Let's talk about Champ Select

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

Ogaflow

Senior Member

03-13-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by iMyung View Post
1. Vote Kick
No

2. WoW Dungeon Finder
No

3. Prisoner's Island
No

This is like taking a machete to a problem that needs a buttery knife. If Riot takes the stance of Pick order or Call order, the vast majority of the disputes will solve itself. People will be able to point to the little tip pop up in champion select and say with candor "Draft mode prioritizes pick order, that's Riot's stance. So let's stick to what we're supposed to do." And people will stop arguing and start cooperating. The vast majority of disputes should be arbitrated by itself.

IF it comes down to needing a punishment system, pre-game and post-game chat tribunal with pick order visualized is enough. If this were in the game as it is, we would have had significantly less instances where people are harassed, trolling, or unresolved disputes due to conflicts. The very Threat of being judged in the tribunal would force people to behave who would not have otherwise behaved.

How do I know pre-post chat tribunal would be enough? Because people prove their case daily by claiming "championselect is toxic" then posting a screenshot of someone being a dick. And everyone in the community agrees that he should be punished. Yet nothing is done because he is not judged by the tribunal when the evidence is clearly there.
Your idea is nice but it is a little lacking, you are almost following what you say not to do. Using negativity to battle negativity. Your system with the addition of something using honor would be the best fit. That way the playerbase is looking to avoid negative AND be positive at the same time. I suggested making the pick order based off how much honor you have instead of random. It would both encourage good behavior and reduce bad behavior at the same time.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Lyte

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

Lead Social Systems Designer

Follow RiotLyte on Twitter

03-13-2013
16 of 55 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbyssionKnight View Post
The issue I have with the prisoner island is simply, how does a player whose stuck in a toxic queue ever reform? As I see it, the ragers will just cause people who could reform to rage as well, and continue the cycle until either those players quit, or they make a smurf account, and continue to expand upon the issue of toxicity at lower levels that lol already has.
When discussing Prisoner's Island, this is an extremely important point. Let's consider a thought exercise:

1) Let's put 1 toxic player with 9 positive players
- In this scenario, does the toxic player improve his behavior over time, or do we simply ruin the experiences of 9 positive players?

2) Let's put 10 toxic players together
- In this scenario, do any of the toxic players ever improve their behavior?

A core philosophy on the player behavior team is to make features that help toxic players reform. In many ways, a Prisoner's Island feature encourages the opposite of reform.

Prisoner's Island also creates some pretty weird scenarios for players. When players browse through the Tribunal Ban Inquiries forum, there are numerous players who use excessive verbal abuse and racial slurs in their matches; however, they lack the self-awareness or necessary feedback to understand how negative their behavior is. If these same players are on Prisoner's Island, how many of them would understand why they were there, or how to get out? If players don't believe they deserve to be on Prisoner's Island and every other player there is just a jerkwad, doesn't this encourage them to make new accounts to start over, off Prisoner's Island?

If this scenario happens, what was the point of creating Prisoner's Island?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Trippin Rat

Senior Member

03-13-2013

Allow 7 people in the lobby, let them pick their champs and say their peace, and let everyone check (vote for) 5 players to continue into the game.

Allows for people to decide if they really need to fulfil the meta or roll with more compromising players. If there is a troll, they won't get the vote.

If player doesn't vote by the end of the timer, then 5 (or however many votes they were lacking) is automatically applied at random.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Riot Wittrock

QA Analyst

03-13-2013

I'll throw my hat in the ring to argue a very specific subtopic mentioned in the OP. That is of a WoW-esque role queueing system.

As an avid WoW player, I had thorough experience with this system. But I always considered it a necessary evil in a game where you build and develop a character surrounding a specific role, and you functionally can't fill other roles because of class/spec restrictions.

WoW tried to open this up though. Allowing duel-speccing, respeccing at much cheaper costs, and classes that could fulfill multiple roles effectively all improved the system. But it still had problems.

Problem #1: Long queue times.
Maybe it had somewhat to do with smaller populations and the unpopularity of the healer role, but in WoW dungeon queues you would frequently see hour+ long queues because you just couldnt find a darn healer (or tank, sometimes.) League makes this even tricker, since rather than finding 2 unique roles (and having the other three people 'fill' the other role that almost everyone played) you have to adhere to five roles. Even if this only bumps queue times by a few minutes, or maybe none at all for bronze/silver elo or normals/draft, how does it effect the times of higher elos? I've already experienced 10+ minute queues at off hours in Diamond, and I cant imagine how the role-queue system would make that even worse.

So, would the role queue only use your selected role as a 'suggestion'? Maybe. But it inevitably leads to definition. When champ selection would start, the game would HAVE to tell you "you play this". And I think the same trolls who don't communicate well in champ select now would be indignant if they didn't get their 'preferred' role, and might still pick against their assigned role anyway.

2. Limiting, and the Squenching of Innovation
There's lots of subtle ways queueing for roles puts too much definition on a pretty open game. I'll name a few.
A. Static Meta: Although we believe we've reached a point of optimization, pros have proven time and time again that lanes can and should be fluid and adaptable. Lest we go back to the days of ADC mid (or the like) how would Riot adapt to that? Should they really be the final word on what the meta is? A role queue system puts them in that somewhat awkward position.
B. Prevent Trolling? Squelch Innovation: It would seem to me that Riot would be tempted to limit certain champions to certain roles if this system were implemented (sort of like not being able to queue up as a healer if you're playing a rogue). If they didn't, there's no check on someone picking support Graves because they want to ruin some peoples days, and then we're back at square one. But if we DO limit certain champions to be selectable in certain roles, who gets to make these choices. A great example is Kayle. What positions do we allow/disallow her to be picked as? What if things change over time? That's a lot of power taken away from the players, and given to Riot to make strategic decisions that can never be innovated on.

3. It sort of ruins draft pick.
If a role queue system is in place, the whole draft pick system would really need to be redesigned. Anyone will tell you that you don't want to first pick a mid, but if you queued as mid, get to be mid, and are first pick, what do? Sure, trading is sometimes an option, but what if no one else owns Xerath, as an example? Oh, what a rock and a hard place THAT creates...

4. Just because someone queues for a role doesn't mean they ACTUALLY want to do it

A big incentive to this system is the assumption that if everyone gets their role, they'll be happy IN their role. This was proven time and time again by WoW to me. People will queue for the role with the shortest queue time just because they'd rather play the game than wait. Regardless of their skill level or enjoyment factor in that role, it'll happen. So the same people who are disgruntled that they're stuck supporting will still exist

/rant


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

CTore118

Senior Member

03-13-2013

First of all I'm really glad this has been brought up and you guys are doing research about this I love your approach to a solution as well. Although I have, up until now, only played normals, this still happens a lot because people want to practice specific champions. Here are my thoughts on each possible solution:

1. I like this idea. I think it can work in some situations, but thinking probably if 4 vote to kick, not just majority. Also, maybe it just won't be available except in solo que. Just a thought. I don't think people will do this often unless there is a reason, and if it becomes a problem there can always be a twice in a row max or something.

2. I wouldn't mind this idea either, but it screams troll to me. Someone brought up a limited champion pool, and I think that's interesting, but it would have to be something each player can designate. Like if I play support Rammus but he is only listed as a jungler, that would suck for me. If there would be a limited pool, it should be something each player can set up for themselves like masteries. People can still troll, but would make it a little harder.

3. Tempted to like this, but it's scary. I would rather leave the tribunal to deal with toxic players. I wouldn't mind terribly because I don't rage, but it makes me nervous.

Hope someone actually read this. Thanks for the hard work guys.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Butte LaRose

Junior Member

03-13-2013

Prisoner's Island sounds pretty scary, and I think Lyte makes a good point about scamming the system with it. A vote system could be dangerous in normals with pre-mades voting out players that won't bend to their role demands (I mostly play premade normals and could see us being tempted to boot a guy that insists on playing ADC when we've got a pair that only know how to adc/support). Queuing up for roles seems to enforce a meta, but I think its the best idea. How about

You click "Play Draft Normals" (or whatever mode)
Next menu: Select a role!
ADC, Support, Jungle, Mid, Top, Anything/Fill

When you enter the game lobby, the player's pre-picked role (or free-wheelin' do anything status) will appear under their names.

The matchmaking would naturally reward players through shorter queue times if they chose fill/anything or a less used role (like support). Perhaps choosing "anything/fill" could bias your matchmaking to placing you with others that chose the same, increasing the likelihood of possibilities to play outside the meta, if that's your thing. I think this would actually be a very subtle carrot to get people to be more flexible on their roles - if you like playing games RIGHT THIS SECOND, maybe give support a go, they might even learn to enjoy it!


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

AuV2 Jason

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

Senior Member

03-13-2013

the dungeon finder should work with selecting multiple roles, and then everyone is assigned a role in champ select.

This should not exist for blinds, hence the term blind.

Voting to kick a player should rely on majority. Kicked players should be given a queue timer of one minute, to stop them from possibly meeting the same people

prison island should be monitored for people that choose to reform.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

imweasel09

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

Senior Member

03-13-2013

I think people would troll champion select less if you had pre/post game chat in the tribunal. People are much more likely to get into shouting matches when they feel they're in an area outside of jurisdiction. Also every post-game rager is super hard to report because how do you prove someone was super toxic when nothing they said will show up (admitted, this is more of a problem in 5v5 queues and not solo queue).


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

DMcLay

Senior Member

03-13-2013

@Lyte,

But that would be a good thing. 4 out of the 5 people are agreeing about the position they are playing. That should mean if it came down to vote kicking the 5th the next person to join the lobby would be a player willing to fill the role. I think that people would be less likely to argue with people about overlapping roles if they knew that the 4 that were cooperative would just instakick them.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Baxter900

Senior Member

03-13-2013

Personally, as I know a little about Social Psychology, none of these three options you've given us are good options. The first one is probably the best but can allow people to essentially force someone else to queue dodge, which would take the current problem with queue dodging and increase it exponentially. The WoW style system is great, except it confines people to the meta which I feel, is a horrible idea (I'm biased though, I love going anti-meta). The Prisoners Island is by far the worst idea though. I believe that there have even been studies showing that this idea, while obvious, causes far more harm then good. Ultimately, I think that the current set up for champion select is superior over any of these ideas though the vote kick might be debatable. However the vote kick scenario would create about the same amount of problems that it fixes.

Therefore I would just like to suggest that you ask for new ideas rather than thoughts on these ones because, if I'm reading your tone correctly, you don't like the sound of any of these ideas either.