Rioter Comments
Mr Elessar (EUNE)
: Riot Games Threatens Fines For Teams Playing Against Their All-Female League of Legends Team
So, when I initially saw the 52-2 "drawn out" game, my assumption was that it was a 45-50 minute game or something that should have ended at 25-30 minutes. The game was only 31 minutes. Now, with a score that one sided, they may have drug it out a bit, but I think it's hard to make the case that they drug a game out too long when the game time is pretty close to the world average.
: Theory
I like where you're going with this. The only thing G2 needed to succeed this entire time was to offload their trash bot lane to TSM.
Bazerka (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Burklight,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=MkNAelF2,comment-id=000100030000000300000005,timestamp=2018-07-11T15:51:12.064+0000) > > This idea that winning isn't the point isn't going go over very well for ranked as long as you're only awarding MMR and LP to the winning team. If Riot's stance is that winning isn't everything, start awarding MMR and LP for individual play, even on a losing team. > > Also, one thing I constantly hear Rioters say is "everyone has a bad game sometimes and we don't want to punish someone for having a bad game." What about the other 4 people who have to play with the feeder? I'd much prefer punish the one person for feeding than allow that one person to cause 4 other people to consistently lose. Unless of course you're going to fall back to "winning isn't everything" again. In which case, see above. I totally hear you and understand the frustration. However, I'd encourage you to ask yourself the question "where do you draw the line to prevent banning bad players?". "Feeder" is a pretty broad term that definitely encompasses players who do intentionally try to ruin the game for others, but I'd hazard a guess is more widely used to insult players who are just outclassed or not as good at the game (I've definitely been called a feeder before, but in those games I've just been outclasses. Never tried to feed on purpose). I 100% disagree with a move that pushes to permanently ban underperforming players just to satisfy the temporary anger of higher performing players in a game. I bring up this example because, from a data standpoint, "true feeders" and "underperforming players" are indistinguishable from each other (as far as I know) using current data. CS, kills, deaths, map movements, reports (which are faulty and subject to bias & frustration), even historical win / loss would look similar for both parties. So rather than taking extreme punitive action to ensure the small % of "true feeders" are banned by carpet bombing all of these cases, we choose to take a "long horizon" approach where time can work its magic and allow report patterns to arise. The downside is that swift and righteous judgement on "true feeders" isn't as much of a possibility because the system trends toward forgiving rather than unyielding. Hope that makes sense o.o
I didn't suggest banning anyone, permanently or not. I'm just suggesting that what's being done right now, which is nothing, is not the right way to go if you want league to be a competitive game. How about this instead. If someone has 7/10 games where they're "under preforming," make them play 5 normal match made games before letting them que up for ranked again. The tone should be set that if you're going to que up for ranked, it's because you're a try hard who wants to win. Not goof off because "it's just a game and I shouldn't have to take this seriously." I honestly think this is the reason why all other major reasons think NA solo que is a joke. I understand that all regions have their problems, and other regions are significantly more toxic than NA, but that's a symptom of an ultra competitive environment that doesn't think losing is acceptable. We here in NA have designed solo que to basically reward trolling and not taking it seriously, because anyone who actually does take it seriously doesn't have a que where they can go.
: We need to boycott LCS and pro play so that Riot actually balances the game around everyday players
As someone who very regularly watches the LCS, it doesn't look like Riot prioritized balance for anything.
Bazerka (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=SoundChaosDebug,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=MkNAelF2,comment-id=0001000300000003,timestamp=2018-06-21T00:40:48.289+0000) > > Doesn't matter how many times you tell people to eat shit and grin, there will always be happy to shovel the shit into the grinning mouth knowing neither of them will win. > > Is being "happy" all that riot cares about now, and not winning at all? Despite every game change and mechanic change being around pro play? > > Why did cloud9 and skt both bench their a team instead of telling them to eat shit and grin??? For me, thats correct: Winning at League isn't the point. I play to express and build community, and winning is a marker of that but only a marker. Its kinda like how money is a sign of success, but not success itself. So yea creating an environment where players enjoy themselves and have fun is kinda the point. A great example is Fortnite and PUBG. Both games you enter fully realizing that you have (in an even field) a 1% chance to win, so the goal is to have fun and enjoy the ride with the rewards coming in other formats. I personally love that intent, cause it means that the game isn't zero sum. You don't derive joy purely from the misfortune of others :).
This idea that winning isn't the point isn't going go over very well for ranked as long as you're only awarding MMR and LP to the winning team. If Riot's stance is that winning isn't everything, start awarding MMR and LP for individual play, even on a losing team. Also, one thing I constantly hear Rioters say is "everyone has a bad game sometimes and we don't want to punish someone for having a bad game." What about the other 4 people who have to play with the feeder? I'd much prefer punish the one person for feeding than allow that one person to cause 4 other people to consistently lose. Unless of course you're going to fall back to "winning isn't everything" again. In which case, see above.
: Why Safe League Players Will Never Climb and Why Feeders Determine 94% of Games
Hate to break it to ya, but RIOT isn't going to respond to this, as this is "working as intended." I've been making cases to rioters for the past year or so saying that if you heavily feed, and are 90% of the reason your team lost, you should lose 90% of the lp your team loses and not 20%. The only time I got a response to this, it was told the usual "everyone has bad games and we don't want to punish people for having a bad game" bs. But it's ok to punish people who played well but had their games ruined by feeders. That's when you need to learn to be a better team mate and suck it up. Because if you were better, you'd be able to climb. I don't think you're going to find anyone who doesn't work at riot tell you this isn't a problem, tho.
TrulyBland (EUNE)
: The important difference here is that this guy did not intend to be insulting, whereas the OP here admitted to using the phrase intentionally **because** it could be considered insulting by his teammates. He very actively tried to be "misconstrued".
I'm not saying what he did was ok or not ok. It should come down to whether or not the action is punishable, and not mind reading intent. If it's deemed globally offensive and toxic, it should be ban worthy in both cases. If it isn't toxic or ban worthy, neither should be banned. If you follow this logic, someone trying to be offensive and saying things that "should" be globally offensive, but if no one's bothered by it, that player wasn't breaking any rules even tho they were trying to be insulting. Should that be ok? The standard needs to be what action was taken, not the actor's intent, or whether or not they offended anyone.
: > I really wasn't trying to piss anyone off. Yes you were, and they told you so in chat. You seem to think you are making a stand. All you were doing is pissing your team off, and are pretending that you took the high ground.
Are you going to go back and reverse the decision you made 5 days ago that, to someone from the outside looking in, was pretty much the same case as this? If the only difference is whether or not his team was annoyed with him, that seems like pretty shaky ground to start banning people on. it was here, if you forgot: https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/3zQ7hXi0-a-cautionary-tale-unjust-suspension-by-the-automated-disciplinary-system
Dessem (EUW)
: I think one of the major deciding factors could actually be that the previous thread, he never meant to trigger automated ban. This one, the OP already reveals he "knew" it would get him banned, but out of "civil disobedience" used a particular phrasing that triggers zero tolerance responses anyway. There's a difference between accidentally triggering a mechanic and intentionally doing so.
It shouldn't matter if it was an accident or not. In the context that he said this in, "kys" should be perfectly fine. Bans "should" be issued to unacceptable behavior. If it's banning people like this who are (at least from the logs posted) not obviously toxic, that shows a systemic problem with the system, no? Unless you want to get into the territory of "We know what you did should be fine, but you knew you'd get banned. So we're banning you anyway for doing something that we know isn't bad, just to avoid fixing the problem." I just wish we had some consistency from Tantram.
Kei143 (NA)
: That probably would depend on history and whether there is a malicious intent by saying such.
I don't read any malicious intent in either. In the context of an ARAM game, you're suppose to die so you can buy better items. The OP in this topic didn't explicitly say that, but..... "SnakDatSmilesBak: kys = kill youreself SnakDatSmilesBak: which u should be doing in this mode" To me, that says indicates that he's probably in an ARAM, and for sure no malicious intent. If you click the link and read the other post you'll see what I mean, and you'll see Tantram do a 180 on Riot's policy in the span of 4 days.
: You were knowingly using kys. You knew what the result would be. Your teammates also asked you to stop saying it, and you didn't. It was a game to you. Seems like a fair ban to me.
@Tantram Why is this guy saying "kys" in what looks to be an ARAM game a just ban, but the other guy who made a thread that looked identical to this one but gave more context in the OP unfairly banned? I think one of the main reasons that people don't trust your banning system is the total lack of consistency. https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/3zQ7hXi0-a-cautionary-tale-unjust-suspension-by-the-automated-disciplinary-system
: C9 plays very clean overall, and does not often make mistakes. That requires exceptional play. However they rely too much on the opponent throwing the game for them, then actually making plays themselves. When it comes down to it, they often play very safe, for the late game, hoping for the opponent to make a mistake. Meanwhile a lot of other teams still try to be pro-active and make plays, even from behind. Is it an unfair strategy? No. Is C9 a bad team? No. But it is incredibly frustrating to watch, because it creates a situation of: C9 didn't win because they were good. They won because the opponent wasn't good enough. I don't think a team should be able to win the early game to be considered good. But they should be proactive, and not rely on the opponent throwing the game, to be considered a good team.
This has been my main complaint about C9 for the past year or so as well. I can totally understand playing super defensive and taking no risks when you're down 5k gold with 3 inhibs down. BUT when you have elder, baron, all inhibs up, and are trying to seige the enemy team's base, as a viewer, I'm thinking "You wont have a better chance to end the game than right now," but then C9 says "We have an ok chance to end the game now....we think they'll screw up and give us a better chance than this so we're going to back off." That shit might work against teams like Lyon, but if they think it's going to get them very far vs EDG and SKT, they probably wont make it out of groups.
TrulyBland (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Burklight,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=rIOgTf8s,comment-id=000100000000000500000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-09-23T00:22:37.284+0000) > > because Riot is actively banning people with a system they refuse to be transparent about You've made clear that you don't trust Riot... So how exactly do you achieve transparency from that position, when the only people who can give you the information you want is Riot? >Remember how Dynamic que was the future because everyone wanted it the most? I still remember back when that was the truth. Never saw information that was more reliable than Riot's word that would suggest otherwise; keep in mind a vast majority of players doesn't actively contribute on the forums. That's the problem: Your distrust in Riot is primarily founded in your distrust in Riot.
My distrust in Riot is Riot's history of telling me what I want and being wrong more often than not. My distrust for their ban system is 100% based on Tantram's kangaroo court filled with social justice mob members.
TrulyBland (EUNE)
: >How do you know they don't use it for anything after a review is triggered? Why would it be? A review is a review. It has literally nothing to do with the amount of reports. The only thing reports previously did do was increase the chance of being reviewed by Tribunal. Speaking of the old system: Why would they have removed report weight (which they have stated **very** explicitly) if they still relied on the number of reports in a single game? >They just say "it only takes one report to trigger a review" and then don't say anything about how the actual review works. They haven't explained it in detail, but the bottom line is that they have their machine learning algorithm scan for negative phrases of varying severity. The severity being determined by the frequency of reports for people using such phrases in the big picture. >You don't make things more complicated than they need to be unless you plan on using the complexity. And I've explained to you how that complexity **is** used. If I include the paragraph above, I did it twice. >no way they'd track the number of reports unless they're using it. Actually yes. If you believe a statistic may be relevant in the future (which isn't too far fetched for this sort of thing) it absolutely makes sense to track it even if it's not currently used by the program code itself. We're talking about their player behaviour department here, which has literally **only** data as a metric to judge their system. For example the average number of reports per game is an important is pretty much the only metric they have for how much toxicity people perceive. But hey, you already made up your mind. The only information we have, and the only information we will ever **get** on the system is by Riot. And you've made very clear that you don't trust them. You've also made clear that you will resort to ad hominems when people do trust them. Discussing Riot's system with you is like discussing future Mars missions with somebody who doesn't trust NASA's information no Mars and who will call people NASA fanboys whenever they cite them as a source.
It's a lot closer to someone telling me the NSA should be trusted because they never spy on citizens and are only here to protect us. You know, because Riot is actively banning people with a system they refuse to be transparent about, and whenever said system is questions, people like you come out of the woodwork and tell me I have to be wrong because the people we're suppose to trust to not wrongfully ban us are totally trustworthy. Remember how Dynamic que was the future because everyone wanted it the most? I still remember back when that was the _truth_.
TrulyBland (EUNE)
: >Tantram typically says something like "It only takes one report to trigger an investigation. Because the number of reports has never **EVER** in the entire history of League of Legends had **anything** to do with anything that happens past the point of where a review is triggered. >Riot counts the number of reports for internal use only and it holds zero weight on whether or not an account is punished What do you consider more likely? That Riot goes "oh well, we're not currently using this bit of statistic, so we will just entirely discard it so we may never ever access it in the future to make our decisions", or that they will keep track of a statistic they're no longer using? Besides, I've already explained to you how that statistic **is** still actually relevant in the punishment system as a whole without being relevant to individual cases. >Their track record makes me lean towards the second. What track record? You can't just say stuff like that without backing it up with actual examples.
Firstly, unless you're a Riot employee, everything you're saying is speculation. I'm not suggesting anything I'm saying is fact either, it's also speculation. How do you know they don't use it for anything after a review is triggered? Pretty sure they've never directly said that. They just say "it only takes one report to trigger a review" and then don't say anything about how the actual review works. Even if they have said that, I'm not ready to believe anything they say without evidence. You parroting back what Riot claims without evidence is cute, but also part of the problem. I work in software development. You don't make things more complicated than they need to be unless you plan on using the complexity. There's no way they'd track the number of reports unless they're using it. You're basically saying "Riot says they don't use this number for the thing we're worried they're using it for, and Riot has never lied before, so they must be using it for something else that's totally unrelated from this thing they would never lie to us about." I have to give Tantram an A+ tho. If he's got people as articulate as you on board with the kangaroo court, he's the man for the job.
TrulyBland (EUNE)
: >Tantram always pulls out that if check acting like the number of reports doesn't matter. Which, within the given context, is true. The person Tantram replied to said: >when multiple players report one person the person gets banned faster! That was **not** a valid complaint because it is factually wrong as evidenced by that line Tantram posted. When it comes to an individual case of one game and one person, the number of reports that person got in that one game doesn't matter. I don't really see anything else being implied here.
You're conflating two points here, or rather, Tantram is, and you're falling for it. Tantram typically says something like "It only takes one report to trigger an _investigation_. This guy is saying "gets banned faster," which isn't the same thing as being investigated. I actually believe Tantram when he says it only takes one report to get _investigated_, but you almost certainly get more severe punishments and are more likely to get a punishment if you have multiple reports. Riot conflates these issues so they don't have to address the real problem of people queuing up together and all reporting the same person. If being investigated and being punished are the same thing, then wouldn't 100% of reports result in bans? Assuming you think they aren't in fact the same thing, then what do you think is more likely? Riot counts the number of reports for internal use only and it holds zero weight on whether or not an account is punished, or Riot intentionally conflates these issues to avoid addressing the problem? Their track record makes me lean towards the second.
TrulyBland (EUNE)
: Just because a number isn't used in the process of flagging a game or reviewing said game doesn't mean it's not used elsewhere. For example, if I understand correctly the overall number of reports (across all games) actually plays a part in how they determine whether or not certain phrases or behaviour are considered toxic by the community. At the very least, though, it's an interesting statistic keep track of.
I agree with you, and that's actually my point. Tantram always pulls out that if check acting like the number of reports doesn't matter. If that were true, they wouldn't be using an int. Obviously they want to keep track of the number of reports and it probably IS used in several other places. It'd be nice if he'd tell us where instead of acting like the number of reports doesn't matter whenever someone comes out and makes a valid complaint about it.
: I've done this before. Let me post the ACTUAL line of code: if (reportCount > 0) { ... } It's line 57 of this particular class. I wrote it.
If the number of reports doesn't matter, why would you use an integer instead of a bool? Doesn't.... if (IsReported) { ... } ...make more sense? Unless the stuff in the statement that you conveniently leave out looks at the report counter again, of course.
AriCei (NA)
: Similarly, I'm pretty sure one of them was in another thread saying they are not. Also I would love some transparency on what criteria they use to "review" it, or if it's just checking a box. Edit: This point also dodges the bulk of the discussion to focus on a technicality. You can be put to the point of no return with temp bans without a human ever seeing it. And the real issue is what they are seeing as bannable, not even who pulls the trigger in the end.
He isn't going to. I have this really depressing theory that upper management at Riot probably had a conversation that went like this: Person 1: "Our game is very toxic, players complain about it being toxic all the time. This hurts us recruiting new players and keeping old players, something must be done!" Person 2: "How do we measure improvement on something as vague as "toxic" tho. It's subjective." Person 3: "Lets pick some words we can filter for and ban anyone who uses them, that way we can get our metrics to show we've reduced toxicity." Person 2: "But wont the community have a huge backlash to something so arbitrary?" Person 3: "That's easy! We'll just pay a forum moderator minimum wage to convince the masses that bad words are more hurtful than all the other stuff we cant detect. It'll be easy. We just cherry pick all the times where someone's actually using racial slurs, post the chat logs, show that they're toxic, and never address any of the other problems. It'll go right under the rug. And if anyone complains about the game still being just as toxic, we'll just show that our metrics reflect that we've banned X number of toxic players last month." Person 2: "Wont that infuriate your average player who just gets angry at people trolling them tho?" Person 3: "What was that? I cant hear you over my level 5 honor badge." So yeah, basically his job is to actively avoid addressing the real problem. There's no way Riot's dumb enough to not know the real problem. They've just made a business decision that it's easier to have Tantram go on forums and troll everyone than it is to actually admit they haven't done anything to fix their reform system in the past few years.
: > this is a cooperation game which requires communications, Exactly. I'm fairly sure hate speech and telling people to kill themselves isn't critical to gameplay. > reply a single word to the flamers, you are at risk of getting yourself banned. Yeah, not so much so. > you are not allowed to defend yourself You need to defend yourself from words online?
> [{quoted}](name=Riot Tantram,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=sh5qMgzj,comment-id=000200000001,timestamp=2017-09-14T18:17:59.684+0000) > You need to defend yourself from words online? You say this as if "words online" are just some petty thing people should ignore. While _I_ agree with that statement, your own ban policy takes words very seriously. It's this sort of slight of hand you pull on forums that frustrate everyone you ban and then pull the whole "You're only responsible for your own actions, and those words you used are unacceptable for league. Also, why would you be offended by the words the other person used in the first place?" Can you at least admit there's a bit of a disconnect here?
: > versus the 250+ games where he was blatantly-and-ACTUALLY ruining gameplay for other players. I have no evidence showing this actually happened, or anything to look at in order to speak to it..
If you had record of this happening, wouldn't he have been banned a year ago? I think this comment is pretty telling. The fact that you have no way of detecting trolling and intentionally feeding more or less proves the OP's point, right?
: This seems like you're suggesting that even just saying "a slur" is a reason to be perma banned. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that's what it seems to suggest.
I'm actually suggesting that being banned over slurs is stupid. If you think people should be banned over slurs, half the people in this thread need banned as well, including both of us.
: You used the F-slur. You deserved what you got. C'mon, tantram. Get in on this.
The only reason "hate speech" is even looked at is bad because everyone agrees that the meaning of the language is terrible. Everyone knows what you mean when you say "F-slur." Just because you didn't type the whole word out doesn't stop everyone reading this thread from knowing what you're talking about. Should the two of us be perma banned for using hate speech now? (since I used it too to quote you)
: > [{quoted}](name=GayFluffyUnicorn,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AByipKfh,comment-id=00000001,timestamp=2017-01-13T15:39:03.360+0000) > > Don't know why you get downvoted. It is so fuckin obvious, not only winstreak but as soon as i hit promo my entire team has negative winrates, low elo in general and the enemy team 55%-60% upwards. I was on a winstreak up to my Gold IV Promos. They literally matched an unranked ADC with Bronze IV MMR, and zero ranked games in his history. This is him in action : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LjX2xsCMME Needless to say, we didn't win that match :D
See, stuff like this pretty much proves that ELO hell exists. Riot could have shut this kind of stuff down years ago by just being transparent about how they actually do matchmaking. The fact that they refuse to should tell all the nay-sayers something.
Kei143 (NA)
: What happened to the OP (specifically referring to how he got harassed in game) is not OK, and the other toxic people will be punished in their own time if they were continuously toxic. They've been pretty consistent so far with punishing people whom are consistently toxic.
The argument he used to defend the punishment was not.
Kei143 (NA)
: I think you are misunderstanding him. Tantram said that he was thinking of reverting it, but he didn't due to what was said in pre-game chat.
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not suggesting the OP should or shouldn't have his punishment reverted. I'm saying that when your policy states "You are responsible for you and no one else" you shouldn't then 180 and imply that what happened to the OP was ok because he started it. I think the main reason people get frustrated with these bans (other than the fact that they're banned) is because Riot is pretty hypocritical with this sort of thing.
TrulyBland (EUNE)
: "Not completely innocent" is not the same as "asking for it". The point, how I understood it, is that apart from omitting their own bad behaviour, OP is in part responsible for the resulting fight that they are **now** using as a sob story. From my perspective stating that OP started the fight only helps to show the contrast between OP's side of the story and the reality of what happened.
I'm not suggesting the OP is innocent. All I'm saying is that as soon as you use "Well, you started the fight" to justify a ban/chat restriction, it's a pretty big contrast from just about every other "I got banned unjustly" sob story reaction. Almost every "I didn't deserve my ban" story posted on forums has the same response from Riot. It goes like this "It doesn't matter what the other person did, the only person you're responsible for is yourself." The reason this logic shouldn't fly is because stating that "You started it" implies that someone else did something because of the behavior of the OP. By Riot's logic, as well as their own rules, that shouldn't matter. To be clear, I'm of the opinion that it _should_ matter. But you'll never get a Riot employee to agree with you until they need to fall back on it to defend a restriction/ban.
: > Does this mean that defending yourself when you're harassed is allowed now? Absolutely not.
I mean, you DID just say "A fight you started in pre-game and others continued into game. You are not completely innocent in this case." makes it seem like you're ok with him getting harassed, because he clearly asked for it. I'm not suggesting you're wrong, but what you're saying isn't consistent with what your policy has been.
: > Seriously fix your game and remove my chat restriction and take action against the people that deserve it. I was really close to reverting this, but then I took a look at the pre-game chat. " look at this fucktard with kayle and heal for support yes this guy is fucking bronze as it comes ill be feeding cause the other team will be playing ateam game while you just be a fucktard %%%%%%% you are such a nu male %%%got please go die " This type of chat is not acceptable, and certainly warrants a chat restriction. Yes, you were then harassed in game because of this, which isn't a surprise. A fight you started in pre-game and others continued into game. You are not completely innocent in this case.
Does this mean that defending yourself when you're harassed is allowed now? Because I thought Riot's stance on player behavior is that "You're responsible for what you say and no one else, and that's why we don't even look at what other people say when we consider who gets banned."
: Some thoughts on Support
Make a few support items that give a large amount of ambient gold, but then disable the ability to earn additional gold from last hitting minions so other roles cant abuse it. It'd also discourage obnoxious support players from shoving the wave when an adc isn't in lane, so it would encourage good behavior as well.
: NA Boards!!! Thank you SO MUCH!!
I don't know about you guys, but I'm old enough to remember what happened the last time that Riot removed a que without asking the public for their opinion and got flooded with backlash for an entire year until they apologized for removing it, put it back, and promised to listen to the people going forwards. I guess Riot forgot already. Lets be honest tho, we know the only reason they're doing this is to attempt to funnel more people into "Flex Que" so they can have that and solo que run at the same time.
: If it's not Kennen, it's Jayce
Remember four months ago when everyone was complaining like crazy about Irelia being overpowered? Well, she was literally the only thing keeping the current ranged meta in check. Thanks, people who complained about her.
Investa (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Burklight,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=BAazeesU,comment-id=0001000400000001,timestamp=2016-10-06T20:19:28.515+0000) > > I don't believe you should be punished for behavior for having a bad game. I do believe, however, that if a team's loss is disproportionality one team member's fault, the team as a whole shouldn't share the loss of LP (And I know you have numbers to prove who played poorly beyond KDA thanks to your champion mastery scores). > > For example, if I have an adc who's only dealt 10k damage at the end of a 45 minute game, I'd like that player to lose 35-50 LP instead of 20, and the rest of the team gets a loss forgiven. That'll encourage each individual player to play their absolute best every game, and you wont have as many people raging at feeders, because the feeder no longer hurts anyone's LP but their own. This is going on the assumption that the only way to contribute to a team is in raw numbers; damage and kill ratio. This simply isn't true and if you think so it's wrong. Yes, 10k damage in a typical 45 minute game on an ADC is pretty poor, but without any other context, does this alone mean that this player had a disproportionately negative effect on the team and secured the loss? Would you value a player with more kills and more deaths, rather than a player that just had a lot of deaths? Why? Did you know that every kill resets your bounty to 300g, and every assist slowly brings it up a percentage back to its full 300g value? Therefore, in terms of actual feeding the enemy team, a player who goes 12/8/4 is feeding more than a player going 0/10/2. Considerably more. These are things that nobody considers or thinks about. Another thing to consider is that likely the person with the best score that everyone thinks is the "carry" might not even have the highest champion damage. A lot of times it is actually the player with the worse scores. There are so many variables to this game that treating it by competitive team death-match rules is just ignorant. The idea of penalizing players who perform particularly badly is just not a good idea, so much as the current system of rewarding players for playing good with the champion mastery. You can get an S rank in a losing game, and if one person can solo carry a game to failure, surely one person can solo carry them to victory, no? Consider more options in approaching victory than team-fighting and jacking up those numbers.
I was using the 10k damage in a 45 minute game as an example. It's very clearly not the only indicator that someone played terribly, and I'm not suggesting we should only look at one of those numbers. Riot already has a system in play that allegedly looks at all of that. Why not use it for your LP? Nothing is more demoralizing for me than to have an S+ game where I can 1v3 the adc support and mid on the other team only to lose anyway because my adc and mid may as well be afk. I know I'm not alone or special in that feeling either. Everyone has been there a few times. That's a pretty extreme example, but you _know_ you've played games before that you deserved to win, but didn't because one or two people on your team absolutely deserved to lose. Why should you be punished for that? If you only play that poorly 1/20 games it wont make a difference. if you're playing that poorly 1/5 games, maybe Riot needs to put their foot on the gas and place you where you belong more quickly than the current system will.
: What if your first pick is an immobile ADC, and the entire team picks assassins. This just changes the dynamic of how each player plays. You can still win or lose the game, but your ADC has to be much more careful in this situation. Their job becomes staying alive and joining the fight late. This would result in lower damage. What if your top lane plays a low DPS tank, and they are just soaking damage and dying so the team can do what they need to do? What about a split pusher who buys time for the team to take objectives. Why would a support not play a DPS mage in this case? The they would ensure they lose less LP. Why would a top lane play a tank instead of DPS? League of Legends is a team game. I'm a football fan. Different teams play differently. One team may stack up the running yards, creating huge stats for the running back. Does this mean the loss should count less for the running back than the receivers? Other teams are pass heavy or defense heavy. Why is it that you want to punish people for having a poor game? In the vast majority of cases, they were trying hard .. just like you. Why should they be punished because the comp wasn't in their favor? Why should they be punished if they are against the best player on the enemy team while you may have done well because you were against their worst? Intentional feeding is not as prevalent as you may think. Most reports for intentional feeding are because someone did poorly in a game and the reporter needed someone to blame. Remember, when you reach your correct matchmaking rating, you will win/lose 50% of the games.
The question isn't "Why should they be punished for a bad game?" it's "Why should I be punished for another player's bad game?" The line Riot keeps spouting every time anyone complains about being punished unjustly for poor behavior in reaction to another player's poor behavior is typically "The only person you can control is you." Why cant that same logic be applied to LP? Take responsibility for the choices you make. If you pick a short range adc into a bunch of assassins, you need to step up your game. It isn't your team's job to carry you if you make a poor choice in champ select or under preform in game. A very large amount of ladder anxiety I experience (and this is likely true for most people) is feeling like the climb is all based on luck. Sure, everyone has a bad game sometimes. But it's being punished for other player's poor choices multiple games in a row is the quickest way to have me not play league for 2-3 weeks straight. If I make a handful of bad plays that makes my team lose, it just makes me want to get better. And it isn't fair to my team to lose LP for my bad choices.
: So you think having a bad game should be punishable? What type of punishment do you think you should get for your 0/8 Nasus game? http://matchhistory.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/#match-details/NA1/2208457265/206718547?tab=overview What about your 0/7 game? http://matchhistory.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/#match-details/NA1/2193562514/206718547?tab=overview Every single person has a bad game from time to time. Even the best pro players have uncharacteristic games and deliver poor scores. There is a serious difference between having a bad game and 'intentionally feeding'. You are absolutely right that calling someone bad is not acceptable. No, it is not negated by mute. I see this excuse all the time, and it doesn't hold up. You've already seen it, and your other teammates are now being exposed to and affected by your attitude. Negative attitude negatively affects performance of everyone exposed. There are many studies and a lot of data to back this. It also makes a game that is supposed to be fun .. not fun. What are you accomplishing by insulting others? Does it make you feel better? Do you think it's going to make the other person play better? I don't know about you, but I don't log onto League in the hopes of being discovered by a pro team. I play League and many other video games because I enjoy playing. I enjoy the challenge of always getting better and facing stiff competition. When I lose, I focus on the I can do better to carry my team to victory.
I don't believe you should be punished for behavior for having a bad game. I do believe, however, that if a team's loss is disproportionality one team member's fault, the team as a whole shouldn't share the loss of LP (And I know you have numbers to prove who played poorly beyond KDA thanks to your champion mastery scores). For example, if I have an adc who's only dealt 10k damage at the end of a 45 minute game, I'd like that player to lose 35-50 LP instead of 20, and the rest of the team gets a loss forgiven. That'll encourage each individual player to play their absolute best every game, and you wont have as many people raging at feeders, because the feeder no longer hurts anyone's LP but their own.
: That's exactly my look on this. I don't care if he plays how he plays in a normal game and he gets flamed then brings it to forums to showcase his idea of something that brings those players who wants to just have fun and not get flamed but it's... Ranked. The most logical thing he can do hopefully is to change to Normal games but he insists and states he does it and then goes to insult those players in Ranked who are trying their darnest to climb as Faker Jr. We ALL have a little Faker in us. :/ League of Legends is a game that you can play competitively, for fun, with friends, with a group of players, meet strangers and many many wonderful things! The competitive part should be left to players who are competitive and so on. So why does he want to have a "Troll" queue, _and I can't believe the forum community agrees with him **plus the fact upvotes indicates you like their take/comment on whatever it is, otherwise you'd downvote or ignore...** 32,000,000 gamers, not everyone uses the forums but those who are aware and or likely irritated with how things are and want to have a say_ Imagine if every active gamer used the forums, would you see an increase on this "troll" queue or would people read about it and get offended and or mad because there are players like him who admits they do go about Ranked games to just mess around. What the OP should do is find friends or make league of legends friends and simply go play a custom game if not a normal game where they can joke around among the **five** of them and ensure _NOBODY_ will be affected by their behavior of such. I feel so sorry for all those little Faker Jrs... they're getting reported for being toxic, flaming players who are literally trolling and so...
This is just another prime example that displays how Riot has no intentions of actually reducing toxicity. They say community is important while they crack down on people raging, but it's really hard to take that stance seriously when Riot continuously encourages the exact behavior that causes raging and toxic behavior in the first place. Does anyone remember that old player tip that said something like "Players who curse at team mates lose 20% more games"? It should have been worded "Players who are forced to play losing games with the OP are 20% more likely to curses at the OP." It's been clear to a majority of the player base for several years now that Riot didn't actually punish people like this, but to come out and encourage this is pretty disgusting. It's a good thing for Riot no one reads forums.
: > "We know Solo players are vital for a game, but we're not focusing on their problems." We are trying to focus on their problems. We launched the emblem system as a way to quickly determine if someone earned their rank from playing almost exclusively solo or by focusing on premades. We want to add additional ways for solo players to achieve recognition for their accomplishments and give them goals to strive for. We believe that is the thing solo players lost the most in the new feature. This thread has focused a lot on the rewards that players get for forming premades (such as IP when party rewards are active). To be honest, that hadn't been a major component of the feedback we've heard so far, but since it seems to be a big issue for some of you, we're looking into it. Having a separate queue for solo players isn't feasible. Turning off dynamic queue just so solo players never have to worry about would do a lot more damage to the game than the benefits it would gain, we believe. We are focusing a lot on making sure matches are fair, even there are premades on one or both sides. We are still looking at queue times and getting your primary role more often, though those aren't solo problems exclusively. What other problems do you see for solo players that I didn't mention?
One thing that I know has impacted me is the difficulty of climbing. I feel like my ability to dominate my lane and carry is held back by premades of 3-4 people who all que and feed together. I suspect this could potentially be related to any efforts you're making to offset MMR for premades (a premade will be matched against higher MMR players to compensate for the communication advantage) which hurts solo players who are on the same team as premades who dont benefit from the communication advantage. This isn't directly related to DQ, but now that we have Champion Mastery, have you thought of changing the way LP and MMR are rewarded and tip it more towards player performance instead of game outcome? This would address every complaint I have about having to play with premades as a solo player. I feel like if I score an S, my whole team scores Cs or Ds, and my team loses, I shouldn't lose MMR or LP, ESPECIALLY if I was playing with a premade.
: The current "tank meta" is the result of an over-abundance of damage this season.
The easiest way to kill the tank meta would be to revert the changes made to LW at the start of season 6, NOT reduce damage around the board. Do that and tanks wont be able to build tanky enough to survive indefinitely, so they'll have to shift to building 2-2.5 damage items instead of 0-0.5.
Rioter Comments
: Yeah, as soon as the new detection tests show that we're catching bots early enough to show noticeable improvement to players, I'll be happy to provide that update in a post.
I haven't read this entire monster of a thread, so I'm sorry if someone already suggested this. I actually know a fair bit about automation, and know a handful of people who have botted other MMOs. This wont actually ban any of them, but if you want to make it **_extremely_** frustrating for botters to keep their bots in game, you should have the "Ready" button that currently appears in the middle of the screen instead pop up in a random location, and have it rotate through various colors/hues randomly. This would pretty much stop all pixel bots in their tracks, while not slowing down a human for even a second. Or you could just bring back dominion. Then all the botters would go there instead of harassing new players in summoner's rift.

Burklight

Level 58 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion