Let's talk about Champ Select

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

Iripley

Senior Member

03-13-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
RL context isn't an excuse for players to behave negatively or in a toxic way; however, RL context is an important variable that designers need to consider when designing a game because RL context can influence how players play the game.

The question is, "Is it possible to design a game feature that reduces the impact of RL context?"
I'm fairly sure there are ways to design and implement a game or even game features that can reduce the impact of RL context such as a game that is not competitive or in regards to a game feature perhaps in LoL a map made for just blowing off steam as far as a way to implement a feature that reduces RL context in a competitive environment. I'm not coming up with anything off the top of my head so good luck on that one hehe.

Wait, I got one LoL themed stress relievers think stress balls only shaped like your most hated opponent the Teemo ones should fly off the shelves. Ok problem solved your welcome. Next problem


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Xiao Rettousei

Senior Member

03-13-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
Vote kick is an interesting idea that has been suggested by players for quite awhile; however, what are some of the goals we'd like to accomplish for Champ Select?

One, we want to encourage cooperation in Champ Select. Two, we want players to have an ability to opt-out if they are 'stuck' with players they perceive are toxic or extremely negative. Vote-kick systems tend to give players an opt-out mechanism; however, they do not encourage cooperation.

In fact, in some scenarios vote-kick systems encourage premade groups to bully the strangers in the lobby into specific roles or champions. Given a scenario with 5 strangers, if 4 strangers happen to agree on roles and the 5th doesn't, the 4 strangers are highly likely to collaborate to kick the 5th. Given a vote-kick system, we are likely to see more disagreements than before, and greatly increase the time it takes to get into a game.
Whenever someone votekick and the votekick is accepted , the chat log should be sent to the tribunal or riot

If you can see a premade bully , all the persons who accepted the vote will be punished and the poor guy stuck with a 4man premade will have a compensation


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

CTore118

Senior Member

03-13-2013

I think we we try option number 2 there HAS to be a general que option like we have now still in order to allow players to break from the meta and be able to choose lower que times over playing a specific role.

Also, maybe have something like at the login screen where it shows your position in que or something update every so often so people can change if the wait is long.

As long as there is an option for yo to que up the same way we do now, there seems to be very little risk in trying it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Supersquid

Senior Member

03-13-2013

Sorry in advance.

I believe none of these are viable solutions. Firstly, defining what trolling is, there are 3 types generally speaking.
a) people who are toxic simply to cause others to have a bad time for personal enjoyment. The only solution to these players are bans (of course all the current talk of a better banning system is relevant here, I'm speaking generally.)
b) people who feel wronged by their team and are trying to enact some sort of vengeance, or at least "enjoy their time while they're stuck with this game". Ideally, the solution to this player would to change their expectations so they no longer feel wronged and lash out this way.
c) players who are not actually trolling, but are considered to be by their team mates. This is largely tied to the toxic players of b).

I think many players view League as another video game, where they are faced with a set of challenges meant to be overcome, and with enough determination, they will succeed. These players seem to not have a firm grasp on what a pvp environment is like, or do not associate these types of video games with sport. You cannot expect to win every game. The match making system is designed (or close to designed) in order to match people up in a more or less fair game, where they have close to a FIFTY FIFTY CHANCE to win. Not a 100% chance to win if they do their darndest, but an even game. This player does not sympathize with his bot lane who got paired up against a duo who is much more coordinated than his teammates, or his top lane who simply isn't as experienced as the other player. They want their team to "not feed" so they can enjoy the game they signed up for. This is really the type of player who isn't necessarily a toxic person but simply has a bad perception of what type of video game LoL is.
This is only compounded upon by a ladder system that is telling the player that they aren’t improving when they lose. They made no progress, and were put back when they fully intended to improve. Simply playing the game isn’t enough for them. I believe the new ladder system was meant to alleviate some of this feeling of one step forwards two steps back business, but I don’t think any ladder system could. The issue is with the mindset of the player—they need to want to just enjoy playing the game and trying to win and get better, not looking for some sort of visible progression or a victory screen. I am in no way trying to say these players are wrong. I just believe pvp settings, especially where you can’t visually see the other people you’re playing with, is not right for everyone. I don’t feel like many people realize the point of a mmr system is to get you to a point where you lose as often as you win. I don’t think many people want to play a game where they lose as often as they win, especially in a game that takes a fair amount of commitment and time investment.
One important point Status Kwoh brought up that is important is the idea of what knowledge you actually have available in champion select. Presumably, any person who has good intentions goes into champion select assuming they have the capacity to win. The underlying assumption is that this player believes he has a greater skill level or some other asset that will allow him to play better than his opponents. Assuming he isn’t duoing or by chance sees someone he knows on his team, the only knowledge he has is that he himself is a good enough player to win. So why wouldn’t this player always want to pick the role he believes he can carry hardest in? Why would this player squander his only ace in the hole so to speak because another player insists upon taking his place? The only thing that can change the player’s mind is a threat of intentionally losing by another player. The other player can in no way 100% confirm success, but they can absolutely guarantee failure. This lack of knowledge about the other players capacities is what truly cripples champion select into being a game of threats only. (The player could also be the good Samaritan and simply give up his best role in the interest of everyone having fun, but this still would be a “losing choice” by that player, given their knowledge. In the desire to win, they should always pick their best role).

TLDR: Players need to go into league of legends with the understanding that they are playing a competitive game like a sport, where you lose as often as you win ideally. No ladder system that prevents going backwards or whatever else can change players feelings about wanting to progress in a video game, and no fair ladder can let every player be on top.
I think ranked is much harder to fix than normal queues. Despite them being unranked, this is really common in normal queues as well depending on what your mmr is. People still want to win, and don’t want their teammates messing them up. And to assure this, they can instalock whatever champion they want, forcing the other teammates to “troll” by picking what they want to pick, or be a good member of the community and conform to the locking player’s desires. A good solution for more people enjoying normal queues is to have normal queues split up more than they are currently, or at least marketed differently. Normals without pick order or bans should simply be for testing and for casual fun. There is a reason ranked exists, and there should similarly be a place where people can do what they want without being coerced to play something they don’t want to. Yes, bots exist, but to most players bots are simply too predictable and stale to have any long term enjoyment in. Aram is alright, but you don’t have any say in what you want to try out. Thus, I believe blind pick normal queue should be openly designated and marketed as an open space to try anything you want. Going forward, draft mode normal should essentially be ranked but slightly less strict. This is of course hard to define, but making a clear difference between blind pick and draft mode would really allow a lot of players a place to try what they want with much less stress, as there currently is no place at all to play against players without the burden of appeasing everyone around you.

TLDR: People need a space to play that isn’t treated with the utmost severity—blind pick is supposed to be this place, but it isn’t currently. Make the distinction between Draft and Blind pick more obvious.


I don’t think any of the player proposed solutions are adequate to fix this problem.
1) Vote Kick: This is a system that can in no way work in League of Legends. The only time vote kicking would ever be the correct choice for a group to make is if a player is truly trying to do nothing else but make everyone have a worse time. There is, however, no way of assuring this is what vote kick would be used for. It is just as easily applied when several people want to dodge the teams that were made for them, kick a player out who wants to play something considered “against the norm”, etc. There simply is too much freedom in a game where there are so many variables players can disagree on, and could be used just as easily for harm as for good.

2) Dungeon finder is similarly unfeasible. Dungeon finder a couple months ago would not have allowed for Lee Sin or whatever mid, even though it would have worked just as fine then. Again, the main issue here is player perception on what wins, rather than what can actually win, and rarely will two players agree completely when randomly paired. Even in terms of the standard lane picks, players will disagree on what characters are strong or weak adcs, good and bad jungles, and so on. Essentially not only is the dungeon finder standard impossible to create well to begin with, but it also limits player choice severely.

3) Prisoner’s Island could work fine for normals I suppose, but as has been brought up it creates large problems for ranked right off the bat creating separate leagues. Even if this worked fine, one league would presumably be easier to win in than the other, and thus the optimal way to play could in theory to be toxic on purpose to be put in the easier league, or something similarly ridiculous. In addition, is there any way out of prisoner’s island? I doubt people in prisoner’s island are going to be giving out highly accurate honor or reports, so it seems unlikely that reform could ever happen that way for players who may have been misplaced. It is also a subpar solution as it isn’t prevention but a masking of the problem after the fact.
In my mind, the only solution is to make ranked 5s the main method of playing. There is no system of assembling 5 strangers randomly based on mmr and have a mostly uniform opinion on how they want to win a game of League of Legends. The question of how to win is simply too broad. And on the other hand none of those players will be so exceptionally qualified that they can tell the other players how to play. In an idealized world, should I be in charge of this game, I would be very tempted to simply dissolve solo queue ranked all together, leave blind pick and draft normals, and offer ranked 5s as the competitive outlet for the game only. I think that is the only truly correct solution. League is not meant to be a soloqueue game, and I see solo queue ranked as somewhat of a farce.
That having been said, Riot cannot really just get rid of soloqueue. Most players can’t just find their 4 friends at the drop of a hat, and that’s the reason soloqueue is as important as it is to begin with. As much as I hate to say it I think the only solution to champion selection that can be reached by logic is to make the highest ranked player in charge. There is no other distinction between the players that a ranked system can make. The highest ranked player is more than likely the player that has the most success in a soloqueue environment, whether or not that means the player actually has a solid grasp of the game in general. As much as 5th pick wants to tell you that he can carry if you give him mid, on average it is in his best interest to allow picks above him to take their best roles. Thus the way soloqueue is defined now, the only fair way to divvy up champion select is by pick order.

Final note, I think the only way to truly change people’s opinions is to make losing not feel so awful. Get rid of win of the day bonus and simply boost up ip gains, and make ip gain more similar between wins and loses. Losing 4 games in a row just trying to get some ip and resorting dejectedly to bots feels terrible. This isn’t a ranked issue necessarily, but setting up loses to always feel bad from summoner level 1 leads people to react so negatively to loss in ranked. There simply needs to be less emphasis on winning and more on playing. There should be continued rewards for simply playing games like there is until level 30 (gaining experience), whether it is achievements or whatever you want to come up with. If Riot didn’t have their business model, unlocking a champion after x amount of games instead of the current ip system would be a cool way to do so, but I doubt this is possible.

TLDR: The issue is that there is no reason to play ranked unless you win. If you lose your first game in ranked, you literally would have been better off not playing at all, and this is pretty awful design. There needs to be other motives to playing than ladder grinding.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

VladIsSparkling

Junior Member

03-13-2013

All three options aren't suited for this game. Most of reasons were pointed out earlier but here is my piece:

1. Vote-kick - easily abusable, it's a "post" solution to flame/trolling
2. WoW Dungeon Finder - shouldn't be implemented into League where meta can swift from one patch to another and where we have a huge meta swift every season. Can't templete all viable options
3. Prisonerís Island - another "post flame solution" where problem isn't solved, rather it's being hidden


Champion Select should be corrected (in my humble opinion) by small steps. Here are some "a little steps" that can (or can't) make some big changes in players behavior.

1. More clear rules.
It's really important. Stating that you CAN call your prefered role but higher picks CAN ignore it and pick "your" role. Statement saying that you should fill if some role was picked. Here I don't know if it should be order > calls but states it just because chat isn't synchronized (it's harder to tell who called first) and low-end computers can load champion select later (sometimes you can't see what someone written before your load).
Beside, it's a lot harder in normal, blind pick, games. There should be loaded a big, bright sentence: "Don't be a duck" that hovers over your champion pool for first couple of seconds.

2. Rule shown somewhere in client when you are in queue.
Not everyone knows rules. Not knowing rules won't change the fact that you should abide to them but it's better to be save then sorry.

3. Random witty text/joke shown inbetween champion select timers.
Yes, humour does miracles. It will help for those that sat to League right stright from bad day.

4. An animation of random, little champion dancing/taunting somewhere in champion select.
It's again "fight rage with sense of humour".


Those changes may or may not change a whole lot, but they will clearly help me (so it's one less potential rager for you out there).


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Theamp4

Senior Member

03-13-2013

The only one I agree with is number 2.

BUT the problem has been stated that it is going to either enforce a meta, be too constraining, create bad behavior if two people want to queue as mid, and it's also been suggested that people do it by lanes. That also has it's own problems. What if I DON'T want to lane with someone at bot lane? Well now the other guy that wanted to bot lane and I are going to be arguing, so we are back at square one.

What I propose is to have a small box that we can type in, stating what we prefer to do in maybe... 10-15 words/100 characters at most? That allows me to say:

"Hello, I prefer to Bottom Lane Solo, though I can do it with a partner."

This gives a better way to explain where I would like to go, and if people are not *******s about it, a happy medium could be found. BUT this does not fix the problem of one person wanting to go mid, but this one wants mid as well, and neither want to give up the role without both going mid. So I think to fix this, maybe have a system that scans each person's box, and picks up keywords that have been noticed lately by the system itself (as well as terms that have been put in by Riot themselves), of which can help sort people accordingly. An example of this would be:

5 random people queue up at the same time, they don't feel like following the meta(of the current time), and this happens.

1: "I would like to mid with a partner."
2: "I would like solo top."
3: "I would like to duo bot with my friend."
4: "Is the friend that wants to duo bot."
5: "Mid, with or without partner."

In that example, the system would read through each one accordingly before queueing them together. It notices that 1 WANTS to mid with a partner, while 5 is fine with or without, so it will queue them together in the same game. It notices number 2 has no one else wanting that lane, and it queues them with the other 2, and it notices 3 and 4 both want bottom duo, so it queues them with the other 3.

An example of what it WON'T do:

Random 5 people chosen for queueing up.

1: "I would like to mid solo."
2: "I would like to go mid without a partner."
3: "Bottom, no partner."
4: "Bottom, with partner."
5: "Bottom, without partner."

The system reads this, and notes that 3 people are disagreeing on bot lane, so it removes those 3 from that queue, and adds them to a different one, as well as the first two, as they both disagree with each other, so it then pushes them to a different queue.

I think this system would work, though it will increase queue times somewhat, depending on how open the player is. If the player is open to all roles, then he will find a queue almost instantly, but if someone just says "mid solo or afk", then he will have a longer queue time, so it encourages you to learn other roles to lower queue time, though it is not necessary to queue.

I think I'll copy this all and post it on a thread as well.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

snead

Senior Member

03-13-2013

1) Vote Kick | Players want the ability to vote kick toxic players from Champ Select.
The problem with Vote Kick is if you're playing non-ranked or even ranked and a duo, triple, quadra queue enteres the game, doesn't like you and immediately boots you from the party. This could make it even more frustrating for individuals.

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
The main problem with the WoW Dungeon finder idea is that it confirms the players into playing a certain game type meta. Maybe individuals want all support? Maybe there shouldn't always be one mid, one top, two bot, one jungle.

3) Prisoner’s Island | Players want matchmaking to pair toxic players with toxic players, and positive players with positive players.
Sounds interesting i'd be curious if this were to be implemented what would actually happen. Only way to know is to try in this situation.

The obvious problem is that the game is team oriented and when one person is slacking it is difficult for others to make up for this. Starcraft championships are 1v1. Counter-strike one person can destroy an entire team. How can we make it so if even 2 people disconnect the other 3 people can still win the game?

I know i'm derailing this from champion select and this is where problems start when a duo queue says me and my friend bottom lane but realistically it'd be great of the meta supported you getting to play your Annie in top lane and the TF can go to middle lane as well.

If we're going to allow for different types of meta and abandon the dungeon finder which I believe isn't the correct way to go about it. Always having a jungle, two bottom instead of 5 top lane or something outrageous. I think we should as a community make it socially acceptable as well as supported by Riot. In every tournament they say "Playing x role" how about instead allowing for different meta's to be used to achieve goals? How about implementing more objectives so when a team is down they don't say surrender at 20 or do a last baron pray attempt? How about making it so the items have a very small impact on the game but the player skill level be the most fate deciding factor? Example: We killed this guy at level 1. We killed him again when he returned to lane. We were level 4 and he was still level 1 when he returned back to the lane. Could he or his team recover after those first two deaths in the beginning? Hardly. The game needs to have more things that can offset the game rather than getting a kill at level 1 and winning your lane. Just one successful early play and the game is yours is just not exciting.

TLDR: Make the game even more skill based, less about items, and more about objectives for individuals and groups.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

cplo

Senior Member

03-13-2013

Am I the only one who doesnt see a huge problem with how it is currently?

All i hope is that Riot doesnt do anything that is going to make queue times even longer; back before the dodge penalties, it would take forever to get into games, and I dont want to get back to that


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

FlySkyHigh777

Senior Member

03-13-2013

Okay, I know that we're supposed to discuss how things impact both types of Queues, so here's my thoughts.

I most strongly support Prisoner Island, but only bother implementing it for normals. HERE'S WHY. The system of ranked is kind of self-selecting. If you troll/feed/etc all the time. You're going to end up in Bronze 5 and stick there with the other ilk. In normals, we have no such kindness. If you implement that system for Normal games, it'd be immensely useful.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Lyte

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

Lead Social Systems Designer

Follow RiotLyte on Twitter

03-13-2013
35 of 55 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by RadiantLuna View Post
My thoughts on these "solutions" as a Psychology grad student myself:

Vote kick initially seems like a good idea- it doesn't force a meta or cause matchmaking issues. However, there are abuse concerns with both premades and kicking out unconventional picks. Teams could also abuse this function to force a requeue if they don't like the enemy team composition.

Role queueing seems to strike at the root of the problem, which is that multiple people want to play the same role at the same time. One issue is that this would "enforce" a meta to some extent, which Riot does not wish to do. Another issue is that queue times would not be equal for all roles (supports would have lower queue times, mids would have higher queue times) so a mid player may queue as support to try and break the system.

Prisoner Island seems like a decent solution possibly, except that toxic players are not going to become less toxic by being queued with negative players. Being around negative players will probably just make their behavior worse, which gives little opportunity for reform.

Maybe the best idea is to have role preference indicators before queuing up. This forces the meta less than queuing as a specific role (and avoids the queue time issues), but may allow for easier communications of the preferred roles of everyone on the team. You can at least point to one of the people demanding Mid and say "Hey we don't have an AD Carry yet and you have that listed as your second choice, mind doing that for this game?" There's no perfect solution, but having easy access to everyone's role preferences may help in a time-crunched environment.
Role preference indicators are an interesting idea. Awhile back, kitae asked me if it we could try a few experiments where players enter Champ Select with some icons that showed their role priority (1st = Top, 2nd = Mid, etc) and see if that improved communication. The idea is compelling because it's a way for players to show their expectations heading into the lobby.

It certainly streamlines some of the communication currently required in a time pressured lobby.