: Blue Essence Issue
You get 50 Blue Essence for your first win of the day. Subsequent games only give XP, which results in level ups, which give you champion shards, which you can disenchant for more blue essence.
Comentários de Rioters
: Revert the self-imposed slow on rammus
Really if anything, what Rammus needs is a faster clear speed. If Spiked Shell (and DBC) dealt bonus damage to neutral targets for example, so that Rammus could have a competitive clear speed and some Dragon pressure, he'd be fine. Even last season he wasn't that bad. But forcing him to farm harder AND adding super important Dragons has sapped a lot of his strength.
: hard agree, can't count the number of times i've lost a kill because my ball curl didn't deactivate when i clicked W and i was too slow to nab the last hit on them before they flash over the wall.
> [{quoted}](name=AetherArising,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=HB8w3mtY,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2019-12-12T22:24:07.226+0000) > > hard agree, can't count the number of times i've lost a kill because my ball curl didn't deactivate when i clicked W and i was too slow to nab the last hit on them before they flash over the wall. If an unresponsive button is the cause of your issue, shouldn't the unresponsive button being made more responsive be a better solution? Remember that prior to the slow, DBC also had a much longer cooldown.
: [DevPls] New Champion = Unbannable (Unranked) for first weeks. [Let's talk about it]
: Revert the self-imposed slow on rammus
The slow isn't a big deal. You just turn off DBC when you move to chase. It's got a 6s coodown so it's typically up again by the time you want to use it. Typically once the taunt wears off and the target starts moving away is when you toggle it off so you can follow. What I find infinitely more annoying is getting knocked out of Powerball by CCs. If anything, that's the change I'd want reverted.
: > [{quoted}](name=Subdue,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=000300000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T19:52:33.765+0000) > > Okay, hypothetical situation #1: > > I am a new player. Each week, with the new free champion rotation, I pick a champion and play it until I get an S for the chest. > > How many chests per week do I earn? > > Hypothetical situation #2: > > Riot has changed the rules so that earning an S on a champion earns a chest even if the player has already earned a chest on that champion. I am a new player. During a free week I found that I can do really well with Nami, so I play Nami exclusively. I buy Nami. Each week, I play Nami to get an S and earn a chest. > > How many chests per week do I earn? Hypothetical 1 doesn't actually apply because you still need to own the champion to earn the chest (it can't just be on free rotation). New players can only get as many chests as they own champions. They are getting less over the course of the year because they can't just unlock a new champion every week. This also comes with the assumption said players can even earn S ranks quickly enough over a variety of champions. In the second case, that player is almost guaranteed a chest per week because that champion restriction is no longer there. New players get more. Riot loses money. Riot imposes a different restriction. Seriously, drop this "It's still once per week! We aren't breaking the hard limit" Because neither you nor OP are taking an objective look at how much easier it is to earn a weekly chest and how it affects new players in a way that Riot won't approve of.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2019-12-09T17:36:24.520+0000) > > Disregarding that tiny bit of semantics on owned champions... > > You are enabling all players to consistently earn 50 chests EVERY SINGLE SEASON > > ALL PLAYERS GET TO EARN THEIR CHESTS ON ANY CHAMPION THEY OWN WITHOUT FAIL SO LONG AS THEY CAN CONSISTENTLY ACHIEVE S RANK GAMES > > BY CREATING THIS CLEAR CONSISTENCY FOR ALL ACCOUNTS, ALL ACCOUNTS WILL INEVITABLY GAIN MORE PAID CONTENT FOR FREE. RIOT WILL LOSE MONEY AS A RESULT. RIOT WILL THEN IMPOSE A NEW LIMIT BECAUSE IT ISN'T JUST "MARGINALLY EASIER". > > We're done. You refuse to acknowledge that your system is simply too consistent for delivering content and PRETEND that Riot will not impose a new limit as a result of the massive hemorrhaging of money that your system would give them. If players play for the rewards in the current system, they are basically forced to grind on champions they would prefer not to play in order to get the rewards. This results not only reduces the enjoyment of the player but also increases how "grindy" the game feels, as the player is now playing for the rewards instead of the rewards coming organically as a result of play. Grindy games where the player feels forced to do things a certain way increases player frustration and lowers player satisfaction. Do you think frustrating players is more profitable?
Nea104 (EUW)
: Mods are not just "failing". It seems they are intentionally censoring undesired messages and users.
Regardless of whether or not I agree with the removal of your posts, there are ways of expressing opinions which attack others and ways in which they don't. As an example: "The design team has missed the mark on the jungle rework. Junglers now feel perpetually behind, and small disadvantageous grow in to insurmountable ones very quickly because of how easy it is to fall behind in levels." "The design team is full of incompetent people who don't understand the game." Both statements are about dissatisfaction with the design team, but the first one provides valuable feedback and targets what the speaker believes is a flaw in the design, while the other is simply an insult aimed at the design team. I can see the moderators letting something akin to the second statement slide once in a while, but if too many are flying about discussion just becomes about mudslinging instead of actually discussing the topics.
: Why should a one trick even care about chests? I play almost exclusively Taric and am currently sitting on 36 keys with 4 chests available. I don't care in the least because I already have every skin for Taric and at least one skin on every other champion I play like Amumu, Cho, Tryndamere, Nautilus, and Mundo.
> [{quoted}](name=AlienPrimate,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2019-12-08T19:45:09.209+0000) > > Why should a one trick even care about chests? I play almost exclusively Taric and am currently sitting on 36 keys with 4 chests available. I don't care in the least because I already have every skin for Taric and at least one skin on every other champion I play like Amumu, Cho, Tryndamere, Nautilus, and Mundo. I am a Rammus One-Trick and I'm 1 gemstone away from Hextech Rammus. :(
: > [{quoted}](name=Subdue,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=0003000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T19:16:23.304+0000) > > There is already a fixed amount of awards you can earn... Whether you are playing a one-trick and you get that chest in one game, or you're playing a new champion and it takes you a whole week, you earn the same number of chests per week, which is 1. Now remember that there are new accounts that exist. These can be due to smurfs, bots or actual new players. A new account is now able to earn tons of free skins without paying a cent. All it needs is those S ranks. Doesn't need to own the champion or do it on a different one. Just easy chests. Riot is going to lose money because of that restriction being removed. There is no way you can argue differently on that. Riot will, in turn, impose new limits on chests whether it be reducing how many can be earned per year or what can be earned from the chests. **That is the problem the proposed system faces. Riot will lose money from new accounts because of the restriction being dropped.** I can't tell if it's purposeful ignorance at this point.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T19:41:17.847+0000) > > Now remember that there are new accounts that exist. These can be due to smurfs, bots or actual new players. > > A new account is now able to earn tons of free skins without paying a cent. All it needs is those S ranks. Doesn't need to own the champion or do it on a different one. Just easy chests. > > Riot is going to lose money because of that restriction being removed. There is no way you can argue differently on that. Riot will, in turn, impose new limits on chests whether it be reducing how many can be earned per year or what can be earned from the chests. > > **That is the problem the proposed system faces. Riot will lose money from new accounts because of the restriction being dropped.** > > I can't tell if it's purposeful ignorance at this point. Okay, hypothetical situation #1: I am a new player. Each week, with the new free champion rotation, I pick a champion and play it until I get an S for the chest. How many chests per week do I earn? Hypothetical situation #2: Riot has changed the rules so that earning an S on a champion earns a chest even if the player has already earned a chest on that champion. I am a new player. During a free week I found that I can do really well with Nami, so I play Nami exclusively. I buy Nami. Each week, I play Nami to get an S and earn a chest. How many chests per week do I earn?
: > [{quoted}](name=Tomoe Gozen,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T17:45:11.473+0000) > > At this point, i've deconstructed this whole problem and my idea to a simple arithmetic of 1 + 1 and you're trying to convince me that the result is not 2. Your logic doesn't make sense because you keep returning to the same issue of "people will be earning more rewards", one that i have already addressed and that there is no more chests in the system than it's already possible to earn. > > How can i already have 44 chests earned, out of a possible 50 in this season? > The season's still not over so that means a few more weeks (few more chests) + 2 in the bank i already have. Do you believe i am somehow cheating the system when Riot themselves have put this yearly limit to every account already? > > I am not an outlier of a player. > Everyone can already earn 50 chests per season. > > #NO, THEY WOULDN'T. > > _**No player would be able to earn chests at a faster pace than the other player!**_ > I can wait for 4 weeks and earn 4 chests in one sitting - the same thing i can do now. > The other player can earn 1 chest per week. If i wait more than 4 weeks, i lose 1 chest per week because i cannot earn any more than 4 at one time. If the other player has been earning them consistently and keeping his chest bank clear, he's going to be ahead of me - as he should. > > No player gets to earn their loot faster than any other player. > No player can farm 50 chests at once. > > #NO, THEY WOULDN'T. > > Riot wouldn't lose any money because there wouldn't be ANY MORE LOOT to give out, other than Riot's already imposed limit of 50 chests per season and 1 chest per week timer. Removing the champion restriction DOESN'T ALLOW PLAYERS TO GET ANY MORE CHESTS THEN THEY ALREADY CAN. The system doesn't allow players to "farm" chests nor does it give them out for free. > > The limit is still 50 chests per season, per account (per owned champion). > The rate at which people earn the chests is still the same (4 in the bank + 1 per week). > The requirement to earn chests through S- ranks is still the same. Look, if you're going to just dismiss what I'm saying with "you're wrong" and "that's not how it works" without actually reading what I'm putting on the damn screen, then I'm done. Here is what you're conveniently ignoring: - Consistency of earning rewards of paid content for free under your system - No two players are equal - Your system still favors one trick players over others because of consistency - Higher consistency of earning paid content for free results in less being given out because Riot is still a business One player cannot earn more chests than another player. All you're changing is which players have an easier time getting chests. And your system, without a shadow of a doubt, blatantly favors those who are one trick players. If Riot finds that too many players are earning paid content for free, they're going to cut down how much paid content is given out. BY STRAIGHT UP REMOVING A RESTRICTION TOWARDS THE EARNING OF PAID CONTENT, YOU HAVE MADE IT EASIER TO OBTAIN PAID CONTENT AND RIOT WILL BE QUICK TO REDUCE HOW MUCH IS GIVEN OUT THE INSTANT IT CUTS INTO THEIR PROFITS. And, news flash, that will happen immediately. It doesn't matter if the paid content is partially RNG locked because the Emporium is a thing so excess Blue Essence from chests can still be used on otherwise paid only content. That restriction is what keeps players from earning all of their chests in a season. For a new account with a handful of champions, this means that said account will not be overloaded with free stuff quickly due to the champion restriction. Riot would VERY quickly lose money from new/smurf accounts and immediately impose new, harsher limitations on how much content is earned. In short, I'm saying you're being exceptionally short sighted about this. Riot still wants their money and handing out tons of free content with extremely loose restrictions is not going to help them make more. That is going to be the long term penalty of your system if Riot were to implement it. You're free to believe otherwise. That doesn't mean said belief is founded in the deeper logic beyond simple math.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UAMHNRAY,comment-id=000300000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T19:07:10.533+0000) > > Look, if you're going to just dismiss what I'm saying with "you're wrong" and "that's not how it works" without actually reading what I'm putting on the damn screen, then I'm done. > > Snip. There is already a fixed amount of awards you can earn... Whether you are playing a one-trick and you get that chest in one game, or you're playing a new champion and it takes you a whole week, you earn the same number of chests per week, which is 1.
: Meh, match making is a joke half the time either way. He gets lower MMR enemy teams then.
> [{quoted}](name=Ashe mage AD,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=ykIHOoQV,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T15:14:13.358+0000) > > Meh, match making is a joke half the time either way. He gets lower MMR enemy teams then. This is also incorrect. With the exception of duo queues, all of the people he plays with are about the same MMR.
Warmas (EUW)
: First of all I would like to state that I indeed was a bit harsh on you junglers. I know it's not 2% at all is was to be ironic a little but it's not exactly as big as you make it even. You are totally right you should definitely talk about the issue and that's what I do too. You don't grasp the gravity of impact. The more impact you have the more it means you can win if YOU play well. Impact was completely in the thrash can for toplane in s9, a part of which was jungle (the original and biggest issue are mages being overpowered, but added stuff on it include this). And believe me there is nothing worse than having no impact and you have the most. There is nothing more frustrating than winning your lane 3/0 but the 9/5 jungler midler or adc runs you over (note the worse KD but they still have more impact). And there are games where you just get oneshotted by these fed players. But being 3-4 levels behind is not true at all. I played some jungler games recently and my pathing is dusty but being behind never meant more than 2 levels behind the sololaners and they could only oneshot me when i was really behind. If you path right I just can't see it happen. Jungle should have 1v9 potential but in selective cases. Toplane for instance is designed to be duelists. When a jungler who has more map presence than anyone with 2 kills can duel the duelist that's not nice for me I think you understand. How you can duel mages and adcs and how they oneshot you are a different thing as they are overtuned right now.
> [{quoted}](name=Warmas,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=7XiGHvEe,comment-id=00000002000000010000,timestamp=2019-12-07T20:20:52.651+0000) > > First of all I would like to state that I indeed was a bit harsh on you junglers. I know it's not 2% at all is was to be ironic a little but it's not exactly as big as you make it even. You are totally right you should definitely talk about the issue and that's what I do too. > > You don't grasp the gravity of impact. The more impact you have the more it means you can win if YOU play well. Impact was completely in the thrash can for toplane in s9, a part of which was jungle (the original and biggest issue are mages being overpowered, but added stuff on it include this). And believe me there is nothing worse than having no impact and you have the most. There is nothing more frustrating than winning your lane 3/0 but the 9/5 jungler midler or adc runs you over (note the worse KD but they still have more impact). > And there are games where you just get oneshotted by these fed players. But being 3-4 levels behind is not true at all. I played some jungler games recently and my pathing is dusty but being behind never meant more than 2 levels behind the sololaners and they could only oneshot me when i was really behind. If you path right I just can't see it happen. > Jungle should have 1v9 potential but in selective cases. Toplane for instance is designed to be duelists. When a jungler who has more map presence than anyone with 2 kills can duel the duelist that's not nice for me I think you understand. How you can duel mages and adcs and how they oneshot you are a different thing as they are overtuned right now. Being 2 levels down is not a small amount, especially when that 2 levels down is happening early enough to be 4 vs 6 or 5 vs 7.
NME (NA)
: Ranked HELL
> [{quoted}](name=NME,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=EqKEeKA6,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-12-07T19:46:43.324+0000) > > Why is is that I have to carry every single one of my ranked games? Ive been in promos 3 times now and Ive always gone 2-3. Every single win I had to carry. There has not been A SINGLE INSTANCE where I won and did not carry. Please give me tips on how to change so I can advance. Please if you are only going to say "Its you and the mmr you are placed in is at your skill level" then please do not proceed to comment. Not a single instance? Are you sure? Are you really really sure? https://i.imgur.com/0vyEaoE.png https://i.imgur.com/EOlNDGE.png https://i.imgur.com/VKK9jGl.png
T0 CR4ZY (NA)
: Why the current banning system of League of Legends is abusable and unjust.
You're saying these things in all chat. "Just playing with my friends" doesn't extend to the enemy team.
AdamrCc (EUW)
: Match me with monkeys and expect me to be nice to them?
You never do poorly, right? https://i.imgur.com/1Mbh2uq.png
Revech (NA)
: It honestly seems like your opinions on malphite are disjointed from reality. I didn't want to do it but it seems like you need a reality check so here you go [malphite ULT montage youtube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEyAw0-T2a0) (1) "if your reaction time is that bad then sorry to say this but this game might not be for you and you need to play turn based games." Malphites ult is instant cast, 1000 range with 100% movement speed increase and unstoppable, what are you talking about? So let me get this straight people that can't flash away from Malphites fraction of a second ult animation, lack the skill to play league. I honestly would like to see you flash away from a malphite ult out of a bush or fog of a war.
> [{quoted}](name=Revech,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=4kO0wBr2,comment-id=0000000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2019-12-06T22:17:01.389+0000) > > It honestly seems like your opinions on malphite are disjointed from reality. I didn't want to do it but it seems like you need a reality check so here you go [malphite ULT montage youtube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEyAw0-T2a0) > > (1) "if your reaction time is that bad then sorry to say this but this game might not be for you and you need to play turn based games." > > Malphites ult is instant cast, 1000 range with 100% movement speed increase and unstoppable, what are you talking about? So let me get this straight people that can't flash away from Malphites fraction of a second ult animation, lack the skill to play league. I honestly would like to see you flash away from a malphite ult out of a bush or fog of a war. Objectively speaking, Amumu's ultimate in a vacuum is much stronger than Malphite's. It has almost double the radius, it applies Curse which means more damage not just from Amumu but from his team, far outweighing 50 base damage, and it can be combined with his Q to pin down an enemy for a longer period (Flash + R + Q instead of Q + R). Malphite is stronger than Amumu not because of his ultimate but because of his Q, which gives him extremely strong laning pressure. It is a ranged, low mana, point and click poke with a slow/speed boost that prevents retaliation that Malphite can use to proc Scorch and Arcane Comet pretty much off cooldown to bully most lane opponents out of the lane safely and easily. The easy laning phase and resulting access to extra gold in turn makes him extremely dangerous later on. Amumu on the other hand lacks the tools to lane effectively against most common laners, which means he needs to jungle, but he's highly susceptible to counter jungling, and as much as I love the sad mummy, a lot of champions simply clear faster, gank earlier, and clear more safely. If the game started at 15 minutes with equal amounts of gold, Amumu would outclass Malphite in almost every way.
: GD, can we make a story together? One word per post.
: Probably your MMR went up a lot but since your rank is still the same range you're getting matched with lower MMR players then yourself so you gain less cuz of that.
> [{quoted}](name=Ashe mage AD,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=ykIHOoQV,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-12-06T19:21:29.620+0000) > > Probably your MMR went up a lot but since your rank is still the same you're getting matched with lower MMR players then yourself so you gain less cuz of that. This is incorrect. You're matched based on MMR, not based on your rank. So, for example, if you are Silver 1 and you queue dodge every time you get to your promos, you'll eventually be playing with Gold 1 or 2 players even though you're Silver 1. When your MMR gets higher than Gold 1 MMR, you'll end up skipping promos and jumping straight into Gold 4.
moey (EUNE)
: lp decreasing during a winstreak
How many total games have you played? Your first 20-30 games or so in a season have higher LP gains/losses as the system estimates your correct MMR range. As you play more games, the average LP swing decreases to around 16-20. Other things that impact LP gain/loss: 1. MMR relative to the game. If you're the highest MMR in the game, you'll gain a little less per win, lose a little more per loss. Vice versa is also true. 2. MMR relative to your tier. If your MMR is significantly higher than your tier, you'll gain more per win, lose less per loss as the system tries to get you in sync. Vice versa is also true. Streaks have no direct effect on LP gain/loss except in how they affect your MMR.
: And they don't need to know either. They can play with the guy and decided on their own if they like it without some condescending message popping up.
> [{quoted}](name=Clockwork Mouse,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=d8mU5w5w,comment-id=00000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T03:08:41.303+0000) > > And they don't need to know either. They can play with the guy and decided on their own if they like it without some condescending message popping up. Uh... The whole idea is that the known, toxic, would otherwise be permabanned player is allowed to play, under the assumption that he is only playing with players who voluntarily play with a known, toxic player... Of course they would need to know. Otherwise it's not voluntary.
: They did that when they invited him to the 5 man
> [{quoted}](name=Clockwork Mouse,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=d8mU5w5w,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T20:31:28.905+0000) > > They did that when they invited him to the 5 man This isn't true. You can be invited into a lobby by 1 person even if the other 3 people don't know you.
: It's an interesting concept, but i doubt riot would spend time doing anything that benefits people who got the highest level of punishment they can do.
> [{quoted}](name=Emperor Talquin,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=d8mU5w5w,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-12-05T19:51:01.149+0000) > > It's an interesting concept, but i doubt riot would spend time doing anything that benefits people who got the highest level of punishment they can do. It benefits more than just them though. It also benefits lowbies that would be playing with those that would choose to make new accounts. And, it would give Riot valuable data on how the most toxic members of the community respond to have direct consequences to their toxicity - ex: I raged at four people that were willing to play with me and now I have no one to play with.
: Remove the 3rd option, it is utter cringe.
> [{quoted}](name=Clockwork Mouse,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=d8mU5w5w,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-12-05T19:42:15.403+0000) > > Remove the 3rd option, it is utter cringe. They aren't options, they're requirements. And the 3rd one is important because the person's teammates should be allowed to opt-in to playing with them.
Hotarµ (NA)
: I don't know, honestly. On one hand I think it makes sense, on the other it completely invalidates the point of a permanent ban and it's purpose as a punishment (to remove someone from the game entirely, not just restrict them to playing with friends/premades)
> [{quoted}](name=Hotarµ,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=d8mU5w5w,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-12-05T19:42:23.134+0000) > > I don't know, honestly. > > On one hand I think it makes sense, on the other it completely invalidates the point of a permanent ban and it's purpose as a punishment (to remove someone from the game entirely, not just restrict them to playing with friends/premades) Technically the point of the permaban isn't just punishment, it is to keep said player from ruining the experience for others right? The above suggestion makes it less likely for the toxic player to create a new account and start all over again with lowbies.
Subdue (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=BlueFire Mark II,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=WhoREh4p,comment-id=000100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T19:18:12.191+0000) > > Well CLEARLY i was not validly reported, otherwise i would've been banned long ago hm? So no i do not agree that i do. Besides, riot has stayed honor doesnt really affect the freakin ban system in anyway. Which is kinda dumb considering the ban system is going off of how honorable a player you are. Frequency x Severity... geez I explained this earlier... > [{quoted}](name=Subdue,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=WhoREh4p,comment-id=0005000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T05:11:51.588+0000) > > You can still gain honor even when you're being validly reported, it just takes longer. Why Riot decided that's a good idea is beyond me, but I would guess it's because there are actually two separate systems that are being synced together in some way, which would make sense as people were getting penalized long before honor was introduced. Again, penalties are based on Frequency x Severity. Low Frequency, Low Severity might not get penalized, but any other combination definitely does. So, somewhere in there your story is not consistent. You may want to ask Riot for the stats on how often you're validly reported. > > As for toxic players making new accounts, I agree that it's not ideal. Riot really should put more significant barriers to entry, such as requiring a phone number for account creation. The ban system and the honor system were conceived separately, but there are points of integration between the two. IE: when the ban system issues a penalty, it also causes an update in the honor system which adjusts your honor. When the ban system identifies a valid report, it updates the honor system and slows your progress.
> [{quoted}](name=BlueFire Mark II,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=WhoREh4p,comment-id=00010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T19:34:10.971+0000) > > People have also been explaining just one valid report and after 14 and you're out.. frequency x severity has nothing to with that friend. "So geez think before you type" instead of say you explained something earlier that does not answer something. > > And i don't care, about gaining honor. This isn't about honor. Keep ignoring the fact i say this like most people do when i argue. > > and regaining it being slow or whatever it's the fact its been a year of not being penalized and playing nicely to an instant ban with only 1 game referenced for it. The point about the rate that you're gaining honor isn't about the honor itself, but that it's evidence that you are being validly reported.
Comentários de Rioters
: Well CLEARLY i was not validly reported, otherwise i would've been banned long ago hm? So no i do not agree that i do. Besides, riot has stayed honor doesnt really affect the freakin ban system in anyway. Which is kinda dumb considering the ban system is going off of how honorable a player you are.
> [{quoted}](name=BlueFire Mark II,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=WhoREh4p,comment-id=000100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T19:18:12.191+0000) > > Well CLEARLY i was not validly reported, otherwise i would've been banned long ago hm? So no i do not agree that i do. Besides, riot has stayed honor doesnt really affect the freakin ban system in anyway. Which is kinda dumb considering the ban system is going off of how honorable a player you are. Frequency x Severity... geez I explained this earlier... > [{quoted}](name=Subdue,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=WhoREh4p,comment-id=0005000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T05:11:51.588+0000) > > You can still gain honor even when you're being validly reported, it just takes longer. Why Riot decided that's a good idea is beyond me, but I would guess it's because there are actually two separate systems that are being synced together in some way, which would make sense as people were getting penalized long before honor was introduced. Again, penalties are based on Frequency x Severity. Low Frequency, Low Severity might not get penalized, but any other combination definitely does. So, somewhere in there your story is not consistent. You may want to ask Riot for the stats on how often you're validly reported. > > As for toxic players making new accounts, I agree that it's not ideal. Riot really should put more significant barriers to entry, such as requiring a phone number for account creation. The ban system and the honor system were conceived separately, but there are points of integration between the two. IE: when the ban system issues a penalty, it also causes an update in the honor system which adjusts your honor. When the ban system identifies a valid report, it updates the honor system and slows your progress.
Rewt (NA)
: So you wanted to play some fun 5 man normals with your friends.
How dare people play as a team in a team game? Those bastards!
: Thst doesn't necessarily mean it's equal for everyone. Yes it could take half the time, but- BUT- you're also taking into account specifically games, I'm saying overall time. 4 days a week max, avg 2 hrs each of those days, sick days, vacation, too busy to play, and stuff also in the way. So when i say a year i mean until now, slightly under a year, including the actual 14 day itself into january, and keep in mind he is playing *bots* not PVP where people constantly report for the fun of it ot because they disliked you but really only they were reportable. You are leaving out a ton of information to make yourself look like you have a valid argument when you really don't.. Besides, honor doesn't do Jack squat anyway, rito doesn't care if you're honor 5 best player ever they'll still perm ban ya after one slip up game.
> [{quoted}](name=BlueFire Mark II,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=WhoREh4p,comment-id=0001000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T19:06:01.133+0000) > > Thst doesn't necessarily mean it's equal for everyone. Yes it could take half the time, but- BUT- you're also taking into account specifically games, I'm saying overall time. 4 days a week max, avg 2 hrs each of those days, sick days, vacation, too busy to play, and stuff also in the way. So when i say a year i mean until now, slightly under a year, including the actual 14 day itself into january, and keep in mind he is playing *bots* not PVP where people constantly report for the fun of it ot because they disliked you but really only they were reportable. You are leaving out a ton of information to make yourself look like you have a valid argument when you really don't.. > > Besides, honor doesn't do Jack squat anyway, rito doesn't care if you're honor 5 best player ever they'll still perm ban ya after one slip up game. Invalid reports do not affect your honor progress, only valid ones do. You could get reported every single game, but if you're not doing anything wrong, nothing happens. If your stance now is that you were being validly reported in some games which slowed down your progress, that's something we can agree on.
: Yes and I've tested it across multiple accounts and made sure there was no reports with bot games and such. After a punishment it is always super slow. On pbe i went to honor 5 near instant after release. After a punishment it took a long time to get to honor 2 again slightly faster but still long.
> [{quoted}](name=BlueFire Mark II,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=WhoREh4p,comment-id=00010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T18:29:00.766+0000) > > Yes and I've tested it across multiple accounts and made sure there was no reports with bot games and such. After a punishment it is always super slow. On pbe i went to honor 5 near instant after release. After a punishment it took a long time to get to honor 2 again slightly faster but still long. One of the mods actually did the experiment with a 0 honor account. It took them 252 games over 172 days to reach Honor 2. That's roughly half the time it's taken you to get to the same point. https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/yBXTyjAO-dishonorable-to-honor-2-edit-3-12219
: Honor 2+ is not equal to a lock and starting at zero. 3 checkpoints after a lock to 1 then 3 to 2. 2=/= 0 with a lock.
> [{quoted}](name=BlueFire Mark II,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=WhoREh4p,comment-id=000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T16:45:38.383+0000) > > Honor 2+ is not equal to a lock and starting at zero. 3 checkpoints after a lock to 1 then 3 to 2. > > 2=/= 0 with a lock. Right... the point was that I did 5 (almost 6) checkpoints in 2 months. You're saying you're gaining 1 checkpoint a month.
: Gemstones for BE during essence emporium (question)
I need 1 more gemstone and I'm 75000 BE short of the 100000 BE gemstone :(.
: E{{sticker:zombie-brand-mindblown}} XCUSE ME? do you know how hard riot makes it to climb honor after a punishment? Basically impossible. It's locked for a month at the least basically then yoi get like one checkpoint per month after that. It isn't easy, secondly, not everyone honors you every game to clomb very high.. thirdly you don't play 24/7. And much more reasons. So yes it does take a long time buddy. Unless you can provide evidence it doesn't then I'm only going based off experience and what I've seen and learned.
> [{quoted}](name=BlueFire Mark II,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=WhoREh4p,comment-id=0001000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T16:32:56.172+0000) > > E{{sticker:zombie-brand-mindblown}} XCUSE ME? do you know how hard riot makes it to climb honor after a punishment? Basically impossible. It's locked for a month at the least basically then yoi get like one checkpoint per month after that. It isn't easy, secondly, not everyone honors you every game to clomb very high.. thirdly you don't play 24/7. And much more reasons. > > So yes it does take a long time buddy. Unless you can provide evidence it doesn't then I'm only going based off experience and what I've seen and learned. I only played for the last 2 months of the last season, and in that time moved up from Honor 2, 1st checkpoint to Honor 3, 3rd checkpoint. (I got Honor 4 about a week after pre-season started). If you're moving at 1 checkpoint a month, it's because you're being validly reported and that is slowing down your progress.
: > [{quoted}](name=Subdue,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=wszGG6Ej,comment-id=0008,timestamp=2019-12-05T00:27:45.372+0000) > > The game doesn't make the community toxic. Toxic players are toxic way before they interact with League. League does not change a player's outlook. However, by the very fact that accounts are free, anonymous, easy to level (or buy), and too much leniency is built into the system, toxic people who might not express that toxicity in their every day lives feel empowered to do so in League. > > Fixing this problem requires removal, or at least heavy reduction of the anonymity by tying accounts to a more limited resource than emails, such as mobile numbers and harsher, faster penalties for bad behavior. Some people are already toxic prior to playing the game and bring that mood into the game. Back in the very early stages of the game League of Legends had an honor system that rewarded good behavior in its player base where ribbons were given out and displayed on the map loading screen. It was a small honor and I held every ribbon at least once in my time playing. They did away with the ribbon system and never put anything back in its place. If Riot wants something they need to incentivize it. They should give out free skin shards to players who display positive behaviors and there should be ways of reporting teammates/opponents for GOOD things. And the best behaved players maybe get access to a unique/exclusive champion skin at the end of the season for being pillars of the community. That won't reform the worst players but it should coax some borderline toxic ones to be more team oriented in their dealings. And tying an account to a mobile number would cut down on toxicity and smurfing (one account per phone number) but would also leave Riot's customers vulnerable. I imagine most of the player base is between the ages of 11-21 and have limited understanding of account security. Exposing personal information such as cell phone numbers would leave their customer base open to a number of unwanted things. That could end up being a lawsuit if someone finds a way to exploit this info Emails are too anonymous but I think something other than mobile numbers (where some people still don't own a mobile phone) should be considered.
> [{quoted}](name=TouchpadExpert,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=wszGG6Ej,comment-id=00080001,timestamp=2019-12-05T08:02:30.751+0000) > > Some people are already toxic prior to playing the game and bring that mood into the game. Back in the very early stages of the game League of Legends had an honor system that rewarded good behavior in its player base where ribbons were given out and displayed on the map loading screen. It was a small honor and I held every ribbon at least once in my time playing. They did away with the ribbon system and never put anything back in its place. If Riot wants something they need to incentivize it. They should give out free skin shards to players who display positive behaviors and there should be ways of reporting teammates/opponents for GOOD things. And the best behaved players maybe get access to a unique/exclusive champion skin at the end of the season for being pillars of the community. That won't reform the worst players but it should coax some borderline toxic ones to be more team oriented in their dealings. > > And tying an account to a mobile number would cut down on toxicity and smurfing (one account per phone number) but would also leave Riot's customers vulnerable. I imagine most of the player base is between the ages of 11-21 and have limited understanding of account security. Exposing personal information such as cell phone numbers would leave their customer base open to a number of unwanted things. That could end up being a lawsuit if someone finds a way to exploit this info Emails are too anonymous but I think something other than mobile numbers (where some people still don't own a mobile phone) should be considered. People should not need incentives to behave decently towards one each other. That being said, you already get key fragments and capsules for good behavior. As for mobile numbers, other game companies like Valve are already asking for them. It's not it's a new thing.
: Well again you don't need to talk about ME because then you worry about whether i am lying or not.. now, no it is not consistent. I said no punishments nearly a year, last one was late December early January. What about that tells you consistent? I even got back to honor 2, what about that is consistent? They listed only 1 game on card, not 2 like usual chat restrictions would. Again, what about that is CONSISTANCY. To me, it's nothing. There's also no ZT words so it isn't that either. You don't have to agree but what I'm saying is how it is, just based on that you give your opinion, not based on if I'm lying or hypothetically i am consistent or anything, just based on what's listed what do you think? Because reading it off.. to me it's unfair and needs reverted. Beside, i made a whole nother account anyway. So if i really am toxic, I'd just end up chasing new players away by flaming in low levels. Which, I'm not because i reformed. Nobody is a saint who is never ever toxic ever. 1 game should not result in perma after nearly a year of good behavior. That's my opinion.
> [{quoted}](name=BlueFire Mark II,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=WhoREh4p,comment-id=000500000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T04:33:45.340+0000) > > Well again you don't need to talk about ME because then you worry about whether i am lying or not.. now, no it is not consistent. I said no punishments nearly a year, last one was late December early January. What about that tells you consistent? I even got back to honor 2, what about that is consistent? They listed only 1 game on card, not 2 like usual chat restrictions would. Again, what about that is CONSISTANCY. To me, it's nothing. There's also no ZT words so it isn't that either. > > You don't have to agree but what I'm saying is how it is, just based on that you give your opinion, not based on if I'm lying or hypothetically i am consistent or anything, just based on what's listed what do you think? Because reading it off.. to me it's unfair and needs reverted. Beside, i made a whole nother account anyway. So if i really am toxic, I'd just end up chasing new players away by flaming in low levels. Which, I'm not because i reformed. Nobody is a saint who is never ever toxic ever. 1 game should not result in perma after nearly a year of good behavior. That's my opinion. You can still gain honor even when you're being validly reported, it just takes longer. Why Riot decided that's a good idea is beyond me, but I would guess it's because there are actually two separate systems that are being synced together in some way, which would make sense as people were getting penalized long before honor was introduced. Again, penalties are based on Frequency x Severity. Low Frequency, Low Severity might not get penalized, but any other combination definitely does. So, somewhere in there your story is not consistent. You may want to ask Riot for the stats on how often you're validly reported. As for toxic players making new accounts, I agree that it's not ideal. Riot really should put more significant barriers to entry, such as requiring a phone number for account creation.
: So 1. been pretty active 2. Got back honor to 2 3. One toxic game caused this, no other games listed. 4. No insta ban words used 5. Last punishment was nearly an entire year ago- (late december to jan) 6. This doesn't have to be just hypothetically anyone, could be you putting yourself in this scenario 7. Zero punishments or chat restrictions in that time. Not even leaver buster. 8. What do you think? Fair or not. Don't shove my name on it and say i could be lying your opinions on me don't matter, just the matter in general- if this was anybody or yourself, is this fair. A PERMANENT ban keep in mind. Thanks for stoppin by to comment and enjoy your day! (Edit: not sure why someone's wasting time to downvote something that has nothing to downvote for. If it was about me specifically maybe but.. idk people don't know how to use up and down votes here.)
> [{quoted}](name=BlueFire Mark II,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=WhoREh4p,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2019-12-05T03:41:33.541+0000) > > So > > 1. been pretty active > 2. Got back honor to 2 > 3. One toxic game caused this, no other games listed. > 4. No insta ban words used > 5. Last punishment was nearly an entire year ago- (late december to jan) > 6. This doesn't have to be just hypothetically anyone, could be you putting yourself in this scenario > 7. Zero punishments or chat restrictions in that time. Not even leaver buster. > 8. What do you think? Fair or not. Don't shove my name on it and say i could be lying your opinions on me don't matter, just the matter in general- if this was anybody or yourself, is this fair. A PERMANENT ban keep in mind. Thanks for stoppin by to comment and enjoy your day! > > (Edit: not sure why someone's wasting time to downvote something that has nothing to downvote for. If it was about me specifically maybe but.. idk people don't know how to use up and down votes here.) Penalties are given based on frequency and severity. So, you can be infrequently, lightly toxic and you'll be fine. However, if you're frequently toxic, or you're severely toxic occasionally, you'll be hit with the penalties. In your case, you were hit with penalties at least 3 times before you finally reached a permanent ban. If we take you at your word that your chat log showed "ordinary flame" rather than severe flame, then most likely you are frequently toxic. You can still gain honor even if you're validly reported, though it does slow down honor progression. Most players are never toxic frequently or severely enough to receive any punishment, and your frequent toxic behavior negatively affects the experiences of those players. So, tasked with answering, do I think it's fair or not, I find myself considering whether inflicting you on those players is fair or not. From my perspective, and from Riot's, the answer is no. It is not fair players who can generally get along with each other to have you ruining their games with your flaming. So, given that you haven't reformed after multiple warnings, and given you don't dispute that you were toxic, I think your penalty is justified.
: Yeah? Cite me a player who has been banned for behaving badly and I'll show you exactly _why_ their "_harsh words_" aren't the reason they're banned. They've been banned almost exclusively for actual in-game **griefing** which is, weirdly, something Riot doesn't do often enough to make a dent. Yet, apparently, DotA2's less toxic than LoL. Whaaa? OH, right, Riot apparently thinks that griefing people isn't a punishable offense because it _"can't be determined with reasonable certainty"_. If you can't tell, I'm cornering you into admitting exactly what you don't want to admit: LoL's problem is the griefers and trolls -- the source of the toxicity -- and not the flamers or people who hurt your feelings. The people who waste your time through throwing your matches are the problem, not the ones who bitch at them for being such horrible people. Riot thinks otherwise, and that's why while DotA2 is evolving LoL is stagnating.
> [{quoted}](name=Inari Fox Orrion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=maPoVkp2,comment-id=00000000000000000001000000000000000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2019-12-05T02:05:14.693+0000) > > That was always the goal. > I'll cite my first reply. > > I think it may be you who had something else in mind. Oh look, we've come full circle. Riot DOES ban for in game behavior. However, the problem with catching them is three fold. Issue #1: Detection of in-game poor behavior requires manual review by a person. With League having 8 million peak concurrent daily users players, there is way too much to do. Issue #2: Players far too frequently report people for intentional feeding when they're actually just playing poorly, leading to many false positives and further reinforcing the need for manual review. Issue #3: While catching someone running it down into the tower is relatively easy to identify, starting to auto-ban for that will only result in players being more sneaky about it, forcing a loss while not doing so blatantly. That being said, when you flame someone, there's really only two ways it can go: 1. The person is just doing poorly, and you're being an asshole to someone who is already frustrated at doing poorly. 2. The person is acting out to get a rise out of you, and you're the yuppy that's falling for it. And then of course, there's the other 3 people on your team that have to suffer through your flaming either way. In all cases, nothing good comes from flaming, and plenty of bad comes from it.
Tokishi7 (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Subdue,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=wszGG6Ej,comment-id=0008,timestamp=2019-12-05T00:27:45.372+0000) > > The game doesn't make the community toxic. Toxic players are toxic way before they interact with League. League does not change a player's outlook. However, by the very fact that accounts are free, anonymous, easy to level (or buy), and too much leniency is built into the system, toxic people who might not express that toxicity in their every day lives feel empowered to do so in League. > > Fixing this problem requires removal, or at least heavy reduction of the anonymity by tying accounts to a more limited resource than emails, such as mobile numbers and harsher, faster penalties for bad behavior. As a fellow plat player myself, the fact that you can say that is impressive. Plat elo, where 2500+ games 48% w/r one tricks stand gate keeper at every corner, where they think they're diamond material but bad players are holding them back with their 4/14avg over 200 games on talon or something. When you're in a plat 1 game, but jagoff invites his gold 4 friend to play jg while he adc mains and you lose every objective. The biggest issue the game has in terms of Ranked is just match making quality. Every match feels like a coin toss these days
> [{quoted}](name=Tokishi7,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=wszGG6Ej,comment-id=00080000,timestamp=2019-12-05T01:51:59.956+0000) > > As a fellow plat player myself, the fact that you can say that is impressive. Plat elo, where 2500+ games 48% w/r one tricks stand gate keeper at every corner, where they think they're diamond material but bad players are holding them back with their 4/14avg over 200 games on talon or something. When you're in a plat 1 game, but jagoff invites his gold 4 friend to play jg while he adc mains and you lose every objective. The biggest issue the game has in terms of Ranked is just match making quality. Every match feels like a coin toss these days Someone is going to do poorly every game. Someone is going to do well every game. It's a zero sum game, for someone to do well, someone on the other side has to do poorly. Everyone gets frustrated sometimes. That's natural. However, being toxic is a choice. Toxic players choose to attack their teammates rather than vent their frustration elsewhere. Even yelling at the screen is better.
: Yeah? Cite me a player who has been banned for behaving badly and I'll show you exactly _why_ their "_harsh words_" aren't the reason they're banned. They've been banned almost exclusively for actual in-game **griefing** which is, weirdly, something Riot doesn't do often enough to make a dent. Yet, apparently, DotA2's less toxic than LoL. Whaaa? OH, right, Riot apparently thinks that griefing people isn't a punishable offense because it _"can't be determined with reasonable certainty"_. If you can't tell, I'm cornering you into admitting exactly what you don't want to admit: LoL's problem is the griefers and trolls -- the source of the toxicity -- and not the flamers or people who hurt your feelings. The people who waste your time through throwing your matches are the problem, not the ones who bitch at them for being such horrible people. Riot thinks otherwise, and that's why while DotA2 is evolving LoL is stagnating.
> [{quoted}](name=Inari Fox Orrion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=maPoVkp2,comment-id=0000000000000000000100000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T01:59:33.631+0000) > > Yeah? Cite me a player who has been banned for behaving badly and I'll show you exactly _why_ their "_harsh words_" aren't the reason they're banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
: _"These bans are being served out to players trying to access the **ranked matchmaking** mode within the Dota 2 client, and as of now, there is no answer to exactly what brings about the 20-year ban outside of what Valve changed in the recent update."_ Oh, and "But as for the rule changes, there were three major factors implemented into the new matchmaking update to help combat a recent influx of ‘smurf’ and ‘booster’ accounts: * Players with extremely low behavior scores * Breaking Steam’s ToS regarding the buying and selling of accounts * Players detected using exploits to gain an advantage over other players" Right from the article itself. Did you know that only one of those are related to toxicity, and the one related to toxicity is purportedly the _least severe of the three?_ I think you need to check your own sources before you use them as a source. Riot banning smurfs & exploiters would be beneficial. But they don't. The ones with the "_extremely low behavior scores_" are the ones genuinely griefing, don't you know -- they're **not** the ones telling the griefers off. How I know this is because despite all of my time in DotA2, and being one of **THE** most inflammatory people I've met, I haven't been banned. The people who I've kept track of -- the ones who join a game and pick Io specifically to feed them and their teammates to the opponents -- haven't been online for a long while. As I've said, DotA2's now less toxic than LoL... and I wonder why? It's nothing against **you** but in this case you may need to listen instead of speak. This game only becomes better in the face of people knowing the problems it has, and obfuscating them makes it so much more difficult for all of us to help the game up out of the dumpster-tier state it's currently in.
> [{quoted}](name=Inari Fox Orrion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=maPoVkp2,comment-id=00000000000000000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T01:44:41.935+0000) > > _"These bans are being served out to players trying to access the ranked matchmaking mode within the Dota 2 client, and as of now, there is no answer to exactly what brings about the 20-year ban outside of what Valve changed in the recent update."_ > > Oh, and > "But as for the rule changes, there were three major factors implemented into the new matchmaking update to help combat a recent influx of ‘smurf’ and ‘booster’ accounts: > > * Players with extremely low behavior scores > * Breaking Steam’s ToS regarding the buying and selling of accounts > * Players detected using exploits to gain an advantage over other players" > > Right from the article itself. Did you know that only one of those are related to toxicity, and the one related to toxicity is purportedly the _least severe of the three?_ I think you need to check your own sources before you use them as a source. Riot banning smurfs & exploiters would be beneficial. But they don't. Lol... You posted that Dota 2 doesn't ban players for toxicity. I give you a source that specifically shows they are banning people for toxicity as well as other breaches of the terms of use, and your argument is that it's not JUST toxic players being banned? Riot does ban for account sharing (buying and selling being an extension of this), and there's evidence of it all over these very boards. Riot also bans for use of 3rd party applications, of which there is also evidence all over the boards. From the official Dota 2 Blog: http://blog.dota2.com/2019/09/matchmaking-update-for-the-next-ranked-season/ > This update includes a few different ban waves for bad actors. The first ban wave is to players with exceptionally low behavior scores. We will continue to do regular ban waves for users who fall into this small percentage of the community. Users that reach this low level of behavior in the game are too big of a tax on the rest of the community and are not wanted.
: If you say so. I'll do what I do with anyone who uses "tinfoil hat" as a legitimate counterargument and say "well, I guess you just don't like reality." DotA2 doesn't permanently ban anyone for toxicity. I seriously hope you know that. The deterrent isn't as big of a deal for that very fact -- at worst, if you're reported too much, you're put into a low-priority queue which is more or less just a place akin to Silver with 50% of the people being nice but not all-too-stellar as players, or people who "lul n****' f**ks his mom everyday lol lol" all day long on the microphone. Just so you can't say I have no experience with DotA2... https://imgur.com/a/yxCWzEJ Moral of the story is, sometimes people know more than you do. It isn't your fault, nor is it anything against you -- experience creates knowledge, and it isn't an indictment on you that you don't know specific things. What **IS** an indictment is if you refuse to learn from experience, but if not... well, that isn't my problem. I can just dismiss you as "ignorant" and be done with it, just like you intend to do with the whole "tinfoil hat" thing.
> [{quoted}](name=Inari Fox Orrion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=maPoVkp2,comment-id=000000000000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T01:32:55.674+0000) > > If you say so. I'll do what I do with anyone who uses "tinfoil hat" as a legitimate counterargument and say "well, I guess you just don't like reality." > > DotA2 doesn't permanently ban anyone for toxicity. I seriously hope you know that. The deterrent isn't as big of a deal for that very fact -- at worst, if you're reported too much, you're put into a low-priority queue which is more or less just a place akin to Silver with 50% of the people being nice but not all-too-stellar as players, or people who "lul n****' f**ks his mom everyday lol lol" all day long on the microphone. > > Just so you can't say I have no experience with DotA2... > https://imgur.com/a/yxCWzEJ > > Moral of the story is, sometimes people know more than you do. It isn't your fault, nor is it anything against you -- experience creates knowledge, and it isn't an indictment on you that you don't know specific things. What **IS** an indictment is if you refuse to learn from experience, but if not... well, that isn't my problem. I can just dismiss you as "ignorant" and be done with it, just like you intend to do with the whole "tinfoil hat" thing. https://dotesports.com/dota-2/news/dota-2s-20-year-ban-wave-explained
: You believing Riot's own word when they're the company under question is not a great look. You haven't, evidently, done your own research through _actually playing_ the game. It'd still be legal for them to say "99% of people are not penalized" even if they omit the fact they're referring to the LCS alone, which they are. ??? You're really trying to tell me that cases of being abused constantly in any way doesn't result in a dysfunctional or unhappy member of a society? Are you kidding me? Take some educational courses on psychology before you try to debate me. I've studied it for years, and I can tell you haven't even read the first page of a textbook on the subject. Someone who takes direct action to make someone else happy will and is able to consistently do it to more than just that one person, if they aren't punished... and not only that, but the human nature is inherently delegated to survival and success at all costs. This applies to _games, too,_ especially hyper-competitive ones with toxic communities: the people who grief others through actions and not words (when the mute button exists but yet you can't do anything about Olaf going 2/10 to spite you & everyone else) will persist on doing so, if they aren't punished... and for every game that person is in, 9 people who _aren't_ them are affected and taught that toxicity is acceptable and endorsed. The people who grief and abuse are people subject to their ego (_hint, hint: it's a majority of people_) and whom want to protect it at all costs, as being defeated or '**wrong**', God-forbid, are threats to their sense of _self_ and _validity_ and so they must therefore be right at all costs. The current American political climate is an excellent example of how common it actually is, and you pretending like you're not doing that right this very moment is kinda' insulting to both me and anyone who reads your own post. TL; DR: This isn't a case of right vs. wrong when they're terms subjective to any one individual except for in extreme cases, this is a case of _the human nature and how it is and has always been._ You are not exempt, no matter how much you want to be or pretend like others are to support your flawed argument.
> [{quoted}](name=Inari Fox Orrion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=maPoVkp2,comment-id=0000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T00:39:17.794+0000) > > You believing Riot's own word when they're the company under question is not a great look. You haven't, evidently, done your own research through _actually playing_ the game. It'd still be legal for them to say "99% of people are not penalized" even if they omit the fact they're referring to the LCS alone, which they are. > > ??? You're really trying to tell me that cases of being abused constantly in any way doesn't result in a dysfunctional or unhappy member of a society? Are you kidding me? Take some educational courses on psychology before you try to debate me. I've studied it for years, and I can tell you haven't even read the first page of a textbook on the subject. > > Someone who takes direct action to make someone else happy will and is able to consistently do it to more than just that one person, if they aren't punished... and not only that, but the human nature is inherently delegated to survival and success at all costs. This applies to _games, too,_ especially hyper-competitive ones with toxic communities: the people who grief others through actions and not words (when the mute button exists but yet you can't do anything about Olaf going 2/10 to spite you & everyone else) will persist on doing so, if they aren't punished... and for every game that person is in, 9 people who _aren't_ them are affected and taught that toxicity is acceptable and endorsed. > > The people who grief and abuse are people subject to their ego (_hint, hint: it's a majority of people_) and whom want to protect it at all costs, as being defeated or '**wrong**', God-forbid, are threats to their sense of _self_ and _validity_ and so they must therefore be right at all costs. The current American political climate is an excellent example of how common it actually is, and you pretending like you're not doing that right this very moment is kinda' insulting to both me and anyone who reads your own post. > > TL; DR: This isn't a case of right vs. wrong when they're terms subjective to any one individual except for in extreme cases, this is a case of _the human nature and how it is and has always been._ You are not exempt, no matter how much you want to be or pretend like others are to support your flawed argument. Oh you stealth edited your post... I don't think you really understood my post, or you're being intentionally garrulous. The point is that while it may be natural to get upset, frustrated, or simply defensive, the ability to NOT say or act out every thought or impulse is part of being a well-adjusted member of society. Besides, everyone does poorly sometimes. That doesn't mean they're doing it intentionally. More than likely that 2/8 Olaf wasn't griefing any more than you were griefing when you went 3/9 on Swain or 3/9 on Senna.
: You believing Riot's own word when they're the company under question is not a great look. You haven't, evidently, done your own research through _actually playing_ the game. It'd still be legal for them to say "99% of people are not penalized" even if they omit the fact they're referring to the LCS alone, which they are. ??? You're really trying to tell me that cases of being abused constantly in any way doesn't result in a dysfunctional or unhappy member of a society? Are you kidding me? Take some educational courses on psychology before you try to debate me. I've studied it for years, and I can tell you haven't even read the first page of a textbook on the subject. Someone who takes direct action to make someone else happy will and is able to consistently do it to more than just that one person, if they aren't punished... and not only that, but the human nature is inherently delegated to survival and success at all costs. This applies to _games, too,_ especially hyper-competitive ones with toxic communities: the people who grief others through actions and not words (when the mute button exists but yet you can't do anything about Olaf going 2/10 to spite you & everyone else) will persist on doing so, if they aren't punished... and for every game that person is in, 9 people who _aren't_ them are affected and taught that toxicity is acceptable and endorsed. The people who grief and abuse are people subject to their ego (_hint, hint: it's a majority of people_) and whom want to protect it at all costs, as being defeated or '**wrong**', God-forbid, are threats to their sense of _self_ and _validity_ and so they must therefore be right at all costs. The current American political climate is an excellent example of how common it actually is, and you pretending like you're not doing that right this very moment is kinda' insulting to both me and anyone who reads your own post. TL; DR: This isn't a case of right vs. wrong when they're terms subjective to any one individual except for in extreme cases, this is a case of _the human nature and how it is and has always been._ You are not exempt, no matter how much you want to be or pretend like others are to support your flawed argument.
> [{quoted}](name=Inari Fox Orrion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=maPoVkp2,comment-id=0000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T00:39:17.794+0000) > > You believing Riot's own word when they're the company under question is not a great look. You haven't, evidently, done your own research through _actually playing_ the game. It'd still be legal for them to say "99% of people are not penalized" even if they omit the fact they're referring to the LCS alone. > > That's ignoring the fact Riot themselves are the ones under suspicion here. And the fact you're ignoring any point presented in my post to deflect blame off'a Riot in a way that's somewhat transparent and suspicious in and of itself. Oh I see, this is a tinfoil hat scenario. Got it. There is no reason for Riot to downplay the number of players being permanently banned. None. If anything, they would benefit more from saying "Look we're cleaning up the community. We have permanently banned the 1,00,000 MOST TOXIC ACCOUNTS. Those of you who on the same path, you're on notice." The reality is that the system is too lenient as it is. You need to be very severely toxic, or very consistently toxic to get permabanned. In fact, I bet you can't find a single example of someone permabanned due to toxicity that the community agrees was unfairly permabanned. > Tell me, oh Wise One, why games like DotA2 -- legend for their toxicity -- are now widely-accepted to be less toxic than League? Even if you want to hide behind the idea that there's no quantifiable evidence, there's still a quantifiable bracket of evidence. I don't know what you mean by "widely accepted to be less toxic". A quick glance at the Dota 2 forums shows they complain about toxicity just as much there. That being said, I do think that Dota 2 is doing some things right that League should copy. For one, Dota 2 requires more than an email to play ranked. You need to have a phone number tied to your account. This means when you're penalized, it's harder to turn around and come back, which means permaban is a bigger deterrent.
: League of Legends is a broken game
The game doesn't make the community toxic. Toxic players are toxic way before they interact with League. League does not change a player's outlook. However, by the very fact that accounts are free, anonymous, easy to level (or buy), and too much leniency is built into the system, toxic people who might not express that toxicity in their every day lives feel empowered to do so in League. Fixing this problem requires removal, or at least heavy reduction of the anonymity by tying accounts to a more limited resource than emails, such as mobile numbers and harsher, faster penalties for bad behavior.
: I'd go out of the way to be less toxic if I could choose to get a hand-picked Legendary skin after 1,000 honors or something. The current iteration of "chances are you'll get a useless recolor from the hextech chest you got for being good over 50 matches" isn't enough to combat the toxicity when the issue is already that random chance makes people feel like they have no impact whatsoever. You start by **actually** rewarding people for being decent people. They don't do that, since just **one** person is enough to set a lot of people off atm. The fact they get a chat ban and keep doing it is kinda' evidence that the chat ban doesn't work, and a more severe punishment will just make people more toxic. Reward the good people, and... when it comes to people going 0/9 in lane, a majority of the time I've found that they ARE just intentionally ruining your match for you. I can count on one hand the number of people going 0/9 because they're new or something, and in that case it's the matchmaking at fault. Me, and every single "asshole" I have seen, _automatically forgive and start tutoring genuinely new people. Saying they'd be affected by letting people flame the 0/9 is dumb, doubly so when there's a mute function._ On the other hand, griefing, which **does** affect the game in a tangible way, is unacceptable and yet here we are where it's the _least_ punished form of behaviour. Idk, but an Olaf who powerfarms all game and walks into enemy towers isn't griefing while bitching about a 'troll team', Riot? _**That**_ isn't griefing? You punish the people rightfully upset with him for ruining their game, but not the person whom ruined the game? Tsk. You're leaving the bad applies in the barrel and taking the good ones with just a bit of rot on them out. And Riot still wonders why there are so many bad applies. They need a behavioural psychologist on their live design team. Lord of the Flies among other psych. evaluations of the human race should have taught a vast majority of people how awful treatment results in awful people.
> [{quoted}](name=Inari Fox Orrion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=maPoVkp2,comment-id=00000000000000000001,timestamp=2019-12-04T21:53:43.003+0000) > > I'd go out of the way to be less toxic if I could choose to get a hand-picked Legendary skin after 500 honors or something. The current iteration of "chances are you'll get a useless recolor" random chance is not likely to persuade anyone to act differently, because the reason they're even acting as they are is that they feel powerless in this random chance meta. That just makes toxicity and disappointment more common. > > I can't tell you just how disappointing it is to open a chest for being a Very Good Boy™ and get Chrome Rammus for my troubles when I don't even play Rammus. The satisfaction of flaming my 2/8 Olaf, even if I get a chat ban following it, is greater than the satisfaction of being polite to someone who just wasted 30 minutes of my time intentionally ruining the match for me and my team. I do not doubt that there are some people who lack the capacity to behave like decent human beings and are complete slaves to their impulses. However, the majority of players don't share this issue and are never penalized, or if they are penalized, change their ways after the first penalty. And of course, there's the tiny fraction of players who refuse to change, and who are eventually permabanned. If the carrot doesn't get you, the stick eventually will.
Quáx (NA)
: Again. I am not complaining, I'm simply saying that if you did bad, own up to it and don't make excuses. How is that complaining lol? Any time I do bad I say mb, or sry I threw this game for us. SO you're right, there is a difference. I own up and say "IM SORRY" whereas you... IT WAS MY SECOND GAME IN PRESEASON, I ATTEMPTED EARLY GANK AND FAILED IT. I ALSO DIDNT KNOW HOW A CHAMPION WORKS BECAUSE IDK.
> [{quoted}](name=Quáx,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=yk9smRw9,comment-id=0002000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-04T18:04:38.148+0000) > > Again. I am not complaining, I'm simply saying that if you did bad, own up to it and don't make excuses. How is that complaining lol? Any time I do bad I say mb, or sry I threw this game for us. > > > SO you're right, there is a difference. > > I own up and say "IM SORRY" whereas you... > > > IT WAS MY SECOND GAME IN PRESEASON, I ATTEMPTED EARLY GANK AND FAILED IT. I ALSO DIDNT KNOW HOW A CHAMPION WORKS BECAUSE IDK. Dude, this whole thread is you complaining! And by the way people don't make excuses unless there's a cause for them to make excuses. Someone doesn't say "chill it's just preseason" unless the statement was a response to "stop sucking". That you keep having this conversation with people in game says more about you than it does about them. You don't need to tell people they're doing poorly. When someone does poorly, they know it. Also, the very first thing I said about my bad game was "As for my 1/7 game, yes I did poorly." So, I don't know where you're going with that.
Quáx (NA)
: How is that even remotely relevant? Sure I did badly in some games, but I never made excuses or bitched at my team for ksing or doing anything, because I realized I did bad. Nobody else seems to want to do that, also you left out the recent game where I went 16-0-2. Also, you wanna talk about feeding, how about that 1-7 game on your 1 trick?
> [{quoted}](name=Quáx,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=yk9smRw9,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2019-12-04T17:21:13.071+0000) > > How is that even remotely relevant? Sure I did badly in some games, but I never made excuses or bitched at my team for ksing or doing anything, because I realized I did bad. Nobody else seems to want to do that, also you left out the recent game where I went 16-0-2. Also, you wanna talk about feeding, how about that 1-7 game on your 1 trick? My point is that you're whining about people doing poorly. Yes, they're making excuses. It's a defense mechanism. None of your losses even have just a single player doing poorly. Your whole team has done poorly in those losses, including you. Harassing teammates is already against the rules, and as you've pointed out, leads to penalties. Intentionally feeding is already against the rules, and leads to penalties. But none of your games show anyone intentionally feeding. They're just players doing poorly and trying to shrug it off. You "did bad" in about 50% of your games. My point is that if everyone "did bad" at the rate that you "did bad" you'd have 2 people you consider feeders on your team every single game. People know that they're doing badly. They don't need you pointing it out, or telling them to "try". As for my 1/7 game, yes I did poorly. It was my second game ever playing in the new jungle, and I attempted an early gank that went poorly and caused on early death, which is extremely punishing now. It was also my first time seeing Senna in play, so I didn't have a good handle on the interaction with her (and apparently neither did my botlane). But I didn't do poorly enough to be the sole cause of the loss. There were TWO players on my team with DOUBLE my deaths. But here's the difference between you and me. I didn't come here to complain post about teammates doing poorly.
Quáx (NA)
: "Its just a norm" does not excuse feeding a verbally harassing teammates.
You were the biggest feeder or one of the bigger feeders in most of your recent losses. Not sure what you're complaining about.
Cdore (NA)
: Games are worse because Riot promotes selfishness as their business strategy.
1. League of Legends is already a team game, and teams that play together do better than teams that don't, regardless of team composition. What is the value of artificially forcing teamwork when the game's natural state already encourages it? 2. Champions should be sufficiently effective regardless of team composition. Imagine if your favorite champion can only played when someone else on your team plays a specific champion, otherwise you'll be completely useless. How awful would that feel? Teamwork should be organic, not forced by champion limitations. 3. Muting is not encouraged on its own. Muting teammates who are harassing you is encouraged. Muting yourself if you know you lack the self control to not harass others is encouraged. In both cases, the person is not going to be contributing anything positive to communications. 4. Ranked matchmaking is actually fairly accurate. You rarely if ever find Platinums in Silver Games, or vice versa, unless there is some duo queue involved. Normal matchmaking has a separate MMR and allows for players to queue to gether regardless of MMR so there's no getting around the fuzziness there. The mode itself is designed for players to be able to mess around and play with their friends. 5. Riot wants faster queues because players want faster queues. What's stopping you from adding people to your friends list that you enjoy playing with and then always queuing as 5s for the real "teambuilder" experience? Nothing. Well, nothing but time. 6. You may feel like someone doesn't belong in your skill bracket, but your feeling is rarely accurate. The people in your bracket are statistically as able to win in your bracket as you are. Whether they're feast or famine and either stomp the game or get stomped, or they're more moderate, throwing up consistent, scores, they are able to win just as much as you are. 7. And finally, hyperbole at its finest. Nothing added towards gameplay you say? What about the complete rework of Dragons that literally just came out? What about the updates to the map that just came out?
Exibir mais

Subdue

Nível 123 (NA)
Total de votos positivos
Criar uma discussão