: No one forces you to watch the video, but I feel for someone browsing Memes and Games, an admittedly already stuffed and overcrowded community, to have to filter through even MORE content because everyone is now posting videos would be aggravating. Perhaps it'd be in the same vein as someone who browses Gameplay and sees 100 different "Why Yasuo/Zoe is unbalanced" threads. I'm not saying we should put a ban on those threads, or even videos, but I do think we should take it into consideration when going forth.
Or they could just give you an entire subsection full of GIFs so you don't have to filter anything.
: > What is the difference between "GIF" and "Youtube"? > GIF automatically plays. GIF is limited to shorter duration. GIF is more accessible when embedded into a forum. It is also worth noting that gifs are short and have no sound, which is rarely true for videos. >I personally don't see a reason to "ban" "videos". No one forces you to watch the video. Just move onto the next thread. And while yes, nobody forces you to watch a video, that argument could be made for posting almost anything. Keeping the sub-section free from excessive clutter is itself important. "Why not post a video" is answered by that they almost never receive positive attention and clutter the board. What I am looking for is an answer to why there *should* be videos. > If it really is such a big deal, make a new subsection, "Funny GIFs". An entire subsection with nothing but joke GIFs that people can "mindlessly" binge upon. That isn't really needed, as funny gifs have been one of the more popular types of post on M&G. Ultimately, the distinction is being made because I am trying to best adjust the rules to fit the community as a whole. Even if you may see the difference as arbitrary, people are upvoting and enjoying gifs while they are ignoring or downvoting videos. Removing most of the videos I truly believe did help, I just want to make sure that there wasn't a specific type of video that people here actually did want that I removed under the blanket "No videos" rule.
Can't read my GIFs fast enough. Must filter out clutter. Is that satire? >That isn't really needed, as funny gifs have been one of the more popular types of post on M&G. Guess what happens when you change the name to "GIFs & Games". You get more GIFs and less "videos". It is a self moderating forum. {{sticker:zombie-brand-mindblown}}
: > Basically, the "no video" rule is a cyber security issue. I feel if you allowed "video" from trusted sites, it would be good middle ground. Actually, it is not a security issue. Videos are not banned from the boards, just from Memes & Games. The reason for this is that video threads were almost always either ignored or downvoted. They were being posted quite often, and it appeared that nobody seemed to enjoy them here. However, a few people have given feedback against this idea, so I wanted to try and get a better understanding of the community's wishes in this matter. > Vague moderation (no cursing) is subjective. If you have well defined rules though it can be manageable. Most people will attempt to stay within the rules, as long as they know what the rules are. That is the hope. For the vast majority of issues this is already true. However, satire is far harder to define properly. It is by far the hardest rule to enforce, and the one I have made the most mistakes in trying.
>Videos are not banned from the boards, just from Memes & Games. The reason for this is that video threads were almost always either ignored or downvoted. They were being posted quite often, GIF is a video. GIF does not almost always get ignored or downvoted. What is the difference between "GIF" and "Youtube"? GIF automatically plays. GIF is limited to shorter duration. GIF is more accessible when embedded into a forum. To sum it up: convenience. I personally don't see a reason to "ban" "videos". No one forces you to watch the video. Just move onto the next thread. If it really is such a big deal, make a new subsection, "Funny GIFs". An entire subsection with nothing but joke GIFs that people can "mindlessly" binge upon. "Memes" do not have to attempt humor. "Satire" does not have to attempt humor. "Funny GIFs" kind of have to attempt humor.
: The State of M&G, and our direction for the future. Are videos ok? What makes something satire?
GIF is video. Basically, the "no video" rule is a cyber security issue. I feel if you allowed "video" from trusted sites, it would be good middle ground. Meme does not have to attempt comedy. "Jokes & Games" would be a more appropriate section heading. Satire will totally fuck you over though. It's always funny until it happens to you. Free speech is the easiest system and pleases the most people. Vague moderation (no cursing) is subjective. If you have well defined rules though it can be manageable. Most people will attempt to stay within the rules, as long as they know what the rules are.
Rioter Comments
: why refuse surrender 4v5?
Just leave the game when people try to vote no.
: > [{quoted}](name=Your Moms Cooter,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=5VzrVmtX,comment-id=0006000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-12-26T07:30:40.579+0000) > > Do you actually have data to back up all your claims? If you could, show the % of population that reports KYS. Riot has the raw numbers, and they have not seen fit to release them at this time. Perhaps they will in the near future, perhaps they will not. You could try asking Riot Tantram. > Nothing wrong with my variables. In the context of an experiment, there was. They were unequal. You do not get comparable data when you use results generated by looking up an acronym, versus those generated by looking up a written out phrase. The only way to generate comparable data is to run the experiment twice, as I did, using both the acronyms AND the written out phrases. Otherwise, the data sets are not parallel, and cannot be compared. Either way, the result was the same. Kill yourself showed up as significantly more clearly defined on the basis of the search results for the written out phrase. While some variation was present for the kys acronym, the suicidal idealization meaning was present under that search, while a search of the mym acronym gave only unrelated pharmaceutical company information, or perfume company information. (All searches conducted using Google, and limited to the first two pages of search results for time considerations.) > That is what Google shows me. It does not mention suicide. It also clearly states "Show all 11 definitions" which you do not show. You cannot say that there is no mention of suicide if you don't bother to look at the definitions. > Doesn't matter. I told you the intentions of the acronyms. The intention of all those acronyms was to encourage suicide. That makes all of those acronyms toxic. I won't argue that the acronyms are toxic, but as Jo0o pointed out, they are not established. If you were to say them to someone, without explaining their meaning, they would come across as being random babble, with zero meaningful results. > Words are always neutral. Intentions and perceptions are biased. Zero tolerance policy hurts society more than it helps. Zero tolerance policy permanently adds a "bad word" into the world; while preventing a "good word" from being possible. This isn't 100% true. I'm not sure which one of the people in this thread was talking about a communication course earlier, I think it might've been Jo0o, but they could probably tell you more about the difference between a word's connotation and denotation. We would like to think that our words are neutral, but it's simply not the case. And there's a lot of factors that go into why some words have a more positive connotation than others. Some of them, it probably has to do with whether they are used positively by popular figures (historical, political, etc.), but it can also come down to the etymology of the word, the letters used in which order for spelling it, what other words it resembles, etc. It's never just so easy as saying "that word was neutral until X said it was bad." Though just for the sake of consideration. If the term "kill yourself" wasn't a toxic, zero tolerance word, how would you use it as a "good word?"
> The difference, i.e. the real, **quantifiable difference, comes from the massive proportion of players** who oppose the casual usage of the term kys. You then go on to say you don't actually have data. > Riot has the raw numbers, and** they have not seen fit to release them** at this time. A MASSIVE PROPORTION of players mysteriously appear and disappear out of thin air! > You do not get comparable data when you use results generated by looking up an acronym, versus those generated by looking up a written out phrase. Popularity is comparable data. Context is comparable data. I'm not knocking you for trying out all the variables. The experiment was just to show that KYS is a pretty niche problem. It is a newer word that was never overly popular in any setting. > It also clearly states "Show all 11 definitions" which you do not show. You cannot say that there is no mention of suicide if you don't bother to look at the definitions. There was no hyperlink. I did try to click for all 11 definitions. I did assume they were ranked by relevance though. Then again, how can you say something has an established meaning with 11 definitions? 1 definition is bad so you throw out 10 acceptable ones? > If you were to say them to someone, without explaining their meaning, they would come across as being random babble, with zero meaningful results. Which is true for all words. Yet, because some words are popular among "toxic people" Riot wants to ban the words. > they could probably tell you more about the difference between a word's connotation and denotation. Connotation and denotation both fall under the perspectives category. I can prove it by quoting you: > I won't argue that the acronyms are toxic, but as Jo0o pointed out, they are not established. If you were to say them to someone, **without explaining their meaning, they would come across as being random babble, with zero meaningful results.** explaining their meaning = intention assuming their meaning = perspective Think of words as a tool. Tools have more than one use. It is up to the user whether they use the tool for good or bad. The tool is neutral. It does what the user tells it to. > Though just for the sake of consideration. If the term "kill yourself" wasn't a toxic, zero tolerance word, how would you use it as a "good word?" ARAM. That spicy record label Google mentioned. Anything is possible until you stick a zero tolerance policy to it.
: trolls dont lose more games but they do play at lower mmr than they would if they were trying to win
And how did they get to lower mmr? They lost more games than they won. You will get nowhere by putting blind faith in Riots systems.
: people who want to lose are going to find ways to lose
> catching them is not the solution. they would just find other ways to throw games. > > the solution has to be to come up with a way to make everyone want to win as much as possible. Clash is Riots attempt. I suggested a similar system and you told me, "trolls don't lose more games".
: > [{quoted}](name=Your Moms Cooter,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=Tsye0dy7,comment-id=00020001000000000000,timestamp=2017-12-25T23:52:38.910+0000) > > I bolded for emphasis. Riot is not a therapist. Riot is not working through each players personal problems. Riot is simply warning players that exhibit unwanted behavior before forcibly removing them. Permanent bans are the opposite of reform. Permanent bans don't even allow reform. Obviously Riot is not a therapist. You seem to think that it's either 100% therapist or wild west with simply shooting (banning) outlaws. It's not that simple. There are middle grounds where Riot can teach players useful skills and guide them away from making their own game experiences worse. They don't have to work out a player's personal problems in order to get the player to stop ruining games. All they need to do is show players the better way and they will pick up on it if they realize that it makes their games more fun. It's in the player's own best interest, because whether they realize it or not, their actions are making the game less fun for themselves too because they are inadvertently starting arguments with teammates and triggering them to flame or feed harder. > Riot may have a problem with toxic community. It is still not Riots job to reform players. That is why Riot permanently bans accounts, because they are a video game company and not your personal therapist. Riot said it themselves, they prefer reform to bans. It's clear from their efforts with both the modern punishment system and new honor system that they are working towards that goal. And that is why I originally commented here. Because you lied about their policy on reform. They do care about reform. Whether you think they should or should not do this is irrelevant, they already do.
>You seem to think that it's either 100% therapist or wild west with simply shooting (banning) outlaws. To successfully reform a human being, therapy is many times more effective than wild west. It is that simple. >There are middle grounds where Riot can teach players useful skills and guide them away from making their own game experiences worse. Sure. Riot would be using psychological conditioning. So, is that ethical for a video game? Also, Riot would have to hire a professional or any system will just be a guess. >They don't have to work out a player's personal problems in order to get the player to stop ruining games. They do in order to reform a person. > Riot said it themselves, they prefer reform to bans. Riot is good at talking and horrible at acting. > Because you lied about their policy on reform. They do care about reform. I didn't lie. You put words in my mouth to make it seem like I lied. It is a dream for Riot to reform it's players. Like a world without violence.
: Your opinion and Jo0o's opinion carry the exact same weight. Both of which are a very small fraction of the overall playerbase. The difference, i.e. the real, quantifiable difference, comes from the massive proportion of players who oppose the casual usage of the term kys. It's not simply based upon the number of threads posted, or the number of upvotes/downvotes on them. The entire basis for the Instant Feedback System is founded upon which comments, words, actions, phrases and behaviors are found by the player base in that region to be intolerable. It is a learning system. Riot doesn't just simply program in a list of words that they do not wish to allow. The IFS monitors those things that are repeatedly reported in high percentages and learns that the PLAYERS find them unacceptable, and thus begins to include them as punishable for toxicity. So, in the context of League, the player base has spoken. The threads on the Boards are simply a reflection of that data. And I did the experiment that you suggested. But your variables were incorrect. You cannot change one acronym to its written out form, but only use the acronyms for the other. They have to either both be acronyms, or both be written out. So, standardizing for acronyms, MYM reveals an entire page of nothing but stock options and press releases for a very large marijuana pharmaceutical company, while KYS has a textbox that appears on a Google search defining it as kill yourself. Needless to say, none of your acronyms had any hits for any established meanings. When standardizing for the written out form, meet your maker does in fact pull up a textbox with the definition "to die", but it does not mean by murder, as you said above. It's an informal, and often humorous term that has been around for centuries, confirmed by the many different dictionary entries that appear on the first page of the Google search. A similar Google search for kill yourself pulls up a textbox with the contact information for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. So, when doing your experiment correctly, with parallel variables, KYS is the more established acronym.
> So, in the context of League, the player base has spoken. The threads on the Boards are simply a reflection of that data. Do you actually have data to back up all your claims? If you could, show the % of population that reports KYS. > And I did the experiment that you suggested. But your variables were incorrect. Nothing wrong with my variables. > Search Results > KYS. Know Your Students. KYS. Kill Your Self (record label) showing only Slang/Internet Slang definitions (show all 11 definitions) That is what Google shows me. It does not mention suicide. > Needless to say, none of your acronyms had any hits for any established meanings. Doesn't matter. I told you the intentions of the acronyms. The intention of all those acronyms was to encourage suicide. That makes all of those acronyms toxic. Words are always neutral. Intentions and perceptions are biased. Zero tolerance policy hurts society more than it helps. Zero tolerance policy permanently adds a "bad word" into the world; while preventing a "good word" from being possible.
Rioter Comments
Jo0o (NA)
: What, do you think you're the first person to use this argument? Words and phrases are assigned real, quantifiable weight from the society they're used in. KYS has a heavy weight. It's pointless to argue against that, because it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of evidence. "KYS" is established, your made-up acronyms aren't. This community has demonstrated, overall, an overwhelmingly uncomfortable attitude towards "kys" and other clear suggestions of suicide, as can be easily quantified by upvote/downvote counts, number of threads, etc.
> Words and phrases are assigned real, quantifiable weight from the society they're used in. I am a part of society. Therefore, I am allowed to assign real, quantifiable weight to words and phrases. The problem is, you think your weighting is more "accurate" than mine. Instead of trying to come to an agreement or being open minded, you simply demand everyone else follows your opinion. > KYS has a heavy weight.** It's pointless to argue against that, because it's not a matter of opinion**,** it's a matter of evidence. "KYS" is established, your made-up acronyms aren't. ** Google disagrees with you. If you would have bothered to do the experiment I presented to you, you would have seen that KYS is not as established as meet your maker. >This community has demonstrated, overall, an overwhelmingly uncomfortable attitude towards "kys" and other clear suggestions of suicide, as can be easily quantified by upvote/downvote counts, number of threads, etc. How can you even say that? The most upvoted threads of all time are not implemented by Riot. There are a ton of threads complaining about champion balance that go ignored. Never mind that the entire "voting system" can be exploited. Or that forum users are a minority compared to players in game. There is a reason the USA uses the electoral college instead of popular opinion.
: > [{quoted}](name=Your Moms Cooter,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=Tsye0dy7,comment-id=000200010000,timestamp=2017-12-25T06:03:48.481+0000) > > Doesn't appear you understood. I was being subtle. You really weren't. Those were very clear opinions you expressed. > Riot is not a therapist. It is not Riots job to reform people. Riot is a video game company. They make video games. If it winds up being the biggest problem affecting people's fun in the game, it certainly becomes Riot's problem. This is why they have made so much effort to clean up behavior. > This has nothing to do with player "actions". > > Type out "KYS". You get banned. Say "KYS" out loud. Riot considers you "reformed". > > See, nothing to do with actions. Keep your chat logs clean and Riot considers you reformed. Regardless if you are actually toxic in real life. Because, Riot is not a therapist. It is not their job to create better functioning members of society. That is because they don't have visibility into the mind of the player. They can't know if they player is actually reformed. They can only base that conclusion off of behavior they can see the player exhibit.
> If it winds up being the biggest problem affecting people's fun in the game, it certainly becomes Riot's problem. This is why they have made so much effort to clean up behavior. Riot may have a problem with toxic community. It is still not Riots job to reform players. That is why Riot permanently bans accounts, because they are a video game company and not your personal therapist. > That is because they don't have visibility into the mind of the player. **They can't know if they player is actually reformed.** They can only base that conclusion off of behavior they can see the player exhibit. I bolded for emphasis. Riot is not a therapist. Riot is not working through each players personal problems. Riot is simply warning players that exhibit unwanted behavior before forcibly removing them. Permanent bans are the opposite of reform. Permanent bans don't even allow reform.
: >Pagans weren't celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. never said they did. The Christians hijacked the holiday and made it their thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeQZMHqMv6o
Thanks for the video link. I watched about half. You can't hijack the willing. I think it was always the intention of Christmas to celebrate Jesus' birth. I think they chose a favorable date.
: you **DO** know that Christmas was originally a pagan tradition, right? i.e. Jesus is as much related to the ideea of Santa and his christmas tree as he is related to the ideea of the Easter Bunny and his chocolate eggs
Pagans weren't celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. From what I've read, Jesus never talked about santa, decorating trees, easter bunnies, or chocolate eggs.
Rioter Comments
Weedbro (NA)
: I read Lyte's problems with Prisoner Island. Guess what? he is wrong. He's just a man.
American prison system doesn't work. The facts are out there. Recidivism is sky high. Prison population has increased over time. Revenge, retaliation, retribution, justice, whatever you want to call it: it does not work. Weak people revenge. Strong people forgive. Intelligent people ignore.
: Fuck it I had half an argument written. This isn't worth it. I don't get what it is you're so defensive over. You seem to just want to get people for losing matches. At least it seems that way because you argue so much over that point instead of focusing on what this should be about, which is using restrictions against trolls to make ranked a better place. You aren't arguing reasonably, and you're treating me like shit just for pointing out that it's unfair to punish a whole group of people just for the mistakes of a few. So I'm done wasting my time with you.
It is not difficult to understand. I don't build rockets. You won't see me going to NASA entering discussions on rocket design. You don't play ranked. You shouldn't discuss ranked. You should at least be more open minded considering ranked is not your area of expertise. > pointing out that it's unfair to punish a whole group of people just for the mistakes of a few. That is how TEAM games work. How is it fair the entire team gets penalized in football because 1 person out of 11 moved too early? Basketball, one guy misses a last second shot and the entire team loses. SO UNFAIR!
: This is incorrect. Rioters have repeatedly expressed lament over the fact that it is harder to detect actions in game compared to chat. Which means they absolutely care that people instigate and bait with their actions in-game. They just don't have the means to effectively catch them. Chat seems to be the only thing that is punished because it is the most common and easiest to detect form of trolling. Most people who are going to be toxic will do it in chat, because they don't care or don't think enough to try to do something more subtle. Lots of people type plenty without getting punished. If you think that typing is all it takes to get you banned then your "normal" chat behavior is probably over the line. Don't act like you represent everyone. Many of them type lots without getting punished.
Doesn't appear you understood. I was being subtle. Riot is not a therapist. It is not Riots job to reform people. Riot is a video game company. They make video games. > "Reform" is a fucking myth. Riot is only concerned about the things you type. This has nothing to do with player "actions". Type out "KYS". You get banned. Say "KYS" out loud. Riot considers you "reformed". See, nothing to do with actions. Keep your chat logs clean and Riot considers you reformed. Regardless if you are actually toxic in real life. Because, Riot is not a therapist. It is not their job to create better functioning members of society.
Jo0o (NA)
: ... What. You can't just make up acronyms. "Kys" has established meaning, none of what you just said can compare. "MeetYourMakers" is a badass team name that doesn't come close to evoking the same emotional response as telling somebody to kill themselves. Suggesting it does is disingenuous at best.
> You can't just make up acronyms. I can and did. > "Kys" has established meaning, none of what you just said can compare. Who established that meaning? Sure as fuck wasn't a dictionary or institution of learning. Wasn't Riot either. I can almost guarantee you some bratty kids were the first to use KYS. Then all the old fucks eventually caught on and decided to "put a stop to this". > "MeetYourMakers" is a badass team name that doesn't come close to evoking the same emotional response as telling somebody to kill themselves. Emotions differ per person. Personally, I feel no emotional response towards KYS. Even fully typed out won't bother me. I can't control your emotions. It is hard enough to keep my own in check. Go to Google and type "meet ones maker". Google defines it as "die". Go to Google and type "KYS". Google defines it as "know your students" and "a record label". Sorry babe. meet your maker has a much more established meaning.
: I've tried to make this point multiple times. Sadly, people on here refuse to accept other meaning for the phrase than to encourage suicide. No one seems to realize that this phrase has literally become a meme that streamers throw out on the daily. These players aren't telling other to end their lives, they are merely using the phrase kys as an expletive like: fuck!! or shit!! The real problem is that riot didn't warn its players about the transition to zero-tolerance for a phrase that was becoming so common. Players were not given a warning that the phrase was going to be treated differently than how they were using it and would result in automatic sanctions.
You speak the truth and get down voted. :(
: I should build troll accounts and in one just say random nasty %%%%%% words to no one particular. And in another account I should use nice clean words, telling people to off themselves or procreate with family members using unconventional non lowbrow words. and see which account gets banned. I once suggested that when doing a tribunal on a person A, you should be able to tag non reported participants B or C if you deem them guilty, and even if they aren't reported, but they are starting crap, they would eventually get punished. But not only that .. if that other person B was reported, the person doing the tribunal on person A, would also be some of the legwork for the tribunal of person B. And as normal people on this forum down vote everything. PS don't forget to down vote this message
You have to actually report someone or they won't show up in IFS. Instigators may go free anyways if the IFS can't accurately detect the subtle ones.
Mobcat (NA)
: The issue with "KYS" that nobody addresses
Riot is all bullshit. MYM. Meet Your Maker. Literally means go die. Usually, by murder. Yet, Riot lets MYM be a LCS team name. CS. Means creep score or farm. I can use it as "commit suicide" and Riot would never know. They would think I was being encouraging of farming lol. AYS. Asphyxiate yourself. BYS. Behead yourself. CYS. Cut yourself. DYS. Destroy yourself. EYS. End yourself. FYS. Finish yourself. GYS. Gut yourself. HYS. Hang yourself. You get the point I assume. Maybe Riot should just make "_YS" a zero tolerance phrase. That will probably stop people from being mean to each other. /s You are on the wrong forums. This community LOVES vengeance.
Mobcat (NA)
: If the system is automated why can't we have a reform system?
Riot is not a therapist. "Reform" is a fucking myth. Riot is only concerned about the things you type. Stop typing and you get rewarded. That is Riots "reform system".
: > [{quoted}](name=Your Moms Cooter,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=YzEILTkB,comment-id=0005000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-12-22T01:55:54.165+0000) > > "You" means "person that was punished for losing a game". It is not personal. > > You brought up the grind. I brought up the climb. The climb means reaching your rightful MMR. The grind means spamming games indefinitely to get to a certain rank. > > People will reach their rightful MMR easier. Silver players spamming games to reach gold by end of season will have a harder time. This is just one more problem with it. > So, yes you are playing fewer games. It takes less games to accurately assess your skill though. People who rightfully deserve their rank now will be higher ranked in this new system. The point is that people will be kept from playing ranked when they want to play ranked. And that is not okay if they haven't done anything to earn it before. > That is not a thing. Entire system can fit into a single que. Normals remain completely unchanged and unaffected. In other words you are proposing we create a prisoner's island just for people who lose in ranked. Even if they aren't the cause of their loss? I would encourage you to read the linked article here, it goes over Riot's philosophies on punishment and offer insight into how they decide what things warrant punishment: https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/player-behavior/player-behavior-design-values-punishment > That is a valid concern that I am unable to fully test. I was thinking the highest MMR players Riot would have to leave the system open ended. So random numbers, { 0-500 MMR } , { 500+ MMR,} Okay. That seems like a reasonable solution to that part of the problem. > It is literally impossible to stop or prevent an intentional feeder. Intentional feeders should be less common with the proposed system. It slightly punishes unwanted behavior while significantly rewarding wanted behavior. > > Riot limits your access to ranked rewards, BE, XP, and LP. If you do not win, you receive less ranked rewards, BE, XP, and LP than the winning team. > > AT THE SAME TIME, I'm providing rewards for winning. Try to imagine how good winning will feel. > > YOU AREN'T BANNED. You are temporarily restricted. All you have to do is win 1 game and you will no longer be restricted. At no point will your "actual game time played" decrease. Like I said before, word it however you want. The impact is the same, players will feel like they are getting banned for no reason. Temporary or not, it's still a ban. They are blocked from it. This will infuriate players and make them quit. INB4 you say "well yeah that's the point, they deserve it," no they don't. Not every loss is every player's fault. > I never said "profit". I said "support". > > I've dipped my feet into the modding community. Never underestimate the amount of free work people will put into the things they love. > > Video games are so much more than business and money. They are art. When the art is good it sells. When the art is bad it doesn't. That's your personal experience. The truth about something as big as Riot or League of Legends is that it takes a lot of money to keep something that big afloat. They have thousands of employees to pay wages to, they have massive server rooms to pay for the hardware to build and then maintain, they have bills to pay to internet service providers for high traffic pipelines so that their players don't have shitty connections. It's not something that can be done for 'cheap' like you seem to think. > They did do something wrong. They didn't win the game. They failed to destroy the other teams nexus. They should be punished on purpose. If you don't punish the loses, then there is no avoidance. Losing is disconnected from their actions. Players lose games for all sorts of reasons, many of which don't even involve that player's own choices and actions. Losing is punishment in itself, people hate losing. Those that understand that they need to improve can still go on losing streaks, just the same as people who tilt and flame and decide to throw multiple games in a row. Riot already detects when people tilt, flame, and throw like that, and they do punish them. But it is separate from ranked, and triggers off of behavior, not losses. This is much better for the system as a whole because it won't wrongfully punish 4 other players every time somebody intentionally feeds or throws a game. Besides, there already is punishment enough for losing, people lose LP and MMR, so they wind up being pushed down if they lose often, this results in people de-ranking to their proper rank over time. That is the punishment for losing. It also makes it so that players who lose despite playing well have an opportunity in their next game to prove their worth and continue with their climb. There was never any need to make the punishment for losing worse than this. # If you want to restrict people from ranked, do it in a way that only affects the people who ruin games or cause the losses. Don't do it to the other 4 players who got dragged down with them. > And yet here you are arguing on behalf of all ranked players. In a thread about ranked que. Claiming you know it all. That's because I care about this game and I care that people playing it are able to enjoy it. What you just said was a personal attack. Don't do it again.
> The point is that people will be kept from playing ranked **when they want to play ranked. ** You don't play ranked. You told me so yourself. You have no idea how the bolded people feel. You are not one of them. Stop speaking for them. > In other words you are proposing we create a prisoner's island just for people who lose in ranked. Even if they aren't the cause of their loss? They were the cause of their loss. Always partly, never solely. There you go again with the strong words. It's not a prisoners island. Let's call it "qualification que" instead. > Like I said before, word it however you want. The impact is the same, players will feel like they are getting banned for no reason. Temporary or not, it's still a ban. They are blocked from it. This will infuriate players and make them quit. You know, I really don't think so. I think you are being a little dramatic. It doesn't matter anyways. Through trickery, I could use this entire system and no one would know. I prefer transparency because I feel people respond better. > That's your personal experience. The truth about something as big as Riot or League of Legends is that it takes a lot of money to keep something that big afloat. Maybe it shouldn't be so "big" then? > It's not something that can be done for 'cheap' like you seem to think. All of it can be done for free. That is pretty cheap. Have you seen the Taj Mahal? People do some powerful things for love. > Losing is disconnected from their actions. Players lose games for all sorts of reasons, **many of which** don't even involve that player's own choices and actions. I bolded the key words. Always partly, never solely. In a team game everyone shares blame in a loss. In a team game everyone shares praise in a win. > Losing is punishment in itself, people hate losing. Then go make your thread about how it is unfair that losers get less BE, XP, LP, and ranked rewards. Make sure to call the entire bronze tier a prisoners island. > This is much better for the system as a whole because it won't wrongfully punish 4 other players every time somebody intentionally feeds or throws a game. You think the 4 other players aren't getting punished? Tell that to Silver 1 promotion series denied by AFKs. > Besides, there already is punishment enough for losing, people lose LP and MMR Then explain to me why this game has so many trolls willing to lose a game on purpose. Oh right, YOU DON'T PLAY RANKED. You have NO IDEA what the state of the ranked que is, > If you want to restrict people from ranked, do it in a way that only affects the people who ruin games or cause the losses. Don't do it to the other 4 players who got dragged down with them. That is not how a team game works. You win as a team. You lose as a team. > That's because I care about this game and I care that people playing it are able to enjoy it. What you just said was a personal attack. Don't do it again. Maybe take a back seat with your caring ass? It is called "stay in your lane". The irony is, i would probably enjoy getting banned. I wouldn't be arguing with people that don't listen.
Rindin14 (NA)
: So here's an unpopular opinion
Broski lemme break it down for you. URF is not a serious mode. It was intended to appear one time and then disappear forever. Some people will always play "fun modes" with a "try hard" attitude. That is just the type of person they are. Playing "try hard" is fun for them. So none of this is really the game modes fault. If Riot would have just stuck to the plan we wouldn't even be talking right now.
: system experiment
Easier to unban a few false positives than manually review every case. If there were a ton of false positives, Riot would reconsider things. As it happens though, there are very few contexts in which Riot will forgive you. So Riot will stay course and maybe put in a couple safety measures for rare context issues.
: trolls don't lose more games. you should look into how matchmaking works. **everyone** wins around 50% including trolls.
Skilled players win 51%. Trolls win 49%. Everyone is around 50% wins. Trolls lose more games.
Rioter Comments
: > [{quoted}](name=Your Moms Cooter,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=YzEILTkB,comment-id=00050000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-12-21T23:38:31.154+0000) > > That is not why we are kicking them off the court. We are kicking them off the court because someone else earned the right to challenge. > > The analogy was to show you that you are being overly dramatic. This type of system is used constantly in real life. It will not cause end of days. The real life example you gave was a very different context from a multiplayer game on the internet. If you didn't want me to think that you were referring to the entirety of the analogy you should have specified which part of it you were referring to. > "Your "punishment" is to play the game you love. I think you will survive." I don't play ranked. Stop taking this personally and making it into a you vs me type of argument. > FUCK YOU ARE OFF TOPIC SO MUCH. Some people actually do enjoy grinds anyways. That is basically what a fucking MMO is. You brought up the grind, if you didn't want me to address it then you shouldn't have implied that it was ok to make players grind more than they already do. > I'm not forcing anyone. If you don't want to compete then don't. There are several other game modes that are none competitive. That said, you are not entitled to the rewards of a competition. You have to fucking earn them. Basic fucking truth about a competition. Okay, I'm partially convinced. Forcing people to compete for the right to participate in ranked would certainly keep the less serious people out of it, however... that does bring about another set of concerns. 1. What about all the casual players who play normals and who will have to deal with these players who are upset after getting kicked out of ranked? 2. What happens over time as more games are played and half of the players from that game are banned from ranked each game? Ranked queues will become very slow because there will be so few players available to be matched with. Personally if I were in the position of somebody who could play ranked, but there were a boat-load of people who can't queue up and get put on my team simply because one of their teammates fed and got them banned from ranked, then I would suffer too. I'm not really about 20 minute queue timers, I remember the old days and that was a lot worse than what we have now. 3. This still doesn't address the fact that an int-feeder can mess up 4 other people's game and cost them the opportunity to participate in that competition. > What happens currently? You get the same XP, same BE, same LP, same win/lose as the rest of your team. I wasn't always the reason my team lost. I received the same punishment as they did. There is no 'punishment' received though. Riot isn't limiting your access to something or taking something away. What you are suggesting is _increasing_ the punishment that players receive when they lose. You can call it whatever you want, the end result though is going to be really small ranked queues > YOU ARE SELFISH. THAT DOESN'T GO WELL IN A TEAM ENVIRONMENT. As I stated above. I don't play ranked. I really don't care about my own right to play ranked. I'm talking about how this will affect other people. Because I know for a fact that it is going to be human nature to be furious when someone else gets you banned from ranked. > No it is truly sad. I don't play league to support local business. I play league to enjoy games. It all connects. You shouldn't assume that "business" equates to "profit." It's not just for "profit" because the money they earn also gets re-invested into better infrastructure and hardware for servers and into paying employees to design features or balance for the game that will make it more fun for players like you and I to play in the future. When I say they must run a business, I literally mean that they must financially stay above water in order to be able to still provide the game for us - the players - to enjoy. I'm saying that implementing highly unpopular features to replace existing systems will kill off the playerbase and thus the company. This is probably why they have Clash coming as its own game mode. Players who want this sort of functionality from their competitive game will get it there. And in having it be a separate feature, it won't harm the players who already prefer the current ranked system. I guess I should clarify, I'm not against your idea. I just think it needs to not mistakenly punish players who did nothing wrong. In other words, tweak it to be more fair and you will have my full support. If you want your idea to be applied to the existing ranked system, you need to find a better way to trigger it so that you don't wrongfully punish innocent players. Doing so with such a blind trigger would be unnecessary and would create a lot more problems than it would solve.
> "Your "punishment" is to play the game you love. I think you will survive." > > I don't play ranked. Stop taking this personally and making it into a you vs me type of argument. "You" means "person that was punished for losing a game". It is not personal. > You brought up the grind, if you didn't want me to address it then you shouldn't have implied that it was ok to make players grind more than they already do. You brought up the grind. I brought up the climb. The climb means reaching your rightful MMR. The grind means spamming games indefinitely to get to a certain rank. People will reach their rightful MMR easier. Silver players spamming games to reach gold by end of season will have a harder time. So, yes you are playing fewer games. It takes less games to accurately assess your skill though. People who rightfully deserve their rank now will be higher ranked in this new system. > What about all the casual players who play normals and who will have to deal with these players who are upset after getting kicked out of ranked? That is not a thing. Entire system can fit into a single que. Normals remain completely unchanged and unaffected. > Ranked queues will become very slow That is a valid concern that I am unable to fully test. I was thinking the highest MMR players Riot would have to leave the system open ended. So random numbers, { 0-500 MMR } , { 500+ MMR,} > This still doesn't address the fact that an int-feeder can mess up 4 other people's game and cost them the opportunity to participate in that competition. It is literally impossible to stop or prevent an intentional feeder. Intentional feeders should be less common with the proposed system. It slightly punishes unwanted behavior while significantly rewarding wanted behavior. > There is no 'punishment' received though. Riot isn't limiting your access to something or taking something away. Riot limits your access to ranked rewards, BE, XP, and LP. If you do not win, you receive less ranked rewards, BE, XP, and LP than the winning team. > What you are suggesting is increasing the punishment that players receive when they lose. You can call it whatever you want, the end result though is going to be really small ranked queues AT THE SAME TIME, I'm providing rewards for winning. Try to imagine how good winning will feel. > Because I know for a fact that it is going to be human nature to be furious when someone else gets you banned from ranked. YOU AREN'T BANNED. You are temporarily restricted. All you have to do is win 1 game and you will no longer be restricted. At no point will your "actual game time played" decrease. > You shouldn't assume that "business" equates to "profit." I never said "profit". I said "support". > It's not just for "profit" because the money they earn also gets re-invested into better infrastructure and hardware for servers and into paying employees to design features or balance for the game that will make it more fun for players like you and I to play in the future. When I say they must run a business, I literally mean that they must financially stay above water in order to be able to still provide the game for us - the players - to enjoy. I've dipped my feet into the modding community. Never underestimate the amount of free work people will put into the things they love. Video games are so much more than business and money. They are art. When the art is good it sells. When the art is bad it doesn't. > I guess I should clarify, I'm not against your idea. I just think it needs to not mistakenly punish players who did nothing wrong. In other words, tweak it to be more fair and you will have my full support. They did do something wrong. They didn't win the game. They failed to destroy the other teams nexus. They should be punished on purpose. If you don't punish the loses, then there is no avoidance. > I don't play ranked. And yet here you are arguing on behalf of all ranked players. In a thread about ranked que. Claiming you know it all.
nerak23 (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=CR4ZYRONDH4VI,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=aw6dPX9E,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2017-12-22T00:17:41.262+0000) > > Yeah. I’m just surprised that so many people think it’s no big deal Usually I find that the one's that pretend its Okay are the same ones who got busted for it. If You find it offensive Report it, Riot will catch them. Oh and just remember its not the majority, players have talked about this before and that is why its considered hate speech. It is dealt with harshly and swifty when reported. They could say it to their friends but only if No one else is playing that can read it. Have a Happy Holiday season :)
> Usually I find that the one's that pretend its Okay are the same ones who got busted for it. Imagine that. Someone that feels a word is acceptable deciding to use said word.
: > [{quoted}](name=WishedChalice,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=BHwo5oEH,comment-id=,timestamp=2017-12-21T17:14:44.551+0000)Then please refund me my unused riot points. And we can part ways nicely. Please and thank you.". Is that not reasonable? That is a beautiful compromise if you ask me. Out of curiosity, if you go a restraunt, movie theater, or Broadway show, violate their rules, and get kicked out, would you feel entitled to a refund? Because most of these places will not give you one: you legitimately bought and recieved your ticket/food/etc. and, due to your own actions, were ejected from the premises for your behavior before you could fully enjoy your purchase. Few people will say I'm entitled to a refund for my show ticket if stand up and start insulting the cast mid-show. League follows similar rules: once you're ejected for behavior you have previously had warnings about said behavior, and knowingly continued to exhibit problematic behavior. That isn't Riot's fauly, nor do they really owe you anything at that point
Restaurants, movie theaters, and shows are not a competition requiring team work. (as a customer participant) Another big inconsistency is that real life doesn't hold you hostage to negative situations. Not enjoying your meal/show? You can leave. Depending on circumstances you can even get a refund before you leave. League will punish you if you try to leave an unpleasant game. You will never get a refund from league. See? Real life allows people to exit situations BEFORE THEY ESCALATE. I don't feel the need to yell at fellow diners for multiple reasons: Rarely. will another diner purposefully attempt to ruin my meal. The taste of my meal is not compromised by other peoples words. I can request changing tables if there is an issue. I can walk the fuck out and freely return at any time. My purchase is tangible. An egg is an egg. I know what I should be getting. An entertaining online experience is much more variable.
: Use of N Word in League Games
I learnt in kindergarten: sticks and stone may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. I guess that changes when I reach first grade though.
: > [{quoted}](name=Your Moms Cooter,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=YzEILTkB,comment-id=000500000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-12-21T22:46:37.250+0000) > > You have a different perspective. "Winning" is the most important thing to a competitive person. A competitive person cares very little about "social interactions". > > That is why it is healthy to DESIGNATE a casual and competitive environment. It also helps with reinforcing Riots rules. Ok, I'm following so far. > That is just totally not true. I've been in the real life before. Have you not heard the phrase, "I play winner."? > > When there are 3 teams and only 1 court, "winner keeps playing" has always been the "unwritten law". Even in practice there are examples. A basketball team usually has more people than basketballs where I'm from. So what do we do when people are just shooting? If you make your shot you get to shoot again. If you miss your shot, whoever gets the rebound shoots. > > Not once have I heard, "The only reason I came here was to shoot a basketball. Now, you want to punish me for being bad at it. I'm out. This is stupid." This entire analogy falls apart because of the scale of league and the scalability of Riot's hardware. As things are currently, Riot has plenty of hardware capable of hosting as many matches as can be played. There's no need to kick people off in order to give everyone a fair share of time to use the 'court.' > Then they would stop playing right now. Trolls happen to promotion series all the time. People are constantly posting on this forum how someone else got them banned. This entire forum is an "I feel unjustly punished" thread. The only problem with making a claim like that is that actually most of the people claiming they were unjustly banned were people who clearly acted in negative or abusive manners. There was no ambiguity for Riot in figuring out whether that player deserved a punishment. Players are responsible for their own behavior, nobody 'gets' anybody else banned. If one player starts something and the other player also gets in on the flame war, they will both be punished for it. The difference between that and your way of doing this is that your way gives no true provable line of guilt connecting the player to the trigger for their punishment. This is the sort of situation that could arise with your system in place: "What's the matter, got a feeder in your game who ran it down lanes and caused your team to lose? Too bad buddy, you're going to have to still deal with the punishment we give to people for losing a match, even though you performed admirably in-game. yeah we know that other player probably was the cause of the loss, but we're punishing you both equally, because reasons." > That is not the full story. Skillful players will be playing more ranked games than unskilled players. "The climb" will be easier for skillful players. "The grind" is probably harder for everyone. As you say, less total ranked games is less chances. People don't like grinds. It makes the process feel unrewarding and tedious. > The same toxicity that is now when someone is stuck at Division 5. Except now, trolls aren't safe in their Division 5. They actually have something to lose. > > IFS doesn't change. Just goes to show how little faith you have in the IFS. Indeed, in that regard this is a great idea. But trolls already stand to lose their accounts if they ruin games for others. really what Riot needs to do is improve their detection systems, not just create a heavy-handed punishment system that blindly shoots everybody just for the sake of being able to say "well we shot 100% of the trolls, so... America! Fuck yeah!" Meanwhile the blood of the innocents runs thickly all around you intermingled with the blood of those trolls. > It is called a "tournament". Some people rather enjoy them. Then go play a tournament. Don't make other people play it just because you want to force it on them. > Yes, losing is typically anti-fun. It has to be. If losing was fun, people wouldn't try to win. Welcome to a competition. If you don't want to compete, go play the numerous other game modes not named "ranked and draft". Did you intentionally misinterpret my point? the point is that the act of denying them access would be anti-fun and absolutely unfair. They aren't always the reason they lost the game. Don't punish them as such, it's really that simple. > That is just sad. No it's not. It's fair. Riot treats their players more fairly now than they would under your system.
> There's no need to kick people off in order to give everyone a fair share of time to use the 'court.' That is not why we are kicking them off the court. We are kicking them off the court because someone else earned the right to challenge. The analogy was to show you that you are being overly dramatic. This type of system is used constantly in real life. It will not cause end of days. > "What's the matter, got a feeder in your game who ran it down lanes and caused your team to lose? Too bad buddy, you're going to have to still deal with the punishment we give to people for losing a match, even though you performed admirably in-game. yeah we know that other player probably was the cause of the loss, but we're punishing you both equally, because reasons." "Your "punishment" is to play the game you love. I think you will survive." > People don't like grinds. It makes the process feel unrewarding and tedious. FUCK YOU ARE OFF TOPIC SO MUCH. Some people actually do enjoy grinds anyways. That is basically what a fucking MMO is. > Then go play a tournament. Don't make other people play it just because you want to force it on them. I'm not forcing anyone. If you don't want to compete then don't. There are several other game modes that are none competitive. That said, you are not entitled to the rewards of a competition. You have to fucking earn them. Basic fucking truth about a competition. > They aren't always the reason they lost the game. Don't punish them as such, it's really that simple. What happens currently? You get the same XP, same BE, same LP, same win/lose as the rest of your team. I wasn't always the reason my team lost. I received the same punishment as they did. YOU ARE SELFISH. THAT DOESN'T GO WELL IN A TEAM ENVIRONMENT. > Riot is a business, they need players in order to make money. Stop trying to force through your idea that would be terrible for their business. ` > That is just sad. ` > No it's not. It's fair. Riot treats their players more fairly now than they would under your system. No it is truly sad. I don't play league to support local business. I play league to enjoy games.
: > [{quoted}](name=Your Moms Cooter,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=YzEILTkB,comment-id=0005000000000000,timestamp=2017-12-21T02:17:02.159+0000) > > This isn't a "punishment" system. This is an "incentive" system. Really? Because punishment by definition is when you determine that a person needs something taken away from them and then you do it. Definition of punishment 1 : the act of punishing 2 a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution 2 b : **a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure** You are suggesting that we see somebody lost a match, and we take away their access to ranked for it. In what way is that not punishment? **I'm not opposed to restricting peoples' access to ranked! But triggering that off of 'losing a match' is absolutely absurd.** > Riot has already committed to a similar system in the clash game mode. > > I'm not trying to catch feeders at all. Indirectly, I am trying to dissuade feeders by enticing them to play. My primary goal is to promote healthy competition. It just so happens, that this system is better at catching trolls than our current system. Efficiency is a matter of accuracy too. If you stop all drunk drivers, but literally nobody has a car anymore... you have created a different problem entirely. If you are ever in a position to test such a far-reaching measure to deal with something, you will see that it is human nature to rise up in protest against a policy that unfairly punishes people for the wrongs of others. > Maybe it is just me, but your wording comes off as a bit strong. No one is getting banned. This system is utilized constantly in real life and is considered very fair. Maybe my wording is strong. I don't like nay-saying ideas but I absolutely do not believe that this idea will be efficient or accurate at dealing with it's true target problem. Your intent for the system really doesn't matter. Whether it would be successful or not comes down to is how it is received. If players feel like they are being punished for a loss, and if that loss felt in any way like it was outside of their control. They will feel like they are being punished unfairly. Most players would sooner quit than conform to such a draconian system. > The climb is still there. The climb should actually be easier. The climb will not be easier. because people will be prevented from playing as often, so it will take them much longer to climb. Additionally, imagine how much more toxic those people will become if they know that losing a match will prevent them from playing more ranked for a while? They're going to bash anybody who makes the match harder to win, and once they lose they will bash anybody who causes them to lose the normal matches that they have to win before being allowed to rejoin ranked. > Denying them access is pretty essential (I would say limiting instead of denying). Threats don't work if you never follow through. On the other side, it is offering a widely desired reward. People have to care about the reward or it won't work. There is absolutely no good reason to deny people access simply for losing a game. That is punishing them for something not always within their own control. It is extremely anti-fun, and it would cause a mass exodus of quitters. And no, "well they're just quitters then" is not a valid argument. Riot is a business, they need players in order to make money. Stop trying to force through your idea that would be terrible for their business.
> I'm not opposed to restricting peoples' access to ranked! But triggering that off of 'losing a match' is absolutely absurd. You have a different perspective. "Winning" is the most important thing to a competitive person. A competitive person cares very little about "social interactions". That is why it is healthy to DESIGNATE a casual and competitive environment. It also helps with reinforcing Riots rules. > Efficiency is a matter of accuracy too. If you stop all drunk drivers, but literally nobody has a car anymore... you have created a different problem entirely. If you are ever in a position to test such a far-reaching measure to deal with something, you will see that it is human nature to rise up in protest against a policy that unfairly punishes people for the wrongs of others. That is just totally not true. I've been in the real life before. Have you not heard the phrase, "I play winner."? When there are 3 teams and only 1 court, "winner keeps playing" has always been the "unwritten law". Even in practice there are examples. A basketball team usually has more people than basketballs where I'm from. So what do we do when people are just shooting? If you make your shot you get to shoot again. If you miss your shot, whoever gets the rebound shoots. Not once have I heard, "The only reason I came here was to shoot a basketball. Now, you want to punish me for being bad at it. I'm out. This is stupid." > If players feel like they are being punished for a loss, and if that loss felt in any way like it was outside of their control. They will feel like they are being punished unfairly. Most players would sooner quit than conform to such a draconian system. Then they would stop playing right now. Trolls happen to promotion series all the time. People are constantly posting on this forum how someone else got them banned. This entire forum is an "I feel unjustly punished" thread. > The climb will not be easier. because people will be prevented from playing as often, so it will take them much longer to climb. That is not the full story. Skillful players will be playing more ranked games than unskilled players. "The climb" will be easier for skillful players. "The grind" is probably harder for everyone. As you say, less total ranked games is less chances. > Additionally, imagine how much more toxic those people will become if they know that losing a match will prevent them from playing more ranked for a while? They're going to bash anybody who makes the match harder to win, and once they lose they will bash anybody who causes them to lose the normal matches that they have to win before being allowed to rejoin ranked. The same toxicity that is now when someone is stuck at Division 5. Except now, trolls aren't safe in their Division 5. They actually have something to lose. IFS doesn't change. Just goes to show how little faith you have in the IFS. > There is absolutely no good reason to deny people access simply for losing a game. It is called a "tournament". Some people rather enjoy them. > That is punishing them for something not always within their own control. It is extremely anti-fun, and it would cause a mass exodus of quitters. Yes, losing is typically anti-fun. It has to be. If losing was fun, people wouldn't try to win. Welcome to a competition. If you don't want to compete, go play the numerous other game modes not named "ranked and draft". > Riot is a business, they need players in order to make money. Stop trying to force through your idea that would be terrible for their business. That is just sad.
: Can we get a TL;DR?
If you don't want to read, don't open the thread.
: I don't get why people have to point out to you why this idea is bad. Seems pretty obvious.
Really doesn't effect me either way. You have to swing the bat in order to get a hit.
: Who says they're trolling in every game? They might play serious to get back to ranked. Trolls don't troll because "I wanna waste my time" they wait for people who are easily agitated, like you. The incentive of a ban isn't enough for some, why would this be?
> And then people start trolling/inting to lock people out of ranked Those are "troll every game" type of people. > I don't think they care about being locked out of ranked if they just want to anger people... Those are also "troll every game" type of people. > They might play serious to get back to ranked. Those are the "occasional troll" type of people. > The incentive of a ban isn't enough for some, why would this be? The ban threat doesn't go away. This changes nothing about the punishment systems already in place. This system provides incentive to win games. It just so happens that trolls have a hard time winning games. I took something the community apparently really wants. (ranked que) Then I used that as a reward for the behavior I wanted. (legit competition)
: Your bot games are flooded with bots on the player team. Reporting does nothing.
Most of the demand for bots comes from permanent bans and player rank boosting.
: Honor System Improvement
You don't need honor decay to filter out the most honorable. Just look at the numbers and decide what % is worthy of what honor level. When thinking about honor rewards, you need to consider abuse. One time achievements are ok. Honor streaks are bad.
FraCro (EUW)
: * 1.Why ~~dafuck~~ u have to troll at first? ranked is competitive and there is no place for trolls,rage.flame. * 2.Normal wont suffer a lot for that,there is almost every game some one practicing new champs,mastering there mains and etc. * 3.Honest player better have 5 minutes break after lose then going to other game tilted/frustrated/not focused. * 4.Overall game quality wont change a lot (i mainly play just adc and i don't see a big problem here) * 5.U will start climbing ladders faster and it will prevent u for Huge drops. * 6.I think its Win Win situation.
> 3.Honest player better have 5 minutes break after lose then going to other game tilted/frustrated/not focused. I wish I would take more breaks in between games. Some times I sit for a questionable amount of time.
: > [{quoted}](name=Your Moms Cooter,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=YzEILTkB,comment-id=00050000,timestamp=2017-12-20T22:24:11.274+0000) > > They are going to have to get over it. > > Draft pick and ranked are literally the same exact game. The only difference is a hidden MMR. > > Your "punishment" is to play the same exact game, with a different hidden MMR. OH THE FUCKING HUMANITY!!! A HIDDEN NUMBER FUCKED UP MY GAME PLAY RITO!!! Riot is under no obligation to do what you suggest here. It is after all a suggestion. I was simply pointing out a reason as to why Riot would be unlikely to implement such a system of punishment. It goes against their design philosophies to punish players for doing nothing wrong. Denying a player the right to play ranked when all they have done is lost a game is unnecessary and extremely heavy-handed considering the fact that you're really just trying to catch feeders. That's like bringing an assault rifle to a shooting range so you can hit the disc being shot through the air. You're going to hit a lot of other things besides your actual target. Are you unaware of the reason that people play ranked? They want to climb rank, for end of season rewards and for prestige. Forcing them to play something else is denying them access to the very thing that they play league for in the first place.
> I was simply pointing out a reason as to why Riot would be unlikely to implement such a system of punishment. It goes against their design philosophies to punish players for doing nothing wrong. This isn't a "punishment" system. This is an "incentive" system. Riot has already committed to a similar system in the clash game mode. > Denying a player the right to play ranked when all they have done is lost a game is unnecessary and extremely heavy-handed considering the fact that you're really just trying to catch feeders. I'm not trying to catch feeders at all. Indirectly, I am trying to dissuade feeders by enticing them to play. My primary goal is to promote healthy competition. It just so happens, that this system is better at catching trolls than our current system. Maybe it is just me, but your wording comes off as a bit strong. No one is getting banned. This system is utilized constantly in real life and is considered very fair. > Are you unaware of the reason that people play ranked? They want to climb rank, for end of season rewards and for prestige. Forcing them to play something else is denying them access to the very thing that they play league for in the first place. The climb is still there. The climb should actually be easier. Denying them access is pretty essential (I would say limiting instead of denying). Threats don't work if you never follow through. On the other side, it is offering a widely desired reward. People have to care about the reward or it won't work.
: this has got to be the stupidest thing ive have EVER in my ENTIRE life have ever read and u should probably never write a discussion ever again
> this has got to be the stupidest thing ive have EVER in my ENTIRE life have ever read Where does that typo rank?
: You can still get them in their first game after a win. Hell you could get someone who just gets angry at you and wants you to lose. Enjoy playing 1 or 2 more games before your next promo match now that you lost.{{sticker:vlad-salute}}
You just changed the people we are talking about. The "troll every game" is stuck in normals most of the time. The "occasional troll" will show up in all game modes. They are literally unpreventable. However, giving players an incentive to not troll should lower the occurrence of the "occasional troll".
: Your heart is in the right place, but this implementation is a bit too heavy-handed with forcing players to do something they don't want to do. I would be worried about it making a lot of perfectly reasonable players quit league simply because they are being punished for something that other people ruined.
They are going to have to get over it. Draft pick and ranked are literally the same exact game. The only difference is a hidden MMR. Your "punishment" is to play the same exact game, with a different hidden MMR. OH THE FUCKING HUMANITY!!! A HIDDEN NUMBER FUCKED UP MY GAME PLAY RITO!!!
: You aren't understanding what I said. What happens when 2 "rankers" are on opposite teams? 1 will win and 1 will lose. Which means 1 will have to go play a normal draft now. Maybe normally it wouldn't be a problem, but now that is where a majority of the trolls are. The trolls have decided to play norms to prevent "rankers" from getting an easy win and returning to rank.
Some one always wins by default. They can not indefinitely prevent you from winning. The only way that is possible, is if your premade was purposefully losing games. Then I ask why you are in a premade that purposefully is trying to lose. Shitty games will happen. This is not a prevention. This is an incentive.
: I don't think they care about being locked out of ranked if they just want to anger people...
.....I don't want them in my promotion series games.
: And then people start trolling/inting to lock people out of ranked
They are locking themselves out of ranked by doing that. So ranked avoids a troll. The sad truth is trolls are not entirely preventable.
: And what about the people like me who almost exclusively play draft norms? I'll have the same problem that ranked gives me now, already angry people getting mad at me being I'm not try Harding to get back into ranked. I'm just trying to play a game.
Play blind pick, rotating game mode, ARAM, co-op vs AI, TT, or custom.
Show more

SuicideAw

Level 12 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion