League Of Legends

ronne

Nǐ hǎo, yǒu jīn zi ma?
7,966
7,192
You also don't play ranked in the shit-tier brackets (bronze/silver). Everyone down here is just the worst kind of person. They'd all be in diamond by now if ONLY THEIR FUCKING STUPID JEW TEAM WOULD STOP FEEDING.

News flash guys, we're all down here because we're bad.
 

GuardianX

Perpetually Pessimistic
<Bronze Donator>
6,767
17,087
You also don't play ranked in the shit-tier brackets (bronze/silver). Everyone down here is just the worst kind of person. They'd all be in diamond by now if ONLY THEIR FUCKING STUPID JEW TEAM WOULD STOP FEEDING.
This 100%

Nothing but solid troll games recently.

Some are obviously not trolls but just bad players, had a 0/12 fiddle jungle and a 1/9 ahri mid against a morde. Both weren't trolls but just VERY bad players. Trouble is that in the silver bracket as you climb you have to deal with BOTH types of players, the really really bad players and the trolls. Completely takes the fun out of the game to do really well, gank other lanes and participate as a team to only lose the game. 40 minutes of work when your team is down 20 kills but the other team isn't good enough to end it with that lead because people are either that bad OR because a guy wanted mid, didn't get mid and fed.

Literally, quite literally all I need is for a team to stay equal or SLIGHTLY negative. If my team stays within 30-50 CS of their lane counters and within 1-3 deaths 15 min in, we win. Trouble is, people don't know how to stay mildly defensive.

The ahri example, dude is 1/3rd health and ults INTO a team of 4 people to kill a guy that was 50% health. He was 1/5 at the time. Pro Tip, he didn't get the kill.

They need to implement several types of bans against players,ranked bans, normal bans and full bans. Ranked bans just make it so that for the current season / week / month / perma you can't play ranked in order to really stop people who routinely abuse ranked games to troll or just aren't skilled enough to play ranked. Normal bans would be for both normal and ranked matches but still allow people to play custom games with friends or PC vs player games. Full bans would be as the name implies..

Ultimately, the issue is that the ahri that sucked so bad last game got a win, does this mean they SHOULD be in that bracket or elo? Hell no, the dude was 1/9 last I saw, he got his shit STOMPED. His ELO should have gone down from that game but since he won the game considers that the go ahead for pairing him up with harder people. So his next game will not only be with harder people but he will be dead weight on that team too, they will have to carry him against a team that may or may not have another ahri on their side too.
 

Himeo

Vyemm Raider
3,263
2,802
It would be nice to see a kind of dungeon finder queue system for LoL. Pick a role, stick with it, wait in queue, profit. Hell, you could even try giving a different ELO level based on the individual queue roles. That way a gold level Support wouldn't be gold level Jungle when they're really a silver level Jungle.
 

MsBehavn_sl

has an outie
477
2
I've played both and the most trollish evil fucks I've ever dealt with online came from the original DOTA. DOTA2 is tame in comparison...So is LoL.
Actually I think HoN has the worst community ever(it was even encouraged by the developers at times) so... but that game's dying a painful death thankfully so it can be ignored.
 

drtyrm

Lord Nagafen Raider
1,991
155
Lyte, you are crushing it in this thread:http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/...231191&page=27

Big copypasta:

The average player never has to worry about the Tribunal. Last I checked, only about 0.7% of accounts in North America were eligible for a Tribunal case--you need to receive a serious number of legitimate reports to even receive a Tribunal case. This is also why a high punish rate from the Tribunal does not mean the system is broken--it just means that the criteria to get into the Tribunal are pretty strict.

But, the Tribunal isn't perfect. No system is. A lot of players might argue that if even 1 positive player is banned that the system is broken. This is unreasonable. The reality of the situation is, errors are going to happen--the question we should be asking is, "What is the acceptable error rate?" In the medical fields, a new medicine does not have to be perfect to be a viable treatment for an illness; in fact, 60% success rates are pretty good in medicine. Everyday, many people undergo surgeries that have a 95% success rate, but a 5% chance for a serious side-effect, injury or death--this is considered acceptable and pretty good. Even many birth control methods are 95-99% effective and that's considered acceptable even though the errors there are life-changing.

Because many members of the player behavior team come from these backgrounds, we have forced ourselves to have an even higher standard with the Tribunal. One of the first things we did with the system was optimize it to minimize false punishes. Since the player behavior team formed, we have not seen a positive player that was punished enough times by the Tribunal that they were permabanned. Some neutral or positive players receive undeserved warnings or timebans, but no one has been so absurdly unlucky as to end up in the Tribunal 5 times and ended with a permanent ban.

In saying this, we see a lot of complaints that the Tribunal is broken; if we were really punishing that many positive players, I'd shut the Tribunal down today. I don't need to blindly trust the system, nor does my job depend on the system being used--the player behavior team can implement whatever system we feel has the biggest impact on player behavior. When a banned player goes to the forums and complains about the system being broken, we're missing the counterbalance of that--how many players got a ban that was deserved, but don't go on the forums to post about it? How many of the 99% of players that are never going to see a Tribunal case are posting on the forums with titles like, "Yay, I will never be banned because I'm not a jerk!" Most players here might not know this, but we used to review 100% of cases in the Tribunal. In fact, for many cases we'd assign up to 6 Player Support staff to review them--this was to assess the reliability of Rioter reviews against the reliability of Tribunal judges. We ultimately discovered that Rioters tended to be much, much stricter than the Tribunal. In many countries, we still review 100% of cases. I checked 4 weeks of an International Tribunal where a PS Team reviewed 100% of cases, and do you know how many decisions they overturned? 2.

The Tribunal does a good job reforming or removing the worst players in the game--the bottom 0.7% right now on NA. It's never going to be a perfect system, and development costs are hitting diminishing returns on the system. This is why we're shifting gears on the player behavior team.

---

On the player behavior team, we know that bans are not the complete solution. Some toxic players are deterred by bans, and others simply make new accounts and shift their toxicity. Some of you may have heard of the Account Restriction experiments on PBE, and we're currently testing the first account restriction which is a Restricted Chat Mode. In the future, we'd prefer to avoid as many bans as possible and instead opt for players to remain on their mains but with multiple restrictions on the account. We've decided this effort is a higher priority and more valuable than adding more and more information (like pre- and post-game chat) to the Tribunal. Because account restrictions are less jarring than bans, we can directly impact a lot more players and cast much larger nets than a system that hands out bans.

Secondly, our data shows time and time again that the majority of players are not innately toxic. Due to context (in real life or otherwise), players tend to have bad days and their behavior goes toxic for short bursts. The vast majority of players are pretty positive people--if you think about it, most players say they experience toxicity in a high number of games... but it's usually 1 or 2 people in the game and not everyone in the game. In fact, the majority of our players are neutral or positive and don't say much in the game other than "gg."

Statuskwoh and others have mentioned this already, but the player behavior team has been in the middle of a serious shift. We're going to stop focusing on punishment, and instead focus on features that encourage sportsmanlike behavior in the game. Part of the initial explorations include research on the current problems with Champ Select. We are considering every possibility, and can even completely change how Champ Select works if we believe it's the best thing to do for League of Legends. You can read some of our initial thoughts here:http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/....php?t=3220746

I've played over 2500 games of League of Legends--90% of those games in Ranked Solo/Duo queue. If you consider the entire Player Behavior team, we've put in some serious time into the game. We're gamers, just like you. If the community wasn't pretty awesome, systems like the Tribunal just wouldn't work. But, the average member of the community is positive. When I first joined Riot, other devs and academics told me that online games and toxic behavior simply go hand-in-hand; they said this was an impossible problem.

I disagree.

When I look at Tribunal data and see that words like c*nt and f*ggot are among the most highly punished words in the Tribunal, I am inspired by the gamers in League and how awesome they are--we just have to figure out how to break the negative perception that weighs us down. To do that, we need to make it easier to focus on positive behavior in our community. We need to make it easier to setup teams for success.

Being a gamer is a culture. Let's not focus on the toxic players that try to ruin our experiences--they aren't a part of our gaming culture. Being a gamer is one of the most amazing and positive cultures out there. Let's work together to showcase that.
 

Golt_sl

shitlord
239
0
After playing Dota, HoN, LoL, and Dota2.. HoN definitely had the worst community of them all. Followed by the original dota, although I think Dota also had the disadvantage of being unable to reconnect to games, which led to a lot more rage. In ranked and normal play overall i'm pretty fortunate I guess, i have had a majority of my games be pretty calm/troll free. There are always games where you end up with some kinda crazy rager, but overall it wasn't nearly the same level as HoN (not to mention HoN had voice chat so you'd hear these kids screaming into their mics, even worse).

Himeo_sl said:
It would be nice to see a kind of dungeon finder queue system for LoL. Pick a role, stick with it, wait in queue, profit. Hell, you could even try giving a different ELO level based on the individual queue roles. That way a gold level Support wouldn't be gold level Jungle when they're really a silver level Jungle.
I dislike this idea for one because then the queue timers would get ridiculous for sought after roles (top, mid) and support would get insta queues. That would make matchmaking times insane, especially the higher up you went in divisions to where there are less and less people.
 

Amzin

Lord Nagafen Raider
2,917
361
Also, what happens if/when the meta shifts again? It's not that rare that I see a team do good with off comps. My first game today, I ended up getting top, someone called mid first, and then a duo wanted bot. So I'm like that's fine, I'm pretty even top/mid/adc so whatever. The bot duo went mundo/nidalee, mid was kat, jungle was cho, so I grabbed Vayne for top, and we ended up stomping the enemy team, losing 0 towers, even though none of us crushed our lanes (I died once, kat died like 3 times, bot killed and died back and forth).

I like the queueing for roles in MMOs, but I don't think it really has a place in League. There's too many people and too much diversity to really pigeonhole it like that. Lyte was talking about trying to find ways of alleviating the stress/fightiness of champion select. Role queing would do that but there's gotta be better alternatives.
 

Enob

Golden Knight of the Realm
413
112
Have a source for that? Quick google search didn't turn anything up and I'd like to read more about it. I know in like January they banned several amateur pros for verbal abuse including a few perma-bans which for them also means being ejected from ever being able to play competitively, not just starting a new account.
 

Furry

WoW Office
<Gold Donor>
19,766
25,070
happened like 2 mins before i posted it. Should be top thread in general chat of lol forums
 

Ravishing

Uninspiring Title
<Bronze Donator>
8,452
3,577
Also, what happens if/when the meta shifts again?
The meta has already shifted but unless you're a pro-gamer, the meta will remain 1 top, 1 mid, 1 jungle, 2 bot. Champion picks don't determine the meta.

The pro-scene has mixed it up slightly and you'll commonly see 1v2 lanes (Bruiser goes against Support/ADC in top/bot lanes).

I cringe every time players think picking a random champion is going to "change the meta". Newsflash, champions can be viable in many areas, its not changing the meta because you want to Heimer jungle or Pantheon support or Vayne top lane. If every game had 1v2 lanes or double jungle or all-mid, that would be a shift in the meta.
 

skrala

Silver Knight of the Realm
316
53
happened like 2 mins before i posted it. Should be top thread in general chat of lol forums
Link

They got 2 week bans for ELO boosting, not smurfing. Not surprising with some of them, I remember Aphro doing it on stream a ton during S2.
 

Lenaldo

Golden Knight of the Realm
324
108
I want to like e sports but stuff like this is just stupid. To me smurfing is a who cares... the guy ddosing though should be banned for life.

They try to over dramatize this shit and I just can't take them serious...
 

Amzin

Lord Nagafen Raider
2,917
361
It isn't smurfing they we're suspended for. Elo boosting is logging into SOMEONE ELSEs account and playing it in ranked to get them to a pro-level Elo, regardless of the account owners actual skill level. There's no point to this except to get that account owner rewards they don't deserve, and once that owner is playing their own account again, they're just going to fuck up matches for hundreds of players until they get back down to their normal Elo.

Smurfing is not currently punished, nor is it likely to ever be until they add some way for experienced players to play with friends who are starting to play without completely fucking up matchmaking.
 

Bain

Bronze Knight of the Realm
399
2
The guys banned for ELO boosting were not smurfing. They were being paid to raise the ELO of other people's accounts. There is a difference between doing something as a break from playing on your main account to have fun and doing it for revenue when its against the rules and the company who posted those rules is also paying you a salary to start with. For them to ignore the rules of their employer is silly and disrespectful.
 

Ravishing

Uninspiring Title
<Bronze Donator>
8,452
3,577
Exactly, I agree with Riot's stance here. Playing someone else's account is stupid but smurfing is definitely fine. Eventually those smurf accounts get up to their real Elo anyway whereas the Elo boosted account is going to shit up tons of games and will likely obtain a Tier they don't deserve (gold, plat, diamond, etc).