Really, Riot Games?

First Riot Post
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Byerley

Senior Member

01-07-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiotKiddington View Post
I think you are underestimating the complexity of these processes.
I may be underestimating industry red tape (I've luckily been out for a few years), but I've built plenty of back-ends similar in function to the tribunal. Riot has never been known for good software or uptime. I used to think it was a result of the company's humble beginnings (building on outsourced code, ect.), but the tribunal is just as bad.

Quote:
Intern or not, this still gets back to the same issue, should we spend our engineering resource on THAT feature.
Because people like me won't spend money on your game when you reserve and practice the right to ban us without check.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

RiotKiddington

Platform Engineer

01-07-2012
5 of 8 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by RCIX View Post
Totally agree, sad that you'll get hit by a tidal wave of "tribunal sux!!!!!111!1!!" haters though.
This is their opportunity to talk to Riot employees directly, if we are willing to talk and discuss issue(s) in a civilized and rational manner, it would be a waste if only way they can deliver their opinion is by saying something like: “tribunal sux!!!!!111!1!!”.

Don't you agree?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

TreacherousVula

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

01-07-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiotKiddington View Post
Vormulac Unsleep, I don’t want to discuss philosophical opinions that have been discussed in previous threads by many others, but I would like to share my opinion from a different angle.

If we look this issue at a technical level, the “feature” you requested requires certain engineering man power to make it happen. Let it be designers who draft the detail concept, programmers who implement the feature that generate the information you seek, DBA who manage the stored information that you requested, or QA that tests the final product… All the things you are asking takes engineering resource, and thus it begs the question from the engineering point view: could these resource be used in a more impactful way?

We know for a fact that only 1.4% of total player base get into the Tribunal, and less than 50% of that actually get into the Tribunal again. So that’s 0.7% of players that will be impacted by the feature you seek. If I take those resources and make features that will affect other 99.3% (or 98.6%) of the player base, wouldn’t that be more effective and impactful?

Imagine all the features that have been discussed in other threads: improve the match making, ability to put notes on friend list, first win of the day timer, better air client, new AI bots, etc. If you are in my position, how would you convince other engineers at Riot that this is more important than all the features stated above? How would you reason with them that we should put additional engineering resource to the benefit of the 0.7% repeated offenders instead of the 98.6% general public?
Are you saying that you'll consider a feature for the other percentage of users? If so you should take a look at a thread I posted a little while back.

http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=1669229

In short, Rewards both good and punishes bad behavior, starts off from a small percent of the community, full community involvement, non-farm-able. The thread is a gigantic wall of text, and it would mean a lot to me if you would take the time to at least read it. It isn't a perfected system, but it can change with a little testing.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

RiotKiddington

Platform Engineer

01-07-2012
6 of 8 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrinking Violet View Post
Because people like me won't spend money on your game when you reserve and practice the right to ban us without check.
To be factually correct: Riot does check bans, and we have many “checks” to make sure the Tribunal system works. The main issue discussed in this thread is that are we releasing enough information regarding the ban itself.

I can’t comment on your spending habits, but I can tell that when Riot permanently bans someone, it is in Riot’s opinion that the banned player did more harm than good to the community, regardless of how much money that person has spent or will spend.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Byerley

Senior Member

01-07-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiotKiddington View Post
To be factually correct: Riot does check bans, and we have many “checks” to make sure the Tribunal system works. The main issue discussed in this thread is that are we releasing enough information regarding the ban itself.
You'll have to forgive me for not putting blind trust in the internal audit system of the party making the profit. "outside check" may have been the more appropriate phrase.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Vichar

Senior Member

01-07-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrinking Violet View Post
You'll have to forgive me for not putting blind trust in the internal audit system of the party making the profit. "outside check" may have been the more appropriate phrase.
Actually, I think he's saying exactly what he wants to say. Maybe they would do the right thing anyway (I would certainly hope so), but he's actually coming right out and saying it's in their financial interests to appease the great majority of their player base. Their reviews and checks reflect the desire to please that overwhelming majority. He's not asking you to trust him, he's just saying it's in their interests to ban players that are pissing off the majority of the community, by their definitions.

Fortunately, if the Summoner's Code is any indication, their definitions are directly in line with what I feel are a good set of guidelines for behavior in-game.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

RiotKiddington

Platform Engineer

01-07-2012
7 of 8 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrinking Violet View Post
You'll have to forgive me for not putting blind trust in the internal audit system of the party making the profit. "outside check" may have been the more appropriate phrase.
There is a simpler reason to trust Riot’s internal audit: PROFIT.

Riot want to make profit, and more people it bans the less potential profit Riot will make.
So it is in Riot’s best interest to only ban players that Riot deemed harmful. Based on this logic, there are motivation and financial incentive for Riot to make sure the Tribunal work as accurately as possible. It is also why Riot places so many additional internal checks.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Teal

Junior Member

01-07-2012

I don't understand why people always have such a big problem with the tribunal / fear of being banned. Just follow the rules like you would in any other game and in real life and you will have no problem.

The summoners code is there for a reason!


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Byerley

Senior Member

01-07-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiotKiddington View Post
There is a simpler reason to trust Riot’s internal audit: PROFIT.

Riot want to make profit, and more people it bans the less potential profit Riot will make.
So it is in Riot’s best interest to only ban players that Riot deemed harmful. Based on this logic, there are motivation and financial incentive for Riot to make sure the Tribunal work as accurately as possible. It is also why Riot places so many additional internal checks.
Profit entails balancing risk and cost. Presumably, the financial risk of the tribunal producing a handful of false positives is less than the cost of improving and debugging the system. You yourself were just arguing that the engineering cost of improving the tribunal was too high.

As a prudent person, I won't take the risk of being one of the few people you slight.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Vormulac Unsleep

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Member

01-07-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiotKiddington View Post
Vormulac Unsleep, I don’t want to discuss philosophical opinions that have been discussed in previous threads by many others, but I would like to share my opinion from a different angle.
Thank you for taking the time to come in here and reply and read this thread. I appreciate it, regardless of outcome.

As for the philosophical opinions and discussions, they are mostly irrelevant; I simply enjoy them. The only one that does matter is this: the subjectivity of rules and interpretations does require more response to perceived wrongdoing than "you was wrong, fix it or go away, and no I won't tell you what you did", unless you intend to implement a 600 page list of transgressions that covers nearly every possible behaviour your company perceives as unacceptable. That is the problem with the Code, and the problem every other company like yours has faced when putting rules for behaviour into place - and the majority of the companies I have dealt with in the past (in a VERY long history of online gaming) have taken the path I suggest - providing more information and interaction than a copypasted email (which in my case had nothing to do with my problem, if you read my original post).

Quote:
If we look this issue at a technical level, the “feature” you requested requires certain engineering man power to make it happen. Let it be designers who draft the detail concept, programmers who implement the feature that generate the information you seek, DBA who manage the stored information that you requested, or QA that tests the final product… All the things you are asking takes engineering resource, and thus it begs the question from the engineering point view: could these resource be used in a more impactful way?
This is a good point, but I guess it depends on what you consider "impactful". Let's address that next.

Quote:
We know for a fact that only 1.4% of total player base get into the Tribunal, and less than 50% of that actually get into the Tribunal again. So that’s 0.7% of players that will be impacted by the feature you seek. If I take those resources and make features that will affect other 99.3% (or 98.6%) of the player base, wouldn’t that be more effective and impactful?
I would posit that a great deal more than 0.7% of players would be impacted by Riot showing themselves to be as good as their words about their concern and care for their playerbase, by taking the time and resources to deal with us in a less faceless and totalitarian manner. Taking the time to implement a better system can only look good for your company, and show that you mean what you say, and that you do want to take the time to deal with us as if we are people and not a statistic representing projected quarterly income. I know it would certainly create a better impression than the daily, hourly threads about unfair bans, about copypasted emails in reply to legitimate concerns, and the "I'm always right" responses other of your representatives have unfortunately felt compelled to post in your name have.

Quote:
Imagine all the features that have been discussed in other threads: improve the match making, ability to put notes on friend list, first win of the day timer, better air client, new AI bots, etc. If you are in my position, how would you convince other engineers at Riot that this is more important than all the features stated above? How would you reason with them that we should put additional engineering resource to the benefit of the 0.7% repeated offenders instead of the 98.6% general public?
This part is the part I am unsure about. To a large portion of your playerbase, new features do not seem to be incoming, or to be coming at a reasonable rate, anyway. Yet we get a new champion to spend RP on every two weeks like clockwork. Again, it is about the perception of your fans. I don't know how I would go about convincing them, except by the arguments I have used previously and am using now in my reply to you. Right now, a lot of people feel that Riot is more concerned with making money on champions than with a new UI, a timer, new maps, improved matchmaking, friend notes, new AI bots or any of the rest. It is about what we are shown - and this goes right to my point about your statistics.

No offense to you, of course, but many of us (I don't know if it is a majority or not, because those who are unsatisfied tend to be the loudest) don't feel particularly comfortable with taking Riot at their word right now, for various reasons. You state that 0.7% are repeat offenders - but I state that I use the Tribunal regularly, and that on most cases there is not nearly enough information to even make a case. There is no indication of what actually happened in the game beyond the chat log and the scores and builds, and there is no indication of what happened in pre and post game chats. If I had to make a guess, I'd say some of those repeat offenders are victims themselves, of a severe lack of focus on policing actual ingame behaviour rather than focusing on the chat box.

This has led to me personally passing on or pardoning any case that is solely chat related, or that is not a cut-and-dry guilty verdict based on the small amount of information provided. And the more my inclinations have led me to pardon people, the less IP I have got from judging in the Tribunal, which leads me to believe that the above is true, and people who are victims themselves end up on the receiving end of the same punishment and copypasted non-information I myself received. The reception of which did nothing to help me to change behaviour to suit Riot's interpretations of the Code.

Simply put, I don't have confidence in the Tribunal system to begin with, and the fact that the accused are handled the way they are doesn't bolster my confidence at all.

So I'd posit that for general public perception, bolstering of confidence in this Tribunal system (that your company insists on using despite most other successful game companies taking the route I and others have suggested of handling it yourselves without allowing players a hand in it), and most likely a better attitude from those who do find themselves in the system but who do happen to be logical and mature, that the way I and others have suggested would be a far better way, all around, to handle these issues, and that in the end this change would positively affect far more than 0.7% of people - and that some of those people would be you yourselves at Riot Games.

Thanks for your reply.