: Selling items resets your health to what it was when you hit the base. Not sure why, but it does.
It's because buying an item that has +health will also add that much health to you. If they didn't have something like this, you could wire up some macros to rapidly buy+sell a cheap item with health on it to instantly heal. That said, it only *needs* to reduce your health if you actually had bought an item with +health. But given how many bugs they've had with selling/buyback, they likely opted to have this kick in universally so the code is simpler.
Mohzar (NA)
: [GAMEPLAY] Jungle camps resetting
Probably related to the recent changes they made to how camps reset. If you haven't yet damaged them, smiting while you're untargetable will cause them to instantly reset. Which is probably not a bug. Try waiting until the alpha strike damage goes off, or AA once first and then trigger your Q.
Thoma5 (NA)
: Can a riot employee help me, i want to report a player personally because he was insanely offensive
If you think a player needs some personal attention, you can submit a support ticket here: https://support.riotgames.com/hc/requests/new Just be aware that they will never tell you anything except something like "thanks, we'll look into it". They do not disclose the results of investigations.
: I'm going to ask a potentially controversial question
It's generally most efficient early on to rush items with AD (like IE), and Berzerker's Greaves are a strong, cheap source of AS to go with that. If you have IE+Greaves, you're going to win extended trades simply because you'll get 4 autos off in the time they get 3 (or something like that). The problem with rushing CDR boots is that most ADCs can't afford to spam abilities on cooldown. But if you can, and you think you'll get more damage out of more frequent abilities than more frequent AAs, it could work. The armor/MR ones just aren't going to make enough of a difference -- you're too squishy. Swiftness could be useful if they have a lot of slows and/or skillshots, or if you're behind and you don't think the AS is going to make a difference.
Sciela (NA)
: A faster way to farm IP?
You can get slightly more IP by playing shorter matches like ARAM/TT/Dominion. You get a flat amount per match, plus a flat amount per minute played, so shorter matches end up giving you slightly more IP overall. And obviously make sure you get the first win bonus every day -- you can get it very quickly playing beginner bots. TT is even faster if you can coordinate properly.
: Do riot keep records for conversations in queue?
If the match was played and you reported them post-game, they'll get looked at. Pre- and post-game chat is recorded and taken into consideration. I'm not sure if their new automated systems scan lobbies for games that were not started. However, chat from those *is* recorded, and Riot can look at it manually. If you think a player needs to be looked at manually, you can open a ticket here: https://support.riotgames.com/hc/requests/new and give them any information you have about them. DO NOT post their name or other information here.
: > The point is that if you reward simply for "warding" (or any other purely mechanical action), you arbitrarily reward players for pushing a button. I think encouraging players to ward can only have (to different degrees) positive effects. However, it is still in the players' interests to ward appropriately, so long as you have an algorithm that does not "overpower" any spammable mechanics. Furthermore, defending the nexus may lead to more damage dealt/taken, and more kills/assists. If these are weighted appropriately, then the player will consequently suffer from taking actions against their team's best interests. Also, the system would still deduct points for losing, so players shouldn't be desensitised to defeat. > Properly weighing kills vs. assists is quite tricky. Your points here are completely true, and it is difficult finding an accurate way of correlating stats to in-game performance. However, based on initial findings in the equation I've developed, I definitely thing it is possible (despite current flaws). Something I should note is that in my current formula, players are rated compared to their team median on all aspects (mean would be affected too much by outliers). The reason this is working so far is because of how champions in LoL are designed - less CC = more damage, or vice versa. So either a champion will get kills and deal damage, or get assists and take damage. So ADCs should be way above the median for kills, but way less for assists and damage taken (in theory). This can of course change depending on how good/bad the player is. I will keep fiddling until I have a system that accurately reflects player performances in ~90% of games. As for kill-stealing - this is why balancing the weighting between damage dealt, kills, and assists is key. Same thing for those players with sunfire capes and 1,000,000 assists simply for standing nearby. It links back to my earlier point, you can't give credit to players for potentially spammable mechanics . But by considering so many statistical aspects, this mostly solves the issue - spamming one thing will lead to a lack of another. > The problem is that it's very difficult -- if not impossible -- to look at most stats in isolation and say what they're "worth". Sometimes you can definitely say that with all else equal, it's better to have more of something (kills, assists, CS, gold, objectives damaged/taken) or less of something (deaths). But those things are the product of complex decisions and gameplay situations, and so it's almost never the case that everything else is equal. I agree. Some stats have more behind them than others. However, in the _vast_ majority of cases, kills are good, assists are good, deaths are bad (unless a player gets kills/assists before their death, which would be considered). > Probably the most common complaint I hear from players who want individual stats taken into account is that they "win lane but their team throws the game". This is a problem. The scenario that I am torn on is something like this: Player goes 8/0 in lane Team-mates struggle, maybe die once or twice in lane Player doesn't use his advantage to help Team-fights are lost, but relatively this has little effect on the final rating of the 8/0 player If it's not this player's fault that his team lost their lanes, should he take as much responsibility for the loss? Yes he could've done more, but in every game you can say "well this person could've done this better." The player will still lose LP for the loss, and repeated performances will lead to further LP loss unless they learn. However, they will just lose it at a slower rate - is that not fair? > Arguably, rating players solely on the outcomes of games they were in is optimal over a large number of games. You would think! However, the fact that you start on 0LP after promotion makes a **big** difference. This is what spurred me to make this discussion - I was promoted, my following performances probably ranged between 6-8/10 (for my rank), yet I was almost immediately demoted. Above average performances do not necessarily lead to a higher rank, or if they do, it can be a far more painstaking process than it should be. If I win my next 5 games, get promoted, then lose the next 3, I haven't progressed in the ranking system, despite a 63% winrate! Surely a 20LP start would make more sense! This happens because the promo games do not contribute to LP, and Riot don't seem to have considered the effects of this. > But over a large number of games, I would not expect any fancy grading system to be able to do significantly better than the current MMR system. It could definitely do better, having seen the results from my _first_ draft algorithm, never mind with improvements! Like I said before, my target is to have a formula which is accurate in 90% of games. If it fails in 1/10, this is far better than Riot's current system which fails in probably 5/10 (my algorithm also re-allocates LP in winning teams depending on good/bad performances, e.g. if a bad player is in a winning team, they will get less LP).
> [{quoted}](name=The Artist XCIII,realm=EUW,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=L8Rl8pXx,comment-id=000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2015-10-01T19:43:21.444+0000) >Something I should note is that in my current formula, players are rated compared to their team median on all aspects (mean would be affected too much by outliers). The reason this is working so far is because of how champions in LoL are designed - less CC = more damage, or vice versa. So either a champion will get kills and deal damage, or get assists and take damage. So ADCs should be way above the median for kills, but way less for assists and damage taken (in theory). > As for kill-stealing - this is why balancing the weighting between damage dealt, kills, and assists is key. Same thing for those players with sunfire capes and 1,000,000 assists simply for standing nearby. It links back to my earlier point, you can't give credit to players for potentially spammable mechanics . But by considering so many statistical aspects, this mostly solves the issue - spamming one thing will lead to a lack of another. Hmm. That's an interesting approach, although I'm not convinced it will work in all cases or not be exploitable. But the idea of looking for players who exceed in multiple categories across their team might have something to it. > I agree. Some stats have more behind them than others. However, in the _vast_ majority of cases, kills are good, assists are good, deaths are bad (unless a player gets kills/assists before their death, which would be considered). I think the more fundamental problems you're going to find are: 1) The "value" of many stats can't accurately be determined in isolation. Deaths are almost always "bad", but sometimes dying is the least bad outcome (like maybe you died so the rest of your team could get away), and sometimes you're throwing the game. 2) Some stats are good at some times and bad at others. For example, you keep referencing "damage taken", perhaps considering it a proxy for something like "participation in team fights". But you might also just take a lot of damage because you're bad at trading or positioning. Even if you're a tank, with all else equal you'd want to take less damage. > This is a problem. The scenario that I am torn on is something like this: > Player goes 8/0 in lane > Team-mates struggle, maybe die once or twice in lane > Player doesn't use his advantage to help > Team-fights are lost, but relatively this has little effect on the final rating of the 8/0 player > > If it's not this player's fault that his team lost their lanes, should he take as much responsibility for the loss? Yes he could've done more, but in every game you can say "well this person could've done this better." You're explicitly proposing a system to dole out responsibility for wins and losses -- so yes, any "bonus" they're getting in rating should be based on how close they came to doing everything they could to help the team win. In extreme cases it might even make sense to give an extremely selfish player *extra* LP loss, even if they have a "pretty" stat line. If your system is incapable of doing that then it will definitely be exploitable. >The player will still lose LP for the loss, and repeated performances will lead to further LP loss unless they learn. However, they will just lose it at a slower rate - is that not fair? If their "good stats" had no impact on the game -- yes, actually it *is* unfair in some sense to reward them for it. Doing that is effectively penalizing the person who took a late-game teamfight champ and got stomped into the ground because Mr. Lane Bully didn't help his team *get* to the late game like they should have. Whether you phrase it as one player getting a bonus or another getting a penalty, you're effectively assigning more blame for the loss to one player than another. Keep in mind that rating gains/losses have to be balanced -- if you give one player more credit for a win/loss, you have to give another player less, or you'll break the rating system over time! In a system like this it's beneficial to play early-game champs, or assassins/duelists, since if you're mechanically good you'll probably have a good stat line even when you lose. If you pick a team-oriented champ, and your team struggles around you or doesn't play effectively together, there isn't much you can do. Just that effect alone will screw with the meta in solo queue. > You would think! However, the fact that you start on 0LP after promotion makes a **big** difference. This is what spurred me to make this discussion - I was promoted, my following performances probably ranged between 6-8/10 (for my rank), yet I was almost immediately demoted. Above average performances do not necessarily lead to a higher rank, or if they do, it can be a far more painstaking process than it should be. If I win my next 5 games, get promoted, then lose the next 3, I haven't progressed in the ranking system, despite a 63% winrate! Surely a 20LP start would make more sense! This happens because the promo games do not contribute to LP, and Riot don't seem to have considered the effects of this. The whole division system and the way promo series work is a separate thing. Some players definitely find it frustrating, although there are frustrating elements to almost any ranking system (mostly because almost everyone thinks they are better than their rank says they are.) Also, you do have protection from being demoted immediately after you promote to a new division, and a single loss at 0LP is not guaranteed to demote you. If you maintain a 60%+ winrate over time, your MMR will keep rising, and eventually that will more or less force you into higher divisions until your winrate levels out. It may take longer than you'd like, but you'll get there. > It could definitely do better, having seen the results from my _first_ draft algorithm, never mind with improvements! Like I said before, my target is to have a formula which is accurate in 90% of games. If it fails in 1/10, this is far better than Riot's current system which fails in probably 5/10 (my algorithm also re-allocates LP in winning teams depending on good/bad performances, e.g. if a bad player is in a winning team, they will get less LP). What Riot currently does is very accurate **over a large enough sample of games**. (It seems like most people need 50-100 matches in Ranked to get close to where they should be on the ladder.) The whole reason you'd want to have a system that tries to grade individual performance is that you can get better results in the short term. **If** you can do that very accurately, you can adjust players' ratings more accurately (and more quickly). But either way, eventually almost all players will end up in an equilibrium where they win ~50% of their matches. The problem is that any sort of rating system based on individual stats **will* distort how people play to some extent. For a system like that to be "worth it", it has to be *extremely* accurate. If you only use it to shade MMR gains/losses to a small degree (say, +/- 5%), then it's probably not worth the headaches you'll get from players trying to game it and screwing their teams over in the process. If you're going to use it to make big adjustments to rating gains/losses, it has to be pretty much impossible to abuse, and grade people correctly almost all the time -- even if they use novel tactics that you haven't seen before. That's a high bar to clear -- I'm not saying it **cannot** be done, but it's **really hard**.
Daen (NA)
: >Not to say there couldn't be some value in using individual stats to weight MMR changes. But the simplistic approaches people usually suggest (like basing it on KDA or assists or gold earned) are badly flawed. What would your opinion be on Mastery being at least a slight factor in ranked progression, provided it works as Riot intended? The system takes a huge number of things into account, from damage taken vs received to ward placement and effectiveness. This would allow players that excelled overall to not be hit quite as hard for a loss and wouldn't really change the values for players that struggled (since they still lost).
I don't feel like I have enough information -- Riot would need to expose more about how it grades players. AFAIK it measures your stats against other players with that champ and role. At least to a rough degree -- it probably decides if you're jungle/lane/support based on items and CSing, but I don't know if it could properly grade, say, double jungle. If it's solely based on individual stats, I would have the same concerns about stat-whoring, and strategies that result in worse personal stats being underrated (things like "proxy singed"), and "off-meta" strategies potentially being underrated.
: A question about a possible manual patch
I would *think* that if you have the game installed (so it has registry entries, etc.) and copied the entire League folder over from an up-to-date computer, it would *probably* work?
: Permanent bans ARE NOT PERMANENT!
To give you an actual answer, they use the "year" of the ban as a code for why the account was banned.
: I think you are incorrectly assuming that stat-whoring (for lack of a better phrase) will lead to players gaining more LP than if they played for the benefit of the team. For example, let's take your ward analogy. If people just drop wards on cooldown, yes they will gain a small bonus. However, if it means that their ward isn't well-placed, or well-timed, they are more likely to die from ganks and experience larger negative effects in the long term. This is the same with all methods of "self-boosting" - the long-term effects in-game will probably be negative. I completely understand what you're saying about favouring ADCs and assassins. However, if you consider damage taken and assists, everything balances out. You could even add different weightings on each stat to level it out, e.g. damage taken could have more weighting than number of kills. (Not saying this would/wouldn't work, just an example). The reason I would reward damage to buildings is because split-pushing is an "off-meta" strategy that could have positive effects that need to be considered. But it means that player is less likely to get points from kills/assists. With careful consideration, everything can be balanced. Win/loss contribution is exactly what I'm suggesting, yep! I'm not saying it's easy, and I'm not saying it's perfect. I just think over a large number of games, player rankings would give a more accurate representation of their skill level than the current system. NOTE: Bear in mind you would of course still consider whether the player wins/loses when measuring their LP, so some tactics that may go less recognised will still be rewarded if they result in a win.
>I think you are incorrectly assuming that stat-whoring (for lack of a better phrase) will lead to players gaining more LP than if they played for the benefit of the team. For example, let's take your ward analogy. If people just drop wards on cooldown, yes they will gain a small bonus. However, if it means that their ward isn't well-placed, or well-timed, they are more likely to die from ganks and experience larger negative effects in the long term. This is the same with all methods of "self-boosting" - the long-term effects in-game will probably be negative. The point is that if you reward simply for "warding" (or any other purely mechanical action), you arbitrarily reward players for pushing a button. It only makes sense to reward players for actions/choices that *actually cause their team to be more likely to win*. And if warding helps you win, **doing it well will increase your winrate relative to not doing it, which will cause you to gain more MMR and LP over time already**. The danger of this, IMO, is that in games that people think they're very likely to lose, they will essentially give up and just focus on anything they can do to pad their own stats. Like rather than defending their nexus (which would cause them to repeatedly die, lowering their stats!), go farm a bunch of minions/monsters, or knock down one of the enemy's undefended outer towers. >I completely understand what you're saying about favouring ADCs and assassins. However, if you consider damage taken and assists, everything balances out. Properly weighing kills vs. assists is quite tricky. Some champions, for instance, have more access to AOE damage (or ways to buff allies) and will tend to get more assists in teamfights simply because of that. In some cases a player made a herculean effort to get the kill on a fleeing enemy, and in others they swept in at the last second and hardly did anything to actually secure the kill. Sometimes they only got those kill(s) because someone else drew off all of the CC and damage. And taking damage is normally something you normally want to *avoid*. If you're suggesting something like "if you're a tank, taking damage gets you points, but it loses you points on an ADC", then 1) that's easy to game and 2) you're requiring the system to make quite detailed judgments about the metagame. Riot has generally taken pains not to enforce any sort of meta, and grading players on how they fill predetermined roles definitely does that. The problem is that it's *very* difficult -- if not impossible -- to look at most stats in isolation and say what they're "worth". Sometimes you can definitely say that *with all else equal*, it's better to have more of something (kills, assists, CS, gold, objectives damaged/taken) or less of something (deaths). But those things are the product of complex decisions and gameplay situations, and so it's almost never the case that everything else is equal. Probably the most common complaint I hear from players who want individual stats taken into account is that they "win lane but their team throws the game". And sometimes they really do have good KDA and CS, and clearly have the mechanical skills to dominate other players around their rank during laning. But those stats don't mean *anything* if they can't use that advantage to win games. In fact, sometimes what is happening is that they are picking lane bullies and laser-focusing on killing their opposing laner over and over and over (despite the diminishing returns from doing so). Those "great stats" they have in the early game are, in fact, **exactly why they are losing in the mid and late game**, because they are squandering their champion's power spikes padding their own stats rather than snowballing their team. No system that just looks at raw numbers and says "more kills = better!" can take something like that into account. >I just think over a large number of games, player rankings would give a more accurate representation of their skill level than the current system. Arguably, rating players solely on the outcomes of games they were in is **optimal** over a large number of games. By definition, doing this takes into account all possible in-game decisions the player has made and cannot over- or under-weight any specific choices the player made. If MMR in solo queue is supposed to mean something like "how good you are at making your team win", the most direct way to measure that is by seeing how frequently you win (relative to the strength of the opponents you're going up against). The reason you'd want to include other criteria is that game outcomes depend on far more than a single player's decisions -- namely, the nine other players in the match. It can take a lot of games for those "random" elements to even out and give a true picture of an individual player's ability. So **if** you can accurately and consistently figure out who bore the most responsibility for the wins and losses, you can increase/decrease players' ratings more rapidly, and get players at or near their correct rating more quickly. But over a large number of games, I would not expect *any* fancy grading system to be able to do significantly better than the current MMR system. Over time, if you're better than your rating indicates you'll win >50% of your matches, and if you're worse than it indicates you'll lose >50%, and that will move you towards the most accurate rating for you.
: 1) Fair, I've just heard/used the term with my friends and assumed I was using it right. I've changed the text now, so thank you! 2) I disagree. If you introduce a "stats per death" type system (e.g. damage dealt/taken per death, kills/assists per death, etc) I feel this discourages players to feed, whilst motivating them to play smarter and perform better. If they go 9/1, then afk to preserve their stats, they will simply be reported and punished through the tribunal (in theory). Of course, I would also suggest the inclusion of wards placed, damage to buildings, when considering a player's gain/loss of LP (these are off the top of my head, the benefit of using equations is that you can account for _everything_ ). I wouldn't include gold earned in MMR calculations. 3) I think if someone has been banned/restricted, this suggests consistent abuse of the game. Maybe in some cases there are anomalies, so I accept that to be fair. Maybe if someone has been restricted/banned 2 or more times in a season?
>If they go 9/1, then afk to preserve their stats, they will simply be reported and punished through the tribunal (in theory). The problem isn't that they would actually AFK. It's that if someone is personally doing well but their team is struggling, they might decide to *play in a way that best preserves their stats* (which will minimize their personal LP/MMR loss if they feel the game is, say, 90% likely to be a loss no matter what they do) rather than *playing in the way that maximizes their team's chance to win*. You have to be **very** careful about things like this. Another issue (since you started going into more specifics there) is that the kinds of stats you're talking about inherently favor certain roles and champions. Assassins and ADCs will, with the same level of player skill, almost always have better KDAs and fewer deaths in general. (Not to mention you now massively discourage any kind of initiation or sacrificial play. Trading an assassin or tank for an ADC late game is usually a positive, but if you punish people for every death you're obviously "misgrading" some plays. In short, some kills and deaths are much better/worse than others.) If you reward warding, people will just drop wards on cooldown no matter where they are. Rewarding damage to buildings arbitrarily rewards split pushing as "better", and most AP champs do very little damage to structures late game, which is when most structures go down. (Ironically, gold earned/minute probably has a stronger correlation with winrate than any of the stats you mentioned.) Did I mention that this gets suggested a *lot*? The stat you're trying to measure is something like "win/loss contribution" -- sort of like WAR in baseball SABRmetrics (which has an extremely complex formula). But it's *much* easier in a game like baseball to say "you won because X and Y got hits off pitcher Z" or "you lost because Q made a fielding error". There are some things that definitely *correlate* with winning in League, but the actual *causation* is much more complex. Any formula that actually captured it accurately would likely be extremely complex and opaque. And if it was based on machine learning of past games I **still** wouldn't want to weight it too heavily, since it might totally fail to recognize novel tactics that are actually effective.
: you missed the point. I am quite convinced the warning i received was due to illegitimate reports i received after this one game i mentioned (with this toxic angry Ahri), because that was the first game i played on that account in about 5-7 days. so your point about consecutive reports or "spike" , i.e. frequency of reports is inane. Do you work for Riot and specifically worked on the current banning/warning/report system? no? i didn't think so, so your nonsense about their delay is ungrounded. you have no actual evidence/knowledge on how the system actually works. your guess is as good as mine. it's still stressful receiving warning because you were reported by 2-3 players from 1 game when you did nothing. ESPECIALLY if you are already paranoid about your account from prior warnings/bans. and that's nonsense. just hearsay basically about "the trollbunal"....honestly use some common sense and what troll would waste their time on submitting false judgments (which derive no immediate satisfaction) when they can just fire up a game and actually troll real-time. point is, it's quite stressful to receive warnings when your account is already in jeopardy , and you are TRYING to be a better/ nicer/less toxic player. but go ahead , defend the nasty salty preamdes who know better than to open their mouth. they can just gang up on you and give you 2-3+-4 reports as a gang and you get warned for absolutely nothing. i would share another anecdote but apparently you don't even listen to the point
>your guess is as good as mine. Actually, Riot has posted lots of information about how these things work. They don't issue pop up warnings after every game you are reported in, and they purposefully delay them. All the behavioral systems work off of games played and not calendar time, so it's quite possible you played a few days ago, got some reports, and then played a game today and it showed you a warning based on games from several days ago. Also, multiple reports against you in the same match are ignored. Premades do not have - and have never had - any extra reporting influence. As for the warning system in general -- that's all it is, a WARNING that a bunch of people reported you recently. Riot instituted these because people whined incessantly that they didn't get any warning before a punishment was levied against them. They're designed to warn you WAY before you might get punished, to give you a chance to right the ship. But it's not possible for Riot - or even the crowd sourced Tribunal - to check the validity of quite possibly millions of reports being filed each day. So it's entirely possible (though unusual) to get one even if you've done nothing wrong, just because some salty players reported you a few matches in a row. Tribunal, if anything, was much more lenient than Riot staff typically are. You'd see some pretty bad stuff get pardoned sometimes. But that didn't stop people from whining about it. When Tribunal was up, players who felt they were unfairly punished whined that Tribunal voters were not representative of the community, or that trolls were manipulating Tribunal cases, or that Riot was too cheap to handle things themselves. Now that Riot's doing the punishments, suddenly Riot's out of touch and the punished players are begging for Tribunal back...
: is there any way to grind a little exp out of a match?
IP and XP gains are determined by: 1) whether you win or lose 2) the game mode 3) how long the match takes There is nothing you can do in-game to earn more. In terms of maximizing gain it is *slightly* better to play shorter matches -- e.g. playing 6 ARAM or TT matches in 120 minutes will earn you slightly more than 3 40-minute SR matches.
: Ranked Systems - The Flaws in ELO
>As a Physics Graduate, I like my numbers and formulae, and I can tell you that whatever equation is being used to judge ELO is entirely flawed, since it seemingly considers only wins/losses. There are many other different aspects to the game, and I guarantee that more could be done to benefit those players who perform well despite being on losing teams. I implore Riot to either change this themselves, 1) Elo is someone's *name*, not an acronym. For a "Physics Graduate" you don't seem to do much research on things. 2) There are a number of issues with using individual stats to determine matchmaking in a team game. While this *might* get people closer to their correct rating more quickly in some cases, it can create perverse incentives in others, which is really bad. (Basically, sometimes it becomes better for someone to throw the game and preserve their personal stats.) It can also stifle creativity and evolution of the metagame, since "off-meta" play might generate poor statistical performances even if it is effective at winning matches. 3) Riot has spoken a number of times about why "Prisoner's Island" approaches are not effective for behaviors like raging. Most "toxic" behavior comes from players who are normally fine but have the occasional bad game or bad day. Taking those players and putting them in a horrible gameplay environment makes things worse overall. Edit: Not to say there couldn't be *some* value in using individual stats to weight MMR changes. But the simplistic approaches people usually suggest (like basing it on KDA or assists or gold earned) are badly flawed.
: Banning / warning system needs some work.
The post-game pop up warnings DO NOT necessarily mean you were reported in the game you just finished. They only happen if you get a "spike" of reports against you over multiple games, and Riot deliberately delays them to make it harder to know who actually reported you. If you're not misbehaving, getting reported does nothing. Also, the entire time Tribunal was active it was nonstop "RITO GET RID OF TROLLBUNAL THEY ALWAYS VOTE PUNISH", so they really can't win...
: @Lyte: I'm seeing more and more threads about wrongful MMR boosting bans
You're seeing "more and more" of them because Riot apparently just did a whole bunch of bans for boosting all at once. Pretty sure they did the exact same thing at the end of S4 as well. Every time Riot does a "ban wave" you get a bunch of people posting about their bans on the forums/Reddit. It doesn't necessarily mean they were inaccurate, just that they did more bans than usual that day or week.
: > [{quoted}](name=Matthias9119,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=bxE73yHw,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2015-09-28T21:57:16.249+0000) > > You're conflating several different categories of players there. The ones who are actually griefing their team (eventually) get banned. Someone who plays suboptimally in Ranked (using off-meta picks, or the same champ every game) may end up at a lower MMR than if they played "better", but eventually they end up at an MMR where they're winning 50% of their matches. > > Those are, um, "unskilled players". > > Despite that: > > I think that something like this might not be a terrible idea. It's not great if someone gets to level 30 on co-op and ARAMs and then jumps into Ranked with no clue what they're doing. However, there are lots of players in Bronze/Silver with *hundreds* of *Ranked* matches played, so I doubt this would have the sort of effect you want. > > Having to level them to 5 is absurd -- you pointed out yourself that this would take far more than 50 matches, and so this would by far be the limiting factor. This would also be totally obnoxious with a newly released champ. But I could get behind something like having to win one or two normal SR matches with a champion before you can use them in Ranked play. > > You could easily play 16 champs in only 1-2 roles. The "fix" for one-trick-ponies is the ranked team builder system they're working on. Although we'll have to see if that really helps all that much. ranked is hardcore that's the idea, to prevent normal and draft players from getting near. what are the odds of you having 16 champions and not a single one of them let alone few, be able to go into 3 different lanes?
You know that the point of Ranked is to... **rank** players, right? Riot has explicitly said that they don't want high barriers to entry. "Remove all the bad players from Ranked!" is a frequent, if misguided, demand. No matter what you do, someone's going to be at the bottom of the ladder. If you systematically try to bar the "worst" players, eventually nobody outside of Challenger will be eligible to play.
LankPants (OCE)
: Am I the only person who feels like assassin metas ruin the game?
>Immobile mages especially just feel terrible right now. They may "feel" terrible to you, but according to champion.gg (which you cited), the five highest-winrate midlaners right now are, in order: 1. Lux 2. Heimer 3. Malz 4. Annie 5. Veigar All of which are immobile mages. Top and Jungle have a pretty good mix of different champion types doing well, just eyeballing the list sorted by winrate. Assassins might be *popular* -- Lee continues to be the most-picked jungler *despite being consistently terrible all season in solo queue* -- but they don't seem to be crowding out other champions or winning at concerning rates.
: Game bug with Overwolf gave me leaverbuster
Riot, for obvious reasons, cannot take responsibility for compatibility issues caused by third-party software. If you install third-party addons/overlays/etc., you're taking the risk if they cause an issue with the League client. >Also it triggered leaverbuster since the game didn't recognize me as having connection problems. That really sucks. LeaverBuster does not "recognize... connection problems". If you are not connected and actively playing for more than a few minutes, it will count the game as a leave. Leaves are only forgiven if Riot is having server-side problems, not on an individual game basis.
: Will I get a refund?
If you still have refunds available on your account, you can use one of those to get the RP back. If you are out of refunds you will need to open a ticket with Support and beg. They might be willing to swap the one you bought for the other one(s) you would rather have, if you ask nicely.
: Leave buster preventing end of season rewards?
I don't believe that LeaverBuster factors into seasonal rewards, only behavioral restrictions/bans. Even if it did, I'm sure it would only be for players who left a LOT of matches.
: @Riot: Can I get an unranked queue that requires level 30?
If you're level 30 and not terrible, any non-30s who show up in your matches are almost always either: 1. Queued up together with someone who is level 30. or 2. Winning way more than an average level X (ie, they're probably a smurf who is much, much better than their level indicates). The problem with "only have level 30s play against other level 30s" is that smurfs get to beat up on actual new players longer. If you want to vet your teammates you can play Team Builder (although it's blind pick and not draft), or form a premade team.
: Riot I suggest my best logical and easy fix for Ranked trolling and feeding.
>people think that Bronze/Silver Divisions are made of unskilled players, that is not the case. these Divisions are made of 3 kind of players. >A. they don't care, they play for fun, if they feel like trolling they will, banned? no problem, they got 10 more level 30 accounts. You're conflating several different categories of players there. The ones who are actually griefing their team (eventually) get banned. Someone who plays suboptimally in Ranked (using off-meta picks, or the same champ every game) may end up at a lower MMR than if they played "better", but eventually they end up at an MMR where they're winning 50% of their matches. >B. they easily forget the point of the game, objectives, kill share for carries, right build for current game, warding. >C. they panic easily, make bad choices, let emotions bring them down and play worse, rage quit and so on. Those are, um, "unskilled players". Despite that: >1. if you want to rank you must play 50 draft games first. I think that something like this might not be a terrible idea. It's not great if someone gets to level 30 on co-op and ARAMs and then jumps into Ranked with no clue what they're doing. However, there are lots of players in Bronze/Silver with *hundreds* of *Ranked* matches played, so I doubt this would have the sort of effect you want. >2. to enter a ranked match with a champion, you must have played with him enough times to reach level 5. Having to level them to 5 is absurd -- you pointed out yourself that this would take far more than 50 matches, and so this would by far be the limiting factor. This would also be totally obnoxious with a newly released champ. But I could get behind something like having to win one or two normal SR matches with a champion before you can use them in Ranked play. >3. because of number 2, players will be forced to learn all lanes, since before playing ranked they must get at least 16 champion into level 5. You could easily play 16 champs in only 1-2 roles. The "fix" for one-trick-ponies is the ranked team builder system they're working on. Although we'll have to see if that really helps all that much.
: Question about Perma-bans
Riot has talked about the issues with permanent bans (the biggest one being the one you brought up - the player can trivially make a new account). However, after a certain point they don't have much choice if a player is continually disruptive in matches. Riot used to do IP bans. But they are trivial to work around - usually it only takes a call to your ISP, or maybe even just powercycling your cable/dsl modem. And they cause collateral damage. If you switch to another IP, now some other random person gets your old one, and then Riot thinks *they* are banned. Many college campuses and offices use NAT, so many hundreds or even thousands of people may share the same IP address. Internet cafes are another problem (these are very popular in Asia). Also, in some cases Riot has identified and banned other accounts belonging to a banned player. You usually have to really piss them off to make them do this (botting, DDOSing, running boosting services, etc.)
Archon X (NA)
: So does that mean the team that won with all 5 does not get any LP? If not gtfo with your stupid ass rank inflating idea and git gud
That. If you want to give "loss prevention" to one team you have to give "win prevention" to the other team or it breaks Ranked over time due to rating and LP inflation. You *could* possibly do this for matches where a player was absent from the very beginning (DOTA2 effectively does this), but for things like ragequits or mid-match disconnects it's unfair to the team that was winning at that point to invalidate their win.
dromb (EUNE)
: > Problem 2: > MM system currently makes unfair teams, where 1 team has either WAY higher MMR than the other. > > It does not do this, at least not deliberately. Division/tier is completely ignored by the matchmaker, it always tries to create teams that are close in MMR. Yes, it tries, but i rather wait for 20 minutes game than 10 minutes and go to losing game allready. op.gg one is example, how you can go. Those algorythms teams are put togehter, are not different from the ones you use on 5 v 5. > Problem 2: > MM system currently makes unfair teams, where 1 team has either WAY higher MMR than the other. > > It does not do this, at least not deliberately. Division/tier is completely ignored by the matchmaker, it always tries to create teams that are close in MMR. Is 1800 MMR player with 20% win rate same as 1800 mmr player with 70% win rate? this team i had on op.gg average W/L ratio per player was near 43%(Mine was 83) Enemy team had it near 58% average. If they dont want to try to make the system better, i feel like winning in strikes is not useful. I rather lose 1 game after every 3 wins on purpose, to no "rush" away with my MMR. unless i will skip tier. (if im Plat I, i rather keep my mmr as low as possible if i go to promos) Same logic as you told they gonna abuse mine. + how are they gonna abuse my system to go "further"?? If silver elo is 1100and you can beat then, you are not silver. you dont need to play vs plats or diamonds to prove your not silver V. if you want to reach silver IV you need to beat those players, not WAY above your skill level. + I had the story longer before, but some of the people started whining, so i made it short. The reason i told that it is making unfair teams is this: I playd 10 games, all ranked. I had 0 ranked games.(on NA diamond I) but i needed account on west to play with my friends. So, i finally reached 30 and started playing ranked. First 3 games were even teams(yes, they were easy for me, but it was placement matches, so it will rise very fast) after that i started noticing, that enemy team MMR is WAY higher than our's. (on 4th game our team was full of silvers, they had full of golds.) 5th game was same deal MMR difference was near 140. 6th game mmr difference was 160(won that one too, it was 4 v 5, but i did some plays and carryed it anyways.) on 7th game it was the worst. Theyr team was full of plats, while we had 1 gold V and others were silvers. I was suprised. and i lost 8th to 10th game coz of this. If they want to make the system better, they should either do as I sayd at that topic, or change on different direction and do completly oppisite. If you are silver and have diamond MMR, then after winning your last division game on silver I you will skip to diamond V. You are proving yourself vs those players anyways, then why should I stick to silver or gold? This picture I made from the 3 v 3 team, was just a test, either its possible to skip a whole division isntead of a tier. Its not. + Its super fustrating for a player or a whole team, who has had to prove vs challangers that they are able to beat those and then get promoted to gold V.
>Yes, it tries, but i rather wait for 20 minutes game than 10 minutes and go to losing game allready. If you're finding matches quickly it's because the matchmaker thinks it has found a close match already. It does start to broaden its search tolerance after while, but that normally only happens if you have a very high MMR or you're on at a less popular time (or both). Maybe you could let people opt out of broadening the search, but if it's not finding a good match right at your MMR range in 5-10 minutes it might take a **long** time to find one. Also this doesn't *really* matter in the long run, because MMR and LP gains/losses are adjusted if there is a significant MMR difference between the teams. >op.gg one is example, how you can go. Those algorythms teams are put togehter, are not different from the ones you use on 5 v 5. I'm guessing English is not your first language, but I have **no idea** what that is supposed to mean. >Is 1800 MMR player with 20% win rate same as 1800 mmr player with 70% win rate? this team i had on op.gg average W/L ratio per player was near 43%(Mine was 83) Enemy team had it near 58% average. AFAIK, no, winrate is not taken into account. Elo rating normally does not do this, and their MMR system is based off of that but modified for a team game. It's unusual to see players with winrates far from 50% unless they're new. Within 50-100 games players usually seem to be close to the right place on the ladder. Obviously ratings on new players are likely to be less accurate, but there is not much Riot can do about that unless they completely change how Ranked works. There are some ways to modify Elo-like rating systems to try to explicitly take that into account -- Microsoft's Trueskill system, for example, maintains both a rating and a confidence factor for each player. They could also do something more like Hearthstone's rankings where it doesn't have to be balanced -- but Hearthstone completely resets their ladder monthly, in effect, so they don't have to worry so much about rating inflation. Re: the rest of your post: 1. The abuse case with what you're asking for isn't that people can game the system to rank up higher. It's that they can game the system to **constantly go up against bad players and stomp them**. If you really are good enough to be in Gold or Plat, you shouldn't be able to keep losing promos and stomping Bronze or Silver players. (And there are people who would do that.) Riot's current system prevents this because **rank has no effect on matchmaking**, only MMR (i.e. how good the system thinks you actually are). Anything that lets you artificially manipulate who you go up against is *very bad*. 2. I can't speak to your specific placement match experience. Riot has stated that they always try to create matches where they believe each team has as close to a 50% chance to win as possible. "op.gg says we were X MMR apart" is meaningless -- third party sites provide poor estimates of MMR at best. 3. They didn't design the system to be optimal in cases like "what if I'm in Silver with a Plat MMR?" because **it's almost impossible for that to happen unless you game the system to make it happen**. If you're more than a division or two below where you "should" be according to MMR, holding a 50% winrate will have you almost constantly in promos, and you'll likely skip at least one division when you do win a promo series. You can also forcibly get promoted at a certain point.
JohnhawK (NA)
: Riot please contact me as soon as possible it's very important
You can contact Support here: https://support.riotgames.com/hc/requests/new
HayRoss (NA)
: I just came out of a game
>Now here was the 1 thing that pissed me off the most: THIS WAS A NORMAL GAME "Normal" != "You can dick around and do whatever you want without trying to win". When you queue up for matchmade games, there is an expectation that you will play to win. It's one thing to try an "off-meta" pick or less common build, but that's not what you did and you know it. If you want to completely mess around, either go in a Custom match by yourself, or find some friends who don't care and queue up as a full team.
: My account got perma banned for no reason and i cant sign in
If a ban or restriction of any sort was applied to your account, an email should have been sent to the address tied to the account to explain what happened. Check any spam filters/folders to see if it might have ended up there. If you didn't receive the email, or need to have it resent, or don't understand why you were banned, open a ticket with support here: https://support.riotgames.com/hc/requests/new The most common source of out-of-the-blue "permanent" bans is a billing issue. If you recently bought RP on a credit card, you might want to check if the transaction actually went through with the CC company. Sometimes they will flag purchases of virtual goods as potentially fraudulent, which will then cause Riot to freeze your account until it's resolved.
: Teemo AFK without punishment bug [Game play]
>Our team had a person who went AFK without the server disconnecting him. The server never "disconnects" a player for being AFK, as long as their client is still online. LeaverBuster detects more than just "are you connected"; this is **probably** not enough to keep that player from getting automatically punished. But you can open a ticket with Support and send them the information about the match if you want someone to look into it.
: @Riot Want to cure toxic in ranked? Solution in 2 words...
They added the ability to drop between tiers because in S3(IIRC?) you couldn't, and some players would hit Gold (Plat, etc.) and then goof around and troll for the rest of the season because they couldn't demote. So there has to be something to keep players honest. But it is really, really, **really** hard to get demoted between tiers if you're putting in even a slight amount of effort. (Also: boosting. It's much more attractive if you can't get demoted.) If your progress gets "ripped to shreds... in a fraction of the time" then your MMR is way too low for the division you're in. Yes, if you're in a "V" division and you lose a lot, your LP gains get out of whack. But the alternative is that they demote you down to the next tier much faster.
dromb (EUNE)
: MM system is broken
>MM system uses only MMR to match up two teams, which will be fusturation to the players, who win many games in a row, while being in low division. it leads to a result where bronze player may play hes promotion games to next tier bronze versus top gold players. 1. It's very, very hard to stay in Bronze with a Gold MMR unless you deliberately lose your promos over and over. If your MMR is way above where it "should" be for your division, your LP gains become extremely large and your LP losses become extremely small. So basically you'll constantly be in promos even at a 50% winrate, and eventually you'll manage to win 2/3 or 3/5 and get promoted. 2. At some point, if you get far enough above where your MMR "should" be, the system will automatically promote you. (In the first season with divisions/tiers people thought it was funny to smurf, dodge their promos every time, and work their MMR up to Plat+ while still in Bronze. You can't do that anymore.) >Example from live: http://postimg.org/image/yjr7b2xet I need to win 66% of games(3 games out of 5) vs challanger team, to get to gold V Is this a newly formed 3s team? If you started a team with established high-MMR players, there may be a limit to how high it can initially place your team, so you might have an MMR much higher than your division at first. Ranked 3s might also just be wack. Much smaller playerbase than 5s. >Solution 1: MM system should match you up with players who are +/- 1 your current tier, while using MMR to match you with the best/worst players in that +/-1 tier currently online. AND Divisions and tiers will define current tier maximum and minimum MMR Abusable. Keep dodging or intentionally losing promos and you get to stomp players who are much worse than you. If you eliminate promos and promote/demote based solely on MMR you defeat the whole purpose of the tier/division system. >Problem 2: MM system currently makes unfair teams, where 1 team has either WAY higher MMR than the other. It does not do this, at least not deliberately. Division/tier is **completely** ignored by the matchmaker, it always tries to create teams that are close in MMR. Edit: I'm not saying Riot shouldn't try to improve its matchmaking, but there are reasons it works the way it does, and you don't seem to fully understand how it works.
: > [{quoted}](name=Matthias9119,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=UJUlE4nc,comment-id=000500000000,timestamp=2015-09-25T23:32:32.862+0000) > > Okay, so what if you perma-chat-restrict them (or give 1000 games or whatever) and they use all their limited chat to scream racist insults, or they start intentionally feeding every game in retaliation? That's my point. Permban trolls. Why is this hard?
Well, you literally said the opposite of that in the OP: >It seems completely crazy to make permabanning an option for anything outside of account boosting or game manipulation (scripting or the like).
AaeRohn (NA)
: SUGGESTION BOX: Update the downloadable executable to be closer to up to date
It would be the same amount of data whether it's downloaded as part of the installer executable or downloaded by the patcher. Generally speaking, it's better to have the initial install be smaller and use the patcher to get the data. It uses P2P downloads, so it's usually faster and doesn't strain Riot's servers as much.
textures (NA)
: Can you be demoted with inactivity if you have recently been promoted and in immunity?
Also, it is REALLY REALLY hard to get demoted between tiers (eg Gold back to Silver). So don't feel afraid to continue playing Ranked. But as others have said, you can also leave it until the end of the year and you'll get the gold rewards.
: > [{quoted}](name=Matthias9119,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=UJUlE4nc,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2015-09-25T22:54:15.569+0000) > > Riot has talked in the past about how they don't love permanent bans -- the players tend to just make new accounts anyway. But after a certain point, if someone doesn't care about chat restrictions or temporary bans, what are they supposed to do? Putting them permanently on a "prisoner's island" is essentially the same as a permanent ban. Just permanently chat restrict them, and have an in-game notification that tells their team
Okay, so what if you perma-chat-restrict them (or give 1000 games or whatever) and they use all their limited chat to scream racist insults, or they start intentionally feeding every game in retaliation?
: (MOVED) Why is Permaban even an option for punishment?
Riot has talked in the past about how they don't love permanent bans -- the players tend to just make new accounts anyway. But after a certain point, if someone doesn't care about chat restrictions or temporary bans, what are they supposed to do? Putting them permanently on a "prisoner's island" is essentially the same as a permanent ban.
: Can We Just Implement A System...
This is not possible. It's very easy to make a program crash by messing with it in various ways as an administrator account. So if you have a system that forgives leaves due to "crashes" l, people will abuse it to leave games without getting punished. If your client is crashing all the time, try the Help+Support forum. There are lots of things you can try to do to narrow down what the problem is and fix it.
Spekter (NA)
: I mean you can.... doesn't mean that anything will come of it. I hate that people both want people to be more friendly and less toxic while also saying "report for emote spamming." Is there no more playful trashtalking? What happened to a game where people could laugh at each other without fear of getting chat restricted? "GGEZ" is now bannable, soon the winning team saying "gg" first is going to be bannable. People just want a reason to report someone when they lose, and that's not acceptable behavior.
1. I have no problem with "playful trash talk". I'm not saying to report anyone who uses /taunt after a kill. 2. Having a macro that spams /laugh or /taunt or /joke nonstop for the entire match is not "playful trash talk", it's abusing game mechanics to be a jerk. 3. Being a bad winner has **always** been against the Summoner's Code. I don't think I ever saw a Tribunal case where someone was punished solely for "ggez" or "bg" or other parting shots like that, but it definitely reflects badly on that player if their behavior is borderline to begin with.
Sciela (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=KingWanahakalugi,realm=NA,application-id=WEuoGbmp,discussion-id=oYe34E63,comment-id=0006,timestamp=2015-09-24T19:41:33.949+0000) > > NEVER GO INTO A RANKED GAME WITH THE MINDSET THAT YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE... Haha, after having so many horrible teams and bad matches, it's kind of hard to believe that I'll win. : / I do try my best though, but I can never really carry a game. > > No matter what shape your team is in, NEVER SURRENDER. In elos like bronze-gold, people have no sense of how to extend their leads, and they can often be caught. If you're behind, extend the game as long as possible. If you can make it to the SUPER late game where everyone is full build, gold no longer has effect. It often comes down to a single teamfight once the death timers max out. That being said: Oh I never surrender. Even when all our inhibs are down, I'll click no -- and I've come back from games where our Nexus was at 50 HP and won. ^^ > > KNOW WHEN TO TAKE OBJECTIVES. If you can, gain a positional advantage on your opponent by taking a tower. DO IT. Towers are _nearly_ always a better use of your time than taking dragon. Towers give global gold to the team which can sometimes be the difference between coming back to lane with a full item or not. The dragon buffs are nice, but as long as the enemy team has 3 dragons or less, towers will provide you with a stronger advantage. I usually focus on objectives before kills. I know that downing a tower gets you more map to move in, and it forces the enemy to play more defensively / passively. I usually don't worry tooooo much about drag and baron unless it's really easy to take, or the enemy team is going for it. > > LEARN TO BE THE SHOT CALLER. Your team won't always listen to you, but having someone making calls on whether or not to fight or when to take an objective can be the difference between winning and losing. > I do try to call shots sometimes, but not a whole lot of the time. People generally don't really listen to me, or just get all upset because I'm telling them what to do. > YOUR ENEMY MAY HAVE A STRONGER CHAMP. If you can avoid giving them kills early and farm under tower, you can often kill them with help and begin to give yourself an advantage. Most champions with an strong early game will fall off eventually. If you can build yourself a lead where you can safely farm in lane, you have a good chance that you can out-scale them and take control of the game where you can carry the game yourself. > It's not so much champs that scale well early game, it's just champs that absolutely dominate at all points in the game -- Riven, Irelia, Diana, LB, Darius, Fizz, etc. I can't even farm when one of those champs are around, or I instantly die. I can even hug my tower and still die because they dove me. : / > FIND CHAMPS THAT SUIT YOUR PLAYSTYLE. I have a select few champs that I play in ranked. I feel comfortable playing them into their strongest counters because I know my champion that well. That is the comfort level you eventually have to reach with the champions you play if you truly want to improve. I have 2 champions in each lane that I feel comfortable playing in any situation. Don't just play champions because they counter an enemy. I would also suggest trying to find at least one champ that you can carry on in each lane just in case it is necessary. > Honestly, League as a whole doesn't really suit my style; I like games that have a lot of abilities and complex mechanics to play with (mostly MMOs), and most of the champs in League are incredibly simplistic and easy to play. All the strongest champs are even easier to play. : /
>I do try to call shots sometimes, but not a whole lot of the time. People generally don't really listen to me, or just get all upset because I'm telling them what to do. 1. People listen a lot more if you're doing well. If you're getting stomped in lane and barking orders, yeah, they're probably going to ignore you. 2. I always find it better to lead by example. I rarely type unless I need to explain something that can't be done with smart pings. Ping objectives that you think are vulnerable (or where your team needs to reinforce), use "on my way" to indicate where you're going, ping MIA/danger. Drop wards everywhere. If you start making successful things happen, people will start following your lead. >champs that absolutely dominate at all points in the game -- Riven, Irelia, Diana, LB, Darius, Fizz None of those champs "absolutely dominate at all points in the game". Well, maybe Darius after his last round of buffs and before the nerfs this week. He's pretty terrifying if he gets fed, and certain champs just *cannot* fight him 1v1 unless they have a level/item advantage. But he can't do *anything* if you kite him. Riven, Diana, LB, and Fizz all fall off late game; none of them are great at teamfighting or taking objectives. Diana is rather weak pre-6, especially if you can kite her. Riven/LB/Fizz is a skill matchup against many champs. However, those are all champs that can snowball off of early kills to have a monstrously strong midgame, which can sometimes get their whole team so far ahead that the match is over before "late game" ever happens. Irelia can snowball really hard, and has hypercarry potential. But she's also pretty useless until she has several completed items (and one of those is usually TF, which is the most expensive item in the game). Or if she's behind. >I like games that have a lot of abilities and complex mechanics to play with (mostly MMOs), and most of the champs in League are incredibly simplistic and easy to play. Honestly, most MMOs (at least the ones in the WoW vein) don't have too many "complex mechanics" either. League has *plenty* of depth, but big parts of it are knowing the metagame and being able to make snap judgements about complex situations rather than, say, memorizing ability rotations or learning the ins and outs of a specific boss fight or having to coordinate with 10-20+ players.
: Please make just punishments.
Ranked Team Builder is coming Soon(TM) and will hopefully help with people fighting over roles to some extent. We'll have to see if people are willing to put up with 3-4x the queue time (I'm guessing) in exchange for always getting mid/top. The problem with letting people dodge freely whenever someone is "trolling" is that they will dodge whenever teammates pick "non-meta" champs or the enemy team gets an "OP" champ. For a while Ranked had no LP loss on dodges (just the time penalties) and it was nearly unplayable. Unless someone is literally typing into the chat box that they are going to intentionally feed, determining whether someone is "trolling" in pregame is really subjective most of the time. Edit: I'll add that if you do feel someone is going to troll and you dodge because of it, you can file a ticket with Player Support here to report them: https://support.riotgames.com/hc/requests/new
: > [{quoted}](name=KiyoSpirit,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=0eptziL1,comment-id=0008,timestamp=2015-09-24T23:04:52.388+0000) > > I used to love aram. Until everyone got a long range practically invisible Lee Sin Q. I loved ARAM until someone started the laugh spam craze. Now it's everywhere and now I'm crying.
Muting players will also mute their emotes, just FYI. Also you can report people for emote spam.
GigglesO (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Matthias9119,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Zxi5naAA,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2015-09-25T02:37:10.442+0000) > > Note that this is explicitly not a "passive resolution". > > There is no problem with **calmly** engaging with someone and trying to resolve the situation. As long as you're not making things worse there is no way you're going to get punished. But sometimes it's better to just mute them, and tell the harassed player to mute them and move on as well. So you are contradicting yourself, you are saying muting isn't passive? Hell if it isn't passive. Not being confrontational is the most passive thing you can do. What op is trying to say is why can't we confront feeders and leavers without being punished for "negative attitude" or "verbal abuse".
>So you are contradicting yourself, you are saying muting isn't passive? I didn't say that at all. Part of the text in the rule (guideline?) the OP was discussing is: >If you end up in a game with an abusive player, don't lower yourself to their level. **Instead, politely ask them to calm down.** (emphasis, again, added.) Which is Riot **explicitly saying you can take non-passive action towards someone who is being a jerk**. Then it goes on to explain that if someone is being unreasonable and won't listen, it's okay to mute them. You can calmly talk to someone who is misbehaving. You aren't allowed to **be a jerk to them yourself**, even if you believe they are griefing you intentionally.
: How do I know if I am good?
Unless you already have MOBA experience (or at least significant RTS experience) you should probably not jump into PVP quite so soon. Plus you get full XP/IP from beginner bots until summoner level 20, which will level you up faster than losing a lot of PvP matches unless you're playing enough to max out on co-op XP per day. When you can handily thrash intermediate bots, you're probably ready to test the waters with PvP. Best things to focus on are the ones that Tristaen pointed out: 1. Don't die. Unless you are pretty sure you can win a fight with an enemy, don't fight them. Don't overextend without vision of the enemy team. 2. Learn to CS. If you want to be really good, practice in customs until you can do it in your sleep. 3. Ward (this will help with the not dying). Beyond that, try lots of different champs and roles to figure out what you like.
: Most Toxic Player Champions
Someone actually analyzed a whole bunch of Tribunal data (back when Tribunal was up and running) to see if some champions were reported more often than others. I don't have the link handy, as it was on the old forums, but basically there seemed to be three trends: 1. Players on assassin/duelist/splitpusher-type champs tended to get reported more. 2. Players on "FOTM" champs tended to get reported more. 3. Players on support champions got reported less. 4. Players on "annoying" champs like Teemo or Shaco got reported somewhat more. Intuitively I would think that: 1. "Toxic" players would tend towards champions that don't require teamwork -- you can be effective on Yi or Lee or Zed or LB even if you mute everyone and do your own thing, but you can't on an ADC/support, or most tanks. 2. Highly competitive players (who might tend to aggressively argue with their team, especially in Ranked) would tend towards "FOTM" champs. 3. Support mains are probably more team-oriented and less hostile in general. (Note: correlation is not causation, data might be incomplete, yadda yadda yadda.)
: There isn't an appropriate category to submit a Support Ticket.
Just use "general" or whatever the most generic one is.
: Is there a reason Refunds are not restored based on RP purchased?
>Is there a thread somewhere? You must be new. There are usually two or three "RITO WE WANT MORE REFUNDS" threads bouncing around the forums on any given week. :-) Basically, Riot doesn't want players to "trade in" old champs for new ones, or dump ones currently perceived as "UP" for ones that are currently perceived as "OP". Their whole business model is predicated on creating new content and encouraging people to pay for it. Personally, I think it would be a nice gesture towards long-time players if you got something like one refund per full season your account existed, up to a maximum of 3 stored at any time. Getting a refund per X RP purchased is also frequently suggested. So far Riot has not really seemed interested in either idea.
: Question... Number of losses at 0lp to be demoted?
There is not a fixed number, it depends on your (hidden) MMR relative to the (also hidden) MMR range that Riot sets for each division. You have protection for a few games after a promotion, but after that you could get demoted with a single loss at 0LP if your MMR is low enough. If you are losing more LP for each loss than you gain for each win, your MMR is "too low" for that division and you will be demoted more quickly. If you're gaining lots of LP and losing very litle, your MMR is "too high" for that division and it will be very hard to get demoted (unless you keep losing repeatedly at 0LP).
: Contradictions and The Summoner's Code
>When someone is raging at and belittling a member of your team it would appear that the first rule would support defending said team member. I don't think there is any problem with trying to defuse the situation, or standing up for someone who is being harassed. Just don't be a jerk yourself while you're doing it. >If an ally is being harassed, your suggested action is to mute the harasser. Would this not be abandoning your ally? >The title of rule 7 is Be Resolute, not Indignant and yet the entire rule is written to support a passive resolution to problem players... What it says under #7 (in part) is: >If you end up in a game with an abusive player, don't lower yourself to their level. **Instead, politely ask them to calm down.** (emphasis added) Note that this is explicitly not a "passive resolution". I think you're reading too much into some of the wording in that paragraph (and it might be my imagination, but I feel like the text of #7 was changed recently? I thought that item used to be more about the forums.) >If someone's really starting to bother you, the mute and ignore commands are always there to resolve the situation. You don't **have** to mute anyone, but it's generally better to mute someone who is raging and flipping out than to get in a huge fight with them. Sometimes people won't listen to reason in the heat of the moment. There is no problem with **calmly** engaging with someone and trying to resolve the situation. As long as you're not making things worse there is no way you're going to get punished. But sometimes it's better to just mute them, and tell the harassed player to mute them and move on as well.
Show more

Matthias9119

Level 30 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion