@Lyte - Player Behavior, Matchmaking, and Life as a Scientist

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

Coredor

Senior Member

09-04-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phreak View Post
Lyte, is it reasonable to track something around KDA or streak of deaths, or "difference in team gold/kills/turrets", and assume intent behind a leave? Someone who disconnects at 0/5 is more likely to be a rage-quitter than someone who never connected at the start? Or track language used by the player leading up to the disconnect? Maybe past reports (They tend to be a jerk?) Maybe this allows us to flag leaves as "intentional" versus "unintentional"?
I'd say KDA changes would just result in people afking in base or avoiding fights/stealing kills/abandoning their lanes as to not die to get their kdr up before they quit. As for past reports, I don't think it's fair to assume the worst of someone because of previous history. If someone was banned and punished they don't need to keep on being punished. Language might be a fair option but the systems overall accuracy even if all these systems were in place would be relatively low vs development time/problems with edge cases.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Venheart

Member

09-04-2013

There may not necessarily have to be a stronger punishment for an AFK player, especially if its caused by a disconnection issue, something that people forget actually isn't within a player's control... I KNOW! shocking right? Sometimes people can't control the internet. But there could be a reduced punishment for the rest of the team, not losing as much IP... not getting demoted if you're in a team with an AFK player, maybe getting a "second chance" with a series rather than an immediate loss when it comes to AFKs, like if you can jump right back into another match the game could ignore the AFK loss... I mean ultimately losing because you're outnumbered isn't exactly a fine example of your skills.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kulas02

Senior Member

09-05-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot Exekias View Post
It’s something we’ve considered numerous times, but ultimately, Restricted Chat mode’s main goal is to help reform players. If we allow people to opt in, then not only does it lose its impact as a punishment, but it also doesn’t help the volunteers to improve their behavior. Instead, it would serve as a crutch that might actually prevent improvement. For example, if you’re not great at riding a bike and want to get better, do you keep riding your bike and learn from each fall or do you start to use training wheels every time you use your bike from that point forward?


I know that there are plenty of situations where it feels impossible to keep emotions from violently erupting but nobody ever said the road to improving behavior was an easy one. It may be a hard and difficult journey, but at the end of it, I think that you will find your efforts rewarded by a much more enjoyable in game experience.
While your analogy is good, it is missing a critical aspect. If you keep riding your bike and falling, you don't have the fear of possibly never being allowed to ride your bike again if you fail too many times. If you did, you bet people would strap those training wheels on if they were down to their last chance. Better to ride the bike with training wheels for the rest of your life then to never ride a bike at all.

In league, those players who are slowly trying to reform are at a disadvantage. It doesn't just happen overnight, it could take from months to years to change a behavior, which undoubtedly the dev. team should know with as many Dr.'s are on it. This is why I don't believe in the permaban as a good source of punishment. Increase chat filter restrictions, and other work arounds, but permanently taking away a persons account (some which have put 2+ years into their account) is only going to cause more problems, like the massive one we have with toxicity and negative game impacts we have at the lower levels currently.

Edit: Well I guess Lyte (maybe) agrees with me that the permaban isn't a good source, so at least I don't think I'm alone.

"No psychological research suggests that extreme punishment is the most effective way to shape behavior. To give a quick anecdote, we already permanent ban players from the game--one of the most severe punishments possible in an online game. How come that hasn't stopped negative behavior completely?"


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kodoku

Senior Member

09-05-2013

^ Permabans are not there to reform behavior. They're there to remove extremely toxic players from the community. The ease with which players can make smurfs is an unfortunate byproduct of the fact that the game's free to play.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kulas02

Senior Member

09-05-2013

^and thus you have the problem I explained. If you had the option to either:

A) Let a toxic player keep their account, keep him/her at the skill level he is at, and severely restrict their chat so they can't spew toxicity 24/7

or

B)Permanently ban that account, have him/her create a new account where they no longer have chat restrictions, and is playing with people who are brand new to this game, giving them a terrible experience.

Which would be your choice? Full knowing it is a free to play game, and someone will just create a new account, does it make sense to remove their account and free them of chat restrictions? I really don't see this as a hard decision, but maybe I'm just naive.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Krimson

Senior Member

09-05-2013

I really do want this cleared up.

In the hypothetical situation where in my team a player performs badly within the first 5 minutes then gets frustrated and leaves the game, followed by his friend who duo queued with him leaving the game too to accompany him "out for smokes". In this team game, its almost assured that my team will be lost. So do I still have to continue the game, offer up a token amount of resistance to suffice as a punching bag for the opposing team as I get cc-locked for 15 more minutes just so I don't get reported/punished too?

I know that the 2 leavers are going to be punished, I get that reply in every single red statement ever. But the "me" in the now has to suffer for 15 minutes of tedious running to the enemy and pretending to offer some form of resistance. If I stand in the base and let them end the game, the enemy team may just report me for going afk and throw me in with the other 2. If I try and negotiate this fact, it may come off to some as just giving excuses and result in a report anyway.

So the question is. Can I stop playing a game that is utterly impossible or unfun to win with and instead go do something else more rewarding like playing with my cat, or must I stand there, click buttons and take it because i'm locked in?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Keskintilki

Senior Member

09-05-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whohangs View Post
Hi Lyte,

Thanks for these great discussions!

I think there's two different AFK/Leaver situations. One where somebody doesn't load at the beginning of the game due to PC, internet, or client crashes and the second situation where somebody disconnects (or rage quits) after the game has started and is already well underway.

I think the one that should be addressed first (and can probably be addressed more easily) is the first situation where a player doesn't initially connect to the game. If somebody doesn't connect before the 2-3 minute mark, the team with the leaver should be able to abandon the game (via vote or some other mechanism) without penalty and the AFK/leaver should be penalized heavily (auto-reported, queue ban and/or IP/LP loss).

If I happen to be the leaver, I would rather receive the penalty than have my team go through 20+ minutes of having me be far behind due to my technical issue (and probably a 20+ minute toxic situation where I am constantly blamed for the loss). I know there's situations where the disadvantaged team can still win (I've been involved in some), but I would gladly trade those rare situations for the vast majority of horrifically one-sided games that occur, saving everybody time so they can get another game.

I have a job and kids and only get a handful of games in every night, getting one-sided games caused by someone not connecting is one of the more frustrating (and probably preventable) situations in League for me.
This is a good idea, with the exception of the severe punishment. I myself have actually lost games (due to not being able to connect to games for 10+ minutes) not because I didn't want to or wasn't trying but simply because the client itself has gotten so unstable that it crashes with extreme frequency. I do understand that my teammates are frustrated, and agree that there should be some ability for them to opt out of the current game, with a time limit ofcourse. But I, as a player, should not be punished for something that is out of my control.

Currently my client crashes (simply goes back to desktop after champ select on an alarming number of games. I usually make it in by 3-4 minutes into the game, but only after several attempts at reconnecting, around 5-10 depending on the clients mood) and riot should not punish players, severely or otherwise for something that the client itself is at fault.

On the other hand, if someone leaves upon successful connection, after feeding or giving up, that person should be severely punished.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Keskintilki

Senior Member

09-05-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
Hm, we're definitely interested in making Honor more visible and easier to use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
We've considered queue restrictions, but have to carefully weigh the potential costs. If we restrict negative players from playing a queue, what is the execution? Is it time-based, or is it game-based (i.e = they have to play X number of Normal Summoner's Rift games to unlock Ranked again). In either case, if we restrict Ranked queues from negative players, do they simply shift their toxicity into the other game modes? Is that a worthwhile risk?

We know that context plays a powerful role in shaping one's behavior, so it might be that the player would be perfectly sportsmanlike in other queues and Ranked is just a high-tension environment that creates toxicity; however, the player might just be having a streak of bad days (or weeks) and directly carry the negative behavior into other queues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
We've always said that we prefer reforming toxic players first, and will only remove them on a last resort basis.

We are currently handing out massive chat bans before permanent bans these days though, and are trying to research new ways to reduce the motivation for toxic players to simply make new accounts. One way would be to add more 'account restrictions' and just let these players stay on their main accounts.
Hey Lyte,

First, I'm glad that you are keeping an eye on this thread, it helps to know your (and your teams) interest is not fleeting at improving the behavior.

I just have a few ideas I'd love to get your input on.

In regards to honor, what are the plans with honor, as currently it means nothing. I feel like majority of the player-base has some sort of honor, yet it feels like no one really knows what its for?? Is there a purpose to honor??

I think queue restrictions are a GREAT idea, and if I may I'd like to suggest a form of restriction.

The person who is being restricted, should be restricted based on number of games. However, the restriction itself should be tiered. If you are restricted the only games you can play are bot games, which then opens up normals, and lastly you can once again queue for ranked games. Similar to how leveling currently works.


Lastly, punishments. Has your team, or yourself for that matter consider IP as punishment, meaning, a form of punishment would be to remove IP accrual for certain amount of games.

I also would very much like to pose a few questions for you.

A lot of the discussion with the behavior comes down to, well the may necessarily be toxic but may have had a bad day, week, month and simply exhibited toxic behavior due to that. So my question is, why does this matter? I feel like its an excuse, used by the behavior team to limit punishment. In my opinion it doesn't matter why you exhibited the behavior, what matters is the fact that you DID exhibit the behavior, anonymity should have no bearing nor be an excuse for this type of behavior, simply because if this type of behavior was done on a person to person basis, there would be some form of punishment, be it a stern talking or dare I say getting your ass kicked. So why are we looking for excuses?? to not punish behavior that should be punished. The other 9 players should not suffer because you had a bad day, week, month.

Finally, why is the team so resistant to simply implementing a solution. (particularly those involving afk/leavers because they are afraid it will be abused) Being a highly educated individual do you have a basis for not implementing it?? Is there precedence that you have not shared with us (in the form of research or something similar), after all, if its never implemented we wouldn't know the impact, and guessing games help no one.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

rExekias

Game Design Intern

09-05-2013
101 of 107 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kulas02 View Post
While your analogy is good, it is missing a critical aspect. If you keep riding your bike and falling, you don't have the fear of possibly never being allowed to ride your bike again if you fail too many times. If you did, you bet people would strap those training wheels on if they were down to their last chance. Better to ride the bike with training wheels for the rest of your life then to never ride a bike at all.

In league, those players who are slowly trying to reform are at a disadvantage. It doesn't just happen overnight, it could take from months to years to change a behavior, which undoubtedly the dev. team should know with as many Dr.'s are on it. This is why I don't believe in the permaban as a good source of punishment. Increase chat filter restrictions, and other work arounds, but permanently taking away a persons account (some which have put 2+ years into their account) is only going to cause more problems, like the massive one we have with toxicity and negative game impacts we have at the lower levels currently.

Edit: Well I guess Lyte (maybe) agrees with me that the permaban isn't a good source, so at least I don't think I'm alone.

"No psychological research suggests that extreme punishment is the most effective way to shape behavior. To give a quick anecdote, we already permanent ban players from the game--one of the most severe punishments possible in an online game. How come that hasn't stopped negative behavior completely?"
I agree that the bike analogy gets a little less strong when you consider permanent bans, but the intent of the analogy was to address how players might reform their toxic tendencies. I agree with you that permanent suspensions are a poor tool for reform and that is why they generally serve as a last line of defense to protect other players from toxicity. A permanent ban is not meant as a “you messed up on this account, try again.” Instead, it’s more of a “we’re sorry, but your continuing negative behavior just has no place in our game.”

In terms of reform however, we agree on using Restricted Chat more and are always thinking about the possibility of using other punishments in a similar vein. As you mentioned, these features actually give punished players a good chance at realizing what they did wrong and how they can improve in the future.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Detahmaio

Senior Member

09-05-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot Exekias View Post
I agree that the bike analogy gets a little less strong when you consider permanent bans, but the intent of the analogy was to address how players might reform their toxic tendencies. I agree with you that permanent suspensions are a poor tool for reform and that is why they generally serve as a last line of defense to protect other players from toxicity. A permanent ban is not meant as a “you messed up on this account, try again.” Instead, it’s more of a “we’re sorry, but your continuing negative behavior just has no place in our game.”

In terms of reform however, we agree on using Restricted Chat more and are always thinking about the possibility of using other punishments in a similar vein. As you mentioned, these features actually give punished players a good chance at realizing what they did wrong and how they can improve in the future.
Restricting chat doesn't stop toxic behavior it doesn't even address toxic players are able to control champion select and decide if you win or lose and you know what that's complete bullsh because if I played well and made good calls and lose because 1 jackass just want to have lulz and I get clamped that is outright unfair and riot needs to fix it or look to the player base for help on the issue.