Pendragon: Punishing players will cost riot revenue.

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

aerborne

Senior Member

02-10-2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etyn View Post
Thread fails to realize one true constant.


The greater good first.



Queue dodging it self is a problem. That is an undeniable fact. For proof just look at the forums. They are full of complaint threads where players are tired of having to queue multiple times before a game can start.

So RIOT needs to address the concerns of the many. And that is queue dodging.

YES. The MM system is a work in progress. However, when you solo queue, you are DECIDING to start a game with RANDOM players. This to me indicates that you should have no real say or sway over the composition of that team other than what the TEAM decides during the time before the game is started.


Also, Queue Dodging is a form of grief. By dodging a team you are effectively ruining the game for 9 other people at one time.
And who would be so wise as to purport they conclusively know the greater good? Were riot to find out that 70% of the people that purchased riot points were queue dodgers and lost 70% of their revenue, couldn't earn a profit and filed for bankruptcy, do you suppose that would have served the greater good oh wise oracle?

PK'ing is a form of grief, Should we remove that? Lineage 2, Ultima Online, Shadowbane, World of Warcraft, all have "forms of griefing."


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Zileas

VP of Game Design

02-10-2010
1 of 12 Riot Posts

We believe that having a quality game requires that we prevent players from using hacks (specifically, RAM modifications), and preventing players from creating bad experiences for others.

Obviously, when you do this, the player sanctioned might stop paying you. Oh well. We'd rather have a fun game where people get along and have a good time, than a maximally monetized game today that hemorrhages users tomorrow.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Zileas

VP of Game Design

02-10-2010
2 of 12 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by aerborne View Post
And who would be so wise as to purport they conclusively know the greater good? Were riot to find out that 70% of the people that purchased riot points were queue dodgers and lost 70% of their revenue, couldn't earn a profit and filed for bankruptcy, do you suppose that would have served the greater good oh wise oracle?

PK'ing is a form of grief, Should we remove that? Lineage 2, Ultima Online, Shadowbane, World of Warcraft, all have "forms of griefing."
We are not going to lose a bunch of revenue over queue dodgers, in fact, I'd gamble that we will gain revenue since MOST people will get less frustrated and play more. I'd argue the anger you personally dodge from queue dodging is a lot less than the total anger of the 9 people you inconvenienced.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Yamikun

Member

02-10-2010

Well if the penalties would stop queue dodgers from playing i don't see any fault to that.... Seems like a pretty good plan to me......


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

aerborne

Senior Member

02-10-2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saffire View Post
Your argument cuts both ways. Allowing queue dodging will invariably also reduce accessibility because people won't be able to play thanks to constant queue dodges. Unable to find a game that will actually start, people quit.

Punishing queue dodging punishes one person. Allowing queue dodging punishes nine. Guess which wins out. You want good teams? Try actually talking to other players about the comp, or god forbid, play a needed role.
Punishing queue dodgers punishes every single person that does it. not 1 person. Again this is a *SOFTWARE DESIGN* problem. NOT a moral, ethical problem. More then that it's a BUSINESS Model challenge. If riot wants this game to be competitive their solutions to design challenges need to be thoughful, innovative and competitive, NOT Temp bans that discourage people from playing. There is no moral or ethical solution to this. it's a video game, and the goal is maximum playability, and it's a business, with the goal of maximum revenue.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

multis

Senior Member

02-10-2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by aerborne View Post
As has been pointed out people will (and already do) pick tryn/kat/mundo revive clarity to make OTHER people queue dodge. If i have to wait 10 minutes to requeue because of the creative ways people circumvent your punishment,
This is a valid point. The only options are: play the game, hope that a teammate leaves instead of you, tank the three minutes or hope said griefer switches out the last second. You shouldn't have a penalty just because some guy in the lobby wanted to screw around and waste time.

Note: I do not support dodging.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Takkles

Senior Member

02-10-2010

So I'm going to be forced to play with the mundo that has clarity/revive? That's dumb.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Zileas

VP of Game Design

02-10-2010
3 of 12 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by aerborne View Post
Punishing queue dodgers punishes every single person that does it. not 1 person. Again this is a *SOFTWARE DESIGN* problem. NOT a moral, ethical problem. More then that it's a BUSINESS Model challenge. If riot wants this game to be competitive their solutions to design challenges need to be thoughful, innovative and competitive, NOT Temp bans that discourage people from playing. There is no moral or ethical solution to this. it's a video game, and the goal is maximum playability, and it's a business, with the goal of maximum revenue.
This is way simpler than you are making it to be.

Queue dodging is like pollution -- its an externality.

When I dodge, I gain a benefit, and screw 9 people over.

Now, I must pay a fee for that inconvenience I'm laying on everyone else.

Or for you more positive people, it's like the lobster dinner.

If I go to dinner with 10 friends, and we agree to split the check, I should order the lobster dinner, not the angel hair pasta with olive oil and basil. This is because while the lobster dinner is $50 and the pasta is $10, my total cost only goes up slightly when I get lobster, and only goes down slightly when I order pasta.

When people pay for the for the benefit they are receiving or the pain they are doling out, you get a more optimal result in the general system for everyone.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MegaHero

Member

02-10-2010

Yeah this is gonna be lame...forcing us to play games we don't want to.

Before anyone says "well make the team comp good yourself"

It's not always possible and some people only play a certain type of champion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zileas View Post
When I dodge, I gain a benefit, and screw 9 people over.
You hardly screw over 9 people. It takes them a little longer to get a game, it takes you a little longer to get a game as well, big deal...


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

aerborne

Senior Member

02-10-2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zileas View Post
We believe that having a quality game requires that we prevent players from using hacks (specifically, RAM modifications), and preventing players from creating bad experiences for others.

Obviously, when you do this, the player sanctioned might stop paying you. Oh well. We'd rather have a fun game where people get along and have a good time, than a maximally monetized game today that hemorrhages users tomorrow.
I agree hacks and ram modifications should be banned those aren't the same as queue dodging. No one uses ram hacks, trainers etc with the intent to pay. My argument isn't that WOW gold dupers shouldn't be banned from WOW. I want to make that distinction. Temp bans are not the solution to what I see as a software engineering challenge, and a business challenge. not a moral one.

You're taking sides on this issue rather then looking to implement changes that benefit both sides of the argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zileas View Post
We are not going to lose a bunch of revenue over queue dodgers, in fact, I'd gamble that we will gain revenue since MOST people will get less frustrated and play more. I'd argue the anger you personally dodge from queue dodging is a lot less than the total anger of the 9 people you inconvenienced.
You're right you WOULD be gambling. I'd wager it's a safe gamble that you won't lose 70% but my point was to illustrate unintended consequence of the "greater good" argument.

I understand why you're trying to do it, i'm not a queue dodger by any stretch. I don't think putting the anger of one group of people in an aggregate, and the anger of another group of people in an aggregate, and solving the problem for one group at the expense of another is the solution. The first problem is these aggregates can't be measured, because anger is subjective. Secondly the problem effects everyone differently, the higher the elo the more dramatically the problem escalates.

This problem disproportianately affects the minority of your computer, where as the solution disproportionately affects tha majority.