: Assassins shouldn't be able to 1v2 all the time, but supports shouldn't be able to stop it from happening 100% of time either, especially not with just a point and click shield.
> [{quoted}](name=WhateverL0L,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=nE8AJolA,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2018-04-27T00:03:18.760+0000) > > Assassins shouldn't be able to 1v2 all the time, but supports shouldn't be able to stop it from happening 100% of time either, especially not with just a point and click shield. It's a 1v2. If you're on equal ground against a "traditional" support paired with an ADC you shouldn't be able to make that kill barring a significant outplay on your end. Considering the potential for an outplay in such a scenario is undoubtedly higher than 0%, I'd say your argument is null and void.
: riot during balance arguments
https://media.giphy.com/media/12vgWudU0KILu0/giphy.gif
: Can I get banned for dodging
Only if you dodge very excessively from what I hear. There was a time I dodged practically everything if I saw something that seemed like a bad sign in lobby _(whether it be composition, turbo cancer picks on the enemy team, trolls in lobby and etcetera)_, I probably dodged like half of all lobbies. Then I stopped, and that impatience is what caused me to tank elo from Platinum 1 repeatedly.
: Final Fantasy 9 was intentionally designed to be like Final Fantasy 1. The princess in the play was Princess Cornelia for crying out loud. The classes were designed like their FF1 counterparts(although much better designed). The ability system was actually my favorite. The sphere grid was pretty linear in FFX. It gave you an illusion of choices. In Final Fantasy 9 you always had more weapons than you did abilities at the time. You had to decide "Do I want to use this ability which is likely better but on a weaker weapon, or do I want the stronger weapon with a less useful ability?". I always chose to learn them in order of weakest weapon to strongest, but you always had a new weapon before you learned your abilities, unless you grinded. The game was well structured, and yeah, you kidnapped a princess, to SAVE her from her own mother who was corrupted. No other story used this scenario, and if you're comparing Bowser to Zidane, Bowser kidnapped Princess Toadstool because he was the bad guy. It's different, and if your argument of the story being bad is because it included a princess, there are millions of games that use this same concept and still are amazing games. As for comparing Final Fantasy 9 to Final Fantasy 10, you realize 9 came before 10 right? 9 is still better in my opinion, but it still came before 10. Kuja was actually one of the few interesting bad guys in the series. He's very poetic, and does his bad guy things in very inventive ways. Although, Kuja ISN'T the bad guy of the game. Have you even played through the game? Also Final Fantasy 8 had extreme flaws to it. Final Fantasy 9 was made most enjoyable for people who played the ORIGINAL Final Fantasy, but it is by far one of the best Final Fantasy games in it's history. Final Fantasy 7, while it did give you options, like the other games you mentioned, it had a serious flaw. None of the characters had much in the way of originality when it came to their playstyles. They could be made into whatever you wanted them to be, but that also meant they didn't have much in the way of uniqueness gameplay wise either, except through limit breaks, which were either rare or didn't change about their gameplay. Final Fantasy 9 was different in this aspect. It's probably why I prefer games with set classes over games where anyone can do anything you want. It just doesn't feel the same. It's like "Why would I want Barret over Vincent when they can both do whatever I want them to do outside of Limit Breaks?" As for learning all abilities, every game has it where by end game you learn all their abilities. You're not gonna have them all until end game, and there are some in which there's only one of the ability in the game for you to find. Also Chocobo Hot and Cold was the best thing ever.
> [{quoted}](name=Atrushan2,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=g2Wnux2E,comment-id=000a,timestamp=2018-04-25T07:27:20.244+0000) > > Also Chocobo Hot and Cold was the best thing ever. Until you grinded out the Robe of Lords in Disc One and realized it was totally not worth. Also: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6f/Xenogears_box.jpg/220px-Xenogears_box.jpg
Bodabott (NA)
: When are Teemo shrooms going to get compensation for the Oracles Buff?
Yeah any hope of playing Shroomo died with the Liandry's Torment random nerf outta nowhere. This, coupled with the completely unnecessary Teemo nerfs prior to that just screams some Rito employee got triggered. Yet another reason to stop playing this game. You could swear they have a dartboard in HQ they let the unpaid interns play on and decide what needs to be changed. If you're going to derive any sort of enjoyment from this game, guess you're gonna have to go meta as well as hope the trolls present in your game are on the enemy team.
Circuits (NA)
: Why is Kayne so strong?
You're probably attacking from the wrong side. You must hit Kanye from the East where he is weak.
: I don't understand how people like FF9....
Eh, to be fair the grinds are kinda dull in all the Final Fantasies, but FF8's was the best because it had so many ways to do it. Traditional grinding plays a small part in yielding levels and materials, but then of course you can draw magic, steal/mug materials which can be refined into more magic or abilities to junction, play a silly card game and turn those cards into materials to create stronger equipment/magic to junction... Hell, you can even be like me the first time I played through literally doing nothing but spamming Guardian Forces until Ultimecia's Castle where I subsequently lost the game. As for originality... Simpsons did it. Honestly though, I'd say the story was semi-original considering it was released like 20 years ago. Holy fuck I'm old. Character-style wise I didn't get it at first, but it grew on me. Come on, it's supposed to be a fantasy world, everything doesn't need to be realistic proportions just because the hardware can handle it now. Realism is actually the most boring thing to happen to video games and it's not happening because a differing style like FF9's is awful, it's happening because "real" is mainstream and this was reflected in the sales figures being lower. Though it didn't help much that the PS1 was on its last legs when it was released either.
: Trolls have over-run the game
Hahaha make no mistake, I'd rather have Trump than Clinton. I simply used him as an example because the haters for Trump tend to be quite vocal so I figured I'd use an example the bandwagoners can kinda relate to. Of course, there are other choices I would have made over both, but hey, I'm only one vote feelsbadman.
: Joke or not, there are people who legitimately dont seem to get it. whether ignorance or just an unwillingness to aknowledge anything
Well I mean, it's your choice to take accusations of intentionally feeding that way. People have all manner of forms of expression. To me, it'd be silly to force people to express themselves another way just because a small percentile of the population for some reason has a sour spot for being accused of inting. If anything I'd take it as a compliment, an acknowledgement that I can do better rather than just being outright bad at a video game of all things. Suppose accusing someone of intentionally feeding becomes punishable on the level of outright calling someone bad, guess what happens? People will probably just call you bad at a video game instead. So you see the problem with making relatively harmless expression punishable, yes?
: Damn those Mundo buffs...
Oh well that's nice, they're basically giving him scaling under the assumption the enemy team will have some reliable form of Grievous Wounds. Mages will be even more worthless against him than they already are considering Mundo is generally picked and itemized into them... Fantastic. Well done, Rito Games, you legit just took another indirect shit on Mages.
: Is this really okay?
She has what, one item? That's hilarious.
Chermorg (NA)
: 1. It's not prohibited to get stomped on and die. 2. Supports are not required to buy gold income items. 3. Nobody owns CS in game. 4. Nobody is required to purchase a warding item (although I'm pretty sure they're required to buy a trinket). If that's all you have, **it's not punishable because there's no rules against any of that**.
Yeah great, that's cool story bro. Time to change the rules. Maybe the regulators too. Because as it stands now, you basically condone hard trolling in your games and that is why League is dying.
: he is saying people will accuse others of inting while ignoring any and all context of the death. Mid lane enemy wanders top lane, Mid laner doesnt ping MIA at all. Enemy Mid laner joins the ambush with top and enemy jungle to kill top laner. Ally mid laner didnt ping a single MIA (enemy is missing) ping, but will still happily call "report Top for inting" So people are so eager to call anything and EVERYTHING inting they dont even care to know any context. at this point any death for any reason is now "Report for intentional feeding" But If top were to ask mid "where is the ping for MIA" Mid would likely respond with "Stfu and ward more, noob."
https://media.giphy.com/media/jXD7kFLwudbBC/giphy.gif
Chermorg (NA)
: There is no requirement support, or any lane, buy any particular items.
Yeah great, that's cool story bro. And way to completely miss the point. He stopped short of buying tears and coming out with a highly negative KDeh, shorted the rest of his team 5k+ gold through his itemization choices, CSing, costing his team countless vision and subsequent opportunities by refusing to play the role he was assigned **_(in this case it appears to be Support)_** which last I checked Rito Games supposedly does have a policy against. Kay. You're part of the problem. Gotcha.
: "you died to a gank from my laner because i dint ping mia?9x top for inting"
archerno1 (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=9 X,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9HlOXAMl,comment-id=000200000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-04-24T23:14:58.206+0000) > > Well I do know if you trigger a smoker, odds are they're gonna want a cigarette as their form of relief. > > Come on, Rito Games is a small indie company. That makes billions of dollars. Surely some sort of algorithm designed to entice people to spend money isn't too farfetched? > > Besides, when people hit their goals it generally feels good. I'd imagine it makes them more complacent, maybe even less likely to play so that limits the opportunity for them to buy skins. So when you get bad teammates your first impulse is to spend money and buy skin? You are just not making any sense. Give me ONE, JUST ONE sensible reason for Riot to meddle with matchmaking, especially in lower elos?
How does it not make sense? For some people it feels good to spend money, and it just so happens the game client has made it very easy to add Rito Points to your account. Smokers turn to cigarettes, sad people eat Haagen-Dazs, it's not that much of a long shot.
archerno1 (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=SparklingLama,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9HlOXAMl,comment-id=0002000000000000,timestamp=2018-04-24T22:56:16.941+0000) > > How do we know that? Just cause you say so or what? Common sense? Why would they do it? How would Riot benefit from it?
Well I do know if you trigger a smoker, odds are they're gonna want a cigarette as their form of relief. Come on, Rito Games is a small indie company. That makes billions of dollars. Surely some sort of algorithm designed to entice people to spend money isn't too farfetched? Besides, when people hit their goals it generally feels good. I'd imagine it makes them more complacent, maybe even less likely to play so that limits the opportunity for them to buy skins.
Kaioko (NA)
: Designing a skin is much easier than finding a way to automatically detect feeding/afk dodging. I mean instead of complaining about the problem why don't you design an actual implementable solution that Riot can then develop? All I ever see people is complain about an issue but they never offer a solution.
The solution is more likely to be found in assigning actual people to ensure everyone is given their just desserts. Yes, expensive considering the mess that is League now but that's the price for putting it off for so long. But the price improves with time. If you take care of actual problem players consistently and fairly, people will be less likely to do troll things, making more players happy and less likely to do troll things because they aren't expected to be a perfect gentleman in every single match in the face of constant adversity. The need for manpower decreases, improved mood means more skins actually bought, more recommendations for other fresh faces to play the game... **_Rito Games, do you remember what brought League of Legends to the dance in the first place?_** Hell, I don't get paid enough for this.
: >That's why I laid out a very specific situation, of which I'm positive any rational person in medium elo can agree is definitely in violation of the terms of use and our game experience. This, right here, is why players are not in charge of what is and is not inting. Smurfs happen, bad matchups happen, absolute fucking curbstomps happen even in high elo. You ever acknowledge the imperfection of this system: >that's intentional feeding or cheating (boosted) _**in most cases.**_ Most != All. Well sorry, I'm not willing to start banning innocent people just because they got a bad matchup. Better 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly punished.
Nah, the difficulty is there are a couple people on the boards who seem to confuse what's right and wrong with the rules Rito Games has set for a video game, when my objective is to change those rules for the better.
Chermorg (NA)
: Making poor choices and thinking you're doing better than you are are **NOT** against the terms of use, and they are **NOT** intentional feeding.
Yeah, next item when you've been soloed three times in two minutes isn't applicable here. His activity in that timespan would be pretty much limited by the respawn timer, walking back to lane and having his hitpoints depleted to zero. Three times. In two minutes.
: >The original poster and myself have noted the designated support refusing to play support in any fashion, outside of perhaps physically being in the lane during the laning phase. What you have described is "off meta play", not "intentionally losing". (Is there a rule somewhere that stipulates lane position? I don't think there is.) As I said, the game was quite close by every metric available. On top of that, it's a low ELO game. I think what *really* happened is OP got upset when they didn't get to decide how the game played out, started lashing out at the rest of his team, possibly sparking an argument between two of them, and meanwhile the other two players get left with 3 other toxic players. The stats and closeness of this game back me up. I've said all I intend to on this matter, you can have whatever last word you want.
I'm pretty sure when you look at the map for any given draft game, you'll see the position for "Support" is in the bottom lane. Playing Darius "Support" is "off meta". Playing Darius "Support without a support item", particularly early for a potential early snowball and subsequent power advantage early is also "off meta". Outright refusing to buy a Sightstone for the 40 minute duration of a game when you're Support? That's refusing to play your role. You'll notice in high elo play supports almost universally run wards, the reason is that vision wins games. The LeBlanc pooping off didn't matter due to the lack of an actual support, which greatly hindered her ability to do anything. Those 20 kills mean nothing if your fed carry or the other four players have to constantly face check objectives. This is why it is considered the standard even in low elos to run a support item if you are support. The prevalence of supports using support items in the majority of games in every elo back me up. By the way, last word.
: The Most Common Scenario That Makes League Suck, IMO
: That's funny, the only source that these players are "outright refusing to play their role" and "intentionally trying to lose" is the banned player trying to get his account back. Biased source, perhaps? Meanwhile, let's go look at the match in question: Yorick: 6/12/12 OP: 3/7/10 Karma: 20/5/5 Ezreal: 5/8/11 Darius: 5/5/10 Hell, the Team KDA is *quite* close: 39 / 37 / 48 for his losing team vs 37 / 39 / 38 for the winning team (yeah, his team had two more kills). His team took 7 enemy towers and a dragon. Tell me more about how this match was filled with feeders, please. Oh, it gets better. OP had the second worst KDA, second worst damage, and second worst gold. Perhaps this game could have been *won* if not for OP venting his spleen and trying to play LCS coach. It was pretty close. Perhaps he would have played better if he wasn't too busy flaming people. Things like communication breakdown *do* lose games.
Aha, found the KDA player. Who said anything about a match being filled with feeders? The original poster and myself have noted the designated support refusing to play support in any fashion, outside of perhaps physically being in the lane during the laning phase. Any progress his team may have made was in spite of the Darius, and their team may very well have won had the Darius actually bought a support item and tried to use it as that gold and vision would have surely meant the difference in a kill here or there and situations to capitalize on bigger objectives like barons and inhibitors. Refusing to play meta support is one thing, refusing to buy a support item on top? That defies even the minimum expectations of a support. He also took a ton of CS (which is denying non-support players of gold) and didn't build boots which are practically mandatory on every champion, but especially Darius due to the nature of his kit. He may or may not have been intentionally feeding, but was Darius trying to lose? Absolutely.
: >That's why I laid out a very specific situation, of which I'm positive any rational person in medium elo can agree is definitely in violation of the terms of use and our game experience. This, right here, is why players are not in charge of what is and is not inting. Smurfs happen, bad matchups happen, absolute fucking curbstomps happen even in high elo. You ever acknowledge the imperfection of this system: >that's intentional feeding or cheating (boosted) _**in most cases.**_ Most != All. Well sorry, I'm not willing to start banning innocent people just because they got a bad matchup. Better 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly punished.
Argument to Chermorg pretty much applies here. Sure, this may fly in Bronze or Silver elo, but Diamond? No, these people know better. They just wanted a game where they could shit on people in lane and they were denied, so they intentionally expedite the process of losing to try again in another match. Or you know, they get their jollies off this sort of thing. One of the two. Also, that last generic argument is pretty ironic considering that's actually the problem with League right now. 100 guilty men are free, one innocent is wrongly punished.
Chermorg (NA)
: Making poor choices and thinking you're doing better than you are are **NOT** against the terms of use, and they are **NOT** intentional feeding.
Yeah, that argument may certainly fly in Bronze or Silver elo. If you've made it to Diamond, then you should know that if you couldn't handle someone when they were on your level and items they're going to kill you even harder if you put yourself in that situation again. There is literally no excuse for the above scenario, and that is why I'm motioning for changes to the terms of use and/or how they're enforced.
: >Well let's not pretend he's talking to a wall either. Yup. He was talking to four other people who probably don't want to (and are not expected to) put up with someone flaming their performance all game. Let's say you're one of the other two unnamed summoners who got these people in their game. The two "trolls", and OP. Do you think it's fair to them that they have to listen to this slapfight? If it were my game (and they were actually _trolling_, rather than just not doing what the bossy player wanted), I'd have reported all three. The expectations are clear here. You are expected to mute trolls, rather than roll in the shit with them. Doing otherwise is just more trolling.
That's funny, I don't seem to recall the mute function having any effect on a player who outright refuses to play his role and is intentionally trying to lose the game for his team.
Chermorg (NA)
: No, it is not. You cannot equate simple numbers to obtain information as to someone's intent. This is why Riot is the ones punishing players, and the exact reason they wouldn't be able to use player report count as a justification - even if they wanted to do that.
You're absolutely right, you cannot equate simple numbers to obtain information as to someone's intent. That's why I laid out a very specific situation, of which I'm positive any rational person in medium elo can agree is definitely in violation of the terms of use and our game experience. Rito Games isn't punishing anyone of consequence. I actually just remembered that time I put in a support ticket for Tyler1 hard-inting, even declaring his intention in the chat log and sure enough one of his primary streaming accounts four months later is using that very exact name. No, I don't buy your bullshit. As an organization, Rito Games is legitimately doing nothing about toxicity.
: Okay. Let's say for a minute that that particular line was totally fine. Let's not pretend *all the other stuff* isn't in there either. "Autofill babys" - much constructive, so nontoxic, very teambuilding. Wow.
Well let's not pretend he's talking to a wall either. Odds are the people he was talking to were adding to the fire in their own way, and he simply turned out to be the prime target for online bullying both in-game and through a system that is supposed to discourage the behavior he was no doubt subjected to. From the looks of it, he had a Darius support that didn't even build a gold-generating item. Yes, the Darius thing is against the meta, that in itself doesn't matter much, but if he can't at least get a support item **_for the role he was apparently assigned_** that's throwing away thousands of gold and dozens of wards. Basically playing to lose and that Darius absolutely should have been banned before any consideration of action against the original poster. "Support" that's obviously refusing to play his role straight from the get-go? You can't build a team from nothing. That game was clearly a waste of time and I fully understand the original poster's frustration and grievance. Provided the story is accurate, Darius should have been permanently banned, the game result annulled and everyone else moves on. That would have been justice.
Ghazter (NA)
: What's the policy on draft pick lane pirates?
Yeah, you can report him with a support ticket. Will he be taken care of? Don't count on it. Most players have concluded such an action would be a complete waste of time, considering with how widespread the problem is you'll be spending more time reporting players than actually playing the game. Myself, I've put in plenty of tickets with egregious defenders. I even had Tyler1 hard int one of my games in high Platinum, complete with his declaration he was inting, I put in a support ticket and lo and behold when his ROFLMFAO LOL account goes public like four months later, well, it's not banned and it's one of his primary streaming accounts. **_Rito Games legit does not give a shit._**
: >yorickistosmall: fyi swain next time i dont follow i let u die alone on a play like that Threatening to not help. (Also explicitly called out on the support pages as something that's bannable) >yorickistosmall: im reporting riot can deal with autofill babys yorickistosmall: u didnt ur selected role so now u trolling us Insults and namecalling >yorickistosmall: im reporting riot can deal with autofill babys yorickistosmall: im reporting regardless of games outcome yorickistosmall: enjoy ur report darius Constantly fucking banging on about reports, when this serves to do nothing but harass others. ---- You got banned because your behavior is *way* out of line with the [summoner's code](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/game-info/get-started/summoners-code/) that you agreed to follow. The fact that you got a ban tells me that you were given two previous chances to change your behavior and have not.
He was communicating that he's not going to assist on a low percentage play, ergo making it clear any further actions Swain makes he's on his own because if he tries, he'll likely be caught out and killed himself. He provided constructive advice that his "strategy" simply isn't going to fly. Nothing wrong with this at all. Nah, he was banned because Rito Games' enforcement of the rules is lazy and inconsistent, legitimately all it does is keep a tally on the number of reports and ban if certain key phrases were involved. Just ask anyone who's been banned for simply asking why they were just called the _"n word"_ who had to put in a support ticket to get unbanned.
Chermorg (NA)
: You want someone to be punished just because they try to fight the enemy 3 times. That's not intentional feeding. It's making poor choices.
If a player is in Platinum+, and they've given up three solo kills in two minutes, that's intentional feeding or cheating (boosted) in most cases. Maybe not in Bronze or Silver, but in Diamond and Platinum there's little excuse for it, especially with the amount of players who outright declare they're intentionally feeding and/or don't give a shit and continue to ruin games long after they've been reported. It is a cesspool, they derive their amusement from ruining the game experience for others and Rito Games does nothing about it.
Chermorg (NA)
: Or you could, you know, **not** punish players for being bad at the game.
Chermorg (NA)
: Even humans can't determine intent without someone admitting it very easily. What you think is obvious is likely not so from a third person perspective.
If it seems obvious to the players witnessing it, odds are it is that clear cut. If people are being actioned for doing something silly like running up and getting solo killed three times in two minutes, smart money says it'll happen a lot less above Bronze elo. The mindset of having to play safer in Gold elo to avoid being banned isn't ideal, but it's still better than the current trend of having no consequences for your actions unless it's as flagrant as repeatedly diving someone under tower you have no hope of killing. Or you know, other questions would be boosted accounts which could be easily investigated through match history, and by the way, I haven't seen Rito Games do much about the clear offenders I've reported in this case either. A clear track record of picking a particular champion to lose? It's actually very easy, with actual people doing the looking.
Chermorg (NA)
: The problem is not that the system cannot detect it. It is that Riot has a high bar of proof for someone **intentionally** trolling before they will be punished. Riot does not want to just ban everyone and their mother because they *might* have been intentionally feeding. It must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the player was doing what they were doing to intentionally troll if they are to be punished.
Which is a big part of why actual people, not an automatic ban bot, would be involved to investigate such reports before action is taken. Clearly frivolous reports would be punishable under this model as well as they'd be depleting actual resources. Obviously players should be given a disclaimer in advance that they shouldn't take the action of reporting another player lightly.
Chermorg (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=9 X,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XnqYj1kg,comment-id=00000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-04-24T18:58:38.650+0000) > > Sorry Rito Games, I understand personal responsibility perfectly. > but then >if the enforcement were actually reasonable as well and we didn't have to suppress the instinct to defend our game experience from toxicity _EVERY_SINGLE_MATCH_. You say first you understand personal responsibility, you then say that you don't want to take personal responsibility for your instincts and actions.
> [{quoted}](name=Chermorg,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XnqYj1kg,comment-id=00000001000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-04-24T19:12:25.200+0000) > > but then > > You say first you understand personal responsibility, you then say that you don't want to take personal responsibility for your instincts and actions. Oh joy, looks like you kind of have a grasp of what I said there. You're exactly right. I understand personal responsibility and want nothing to do with it while Rito Games continues its completely irresponsible and inconsistent enforcement of the rules within its game. That's why I've largely stopped playing. I want to resume playing, but for that to happen Rito needs to step up their Games. Comprende?
Chermorg (NA)
: You literally said that you are blaming Riot for your unwillingness to suppress your instinct to "defend" your game experience (when in reality it's just flaming if you're getting punished for it - not defense). Yet, you earlier claim you understand personal responsibility perfectly. Where is the lie here? Given you're completely unwilling to accept that you're responsible for your "defense" (retaliation) here, not Riot, I can't really have this conversation with you - we'll just go in circles.
> [{quoted}](name=Chermorg,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XnqYj1kg,comment-id=000000010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-04-24T19:06:38.603+0000) > > You literally said that you are blaming Riot for your unwillingness to suppress your instinct to "defend" your game experience (when in reality it's just flaming if you're getting punished for it - not defense). > > Yet, you earlier claim you understand personal responsibility perfectly. Where is the lie here? > > Given you're completely unwilling to accept that you're responsible for your "defense" (retaliation) here, not Riot, I can't really have this conversation with you - we'll just go in circles. Did I? Do I look like the original poster to you? Do I look like I go out of my way to play League in the past couple months? Does it look like I'm banned? I understand there is an automatic ban bot that actions accounts based on player vote. So who in Rito Games is going to be held personally responsible for this travesty of justice? Did you have any more pretentious canned responses, Rito Games?
Chermorg (NA)
: Your inability to understand personal responsibility does not change the fact that the rest of society expects you to have it. There's only one instance in the legal system where "self defense" comes into play - and it's only when there's a **reasonable** belief your life is in danger (or in some limited circumstances your property). Someone feeding in a video game, someone being toxic in a video game, neither of those are "self defense" worthy, and that excuse doesn't fly in League.
Sorry Rito Games, I understand personal responsibility perfectly. So when are you going to take responsibility for the gross negligence of how you enforce player behavior? Because last I checked, when I step outside people aren't randomly beating one-another up on a whim, whereas player toxicity in any given game of League of Legends is expected. Where's your accountability? Maintaining a sort of "higher ground" might not be such a tall order to expect of everyone, if the enforcement were actually reasonable as well and we didn't have to suppress the instinct to defend our game experience from toxicity _EVERY_SINGLE_MATCH_. And that is why your game died 19% in a year. Think on that. You can pump out more skins to compensate, but if you have no players to buy them it's all moot.
Chermorg (NA)
: "the human condition". Unless someone's holding a gun to your head, you're responsible for your emotions and your actions. It doesn't matter "who started it" in the real world - only when you're in preschool *maybe*.
Aha, the usual canned response I'd expect from Rito Games itself, the authority on all that is right and good in the world. Why, if there were ever a multi-billion dollar corporation that had their hand in law enforcement I'm sure they would be everyone's number one choice. Anyway, last I checked if someone were to randomly punch me and I knocked his ass out, provided there were enough witnesses to corroborate my story I'd just go on with my merry day and he would go directly to jail.
: PSA: Why the tribunal is never coming back
Toxicity is a problem, and of course it's going to require a larger allocation of resources to combat seeing as it was allowed to grow as big as it has. The way I see it, the actual investment of human resources and subsequent results will create a snowball effect. If Rito Games actually punishes 95%+ of the evil-doers and the player base knows they're actually doing something, they'll be more inclined to be civil themselves. Maybe you know, actually happy to be playing the game League of Legends rather than "Whose Troll Is It Anyway?" The need for that human manpower dwindles as the number of actionable reports goes down and you can gradually cut back. Naturally there will be a point where you want to stop cutting back and instead maintain, which somewhere along the line someone higher up in Rito Games forgot and decided fuck it, activate automatic ban bot.
Chermorg (NA)
: Yes, the "automatic ban bot" that evaluates the players' chat logs based on **any** report (voting/number of reports is not a factor). False reports are thrown out completely.
And if I recall correctly, this "automatic ban bot" legit does not give two shits what else is going on in the game and completely neglects one of the most important aspects of all, the human condition. If someone feels they're being attacked, you bet your ass they're gonna wanna fight back. Suppressing that instinct just for the sake of a higher honor level or even playing this game at all just isn't worth it.
: You want to talk numbers? Okay. Let's talk numbers. 81 million monthly players. Let's say that every single one of those players only played a single game all month. Thats 81,000,000 individual games. (The real number is probably a lot higher) Let's make an extremely conservative estimate that 1% of those games generated some kind of report. Flaming, inting, whatever. That's 810,000 reports that have to be adjudicated. Let's split it and say that 80% of these reports are for flame, and 20% of these reports are for int. That's 648k flame, 162k int. The flame reports are easy - someone just has to read the chat history. Let's say it takes someone about a minute to clear a single report (reading the chat and clicking punish or not punish, kinda like the old tribunal) Int reports are a lot harder; someone needs to actually watch the replay of the game to make a decision on that. Just looking at KDA and build isn't enough, you have to actually watch how someone plays. Let's say these take about 10 minutes each. With these numbers, each month, Riot staff would be spending 10,800 hours handling flame reports, and 27,000 hours handling int reports. 37,800 hours each month. This doesn't scale. At all. ---- What you're missing is that the stuff people are getting punished for is **absolutely** against the rules they agreed to follow. The rule is that other people trolling (be that flame or int) doesn't give you license to troll - and there is simply no reason to have a human clicking this button when a computer can figure it out with a higher accuracy rate than an army of engineers doing each one by hand could ever manage.
Well sure, if you want to weigh the numbers in a fashion that favors your argument, and only look at the numbers, you certainly might have a point there. Hadn't you heard? All too often people aren't killed in the real world on a whim because it is very likely the killer will also lose his life. Definitely not the case with Rito Games. In fact, troll a certain way and you'll have ruined the game experience of hundreds of players before anything meaningful is done to your account, probably even getting a few other players actioned in the process. Here's a better argument for you. Let's say Rito Games actually does jack of all shit and its entire player base knows it. What do you think those numbers will say then? Of course it'll take a significant investment of resources to fix the problem, that's because Rito Games let it get so far out of hand in the first place. But once they start actually taking care of business, actually putting their own humans on the case and ensuring everyone is given their slice of justice pie, it becomes less of a problem and thus requires less resources to maintain. Then we can actually play League of Legends, rather than this sick slot machine of a game where the main determining factor is which trolls were placed on which team.
Chermorg (NA)
: There is a way, but it involves you not being validly reported in games anymore. If you don't fully change your behavior for the better, you won't regain honor.
I'm pretty the validity of reports isn't a factor in the equation. In other words, if you want honor, might as well make another account and try not to trigger anyone. A highly flawed system put in place so Rito Games can pretend they're actually doing anything to combat player toxicity when they're depending on the very same mechanic that doesn't fix the problem. A player vote and an automatic ban bot.
qViolet (NA)
: Playing with players who have vastly different honor ratings
It's a nice thought, except of course Rito Games has entrusted the player base itself to determine who is "honorable" and who isn't, which usually translates to who pops off more and makes a good impression rather than who is actually "honorable". Like the guy who is just fine being carried and plays his role.
: On the contrary. In the vast majority of cases, it absolutely *is* justified. People just don't think that calling their teammates names or yelling at them or arguing all game is considered against the rules, when it is, and they'd have known that if they read the [summoner's code](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/game-info/get-started/summoners-code/). And being "singled out" is a misnomer - they are being punished exclusively for what they put in the chatbox. This system is really quite simple. Don't flame and you won't get punished for flaming.
Rito Games may say it is so because they'd rather count on the player base of all people and an automated ban bot to do the work for them because they'd rather not commit actual resources to combat actual toxicity, but that doesn't make it so. They are punished by vote and Rito Games' gross negligence, refusing to own the most prominent problem with their game and attempting to compensate by selling more skins. This game is dead within five years.
: I feel like people constantly suggest indefinite chat restrictions without looking into whether or not Riot has previously tried it. Riot has stated they've tried indefinite chat restrictions and they said based on their experience with those players, their toxic behavior became worse and exacerbated the problem rather than solving it because they'd flame and harass to the most extreme with the few messages they were allowed.
Yeah I'm not going to trust the account of a company that relies on player vote and an automated ban bot to pretend like they're actually doing anything worthwhile to combat malcontents, like at all. Not when the game experience is highly indicative they have done nothing worthwhile to combat malcontents, like at all.
Jamaree (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=9 X,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=HALtvP5a,comment-id=00000001,timestamp=2018-04-24T17:26:00.775+0000) > > Now if we could just lose "people" like you, all would be right in the world. > > This sort of overzealous hypocritical garbage is part of why the game has become so bad. There is reason behind his actions, you, you're just being a dick and pouring gasoline on the fire. *shrug*
{{sticker:zombie-brand-clap}}
Arammus (EUW)
: seems like you didnt read the comments on your last thread. people told you that the actions of others dont excuse your actions. just mute and report AND MOVE ON. they also told you that after a 14 day ban, the next tier is a permaban which will be given to you FOR THE SLIGHTEST misbehavior. maybe, if you create a new account, you learned now.
Oh, but in the real world the actions of others definitely play a part. Why defend a practice and a system that has made the game so much worse than even a couple years ago? My guess is you're actually kissing Rito's ass hoping for a job. I don't doubt your odds are better than mine, that's just how the world works.
: [~81M monthly players at the end of 2017](https://www.unrankedsmurfs.com/blog/players-2017), which is hardly "dyring". Down from an estimated ~100M at the end of 2016, but still quite healthy. And frankly speaking, I don't trust most of the player base to accurately describe inting.
A 19% loss in a year? That's dying. Some people with certain cancers can survive longer than that rate. Yeah, you said it yourself. You don't trust most of the player base to accurately describe inting, so why is the system in place almost entirely dependent on a vote system from a player base and a worthless bot? This is why you have actual people review these cases, punishing offenders as well as people who submit clearly frivolous reports for wasting their time.
: >when your company budget for taking care of actually problematic players is zero Oh, so that's why people whine on this board about being banned every single day... (and this is just for NA).
Yep, they complain about being banned because in many cases it's not only not justified, but they're being singled out when there are more egregious offenses committed by others in the very same game. You know, the sort of thing that happens when you rely on what is essentially a player vote and a poorly programmed bot to do the work for you. "People" might be fine with a vote, but I'm sure everyone can appreciate the reminder "people" made Trump President.
: >I think I've heard enough of the "IT'S ALOT HARDER TO DETECT FEEDERS" excuse from riot and Riot's Cult of mindless supporters.. It's not an excuse, it's an absolute fact.
Well yes, when your company budget for taking care of actually problematic players is next to zero, and much like any other big company infested by workers who are invited for their social ties rather than competence they tend to find excuses or other ways to compensate for losses like selling more skins, sure it's "absolute fact". Except Rito Games definitely have the resources to commit to such an idea, so no, not really.
Show more

9 X

Level 61 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion