Let's talk about Champ Select

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

ViperVentedos

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

Senior Member

03-13-2013

I like some of these Ideas.

My opinions on all choices:

1.Vote kick- Great idea to get that one guy who is being a ****** out of the picture. But it can be abused by premade groups of 3 and more.

Solution-Disable Vote Kick to premades of 3 or higher. Notify the other 2 or less players that they are being queued with a premade. Understanding is key.

2. WoW Dungeon Finder- I've thought about this for a while, great idea to be implemented. As it eliminates the whole call/pick order nonsense. Makes counter picking a lil bit difficult. And makes trading champions useless.Also Summoners can just pick every role to fasten the queue timer.

Solution-Limit the roles up for Queue, 2 Roles max (ex: support queue and Ap mid queue), Notify the player before going into champ select what role he is taking (Ex: "Your next match will be played with the Support Role. Accept : Yes or No) Reverse picking roles on champ select. (Ex: Jungle is 1st pick on blue side, AP mid is 1st pick purple side) Makes Countering still possible.

Prisoner’s Island-This is a very scary thing, personally I'm against this. Makes it possible to never get out of this and incredibly easy to fall into given the community we have.

Solution-Scratch it. Making Queues longer for Toxic players is a way more better alternative. Players with long "track" records will have very lengthy queues that can only be diminished by playing games w/o getting reported. The time will be queue dependent (Ex: Playing normals will only shorten time for Normal queue and so on with Ranked,Dominion Etc.)The moment players are Reported they are notified after the match, indicating them that they will go thru a longer queue time. Has the possibility to be abused, but compared of falling into a pit of nothing but Toxic players I'll take my chances with longer Queue Times.

All in all good ideas and solutions


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Viro Melchior

Senior Member

03-13-2013

This thread exploded so fast. I think my posts got buried, even though I spent a lot of time, especially on the 1st.

Hope you're getting good input here Lyte + Davin.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MiziiziM

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
There are Champ Select issues in both Normals and Ranked, so this discussion should try to figure out the problems and potential solutions for both types of Champ Select.

I agree with you, vote-kicks would not work for Normals because it would encourage premades to bully strangers; however, vote-kick would probably not work for a different reason in Ranked. In many of the lobbies I've observed recently, it's usually only 1 player who wants an overlapping role. Think back to all the Champ Select lobbies where 3 or 4 players agreed on roles. Wouldn't all of these Champ Select lobbies end with a vote-kick?
How is that a problem? Seems like a reason that vote kick WOULD work, not the opposite. You kick one person, they get dropped from champ select, players get sent back into an "expedited queue" (where the players are still matched together, but just waiting for a fill on the dropped player), then go back to a reset champion select lobby.

If it's just one person in disagreement, it's pretty easy to solve that by dropping that one player while the other four who are in agreement or more flexible are kept together in queue.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Stralucire

Senior Member

03-13-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trylobyte View Post
1) You think people complain about queue times now... I'd also be wary of applying this simply because it provides a means of meta enforcement, since a player who wants to try something new will get vote-kicked almost as quickly as a player venting racial slurs. One possible way to balance for this would be to log the chat and forward vote-kick cases to the Tribunal; people who abuse the kick privilege too much (such as kicking someone solely for wanting to go against the meta, or people kicking someone for picking a champ with a low win percentage) lose it for a time. This is probably the most viable 'quick fix' solution, at the expense of lengthened queue times as people kick someone from every other match they get queued for.

2) This is definite meta enforcement, and that's a very dangerous territory to get into. Presumably, this means every team you run will have a Top, Mid, Jungle, Support, ADC. On its own merits this would be fine, if restrictive to meta development, but at its worst it makes trolling easier since there's nothing stopping someone from joining queue as support, picking Darius, and saying 'Oh, he can support, he has Apprehend' before going on a KS rampage, or someone queueing up for ADC then picking Karma. It'll also lengthen queue times if there's a shortage of junglers or supports , two traditionally unpopular roles, since they tend to be blame magnets. You *could* make it so that champ selection is limited based on the role you signed up for, but depending on the free champs that week, it's also entirely possible someone will queue for a role that they can't actually play.

3) This can lead to a situation where a player deemed 'toxic' once can never get out of that situation since they're queued with other 'toxic' players and have no escape from it. How do you determine toxicity, anyway? Honor? That just makes honor-farming all the more viable? Number of reports? Hope that four-man premade in Normals don't all report you for not taking the role none of them wanted. Number of bans? That might be possible.
This guy got to most of my comments before i could. Nonetheless I wanted to expand a little on #2:

I wouldn't worry so much about solidifying the meta. It's solid. And if it changes we''ll very likely see it change at the pro and tournament level, with well coordinated team queues, rather than in random queues-- even ranked queues. But this does lead to other potential issues:

The first larger concern is how quickly you plan to keep up if a meta change occurs. How do you even decide when a meta shift has fully taken place? In the middle of the shift you might have two operable metas that divide between high and low ELO's; could your role selection adapt in that scenario?

Then you have to consider what you'd do with role selection in TT and Dom. They each have their own specific meta and roles. Attempting to paste SR's roles onto these maps would look silly at best, with lots of potential to slide downhill from there.

Ultimately, I still think the dungeon finder method might be your best bet (if also paired with vote kicking, although I worry a little about players getting kicked for choosing seemingly sub-par champs). But go very, very light on role match-ups. Let people pick multiple roles at a time. Put a lot of emphasis on how these roles are suggested during champ select, but not enforced/enforceable. And don't make your MMR system try too hard to group people in ways that exactly fit their preference.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

davin

Senior User Researcher

03-13-2013
17 of 55 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meisterbrau View Post
Instead of a groupfinder-like system where you check your prefered role and get matched according to it, have a way to set information about you before joining the queue that will be displayed in champ select (e.g. as a mouse over or in chat).
I think that gets at one of the general needs of champion select remedies--information that allows you to make an informed decision. In the absence of information, bullying your way into the role you want (MID OR FEED) is a yucky approach, but one that it's easy to see why someone would arrive at (they want to succeed, they don't know anything about the other players, and they're pretty sure they're better than other players).

There's a bunch of other ideas thus far about what information is needed to make an informed decision and form a successful team in champ select. Preferred role/style is one, I suspect past success is another people would desire (but that might get super aggro player behavior wise). What are others?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Valor And Quinn

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
3) Time Pressure | From psychology, we know that time pressure sometimes twists context in hostile ways. Players in Champ Select are effectively trying to negotiate with each other over individual goals (i.e, what role I want to play this game) that overlap with team goals (i.e, given this set of teammates, what’s the best strategy for us to win?). Studies suggest that throwing time pressure in there is like adding fuel to the fire—the end result is more disagreements and lower quality of negotiations.
For this case, there should be a pick time extension which can be a button on the side, with a cap of lets say, 1-2 minutes, so people don't stall really long.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ektomorf

Senior Member

03-13-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyBunchFew View Post
My ideas:
What if you made it so you found your team first, then it matched you against another team?
Give you two minutes to talk, etc.

And then using Vote-Ban for champion banning, instead of first pick bans everything he doesn't like...
good in theory.

But who wants to sit there for 2 minutes to talk, then another 5 minutes for everyone to select their champions, only to have someone dodge.

2 more minutes = 2 more minutes of people arguing/trolling/raging.

Voteban.. noones agrees = no bans? Doesn't work


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Makishima

Senior Member

03-13-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
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?
you guys are not therapists and we are not going to school. Peoples behaviors dont improve because you punish them. Even when they dont get banned again 70% of the time after being in tribunal i can honestly say those kids will still be jerks irl. You need to do what needs to be done and not actually try to "help change toxic players" . This isnt Leagueofacampwegotosothatwecanbehavebetter, its a game not a facility for bad kids that want to behave better


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Malindar

Member

03-13-2013

I feel like the first option, as many have stated comes with far too many problems of premades bullying people, or ranked queues ganging up on the one person that has a pick that overlaps with another person. Prisoner island also would work because it'd be like in the Ghostbusters movie where all the evil thoughts would spew forth and destroy the servers.

That leaves us with the second option of having a queue type where to specify what you'd like to play. It seems like most people here favor that idea, but need some way to implement it without forcing whatever happens to be the current meta. One solution that would be a completely different way to look at it is not to give people the choice to queue up for what the way (mid, assassin, kill lane bot, tank jungler) but to rather give a large check list of things they wouldn't mind.

Rather than picking what they want, they'd queue up for what they wouldn't mind doing, or seeing their team do. What if someone wants to play a top lane ap assassin. They'd check that they wouldn't mind playing an assassin, a top, or ap, while also listing that they wouldn't mind breaking the meta. Maybe a duo queue wants to play double mids. They'd check that they wouldn't mind breaking the meta, playing ap or adc, prefer mid, and want to lane together.

In the first example, the top ap assassin wouldn't mind doing those things, but can still label themselves, if they really had to, could go mid ap assassin, could go top assassin, bruiser top, so on. The second example want to go double mid, but would also be fine with top double lane, bot duo lane, or any other combination of things, while also not minding the person from the first example going ap assassin top because they checked they wouldn't mind breaking the meta.

This kind of setup would allow players that want to break the meta to do so, while not locking them into it because they still have to chat with their team to do it. It'd also mean people that don't wanna mess with the game would get paired with people that also want the brusier top, ap mid, adc/support bot with a jungler meta to stand for their game.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

AnonTwo

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

Senior Member

03-13-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcLay View Post
@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.
Wouldn't that just create a scenario where people are scared to defend how they want to play?

That doesn't seem to help team attitude at all.