Let's talk about Champ Select

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

false idol

Senior Member

03-13-2013

I like the idea of queuing up with a specific role in mind, however I feel the practice of it might be just as conducive for poor cooperation and/or toxic players. Say you planed on playing akali top, but the other team grabs lee sin (for the sake of argument, let's assume we know lee is going to top), so akali wants to switch to mid, but,he didn't queue as mid. Now a player is forced out of what they queued as, which undermines the whole point of queuing a specific role. Not to mention, I get enough players in ranked saying that they only play 1 role, which I find to be irresponsible for a player going into ranked.

Possible compromise: you have to commit to at least three possible roles (two might be okay, though it is easy for there to be too much overlap, I leave the tinkering to you, RIOT)

I also like the idea of vote/kick, but here again I see some inevitable exploitation. What would stop the four players (or a concentrated effort between the whole team not satisfied in their matchup) to simply kick a player and bump back to matchmaker? If this kind of strategy can be managed efficiently, I am also satisfied with this solution.

I'm all for prisoner's island, and perhaps additionally/instead of. When I dodge a game in matchmaker, it is because it is clear my team is already refusing to communicate and/or cooperate. A way to elucidate that to the tribunal would be great, like if I could report a players' behavior DURING matchmaker.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

WarlordAlpha

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

Senior Member

03-13-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by davin View Post
Not really an idiotic suggestion, we've talked about something similar before. It does add a pretty hefty barrier to entry (more time before your game starts), but is a solution largely aimed at resolving time pressure and allowing for teams to ensure chemistry.
I've always thought that this is the way it should be done for blind pick - form a 5-man team, once everyone is locked in (with or without the 90-second time limit) the game then pairs you with another 5-man team that has locked in.

Would significantly reduce the number of players affected by queuedodging, at the very least. There's really no reason why blind pick needs to pair you with all 9 other players until your team is ready to go.

A shame it can't be made to work for ranked.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Jester Swordgard

Junior Member

03-13-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester Swordgard View Post
As far as I can see the main issue with having any type of vote-kick is that there is an inherent link between the players in the chat and how they are affected by the kick. This is the equivalent of asking people after the game if they would like to not be queued up with the same player ever again with people they perceived as being feeders. This sort of situation does not occur with a tribunal since realistically the odds of judging a friend or someone you played with are very low. Is there no way to implement a "game lobby tribunal" as it is happening (either through a live tribunal queue or web live feed of the data?), where each player can be kicked out by majority of the tribunal. Obviously the people playing would have no say in the matter as they would be biased and could kick only because someone wants mid when somebody else does, and when you go into Game Lobby Tribunal (which only takes the amount of time a normal lobby takes) you are seeing a random game lobby as it occurs, this way there is no way friends would gank up on anyone since it would all be random. The game lobby tribunal could then vote within the last 30 seconds if a kick is needed.

This would prevent any sort of bias, and we could add some things to that idea such as: A player may only be kicked if both the GLT wants to kick him AND the team agrees (at 4 to 1? or 3 to 2?). Furthermore, you would not see if your lobby is being watched by the GLT, this way you are consistently expected to be nice. Being kicked once would not bring you to the normal tribunal or give you a sanction immediately, but repeat offenders would get sanctions. This prevent both abuse by players who are often unco-operating, prevents getting bullied by premade and allows to some degree "non standard meta" if the team is okay with it (if the tribunal wants to kick but team doesnt).

Riot pls?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Stingers135

Junior Member

03-13-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Status Kwoh View Post
Doesn't this just give people who already are prone to toxic behaviors more avenues to act in a toxic manner?
Sorry but, I don't see why. If you continue to act in a toxic manner, you'll just be screwing yourself over as you move down the totem pole. Everything else remains the same, except that by being toxic you'll just move further and further down the pick order.

Oh, well, I do see what you mean then. You mean it creates a self-enforcing feedback loop right? Toxic, doesn't get what he wants, goes down, so he has less of a chance to get what he wants, so he resorts to more toxicity to get what he wants again.

That would lead to the opposite of the intended effect to make players try to be less toxic to work their way up the totem pole. Instead, players already at the bottom feel a sense of hopelessness about their placings and continue to act toxic knowing it can't get any worse.

I agree that is a possibility, and one that I hadn't thought of. Well, in this case, the problem still remains the same: lack of an ideal way to set up an environment where the evolutionary stable strategy is cooperation.

Well, in real life, we've achieved that through a reputation system ("I know that guy, he was a jerk to me last week, let's not hang out with him.") and a pleasure/pain system ("We helped each other and both benefited from it, I'm going to work with him in the future" vs. "This guy's being a real jerk, I'm gonna beat him up."). These systems create a feedback loop with each other as well - as you do good deeds, your reputation goes up, your rewards go up, and more people will want to work with you. As you do bad deeds, your reputation falls and your rewards fall.

The next logical step would be to get these systems in place in League as well. A reputation system, and a pleasure/pain (aka MOTIVATIONAL) system.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

timtwins

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

Senior Member

03-13-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
Why would Prisoner's Island be mainly Bronze players? Players of all skill levels can have toxic behaviors.
The fact that you don't deny seems to insinuate that more "lower tier" players would be in prisoner's island. I see several reasons for that. People perceive bronze as a low tier and therefore they also consider the other players in it as "lesser" players. They have less respect for those players and assume that they cannot fulfill the needs of the team. This leads to toxicity. The second and even more obvious reason is that because being toxic lowers your chance to win a game, the lower the tier you are in, the higher the chance of you losing games because of toxicity.

Now, to move onto discussion about the topic at hand.

Riot and the player-base both seem to agree that champion select is a potentially toxic place. There are a lot of proposed solutions and each of them has its upsides and downsides. After reading Riot member posts for a few years now, I can safely say that you focus on the downsides of the system in order to ensure that you can create the prefect solution. In fact, you often ignore some solutions because of minor downsides in a hope that you can find a better solution. A good example of this is the tribunal. Systems similar to the tribunal were suggested for a long time before it was finally enacted. It appeared that a major reason for this was the downsides of tribunal. Riot employees were afraid that people would incorrectly ban players. In fact, in several threads where a tribunal like system was suggested, riot members responded by pointing out that players could be potentially banned.

Several years later we now know that the tribunal was a huge success. It is a shame that it was not enacted more quickly. That being said, I hope you do not make the same mistake with things like champion select and enact a system so lately that you potentially turn players away from the game like you did with the tribunal. I know you want to find the perfect solution but sometimes in order to improve the game experience, you don't have to find the perfect solution, just a better one. So, when considering all the ways to "fix" champion select, please keep this in mind because new players ARE being turned away from this great game because of the toxicity. Champion select may not be the biggest source of toxicity but it is the first time where players can interact with each other and starting off on a good foot will help the game a lot.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Sayath

Senior Member

03-13-2013

Dungeon Finder v2.0: Distributing resource streams
Precondition: If your whole team agrees, these rules are null and void.

The game has four gold streams:
- top
- mid
- bot
- jungle

Therefore, it seems pretty likely that if no exceptional changes happen, all of these will need to be filled every game.

So we distribute gold streams. If you queue up for top, you claim the top gold stream. Nothing more, nothing less.
Like dungeon finder, you can queue up for any combination (all streams / some / just one).

That leaves one person without a gold stream: the fill-in / freelancer / support
Your job is to work it out with your team and be where required. This can be you playing support with an adc bot, counter-jungling or even duo-miding. Roaming is also a possibility - it just depends on the current meta where you end up.

Remember: We are distributing a resource, not some role! If you wanna play AD mid, go for it. If two people agree, they can swap their ressource stream. So you don't wanna play top anymore? No problem, just get somebody to swap with you!

As I see it, this solves a lot of problems:

a) The specialist who only plays one role / champ
Just always claim mid / top / wherever your champ / role fits and nothing else. Your queue times might be slightly higher, but you will be able to play what you want as long as it ain't banned.

b) The generalist
Just select everything and Riot will do their magic. You'll immediately see what your lane is gonna be today in order to make your team succeed.
Through communication you may still swap lanes. So if your mid just got counterpicked, you can still come to the rescue! Basically, nothing changes for you. Just the team around you argues a lot less.

c) Concern: Forcing a meta
This system requires every gold stream to be utilized. It cannot deal with cases where for example the jungle is not viable. This mostly is the case in normal low-(summoner)-level gameplay.
A strategy like three-mid or two duo-lanes cannot happen unless the whole team agrees to do so. Be reminded though, such strategies already require whole team consent (except two duo-lanes @ low-level). Therefore, I feel that the system would not constrict your choices. Simply, make you aware: "I want to do something radically different? Then I need my whole team to comply." which seems reasonable.

Conclusion:
As far as I see it, this reduces the needed team-interaction / negotiation drastically. You already know where you are going to be (top, mid, bot, jungle) except when you designated yourself as fill-in / freelancer. Thus you can concentrate on picking the optimal champion for your lane and team composition.

Please discuss and voice your concerns!
Through iteration we might find something viable.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MSF72

Senior Member

03-13-2013

I have to get in on this topic...

Firstly, I could easily see the Prisoner's Island being a busted system. Unless of course, the honor system is abused within this. Why not have players with similar Friendlies, Teamworks, Helpful, Honorable, etc. numbers paired together? Rather than "reports" and etc. I agree with this system either way, but I just feel that there are too many invalid rage reports for this to be effective otherwise.

Vote kick, is something I've been hoping for, for a very long time. However, I can see this being problematic as well. Say, first pick doesn't ban Blitzcrank at around 1300 elo. One person on the team rages about this as soon as Blitz isn't chosen on HIS own team, and the enemy picks him up. They immediately try to kick the player banning for his "troll bans." Just because the team composition doesn't look good, or the other team composition looks strange, I can see this easily abused for not liking the matchups.

Dungeon Finder would be nice, however, I feel that this should be a checkmark based queue finder. This way, I can still fill a particular role, however I can avoid roles that I don't feel up to playing.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

IS12c9caee90c700fc71890

Senior Member

03-13-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iripley View Post
I'm fairly sure there are ways to design and implement a game or even game features that can reduce the impact of RL context such as a game that is not competitive or in regards to a game feature perhaps in LoL a map made for just blowing off steam as far as a way to implement a feature that reduces RL context in a competitive environment. I'm not coming up with anything off the top of my head so good luck on that one hehe.

Wait, I got one LoL themed stress relievers think stress balls only shaped like your most hated opponent the Teemo ones should fly off the shelves. Ok problem solved your welcome. Next problem
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/....php?t=2779859


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Status Kwoh

Producer

03-13-2013
36 of 55 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayan Snipe Jock View Post
Have you guys considered something like the WoW system, but where you choose your champion not just your role?

Basically you would have the option to queue as a captain, or as a mercenary:

Captains:

The captain would be entered into a lobby against another captain, both would pick and ban for the entire team composition. In addition to picking each of the champions used, the Captain could click on one of the champions down the sides to designate the role that champion would fill in the team, (Top, Mid, Bot, Jungler, Other).

Mercenaries:

The Mercenary queue would allow a player to select a champion, and then select the roles they can fill with that champion, they would then be match-made with a Captain who had constructed a team using that champion/role combination.

Pros:

- Sometimes players are specifically good at a small subset of champions, normally the attitude for ranked is that these players shouldn't play ranked due to lack of experience, but with this system, you can queue to only play a certain subset of champions.

- Captains can create team compositions that make sense, you can create a team composition that includes, wave clear, strong level 1, and many other aspects of a composition that player's are not in control of in the current draft system.

- It takes almost all of the interactions out of champion select, an area most players deem to be where trolling begins, and sets the tone for the rest of the game.

- If anyone other than the captain dodges once players arrive in the spaces of the lobby, that champion slot need only find another player, rather than the lobby having to close.

- It's pretty much impossible for anyone to lock in a 'troll pick' such as Master Yi support because no captain in their right mind would ever create a team incorporating one.

Cons:

- Players who enjoy playing off the wall champions / non-standard roles with said champions could have very high queue times. (Having said this they could always create their own captain lobby to pick it for themselves!)

- It makes it harder for players to learn about team compositions if they are not the captain, as they don't have to work with their team to come to a conclusion about who to pick, and more importantly why that pick makes sense.

- It opens up a new avenue to players to flame by making the captain take all of the flak for the team's performance (Be it true or untrue).

- It gives players another 'out' when it comes to explaining why their rating is lower than they believe it should be, "Man, these past few games I've had such awful captains, how can I carry someone who makes a team composition using Pantheon Mid!"

In all, I believe this system would be pretty cool I hope Lyte and co. get an opportunity to see it and respond!

---

Osigalas, EUW
I think there are definitely some things here that are interesting to think about that I like. And you're spot on with your cons of this mode. Question is, how bad are these cons? Are they the sort of trade-offs that players would be okay with?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Moragtao

Senior Member

03-13-2013

1) I think vote-kick is a grand idea. However, it's only a grand idea if it's a true solo-que game. Example: you're playing normals. You que up and get paired with a group of 4. They don't like the champion you pick, so they vote-kick you.

2) WoW Style is ok... to a point. If someone queued up as support, for example, would they be limited to only picking champions labeled as support? And if not, what's to stop someone from signing up as support, and then saying "F--- everyone" and locking in as, say, a jungler?

3) Honestly, this has to be my favorite idea. To me, there's little point in banning toxic players, seeing as how if they really want to be toxic, all they have to do is make a new account and start the cycle over again. So, rather than wasting time banning them, make them all play together