Let's talk about Champ Select

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

FatJuggahole

Member

03-13-2013

is riot actually dumb enough to add the WoW dungeon finder to lol


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

FinalCactus

Senior Member

03-13-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by davin View Post
Splitting the queues based on that point of order probably isn't the best solution, as you'd be splitting playerbases. More likely we just want to find a set of solutions that eases the race-condition burden and allows players to build confidence in the team they're forming. Right now champ select is a bit stressful, as you're trying to get information from four people in order to form something that will allow you to succeed. Within a very small time-frame.

That's further complicated by people thinking they're better than the other players in the queue. Dunning-Kruger manifests relatively consistently. For example, we've been doing player behavior perception surveys for some time now. On those surveys, players are much more likely to suggest they very rarely make mistakes that cost the game while other players are doing so much more frequently. On a five-point frequency scale, "my mistakes cost the game" clocks in at a full point above "another player's mistakes cost the game". It can't really be the case that every respondent only rarely costs the game while a given other player frequently does.

That's not an unexpected result, and doesn't mean people are bad or dumb for thinking it. It's just a common bias that humans experience (myself included!). But it does point at one reason why, regardless of the ruleset imposed for picking champions, there will be tensions resulting from a lack of knowledge about what is about to happen (and a lack of clarity around your teammates).
I'm surprised it's not even less frequent. The fact is, if there was one mistake that cost the game, 4/5 times it's not going to be you if you are on par with the rest of the team.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Syrail

Senior Member

03-13-2013

The way I see it, there are two goals (player experience vs reform) that the player behavior team is looking to achieve, and they often clash with one another.

The simplest solution has been tried: Remove the toxic player from the equation.
It's already been decided that a ban is ineffective because the toxic player simply creates a smurf account for the duration of the ban. It's fairly safe to say that this pattern will follow with any action that they feel is sufficiently severe. The key here is that the toxic player must be given the opportunity to reform without any action that they perceive as punishment.

Enter a known solution - /mute. My personal experience has been greatly improved by muting players if bad behavior persists beyond a certain point. The key point here is that even if I lose the game, It's a far less miserable experience when I don't have to listen to a particularly nasty team member. I have also found that it does not negatively impact strategy much - These players typically do not want to cooperate, nor do they have anything helpful to contribute to planning.

Given that we're talking automated systems here - misdiagnosis rates have to be low or else outrage ensues - Why not temporarily auto-mute players as a pre-ban-level warning, and not tell them what has happened until the "chat-ban" is over? This gives the offending player no incentive to change accounts - they don't know any better (non-toxic players protected? check.) It also gives the offending player a fair chance to reform, since they will still be notified that action has been taken. Leave smart-pings on for the muted player, so they have a language to communicate with their team without all the mess.

Finally, if some players really want to risk hearing what such a player has to say, give everyone a client option to view chat-banned messages (defaulted to "off").


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

BedderDanu

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

Senior Member

03-13-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by davin View Post
That's further complicated by people thinking they're better than the other players in the queue. Dunning-Kruger manifests relatively consistently. For example, we've been doing player behavior perception surveys for some time now. On those surveys, players are much more likely to suggest they very rarely make mistakes that cost the game while other players are doing so much more frequently. On a five-point frequency scale, "my mistakes cost the game" clocks in at a full point above "another player's mistakes cost the game". It can't really be the case that every respondent only rarely costs the game while a given other player frequently does.
Wouldn't it be the case that other players are 4 times as likely to throw the game with a mistake then yourself, since there are 4 times as many of them? I mean, I may only make a mistake every 1:5 games, but my ally makes a mistake 4:5 games. Sure, it's a different ally every time, but the net effect is that every person rarely costs the game themselves.

On point: I wonder if you could pull off a matchmaking tagging system, sort of a "modified dungeon finder" system:

For example, when I queue, I can add tags to where I play ("Top" "Mid" "Bot" "Jungle" "Roam"), tags for how I play (for example "Unique Strategy" "Strict Meta"), and tags for role ("Burst Offense" "Sustained Offense" "Tank Defense" "Support Defense")

The game itself tries to match me with similar tags for How ("Strict Meta" with "Strict Meta") and displays the other tags on my summoner icon when moused over.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Sqimran

Junior Member

03-13-2013

If we were able to queue up for roles, would we be able to queue up for multiple roles? (i like being filler)


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Mestergrog

Senior Member

03-13-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by davin View Post
Not really an idiotic suggestion, we've talked about something similar before. It does add a pretty hefty barrier to entry (more time before your game starts), but is a solution largely aimed at resolving time pressure and allowing for teams to ensure chemistry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
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.
^Requoting this; both of these ideas are great! More cooperative teams, without needing to enforce the meta


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Hudelf

Member

03-13-2013

Just thinking off-the-cuff here, but I think one possible solution to explore could be a system of selecting your top 3 (or so) desired champions prior to queuing.

To explain in more detail I imagine a system to select up to 3 champions that you are either good at or wish to play. You could choose 0, or possibly a "I'm up for anything" option. This would not affect your queue in any way, but these selections would be visible to your teammates to encourage discussion and provide a starting point for role selection.

It's important to note that you would select only champions and indicate nothing of role, lane, build, etc. I feel there would be too much upkeep for maintaining a role selection as playstyles change, and could create instant toxicity if you say "tank teemo" or some other oddball matchup. Far too many other issues with role selection in my opinion.

Pros:
- Starting point for discussion
- Quicker to see preferences/possible strengths of teammates
- Could help captain possibly make better ban judgements in first pick situations if someone wants a commonly banned champ

Cons:
- May still encourage people to try "calling" their role if others have clearly overlapping champion selections, leading to call-order vs pick-order arguments
- Creates an extra step in order to queue, may be ignored if too cumbersome
- Could create confusion of where people want to lane (Oh you're doing Lux support instead of mid?)

Certainly not an airtight solution, but possibly a better idea springboard than role selection.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Araam

Junior Member

03-13-2013

Two possible ideas:


(YIKES I think you've guys have basically seen this one. just a lobby before champ select)
1. Why do we force teams to start banning and picking as soon as they're matched against each other?

How about instead of matching 10 people individually, we instead match 5 people into a team lobby. From there they can start discussing strategy and roles. Preferred roles, characters and playstyles (passive/aggressive, etc.). This allows the team to then be able to decide what bans are actually the best bans for their team. In addition, it gives the team a way to be able to move players around. For example, if two players want to play mid, and one of the mid players prefers playing Zyra in an aggressive manner, it might actually match up with the ADC player who likes playing aggressively bot. They could even come to an agreement on CS and such. Once the team decides they're ready to go (everyone individually confirms they're ready), they can then be matched against players. I think this would help reduce rage just because the entire point of this room is to increase communication.

Big disadvantage is the time sink that would occur. Unless you were 5 man queuing for Ranked 5s or a Pre-Made for normal queues, a lot of time would be involved in this location, which in addition to having to wait for the champion selection to occur, would take a long time to get to the actual game, especially with teams that have players that are experiencing conflicts. Another bad thing is that because of the fact that you would have everyone in this method confirming that they're ready to go, either an angry player could prevent the team from being able to continue, or teammates frightened by another team mate could lead to everyone not being able to play. In addition, how do we deal with people dodging from this screen? Do we treat it the same as doing it from the normal champion select? Or do we treat it harsher because so much time is being spent on this screen. In addition, why does this actually require communication? If players instantly decide that they're ready, even without talking, the same problems we have before still exist. This system only works if a player refuses to confirm ready until he knows his team is good to go. In that case, a player can hold others hostage! This might not be useful to a troll though, since you would have to wait forever to play a game. On the other hand, it might be extremely painful to other players because they then can't play unless they dodge, which means they may receive some sort of punishment.

It may change the toxicity of players entering the game for a few reasons. One, you can encourage (thought not necessarily require) communication now. Two, Players don't have to worry about a time constraint now in the sense that stress to make a good decision in time isn't a factor. Three, Players can now have an easier way of becoming a better fit for a team. This could even be as far as discussing how a champion that they like to play top/mid/jungle could be used as a support to better help the team.

2. Why is pick order cemented?

Pick order is partially the reason that we see players forced into roles that they don't want to go to, which can definitely cause rage. In addition, it prevents some players at the top from picking for roles they want. What if we gave players that were at the bottom the ability to actually be the ones to pick first? It could be that all players are given the chance to immediately trade positions, or that everyone on the team has a chance to pick in response to the other team.

I think this allows for better counterpicking as well as a larger variety of champs being played. Sorry I keep using this example, but there are a lot of champions you can't play mid just because it's easy to counter that position. If the person that was first in champion select wants to play mid, and doesn't have the option to trade with other teammates, then he's kind of ****ed in what he's allowed to play if he wants to have a successful game. He's forced to pick a safer champion. Whereas, if you allowed him to trade positions with someone else, or even just allow all four below him to make a shot at picking their champion first for that spot, then we could see more variety in picks because now that he sees the enemy picked x champion, he knows that his y champion is definitely okay to pick now.

Main negative is obviously implementing this in a fair way. How do you allow someone to switch positions without themselves being screwed over? (Say two players want the same position, and the higher pick doesn't want to pick first so he trades with the lower pick, only to find that the lower pick takes his position? Not cool.)

If you were to try to okay the champion pick for each spot with the team as a solution to the negative above, we would run into the problem of teams being able to effectively disallow champions that aren't FOTM.

Still, I think the best solution is just changing the way champions are selected entirely, like in the two methods I've displayed above.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Solemn

Member

03-13-2013

Why not a combination of Option 1 (vote kick) and Option 2 (WoW Dungeon Finder type system)?

I've played my share of games, and most of the game lobbies are cooperative and pleasant. At the very least, most come to some sort of reasonable compromise that everyone can agree to.

Of the 3 options presented, I think Option #2 would be the best way to improve Champ Select. Players will pick a role they want to play for the game in which they are about to queue, and they will pick the champion they feel will best fill that role once they enter Champ Select. Typically, most players will pick champions that fall into the current meta. You don't really need to enforce the meta because the majority of players are going to follow it to the best of their ability. It's very rare to find players that will deviate from the standard meta by picking Zedd support or jungle Soraka.

I think for Option #2 to truly work, I think the role needs to be explicitly stated next to the player's name upon entering champion select. If multiple people can enter the Champ Select screen having queued for mid, what would be the point of implementing Option #2? The point of creating a system for Champ Select is to alleviate the problems currently experienced in the Champ Select screen.

However, Option #1 (vote kick) would help address the following issues that sometimes arise during champion select:

1.) Player instantly locks in a champion without communicating with the team
2.) Player is argumentative, verbally abuses other players, or is overall negative without any justifiable reason to be upset
3.) Player picks a champion that cannot reasonably fill a role (support Nidalee or Lux can be reasonable; support Akali not so much)

I think the vote kick should be something any player can initiate. For a person to be successfully kicked, a vote needs to be agreed upon unanimously.

Possible penalties for players that are kicked out of a lobby:

1.) No penalty for first kick
2.) If voted out immediately following the first kick, a player will incur a 5-10 minute waiting period.
3.) If kicked out for a 3rd consecutive time, a player will incur a 10-15 minute waiting period and X amount of LP.

Ideally, this will encourage less trolling during Champion Select screens and reduce the number of arguments. No one enjoys losing IP or waiting an extended period of time. On the flip side, you can reinforce positive behavior through extrinsic motivation. Toxic players are probably not inclined to be intrinsically motivated to be positive, but they will probably respond better to bonus IP for X consecutive games where they received any combination of +teamwork, honorable opponent, etc.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Mosreal

Senior Member

03-13-2013

Frankly, I believe that extending the champion select time would be a viable solution. I can often convince my teammates to let me go where I want, but if we had more time, I believe communication would increase in the team.

As someone mentioned before, maybe 45 seconds of chat for strategies and roles, before champion select for each team. This would maybe smooth out the process; coupled with a "Vote to Kick" system to kick uncooperative teammates, which would only work on a majority, 4-1 vote.

I know that a counter argument to the "Vote to Kick" system is that others can be bullied to join a queue, but how often do players actually get teamed up with a 4 person premade? Even if it is that often, let's consider, if you're being bullied by a premade group before the game start, then it is a gift to be removed from that group rather than be tossed into a toxic game.