: > I work with and am a designer, and I suspect if the designers I worked with were AI they'd be a lot less effective and a lot less fun to argue with :P Or have they passed the turing test?
Even if they'd passed the Turing test, I could still think they were boring :P
Elikain (EUNE)
: >As for the gg ez and putting a sibling in their place... >Without both the shared history/meaning and the future implications, it's just mean spirited. It just reinforces that the player lost, which they clearly already know, and doesn't add anything to the relationship, since it barely exists. Boy, isn't that the truth... Pretty much sums up my experience with "gg" and "gg ez" comments as i don't consider them at all a gg. There have only been a handful of games where i truly felt like everyone tried their damnest to win and gave it their best shot and for those games, everyone has gotten an honor. But in my 7 years of playing League (and let's say 3 years of actually caring enough to report and play ranked), there hasn't been many. I'm not saying that i'm never happy with a game because otherwise, i wouldn't have been here for this long if this was true but that these comments about the general performance are something i wish to filter out from my games. I am able to do so because i mute all chat as this inevitably gets tossed around in there a lot by both teams. The context is really important when we discuss what is and what isn't considered "offensive" but looks neutral and i don't think people use these words appropriately. I just don't see a reason to comment on a game at the very end, whether you had won or lost. That's just my opinion. #I don't mind shaking hands with the opposing team in IRL game as this is sportsmanlike but in League, the physicality of this interaction does not exist which is why saying "gg" always sounds demeaning to me, weather you won or lost a game.
For some reason I can't link in to your other comment so...replying here. >Hey Yphy, >You're one of the few Rioters that has been on a specific post for quite a while and answered a lot of questions so does that mean you'll be here more often? Personally, i'd love for Rioters to simply engage a bit more with the boards as well. Of course, i'm not talking about making this your jobs but only to swing by when you're able and answer a few questions like these. >You're doing god's work in here, i appreciate it. :) I'm glad it's valuable to you! I'll definitely be here more often, but that's not hard to do. I hadn't posted in something like two years. I mentioned elsewhere that I've probably been spending too much time on this in the past few days, so I doubt I'll be around this much all the time. I'm enjoying, and learning from, all the discussion in this thread and a couple others. Glad I can be back in it :). Thanks for the feedback!
: > here needs to be ways for quick feedback that can trigger an empathetic response, and also ways to mimic the more persistent social consequences that occur in real life I'm curious what your thoughts on this are with respect to voice chat? ninja edit: > On your point about feeding/trolling etc.: holy balls is that behavior infuriating. We have systems in place to act on it, but the truth is that so far it has been much harder to reliably differentiate trolling/feeding from a bad game Also i feel the pain in this, I've seen teammates have bad games going 0-10, but I've also seen people who were 10-0 walk it down mid, purposely miss an ability or two (like not even close to the right direction), spam laugh, and afk in fountain on respawn for 20 seconds to watch their team lose. Its rough because even one intentionally fed death can mean the game, but its so hard to pick those out.
It's a double edged sword. Voice chat removes a property called "masking" (basically removing all information except the explicit message content). This can be great if someone expresses pain in certain ways, but it can backfire. If someone is really angry, that pain can feel pretty good; it's an unfortunate property of human evolution. Also, if the player who is offended expresses it as attack or very defensively, the natural response for everyone else is to react defensively, which then just escalates. A lot of the feedback that people get IRL is visual cues: major facial expressions, microexpressions, body language etc. Voice still cannot convey those. Voice is an interesting problem space for me, and we give it a lot of thought. If we can ship it in ways that doesn't open the door wide for a bunch of the problems that comes with it, I think that would be an exciting opportunity for everyone.
: Yeah, i understand why your system is as opaque as it is, it could be bad to have it be more transparent. I can tell that you're working closely on systems to improve/replace the current system and i do hope that the positive reinforcement system revamp will be as awesome as it deserves to be. That and feedback on player behavior (not just their behavior but reporting validity as well) could use some transparency imho. Your posts here really show you care, and i can't emphasize how awesome that is.
Thanks! I'm not working as directly with the systems as I used to, more helping to set direction for their future. That said, I still deeply care. There's so much more we can do to make player interactions more inherently satisfying and valuable in so many ways. Some of that is dealing with negative cases, but so much of it is in helping to create positive ones, and highlighting the positives that already exist. I'm really excited for the potential. Enough so that every now and then I start fantasizing about this beautiful development path where each one just rolls out after another. 'Cause game development works that way...ever. Grumble. :P I'm glad I could hop in and talk about all of this. TBH, I'm probably spending too much time on these posts, but they're more fun than some of the stuff I'm procrastinating on (yey PowerPoint!).
ofart (NA)
: That's not the point! Those messages stop your first instinctual flame and lighten the mood. You can get around it but now you have to actually mean it. This means that players who get punished for verbal abuse will be more likely to deserve it and it won't be just some random outburst. Unless there's a feature to mute yourself, this is a great solution for some very competitive people (or at least it would have been when ranked kind of had a purpose).
They may serve to lighten the mood. My guess is the goofy phrases will eventually just be interpreted as "this guy is being a jerk", with a side benefit of taking a bit of the sting off. I've said elsewhere that I expect the feature to be of some value, but I'm uncertain as to how much. My intuition could be totally off and it could be wildly successful on multiple axes. In which case it's time for me to dig deeper and understand why my initial read was off. I'm usually pretty happy to be proven wrong when it gives me a chance to learn. It's certainly happened a lot before, and I hope it happens a lot in the future.
Elikain (EUNE)
: >As for the gg ez and putting a sibling in their place... >Without both the shared history/meaning and the future implications, it's just mean spirited. It just reinforces that the player lost, which they clearly already know, and doesn't add anything to the relationship, since it barely exists. Boy, isn't that the truth... Pretty much sums up my experience with "gg" and "gg ez" comments as i don't consider them at all a gg. There have only been a handful of games where i truly felt like everyone tried their damnest to win and gave it their best shot and for those games, everyone has gotten an honor. But in my 7 years of playing League (and let's say 3 years of actually caring enough to report and play ranked), there hasn't been many. I'm not saying that i'm never happy with a game because otherwise, i wouldn't have been here for this long if this was true but that these comments about the general performance are something i wish to filter out from my games. I am able to do so because i mute all chat as this inevitably gets tossed around in there a lot by both teams. The context is really important when we discuss what is and what isn't considered "offensive" but looks neutral and i don't think people use these words appropriately. I just don't see a reason to comment on a game at the very end, whether you had won or lost. That's just my opinion. #I don't mind shaking hands with the opposing team in IRL game as this is sportsmanlike but in League, the physicality of this interaction does not exist which is why saying "gg" always sounds demeaning to me, weather you won or lost a game.
Can't say I agree with "gg" not having a similarity to shaking hands. My history with it is pretty long, starting when it was just the cultural norm in Starcraft and Broodwar. In those games there was a bit more nuance because they almost always end in surrender, and it was the losing player's way to respectfully call the game before surrendering and disappearing. It was considered somewhat bm to say gg as the winning player before the losing player did. In League the game is played to conclusion far more often, and the victory is clear to both teams at a certain point. You'll see gg's thrown out after a critical team fight or not until the nexus explodes. There's a lot more variance. I think "gg" is the closest we can get in digital space to a handshake, and I don't mind the compromise of it lacking the physical interaction given the realities of the game.
: I'm assuming social engineering encapsulates what you do reasonably well. Not sure if that's a common phrase over in the States. hmm. You don't work _on_ AI anymore. But you do work with designers. -__- You made designers AI to work as your minions!
Social engineering, at least for me, carries a heavy connotation of manipulation and deceit from it's use within hacker and espionage communities. Not really what I'm going for :). I work with and _am_ a designer, and I suspect if the designers I worked with were AI they'd be a lot less effective and a lot less fun to argue with :P
: Making that line is definitely not gonna be an easy task, but without it I imagine solutions are going to have a minimal effect without a clear foundation to base decisions off when it comes between the difference between banter and unsportsmanlike behavior. Also when you someone gg ez I imagine it's like when you put a sibling in their place and make sure they know it. Is it childish? Yes but damn does it feel good when you whoop em at something real good and they know it.
We are working on some guidelines that we'll want to share in the future (not sure how yet). They don't stipulate what sportsmanlike behavior is in detail or examples, but instead describe the experiences we want to create and those we want to prevent. We hope that will form the foundation you're talking about. Players can ask themselves "That player just did X. Does X help the game be like ABC (from the guidelines)?" If yes, then cool and hopefully the player can be recognized for it. If no, they can hopefully provide feedback to that player and to Riot. There's never going to be a perfectly clean line. All we can do is adapt as the player community provides feedback and we integrate it into our systems. As for the gg ez and putting a sibling in their place... I think saying gg ez or generally gloating to a sibling or a friend is actually super fun in the right context (and within reason...it's very easy to be a pretty terrible person when gloating). The problem for me comes in when it's done to a random stranger on the internet that you'll likely never encounter again. You have no history to give the moment meaning and context, whereas with a sibling you _definitely_ have meaning and context. You also never get to follow up. With a friend or a sibling gloating carries over to the next game, it builds tension and stakes. With a random player, there's no rematch, no future interaction. Without _both_ the shared history/meaning and the future implications, it's just mean spirited. It just reinforces that the player lost, which they clearly already know, and doesn't add anything to the relationship, since it barely exists. If you had a friend of a friend over and you had never met them before, would you finish a competitive game with a "nice try, but I owned you!"? For a first meeting, I'd hope not. After a few games, or you get to know them better, sure.
: What did Teemo ever do to you?
There is no way I could tell you and not lose my job, freedom and probably life for inflicting the story upon you.
Kei143 (NA)
: So .. should I still be telling people who ask the question "WHY DIDN'T THEY GET PUNISHED" ? > "Riot is working on improving the visibility on behavioral systems, but probably won't see it until the new client is up and running". Or should I stop?
I think that's directionally accurate. You could also just steal the first section of this post and cite it as from me. Either way. Thanks for reaching out with the questions :)
: > [{quoted}](name=Ypherion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=WuiG5a1Y,comment-id=001600050000000100000001000000000000,timestamp=2016-08-23T20:26:13.095+0000) > > I was actually just talking with another designer about this this morning. I agree that getting them to back off for a bit would be good. What I don't want is to give too much information that will allow players to tailor their behavior to just barely avoid punishment. I've heard this a few times, and it kind of confuses me. What you want is for people to tailor their behaviour to avoid punishment. So if they know that behaviour X will get them banned, they'll tone it back for a few games. But if the tolerance for such behaviour goes down when they do more of it, then they'll have to tone it down for longer and longer as they're skirting the edge. Over time, this will lead to fewer smurf from that type of player (their account is less likely to be banned) and better behaviour from them. If previously X=10% of the way toward a punishment, make it so that instead it's X=10% + 10% * log(amount of time spent over 50%). Now, I know that the system doesn't exactly work like that, but the principle should stand.
I don't see toning it back as so black and white. If players can easily experiment with the nature of the system it will be easier for them to figure out where the edge cases are, where new offensive behavior is not yet managed etc. I think we can get players to change their behavior, but often providing clear rulesets, input and outputs simply ends up with people optimizing against those for the same end, rather than accepting the spirit of them. Whereas if we provide somewhat fuzzier feedback (e.g. awesome, pretty good, normal player, jerk, Teemo) we can get the best of both worlds: players get useful feedback, and it's harder to skirt the system.
: I enjoy the games more when there some trash talk involved, but if someone is solely playing for that reason then there is probably a problem. I know there are lines that shouldn't be crossed and those players probably won't care about crossing. It seems one of your problems comes from where you wish to draw that line but because everyone has multiple variations or views of where that line is you don't know where to draw it. I think one of the issues your going to have to deal with is start making, clarifying, and sticking to a line you guys are willing to stand by and support with reasons for it. Personally I'm fine with trash talk that sticks within the realm of gameplay but I know that there are those who disagree. So your gonna have to make the call and make it clear where you agree the line is with solid reasons to back it up.
We're reluctant to draw that line unilaterally. Ultimately we want it to be the result of aggregate player feedback, but that does place a burden on us to find a way to clarify it somehow. Whether that's more proactive feedback, or something else, I'm not sure. Probably need to think about it as we move into the next generation of systems in this space.
: Also, do you still do work on bots or have you moved to AI of a different kind? (I get the feeling AI is you thang, but I might be mistaken)
I haven't worked on AI in a long time. There are parts of it I miss. I moved to be the product owner for pre-season 5 (sorry about the jungle for those first couple months...but hey Rift Scuttler!), then worked on an unannounced feature that we ultimately canceled (nope, not telling), and have now moved to be the lead designer on our Social Play efforts. Right now I'm supporting a number of other designers who are kicking ass working on some new features, and thinking about where we want to take "social design" for the next several years. As an aside, I'm also trying to find a better name for what we're doing. Social design sounds like we exclusively consider things like player behavior and clubs, but it's so much more. I care deeply about all aspects of player interaction, which go way beyond chat etc. Oh well, maybe some day I'll come up with something better.
Kei143 (NA)
: I'm gonna poke at you again !! As an active of member PB&M boards, I truely care about the behavioral systems. More than gameplay (what do I know, I'm a Bronzie). So let me come at you with some questions / concerns / opinions / discussions. --- 1) People frequently post there about "WHY DIDN'T THEY GET PUNISHED" and my standard response is "Riot is working on improving the visibility on behavioral systems, but probably won't see it until the new client is up and running". People would see some peace when I say that and they are glad that Riot is working on it, but Should I stop telling people that? --- 2) I know you can't tell us anything in regards to up coming features, but Lyte back in the days said that he didn't want to display "How close are you to being punished", as the toxics will see that they will be punished soon and back off, thus dodging being punished. Personally, I think if the toxics did back off for a period of time for the punishment scale to decay, the game would benefit from a period of lesser toxicity. Think of it like what Harvey Dent said to the Mayor of Gotham in Batman - The Dark Knight movie. Removing the small thugs off the street for 3 months, will keep the place clean for 3 months and still be worth. --- 3) What do you think if the system showed "how close you are to being punished", "punishment decay scale", and a "toxicity level". Probably using text / colors as a visual scale instead of numbers. Where if you tell others to kys and drink bleach the "toxicity level" and "how close you are to being punished" will sky rocket. The decay would be something like "50+ games remaining to decay into good standing", similar to the hextech rewards, but with more visibility. It'll also tell you what your next punishment level is based on your toxicity level, as we know that extreme verbal abuse / hate speech can skip punishment tiers. I get so tired of those people saying "I didn't know my next punishment is a permaban, else I would have stopped. Rito please give me another chance" when they clearly didn't read their emails (not that it helps when that warning is the last sentence of the email). --- 4) What I see alot of people talk about when they post "BRING BACK THE TRIBUNAL" topics, is that they either think their punishment is unjust (and want to be judged by others) or that they actually want to see visibility that they reports / actions are contributing (they want to punish the ones getting away). I'm going to ignore those whom think their punishment is unjust, but focus on those whom want more justice, or at least they want to be able to see more justice. Tantrum / Lyte / WookieCookie (Can't remember whom) did say that they didn't want to spam the ones supplying the reports with notifications that someone got punished. Personally, I want to see that my reports are doing something and I am contributing towards the community, and I don't mind getting notifications when someone I initially reported does eventually get punished. Granted maybe the notification spam would be so high that in due time, whenever I log in, I'll see that notification everytime and maybe people will just eventually ignore it. But in combination with a system with better visibility, I think alot of those notifications will be highly appreciated.
> "WHY DIDN'T THEY GET PUNISHED" There's a couple reasons for this: 1. We don't do a great job of surfacing punishments. We don't rely on bans as much as we used to because it causes a bunch of weird behaviors, like creating smurfs to kill the time. So a player could still be active after being a jerk, but they may be in a low priority queue for a certain number of games, or chat restricted. 2. We tune our systems to avoid false punishments as much as possible. The inherent trade off is that some people get away with some crappy behavior for a while. They nearly always get caught eventually. In cases where they aren't, we try to learn from them and improve our systems. 3. Not all behavior merits a punishment from just one game. It's easy to believe that if they are a jerk in your game, they probably are every game, but this actually isn't true in the vast majority of cases; players can vary a lot in their behavior from game to game. I still fall victim to this thinking all the time, even knowing the "real" circumstances, so I empathize with the feeling that the player got away with it. > "How close are you to being punished" I was actually just talking with another designer about this this morning. I agree that getting them to back off for a bit would be good. What I don't want is to give too much information that will allow players to tailor their behavior to just barely avoid punishment. We're talking about some kind of feature that provides an idea of how you're doing, gives you more immediate feedback etc., but it's literally in the realm of discussion at this point. There's something compelling in the space, but definitely a lot of nuances to figure out as well. > tell you what your next punishment level is based on your toxicity level Punishment is no longer perfectly mapped to previous punishment level. More severe behaviors may accelerate it. That said, I think it's fair that players should understand the potential consequences for their actions, and that right now it can be hard to find. I'll bring this up the next time I talk to the right team. > I want to see that my reports are doing something Totally agree here. We might turn up the cadence, though it's not my call ultimately, or we may want to go with a different system. There may be more value in a periodic aggregate feedback system rather than a per-report one. Not sure, TBH. RE: too much spam, given the current levels of (valid) reporting we see, I wouldn't be too worried about this _once Honor is in a better state_ (SoonTM). Even if we're not spamming, I'm not a fan of biasing the general experience to focus so much on negative moments without celebrating the good ones. I think it paints a really bad, and also inaccurate, picture of player experience and has a risk of being a bit of a vicious cycle.
: What about stack counters on items? I remember that you couldn't ping Tear of the Goddess or its upgrades to show the stacks on them.
I don't know about pure stack items. Apparently there will still be a bit of jank when items have both cooldowns and charges (e.g. Targons). I'm not too sure exactly how it will be resolved, but the guys working on it seem to be continuing to look for quick improvements like this. Don't know how things will go in the future, so I don't want to say too much and screw up expectations.
InTheory (EUW)
: ***
I really like games that have these kinds of rough edges that are goofy and fun. They tend to be what I fall in love with when I get really into a new game. I suspect a lot of players will get some fun out of prodding the system in Overwatch, it's definitely one of the upsides. However, if League were to build our own version at some point, it would likely be for the player behavior benefits rather than the rough edges. I don't mind taking learnings from other games, but stealing their little goofy bits doesn't feel fair. I'd be a bit grumpy if Poros started showing up all over the place, for example. They can have Teemo though. Fuck Teemo.
InTheory (EUW)
: ***
We have to remember that the Tribunal was active for several years, at least in NA and EU. During that time we did a lot to work on the next generation of systems which are more automated, therefore faster, and equally accurate. Those systems were built as decoupled as possible from the older tech because of how intertwined it was, which is why they can stand alone pretty effectively for now. The biggest challenge with the Tribunal is that the web side of things had to do some truly janky stuff to plug into the various elements of the overall systems (accounts, game data, chat etc). It meant a lot of one-off fixes and maintenance, which when scaled globally was just untenable. For the new Tribunal, we want to make sure these factors are not issues in the future so it means a lot of clean up all over the place, which was happening anyways, to do it right.
patmax17 (EUW)
: Obvious question: are we allowed to know where these people are employed? What exciting stuff is coming up, except LCU? :D
I can't really say, which sucks because I'd love to share more. I mentioned this elsewhere, but it's worth repeating: as much as it is so, so sorely tempting to peel back the curtain a bit, it's really not fair to you folks or my team. It's not fair to players outside of Riot because if we say things too early, we may have to change course and never deliver on what we promised (I swear, that's never, ever happened...>.>). On the other side it's not fair to my teams because it creates this weird pressure for them to keep going on whatever we revealed, even if it's not the best direction after all.
Darksyde (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Ypherion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=WuiG5a1Y,comment-id=00160008000000000000,timestamp=2016-08-22T22:46:38.186+0000) > > First off, I'd be really sad if players were in fear of posting opinions on the boards. Preferably respectfully as you're doing. Certainly not going to be talking about banning or anything for this stuff. > > I know we're mostly talking about lighter stuff, but I have an instinctive reaction to this. Physically, words can't hurt you, but defining "hurt" so narrowly seems wrong to me. Words and ideas can do a great deal of damage, and are highly context dependent. > > To be honest, not many...tragic cost of being Canadian, but my Grandpa (American) used to complain that hockey was so violent, why can't they be more like the NFL so...\*shrug\* no idea. However, despite my press conference example, I don't think it's particularly useful to compare trash talk from professional leagues to that seen in lower levels of play. There's a lot of trash talk that happens in professional LoL, though thankfully most of it is kept on the topic of League rather than family etc. That type of trash talk has context way beyond the one statement. The same words from yee old random Ranked player lack any context, and that makes a large difference. > > IRL people have a great deal of control over who they play with, the culture around it etc. The cost of that is often scheduled play, travel etc. In League everyone is mostly all together. We need to create a culture where the greatest number of players can enjoy their experience (note I didn't say "have fun", because there are contexts where that's not realistic). For players who don't enjoy significant trash talk, trash talk can ruin the experience. For players who enjoy the banter, it's just less fun, hopefully not ruined. I'd be concerned about players who play only for the trash talk...I doubt they'd be satisfied staying within reasonable bounds. > > To some degree, this is fair. My examples are very tame. That said, consider that many players are in the early to mid teens. Every organized sport I was a part of at that age heavily emphasized the difference between acceptable banter and unsportsmanlike conduct. If we behaved like junior or pro hockey players we would have gotten wrecked by coaches, refs, parents etc. > > As a side note "I'm going to crush you" came from a much more serious context than you seem to assume, and was genuinely terrifying, but point taken. > > Hesitant to even dig into this due to how deep the issue can run, but I'll say a bit. I don't want to censor players, except for certain extremes, well beyond the nuances we're talking about, where we as a company feel like we need to make a stand. For the most part players should say what they want, and then deal with the consequences. > > Freedom of speech to me is the right to send messages I wish to, by voice, text, interpretive dance, whatever. It does not provide protection from the consequences of said speech, especially in cases that do not involve government oversight. If I go to a busy sandwich shop (I'm hungry..) and start a loud rant filled with hate speech, threats and other content deemed unacceptable by the community in and around that shop, I'm not going to get out without consequences. They could be that I'm simply judged by everyone present, I could be told to leave, perhaps I caused people to fear for their safety so they call the cops and I'm arrested. It's unlikely that handing out ear plugs (everybody muting me) would be a satisfactory resolution. Yes, that's hyperbole, please don't take it literally... > > In League, we want to offer tools for players to act when the speech of others offends them. Players rarely see each other twice, so the default IRL social consequences are absent. Asking a player to leave is not tenable due to the nature of the game. Reporting is kind of the equivalent of calling the police, though much, much less severe and thus used for less severe behavior. > > If your point is that speech should not have consequences, we just have a fundamental disagreement. Historically this has not been true, and there have always been social consequences to speech. Though what speech was unacceptable has changed DRAMATICALLY. Can you imagine the reaction if half of our commercials (sex sells!) were shown to a "normal" person from the early to mid 1800's. They'd think we were depraved. > > Muting alone is not enough, and probably never will be. Since there's no negative feedback to the person who is being seen as offensive, they keep going. Why would they change? Over time that means the percentage of chat that is "offensive" only goes up. The people who are offended leave, and over time the culture shifts. We don't want to punish people for every little thing. We don't want to nanny players. We want players to be able to provide meaningful negative feedback to those they find are impacting their game to offset the absence of the traditional, implicit systems that exist IRL. We want players to have a strong say in their culture. I mostly just want to touch on the last part here. When talking about consequences for speech and how it relates to free speech, I observe your right as a company to censor whatever you want, because you're not the government. Also, I agree that speech and behavior should obviously have social consequences even if there are no legal consequences, but in this context social consequences would be coming from your peers and not the establishment. In this scenario, Riot Games is the establishment, you're basically the government of the league community. Receiving punishment from you would be the equivalent of receiving punishment from the goverment in real life. For instance, a permanent ban in league is basically the video game version of life in prison. I think most people who the system deems as "toxic" are fully capable of accepting social consequences for their speech. Things like retaliation from other parties involved, being muted or being excluded from a group. These are what I think of when I hear "social" consequences. A punishment coming from those in power, the establishment or government of league, is not what comes to mind. Your comment about reporting being equivalent to calling the cops in real life is actually quite an apt comparison. Saying some mean words to a stranger in real life won't get the cops called on me because in real life people don't crumble under the weight of a nasty comment. Somehow on the internet the opposite is true, people can't give up their right to be an asshole quickly enough if it keeps them safe from words on a screen. Again, I think everyone should have the right to be an asshole, and of course I have the right to mute them or not associate with them ever again which would be the social consequence of their actions. I would never call the cops on them though, until they do something severe of course. "Muting alone is not enough, and probably never will be. Since there's no negative feedback to the person who is being seen as offensive, they keep going. Why would they change?" My question is, why should they change? If the mute feature acts as a wall between the player who is easily offended and the offending player, why does the offending player need to change? I think the easily offended player could deal with some thicker skin, but I'd never force them to change. If they want to give power to words on a screen then by all means they can get offended and immediately mute anyone who says anything negative to them. I believe words can only have power when you give them power, they can only hurt you when you let them. However, when you have this built in wall to keep those words out then even the easily offended can take the power back with one click of a button. Also as you hinted, what's seen as "offensive" is highly subjective and I guarantee you that you can find someone who is offended by anything, even your safe trash talk from earlier. At this point, who becomes the soul arbiter of what is and is not offensive? What's the upper limit of offended players that you're willing to live with? Set the bar too low and everyone is in danger of being banned, set the bar too high and it's the wild west you're so afraid of where everyone can say anything. How do you find out where to draw the line with the ever changing culture. Will the line ever need to be moved? Could "GG EZ" be too offensive now but totally okay later down the line when new trend develops that's perceived as being worse? On a related topic, and one that ties in nicely with the sandwich shop analogy, the issue of trolling seems to be a much more important one in my mind but it feels as though Riot cares less about it than the "toxicity" which can be almost entirely solved with the mute feature. Unfortunately, there's no mute feature to stop intentional feeders, trolls, or afkers from ruining games but it never gets the same spotlight that nasty words and unsportsmanlike conduct does. Back to the sandwich shop, I see toxicity the same way you do in your analogy, someone yelling mean things in a shop and being asked to leave. I don't think threats or hate speech are covered in this situation as I'm not arguing for that to be allowed in league, by all means ban those people who threaten others or spew bigoted hate speech. However, the trolls, feeders, and afkers who ruins games are basically the equivalent of a maniac coming into the sandwich shop and bashing the place up with a baseball bat. It's on a whole different level from toxicity in terms of the damage it causes to the game but as I said it seems that it doesn't get the spotlight as much. I'd like to know from your point as a Rioter, do you think it's easier to be banned for overly toxic chat messages or intentional feeding and ruining games?
Want to give a quick reply before I call it a night. I think we agree about social consequences being the appropriate response to mild-moderate negative (subjective ofc) behavior. However, where we differ is that I don't believe that an online community like League inherently has the same capability for consequences as more traditional circumstances. At the very least, a huge swath of core human psychology and behavior is totally skipped: the automatic, unpreventable interpretation of the physical expression and body language of others. If I yell at someone at a pick up basketball game, or even say something disrespectful that I thought was fine, I'm immediately inundated with feedback from every person I see. This type of interpersonal empathy having no impact is quite literally a sign of certain social disorders. Unfortunately, by having players hidden behind networks and screens, every player is saddled to some degree with this deficit. I think it's important to compensate for what is lost during interactions with physical presence, because of the inherent lack in the digital space. There needs to be ways for quick feedback that can trigger an empathetic response, and also ways to mimic the more persistent social consequences that occur in real life (e.g. people get asked not to come back if they've offended someone and/or a group). Muting is one such tool, but it just isn't an effective measure. It fails to provide the feedback we're missing by the nature of the digital space. On your point about feeding/trolling etc.: holy balls is that behavior infuriating. We have systems in place to act on it, but the truth is that so far it has been much harder to reliably differentiate trolling/feeding from a bad game (yes, going 0/10/2 in a game can be just having a bad game) that it has to separate highly negative chat from banter or idle swearing (which we're fine with). We are punishing players who blatantly troll, but the systems simply aren't as effective and to keep from falsely punishing people we have to let a higher percentage slip through. It sucks, but it's how the world is for now :(.
Darksyde (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Ypherion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=WuiG5a1Y,comment-id=0016000e0000,timestamp=2016-08-22T22:54:48.275+0000) > > This is kiiiiind of how the current automatic player behavior systems work. They're a bit more sophisticated than player submission and counting, but it's the same general idea. Overall, players determine what's punishable. This kind of answers part of my wall of text I just finished typing lol. However, it's kind of scary in my opinion to essentially just let mob rule decide what is deemed acceptable. Especially with how trigger happy players are with the report button these days. I would hope there's significant oversight to ensure the system doesn't swing too far in one direction.
I don't see it as mob rule, I see it as a community. Mobs have inherent interaction, coordination through physical proximity etc. League players don't band together and make cohesive pushes to define "acceptable". Each player, somewhat independently, gets to have an impact both by their actions and how they provide feedback on the actions of others. All that said, we do have oversight in place, and more importantly we have systems that are pretty effective and detecting frivolous reports and weighting their impact accordingly.
: is league a game, or a system to you? one of those, is designed to control things, and we are not "things to be controlled". we are humans. With the free will to associate whatever feelings we want to whatever order of letters we want. Untill someone can prove that "gg ez", has never and will never stand for "good game excessively zesty", in every single players mind; i cant see the justification for being triggered by it. If u get triggered by your assumption then enjoy your feelings, ive got games to play. to all who would say we have to take into account that GunShyClumsyVeteran's feelings, why are thier feelings more important than mine? i was raised,on an island (St.Thomas), and were a nice people, but if riot was based out of St.Thomas, this wouldn't even be an issue. the states are soft.
Aggro tone aside, League is a game, made up of systems. What differentiates a game from a toy is simply that there is an objective, and barriers to that objective. By their very nature a game restricts freedom in some way. In chess I can't win by stealing the opponents king while they're not looking. I can steal the king, but I'm pretty much opting out of the game at that point, and consequences will apply accordingly. Also, I don't see why every single person must interpret a message in the same way for it to be meaningful. Context is extremely important. If you said something that reminded a friend of a dead family member and they got a bit choked up, I hope your response wouldn't be "not everybody would feel that way, so I don't care". For someone who is invested in their skill in League, getting a 'gg ez' after a loss can be pretty painful. I don't see what value anyone gets out of saying 'gg ez' when the best case is that it doesn't offend anyone, and the worst is that it hurts. It's like walking down the street tossing a cell phone high in the air; at best it doesn't break, but nothing good is going to come from it, and at worst you end up with a busted phone (weird analogy, but it's been a long day). I don't see players as "things" to be controlled. I see players as people who deserve to understand the general expectation when they decide to play a game of League. I have no desire for League to become a game where only those who are happy dissociating from what others say get to play and enjoy it. Just like any community, League has to have cultural norms and expectations, even if I'm not interested in sitting down and authoring them myself.
Avios1 (NA)
: Hey, I REALLY hate to bother you, with all the amazing work you guys do, but is there ever a chance of the Tribunal coming back? We might be able to root out subjects there.
We still really, really want to have more direct player input into behavior. The old Tribunal had some serious problems from a tech, scalability and portability perspective. We didn't realize how bad it really was until we'd brought it down and started work on upgrading it. It's pretty much a total rewrite at this point. Work was well underway when we had to shift the people working on it to another project, but it's something we intend to get back to. Personally I hope it's soon, professionally I'm not sure when it will be.
: Cellular Respiration!!!! At least it's not as hard to remember as the Citric Acid Cycle...
Hate to break it to you, but the Krebs cycle is just another name for the Citric Acid cycle ;(
: What a very weird response about adding a fun feature to a game. Overwatch are like "Let's add something fun to our game, because it is a game and people play to have fun and chat isn't going to effect anything.", but then League of Legends is like "Oh, we already acknowledge most of our playerbase is too toxic for such a thing, they will just find other ways to get around it. Our players can't be trusted to have fun on this game."
I don't see it quite the same way. Blizzard explicitly published this as a player behavior feature, not a quirky joke. I also don't think the League player base is "too toxic", I think in general people are too creative and resourceful to be hindered for long by such systems, though there is certainly benefit in just making them think about their choice of chat. The vast majority of players do have fun, and sometimes get frustrated/pissed off/tilt too hard and lash out. For those players it's about mitigating those relatively rare moments. For players who are persistently being jerks, it's about limiting their impact or removing them from our , as a player not a Rioter, community.
: > I agree with the necessary evil. Just because this particular direction isn't and arms race we want to start, we have several others we are deeply involved in. But given the lack of action on the matter, trolls are realizing that they can get away with this kind of behavior, and that it will go unpunished. I've seen more kys, %%%%%%, jew, etc... this season compared to the previous two seasons combined. You dont want to start an arms race, but by not picking up any arms you're giving up and letting them win.
I don't want to seem like this one element, automatically swapping certain chat lines, and my hesitation about it as hesitation towards negative, and positive, feedback systems in general. I care deeply about such systems. I worked on Honor when it was released, and was the designer overseeing the Tribunal being deployed to regions beyond NA and EU. I've stayed involved as our systems have improved, and I'm now more directly in the space again after some other projects. We take a lot of action to mitigate negative behaviors, but for the most part we don't want to publicly shame players because it's not very effective. We prefer to provide such feedback in a more private way. However, there is also value to feedback to those who are helping us identify negative behavior. We have some light versions of this in place, but I'd like to see them expanded at some point. I'm sorry that our efforts are so opaque, and it's good to get that perspective. I know it's hard to see, and hard to accept, but we really do care, and we are doing quite a bit in this space already with more planned for the future.
: Hey, its really cool of you to be here having this discussion. Props.
No problem. I'd been dark on the forums for a loooooong time. Decided it was time to hop back in. I've spent a bunch of time on this in the past few days, which I don't think I'll have the bandwidth to do too often, but I'll still check in when I can :)
: > If a player tells me to kill myself, I've got to deal with that. Not everyone has the stability to do so, a lot of people suffer from depression and the negative consequences of not dealing with this chat are going to come back around eventually. Some might criticize my view on this as a hand holding soft take on it but where is the benefit in allowing others to use these phrases? There is 0 gain by leaving this alone vs substantial loss if even one person ever takes it too personally/seriously. If i extend the irl sports metaphor the person who has this said to them has a team and coaches to stand up for them, but in league there is no such support network, and that person may very well be alone in their pain.
Please let me clarify, because I want to be very, very clear here. When I say "deal with that", I don't mean suck it up and move on. For some people that may be what "deal with it" is to them, with this kind of chat. For others, this kind of chat can be vastly more serious. I have suffered through major depressive episodes, I've been in that empty grey space filled with nothing worth while...and then realizing that I myself was there...and therefore worth nothing. At that point in my life, having people toss out, casually to them and probably without real malice, suggestions of suicide would NOT have been a shrug and move on. Here I mean "deal with it" the same way it might be said about a major trauma, but also in its full ambiguity, meaning something different for everybody. At this point, for me it's a shrug moment. That wasn't always the case, and I know that may not be the case for some players. I also know that for people who haven't been through that experience, or been close to someone who has, it can be really hard to understand how somebody could be so impacted by a random idiot on the internet. I don't have a better way to explain it, but please believe me: if you don't get why this is such a big deal, please at least accept that for some people it really is. We've dealt with death threats, suicide recommendation, serious hate speech and a few other categories pretty harshly. They're not too hard to detect, and we act quickly against the accounts of players who behave this way. We don't stand idly by, and while these kinds of things will happen occasionally (there's always a first time on any given account), most of the time players won't get away without repercussions.
: how about letting players have imput on what is deemed censorable what i mean is you can submit a word like ggez if enough players submit it, then it gets censored
This is kiiiiind of how the current automatic player behavior systems work. They're a bit more sophisticated than player submission and counting, but it's the same general idea. Overall, players determine what's punishable.
: > [{quoted}](name=Ypherion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=WuiG5a1Y,comment-id=0016,timestamp=2016-08-22T17:32:15.217+0000) > > We've talked about this kind of thing internally several times over the past couple years. Some of the discussions about what to use as replacement messages are among of my favorite memories at Riot (some of us are kind of terrible people...creative, but terrible). > > The main reason we haven't gotten to it, aside from having other stuff we thought was more urgent, is that it tends to create a bit of an arms race. Once people figure out what the filters are, they adapt their messages. GG3Z, ky$ or just come up with entirely new stuff like "GG stomp" or something, which then becomes GGST etc. etc. Then the filters need to be updated, then players adapt, repeat ad nauseum. There's also an interesting question around how players will perceive the replacement messages once the mapping from input to replacement is well known. > > I have no doubt that it will help to a decent degree, and I'll be interested to see how it works out. I love that other games are experimenting in this space more and more. It'll only speed up development on awesome ways to deal with this kind of behavior. Looks like rito is gonna wait for another company to do some reasearch then just steal their idea again. Sound familiar???
This is pretty much how most industries, including gaming function. It's the whole point of competition :D. I'll happily learn from a competitor's system, adapt it, and build it. A bunch of games have taken inspiration from League, and I'm glad we helped move things forward more broadly than just League. I think it's healthy and good for everyone
Darksyde (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Ypherion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=WuiG5a1Y,comment-id=001600080000,timestamp=2016-08-22T20:31:01.849+0000) > > I'm not too worried about, in this context, censorship. With only rare exceptions, we only take action on behaviors determined by large numbers of players. I also think we have very different opinions about where the lines for sportsmanship are. > > I'll agree that, compared to a lot of what I've seen in League, "gg ez" isn't that severe. However, without some level of social connection, it has no purpose except to elevate the speaker and denigrate the listener. Acceptable trash talk not withstanding, I don't see why this would be a behavior we (we as a player, not just Riot) would want or accept in League. > > Now, with trash talk there's a few things that I often see omitted when it's called out: > * Most of the sports you're talking about are initially learned in school or with a league of some kind. In these cases behavior is observed and corrected by a teacher, a parent, a coach or similar. Players learn early where the boundaries are. League doesn't have the benefit of this assumed baseline. How many players started playing League under supervision and got feedback on their behavior? > * Each competitive game ultimately determines it's own tolerance of trash talk. Hockey (I'm Canadian) has a boat load of trash talk during the game, but that doesn't stop them from having, and using, a rule that severely punishes unsportsmanlike conduct. Also, trash talk happens almost exclusively during play or outside the game asynchronously (i.e. trash talk someone during a press conference). Rarely if ever is it at the beginning or end of the game. I don't know of any sport where it is acceptable, upon winning, to walk over to the opponents and tell them it was an easy win. If you look at other sports, especially globally, the degree of trash talk that is acceptable is much much lower. Look at badminton, tennis etc. And then as we go to games, take a look at what is ok in competitive board games. Not a lot. > > League has it's own version of trash talk that I think is perfectly fine. If someone flashes their champ mastery emote after killing me, or outplaying me, that has some effect on me but it's totally within reason. If an enemy mid laner sends out a quick "nice flash" after I try to make a flash play and come up short, totally fine. An "I'm going to fucking crush you" as laning starts...all good. > > Anything targeted at the player themselves or broadly generalizes their abilities, is beyond the line for me. "you fucking suck" (they, the person are being attacked) or "you should uninstall" (they, the League player are being attacked) don't have a place in the game I'd like to play. Do they make me alt-f4 and cry? Hell no. Would I be happier if I didn't have to deal with it? Hell yes. > > This is not a question of is a behavior survivable, or can players push through it. The question is whether the behavior is a net positive for the game as a whole once you look at how it makes every player in the game feel/behave. A lot of trash talk is within the realm of being net positive. Some of it, like "gg ez" or "uninstall fucker", are not positive and should be treated as something to be removed from our community. On the point of trash talk in other games being limited to press conferences, I beg to differ. Have you ever watched an NFL game? The players get in each others faces and talk shit to each other all the time on the field. In fact, sometimes the confrontation comes to violence which is basically the only time the refs will actually step in and lay out some type of punishment. The random scuffles and chest beating that happens generally goes unaddressed by the officials, this would basically be the equivalent of someone calling the other team noobs in league. Thankfully League of Legends has an environment where no real harm can be done because physical violence isn't an option and words can't hurt you. As for your "safe" trash talk, with all due respect, I think your version of trash talk belongs in pee wee football leagues. "I'm gonna crush you" sounds like something an 8 year old says trying to sound tough. Someone saying "You suck" shouldn't be considered "over the line" unless your line is miles away from the average person's line for reasonable trash talk in a competitive environment. I'm a huge advocate for free speech in every arena, whether it be in the legal arena being protected from the government, or in an online arena like social media or here in gaming. I see the loss of freedom of speech and expression as a huge negative which I don't think you've factored into your "net positive" calculation. This calculation gets even easier for me when you factor in the mute feature that anyone has readily available with literally two inputs from their keyboard/mouse. It's the simplest and most effective fix for this entire situation. People get to say what they want and express their opinions and ideas, and people who are offended by those ideas can quickly and easily remove them from their gaming experience. Everybody wins, at least that's the way I see it. I feel like this generation somehow became the most easily offended. The group of people most easily crippled by words. You'd think it would've been the opposite because we all grew up with the internet lol. I don't think adults need safe spaces or carebear zones. We don't need padded walls, kids gloves or training wheels. We just need to grow up. P.S. - I hope this conversation doesn't get me banned lol. Another problem with over policing is a lot of your playerbase starts to live in fear of stepping just an inch or two over the incredibly precariously placed "line."
First off, I'd be really sad if players were in fear of posting opinions on the boards. Preferably respectfully as you're doing. Certainly not going to be talking about banning or anything for this stuff. > words can't hurt you I know we're mostly talking about lighter stuff, but I have an instinctive reaction to this. Physically, words can't hurt you, but defining "hurt" so narrowly seems wrong to me. Words and ideas can do a great deal of damage, and are highly context dependent. > Have you ever watched an NFL game? To be honest, not many...tragic cost of being Canadian, but my Grandpa (American) used to complain that hockey was so violent, why can't they be more like the NFL so...\*shrug\* no idea. However, despite my press conference example, I don't think it's particularly useful to compare trash talk from professional leagues to that seen in lower levels of play. There's a lot of trash talk that happens in professional LoL, though thankfully most of it is kept on the topic of League rather than family etc. That type of trash talk has context way beyond the one statement. The same words from yee old random Ranked player lack any context, and that makes a large difference. IRL people have a great deal of control over who they play with, the culture around it etc. The cost of that is often scheduled play, travel etc. In League everyone is mostly all together. We need to create a culture where the greatest number of players can enjoy their experience (note I didn't say "have fun", because there are contexts where that's not realistic). For players who don't enjoy significant trash talk, trash talk can ruin the experience. For players who enjoy the banter, it's just less fun, hopefully not ruined. I'd be concerned about players who play only for the trash talk...I doubt they'd be satisfied staying within reasonable bounds. > As for your "safe" trash talk, with all due respect, I think your version of trash talk belongs in pee wee football leagues To some degree, this is fair. My examples are very tame. That said, consider that many players are in the early to mid teens. Every organized sport I was a part of at that age heavily emphasized the difference between acceptable banter and unsportsmanlike conduct. If we behaved like junior or pro hockey players we would have gotten wrecked by coaches, refs, parents etc. As a side note "I'm going to crush you" came from a much more serious context than you seem to assume, and was genuinely terrifying, but point taken. > I'm a huge advocate for free speech in every arena Hesitant to even dig into this due to how deep the issue can run, but I'll say a bit. I don't want to censor players, except for certain extremes, well beyond the nuances we're talking about, where we as a company feel like we need to make a stand. For the most part players should say what they want, and then deal with the consequences. Freedom of speech to me is the right to send messages I wish to, by voice, text, interpretive dance, whatever. It does not provide protection from the consequences of said speech, especially in cases that do not involve government oversight. If I go to a busy sandwich shop (I'm hungry..) and start a loud rant filled with hate speech, threats and other content deemed unacceptable by the community in and around that shop, I'm not going to get out without consequences. They could be that I'm simply judged by everyone present, I could be told to leave, perhaps I caused people to fear for their safety so they call the cops and I'm arrested. It's unlikely that handing out ear plugs (everybody muting me) would be a satisfactory resolution. Yes, that's hyperbole, please don't take it literally... In League, we want to offer tools for players to act when the speech of others offends them. Players rarely see each other twice, so the default IRL social consequences are absent. Asking a player to leave is not tenable due to the nature of the game. Reporting is kind of the equivalent of calling the police, though much, much less severe and thus used for less severe behavior. If your point is that speech should not have consequences, we just have a fundamental disagreement. Historically this has not been true, and there have always been social consequences to speech. Though what speech was unacceptable has changed DRAMATICALLY. Can you imagine the reaction if half of our commercials (sex sells!) were shown to a "normal" person from the early to mid 1800's. They'd think we were depraved. Muting alone is not enough, and probably never will be. Since there's no negative feedback to the person who is being seen as offensive, they keep going. Why would they change? Over time that means the percentage of chat that is "offensive" only goes up. The people who are offended leave, and over time the culture shifts. We don't want to punish people for every little thing. We don't want to nanny players. We want players to be able to provide meaningful negative feedback to those they find are impacting their game to offset the absence of the traditional, implicit systems that exist IRL. We want players to have a strong say in their culture.
kile147 (NA)
: I see the concern that it could become an arms race, but I feel like the existence of the filter would help, even if players adapted around it. Right now if someone says "gg ez" they don't get any feedback that what they are doing is wrong because the other team's complaints can be blown off as them being butthurt. Unless someone on the winning team calls their teammate out there's not a lot of feedback that they crossed a line. On the other hand, if they have to adapt their speech because the game auto filters then they are making a choice to say something that is very obviously not ok. This would also make bad sportsmanship a much more legitimate post-game report.
The deliberate choice concept you're talking about is totally true. We see this really clearly when we look at the effects of restricted chat. I said elsewhere in here (I've lost track :P) that I think it would be a benefit, but I think there are more valuable systems to get to first that may even hit the same problem. It's always a challenge at Riot to decide where we focus. There's a gajillion good ideas floating around forums around the world, and then on top of those it's a big part of our job to come up with new ideas. Obviously we sometime derp and focus on a project that turns out to be the wrong thing, or the idea wasn't as good as we'd hoped, but often the biggest question is which of the many ideas are we going to work on. Sadly, it can't be all of them.
: > [{quoted}](name=Ypherion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=WuiG5a1Y,comment-id=0016000a0000,timestamp=2016-08-22T20:48:12.322+0000) > > For the most part, nobody can control what people say. Often they control the venue (e.g. lock them up under a mountain), or impose a consequence (e.g. we'll kill you if you don't shut up), but the people still speak. Yes, there's all sorts of mutilation that would change that, but it's not my point. > > With a replacement system, people will just circumvent it like I described above. They'll get their message out. > > There's value in being resilient to negative experiences, including unsportsmanlike behavior, but there's a massive difference between tacit tolerance and negative feedback. If a player tells me to kill myself, I've got to deal with that. If I just mute the player, they've gotten no feedback that their behavior isn't acceptable. A direct response is likely to have limited impact because that player has already dropped any empathy they may have for me. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to give players tools and support to properly provide the necessary feedback effectively. > > In IRL sports this is often a ref or a coach. If I went to shake hands after a game and yelled "HA! YOU LOSE!" at an opposing player, it would go pretty poorly for me in any regulated sport. The player I yelled at still has to deal with it, and can hopefully shrug it off, but that doesn't mean I should just happily go on to do it the next game. I agree, I mean unsportman people. I consider people saying ez to just be standard BM banter, like being called a noob. Its just the new thing to throw at everyone. People who tell you to kill yourself just need to be deleted
"ez" crosses the line for me, personally. Part of it has to do with the context, but also the scope of the comment. Even though it's pretty light it's implying that the enemy team is made up of crappy players. What's worse, it comes at a time where the players are at their lowest. Losing sucks! Everyone has their own opinion of where the line is, even within Riot there's a lot of discussion, but anything beyond a specific play or moment seems to be unnecessarily cruel to me. Ultimately it will come down to the overall feeling of the players in each region for nuanced cases like this.
Dr Poro (EUW)
: What do you think about death recap and the tutorial? In my opinion, they're the most outdated, low-quality pieces of League of Legends right now and don't really serve any purpose in their current form (both with incredible potential, though). Don't you think they're in dire need of a rework? (especially death recap bothers me)
Starting with a disclaimer: I'm not involved on working on either of these right now. This is mostly personal opinion. Death Recap was the jankiest jank that ever janked for a looooooong time. A while back it was significantly updated so that it showed information that was much more accurate and much more relevant. I think it helped a lot. That said, it could be a lot more. There are all kinds of opportunities I can think of, but won't go into here because as much as I say "personal opinion" I'm still posing on a Red account and I don't want people getting hyped over the idle musings of a random Rioter. The tutorial could definitely use some love. It's full of problems, doesn't teach the right skills and any number of other flaws. I think at some point we should take a holistic look at the new player experience and figure out what it should actually be. If an upgrade of the current tutorial is part of that, then cool. If not, nuke-and-pave seems just fine to me.
: Figured I would suggest this here rarer than making another thread about similar things. From reading around the different posts about it and such I think adding the option to mute the pings would be the easiest way to go about it. My other thought that is related to this in a way is giving players the option to mute themselves. The reasoning behind this is the number of people that want to flame the feeder but know they shouldn't. If they had this option they could mute themselves for the remainder of the match but keep their pings so they aren't tempted to flame and get themselves in trouble. There have been a few people asking for something similar cause they know that if they can chat they will flame but function fine under chat restrictions.
Self imposed chat restrictions have come up one and off since the functionality has existed. There's some level of value to it, and some players really want it, but not enough for us to justify putting it ahead of other work. If I had a magic wand and could build a system instantly, we might have some version of it. Don't think we'll get to it soon though.
: Please tell me you guys considered replacing ggez with "the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell"
: I apologize, I thought you were implying that yall were trying to avoid the arms race all together. I have faith that yall can come up with a system to alleviate this type of problem.
No worries, didn't take you post as anything but interesting info :). Thanks for the vote of confidence!
: > [{quoted}](name=Ypherion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=WuiG5a1Y,comment-id=0016,timestamp=2016-08-22T17:32:15.217+0000) > > We've talked about this kind of thing internally several times over the past couple years. Some of the discussions about what to use as replacement messages are among of my favorite memories at Riot (some of us are kind of terrible people...creative, but terrible). > > The main reason we haven't gotten to it, aside from having other stuff we thought was more urgent, is that it tends to create a bit of an arms race. Once people figure out what the filters are, they adapt their messages. GG3Z, ky$ or just come up with entirely new stuff like "GG stomp" or something, which then becomes GGST etc. etc. Then the filters need to be updated, then players adapt, repeat ad nauseum. There's also an interesting question around how players will perceive the replacement messages once the mapping from input to replacement is well known. > > I have no doubt that it will help to a decent degree, and I'll be interested to see how it works out. I love that other games are experimenting in this space more and more. It'll only speed up development on awesome ways to deal with this kind of behavior. I disagree, policing and punishing is one thing, but controlling what people say is another. I mean I understand that its douchbaggery all around, but I think blizzard takes it too far with the sheltering mentality. People need to learn to deal with unsportsmanlike people.
For the most part, nobody can control what people say. Often they control the venue (e.g. lock them up under a mountain), or impose a consequence (e.g. we'll kill you if you don't shut up), but the people still speak. Yes, there's all sorts of mutilation that would change that, but it's not my point. With a replacement system, people will just circumvent it like I described above. They'll get their message out. There's value in being resilient to negative experiences, including unsportsmanlike behavior, but there's a massive difference between tacit tolerance and negative feedback. If a player tells me to kill myself, I've got to deal with that. If I just mute the player, they've gotten no feedback that their behavior isn't acceptable. A direct response is likely to have limited impact because that player has already dropped any empathy they may have for me. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to give players tools and support to properly provide the necessary feedback effectively. In IRL sports this is often a ref or a coach. If I went to shake hands after a game and yelled "HA! YOU LOSE!" at an opposing player, it would go pretty poorly for me in any regulated sport. The player I yelled at still has to deal with it, and can hopefully shrug it off, but that doesn't mean I should just happily go on to do it the next game.
Kei143 (NA)
: While you are here, the way I normally ping is through "tracing", i.e I'll actually be pinging the (most probable) location of the enemy through fog of war, and following them through the river. For those that have /muteall at the beginning of the match, that 5 second CD will probably be detrimental to my communication methods.
This is what I meant when I commented elsewhere about edge cases. When there's a tool as flexible as pings, there are all sorts of uses other than the original primary goal. Hence why this isn't just a "yup, we'll get on that!" thread :)
InTheory (EUW)
: ***
Not too worried about the programming; our engineers are wizards as far as I'm concerned. Persistent/variable intensity pings have come up recently in some brainstorming. It's a really cool idea we'd like to explore at some point.
: > [{quoted}](name=Ypherion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=AAeH4cRA,comment-id=00050001000000000000,timestamp=2016-08-22T18:37:53.203+0000) > > There's not too much that I can share. I'm a lead designer supporting several teams so I have involvement in quite a bit, but don't have the detail that people on each team do. > > That said... > > Right now a huge chuck of our bandwidth is going into the new client, which I'm happy about because new client, but sad about because fewer new designs being actively built atm. Aside from that, we're heavily focused on the future of Clubs, Parties is still on the backlog after we had to make the hard call to wait for the new client to be done (don't know if they'll ship at the same time or if Parties will be later), and a pile of stuff that's just waaaaaaaay too early to talk about. As in, we may never end up building it. > > In general we're looking at a few things: > > 1. Ways for players to make the right connections (friends, clubmates, a few others we're pondering) with other players so that it's not just friend-or-bust as it is now. > 2. Making it easier for players to play with each other more than once. Right now we find a game, roughly equally skilled players and then after that game it's likely that none of those players will ever cross paths again. Seems like a wasted opportunity for those who are looking to find new teammates. > 3. Making in game comms and actions more effective at fostering team play, whether it's five solo players or a full premade. > > All that is super broad, so don't know how exciting it is, but we're looking pretty wide for our next year or more of work. And inevitably it will change as we go! Really hyped for the new client! Will it be ready for an upcoming preseaon?
I'm not sure when the new client will be fully live. We're pushing hard to get it done, but we've got a way to go yet.
InTheory (EUW)
: ***
I'd really like to see Honor get some love. Positive behavior systems tend to get a bit weird if the nature of input->reward is perfectly understood, unless you're looking for very, very specific behavior. I think the variable of player nomination is important for any reputation system. That said, there is a ton of stuff we could do, and want to do, with Honor. We'll see what happens in the future.
: Perhaps it should be done on a vote system: a toxic player has 4 teammates. If 3 of them mute the player (or perhaps there can be a 'vote to mute pings button on the scoreboard?) then that player is severely restricted or even completely restricted from pinging for the rest of that match. That would get a little complicated with premades, but if we wait for the perfect solution this may never be solved.
Definitely not going to hold out for perfect on this. A ton of players in this thread, as well as a designer I talked about this with at lunch, have a bunch of ideas. I doubt any of them are perfect. At some point in the future, no idea when, we'll look through the ideas, evaluate them, moosh some together, test and iterate. Whatever comes out the other side would be what we'd build, launch and then polish based on live performance.
: In the Criminal Justice system we call it the Cat and mouse game. We put up "traps" and "barriers"(rules and enforcement) in order to catch some of the mice before they get the cheese,all the while mice try and find ways around these things. It is a endless cycle but we view it as a necessary evil. Since opportunity is defined by the aggressor, then the best we can do to prevent deviation is to predict it and evolve with an ever changing strategy. The goal doesn't have to be complete dissolution of the crime just simply a decrease. League has a report/punish system similar to law enforcement, but it lacks the prevent/predict system that a CJ system has.
It's a good analogy. I agree with the necessary evil. Just because this particular direction isn't and arms race we want to start, we have several others we are deeply involved in. In terms of prevent/predict, we've prototyped some systems internally which showed decent capability, but they never got to the degree of accuracy we believe we need.
: It could work for the younger players that don't work their way around the filters as often or just the newer ones. Ofcourse, older players that are toxic can get around it but they are also more susceptible to getting punished for prolonged negative behaviour, am i right?
I think younger players would be less likely to be the cause of adaptation, but would be very quick to mimic whatever becomes popular. To be clear, it's not that it wouldn't work to some degree, it's that there are likely better places to focus our development bandwidth.
Darksyde (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Ypherion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=WuiG5a1Y,comment-id=0016,timestamp=2016-08-22T17:32:15.217+0000) > > We've talked about this kind of thing internally several times over the past couple years. Some of the discussions about what to use as replacement messages are among of my favorite memories at Riot (some of us are kind of terrible people...creative, but terrible). > > The main reason we haven't gotten to it, aside from having other stuff we thought was more urgent, is that it tends to create a bit of an arms race. Once people figure out what the filters are, they adapt their messages. GG3Z, ky$ or just come up with entirely new stuff like "GG stomp" or something, which then becomes GGST etc. etc. Then the filters need to be updated, then players adapt, repeat ad nauseum. There's also an interesting question around how players will perceive the replacement messages once the mapping from input to replacement is well known. > > I have no doubt that it will help to a decent degree, and I'll be interested to see how it works out. I love that other games are experimenting in this space more and more. It'll only speed up development on awesome ways to deal with this kind of behavior. There's also the problem of standing up for free speech, at least to a reasonable extent. I understand that as a private company you can punish anything you want and the first amendment in America doesn't matter, but do you really want to be known as an authoritarian anti free speech company? If players need to be protected from something as innocuous as "GG EZ" then we've reached a point where coddling them isn't going to help. Especially when there's an incredibly effective way for easily offended players to block/mute people who say something they don't like. By no means am I defending players who cross the line with death threats or anything like that. That's legitimately breaking the law and it should be punished. However, "GG EZ" and other similar trash talk, which is a part of every competitive game in the world by the way, should not be a major concern for anyone. At some point it has to be on the easily offended to either grow a thicker skin or use the mute feature provided by you hard working people at Riot for this exact purpose. Remember everyone, sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can never hurt you. Everyone should've learned this simple fact from their mothers when they were kids.
I'm not too worried about, in this context, censorship. With only rare exceptions, we only take action on behaviors determined by large numbers of players. I also think we have very different opinions about where the lines for sportsmanship are. I'll agree that, compared to a lot of what I've seen in League, "gg ez" isn't that severe. However, without some level of social connection, it has no purpose except to elevate the speaker and denigrate the listener. Acceptable trash talk not withstanding, I don't see why this would be a behavior we (we as a player, not just Riot) would want or accept in League. Now, with trash talk there's a few things that I often see omitted when it's called out: * Most of the sports you're talking about are initially learned in school or with a league of some kind. In these cases behavior is observed and corrected by a teacher, a parent, a coach or similar. Players learn early where the boundaries are. League doesn't have the benefit of this assumed baseline. How many players started playing League under supervision and got feedback on their behavior? * Each competitive game ultimately determines it's own tolerance of trash talk. Hockey (I'm Canadian) has a boat load of trash talk during the game, but that doesn't stop them from having, and using, a rule that severely punishes unsportsmanlike conduct. Also, trash talk happens almost exclusively during play or outside the game asynchronously (i.e. trash talk someone during a press conference). Rarely if ever is it at the beginning or end of the game. I don't know of any sport where it is acceptable, upon winning, to walk over to the opponents and tell them it was an easy win. If you look at other sports, especially globally, the degree of trash talk that is acceptable is much much lower. Look at badminton, tennis etc. And then as we go to games, take a look at what is ok in competitive board games. Not a lot. League has it's own version of trash talk that I think is perfectly fine. If someone flashes their champ mastery emote after killing me, or outplaying me, that has some effect on me but it's totally within reason. If an enemy mid laner sends out a quick "nice flash" after I try to make a flash play and come up short, totally fine. An "I'm going to fucking crush you" as laning starts...all good. Anything targeted at the player themselves or broadly generalizes their abilities, is beyond the line for me. "you fucking suck" (they, the person are being attacked) or "you should uninstall" (they, the League player are being attacked) don't have a place in the game I'd like to play. Do they make me alt-f4 and cry? Hell no. Would I be happier if I didn't have to deal with it? Hell yes. This is not a question of is a behavior survivable, or can players push through it. The question is whether the behavior is a net positive for the game as a whole once you look at how it makes every player in the game feel/behave. A lot of trash talk is within the realm of being net positive. Some of it, like "gg ez" or "uninstall fucker", are not positive and should be treated as something to be removed from our community.
Kinetika (NA)
: Shouldn't you be able to make an easy-to-update reference table or relatively simple algorithm for predictive analytics? I know it's not so cut and dry, but when these unfortunate trends become part of the vernacular, it should be relatively simple to identify and address from the server side. Pain in the neck? Yeah. Worth it? In my opinion, absolutely.
That's certainly one of the big guns in the "arms race". There's some interesting questions about how to get labeled data for an algorithmic solution at the volume and pace we'd likely need to keep up with the trends, but it has potential. It still runs afoul of the standard disease-cure model: there must be a disease before there can be a cure. By definition, players will always be ahead of the filter. That's not to say we're giving up and just saying gg ez is ok. We've got other stuff in mind :)
: Awesome , thanks for the update =D . I'm assuming they might have missed a few activatable items that cannot be pinged such as targons/ spooky ghosts. Hopefully that is also on their radar. Thanks for keeping us in the loop pal.
I think those are covered, but we'll see after their work ships :).
: Very interesting .... can you talk a little bit more about what's on your plate currently (I know clubs, quick pings are?) Seems llike an interesting area of expertise
There's not too much that I can share. I'm a lead designer supporting several teams so I have involvement in quite a bit, but don't have the detail that people on each team do. That said... Right now a huge chuck of our bandwidth is going into the new client, which I'm happy about because new client, but sad about because fewer new designs being actively built atm. Aside from that, we're heavily focused on the future of Clubs, Parties is still on the backlog after we had to make the hard call to wait for the new client to be done (don't know if they'll ship at the same time or if Parties will be later), and a pile of stuff that's just waaaaaaaay too early to talk about. As in, we may never end up building it. In general we're looking at a few things: 1. Ways for players to make the right connections (friends, clubmates, a few others we're pondering) with other players so that it's not just friend-or-bust as it is now. 2. Making it easier for players to play with each other more than once. Right now we find a game, roughly equally skilled players and then after that game it's likely that none of those players will ever cross paths again. Seems like a wasted opportunity for those who are looking to find new teammates. 3. Making in game comms and actions more effective at fostering team play, whether it's five solo players or a full premade. All that is super broad, so don't know how exciting it is, but we're looking pretty wide for our next year or more of work. And inevitably it will change as we go!
: Just a thought, but... usually the "gg ez" lines and the like come out right as the nexus explodes. Couldn't you just make it so that, once that nexus explosion is triggered, the only acceptable responses are things along the lines of "ggwp" or "gg" or the like? With anything outside of the acceptable list resulting in "ggwp" being put in instead? So like... nexus is about to explode. You know the point in the code I'm talking about, it's when the players can't use skills or move anymore. if player.rawtext.lower() in ["ggwp", "gg wp", "gg", "good game", "well played", "great game all", "/d", "/dance", "/taunt", "/t", "/l", "/laugh", "/j", "/joke"]: player.send(player.rawtext) else: player.send("ggwp") Or some such thing? By making the list of items acceptable to be said after a certain point, you're not giving the players an opportunity to get around a specific filter... only certain things are okay to be said during the explosion time.
We could go that way, and as you point out it's not super complicated (except for accounting for all languages we cover; yeah, I know it's a meme but it's true). I'd have four concerns here: 1. Players already sometimes call gg or ggez as the nexus turrets are going down, or even after a clean ace (i.e. prior to killing the nexus), and we wouldn't catch those cases. 2. Players would probably just start saying these things earlier (see 1.) 3. It really stifles expression. Being forced to say something doesn't mean much. Could probably just mute at that point because it would be impossible to tell if someone was trying to be sportsmanlike or not. 4. Most systems that have pre-boxed comms tend to have the community organically grant meaning to each one. Maybe "great game all" becomes understood to be the new ggez. Solves the primary problem, but misses some edge cases and may just cause new problematic behavior. Good thinking tho!
: Can't you just make it to where if you mute someone you can only see a ping from them once every 5 seconds or so? If they ping it could start a "cooldown" for you that starts when they ping, if you have them muted, and after 5 seconds you can see their pings again. I think that would be a healthy way to balance spam and rage pings to where you can still see the useful ones.
That's along the lines of what I would try first. My experience in designing communication features is that there are always edge cases that make what seems to be a really simple problem way more challenging than expected. It's infuriating when comms don't behave as expected, so tolerance to edge cases has to be pretty low.
Show more

Ypherion

Level 36 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion