: It pains me to see that League of Legends THE GAME is in a state of decline...
TBH it's a great cinematic, but it's worth is moreso in the fact that those of us who have been following the development of the game understand exactly what's going on in almost all of it. We know of Draven's career as an executioner, and how he thought it'd spice things up if it were a show. We know of the war between Ionia and Noxus. I'm sure some of us even expected to see Singed racing across the horizon, but since we saw Riven in the colluseum we know that whatever occurred in the cinematic takes place after Singed's involvement, because we know of the timeframe involved in everything. We know who Jhin is. We know who Camille is. We know what they do and how they operate. All together, it just made for a pretty enjoyable experience, moreso when you know what's going on lol
: It pains me to see that League of Legends THE GAME is in a state of decline...
: Every loss is from literally one bad player.
Remember guys! One good player can carry a team of 4 bad players! {{sticker:slayer-jinx-unamused}} I'll take lies told on Boards for 300, Janna!
T2K Baka (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=The Highest Noon,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=eYOdONsp,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-01-20T19:20:30.739+0000) > > So in your opinion, two people with equal skill level and knowlege of the game won't have a clear difference in capabilities based on what champs they own? > > Or better yet... > > team of 5 450 champs won't be outperformed by team of 5 6300 champs? > > Again, keep the hypotheticals out of the situation. no they won't. It depends on the champs, cuz master reeeeeeeeeeeee, gayren, and ryze are late game monsters and are easy to play
> [{quoted}](name=T2K Baka,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=eYOdONsp,comment-id=000000000001,timestamp=2019-01-20T19:27:09.382+0000) > > no they won't. It depends on the champs, cuz master reeeeeeeeeeeee, gayren, and ryze are late game monsters and are easy to play Though that's true, I wouldn't include Garen nor Ryze in the 450 category since they've been reworked recently enough to be considered 6300 champions. That works in the favor of 450 champs, though.
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=The Highest Noon,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=eYOdONsp,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-01-20T19:20:30.739+0000) > > So in your opinion, two people with equal skill level and knowlege of the game won't have a clear difference in capabilities based on what champs they own? > > Or better yet... > > team of 5 450 champs won't be outperformed by team of 5 6300 champs? > > Again, keep the hypotheticals out of the situation. To be fair, that's probably because there are more than 30 champs priced at 6300 and about 13 or so with 450. Also because of the kind of champs it does have, 450 champ bracket is only barely able to form a standard meta team. I wouldn't say the comparison in this specific context is fair.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=eYOdONsp,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2019-01-20T19:24:02.821+0000) > > To be fair, that's probably because there are more than 30 champs priced at 6300 and about 13 or so with 450. Also because of the kind of champs it does have, 450 champ bracket is only barely able to form a standard meta team. > > I wouldn't say the comparison in this specific context is fair. True, but it's not just that. Compare 450 champs to 1350 champs, or any group of champs in any price range. That aside, it only furthers my point to say that the cheap champ pool isn't as valuable in-meta as 6300 champions.
: I have every champion but the latest two. I have only ever paid to unlock 1 champion. When you can unlock the champion, day of release, with BE and not necessarily have to pay a cent, that isn't pay to win. Furthermore, while new champs often have balance issues, they're also often banned in ranked. Even if they *aren't* banned, only 1/10 people can play them, and you know as well as everyone else that you can lose on any champion if you're on the worse team. To me, that isn't pay to win by a pretty large margin.
That's why I stated to keep all hypotheticals out of the scenario lol strictly a 1:1 basis comparing low-cost champs to high-cost champs.
: No. 1. You can save up BE and riot doesn't make that many champs anymore. 2. Some of this is because of the balance team/certainlyT. Rioters don't know exactly how good/bad a champ is on release because they never get anywhere near the sample sizes they need. Then you've got CertainlyT champs which are always hard to get a reading on. 3. You can win a lot with some older/cheaper champs if you main them and actually git gud.
1. You can save BE at the cost of shards, true. 3. Hypothetically speaking, you'd have to be better than someone using a costly champ. Hypothetically speaking, it'd imply that you're better than they are. No hypotheticals, please.
: Garen cheese is not pay to win. It's SPIN to win :D
> [{quoted}](name=fatherdarius,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=eYOdONsp,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-01-20T19:09:55.574+0000) > > Garen cheese is not pay to win. It's SPIN to win :D This is undeniable factoid.
Shiwah (EUW)
: > New, expensive Champs are better than old, cheap champs Annie, 450 BE champ, can literally *wreck* Yasuo, 6300 BE champ.
> [{quoted}](name=Shiwah,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=eYOdONsp,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-01-20T19:09:51.926+0000) > > Annie, 450 BE champ, can literally *wreck* Yasuo, 6300 BE champ. Does that mean that a Yasuo that knows how to play against Annie will always lose?
Jamaree (NA)
: Nah, because just because they are new doesn't mean they are inherently the best, case in point, one of the highest win rate champions in the game is an older ones and cost 3150 (Sona btw). Hell, Shaco and Galio both cost 3150.
> [{quoted}](name=Jamaree,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=eYOdONsp,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-01-20T19:06:21.638+0000) > > Nah, because just because they are new doesn't mean they are inherently the best, case in point, one of the highest win rate champions in the game is an older ones and cost 3150 (Sona btw). Hell, Shaco and Galio both cost 3150. Galio was reworked, though. He would be priced at 6300 if he were a new champ and not just a rework. Doesn't disregard Sona and Shaco though.
T2K Baka (NA)
: its not pay to win, its not even grind to win. just because a champion is broken doesn't mean they will not die at all. Its play to win, play more, learn to counter, learn by experience and hopefully u can win more and get better
> [{quoted}](name=T2K Baka,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=eYOdONsp,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-01-20T19:05:14.823+0000) > > its not pay to win, its not even grind to win. just because a champion is broken doesn't mean they will not die at all. Its play to win, play more, learn to counter, learn by experience and hopefully u can win more and get better So in your opinion, two people with equal skill level and knowlege of the game won't have a clear difference in capabilities based on what champs they own? Or better yet... team of 5 450 champs won't be outperformed by team of 5 6300 champs? Again, keep the hypotheticals out of the situation.
Rioter Comments
Shiwah (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=The Highest Noon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=GMcVflfx,comment-id=0003000000000000,timestamp=2019-01-16T22:32:18.193+0000) > > I wouldn't go _that_far. I mean, they encourage players to make a new account and continue playing almost immediately. Tjey can't prevent you from creating a new account. M8ght as well you that you can. However, Tantram (the current "face" of the PB team) explicitly stated that toxic players aren't supposed to return. > Which returns to my question of "Why didn't they think that?" Didn't I already answer that? Because they think they're owed forgiveness. > That has nothing to do with the fact that the rules themselves use vague, easily misconstrued wording. Not really. They can be summed up as "don't be a jerk". > So no, a middle ground isn't necessary. There's more common ground than you might believe. Both regions share the same sensibilities in regards to ZT stuff. And, i meant middle ground *within the same region*. And I've yet to meet a player who doesn't get affected to some extent from being insulted, or seeing someone running down mid.
> [{quoted}](name=Shiwah,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=GMcVflfx,comment-id=00030000000000000000,timestamp=2019-01-17T10:40:21.069+0000) > > Tjey can't prevent you from creating a new account. M8ght as well you that you can. However, Tantram (the current "face" of the PB team) explicitly stated that toxic players aren't supposed to return. Then that must be a difference in opinion within Riot itself, because they've on multiple fronts stated they want banned players to return. They may wish for reform, but they don't have anything in place to actually prevent toxicity nor filter it from their game, just punish it when it shows. I'm sure that there could be something put in place to filter it. It's just not there, though. > Didn't I already answer that? Because they think they're owed forgiveness. Yes, you gave a simple answer that generally isn't the case. I highly doubt that people who've received many punishments would suddenly think that they wouldn't be punished in a way that people are constantly saying would happen. It's why I brought up other, more logical reasons such as: * Not understanding _what's_ wrong; let's face it, the ambiguity of the rules regarding toxicity is perhaps the #1 allowance of punishment, and if they'd elaborate and specify what toxicity is there'd be a significant drop in it. * Not understanding _why_ it's wrong; Education is the biggest form of conflict-prevention because if people knew why a specific action is considered wrong, people would be less likely to perform it. It's the basis of a morally just society. _Tell people why this crime is a crime and they'll understand and become less likely to partake in that activity_. * Not understanding what's _considered_ wrong; just saying "Don't hit someone" doesn't tell you that nudging someone with your shoulder is included, just as saying "don't be a jerk" doesn't include all forms of chat-based offenses. > And I've yet to meet a player who doesn't get affected to some extent from being insulted, or seeing someone running down mid. Insulted? Not really. Harassed? Probably. Criticized? Nah. Someone running down mid? That's not necessarily a regional rule; that'd be a "Zero+1-tolerance" issue that Riot themselves dictate, not regional players. +1 added because there actually are cases where it's allowed, all of which involve "We forfeited so it doesn't matter". I wish things weren't so...generalized and vague.
rujitra (NA)
: I think we have a disconnect: I don't care personally **why** people are toxic. It is not natural for people to have this extremely selfish attitude. Sure, they may not be toxic to "ruin other's fun for their own good", but if they changed their attitude to one that didn't allow that sort of behavior, they wouldn't be anywhere near as toxic. And here's the thing. Humans are social creatures. Selfishness is the **last** resort biologically. In fact, many mental illnesses are likely or in part because humans' biological impediment to selfishness has gone haywire and either become overly active or nonexistent. Given this, there is no reason to believe the majority of League players can't be decent people. Thus turning them back towards behavior that takes into consideration others is Riot's goal. Do they *need* to focus on reforming people? No, they could play cat and mouse and hope they eventually outsmart them or they only get outsmarted by a few people. But that wouldn't do any good for the players who go through life thinking this sort of thing is okay.
The assumption here is that "toxicity" is a defined concept and that all forms of "toxicity" are based around the idea that it only happens for a singular reason. If you think that toxicity has a clear, objective definition and that it only occurs because of one thing, then the "problem" will never be solved. Thankfully, the criminal justice system has evolved beyond that type of thinking, but it's not something that any system of rules and punishments should go by. It goes back to my statement that there are a variety of reasons for a single reaction that don't all coincide.
: You...must not know how to play her, then. That, or you expect some amazing solo carry champion in a game of four other players. That's not how a champion is supposed to be balanced. From what I've seen from her players, she does just fine in most situations where good players are using her against good players. THAT is the only balance that matters. Not bad players against good players, not good players against bad players, not bad players against other bad players; when someone who knows how to use her plays her against players who now how to play against her. And in that case, she's just fine. So I return to my previous statement. If there is no problem, what's the problem?
> [{quoted}](name=Sir Prepuzius,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=yji08QVM,comment-id=00050000000100000000000000000000000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2019-01-17T08:57:51.979+0000) > > this guys (volatileakali) obviously plays the champ and gets it. everything you said in this thread it's accurate > > i wish certain people would refrain to argument about things they have no idea "You disagree with me, therefor you're wrong" {{sticker:zombie-brand-facepalm}} Is this what they call a "Loser's mentality" that Riot mentioned, I think? Yeah, I can see it. TBH Akali is easy mode and not enough people play her so too many people can't play against her. It is what it is.
: > [{quoted}](name=stanjer123,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=yji08QVM,comment-id=00070000,timestamp=2019-01-15T18:54:23.430+0000) > > So the people in master and Challenger just need some more practice. Got it. Yes. They should probably watch their replays, consider different item builds, and try different lane strategies if they aren't succeeding as they are. New age thinking. {{sticker:sona-playing}}
> [{quoted}](name=ı Sona ı,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=yji08QVM,comment-id=000700000000,timestamp=2019-01-15T19:38:22.574+0000) > > Yes. > > They should probably watch their replays, consider different item builds, and try different lane strategies if they aren't succeeding as they are. > > New age thinking. > > {{sticker:sona-playing}} This reminds me of that one time someone who was super high ranked in S2 came back in S6 and couldn't get out of Bronze.
: > Nobody complains about Yasuo anymore because it's actually pretty easy to deal with him. ahahahaha
> [{quoted}](name=Sir Prepuzius,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=yji08QVM,comment-id=0006000000000001,timestamp=2019-01-17T08:52:00.811+0000) > > ahahahaha When's the last time that someone had a valid criticism against Yasuo? And I mean a **valid** criticism against **Yasuo**.
: You...must not know how to play her, then. That, or you expect some amazing solo carry champion in a game of four other players. That's not how a champion is supposed to be balanced. From what I've seen from her players, she does just fine in most situations where good players are using her against good players. THAT is the only balance that matters. Not bad players against good players, not good players against bad players, not bad players against other bad players; when someone who knows how to use her plays her against players who now how to play against her. And in that case, she's just fine. So I return to my previous statement. If there is no problem, what's the problem?
> [{quoted}](name=VolatileAkali,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=yji08QVM,comment-id=00050000000100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-01-17T08:01:16.182+0000) > > the majority of the Akali community doesn't know how to win the overall game with her I kinda stopped at this line because you've kinda invalidated every argument with this. "People don't know how" is not a reason to say "She's bad", since the people who _do_ know how claim otherwise.
: Why is this community so soft?
I think that you're severely misunderstanding something. Riot does not care about shit talk. What they **do** care about is the fact that every time someone starts shit-talking, they're afk at base targetting a specific person who didn't do what they want while the enemy is running through their lane. Why does Riot care about afk shit talkers? Because the **players** care about someone intentionally ruining the experience and causes a loss, all so they can talk shit. If you wanna spend all your time talking shit, that's what Twitter is for. If you're trying to play League of Legends, play League of Legends.
: POLL: Do you like the current state of the game?
Meh, I've got no lasting complaints. My only issue is with the Levelling and Loot system. It sucks not getting rewards after every match, and what you get from levelling up almost feels not worth the effort even though it actually is.
: Dude... of course we say its because Riot said so. If they thought permamutes were good, they wouldnt have stopped doing it. It obviously didnt work so they changed and will probably continue to change and evolve. But they will always go forward. Theyre not gonna go backwards to a system they already tried and decided wasnt working.
Probably with that is that when they said it wouldn't work, that was back when the system itself didn't work. That was what...over 4 years ago?
: How comes it's kindred instead of Lamb & Wolf?
> [{quoted}](name=Hellmaximus1,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=RNlZHAzd,comment-id=0021,timestamp=2019-01-17T00:58:35.538+0000) > > How comes it's kindred instead of Lamb & Wolf? Because Kindred is both of their names lol they're a tag team.
: That is best excuse for not doing anything.It is not so hard to see the difference if you take your time to actualy lock at it ... THere is a group of challanger players in EUW known as L9...They are rely good players.High level.But sometimes they int for fun and content .And 1 of them wrote once : 'U can go 15 days with strait up run down mid and feed and they will not punish you,but use 1 word on chat and you get 14 days ban,very nice system you got there Riot' , And then he show video of him playing nunu mid with exhaust and cleanse ruing down mid and giveing kills under tower to enemy ,and then he show his match history where he did same thing 15 days in a row...And then he get banned because his case got on reddit... U see my point here???
I see what you're _getting at_ but even then there's just not enough information. For starters, how often was he **reported**, if ever? The system regarding intentional feeding is **not** automated, There actually has to be reports given by the players, and if players just don't bother then of course he won't be punished. On the other hand, chat is governed by the instant feedback system, but against that _still_ requires reports. His case going to Reddit is just another means of him being _reported_, too. You think of it as an excuse, but honestly it's the only thing that matters. It's up to the players to figure out whether or not it's intentional feeding, and if the players do nothing then nothing will happen.
rujitra (NA)
: Well, this isn't a case study, it's more like a population study. I'll be the first to admit that many players punished aren't "bad". But that doesn't mean that they have an anti-societal understanding of social norms. From my experience watching toxicity in League since I started playing in season 1/2, it has become clear to me that for whatever reason League causes players to turn off their "decency" centers. It makes them feel as if this sort of behavior is okay, be it chat, trolling, afking, that affects other players. Most humans understand, unless they bury it, that it's not okay to ruin something for others just for your own good. That's why Riot has to punish to change that attitude. If they just change the *action*, the players will find another way to ruin the experience for others. And then Riot will punish that action, and they then would find another way... Etc. Until it becomes too hard or too ambiguous to punish. By pushing people to that, you're reducing the effectiveness of punishment and increasing the negativity in game.
> [{quoted}](name=rujitra,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=GMcVflfx,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2019-01-16T22:19:49.365+0000) > > Well, this isn't a case study, it's more like a population study. I'll be the first to admit that many players punished aren't "bad". But that doesn't mean that they have an anti-societal understanding of social norms. From my experience watching toxicity in League since I started playing in season 1/2, it has become clear to me that for whatever reason League causes players to turn off their "decency" centers. It makes them feel as if this sort of behavior is okay, be it chat, trolling, afking, that affects other players. Most humans understand, unless they bury it, that it's not okay to ruin something for others just for your own good. That's the thing, though: In most cases it's rarely even about "ruining something for others just for your own good". Unless it's my mentioned cases of people just being toxic because they were banned or they're on smurf accounts and "don't care about punishment" in their words, toxicity is never really about ruining the experience but expressing how their own experience was ruined. Even when it comes to people making mistakes, most of the time those mistakes are understood. What leads from that though is when mistakes continue to stack and eventually lead to detriment for the team, it causes people to stress. That's probably because people aren't playing this game for the enjoyment but for the progress or pride in victory. In my case, I rarely tilt over normals unless there's a drastic difference in skill level between the teams. Even then, it's just a matter of "Well, it happens in normals". It's only with Ranked where the skill differences matter and really affect me. Though that's just me, I'm sure it could be different for others who probably take normals as serious as ranked or neither serious at all. That probably has most to do with the fact that League of Legends is 100% a competitive experience, whereas many people don't compete for the sheer enjoyment of competition but instead to win. And I'm sure that by this point people understand that when all you do is play to win, it's no longer a fun game to play when you're losing. Still, I do think that frustration sometimes treads upon grounds of ruining the experience for others. It's a matter of the experience of losing for some players vs the experience of others unintentionally causing losses. I've got no choice but to leave it to Riot to decide which matters most, because while it'd be both irresponsible and unfair to fault players who do poorly in some matches, I can't say that I blame players for reacting negatively when they're trying their best but still lose because of others.
: I agree it would be nice to get a confirmation that it's still a correct number. That said, when I look at the Player Behavior board, I can't help but feel like the number might close. Player Support's canned response for people trying to appeal the ban is to have them post on Player Behavior. Just about anyone would try to get their account back, so they'd try and appeal the ban, right? Even if the Boards as a whole represent a low percentage of the community, *surely* Player Behavior has a higher turn out of permabanned players trying to get their accounts back. Skimming through the last week for people who were freshly permabanned, I see seven posts from NA players (plus two posts from EUNE players, four posts from EUW players). Some of those posts were from people who had been banned on other accounts before. That small sample size lines up pretty close with the estimate. Obviously it would take more time and effort to see if that's consistent through out the year, but right off it doesn't look like it's orders of magnitude off.
It's difficult to judge the numberse based on boards itself. Even if you spent the day skimming through boards posts in any of the pages, you'd probably only find a couple hundred players. It may even range in the thousands, but that's _still_ only a percentage of total players in this region, let alone globally; from what I know, when it comes to player behavior it's better to just look at your region though. There's a large number of players who just don't use Boards, so you'd have to look at Twitter or Reddit too. Even then, there's also an amount of players who don't use any platform for League discussion. As a player, it's just really difficult to consider the numbers when we'll probably never have access to the numbers ourselves.
Alzon (NA)
: The funny thing is, Darius can actually Quadra-dunk them if the Poppy is too overzealous in catching him, letting him stack up off of her before her teammates arrive. He’d also need Ghost. But then again, that’s a Tristana, who can follow up from ridiculously long ranges. She might be able to 100-0 Darius within the stun duration + 3.5 seconds it takes him to get full stacks.
> [{quoted}](name=Alzon,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Mylx9Piq,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-01-16T21:21:02.934+0000) > > The funny thing is, Darius can actually Quadra-dunk them if the Poppy is too overzealous in catching him, letting him stack up off of her before her teammates arrive. He’d also need Ghost. > > But then again, that’s a Tristana, who can follow up from ridiculously long ranges. She might be able to 100-0 Darius within the stun duration + 3.5 seconds it takes him to get full stacks. I'unno, man. With the amount of CC on their end, it's probably done for him the moment they see him lol
: > [{quoted}](name=The Highest Noon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=GMcVflfx,comment-id=0002000000000000,timestamp=2019-01-16T21:03:43.301+0000)Ah, I mean in regards to the experiment. Did the experiment take into account _why_ those people involved were punished? Or merely the fact that they were punished? Good question! Can't honestly say, but from what I know about the Rioters I know, it was likely *fairly* thorough. I suspect they'd at least see the speed at which they progressed through the system and have their punishment logs available, so they'd know the severity and frequency of toxic behavior as well as (upon deeper investigation) the specific behavior in question. >...because I've personally seen the most advanced and complex strategies performed with zero verbal communication at all--the players on my team just **do** it. Totally fair. I've found the opposite, but anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, so who knows. :) >It seems like it causes trouble that could be prevented through other means... I'm personally all up for thinking about other possibilities. I have yet to see one suggested that doesn't end up leading to worse experiences for well-behaved players though, and unless there's a system that is *equal or better* for well-behaved players I feel like it's probably a non-starter.
> [{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=GMcVflfx,comment-id=00020000000000000000,timestamp=2019-01-16T21:09:01.949+0000) > > Good question! Can't honestly say, but from what I know about the Rioters I know, it was likely *fairly* thorough. I suspect they'd at least see the speed at which they progressed through the system and have their punishment logs available, so they'd know the severity and frequency of toxic behavior as well as (upon deeper investigation) the specific behavior in question. TBH, disregarding results, I'd hope that they did at least that much work. Though punishments usually disregard the "why" something happens, for an experiment like that the "why" is the most significant issue, at least in my opinion. When dealing with the trends within a demographic, knowing why those trends even occur matters a lot. > Totally fair. I've found the opposite, but anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, so who knows. :) Eh, true. Everyone has different experiences. > I'm personally all up for thinking about other possibilities. I have yet to see one suggested that doesn't end up leading to worse experiences for well-behaved players though, and unless there's a system that is *equal or better* for well-behaved players I feel like it's probably a non-starter. Basically, and I definitely agree. That's why I'm always up for discussions around things like this instead of just saying "This idea is best and anything else sucks". Gameplay has already shown me that sometimes what I think is the best course isn't, and things I think less of will sometimes end up working.
Shiwah (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=The Highest Noon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=GMcVflfx,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2019-01-16T20:37:01.702+0000) > > *More people* as opposed to...how many _less_? As an individual player, I do not know how many people do it, just that it happens in games that I'm in. If it happened more--or less for that matter--or even didn't have a change in it's frequency, would any individual player notice? Probably not. However, as a company who has the data and sees trends when toxicity arises, would you take the risk? > Riot has _said_ that they will always be forgiven, though. It's part of Riot's core belief regarding the player base. Point is, they stated several times that permabans exist as a way to say "gtfo", just not that rudely. They *know* there's the need to draw a line somewhere. It's the constantly toxic players that believe that this line is never drawn, only to be surprised when they stumble on it. > The question to that is, _why_ did they believe that? From what I gather, it's not just because "They didn't think it would actually happen". It usually seems to be a case of either not understanding what they did wrong, not understaning _why_ what they did is wrong, or not understand what all is included in the _wrong_ category. Some don't understand they did wrong. Some pretend not to understand, and keep making excuses. Some know perfectly well what they did. Almost none of them thought they would get the boot for real. > It _shouldn't take punishment for someone to understand what is against the rules_. That in itself is a flawwed way of approaching a punishment system because it leads to unfair situations. That's... actually the entire point of punishments. If positive enforcement doesn't work, what else is left? Plus: even putting the fact that there are several different levels of sensibilities and cultures (especially in EU, it's a mess), a middle ground must be found.
> [{quoted}](name=Shiwah,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=GMcVflfx,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2019-01-16T20:54:17.332+0000) > > Probably not. However, as a company who has the data and sees trends when toxicity arises, would you take the risk? Yeah, I don't even know why I brought that up lmao this was a response on my mind as I was typing. > Point is, they stated several times that permabans exist as a way to say "gtfo", just not that rudely. They *know* there's the need to draw a line somewhere. It's the constantly toxic players that believe that this line is never drawn, only to be surprised when they stumble on it. I wouldn't go _that_far. I mean, they encourage players to make a new account and continue playing almost immediately. > Some don't understand they did wrong. Some pretend not to understand, and keep making excuses. Some know perfectly well what they did. > > Almost none of them thought they would get the boot for real. Which returns to my question of "Why didn't they think that?" > That's... actually the entire point of punishments. If positive enforcement doesn't work, what else is left? That has nothing to do with the fact that the rules themselves use vague, easily misconstrued wording. When all the guidelines say is "Don't be toxic", the obvious response is "Well, what is toxic?" It shouldn't be that after a person is punished that they learn exactly what "toxic" is. > Plus: even putting the fact that there are several different levels of sensibilities and cultures (especially in EU, it's a mess), a middle ground must be found. In regards to this, each region has different rules regarding what is what. What's punishable in NA is not the same as what's punishable in KR lol So no, a middle ground isn't necessary. That, and Riot has gone out to say that it's the region's playerbase which generally decides what is and isn't punished.
: > [{quoted}](name=The Highest Noon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=GMcVflfx,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2019-01-16T20:40:13.737+0000) > > I don't know if I believe that number, tbh. Probably because it's the exact same number that's been used forever. It's always felt more like the only reason they use that number is for it to be a tool against toxicity. "See, only this many people are punished permanently so you must've been really bad and should change". Something like that. True that, that's what I've been thinking. They've also have reasons to lie about that perma ban number: + To get players to reform + To encorage new players into the community + To make people believe that the punishment system is fair + To make it seem that their community isn't as toxic Especially after seeing how corrupt riot is regarding the bad workplace practices they've reported to have months ago, i don't trust riot for shit.
> [{quoted}](name=R107 Games,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=GMcVflfx,comment-id=00000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-01-16T20:54:11.519+0000) > > True that, that's what I've been thinking. > > They've also have reasons to lie about that perma ban number: > > + To get players to reform > + To encorage new players into the community > + To make people believe that the punishment system is fair > + To make it seem that their community isn't as toxic > > Especially after seeing how corrupt riot is regarding the bad workplace practices they've reported to have months ago, i don't trust riot for shit. Basically. I won't speak on Riot's workplace practices because over the past they've outright said things were bad and that they were enacting massive changes within the company to deal with the issues. Over the past few years though people have made it a habit to bring up old nonsense in order to hurt someone or gain something, so even the criticism deserves criticism lol
: > [{quoted}](name=The Highest Noon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=GMcVflfx,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2019-01-16T20:24:48.965+0000)Though that's true, did the experiment consider each individual player's circumstances regarding their punishment? From what I've been told from Support, there are many reasons as to why a player would be punished for chat toxicity. Those reasons range from merely using racial slurs in a casual manner to outright racism, or from vocalizing their saltiness with a situation or aggressively directing their team. Those four situations are vastly different and should be addressed as such, even if they're all generally considered "toxicity". They are! This is the reason there are varying values applied to various behaviors behind the scenes, and multiple levels of escalation. Zero tolerance behaviors earn immediate 14-day bans. Other behaviors may earn lesser punishments, or even simply progress part-way towards a punishment. This is why you can have multiple games of minor toxicity and face no punishment provided you had enough okay games in between. The fact that all are ultimately on the same punishment system with the same end punishment doesn't change the fact that they are handled differently with regards to how quickly they escalate you along that system or how much leeway you're given before a punishment occurs. >I won't deny the possibility that i'd increase, but I can't ignore the possibility that nothing will change at all. I know you may feel that way but, as Riot has told us, they've *done* this test. Gameplay-based toxicity increases. > I disagree. Players deserve teammates _who are team players, **period**_, even if they're not _known_ to be. I meant *known* as in *known by the system*, not necessarily *known by the player*. Someone who plays with their team and does so silently or even with a bit of an aggressive edge can still be a team player. Someone who detracts from their team's morale or cohesion through chat-based or gameplay-based actions is not. It's not a perfect statement on my side, but it is a useful generalization of one of the reasons toxic chat is punished. >I accept that there are more advanced strats that someone would want to communicate, yet I can't ignore that Riot has said large amounts of chat are both unnecessary and actually a detriment to gameplay. Sure. But there's still a lot to be gained from the ability to have more complex strategies or communications (which can still be simple to type), as well as a lot to be gained from just team communication. The tools are better for those who choose not to type though, yes. > Overall, I just think the entire situation of chat punishment should be assessed... I'm pretty sure it's something Riot constantly assesses, honestly. The fact that we still have this system (which would be easy to adjust) is an indication that -- at least from what I see -- they are confident it is the best option for their playerbase at this time.
> [{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=GMcVflfx,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2019-01-16T20:50:40.617+0000) > > They are! This is the reason there are varying values applied to various behaviors behind the scenes, and multiple levels of escalation. Ah, I mean in regards to the experiment. Did the experiment take into account _why_ those people involved were punished? Or merely the fact that they were punished? > I know you may feel that way but, as Riot has told us, they've *done* this test. Gameplay-based toxicity increases. I suppose it is what it is, then. > I meant *known* as in *known by the system*, not necessarily *known by the player*. Yes, I know. I mentioned it in the following sentence. It's why I brought up that even though there are people _known by the system_ to be "team players", they are in fact not--only enough so that they're not detected by the system. > Sure. But there's still a lot to be gained from the ability to have more complex strategies or communications (which can still be simple to type), as well as a lot to be gained from just team communication. The tools are better for those who choose not to type though, yes. In that regard, it's funny because I've personally seen the most advanced and complex strategies performed with zero verbal communication at all--the players on my team just **do** it. Meanwhile, most of the times where strats had to be communicated were with players that generally didn't have the greatest of skill in the game. Communication would _make it easier_, but I don't think it's anything near necessary. I think that the deciding facor around strats is experience with and knowledge of the game. > I'm pretty sure it's something Riot constantly assesses, honestly. The fact that we still have this system (which would be easy to adjust) is an indication that -- at least from what I see -- they are confident it is the best option for their playerbase at this time. I can't argue that. It's not necessarily a _bad_ system, just a _troubling_ one. It seems like it causes trouble that could be prevented through other means, but Riot only keeps it as is because they don't want to backslide in their decision-making--at least until something permanent comes along.
Rioter Comments
: Why is it called nunu & willumb but not kled and scarl
Why are they called Kindred instead of Lamb and Wolf!? Actually, that answers itself. Why is he called Kayn instead of Kayn and Raast!? Actually, that might answer itself, too. It's because it's a man using a tool, not two people working together. That last one most like answers why it's Kled instead of Kled and Skaarl. It's Kled and he's riding Skaarl. Nunu and Willump actually do stuff individually. Skaarl kinda just follows along Kled's commands.
: I believe there were a few more cases for ID bans in earlier years, but I think the number of people who have ever been ID banned is somewhere around 5 or 6. As for the rarity of permabans for chat reasons, it might be interesting to look at the numbers we have. Riot says only 0.006% of players get permabanned for toxicity, right? According to na.op.gg, 1,875,500 people have played ranked in NA in the last year (preseason gets grouped with the previous season). 1,875,500 \* 0.00006 = 113 people permabanned from NA this year. Even if you assume that ranked players only makes up 1/3 of the community, that still only gets you to 339 people permabanned in NA this year. Granted there's a lot of room for error in those estimates, but when a pretty decent guess of the community's size gets you less than 1 permaban a day across all of NA... It's kinda hard not to think that those getting permabanned really are just a few bad apples in the bunch.
I don't know if I believe that number, tbh. Probably because it's the exact same number that's been used forever. It's always felt more like the only reason they use that number is for it to be a tool against toxicity. "See, only this many people are punished permanently so you must've been really bad and should change". Something like that.
Shiwah (EUW)
: > "They'll find ways to soft-grief so they're not punished" but, people already do this. Is it really an argument? *More* people will do that - that's why the argument exists. It's not even a hypothesis based on hot air: it *actually* happened. > Shouldn't the way punishments are addressed change too? The current iteration is based on 9 years of research and ever-changing systems. In the past, there were more punishment steps between a user and their permaban, but Riot found out that the more steps there are, the less often reform occurs. It seems counter-intuitive, but the more chances you give to people, the more comfortable they get with the mentality that they will always be forgiven for their misdeeds, no matter how big. And then, the permaban hits and they start crying. Been looking at the boards since S3, and almost every permabanned player I saw mentioned that "previous punishments felt surreal, they didn't think that permanent bans would actually happen".
> [{quoted}](name=Shiwah,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=GMcVflfx,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-01-16T20:21:23.253+0000) > > *More* people will do that - that's why the argument exists. It's not even a hypothesis based on hot air: it *actually* happened. *More people* as opposed to...how many _less_? As an individual player, I do not know how many people do it, just that it happens in games that I'm in. If it happened more--or less for that matter--or even didn't have a change in it's frequency, would any individual player notice? > the more chances you give to people, the more comfortable they get with the mentality that they will always be forgiven for their misdeeds Riot has _said_ that they will always be forgiven, though. It's part of Riot's core belief regarding the player base. > Been looking at the boards since S3, and almost every permabanned player I saw mentioned that "previous punishments felt surreal, they didn't think that permanent bans would actually happen". The question to that is, _why_ did they believe that? From what I gather, it's not just because "They didn't think it would actually happen". It usually seems to be a case of either not understanding what they did wrong, not understaning _why_ what they did is wrong, or not understand what all is included in the _wrong_ category. I believe that to be the case, because > That is really cool to hear that after talking with others on the Boards it helped you better understand things. Sometimes it does take a a penalty like a permaban for a player to realize the severity their actions. It _shouldn't take punishment for someone to understand what is against the rules_. That in itself is a flawwed way of approaching a punishment system because it leads to unfair situations.
: >Why would someone, who's never done anything aside from being a bit too aggressive with their communication, turn to something that they've never done before? A good question, and one that would be interesting to study! The fact of the matter, however, is that Riot *did* this experiment, and found out players *do* tend to turn to other behaviors in unacceptably high numbers. >There are rules in place for whatever form of toxicity they present, so why is it really an issue? A few reasons! * Gameplay-based toxicity is harder to detect. * Players deserve teammates who are known to be team players. * Communication is a valuable tool, and having teammates who cannot communicate is a disadvantage.
> [{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=GMcVflfx,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-01-16T20:00:19.507+0000) > > A good question, and one that would be interesting to study! The fact of the matter, however, is that Riot *did* this experiment, and found out players *do* tend to turn to other behaviors in unacceptably high numbers. Though that's true, did the experiment consider each individual player's circumstances regarding their punishment? From what I've been told from Support, there are many reasons as to why a player would be punished for chat toxicity. Those reasons range from merely using racial slurs in a casual manner to outright racism, or from vocalizing their saltiness with a situation or aggressively directing their team. Those four situations are vastly different and should be addressed as such, even if they're all generally considered "toxicity". > * Gameplay-based toxicity is harder to detect. True as this is, it's not a problem that will only exist if a player is muted. I won't deny the possibility that it'd increase, but I can't ignore the possibility that nothing will change at all. It's something I already experience at an unknown factor, after all. > * Players deserve teammates who are known to be team players. I disagree. Players deserve teammates _who are team players, **period**_, even if they're not _known_ to be. TBH, this might just be a generational belief, because I grew up with a lot of "mean-spirited" people who were actually very cordial in action and intent, just abrasive in their personalities. That aside, over the years, I've seen many people on boards claim to be toxic in minor ways (or only so often as to not actually be punished for it) so even though they're _known_ to be team players by the system, they typically are not. > * Communication is a valuable tool, and having teammates who cannot communicate is a disadvantage. Now this is something I used to agree with before the act of communication evolved. For most general gameplay purposes, we have pings for significant situations and emotes--and though emotes aren't necessarily free, Riot could easily create some low-quality emotes for the sake of unnecessary but helpful communication (we already have GG, Surrender, GJ and My Bad emotes, after all) that could be given to players or merely made available through purchase for small amounts of BE. I accept that there are more advanced strats that someone would want to communicate, yet I can't ignore that Riot has said large amounts of chat are both unnecessary and actually a detriment to gameplay. Besides, I feel that if you're on teams of players that have experienced this game for a long time, you don't actually need to say anything because they understand the situation and move in response to the rest of your team. Overall, I just think the entire situation of chat punishment should be assessed because there are too many factors to consider now, not just whether or not someone said something that might tilt someone else.
rujitra (NA)
: To be fair, the claim is both supported by the psychology argument - that toxicity is not a problem of *action* but of *attitude or mentality*, but also by hard data from back when Riot actually did have infinitely increasing chat restrictions. I’m a little too busy to go into arguments of psychology with the boards right now, but you can probably find them if you look in other threads on this subject.
> [{quoted}](name=rujitra,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=GMcVflfx,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-01-16T19:56:44.750+0000) > > I’m a little too busy Making me do work... {{sticker:darius-angry}} Fine. I'm a big psychology dude so I can already figure out what you mean. I don't fully agree with the assertion though because I've come to know many different types of people with individual thought processes or experiences yet they still generally function the same way. Like, there are a variety of mentalities that could lead to an identical result. Example being, why does someone make fun of someone else? In general, it's a question regarding bullying but extends far beyond that. There's an endless number of reasons for why it occurs, yet only a number of them amount to the reasoning of "Because I'm a bad person".
: Perma-bans are rare from what little I've seen (and ID bans ever rarer)
> [{quoted}](name=MordridtheBlack,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=GMcVflfx,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-01-16T19:52:01.052+0000) > > Perma-bans are rare from what little I've seen (and ID bans ever rarer) I don't know the hard data on this so I can't agree nor disagree. That said, only person I've ever seen be ID banned is Tyler1, and that hasn't been the case since last year lol
: I absolutely love Sona, so a while ago my friend drew Sona and I!
: Are you sure about that? there is billion players who would love to get rid of intentional feeders in game ,but riot still doesn't have good system to detect them...And that issue is in game for a long time...That tell's me something ,does it to you?
> [{quoted}](name=captaincomando1,realm=EUNE,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=aeJneMni,comment-id=0006000000000000,timestamp=2019-01-16T18:46:53.500+0000) > > Are you sure about that? there is billion players who would love to get rid of intentional feeders in game ,but riot still doesn't have good system to detect them...And that issue is in game for a long time...That tell's me something ,does it to you? First, how do you discern intentional feeding from unskilled gameplay?
Rioter Comments
Jo0o (NA)
: It’s not a business model, it’s a basic fucking rules system. Treat fellow players with respect or get escalating punishments culminating in a perma ban. Rather than digging up my posts from six months ago, take a look at your own behavior and make positive changes. Stop blaming others.
> [{quoted}](name=Jo0o,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=cTEp4ns1,comment-id=000000030000,timestamp=2019-01-16T19:12:12.923+0000) > > Treat fellow players with respect So you agree that criticizing someone's decision-making is disrespect? Pointing out someone's flaws and offering suggestions on improving is disrespect? Helping people get better at the game is disrespect? Because those are examples of reasons you could be punished under the system.
: Why not just perma mute people rather than banning them
I see a lot of vast generalizations regarding why players are punished. Time to make a new thread.
: sure man.If you say so...
> [{quoted}](name=captaincomando1,realm=EUNE,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=aeJneMni,comment-id=00060000,timestamp=2019-01-16T18:35:26.553+0000) > > sure man.If you say so... I'm just saying. Also, you gotta understand that the majority of the system is created by the players. If something is against the rules, it's because players have said that it's problematic.
: Moderators
I find this question difficult to understand because most of the time mods actually agree with criticism of either the system or the game.
: Who's on your list for an Ezreal tier revamp?
Every champion that hasn't gotten a gameplay update since before Season 3 Kassadin is top of that list.
: God dang it. If her win rate is low as fuck and her ban rate is high as fuck too, she can't be fixed easily. She's a broken design in the core, so how much we can fix her broken design? This is Riot's question to fix her. Her low win rate doesn't mean she's just hard to play as, most mains/otp are good at her, but since her team fighting is trash at the beginning of the rework and still is (because of her weak burst + heavily nerfed Shroud). Yes her ban rate did go lower (70% to 40-50%). She's impossible to balance, annoying to play against and the fan base of that champion already doesn't like how Riot is handling it. Nerf her shroud, and Akali fails as a champion. Nerf her execute base damage or/and scaling, now she is a viable AD/AD Crit melee champion. Nerf her healing significantly without compensation, it will make her survivability way lower and might lead to her death faster. As OP pointed, Shroud takes too much power from her kit, reverting 8.24b nerfs and taking away the mechanic that towers can't reveal her might open up some power to other parts of her kit. If her survivability ability is so strong, her burst is shite. Which it is, (Unsurprisingly). So a good solution is to nerf her survivability in a reasonable way, lowering her damage and making her burst higher.
You...must not know how to play her, then. That, or you expect some amazing solo carry champion in a game of four other players. That's not how a champion is supposed to be balanced. From what I've seen from her players, she does just fine in most situations where good players are using her against good players. THAT is the only balance that matters. Not bad players against good players, not good players against bad players, not bad players against other bad players; when someone who knows how to use her plays her against players who now how to play against her. And in that case, she's just fine. So I return to my previous statement. If there is no problem, what's the problem?
: I... I wish I could explain how terribly stupid that is, but I'm not going to waste my time.
> [{quoted}](name=stanjer123,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=yji08QVM,comment-id=0005000000010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-01-16T03:01:51.415+0000) > > I... I wish I could explain how terribly stupid that is, but I'm not going to waste my time. I took two of your statements and combined them into one.
shabingi (NA)
: "almost entirely" aka 90% of the reason is the passive, 10% is the shield which actually requires skill to use and has a CD, unlike his passive.
> [{quoted}](name=shabingi,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=KsfzIaMx,comment-id=0002000000010000,timestamp=2019-01-16T02:01:02.267+0000) > > "almost entirely" aka 90% of the reason is the passive, 10% is the shield which actually requires skill to use and has a CD, unlike his passive. There's also his mobility which was meant to counter the majority of AP champions having skillshots and AOEs. I think your math is wrong.
shabingi (NA)
: kassadin is an anti ap champion almost entirely because of his bolted on passive which is totally non interactive and effectively base stats. add that passive to any champion in the game and now they are an anti ap champ.
> [{quoted}](name=shabingi,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=KsfzIaMx,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2019-01-15T23:26:45.172+0000) > > kassadin is an anti ap champion almost entirely because of his bolted on passive which is totally non interactive and effectively base stats. add that passive to any champion in the game and now they are an anti ap champ. And then there's also his magic damage shield.
: I can see that, but your personal opinion does not trump the actual data. What is truly amazing is that you think your personal opinion is more important that all the facts in the world. Literal cognitive dissonance.
> [{quoted}](name=stanjer123,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=yji08QVM,comment-id=00050000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-01-15T23:01:27.195+0000) > > I can see that, but your personal opinion does not trump the actual data. What is truly amazing is that you think your personal opinion is more important that all the facts in the world. Literal cognitive dissonance. You literally just said that she doesn't have a high win rate. Therefor, the actual data says she's not a problem.
Show more

The Highest Noon

Level 95 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion