Let's talk about Champ Select

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

Vortan1

Senior Member

03-13-2013

I think a vote kick option would be too easy to abuse. What happens to the kicked player? Duo queuers would get 2 votes in their favor right off the bat. Also, how many times can a vote to kick someone be started?

In order to solve this problem it needs to be before you are in an actual champ select, not during it. The WoW dungeon finder idea is something that I've tried to spread around the forums and with some success I might add.

The obvious problem with this solution is that Riot won't support a specific meta and players may not want to be pigeon holed into playing one spot because of who they might have to lane against.
Another problem is the criteria a player would select from before queuing.
Options for criteria: Spot (top, mid, etc) Role (ADC, APC,), Descriptive Adjective established by Riot (Mage, Fighter, Jungler, Ranged, Tank, Assassin, etc).

I think the Descriptive adjective would work best and IF it can be done, matchmaking makes up a team from the pool of players of balanced damage (AD, AP) and survivability (tankiness, healing, etc). This way, a meta does not have to be enforced by Riot and teams will have balance. When choosing from the list of criteria, based on the total possibilities, players have to pick more than one option, but not all options. (For example, if there are 10 options, players have to choose 2-9 of them). The more options chosen, the potential for your queue time will be shorter.

Now if the idea comes into fruition with the above criteria for entering champ select, what happens DURING champ select. Well, the prompt comes up to accept joining champ select, also in this prompt will be the Descriptive Adj the player chose. Upon entering champ select, The player can only choose from a pool of champions that fit the Adjective they chose. (For example: You're Playing Mage! Choose from: Veigar, Karthus, Ryze, etc). Banning phase will remain the same as it is now.

Yes, champs can fill multiple roles and Riot would have to clean that up and describe champions as being able to strongly fill those roles (No descriptor for Malzahar being a jungler!).

The only real issue becomes players figuring out which lane they will play in, but in the current definition of the meta, it shouldn't be too bad. Another issue may be a player not fulfulling the role they are suppose to (For example, someone getting the Assassin role and then build straight support items...which may or may not be a reportable offense.)


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Fk It Bayleef

Senior Member

03-13-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
You raise a few interesting points. What's more important to players? Their role (Tank! Support!), their champion (Ashe! Xerath!), or their position (Top! Mid!)?

Regarding showing the top 5 champions stat to players in Champ Select, we're very intentional and deliberate when deciding what stats to show players. If we showed players the top 5 champions, doesn't it create a perception that if the players are not playing one of their most experienced champions that the team is at a disadvantage?
I believe this is accurate though. 90% of the time if someone isn't playing one of their top 5ish champions the team IS at a disadvantage. Wouldn't this help and encourage people to work around other peoples roles and strengths?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Baxter900

Senior Member

03-13-2013

I don't know how much this would help, but by prioritizing people you've won a game with and telling the player that they won a game with that other person, I feel that it would help. It would overall give players more trust in their teammates. Just a thought though I think it would work. Any feedback would be nice.

(I'd really like a response from Davin or Lyte!)


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Shaco ftwin

Senior Member

03-13-2013

Here's a "probably couldnt work, but lets start thinking out of the box" kind of idea.

Either have a game mode where there is literally ZERO chat. Ever. Anywhere. With the new ping system, that has all you REALLY need. It indicates if you need leash for blue, if you are telling someone you're going in for a gank... really everything you need. Sure not as elaborate, but holy Christ that'd save a lot of headache.

ORRRRRR on the other hand, there could be an option at the home screen of the client that says "Turn off All Chat" just for your character. Then in Champ Select and in game, there will be an icon showing that you have all your chat off.

I truly think that people can figure out the game without chat. And not only that, I feel that the game will be a much happier place if there is just no communication other than pings.

Ultimately, I guess that would make the game pick order focused, and would make blind pick games a bit more of a challenge to organize. I do honestly think that it would allow people to play what they want, and it would actually make it MORE likely for a new META to spawn up because people wouldn't get pigeon holed.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Rizmiester

Senior Member

03-13-2013

This may be buried in the depths of the thread, but what are you thoughts on no-chat in queue?

I know there are both pros and cons, but it would be so refreshing to go into queue and after a couple picks, see what the team needs and fill.

I understand communication it key in LoL, but i know when i join ranked, I dont even look at the chat anymore and when its my turn to pick, i pick. The first 60 seconds of "mid or feed" or "only ADC" is kinda infuriating (sp) and one of the most frustrating parts of the game (hence why I ignore it and dont speak).

I also understand you would need to communicate where you are going, but maybe a drop down menu after your champ is selected. (for example, i first pick zyra, and choose support). This way, everyone knows what that players intentions are.

In addition, adding chat to the loading screen or after all the champs have been picked may be the way to get lvl 1 strategies in before the game starts.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Viro Melchior

Senior Member

03-13-2013

Lyte/Davin, here's an alternative to vote-kick:

Vote-dodge.
First off, I think the dodge system in general should be adjusted. Your first dodge shouldn't create a penalty (ranked or normal). But your flag for penalties should be more than 8 hours (normals) and 0 (ranked).

Dodge penalties should be different in blind pick and in draft, because of the ability to dodge based on enemy team picks. So...

Blind pick:
18 hour timer (slightly less than first win of the day)
First dodge = no penalty
Second dodge = 5 minutes
Third dodge = 15 minutes
4th dodge = 30 minutes
5+ dodge = 45 minutes

Normal Draft:
All basic stuff same as blind, but with the added
All dodges have an increased penalty of 90 seconds per pick that has occurred (6 rounds of picking = max added penalty of 9 minutes)

Ranked Draft:
Timer = 15 games of ranked
First dodge = no penalty
2nd dodge = basic league points penalty
3rd dodge = 10% increased penalty
4th+ dodge = 25% increased penalty

So, right there you have a system that encourages "moderated" dodging. So players can avoid that bad game.

Then you add in a vote-dodge option. For an entire team, and requires 4 vote consensus. Simply moves everyone up on their dodge penalty list, but instead of giving them the standard penalty, they get it reduced by 50%.
This can apply to ranked and normals. In ranked, it can't be abused because the net LP loss is 2.5x as high. In normals, it could be abused by 4 and 5man premades, but I don't think the 5man dodge is something to worry about too much (only an issue in draft, and they still do get timers).

Since it increments the dodge penalties, it makes sure that players won't just spam the vote any time they get a bad draft comp, because very quickly it will be faster to play to 20 and surrender, even with the 50% reduction (hence choosing 45 minutes as the top penalty).


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ArcHorizon

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?
I feel like I should chime in here. Im not quite sure how to feel about Prisoner's Island but let me try to get out my thoughts here.

Let's face it, there would likely be many people who are placed into Prisoner's Island who will make a new account to start over. To answer 'what was the point of creating Prisoner's Island': People DONT want to have to make a new account and level it back up to 30. This is, quite frankly, a massive hassle. If they believe that they would be better off creating a new account to get out of this, then they obviously dont want to be there. I should think that this would inspire them to rectify/change their behavior. If they make a new account and level it up to 30, only to have it fall back into Prisoner's Island, it really defeated the purpose in the first place. They would almost be forced into changing the way they interact with others.
This would, however, lead to an increase in the number of players who permanently leave this game due to multiple accounts getting stranded on Prisoner's Island (which im sure you dont want).

I feel as though the main problem with Prisoner's Island isnt the problem you presented here, but rather the difficulties of getting out, breeding additional toxic players by surrounding them together, and players who would rather play in an atmosphere with verbal abuse and swearing getting matched with trolls.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

UPfreely

Senior Member

03-13-2013

Why can't we just join a game with preset runes/masteries/champ/summoner spells and just play like that. make it a true blind pick and make a 3rd game mode for current blind pick.
My biggest concern with the game is lack of variety in game modes/maps and the staleness that ensues.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

imweasel09

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
Why would Prisoner's Island be mainly Bronze players? Players of all skill levels can have toxic behaviors.
I think the implication is that players in Bronze V feel like they have nothing to lose, their rank can't possibly drop any lower so it attracts more trolls.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Aeris

Senior Member

03-13-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
.
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
do this and lol will be a much better game