.
Diamond 3 to challenger is worlds apart. Much much much MUCH worse than silver 3 to gold 3. Tier 1 should be masters GMs and challengers.
: > [{quoted}](name=option paralysis,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=96jMH2OG,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-12-09T21:50:17.409+0000) > > I guess you're right. I just don't see the point in having games with literally 0% of winning, and getting them 3 fucking times in a row. I would understand if they were spread out from large amount of games, but this shit is just bad matchmaking and it's like this for years. How is the matchmaking system supposed to know how people are going to perform in a given game?
Because in one of the games 1 team is full diamond except a 55% winrate plat 1 player, vs plat3 plat2 plat1 plat1 d4, all with worse winrates than enemies. I mean, the one diamond player had 60% winrate... And of course the losing team's only diamond was autofilled JG.
Kai Guy (NA)
: Not really a MM issue so much as most people have hella unrealistically high expectations. Like 3 in a row is common even at 50% odds and at uneven odds it becomes more likely to see a streak. You also have to make a trade 0ff in quality to run a 24/7 que of random and unpredictable population. I like numbers. Do you wish to see the math behind why I make these statements?
So, when the game matches 4 diamond players vs plat 2 plat 3 players, the system doesn't expect the 4 diamonds to win? It's bullshit that one game was 4xD4 + P1 vs D4 P3 P2 P1 P1. When one team's second highest rank is the other team's lowest rank... And it just so happens that all 3 diamonds stomp and the 2 plat3 and 2 players suck the most... Yeah I bet that plat 2 player with 1/8 is a real smurf...yeah 1400 games 49% winrate plat 2... Should really be in higher MMR matches than his rank. OBVIOUS SMURF Edit: The D4 player in OP's team was also autofilled. You can't tell me this game was within the 49% 51% spectrum that riot says games are created.
VvVVvV (NA)
: That would only be true if the evidence didnt show otherwise. The mere fact that in 3 games he had a total of 5 assists and 2 of those games he had 0 assists shows his play style. As a mid laner if you win your lane and do not roam to help spread your lead then you winning lane means nothing. if you see your other lanes falling behind and do not try to help them then you have no right to complain. Its a team game. i mean even his comment in the chat saying " 3 v 5 :) i dont help toxic players" shows that he was intentionally avoiding fights , avoiding fights protecting his kda. Just to come to the boards and complain "hey i did good, how am i supposed to win with team like this?" Yeah you padded your kda buy afk pushing/farming while your team fight out numbered because you intentionally chose not to help them.
You can't look only at assist number, you have to look at KP%. And this player's KP% isn't bad compared to the rest of his teammates.
: What Exactly is the Point of Diminishing Returns on Level Up?
It doesn't work like that. Every 25 levels it resets to the lowest XP required to level up.
: How Do You Feel ABout Passive Abilities ?
I mean, would you count kled W as a passive? There is skill expression there for example, I think it is a good passive, same as Vi.
Trias000 (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=PopcornBunni,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=eEvgHWUE,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-12-09T02:42:47.059+0000) > > Well other than him being a tank and thus being harder to get those takedowns with ? What? He hits like a truck. Besides, he can press R for a free assist.
"free" assist, as in "completely abandon lane at a moment that is almost guaranteed to mean 2 plates for enemy" ?
: > [{quoted}](name=Saezio,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=BptwW6aJ,comment-id=00000002000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T13:18:12.587+0000) > > THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UPVOTES. We are talking about why this post has UIPVOTES. NOT WHY/IF it's a good idea. Your entire response chain is off topic to my original answer IT LITERALLY HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT. >There are a lot of people out there that think every possible mode should exist, even if they aren't going to play any of them This is what i said and that obviously explains the upvotes. Read the damn comment...
> [{quoted}](name=GonahtanuGepardi,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=BptwW6aJ,comment-id=000000020000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T14:10:01.929+0000) > > IT LITERALLY HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT. > > This is what i said and that obviously explains the upvotes. Read the damn comment... LOL this entire time I am thinking you are talking about the upvotes being fake, while you are contradicting my saying of "it's a popular idea". No wonder the entire chain of our conversation made no sense to me. xD Have a nice day mate
: >And I am saying people could think that it is a good idea to have an 1v1 map, even if they intended to play the mode only 5-10 times. Which literally means it's not a good idea. There are a lot of people out there that think every possible mode should exist, even if they aren't going to play any of them, but they do not understand what that would mean. They do not understand the concept of queue health and the fact that unpopular modes are not worth the upkeep. Not to mention the amount of work needed to keep those modes balanced and playable, free of bugs etc.
> [{quoted}](name=GonahtanuGepardi,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=BptwW6aJ,comment-id=0000000200000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T12:49:06.821+0000) > > Which literally means it's not a good idea. There are a lot of people out there that think every possible mode should exist, even if they aren't going to play any of them, but they do not understand what that would mean. They do not understand the concept of queue health and the fact that unpopular modes are not worth the upkeep. Not to mention the amount of work needed to keep those modes balanced and playable, free of bugs etc. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UPVOTES. We are talking about why this post has UIPVOTES. NOT WHY/IF it's a good idea. Your entire response chain is off topic to my original answer
: Why Does Ludens Proc Spellshield?
They need to make it be. "The first spell that would deal more than X amount of damage is blocked" And maybe add a clause about if the spell damage is less than X but would kill, it is also blocked.
: S rank requirements need to scale with time
I think they do scale with time. CS requirements are not the same in a 20 min game and a 40 min game. I am pretty sure
: Sylas can steal Aphelios's different ults, depending on what weapon he's holding...
Sylas should always steal whatever the R button does for the enemy at the time of casting. So, for example with nida, if he steals her R while she is in cougar, Sylas gets human nida form on his R. Etc
: Probably because he takes the 'ult' form, not their base form. Nidalee always has human as base, so Sylas takes the ability to turn into a Cougar. Kayn meanwhile has his ult change based on which form, so Sylas takes whatever his current ult is; it wouldn't make sense for Kayn's ultimate to change to Rhaast's, and Sylas takes the base Kayn ultimate.
> [{quoted}](name=Lord Dusteon,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GlJzGtG1,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-12-06T20:23:07.559+0000) > > Nidalee always has human as base, That was a long time ago. Nida starts with both forms. So does jayce and elise. They are shapeshifters, they don't have ult form as you call it. They have 2 forms and no ult.
: Post Your Favorite Music To League To
eminem and joiner. Any playlist. Sometimes the worlds songs if I am feeling particularly hyphy
: > [{quoted}](name=Kairoptra,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=BptwW6aJ,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-12-06T01:50:47.959+0000) > > 29 upvotes in 29 minutes... > > Hm... Maybe if its 29 upvotes in 29 seconds you'd have a point Also we quite literally used to have this game mode on RGM. It was called "Showdown". Riot refused to ever give it to us ever again comparing its collective hours played to SR to declare it unpopular, even though people were using this for warmup in 1v1s before actually queueing up for SR. And SR is a much longer game mode by default. Even if you played the same number of games on both modes, you'd always have more SR games.
> Even if you played the same number of games on both modes, you'd always have more SR _time played_.
: > [{quoted}](name=Saezio,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=BptwW6aJ,comment-id=0000000200000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T13:04:18.827+0000) > > Wanting a mode to exist and actually playing it is 2 different things. I played the 1v1 mode like 5-10 times tops. But still I would like it to exist again. They aren't as different things as you think. For a mode to exist, it needs to have people that want to play it. Just wanting it to exist but not play it is not a reason to add it. And no one who doesn't want to play it wants it to exist. They might not care if the mode exists or not, but they don't actually WANT it to exist because they don't want to play it.
> [{quoted}](name=GonahtanuGepardi,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=BptwW6aJ,comment-id=00000002000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-07T00:38:20.154+0000) > > They aren't as different things as you think. For a mode to exist, it needs to have people that want to play it. Just wanting it to exist but not play it is not a reason to add it. And no one who doesn't want to play it wants it to exist. They might not care if the mode exists or not, but they don't actually WANT it to exist because they don't want to play it. But that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about the reason this post got so many upvotes. And I am saying people could think that it is a good idea to have an 1v1 map, even if they intended to play the mode only 5-10 times. I bet many people didn't even get to experience the old 1v1 map, so how do they know they like to play the mode? They just like the idea of having the option. Hence upvotes
Tomoe Gozen (EUNE)
: Why are Hesxtech Chests STILL tied to champions?
BTW if you want you can add me in eune for some arams and free chests ;)
Tomoe Gozen (EUNE)
: >I disagree because tying chests to champions means more diversity. Forced diversity is not diversity. It's the same exact thing you're complaining about Riot "forcing" champions in the meta, in order to be "pro play certifiable" and eliminate champions that can play it safe, like the gutting of Tahm Kench. I play a lot of ARAM too and the point is that the less champions i'm left with to earn chests on, the more impossible of a task that is to achieve because i get these 15 champions less and less and then i can't even get an S- in that random point in time i manage to get them. This in turn forces me to get 5 friends to play with because leeching a chest indirectly is a far easier task than me trying to play against a system that wasn't designed to level the playing field. So am i now forced to expand my champion pool to more than 57 champions, just so that i can get more chances at more chests? Well, fuck that since i'm getting my champions at a rate i'm comfortable with and champions i, at some point, wanted in my champion pool. Is 39% of my champion pool too low of a number of owned champions? I don't think so. If i'm forced to expand my roster for no justifiable reason, that's already a fault in the system. >although I would prefer if you could only earn like 1 chest per month from SOMEONE ELSE's grade Don't you dare go here. Just because you prefer playing solo, playing in a team shouldn't be punished. If you're more comfortable earning chests by yourself, that's your thing. What i want is Riot to level the playing field for every type of a player, not just a hard core solo enthusiast, who is also a completionist and plays all 145 champions at once and can slot in 70 games a day. That's an insane requirement and an unreasonable one to make. What i want is consistency out of the system. The number of chests you can earn doesn't change and neither does the timing. And you're still required to get an S- or higher to earn a Chest. There's absolutely no reason why earning a chest should be gated to 1 champion per season.
> I play a lot of ARAM too and the point is that the less champions i'm left with to earn chests on, the more impossible of a task that is to achieve because i get these 15 champions less and less and then i can't even get an S- in that random point... Why do you only own 57 champs tho? Buy them all and you have tons of options to earn a chest
Tomoe Gozen (EUNE)
: Why are Hesxtech Chests STILL tied to champions?
I disagree because tying chests to champions means more diversity. You are encouraged to try and get a good game on champs you aren't that comfortable on. It also encourages grouping. I like it, although I would prefer if you could only earn like 1 chest per month from SOMEONE ELSE's grade. And we get compensated with having 4 personal chests and 1 chest someone else can earn for us. I play a lot of aram and the one complaint I have is I can't know if I have a chest or not on a champ in champ select. I would like that to be visible. 45 chests so far this season and I have 1 available but it's getting difficult to remember all the 45 champs I have a chest already during champ select.
: Dodging in blind normals
Would be cool if the lobby just reset and waited for 1 person. But all champs would be unselected and it all be done from scratch. Cause it aint fair for the one that comes to fill to be put in the 1 role that is left
: > [{quoted}](name=Saezio,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=BptwW6aJ,comment-id=00000002,timestamp=2019-12-06T09:24:31.210+0000) > > It's obviously an idea many people agree with. I mean there are 115 people that voted yes And yet we know it isn't. It did exist at one point but no one played it so Riot hasn't brought it back since.
> [{quoted}](name=GonahtanuGepardi,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=BptwW6aJ,comment-id=000000020000,timestamp=2019-12-06T12:32:51.246+0000) > > And yet we know it isn't. It did exist at one point but no one played it so Riot hasn't brought it back since. Wanting a mode to exist and actually playing it is 2 different things. I played the 1v1 mode like 5-10 times tops. But still I would like it to exist again.
: Runes reforged offered practically nothing for tanks other than aftershock, and even that's tuned around damage.
Not only that, aftershock is not a tanky rune. It offers a very short window of tankiness. Tanks would much rather have a stacking resistance rune that rewards them for staying in combat. But ofc we are not meant to be tanky in 2019. Aftershock is only good for support tanks because inherently without income they won't last at all without it. But for full income tanks aftershock is only used because no better option exists
: > [{quoted}](name=Emperor Talquin,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=GEddtZPi,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-12-05T20:25:57.163+0000) > > None of resolves runes have crowd control. Unflinching ?
Crashyy (EUW)
: Resolve rune tree "Durability and crowd control", seems to do more damage than both of those traits
They need to put Glacial augment and Legend tenacity to the resolve tree. Prove me wrong
: Exceeding a certain number of Armor/MR as a tank
For starters. PERCENT PENE SHOULD APPLY AFTER FLAT. What kind of genius decided else i don't even know. And also, it should be % bonus resistances shred. Not total.Riot has introduced more and more ways to shred resistances and no new ways to be a tank. Remember when the only flat pene items were brutalizer haunting guise and sorc boots? I am not saying to go to that extreme, but do something to make resistances worth it. Maybe remove some of the diminishing returns on them?
: 29 upvotes in 29 minutes... Hm...
> [{quoted}](name=Kairoptra,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=BptwW6aJ,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-12-06T01:50:47.959+0000) > > 29 upvotes in 29 minutes... > > Hm... It's obviously an idea many people agree with. I mean there are 115 people that voted yes
: > [{quoted}](name=Saezio,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fVzaEjHP,comment-id=000400020000,timestamp=2019-12-05T14:41:25.643+0000) > > Not really, if the alternative is death/ Family death. The choice isn't fucking yours. You mean every North Korean person just CHOOSES to support Kim Jong Un? > > You are talking from a very privileged position of being raised in a 1st world country in the 21st century. What percentage of the planet can say the same do you think? 10% maybe. Let that sink in for a bit. What? We're not talking about being forced to fight in WWII, here. We're talking about scumbags saying racist shit to their teammates and getting away with it. There is absolutely nothing forcing them to act like that, and if there is, then I feel bad for the hundreds of Chinese players I see every week who DON'T throw out racial slurs like it's nothing, because apparently they're gonna be in big trouble. You're derailing, knock it off. You can't defend this behaviour so move on.
> [{quoted}](name=KhaZix Bot,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fVzaEjHP,comment-id=0004000200000002,timestamp=2019-12-06T08:52:23.788+0000) > > What? > > We're not talking about being forced to fight in WWII, here. We're talking about scumbags saying racist shit to their teammates and getting away with it. There is absolutely nothing forcing them to act like that, and if there is, then I feel bad for the hundreds of Chinese players I see every week who DON'T throw out racial slurs like it's nothing, because apparently they're gonna be in big trouble. > > You're derailing, knock it off. You can't defend this behaviour so move on. I am not defending this behaviour. My reply was specifically targeted at someone's reply. Not to the OP post itself. Obviously this behaviour is despicable.
Arammus (EUW)
: its not zero tolerance. its a stupid meme. according to "know your meme" its VERY close to saying "ok r3tard" its a very stupid meme. so far i only saw it used by the ppl that tend to be toxic idiots anyways. as with every meme give it 2-4 months and it will be dead/replaced
At first I thought it was just a funny way to spell bummer. But turns out it means Old person that doesn't like/is incapable of change.
: Would triple my queue time to guarantee I don't play with groups.
Riot for some reason are in love with duos. I don't get it. WE GOT FLEX NOW. It's not like season 1-2 when it was solo/duo 5-man premade. Let people play soloque. Pure soloque.
Rioter Comments
: > Tribunal would serve so a lot less cases reach riot eyes. The actual amount of inters compared to accused inters is very different imo. That...Doesn't make the idea any better, honestly. The fact that false-positive cases could be passed along for Riot to review and dismiss, while legitimate cases may be missed over and dismissed by imperceptive players leaves a pretty wide (and unacceptable) margin for failure. > You have to assign scores to the Tribunalists based on how good they judge and they lose their ability to judge if they get many wrong. This way people are discouraged from pressing punish like baboons. While that may functionally discourage people from poor use of the Tribunal, that presents two issues; 1) Any report that gets dismissed by the majority of players likely wouldn't count against them if they came to the wrong conclusion. They could dismiss a legitimate troll/intentional feeder and their score wouldn't go down, because the case wasn't sent to Riot to verify. 2) Even perceptive players can have a hard time determining intentional feeding/trolling, so what would happen if they make a series of verdicts which were ultimately found misjudged? Do they lose privileges, despite reviewing and voting honestly? > Sure it would need a lot of time from rioters at first... It would require a lot of time from Rioters in general. Like I said, it's impossible to staff a team dedicated to manually reviewing even just trolling/intentional feeding cases - they wouldn't be able to scratch the surface, and that's not improved any if the Tribunal filters out half of the millions of reports to look at. > Riot also needs to punish serial reporters imo. If someone has something like 50% invalid reports they lose their honour. cause let's face it, it's not really honourable to report like a maniac. If the IFS can determine whether a report is false or not, it really doesn't need to punish people who report zealously. Granted, it definitely isn't sportsmanlike behavior to report others over every little thing, but threatening punishment for false reports would make more than just the target portion of the playerbase unwilling to report others. 'Cause, let's be real - sometimes the line between low-key toxicity and acceptable behavior can get blurry, and I wouldn't want to risk my Honor if the IFS ultimately decided that my reports against a bunch of negative players were invalid. It'd result in people withholding their reports for all but the most egregious cases for fear of being punished themselves, and that's not a good thing to have for the system.
The ifs may be able to determine a chat related offence to be false. But it can't do shit to determine if a gameplay related offence report is false. So it's a way to make people stop reporting underperforming people as inters. Also, sure the line _can_ be blurry, but if 50% or higher of the reports a person sends is false, that's fucking huge, that means that person is reporting without real cause, if such a sensitive system as the IFS deems their reports invalid, it's a HUGE tell imo. About the tribunal and how to have honest and capable people use it while not the "jUStiCe Junkies". Include cases that are in fact "bait". It means, they are pretty obvious cases that riot has already passed judgement on and only serve to weed out the people that are incapable/ not taking it seriously. (of course riot would need to not have said that such cases exist)
: And I answered. Was my original response clear? No, could have been more specific. Which I build upon with my second comment.
So, in short, you think the current system doesn't need changes. Cause what you said was pretty much how the system is supposed to be operating atm.
: > We should let ifs deal with toxicity and have a tribunal like system deal with gameplay offences. Maybe have the last word be that of a rioter. Again, having players handle trolling/intentional feeding cases isn't even close to ideal. I can all but guarantee that were players set to determine whether or not someone was intentionally feeding or trolling, we'd doubtless have many more false-positive punishments, just because someone was playing off-meta or was underperforming. And if the Tribunal would have Riot oversight, where a Riot Employee passes the final verdict of the case...Why even have players review the cases in the first place? It's ultimately being passed through Riot to determine whether or not it _was_ trolling/int-feeding, so having players put in their two cents would ultimately be redundant and make it take much longer to review. And then, of course, there's the obvious issue of it being functionally impossible to have enough people handling reviews/overseeing Tribunal cases to so much as make a _dent_ in the amount of reports that go out. Bear in mind, we're talking about a playerbase numbering in the millions, with umpteen-million more matches being played daily, and doubtless a sizeable chunk of those matches involve someone reporting someone else.
Tribunal would serve so a lot less cases reach riot eyes. The actual amount of inters compared to accused inters is very different imo. You have to assign scores to the Tribunalists based on how good they judge and they lose their ability to judge if they get many wrong. This way people are discouraged from pressing punish like baboons. Sure it would need a lot of time from rioters at first but as the bad tribunalists start to be weeded out and only the good remain I believe it would be better with each passing day. (I am always talking only about gameplay offences) Riot also needs to punish serial reporters imo. If someone has something like 50% invalid reports they lose their honour. cause let's face it, it's not really honourable to report like a maniac.
: What should validate a permanent ban?
Step one: Require phone verification to have an account. So people think twice about losing their accounts. Step two: Highest punishment for toxic SPEECH is permanent CHAT BAN and permanent exclusion from VOICE CHAT Step three: Disregard people's reports if they are flagged as serial reporters. Something like 60%+ invalid reports lose you your honour. (obviously there would be 1-2 warnings at 40% 50% etc) to make it so people report responsibly to help the system have less of a work load. Also, people with less than 2 honour can't report at all. Step four: Extremely harsh punishments for gameplay related offences in ranked matches(seriously, int twice in 50 games and you get 14-days ban). Less severe in normal matches(you'd have to int twice in 20 games or 30). None in Coop vs AI. Step 5: AFK needs to be dealt with. So, for every time someone AFKs in PVP matches, they need to play 3 Coop vs AI without afking to queue pvp again, escalating(5 games of bots, 10 games of bots etc) for multiple offences in a small period of time(games not actual time).
: Breaking the rules set in place.
OP is asking what rules would YOU ENFORCE given the power. Unless you think current system is perfect.
Subdue (NA)
: Musing: What if Permaban players...
Just make us link account to mobile phone. Would help a lot. people wouldn't be so quick to get permabanned if they knew they had to spend money to get another account. Also helps with recovering accounts TREMENDOUSLY. I am seriously worried one day my account is gonna be hacked "on my end obviously" cause riot NEVER HAS SECURITY BREACHES, and I am gonna lose my account for no reason. Seriously why can't we link account to mobile? Even if it isn't mandatory just let us opt into that
zPOOPz (NA)
: I can count on my 1 hand the number of times I even have the need to report anyone the last 100 games I played. I don't see as much toxicity as people claimed in my games. It's kind of funny you chose to use the word "efficient" as the reason why Tribubal should come back. Did you know that "efficiency" was the EXACT reason why Tribunal was scrapped in the first place in favor of this new IFS? If Tribunal returns, you will see even MORE toxicity in your games because then less and less and less people will be punished and removed from the game than they are now.
But, we can keep ifs for toxicity and have tribunal for inters... Although I feel like it would still be too many reports to handle swiftly enough.
: Seriously, I am sure there would be enough players to do it without wanting the reward
No there wouldn't. Because people are pressing report for no fucking actual reason except them not understanding they can't win every game. Seriously, there are people that report someone in EVERY DEFEAT. Be it enemy or ally. There are people that report everyone that has a bad score. It's just too many reports, even if you let ifs deal with toxicity and only send gameplay relate offences to "tribunal", people are reporting too much for it to be effective.
: One of the biggest issues with the idea of bringing back the Tribunal to deal with trolls and intentional feeders is that players are sorely unreliable at discerning legitimate trolling/intentional feeding; people will eagerly vilify someone for simply underperforming, since they'd rather push blame on someone "intentionally" ruining their game rather than face the possibility that they might have been a factor in their own loss. To that end... > ...its rare to go more than 2 games without having these type of individuals in a game. I really doubt that you're dealing with trolls or intentional feeders nearly every other game. It's extremely unlikely that you'd legitimately run into trolls and the like _so_ frequently, and even if it were the case, one would think you would take a break and wait for another time to play. > How is "this" so called algorithm more efficient than tribunal? Well, let's start with the obvious. The Tribunal required players to function, and not many people actively cared to weigh in on Tribunal cases. Whereas the IFS doesn't need people to review and deliberate and vote on people's behavior - it just receives a report, reviews the behavior, and punishes accordingly. On top of that, not needing people to review the behavior means that the IFS is infinitely faster than the Tribunal could've ever hoped to be. The Tribunal was slow as all unholy hell (not helped in the least by the low player participation) and built up a massive backlog. The IFS works through far, far more cases than the Tribunal did and in much less time. And the Tribunal at one point had to be incentivized through Influence Point rewards for reaching a majority vote - and that panned out terribly, with people simply mass-voting to punish for the IP gains. The IFS avoids that inaccuracy and the need to be incentivized, because it's programmed to just work. > Should tribunal make a comeback? Frankly, no. The Tribunal was iceboxed for a reason, and it's an outdated, inefficient system. And in regards to trolling and intentionally feeding cases, I would much prefer an automated system that errs on the side of caution than a system that allows players to decide whether or not something is trolling/feeding. The system we have right now could certainly be much better at detecting trolling and intentionally feeding, but it's certainly better than what we'd have if we let players decide.
We should let ifs deal with toxicity and have a tribunal like system deal with gameplay offences. Maybe have the last word be that of a rioter. And the "tribunal" kinda only serves to filter out the false reports. But at least with tribunal, people were way more scared to int/troll/afk. And this is a fact, back in season 1-2-3 seeing a RQ was so fucking rare. And even flame was way less common (could be because people weren't so tired of the game though). This passive aggressive "I know best" attitude was hella uncommon back then. People were much more receptive to being told what to build/how to play etc
: > [{quoted}](name=FartNoisesS,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=eHGdgA3h,comment-id=009b,timestamp=2019-12-05T20:51:53.657+0000)Why would you penalize players for using curse words when there is an optional language filter active on default and it just empowers bullies to get away with harassment. Riot actually doesn't punish for cursing. You can say fuck as much as you fucking want to. Fuck. What you *can't* do is use slurs, misogynistic language, pejorative language, or use curses to insult others. * Shit! We fucking almost had that Baron steal. << **Fine**. * You're shit! You missed that Baron steal, you fuck! << **Not fine**.
> . You can say fuck as much as you fucking want to. *without entering "spam" territory. I mean, saying fuck 50 times in a game is punishable I believe
: > [{quoted}](name=Saezio,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=jEEhsmPX,comment-id=00050000,timestamp=2019-12-05T14:58:18.153+0000) > > that's korean pro teams. Do you have any source that indicates that's what the KR average joe likes too? Cause sure, EU has been the most successful in the last 2 worlds but that doesn't mean EU random players feel that this is a better meta for them I could easily flip that on you do you have any proof average koreans enjoy fast paced games? no? then we can only base it on what we know and we know korean pro's prefer slow paced games.
I didn't imply average koreans prefer fast paced games. I only said we don't have proof of that. >then we can only base it on what we know and we know korean pro's prefer slow paced games. Which means nothing when normal play is concerned imo. We just have no data on the matter.
Show more

Saezio

Level 255 (EUNE)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion