: 2017 harrowing?
Because of the pre-season update stuff and because Riot keeps scheduling Worlds for late October, it seems like they don't have the resources for a proper Harrowing event/celebration. One of my favorite periods of time playing League was when they introduced the autumn map...I wish they would put that kind of effort into it again.
: > [{quoted}](name=Jaawn,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=I7VXdlps,comment-id=0007,timestamp=2016-06-24T23:06:11.136+0000) > > This is cool and all, and props to you for keeping a good attitude. That is awesome. You and the other positive members of the team are definitely doing things right and you should feel good about that. > > However, when people complain about poor quality teams/teammates in low elo...it's not because of a single bad apple lol. I get tons of teams with 2+ awful people on a fairly regular, albeit random basis. So, you're right that if you keep a good attitude and have 3 good teammates, you can overcome a single bad one. But that doesn't really cover situations where your other teammates are just so-so, or you have multiple tilted players on your team, etc > > Your other teammates in this game were awesome, that is not the norm. When I try to work together with people and ignore toxicity, I'm lucky to not get trolled just for being positive. Basically, you said "if you keep a good attitude and 'WORK' you can overcome bad teammates, it isn't your team holding you back!" and then proceeded to talk about how you had 3 amazing teammates in this game working with you. That kind of contradicts the whole idea of a team holding you back. 75% of the other members of your team helped you overcome the situation lol If you are good at your champ you can literally 1v5 all day long in low elo games. Provided of course you don't have multiple trolling teammates (a significant problem ever on the rise because of DQ) https://i.gyazo.com/6a52f7c9baac20b524115ecf7127a5eb.png That was actually in low platinum play last season. The teams only hold you back when you get stuck with a toxic premade due to DQ. An all too regular occurrence, and a big reason why most of us are now avoiding high level play and opting to play on smurfs. The worst thing to ever happen to this game was DQ.
> [{quoted}](name=jaymc1130,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=I7VXdlps,comment-id=00070000,timestamp=2016-06-24T23:59:27.848+0000) > > If you are good at your champ you can literally 1v5 all day long in low elo games. Provided of course you don't have multiple trolling teammates (a significant problem ever on the rise because of DQ) > > https://i.gyazo.com/6a52f7c9baac20b524115ecf7127a5eb.png > > That was actually in low platinum play last season. The teams only hold you back when you get stuck with a toxic premade due to DQ. An all too regular occurrence, and a big reason why most of us are now avoiding high level play and opting to play on smurfs. The worst thing to ever happen to this game was DQ. Yeah, you can carry games 1v5 if they are 2+ tiers lower than you...but what about games that may be only a few divisions lower than your max rank / main account? That is more what I'm talking about...not smurfs.
: I CANT WIN GAMES CUZ O MUH TROLLIN TEAMMATES!!! QQ!!!! Low level player fixation.
This is cool and all, and props to you for keeping a good attitude. That is awesome. You and the other positive members of the team are definitely doing things right and you should feel good about that. However, when people complain about poor quality teams/teammates in low elo...it's not because of a single bad apple lol. I get tons of teams with 2+ awful people on a fairly regular, albeit random basis. So, you're right that if you keep a good attitude and have 3 good teammates, you can overcome a single bad one. But that doesn't really cover situations where your other teammates are just so-so, or you have multiple tilted players on your team, etc Your other teammates in this game were awesome, that is not the norm. When I try to work together with people and ignore toxicity, I'm lucky to not get trolled just for being positive. Basically, you said "if you keep a good attitude and 'WORK' you can overcome bad teammates, it isn't your team holding you back!" and then proceeded to talk about how you had 3 amazing teammates in this game working with you. That kind of contradicts the whole idea of a team holding you back. 75% of the other members of your team helped you overcome the situation lol
: With all these DQ sucks and Ranked is dead talk why don't you all strike league and not play? Don't watch LCS and don't buy anything from them.
> [{quoted}](name=Gojira Prime,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=7UwiHrzY,comment-id=000d,timestamp=2016-06-19T17:06:11.968+0000) > > With all these DQ sucks and Ranked is dead talk why don't you all strike league and not play? Don't watch LCS and don't buy anything from them. I haven't played in a month and I haven't watched any videos except for the DQ Roundtable one, so I kind of am doing that lol (although, I didn't set out to boycott intentionally, it just kind of happened)
EVG Mike (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=PoppyIsBestWaifu,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=7UwiHrzY,comment-id=000a0000,timestamp=2016-06-19T10:26:41.898+0000) > > still, playing in premades adds up to 20% bias to winning vs playing solo. People hate unfair games. > Here, look at some data http://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/4tsuGXEq-dynamic-queue-statistics-for-61977-matches > dynamic queue just is not fair at all and creates boosted animals. Take note friend, those statistics were gathered from master+ games, which is something like .001% of league of legends. The same does not apply to lower brackets of play where 90%+ of the community is, which has MUCH better matchmaking quality.
> [{quoted}](name=Mike123,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=7UwiHrzY,comment-id=000a00000000,timestamp=2016-06-19T12:36:34.651+0000) > > Take note friend, those statistics were gathered from master+ games, which is something like .001% of league of legends. The same does not apply to lower brackets of play where 90%+ of the community is, which has MUCH better matchmaking quality. I would argue the opposite. If you are evaluating the ranked system, it makes sense to look at the top of the ladder first. If it can't even do that accurately there is a problem. Also, if you have ever played games in Silver or Bronze, you know the matchmaking quality there is the worst in the whole ladder. Low silver is chaos in ranked, and high silver and gold aren't much better.
: > [{quoted}](name=Jaawn,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=BAeiIEW5,comment-id=000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-06-19T00:16:22.499+0000) > > Suggestion for how to make matchmaking better: have pure solo queue ranked and pure 5v5 ranked and a dynamic queue for normals. Easy fix. so you want the same matchmaking that we had before DQ? the one EVERYONE complained because it was terrible? wow such a great idea you have there, such an easy fix
> [{quoted}](name=ZephyrDrake,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=BAeiIEW5,comment-id=0000000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2016-06-19T00:26:29.219+0000) > > so you want the same matchmaking that we had before DQ? the one EVERYONE complained because it was terrible? wow such a great idea you have there, such an easy fix Hey, I'm not saying it was perfect, but it was vastly better than DQ from a ranked point of view. DQ is definitely better than previous versions for normals.
: You want better matchamaking so how do you suggest you make it better? you can't always just want something without at least proposing a solution
> [{quoted}](name=Marshbouy,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=BAeiIEW5,comment-id=00000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-06-18T20:26:37.176+0000) > > You want better matchamaking so how do you suggest you make it better? you can't always just want something without at least proposing a solution Suggestion for how to make matchmaking better: have pure solo queue ranked and pure 5v5 ranked and a dynamic queue for normals. Easy fix.
: The silent majority is something used to twist an argument in one's favor by saying that the people who do not voice their opinion are on "my side." The most important ones in most online games nowadays are the "vocal minority." These are the people who have the most exposure (like the pros or highly viewed streamers) because their opinions can reach a lot more people.
> [{quoted}](name=Blanchimont,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=7UwiHrzY,comment-id=00000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-06-18T23:18:23.944+0000) > > The silent majority is something used to twist an argument in one's favor by saying that the people who do not voice their opinion are on "my side." The most important ones in most online games nowadays are the "vocal minority." These are the people who have the most exposure (like the pros or highly viewed streamers) because their opinions can reach a lot more people. I get that, but part of my point is that Riot shouldn't be deferring ranked design decisions to the community, unless they don't care that much that ranked is as accurate as possible. So I am saying, since they have chosen to defer to "the majority", it isn't really "ranked" anymore, it is something else entirely.
: The silent majority can be used as an argument for either side because they have no opinion on it. It's the same as the vocal minority argument where only the loudest people can be heard because they care about it the most.
> [{quoted}](name=Blanchimont,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=7UwiHrzY,comment-id=000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-06-18T22:50:10.315+0000) > > The silent majority can be used as an argument for either side because they have no opinion on it. It's the same as the vocal minority argument where only the loudest people can be heard because they care about it the most. But should "the silent majority" matter as much for an accurate ranked system? Their opinion should matter most for aesthetics and UX design and normal queue and ARAM, etc... but for Ranked, you need to go with the designer's vision, not crowd-sourced opinions.
Rioter Comments
Kei143 (NA)
: Its executions only. AKA non-champ dmg.
> [{quoted}](name=Kei143,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=utIOhEZa,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2016-05-19T20:14:10.918+0000) > > Its executions only. > > AKA non-champ dmg. It is the opposite. Executions do not prevent remake, but first blood does. I am saying first blood after 1:30 should not prevent a remake.
Rioter Comments
: these all make sense, but my biggest question would be how is this fair for the other team? if you make an outplay right out of the gate, you get punished. this would completely take away one of the major strengths of team invades, becuase if it acutally suceeds, the other team just votes to restart. your post makes sense for your team, but would absolutely be terrible for the other team. that is what the FB thing is all about. they dont want to screw the other team out of making plays/give your team a way out of getting out of an outplay against you. I have not thought all of this through completely, but this is just my 2 cents.
> [{quoted}](name=13 Snakes,realm=NA,application-id=Ag8jgd8Q,discussion-id=7qotAEYW,comment-id=0015000000010000,timestamp=2016-05-19T16:47:41.303+0000) > > these all make sense, but my biggest question would be how is this fair for the other team? if you make an outplay right out of the gate, you get punished. this would completely take away one of the major strengths of team invades, becuase if it acutally suceeds, the other team just votes to restart. > > your post makes sense for your team, but would absolutely be terrible for the other team. that is what the FB thing is all about. they dont want to screw the other team out of making plays/give your team a way out of getting out of an outplay against you. > > I have not thought all of this through completely, but this is just my 2 cents. Because someone on the other team ALSO has to be AFK for 90 seconds before 3 minutes, so they would have to ragequit before 1:30. Most invade kills are going to happen at around 1:25-1:30 at the earliest since camps spawn at 1:40 now, so it will be too late for them to quit and trigger a remake.
: or make it so the dc'ed person has to be involved in the First Blood for it not to count (i.e. get killed)
EDIT: After thinking about it some more, I honestly don't think there should be a FB requirement at all. If you imagine the possible scenarios, there isn't one where the FB restriction makes sense logically. **Scenario1:** Player invades alone and dies. They say "GG" and ragequit. Their team did nothing wrong, and if the game were allowed to be remade, that person gets a loss and marked by leaver buster. Seems fine to me **Scenario2:** The remaining 4 play their lanes/jungle normally, but they die during an early fight or they get a kill during an early fight, or the jungler gets invaded and dies. If they still have a DC on the team, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to remake the game just because they were playing normally and someone died **Scenario3:** Someone dies before 1:20 to an invade and their team gets mad at them and tells them to quit so they can remake. This person would have to quit before the 1:30 mark for this to work, meaning there is no point in arguing about it after that, and it is pretty hard to get into a fight with the enemy, die, and quit all before 1:30 if you add in time to argue about it lol **Scenario4:** Someone manages to give up FB, another player on the team is mad and ragequits. Why shouldn't the remainder be able to remake? ...I cannot think of a scenario that isn't already addressed by the 90 second AFK requirement. I think they should take out the FB rule entirely.
Igotlazy (NA)
: Minions arrive mid at 1:40 and the side lanes at 1:50. Leashes usually cause the laner(s) to arrive at around 2:00. Assuming that the enemy team isn't made of psychics then I give them 20-30 seconds before they get the notion that there may be an afk. That gives them 40-30 seconds to drop everything that they're doing and try to get First Blood. Considering that the handicapped team will probably be more passive, that may not be an easy task. As for just feeding a single kill, the enemy team still isn't 100% sure at this point, I really don't think anyone would be willing to give up 400+ Gold for a chance at guaranteeing a 4v5. Plus what if the afk is a Jungler? Sometimes those players don't pop up until the 5 minute mark in a regular 5v5. Regardless, let's summarize the worst case scenarios with or without the first blood rule. With: A 4v5 takes place (which was already the initial problem) because the enemy team forced first blood in one way or another. Without: People abuse the system to restart games that initially did not start with their advantage. Decide which is worse.
I disagree. I fail to see a scenario where the first blood rule actually makes sense. Someone already has to be AFK for 90 seconds, which means the only cases where the FB matters are when someone quits before 1:30. How can anyone abuse this when the FB needs to happen before ~1:25 for it to be a factor in the DC?
: Most of my games. I would say roughly 70%
First blood probably tends to happen sooner in matches that are 4v5 from the start. There really doesn't need to be a "no FB" requirement on this. If someone somehow manages to give first blood normally, before 1:30 and someone immediately ragequits, why should the result of that scenario be treated differently? The quitter is getting punished... If the feature was "anyone can remake any game before 3 minutes", then the first blood rule makes sense. But it isn't needed in addition to a 90 second AFK requirement. The 2 requirements combine to mean that most of the time, the FB that prevents a remake is going to be from one of the 4 non-quitters...which might feel even worse than before the remake system existed. The FB requirement should be removed.
: Well speaking from experience, I've had many people do a level one 1v1 top or mid and die, then d/c. So they're just trying to prevent rage-quiters from getting what they want and actually playing the game out and trying to improve rather than just leave when one thing goes wrong. {{sticker:slayer-pantheon-thumbs}} I love this feature Rito!
There is no good reason for the first blood requirement that I can see. The person has to be AFK for at LEAST 90 seconds for it to trigger. For someone to give up first blood AND be AFK for 90 seconds, they would have to die before the 1:30 mark and afk or quit immediately after. That will almost never happen, and I don't see how that is any different from someone just AFKing from the start, as far as the remaining team members are concerned. The leaver is getting punished appropriately whether they give FB or not (loss + leaver buster). 3 minutes is not enough time for someone to die naturally and get flamed by their team that they should AFK "for the team" or whatever either, for the same reasons. They would have to die and quit before 1:30, which is almost never going to happen. More than likely, FB in a 4v5 scenario is going to happen when one of the remaining 4 dies trying to play a 1v2 lane and gets dove, or the other team 5 man invades and kills the jungler, etc... The first blood requirement really hurts the 4 people who didn't DC...
: or make it so the dc'ed person has to be involved in the First Blood for it not to count (i.e. get killed)
I noticed the same flaw in the system when I read it, but your suggestion would fix it. As it stands now, teams with a DC will be forced to sit in base for 3 minutes, because one death means no remake. It is weird that they made such a glaring oversight...
: Goth Annie Splash Art "Update"
I recently noticed the change to this art, and they literally just changed the face to something that looks like a porcelain doll and I really don't like it. The previous version of the art was way better and I don't see any reasonable justification for changing the face like that...
: Riot actually does a lot of in-client surveys. This is the only way to get a true sampling of the playerbase. Many players don't use the forums. Many players don't use Reddit, and so on and so on. Every player uses the client though. You can have 800 polls in other places, but only the in-client gives an actual good scope of the playerbase. This includes the silent types that don't post elsewhere (which is a VAST majority of the playerbase that is never represented in polls on Reddit/Forums/elsewhere).
> [{quoted}](name=DarkRitual,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=5jb9yPOG,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2016-04-24T11:19:04.645+0000) > > Riot actually does a lot of in-client surveys. This is the only way to get a true sampling of the playerbase. Many players don't use the forums. Many players don't use Reddit, and so on and so on. Every player uses the client though. > You can have 800 polls in other places, but only the in-client gives an actual good scope of the playerbase. This includes the silent types that don't post elsewhere (which is a VAST majority of the playerbase that is never represented in polls on Reddit/Forums/elsewhere). Polling players on something like dynamic vs. solo queue is not the right call for **ranked**. That makes sense for normal queue and all non-ranked aspects of the game (do you like this art?, do you like the new user interface?, would you rather have longer or shorter games? etc...). However, when it comes to things that affect the integrity of a ranking system, polls of the "average player" should take a back seat. The ranked system calls for intelligent, experienced design, not the mob mentality of all the 14-year-olds that play this game. The **_vast_** majority of players are not going to know how to design an effective ranked system, so their opinions should not really be a factor. So, I don't really care even if the average player really does prefer dynamic queue, that doesn't change the fact that it is corrosive to a ranking system heavily built upon the outcome of games.
Slythion (NA)
: The system compares you to other players that play that champion, comparing yourself to your teammates who are playing different champions doesn't represent anything at all That's actually quite a low amount of farm for a 22 minute game too
> [{quoted}](name=Slythion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=2mKqenUb,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2016-04-24T18:58:13.280+0000) > > The system compares you to other players that play that champion, comparing yourself to your teammates who are playing different champions doesn't represent anything at all > > That's actually quite a low amount of farm for a 22 minute game too So other Annies are doing **better** than 10/0/8?? That is ridiculous. Also, farm doesn't matter if you're getting money from kills/assists. I was fighting (and winning) too much to farm minions. This is exactly the reason why it doesn't make sense and needs adjustments.
Gimpy89 (NA)
: the competitive integrity is ruined at all ranks
> [{quoted}](name=Gimpy89,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=5jb9yPOG,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2016-04-23T22:46:01.063+0000) > > the competitive integrity is ruined at all ranks yep, and many of us complained that this was one of the many flaws with it for ranked queues. There are tons of older threads I participated in where I and others pointed out the impact it would have on the integrity of ranked. I think the whole issue is that Riot is trying to force everyone to "team up". Riot doesn't see solo queue as being valid (or at least not **_as_** valid), so they thought it wouldn't matter as long as it got more people playing with teammates they trust. The whole issue is that Dynamic Queue is just built on that flawed logical foundation, that one day no one will want to play solo. You can't force people to "team up". Wanting to play solo is a fundamental thing, not just a minor preference, and despite what Riot thinks, this game is not incompatible with a solo queue. They only way I can see Dynamic Queue staying without hurting ranked integrity is to move to a 100% individual performance ranking system where your rank depends on how you do in a game, not on whether you win....and that is probably **not** going to happen.
Rioter Comments
: @Riot - Toxic Players aren't the core issue, it's those that have no second thoughts to trolling
Riot is already aware of how toxicity tends to spread (that is why it is called being "toxic" in the first place), but I think so far they have always had the stance that like "that's no excuse". They expect you to be reasonable and think to yourself "okay...I'm pissed...but if I troll this, it ruins the game for at least 4 other people and that's not fair". Also, they have made some fairly recent improvements to the feeder detection stuff. I posted a thread [(here)](http://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/n7ccyc79-riot-this-feeder-is-ruining-ranked?show=flat&comment=003c) a couple months ago about an obvious feeder and they ended up being banned when someone at Riot looked into it. (Apparently, they already got flagged by one of the updates to the detection logic). If you see issues with it, they asked that you send in a ticket with screenshots so they can keep making it better. You should definitely do this if you run into intentional feeding and you think the system missed it.
: i tried helping this new player, tried getting him better at league
I think the game should auto mute all (except for people on your friends list) until level 20 tbh. This happens too much. It is almost a certainty that if a new player goes 0/19, people will be mad and be dicks to them.
: I know I'm not eligible for rewards
I get really angry with people who are toxic in this game, so I don't really have a lot of sympathy for you, BUT I agree, this weirdly persistent reminder sounds torturous and discourages progress. There has to be a better way. Annoyance is not a very good deterrent...just makes people angry.
Kürama (NA)
: Can we be granted the ability to change tags?
This. Not being able to change the tag is a huge issue, in my opinion. Also, tags should not be unique. The club name is unique, that's enough.
: Retiring Dominion
I am really disappointed in this decision and what has happened to dominion. Until all of the botting happened, there were plenty of people who played this mode. It is a really cool, different game type which could have been developed and improved but it was just abandoned and that is extremely unfortunate. This is a mistake, in my opinion.
: Submit a ticket. Posting on boards won't get him banned. EDIT: And calling out that hole with a ticket could help them fill it. So yeah, that's the thing to do if you want to help fix it.
> [{quoted}](name=CyanoPirate,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=n7ccyc79,comment-id=000000010000,timestamp=2016-01-21T21:44:28.683+0000) > > Submit a ticket. Posting on boards won't get him banned. > > EDIT: And calling out that hole with a ticket could help them fill it. So yeah, that's the thing to do if you want to help fix it. This post isn't intended to get them banned, it is intended to draw awareness to the fact that there is an issue. Intentional feeders are able to wreck way too many games under the current system.
FHMarshy (NA)
: funny thing tho, im actually doubting the authenticity of his claim. If it happened to him, i'd attest to his claim, but he hasn't played a rank yet since reset, im not sure where he got this complaint from.
> [{quoted}](name=FHMarshy,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=n7ccyc79,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2016-01-21T21:37:51.348+0000) > > funny thing tho, im actually doubting the authenticity of his claim. If it happened to him, i'd attest to his claim, but he hasn't played a rank yet since reset, im not sure where he got this complaint from. It happened to my wife, and if she posted it, it would be easy for everyone to go figure out the person's summoner name. I posted it to avoid this and prevent any accusations of violating ToS
: He'll get banned soon.
> [{quoted}](name=stealthfox94,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=n7ccyc79,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2016-01-21T21:32:23.500+0000) > > He'll get banned soon. "Soon" .... after 9 games isn't soon enough. That is 36 people so far who have an unwarranted loss now, and 45 people who have a free win. Both are bad for the accuracy of ranked and matchmaking, and a waste of everyone's time.
  Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
: RiotLyte, the changes proposed will not fix dynamic queue
> [{quoted}](name=cornswaggler,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=iH2EeJEt,comment-id=,timestamp=2016-01-15T22:18:17.807+0000) > > Reducing the amount that teams and individuals play each other only makes the ladder rankings more inaccurate (which is the entire problem of dynamic queue). Dynamic queue forces teams of inferior players to play vs unorganized teams of superior players based of some arbitrary difference in skill level that riot decides. This introduces a massive amount of variance and luck into the system and increases the inaccuracy and exploitability of the system. > > The only real solution to have an accurate ranking is separate queues for individuals and teams. Even the old system was not perfect, but it was reasonable. This^ A bunch of people (maybe even you) explained these issues over here, a long time ago: http://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/GD/JNwgrzih-qa-about-dynamic-queues-and-new-champ-select?show=flat&page=14
: you can't rank unorganized play and organized play on the same ladder
> [{quoted}](name=cornswaggler,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Lim2pfhE,comment-id=,timestamp=2016-01-15T09:12:40.607+0000) > > you can't rank unorganized play and organized play on the same ladder This is the best way of explaining it that I've seen so far.
Lyte (NA)
: Q&A about Dynamic Queues and new Champ Select
Hey, remember that time when you proposed dynamic groups and some of us suggested that this would cause a lot of issues? Now that it has rolled out (and subsequently been heavily criticized), maybe the concerns in here will provide some useful insight about the unfair matchups and screwing over players who prefer playing alone. {{summoner:2}} oh and this thread puts it all very succinctly, if you haven't seen it already: http://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/1hTEQFyJ-if-you-cant-play-with-friends-dont-play-at-all-rito-games
: As Lucky said after me, you had 10 months....10 fucking months. Either git gud, do it sooner or get a nerd friend to smurf and carry you like the rest of the trash community does.
> [{quoted}](name=DariusDemiurge,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=vU8WHK1q,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2015-11-11T09:31:15.190+0000) > > As Lucky said after me, you had 10 months....10 fucking months. Either git gud, do it sooner or get a nerd friend to smurf and carry you like the rest of the trash community does. I don't understand why people are being so mean about it....I think it is pretty reasonable. What if Riot cut off matches in the middle? Like at 12AM PST, any in-progress match just ended? It feels similar to that. Riot let's people finish out any game they were queued for before 12:01. I think you should get to finish out any series you are in prior to 12:01. I don't think that is unreasonable.
NotSid (NA)
: Then who the fuck would you play against?
> [{quoted}](name=NotSid,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=vU8WHK1q,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2015-11-11T09:13:56.728+0000) > > Then who the fuck would you play against? Other people in their series EDIT: Or, alternatively, people could have a week or a few days or something to finish it. I can't think of a perfect solution for it off the top of my head, but ... it just feels weird. I had a crazy climb for a few days, and finally made it to my series despite a few AFK games today. And then the queue goes down after my 2nd match of the series. I would feel less weird about it if I had gotten close to the series but didn't make it. Like 99 LP would suck, but it would still make sense.
Raw (NA)
: You had 10 months to do it and you still complain. http://www.auplod.com/u/daopul5c344.png
> [{quoted}](name=Lucky,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=vU8WHK1q,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2015-11-11T08:50:43.839+0000) > > You had 10 months to do it and you still complain. > > http://www.auplod.com/u/daopul5c344.png No, I get that. But like. I'm IN the series right now. It sucks that the second half of the series is going to be on all the preseason stuff. I don't know...it just doesn't seem right to cut anyone off who is in the middle of a series.
Rioter Comments
Kei143 (NA)
: Hmm.. actually, on the controversy, its (unskiled) been used to threaten to report others very very very frequently. I saw it pretty often. A few people know that it does nothing, but alot of people whom don't access the boards / websites / reddit don't know that unskilled does nothing, and when they see a threatening report going to them, they react. Sometimes in rage, sometimes in more bad plays, sometimes in intentional feeding. Of course when they do retaliate negatively, they'll get reported for verbal / harrassment as well. So yes, it is used as a bully tool as well as a venting tool. I used it to vent, but never to bully (as I never tell others my intend to report). --- Now Lyte did say that he saw that as a feature to vent and was thinking about something to help us vent after. But as the current preseason priorities go, its obviously Team Builder draft first. Then he did mention something about queue dodge reporting and redoing games in the first 5 minutes if someone doesn't connect. The thought is there, the priority isn't. Yet.
> [{quoted}](name=Kei143,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=lcxjMZn4,comment-id=0001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-11-08T23:44:54.860+0000) > > Hmm.. actually, on the controversy, its (unskiled) been used to threaten to report others very very very frequently. > > I saw it pretty often. A few people know that it does nothing, but alot of people whom don't access the boards / websites / reddit don't know that unskilled does nothing, and when they see a threatening report going to them, they react. Sometimes in rage, sometimes in more bad plays, sometimes in intentional feeding. > > Of course when they do retaliate negatively, they'll get reported for verbal / harrassment as well. So yes, it is used as a bully tool as well as a venting tool. I used it to vent, but never to bully (as I never tell others my intend to report). > > --- > > Now Lyte did say that he saw that as a feature to vent and was thinking about something to help us vent after. But as the current preseason priorities go, its obviously Team Builder draft first. Then he did mention something about queue dodge reporting and redoing games in the first 5 minutes if someone doesn't connect. > > The thought is there, the priority isn't. Yet. I mean I see how that can be an issue. But it is pretty easy for Riot to solve that by putting up some feedback in the client that let's you know no one is punished for it. I have never ever witnessed anyone threatening this or using it like that by the way. I thought it was common knowledge that it doesn't lead to punishments and that this was the reason people didn't bully with it. EDIT: By the way, thanks for being constructive instead of insulting me or saying I'm a problem or whatever.
Xonra (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Jaawn,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=lcxjMZn4,comment-id=0001000000000000,timestamp=2015-11-08T22:00:51.048+0000) > > I don't think it did that either.... Seriously what is so wrong with reporting that a player on your team is very unskilled and not playing at the level you expect in your division? It could be useful for detecting matchmaking issues or boosting etc... It was a useful option that also helped vent frustration after games because you were able to express, through the client, that a specific player was subpar. You didn't have to yell at them or call them "bad" so it was a nice way to express it without contributing to negativity. > > I do not understand why anyone is against this option... Because people like you will just use it as a tool to bully people with reports or threads of reports if they have a bad game. People like you are 100% why there should never be a report functionality designed to punish someone for having a bad game. You aren't the skill police, and being salty about losing is no excuse to go trying to get people banned to make you feel better.
> [{quoted}](name=Xonra,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=lcxjMZn4,comment-id=00010000000000000000,timestamp=2015-11-08T22:05:57.837+0000) > > Because people like you will just use it as a tool to bully people with reports or threads of reports if they have a bad game. People like you are 100% why there should never be a report functionality designed to punish someone for having a bad game. You aren't the skill police, and being salty about losing is no excuse to go trying to get people banned to make you feel better. What the hell man. Stop throwing accusations at me. Reporting for unskilled has never been a way to bully people. If you are reported for this you never even see it!
: Right, I'm misremembering it. What it did was lower the weight the system gave that person's reports.
> [{quoted}](name=ViashinoWizard,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=lcxjMZn4,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2015-11-08T21:54:34.757+0000) > > Right, I'm misremembering it. What it did was lower the weight the system gave that person's reports. I don't think it did that either.... Seriously what is so wrong with reporting that a player on your team is very unskilled and not playing at the level you expect in your division? It could be useful for detecting matchmaking issues or boosting etc... It was a useful option that also helped vent frustration after games because you were able to express, through the client, that a specific player was subpar. You didn't have to yell at them or call them "bad" so it was a nice way to express it without contributing to negativity. I do not understand why anyone is against this option...
: You realize that the "unskilled" report option didn't do anything except flag the person reporting as potentially toxic, right?
> [{quoted}](name=ViashinoWizard,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=lcxjMZn4,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2015-11-08T21:04:26.881+0000) > > You realize that the "unskilled" report option didn't do anything except flag the person reporting as potentially toxic, right? No it didn't lol. They tracked it but didn't really do anything with the information. Who said it flagged them for being toxic? I've never been banned and I've never even received an alert that I've been reported...and I reported people for unskilled all the time.
: Write a journal, tweet or blog about it. It's basically the same thing; you're venting your frustration about a team or player without any penalty to them or yourself. Sounds weird, but now that I think of it, you really could make a Twitter account just for anonymously bashing bad players XD
> [{quoted}](name=Deep Terror Nami,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=lcxjMZn4,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2015-11-08T20:58:06.731+0000) > > Write a journal, tweet or blog about it. It's basically the same thing; you're venting your frustration about a team or player without any penalty to them or yourself. Sounds weird, but now that I think of it, you really could make a Twitter account just for anonymously bashing bad players XD It is not the same thing, and all of those take way more effort. Reporting for unskilled was never a "penalty" because no one could be banned for it.
Rioter Comments
: You shouldn't have to be forced to mute a person for being toxic. This type of attitude is why riot is doing nothing about the real toxic players and just punishing those people at will because they finally fight back. I've had games where someone's told me to go kill myself, call me a ni..er and use other names. I report, but does riot send ANY feedback? No. Hell I've had two players in my last game admit to having a friend on teamspeak watch the game on op.gg and tell them where everyone was on the map.. I do report them, but It's starting to get to the point where I'm going to stop even trying to make the game better..
> [{quoted}](name=Sythriel Draken,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=nfTjaWxj,comment-id=00000001,timestamp=2015-11-05T07:35:45.589+0000) > > You shouldn't have to be forced to mute a person for being toxic. This type of attitude is why riot is doing nothing about the real toxic players and just punishing those people at will because they finally fight back. > I've had games where someone's told me to go kill myself, call me a ni..er and use other names. I report, but does riot send ANY feedback? No. > > Hell I've had two players in my last game admit to having a friend on teamspeak watch the game on op.gg and tell them where everyone was on the map.. > > I do report them, but It's starting to get to the point where I'm going to stop even trying to make the game better.. I don't think you should give up hope. I have had a lot of friends get feedback that someone they reported was punished. However, I do think Riot should ramp up this feedback. Positive feedback for reports can go a long way in making sure people report consistently and accurately.
: To build upon what Look is saying; don't think of a report as the end all be all when it comes to determining a punishment. They help our systems record patterns and look closely at specific games. We're at a really cool point in League where our systems have a certain level of awareness. If toxic behavior is not detected, then no disciplinary action will be taken. Even if you received 9 reports in a game, you wouldn't have to worry as long as your behavior wasn't toxic in any way. The more reports a person makes for silly things the less "value" the system will place in their report, eventually ignoring it all together.
> [{quoted}](name=WookieeCookie,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=Lw9YEa9O,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2015-11-05T06:05:13.290+0000) > > To build upon what Look is saying; don't think of a report as the end all be all when it comes to determining a punishment. They help our systems record patterns and look closely at specific games. > > We're at a really cool point in League where our systems have a certain level of awareness. If toxic behavior is not detected, then no disciplinary action will be taken. Even if you received 9 reports in a game, you wouldn't have to worry as long as your behavior wasn't toxic in any way. > > The more reports a person makes for silly things the less "value" the system will place in their report, eventually ignoring it all together. I really wish there was a way for us to know how much weight our reports carry relative to other players. It might actually be good to give some kind of feedback like that anyway. For example, maybe people who give out silly reports should be notified that their behavior has been noticed. Likewise, maybe players who give useful reports should be encouraged so that they continue to give high quality reports.
Lyte (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Jaawn,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=JNwgrzih,comment-id=004c00000000,timestamp=2015-11-05T09:07:07.479+0000) > > I mean I get that, I understand that this is why you're doing a progressive rollout to PBE and then Normals first. I'm just worried about selection bias and self-fulfilling prophecies. It is pretty easy to take a huge dataset and find data in it to support any preexisting hypotheses. And I get that this is your job, and you understand these things, but I have already noticed for a long time that there are issues with MMR and the matchmaker in lower tiers; I don't see how this won't make it worse. It feels like you're foreclosing on the idea of a truly accurate ranking system at all tiers. It's just "good enough." > > I guess I just don't agree that these tradeoffs are valid or "worth it." Even if your surveys did give you truly representative samples, and most players really do want this (and they specifically want it in solo queue)...does that mean it's the best option? You know, I bet most players would like free skins, or to be able to pay Riot for a fresh level 30 account. Maybe most players would even like to be able to buy "LP boosts" or be able to queue up for ranked with friends 3 tiers above them again. My point is, what people want and what is best for them or for the community are not always aligned. If most people want dynamic groups AND they also _specifically_ want them in solo queue...then I think this is one of the times where what people want is not what is best for them. > > By the way, if you already have a solution for the decreased precision in individual rank, I'd be very interested in hearing about it. It's getting late--I need to get some rest so will skip some of your bigger discussions for now. At the risk of sounding offensive (which is NOT my intention with this reply), couldn't we use the same arguments against solo purists? What if Dynamic Queue is something solo purists say they don't want, but actually is better for them in the long run too? My point is, I agree that players sometimes say one thing, but mean another. Or, sometimes players really don't know what they *actually* want. But, I'd be wary assuming "the other population" is the one that doesn't know what they want, and *your* population knows exactly what you want and that you must be right. It's a game designer's job to try to figure out the reality behind the fog, and try to understand what is actually the best experience--but I'll be the first to say that it's hard, and sometimes we'll get it wrong. This might be one of those times, it might not be. But, we're willing to give it a go and pivot as necessary--even if it's mid-season.
> [{quoted}](name=Lyte,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=JNwgrzih,comment-id=004c000000000000,timestamp=2015-11-05T09:11:25.604+0000) > > It's getting late--I need to get some rest so will skip some of your bigger discussions for now. At the risk of sounding offensive (which is NOT my intention with this reply), couldn't we use the same arguments against solo purists? What if Dynamic Queue is something solo purists say they don't want, but actually is better for them in the long run too? > > My point is, I agree that players sometimes say one thing, but mean another. Or, sometimes players really don't know what they *actually* want. But, I'd be wary assuming "the other population" is the one that doesn't know what they want, and *your* population knows exactly what you want and that you must be right. It's a game designer's job to try to figure out the reality behind the fog, and try to understand what is actually the best experience--but I'll be the first to say that it's hard, and sometimes we'll get it wrong. This might be one of those times, it might not be. But, we're willing to give it a go and pivot as necessary--even if it's mid-season. That is a fair point. Maybe dynamic groups will be a panacea and everyone will benefit. It is possible that this will be better for me even though I don't want it. I hope it is. But I also hope enough people point out perceived flaws in it so that if/when it comes to ranked, it is trusted and well-tested by all kinds of players. It sounds like that is your intention, so I hope it works out. But, most of my feedback in this thread has been focused on the matchmaking/ranking ramifications, which have the possibility of being tested and proven in the coming months. There are also social concerns as well. Being introverted, for example, is not an affliction; you don't "solve" it by getting people to "come out of their shell" or forcing them to socialize. Some people are just drained by socialization. I don't know that there is a good way to test the impact of this on players' comfort levels and well-being, but it is something to consider. I know I'll feel slightly anxious about whether "to group or not to group" and navigating the whole social aspect if it becomes common to form impromptu groups with strangers. Dynamic groups will definitely encourage people to socialize (for better or worse), but that is not necessarily "good" for all players all the time even if it is good for _some_ players. We're all different, and in the past I liked that Riot embraced those differences by offering numerous queues and game modes. In addition to my concerns about rank quality, the specifics of the dynamic group implementation feel like a _slight_ establishment of a preferred player personality—namely, a social/outgoing one. Players who are introverted and looking to focus on their play without socializing will still be able to queue up for ranked, but they'll be at a slight disadvantage since they won't be able to have as much of a say when it comes to strategy and they won't have quite as much synergy with their team. There will no longer be a queue with a free-for-all feel and highly random teammates/opponents that a solo player can jump into and have zero expectation of socializing. Maybe that's a good thing, but I like it the current way. I even wish there was a truly solo queue with no duoing haha. With that said, I need to get some rest too (I'm in EST lol), but even though I'm being critical here, I want you to know that I really appreciate your willingness to read through my feedback. I will feel more confident that, even if we disagree, you at least gave my thoughts some consideration. So thanks for that.
Jaawn (NA)
: Basically, I think **THE** main issue with this is the current state of the MMR and matchmaking system (especially MMR). The main issue most people have with dynamic groups is the skill disparity in matches going up (and it's already a problem.) If Riot could develop and MMR system that is not primarily based on match outcome, then a dynamic group system could work. If a player performs exceptionally well but loses, maybe his or her loss doesn't remove any MMR and maybe they only lose 5LP or something. If a Diamond player ends up in lane vs a Gold player and loses lane, and performs at a low level, maybe he or she actually loses MMR even if they win. If you have an accurate system that does this, then dynamic groups can work. However, I'm fairly sure that any individual performance metrics only have a very minor affect on MMR (if any) and it is still mostly outcome-based. So...it is going to be an issue because of that. When teammates and opponents are mostly random, the Solo MMR works a lot better because even if someone "gets carried" in one match, they have a new team in the next one. It balances out. But if you habitually play with the same 2 or 3 friends, your rank is the rank of the group, not you individually. That is why there is ranked 5s and ranked 3s. Trying to glean individual rank from a bunch of games where people are all grouped up is going to be nearly impossible. This system will only work if everyone plays enough full solo games to recalibrate after periods of grouping, and if those calibration matches are full of players with ranks that match their skill.
> [{quoted}](name=Jaawn,realm=NA,application-id=mNBeEEkI,discussion-id=JNwgrzih,comment-id=0050,timestamp=2015-11-05T08:50:18.746+0000) > > This system will only work if everyone plays enough full solo games to recalibrate after periods of grouping, and if those calibration matches are full of players with ranks that match their skill. You know...prohibiting grouping for promotional matches and making players play one or two solo matches per every 3 group matches would probably help alleviate a lot of the issues I've mentioned. It would also help queue times as an added bonus lol.
Show more

Jaawn

Level 33 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion