@Lyte

First Riot Post
12345612 ... 19
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

04-16-2013
3 of 32 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by ep pe ep pe View Post
Champion select issues aside, I'm curious what you think about something.

Just from presumption and curiosity, I'm under the impression that the Tribunal is more likely to target not only the worse of the worst, but the players that fall into that pattern, but also play more than others.

E.g., Player A tends to exhibit rage like 'toxic' behaviors on average one out of 6 games, for reasons you just outlined. It's a fairly consistent pattern, and this player tends to play 5-8 games a day.

Player B does not have such erratic outbursts but displays a fairly consistent curve of toxic behavior, perhaps even getting less reports on average, but not necessarily being any less toxic than the average tribunal ban. He plays once, maybe twice a week.

It would seem to be the case that the Player B is in a way 'rewarded' with amnesty from the Tribunal simply because he plays less.

Is this true? Does it work differently?
The Tribunal normalizes games played, so the number of games doesn't really affect whether you are eligible for a Tribunal case.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Scipptastic

Junior Member

04-16-2013

Lyte - separate idea:

I know you guys are looking for ways other than bans to punish players (so they have to play on their main account).

Have you considered intentionally lengthening queue time of toxic players? Maybe for X number of games, period of time, whatever. But if they get to a certain level their queue must run for 1/2/5/10 min before it actually starts? And they need to play X number of games before it goes away?

Just brain storming here.

Or how about limiting access to purchased skins? Toxic players can't use the skins they bought for X number of games?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Trendy Ideology

Senior Member

04-16-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
I think it's possible for rare negative outbursts to creep into Champion Select; for example, let's say a player wanted to play a Mage today and queues up to play a match. First game, there's an argument and he compromises and chooses to play top lane. Second game, three players want to play Mages, so he compromises and plays the jungler. Three, four, five games later this player still can't get to play a Mage and in the sixth game he rages a bit and demands to play Mage. Some kind of way to detect this pattern of behavior and give feedback early might prevent that sixth game from happening.

However, I think Champion Select has a number of issues that won't be solved with feedback on negative behaviors; for example, it won't solve the fact that time pressure makes Champion Select a pretty hostile environment where we are forcing strangers to discuss and negotiate a team strategy in 90 seconds.


Queue

For

Roles



Go tell me what percentage of games are not "Meta" - Top lane is mostly whatever as long as it can roll with the normal bruisers and not die instantly. Mid is an AP caster or AD countercaster. Bot is an ADC or someone that can perform a similar role, and one person is support mostly not CS'ing, mostly not taking kills, and usually providing wards etc.

Tell me the percentage of games in normals/ranked that don't fall into that.

And then tell me how it's not worth the "impact" to that microminority to just let people queue for the role they want.

You could even provide an option for non-meta teams. A checkbox. They'll be matched only with people who check the box. I would GLADLY wait 5 minutes for a game instead of sub-1-minute if it meant no more of this:

Guy1: Top
Guy2: Mid
Guy3: *Picks and locks a mid*
Guy2: OMG WTF *Picks and locks THEIR mid*

Insert whatever lane you want.

It happens constantly.


One guy decides to be a petulant brat with entitlement issues and pick and lock a called lane.

One guy decides to troll the whole team by picking that lane anyway.

Three other people get their gameplay experience **** all over because of one huge ******bag and one retaliatory ******bag.


How this is acceptable is beyond me.



Queue for roles would also give you a pulse on lane and role popularity.

Jungle queues instant? Probably because jungling is hard, sucks, is thankless, etc. Maybe you should do something about it.

Mid queues an hour long? Maybe you should figure out why all the other lanes are unpopular by comparison and do something to make them more compelling. Like support. I'd be that's an instant queue. Why? Same as jungle. Maybe MORE should be done than what was already recently done to make support more appetizing.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

DemolitionDean

Senior Member

04-16-2013

Thanks for the response Lyte!

I have another quick question if it's not too much trouble, what is the reasoning behind the decision to handle discipline and honor through systems unrelated to IP gains or queue times (like in Dota2). Wouldn't players be more likely to change their behavior if the punishments affected game experience in this way?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

GLockWisE

Senior Member

04-16-2013

cuzz pinkward


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

04-16-2013
4 of 32 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionDean View Post
Thanks for the response Lyte!

I have another quick question if it's not too much trouble, what is the reasoning behind the decision to handle discipline and honor through systems unrelated to IP gains or queue times (like in Dota2). Wouldn't players be more likely to change their behavior if the punishments affected game experience in this way?
I'm sure you know this as well, but it's worth repeating that rewards and motivations are really complicated.

Anytime you attach a monetary reward to a system or feature, it changes the reason and motivation that some players engage with the system. To illustrate a straight-forward, black and white example, the simple act of attaching a monetary reward to a task introduces a non-zero amount of cheating and abuse where some percentage of players will do whatever they can to abuse the system for currency--these players aren't focused on becoming more sportsmanlike or changing their ways, they just want currency.

Adding a currency reward also twists the satisfaction aspect for some players. Most players are sportsmanlike because that's just who they are. If we start paying these players when they were already sportsmanlike, we introduce an internal conflict where players may now wonder more about if they are sportsmanlike because we are paying them and may lose some of the intrinsic satisfaction of being so awesome. Because the majority of players are already sportsmanlike, we have to be super careful with currency rewards.

We already have punishments related to queue times (queue dodging, etc), and we have punishments related to in-game chat (restricted chat mode). We're going to keep pushing the envelope on different types of punishments and rewards for different types of behaviors in the game; however, in every case, we want to ensure that the rewards are always focused on encouraging the behavior we actually want to see in the community. It may sound ambitious, but we want to improve the overall culture of online communities; we want to shatter the perception that gamers are jerks because all the data suggests that we aren't.

It's also important to note that things that may work well in other games, may not work well in League of Legends. For example, the idea of Prisoner's Island is very popular among our players. It's basically the concept of forcing toxic players to play with other toxic players, and keeping them out of 'normal' games until they improve their behavior somehow. This solution may work for leaving behaviors that are very clear, binary calls (you left the game or you didn't, which is super obvious to every player); however, this solution is sub-optimal for attitude behaviors such as verbal abuse or offensive language. One of the main reasons it's not great for attitude behaviors is self-awareness.

We find in our research that many negative players lack self-awareness--they don't believe they are toxic, and truly believe they are positive forces in the community. If you match these players in a Prisoner's Island queue, they might look around and wonder why they are in this type of queue, and are stuck with a bunch of 'trolls.' These players then just make a new account because it's a free to play game and shift their toxicity back into the main population. I have not seen any research that putting 10 negative players together results in effective improvements in behavior; in fact, behavior often gets worse. Because our core philosophy is to help educate players and nudge them back to good, the Prisoner's Island idea just isn't the right approach for us.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Chrispys

Senior Member

04-16-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
However, we can't just deliver feedback for every report a player receives; after all, this would add a lot of unnecessary stress on a player.

There's a lot to think about with this kind of research, and we have been brainstorming how we want to deliver feedback for negative behaviors for awhile.
Oh, you mean it would deliver unnecessary stress on a player because PEOPLE REPORT EACH OTHER ALL THE ****ING TIME FOR NO ****ING REASON? CAUSE THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Drū

Junior Member

04-16-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
I think it's possible for rare negative outbursts to creep into Champion Select; for example, let's say a player wanted to play a Mage today and queues up to play a match. First game, there's an argument and he compromises and chooses to play top lane. Second game, three players want to play Mages, so he compromises and plays the jungler. Three, four, five games later this player still can't get to play a Mage and in the sixth game he rages a bit and demands to play Mage. Some kind of way to detect this pattern of behavior and give feedback early might prevent that sixth game from happening.
Or you could do Dungeon Finder.


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

04-16-2013
5 of 32 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrispys View Post
Oh, you mean it would deliver unnecessary stress on a player because PEOPLE REPORT EACH OTHER ALL THE ****ING TIME FOR NO ****ING REASON? CAUSE THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS.
This is false. The average player only gets reported about 4-5 times every 100 games. A lot of players may threaten to report in-game, but very few follow through with the threat.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Chrispys

Senior Member

04-16-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
This is false. The average player only gets reported about 4-5 times every 100 games. A lot of players may threaten to report in-game, but very few follow through with the threat.

Then your logic doesn't follow, if the average player doesn't follow through on report threats, they won't receive a notification of recent reporting.

So no stress.

So which is it?


12345612 ... 19