: In responses to the latest trend about Singed support, maybe you guys should act more like this :
emernic (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Riot Gromp,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=79aGu3wR,comment-id=006b00020003,timestamp=2016-11-17T06:36:31.355+0000) > > Mm. It's not really the pick we're talking about, it's the lack of social agreement and cooperation on the approach to the game across hundreds and hundreds of instances. So let's stress test the logic and apply the standard to a roaming Bard player. Because Bard roaming like crazy is a broadly understood gameplay concept, we probably never ever reach a situation quite like this one. So does this mean that if proxy singed were invented today rather than a few years ago the player would be permanently banned by Riot instead of allowed to continue? Because if you look back at the old threads from Druiddroid EVERYBODY hated his strategy A LOT and basically considered it to be trolling/intent feeding. But, back then, Riot actually manually unbanned his account after it was auto-banned due to reports. Is it fair to say that the stance has changed?
Edit: Clarity of opening sentence. No, it's not fair to say the stance has changed. I think you're overestimating the volume of reviews and penalties of cases like these. The stance we're trying to lay out is that we broadly, broadly, broadly support experimentation, innovation and even wacky fun bullshit, as long as you're trying to win. Cases like this Singed player are exceptionally rare, and occur only in instances of consistent communication problems with teammates across thousands of games on one account. That's an exceptionally tough bar to reach so I think proxy Singed and unique strategies like it definitely still flourish.
bHukey (NA)
: I really, REALLY, do not agree with your statement on being punished for a lack of communication. League is not a game that requires communication. It will greatly improve your chances but it is not required. If a player pretended that everyone in the game was a robot and that he was playing by himself, he could still play the game. I would argue he could even become good at the game. Saying that league is a team game does not refute my point because working together does not actually require communication. It just requires that decisions are made that make sense with each other. Obviously it is much, much, much easier to win if you do properly communicate but that does not indicate a necessity. Assuming you are playing solo and you join a game with total strangers, you always start with zero communication. Coordinating and working together creates positive communication while toxicity and flaming is negative communication. Now obviously negative communication should be punished and positive communication should be rewarded. What about zero communication? Let's assume that every player is trying their best to win. If we take a player who is playing totally normal (meta), we see no issue. Let's say a jinx queues botlane and plays exactly as expected. Jinx goes 0/5/0 that game ending in a loss and did not type or ping at all that game. Totally acceptable behavior. Now imagine that jinx did not group for half of the calls her team made and decided to split push? Well her team might report her for not listening to calls/getting caught/being useless, etc. Assuming she is still trying to win at all times, this is still totally acceptable. One might argue that she had strategically made an error but perhaps grouping up would have been worse. All we can say is that she is trying to win. She may even get some reports based on her play. Now what if our jinx never groups up, is always doing the opposite of what everyone wants, and upsets her teammates with her play? She gets 9 reports. All we know is she was trying her best to win. Her teammates didn't like that she went duo toplane tank jinx. In fact its so outrageous that everyone feels that she is trolling. She may have been trying something new or she may even think its truly the best strategy. Now your stance right now is that the more one deviates from the norm, the more you MUST explain yourself to your teammates at threat of punishment. From the situation I laid out and statements from riot games, I can assume that the burden of explanation is somewhat proportional to the amount of reports you are getting. Now you've clearly drawn a line somewhere that our singed player has crossed. You've said that enough players have voted to kick our player out of the game that it is legitimate to at least punish him. My issue with this is that the line that has been drawn is arbitrary. Lets create another scenario. Lets say that playing Teemo is so unanimously outrageous that picking Teemo results in a 100% report rate. In fact, only one player in the whole game plays Teemo and the entire community rises up to get this Teemo player banned. Our Teemo player tries to win every game and does his best but it doesn't matter. No one in the community cares, he needs to be banned. Does the volume of outrage merit his punishment? If Teemo has a zero communication level should he still be punished? Let's take it a step down. Let's say Teemo in an effort to appease his aggressors starts to type a paragraph at the beginning of the game explaining what he's about to do. This creates at least a level of positive communication. It is disingenuous to say he is not communicating. Lets say 1% of the community is now satisfied. Is that now at a level of satisfaction? Riot steps in and says you must have at least a 15% approval rating before what you're doing is acceptable. To be quite frank, it is entirely within the power of Riot to do this. I believe such a decision should be made extremely public and made very clear. To keep such a decision hidden would be to give Riot the power to decide on a whim whether something is ok or not without giving a clear explanation. I personally would immediately end my support of such a company. However, I believe in the people at Riot who are always trying their best to be transparent which is proven by the very post I am responding to. Communication in a competitive game is a tool used to increase your chance at winning. It is of course very nice when a team comes together with a very positive attitude and teamwork but it is not a requirement at all. No communication simply means a player must play the game to the best of his ability within the framework provided to him regardless if that is a counter-jungling singed. Toxicity is of course punishable and a line has already been drawn for what level of toxicity is acceptable. It is to Riot's virtue that they provide what I believe to be a generous amount of leeway to try and prevent punishing players unnecessarily. The human review process is a safety net to catch potential cases that have been unjustly punished and I believe that is what was potentially the case here. But that safety net is entirely dependent on the views of the person reviewing them and that is why I am writing this response here so that an issue like this can be averted in the future. TL;DR Zero communication should not be punishable
This is worth discussing, thanks for the thoughtful dissent. I'm not sure I agree on the count that the game doesn't require communication, but I want to lay out my logic. Sure, in simply literal terms, ten people could play with no chat, no pings, etc. It'd work, but I think something would feel like it's missing for a lot of players. League's (obviously) a team game, and while you're under no obligation to be some sparkling paragon of sportsmanship, it makes sense to do some communicating around intent and strategy if you're playing to win. I know this retreads ground from your post. I think the reason I'm shouting it out is that while comms aren't required to play, I believe they are required to play at your highest potential, and that's what I think is worth aspiring toward. Faker-senpai communicates an immense amount of game-relevant info to his teammates while also being the most mechanically gifted player on the planet. In terms of drawing an exceptionally clear line in cases like this Singed player, it's not something I think we should do. Hear me out. Let's toss out a total hypothetical. In some far off world that is definitely not this one, there's a rule laid out that 80% of players in your games must agree to a pick. Frankly, that's bullshit, and a rule like that is as draconian as it is arbitrary. I don't want to play in a world where Riot lays out exact rules on when and how you have to communicate picks and strategies at the risk of penalties. So I understand the desire for specificity because it's easy to understand when a rule is broken or not, but I strongly, strongly believe it's counterproductive, weaponizable, and overly-restrictive for this type of case. It's worth emphasizing that an extreme edge case like this is super, super rare. One of the biggest reasons we wanted to share our thoughts around this was to come down firmly on the side of experimentation and innovation. It's a crucial part of what makes League special. Spitballing from our internal discussions across design, PS, and PB, we imagine that >99% of cases like this would never even be reviewed by Player Support (Instant Feedback does not punish cases like these), let alone net a penalty. Now let's talk about that human safety net of manual reviews, because that's a part of why we're talking about this too. A big, messy, open conversation like this forms the bedrock of the guidance we're currently formulating to give Player Support Rioters when they encounter cases like this. They wouldn't be shooting in the dark. They'd have documentation based on the logic we've laid out today, and feedback from players in the discussion. With that in mind, they would indeed be making a judgment call. It's worth reiterating that a player could also request a review of that call. In this player's case, we see evidence of where better documentation and guidance would've helped the Player Support Rioter. Like we say in the original response, this player shouldn't have been threatened with a perma, and these discussions and precedents better equip us for thoughtful outcomes in nuanced, edge case scenarios.
Guardman (NA)
: > On the other hand, asking an ADC to lane alone while their support farms the enemy jungle truly pushes that teammate out of their comfort zone and that should mean something. We can all sympathize with the lonely Miss Fortune facing down Lucian and Alistar at her own turret, and it makes sense to us when they report this Singed player. > My one question with this is how is this any different than a Bard that spends most of the game roaming. I've been in more than a few games where the Bard was barely in bot lane at all other than for a "gank". Or does a perma roaming Bard also fall into the category described above?
Mm. It's not really the pick we're talking about, it's the lack of social agreement and cooperation on the approach to the game across hundreds and hundreds of instances. So let's stress test the logic and apply the standard to a roaming Bard player. Because Bard roaming like crazy is a broadly understood gameplay concept, we probably never ever reach a situation quite like this one.
Wuks (NA)
: Hey Gromp, Thank you and the PB team for providing more clarity on what happened as well as touching on the implications moving forward. {{summoner:13}} OP.
Wuks (NA)
: Support Singed isn't banable, but that's not the point.
EDIT: grammar Okay, so we got together with game designers, player behavior folks, and player support agents to take a hard look at this player, the penalties, and the support tickets associated with it. It's clear this wacky Smite, Support Singed plays to win. It’s also clear the player struggles to effectively communicate intentions and strategy to teammates. In this case, unwieldy communication and the wacky Smite, Support Singed pick are tightly linked. So let’s pick them apart some. Innovative and unconventional approaches to League keep the game fresh, and finding new ways to win motivates a ton of players. We 100% support the opportunity to innovate with surprising picks and strategies in League. The only real condition we place on that right to experimentation is that you play to win. However, sometimes unconventional approaches to the game have costs that outweigh benefits. This player might have a respectable(-ish) winrate on Support Singed with Smite and no Sightstone, but the pick and build also nets them a frankly enormous number of reports and probably gives their ADC high blood pressure. That leaves us with two tricky questions: Q: If intentions are clearly aimed at victory, is there an outer boundary for too unconventional a pick/build/strategy? A: No. This is where we break from the Support ticket linked in the original reddit discussion. Real talk, this player is far from the only support in Gold V to skip out on a Sightstone. No one should ever get banned for skipping Sightstone. On the other hand, asking an ADC to lane alone while their support farms the enemy jungle truly pushes that teammate out of their comfort zone and that should mean something. We can all sympathize with the lonely Miss Fortune facing down Lucian and Alistar at her own turret, and it makes sense to us when they report this Singed player. Q: Do unconventional picks/strategies increase the burden of communications for the player and their teammates? Y: Yes. If you're gonna throw a curveball at teammates, you also need to communicate your intentions to teammates. You shouldn’t just expect everyone to "get it", so tell them what's up. To be clear, this player does attempt to communicate intent and strategy, but a good chunk of teammates across hundreds of games just don’t want to sign up for the plan. That lack of agreement on the new plan makes for a pretty chaotic game and leads to a huge share of this player’s reports. If a teammate in champ select says, “pls no, this is game 5 of promos”, maybe stick with something conventional and skip tilting your teammates off the face of the earth. In short, argue for your idea, but stay ready to be flexible. In the same vein, teammates should be willing give unconventional picks/strategies a fair shot. They could surprise your opponents more than they surprise you. We need to leave plenty of space for experimentation in League (Hi Support MF), even if it sometimes leaves us in less than perfectly comfy games. If you're about to play stunbot Twisted Fate tank support with Talisman, Righteous Glory, and Protobelt, let your team know the special kind of hell you're aiming to create for your enemies, and how they should adjust their expectations and approach to the game. If, instead of that, you wholly fail to communicate, or completely disrupt game after game, it makes sense that you’d rack up a ton of reports, net manual reviews and even potential penalties from Player Support. The net result is that players, if playing to win, have a fundamental right to experiment in League. It’s good for the game. At the same time, common sense and good sportsmanship say that experimenting players need to clearly communicate intent and win conditions to their teammates. In this Singed player’s case, the two-week ban’s already expired. For what it’s worth, we believe the penalty was warranted because in literally hundreds of games the player inflicted a huge amount of disruption on players who didn’t agree to their chemistry experiments. On the other hand, the player’s communication issues fall well short of permaban territory, and in retrospect the threat of a perma in the Player Support response was a bit much. We also see marked improvement in their efforts communicate with teammates in more recent games. It’s worth mentioning that cases like these are handled by humans and any player in a (pretty dang rare) situation like this can request further detail and a full review from Player Support. Still, with intent to win confirmed, gameplay experimentation and innovation is something we stand behind even if it ruffles feathers. After all, conventional picks lose half their games too. We think this player could still do a much better job of communicating with teammates, but we also believe players should be more tolerant of different approaches to the game. The line here is the player repeatedly showing no flexibility in the face of resistance to their strategies, and consistently forcing teammates into a wildly different bot lane experience hundreds of times.


Level 30 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion