Let's talk about Champ Select

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


Senior Member


Originally Posted by davin View Post
It's a pretty drastic shift to how people currently think about the game, but it is a reflection of how the game mechanics influence behavior. Freelancer is a pretty dope name for a support However, I'm not sure how much people would accept a Freelancer who is rolling around as a double-jungle gold-absorber. It gets back to the issue of whatever you do, the team has to be ok with it too. Since it's not only about your choice, it's about the four other player's desires and expectations.
If the 5 players can't agree on what each person will do, there's always dodging. Or vote-kick, if you implement it.

The ways it could play out:

1. Other playstyles become more popular (double bruiser, double jungle) and the "Freelancer" spot becomes an incredibly varied queue.

2. The community as a whole rejects anything but a support, and its support or die. People that queue know this, and they pick "Freelancer" knowing they'll support. Same as people picking "Solo lane #2" will most likely pick an AP caster.

The worst case scenario is things stay the same as they are now, only with no role tension in the queues.

(Yes, some people may still specialize in double jungle/roaming/double bruiser etc. And they will still be able to do it the same way people do odd stuff now. Duo queues or very nice and forgiving teammates.)

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.


Senior Member


Lyte what do you think about the idea below?


Summoners are presented with a Dialog Box or Control that allows them to select one or multiple roles (ADC, Support, Mid, Top, Jungle) they are comfortable with.

When the summoner chooses a role it is visually indicated next the player name by an icon for that role/lane.

Hovering over the role/lane icon next to a player name will show a list of the top played champions in this role.


I join the pre-game chat and am presented with my choice of favored roles. I choose Mid, Top and Support.

A few seconds later I look at the list of players and see I'm the only one who has selected support. It gives me a pretty clear idea that will be my role.

I look at the list of players again and see that two players have ADC checked. I hover over the ADC for those players and see which champions they play most often, and can communicate directly with one of the players that I would love to support him as his preferred ADC.

The team looks at the two junglers and decides that one of the junglers most played champions fits well with the rest of the group.


This sort of setup would not lock any players into any roles, and still allow the flexibility to make choices, but would open up communication without typing.

No stats would be shown, which I know is another concern that players have.

Comps could be formed quickly, and probably with less toxicity.

One of the main problems is trying to communicate all of these things in a chat window in the time allotted. Usually we end up with people spamming which role they want in chat, and us trying to scroll up and decipher who wants what.

One other thing I would like to see implemented is the ability to see which champs another summoner owns, this will help with trading. It's a pain in the ass to try and work out which champs a player has in 30 seconds with chat.


I don't like the idea of vote kicking. I play WOW occasionally and within LOL I can tell you it will be abused.

You know how bad it is right now with dodges, or people not joining games. Imagine if you also have to deal with people kicking other players. One of the great things about LOL is you can usually get in a game within 5 minutes.

I also don't like the idea of putting bad behavior players with other bad behavior players. I think the current Tribunal system is making an impact and will continue to make an impact. There will always be a small % of players that slip through the cracks, and sure that sucks but like Lyte says the resources required to tackle the small percentage of players has been deemed not worthwhile investment.

I also don't like forcing people into Roles as one of the really cool things about League is the fact you can do stuff like two ADC bot, or Soraka mid.

Most of the issues I see are due to people not communicating, or being too aggressive and inconsiderate. The proposal I have above should help with alot of that communication.

Example Added:

The example was just a quick mockup, the ui interface would be way better with possible toggle buttons for each role.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.


Senior Member


I dislike all of these ideas.

1: My top two ranked champs played this season are Karma and Sejuani. I've had people dodge que when I try to go Lanejuani or mid Karma because they thought I was trolling. If vote kick was a thing, I could be punished for playing champs I'm good at because people are not aware of how good they could be, given the chance. I've gone against very good jungle Malzahars and jungle Ezreals; I doubt they would be able to play if vote kick was a thing. Not to mention what would happen with duo ques.

2. WoW's inherently balanced around the 1 tank 1 healer 3 dps model; League isn't. This would cause the meta to stagnate, and, again, I would be punished for queing as a top laner and then picking Sejuani because people think she can't top lane, or picking queing as a jungler and then picking Malzahar. How do you separate these people, who are genuinely trying, from people who aren't?

3. 'You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.' Shockingly, when you put people prone to argumentative behavior and raging into a place where everyone argues and rages, they want to argue and rage more, especially if they didn't think they did anything wrong in the first place.

The problem, I feel, is in the playerbase; everyone thinks 'my team sucks and I need to carry them, so I need to pick a role I can carry in.' Until we fix that (and good luck with that!) people will keep ignoring other people and just doing what they think they're best in.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.


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

Senior Member


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?
I'm going to go with my experience in Dota 2 since I had a tendency of abandoning games that were long gone since that game has no forfeit button other than "feed couriers or stand in fountain and wait." Prisoner Island sounds like the exact same thing as the LPQ in Dota 2.

1. NO. Don't do that. They won't improve.

2. That actually does work. At least in Dota 2, whenever people are put in LPQ they are thrown into games constantly with the one type of player you do NOT want to play with. See, you can play with foul-mouthed jerks to an extent before muting them or just ignoring what they say. Under no circumstances can anyone even tolerate the idea of playing with a full team of really bad foreigners...in this case, Brazilians. I can guaranteed that a lot of Brazilians will end up on Prisoner Island just by the very nature of their play (stereotypes exist for a reason, and I'm talking about the BR's who spam Portugese and only fling insults in English, not the Brazilians who can speak a bit of English and do try to help the team in the best way possible) The minute people get sent on a team with them, they'll either try to improve their behavior as to not get thrown in with another team of foreigners ever again, or they'll wait out the punishment.

As it stands, permabanning in theory doesn't work. You have the numbers, but if people like this game enough and they get banned, they WILL come back on multiple accounts. Basically, if you're stuck in Prisoner Island, the jerky player has an incentive to create a new account. Not necessarily. Ideally, they'll want to KEEP the account that's stuck there because that's where they've invested all their time and money. A perpetual account isn't something that people want to lose. Conversely, permabans DO encourage that because they've just lost all their stuff. You have to consider the reasons WHY people stop playing when they get permabanned or are not willing to create a second/third account. All their stuff is there, so they don't want to abandon it. They'll be less inclined to make a fresh account when they know they have access to their current account with all their skins/runes/champions. If they lose that access (permabanning), they'll either be completely gone from the game due to unwillingness to earn it back or will continue playing in a spiteful manner out of anger...in that case, they never go away. At least letting them keep the account under heavy restrictions (longer queue times, no IP/XP gain, maybe even locked access to skins) will make them try to shape up or at least not flood the game with accounts specifically designed to troll. I'm not saying you have to be nice to the jerks, but think practically. They're more likely to want to play with all of their toys under a watchful eye than lose them entirely.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Omg Kittenz

Junior Member


Has a champion select Tribunal been considered? I don't like the idea of vote kick directly in champion select, but I feel like toxicity will go down significantly if people are at least held accountable for their actions. Plus, one can usually tell if someone's being a jerk or trying to force a dodge from champ select.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.


Senior Member


Lyte, with respect to the "Vote to Kick" option in Ranked:

It's not that one person wants an overlapping role, it's that two people want the same role. In most of these situations, it's pretty easy to decide which one I'd rather have on the team.
In these scenarios, if given the ability to Vote to Kick one of the two, I'm not going to kick the guy who was nice all through champ select, I'm going to kick the guy who didn't say anything, waits till the last second, instalocks Morde and says "MID".

Whoever is getting punished in a Vote to Kick is highly likely to be the least cooperative person on the team, IMO.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.


Senior Member


One.. It's pretty cool how forthright Riot is about stuff. No other Dev gives this much feedback/insight. (Even if Riot seems to turn a blind eye to some things!)


I think a stance, or way to determine pick order would help eliminate alot of the problems. Most game's everyone seems willing to Co-Ordinate Roles.. People call them, if there is a conflict most times people work it out. The issues arise when. Scenario's like the following occur in draft:

3rd Pick Calls Annie Mid First. Everyone else agree on other roles Except First Pick.. First pick goes "Nu-Uh!!! Pick Order > Call Order " and picks Annie Mid, and locks in. 3rd pick then is under pressure to re-negotiate another role they are good at or want to play.

In some cases, they just "Fill" and pick a champ they're good at in another lane, and everything is OK.
In some cases, they claim "i dont have any support champs" and pick another role.. thus snowballing the troll pick problem to someone else who had intended to take that role/champ. The lobby falls apart here.

In some cases they claim "I don't know how to play Support/ADC or whatever lane is left" no one wants an in-experienced player trying to fill a role they can't, so sometimes people shuffle roles, sometimes not..

Anyway I think everyone has had experience with the various outcomes of that type of situation.

But most troll/toxic games I've had result from a scenario like that.. Where two people conflict on Pick Order Vs Call Order. And rather than resolving amicably they troll pick each other.

In games where everyone agree's on Pick order vs Call order (most people seem to be OK on call order) the positions are resolved in a friendly fashion, even if there are conflicts someone is usually okay swapping roles and things get fleshed out. (though not always). Time pressure doesn't help that situation but.. having champ select take longer isn't something that sounds appealing, but may help

In anycase rather than wow style queue. Perhaps a method in Lobby to "claim" roles or lanes. (lanes might not force 'meta' on people so much) Once everyone joines You click the button for the lane you want/intend to play.

Then folks would be ID'ed by what lane they'd claimed in the lobby, and perhaps could trade those around similar to how you can trade champions.. Without having to spend so much time chatting and arguing.

EG: Someone wants top, you picked the Top Flag/Button.. they can propose to trade their lane to you, for top. You can accept/deny.

Basically the GUI in some fashion handles the Debate between Call vs Pick Order (Via essentially call order IMO)

Poorly fleshed out idea but hopefully the jist of it is understood.

Though taking a stance on Call vs Pick order may go a long way to resolving most of the "Troll" lobbies i've experienced so far. Without any development work.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Extra Lunatic

Senior Member


Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
3) Prisoner’s Island | Players want matchmaking to pair toxic players with toxic players, and positive players with positive players.
Good idea, bad execution. If you want to put positive players with positive players I'm all in. However. You shouldn't group all toxic players together, however.

Why you shouldn't group all toxic players together :
  1. There are many types of players that are considered 'toxic'.
    • Offensive Players - These people can play well, they can even be quite talented. They're just not very friendly and therefor not compatible with the rest of the community.
    • Trolls - These people may not play well, in fact some of them like to play things like AP Olaf or games of "Get to the enemy fountain without being caught". Some however might go 5 tank teams and win the game. They're not necessarily mean but they're clearly not compatible with the rest of the community.
    • Bad Players - These people may not play well, in fact they are practically the bottom part of the elo ladder. May it be because they have poor abilities to learn from mistakes, to understand the game, because their computer/connection blows or because they barely speak english. They're not necessarily bad folks, however only some may be compatible with the rest of the community.
    Here are only 3 categories but you can see that forcing them all in the same "prison island" would do no good whatsoever. And personally, I don't really care about offensive players, I am not really offensive myself but I play well with other offensive players, they to not affect me in a negative way and I think that forcing them to go play with inexperienced players and trolls will not do any good for them, for me, for the trolls and especially for the bad players who will become victims of their wrath. Bad players won't get better or have better experience by being locked in with other people having the same problems they have.

  2. With this system you are going to drastically change the "ecosystem" of your online game.
    Basically, this will be the soap and pepper experiment. It will divide the community and change the landscape. Your prison island will be filled with people who can't stand each others, most will leave in the first few weeks of being introduced in this toxic environment, those who will stay will feel perfectly well in prison as the name of this nice exclusive club suggest. It will also change the attitude of your online community in-game. In my opinion it's a waste of effort. The advantage of not having to force would-be banned users to lose their paid content and having them come back on another account won't even be that great as no one in this club of toxicity will stand each other if they're not separated as suggests my first point. They might act as if their account was banned and make a new one like some of the banned players do.
    (For those who do not know about pepper's relationship with soap.)

  3. How will this idea impact on your image.
    I dare say that it will be as impacting as a bloated sewage filled garbage bag rotting on the corner of a street on a hot summer day. Just take the garbage to a facility that can treat it instead of piling it up in a place it'll rot away, produce nothing good for the earth and not recycle.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.


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

Senior Member


Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
These are some major problems with Champ Select that we’ve identified in our research. So what’s next? A lot of players have suggested the following:

1) Vote Kick | Players want the ability to vote kick toxic players from Champ Select.
2) WoW Dungeon Finder | Players want the ability to queue up for a particular role like “Healer” and “DPS” and placed into a Champ Select with a team
3) Prisoner’s Island | Players want matchmaking to pair toxic players with toxic players, and positive players with positive players.

What are some pros and cons to these ideas? Would they work for League?

I thought this thread was going to shed some light on ideas/features for improving champ select. Instead you list three ideas that have been shot down a long time ago and ask us to do a thought exercise? What are you trying to accomplish?

We've already heard straight from the horse's mouth that 1 encourages premade bullying and "gaming" lobbies for better ones among other issues, 2 codifies a meta that shouldn't be codified and doesn't guarantee the player will actually do what they queue for (despite Riot's optimism, some players (enough that you encounter them regularly) are simply trolls from the get-go) and splits the queues etc, and 3 allows more gaming of the system and just makes Prisoner's Island a total nonredeemable cesspool. So, none of that, at least without heavy modifications.

So, okay? Where do we go from here? Is the PB&J team still at this point in ideation, or are you just being coy?

For example, you've been dropping hints about pre-game context...do you actually have any ideas on how to alleviate this?

I mean, I'm not expecting you to announce a new PB&J feature here, but this thread has shed no new light at all other than your identifying core issues. Just yes/no...do you have any solid other ideas that you're looking at possibly testing/implementing?

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.


Senior Member


I'm sad that my idea got buried. The ideas Lyte and crew put on the table scare me, they don't do anything to support positive behavior in the slightest.... We need far more support for actually being a good player then more threats, scares and punishments for bad behavior. When in doubt always follow the core rule for rule breakers. Risk vs. Reward. If you raise the risk but the reward still sucks then nothing is likely to happen. You need to both raise the risk AND reward at the same time to have any real effect.