@Lyte - Player Behavior, Matchmaking, and Life as a Scientist

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

IS163154d44e5b2977da6d3

Junior Member

08-27-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
When analyzing or assessing a feature like this, we have to take a look at the value we're adding given the costs/risks. If the majority of Champion Select lobbies have instant lock trolls who irritate and harass their own team, then a feature like this might add a really high value by removing their ability to frustrate others (though one could always argue they'd just act toxic in a different manner because we haven't solved the problem and only removed a channel the problem is vented through).

However, the data suggests that the number of lobbies that end with instant locking and the players are frustrated or pissed off about it is in the minority. Given the data, removing the lock would only arbitrarily increase the duration of Champion Select for many lobbies which I believe is too high of a cost to solve a problem that only a minority of lobbies have.
In regards to the lock in button I think a compromise would be perfect. Without having access to any champion select data I can say that overall the lock in mechanic causes more harm than good for me personally. Especially in blind pick normals I find it hard to believe the button helps a lot of people.

While it's purpose (speeding up champion select) is clear I can honestly say that maybe 1/20 champion selects get sped up by this mechanic for me. And even then it's rarely more than 10-20 seconds. I realize that from a companies perspective and the millions of games played this is still a substantial amount but for me as a player it's simply not worth the hassle it brings.

The problem is that in blind pick first come first serve still seems to be the only system to fall back on to determine roles. As much as I am a fan of cooperation we both know that in the end there has to be a system when working together fails, which sadly it often does in league of legends (especially in normals). In practice the first come first serve system leads to calling roles (let's not derail this into whether this is the right way to do it). Combine this with the overall buggy and lagging clients and there will be confusion and arguments over which role to take. This results in people locking into roles they do not 'deserve' which as we all know leads to much negativity.

I think a good solution would be to allow locking in after 30 seconds have passed. This way you can still speed up champion select while you remove an excuse for negative behavior. Judging by experience less than 0.5% of all champion selects end with all 10 people locking in in under 30 seconds anyway, but you have the exact number probably.
I know that there is no way to tell if people will just wait 30 seconds anyway and still lock in their choice when they 'lose' in the first come first serve system (toxic players will always exist) but nowadays the lock in mechanic is a tool or an excuse for people to force their role upon other people. "I'm locked in so I CAN'T change anymore, YOU solve the problem" is the attitude that comes up a lot. Sometimes as an accident (like I said laggy clients, and ofcourse the whole issue where you have 0 ping to your client, falsely showing you to be first when you are not) but more often that not as a tool for toxic players to force their team into their scheme.

Also I wonder what your data shows the average time gain from the lock in button is. Because when every negative experience with someone that locks in (and there are plenty of them which do not lead to reports due to lack of tribunal evidence) leads to AT LEAST 20min of time thrown away the whole 'gain' of the system is not visible to me as a player at all. Even as a scientific orientated person myself your data can not rationally overcome the negativity the system brings to me on a daily basis. And I think plenty of people will agree with me.

This post became a bit longer than expected but I hope you get the gist. Apologies for spelling/grammar mistakes.

TL;DR: 30 seconds delay on locking in seems like an easy to implement change that will ensure the mechanic can no longer be used as a tool/excuse for negative behavior while having almost no impact on the goal of the mechanic to shorten champion selects.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Arcticfury

Senior Member

08-27-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
LeaverBuster does a decent job of punishing Leavers who leave intentionally; however, we're always going to have a small % of games have a Leaver that either disconnects because of ISP issues, weather issues, or some other unintentional cause.

What kind of ideas do players have to address both kinds of Leavers?
I don't think this topic belongs in Player Behavior or Matchmaking, what it does involve is MMR and LP adjustments. 3 games ago I played Support Taric with a Lucian ADC, we wrecked bot and floated to Mid to wreck it, drove to inhibitor, stomped it, then Lucian recalls and D/Cs. We lost next two team fights barely, but 2 aces and we lost the nexus. I lost 23 LP for that. We were blue so we should have had a lower Net MMR, we were down 4 to 5, and I get nailed as if I had the upper hand which couldn't be further from the truth.

So leavers are likely getting caught and punished by LeaveBuster at a nearly perfect rate, if not at a good rate. This works well in the long run and for Normals where your MMR is nearly meaningless since you can't see it. But there is no justifiable reason the Blue team (and really Purple if matchmaking is working half way decently) should have an LP adjustment for a loss when down.

The answer I've suggested before is an LP distribution. Let's pretend that the LP system works well and fair and that a losing team each lost 15 LP for losing the game. If they have a leaver a correction could go in that the leaver then receives 1/3 of each of his/her team's loss plus their own. So instead of 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 it'd go 35, 10, 10, 10, 10. Now there is no exploit for DUOs and the same Net LP reduction happened, the leaver gets punished, and the leaver's teammates get a little help for having to play 4v5.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MashiroSunao

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

Senior Member

08-27-2013

Someone here mentioned the idea of hiring mods. There's a way Riot can punish toxic players without shelling out money and that's by making player mods like Jagex does on Runescape (or used to do, not sure what it is now). How this works is they select their most positive players and ask them if they want to be mods - they would have the power to issue chat bans, short few hour bans, refer a toxic player to player support for a more serious ban, etc. Just to make sure these volunteer mods do not abuse their power, Riot would monitor these players to make sure of that. I'm sure a lot of players would like the honor of being one and having an ingame icon (similar to the honor initiative) to show for it. Hell, I think the presence of these players in a match would automatically prevent toxicity in said match similar to a Rioter being in the game.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ginga

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

Recruiter

08-27-2013

@Lyte: I don't know if this means anything or not, but there is one particularly concerning pattern I've noticed in regards to behaviour based on role.

This is pure anecdotal evidence, but players who end up playing Support out of necessity(as in all other roles taken and they were last pick) have a tendency to be particularly abrasive. Even if the game is won and you try to congratulate them on doing a good job, a good number of them tend to fire back with a "STFU" or "you suck". Even worse is when the support player happens to be duo-queued with a friend, but due to whatever reasons the friend ended up as a non-ADC, leaving a random playing the ADC with the premade support, in those cases Supports would go so far as to sabotage the ADC by making last hits difficult.


Now I'm not saying Support players are jerks. But considering most of those cases are players playing as Support out of necessity, and knowing how unpopular Support is compared to other roles...I think players who end up with roles they dislike end up becoming toxic due to not having a good time... because they ended up in a role they dislike. I don't think this is entirely a problem with Support as a role, but rather a matter of people having to spend 20+ minutes playing a role they do NOT have fun playing, since I've seen this happen once with a jungler as well.


In that case, is it possible for you to make players who got roles they didn't want less bitter? Like somehow have a system that ensures everyone got the role they want to play? What about Premade supports who end up supporting a Random? Those have been by far my worst experiences ever. Is there any plan on dealing with Duo-Q behaviours? Simply letting the premade's partner be an ADC doesn't exactly work out, because more than once they don't make it known what role they even want to play until AFTER someone locked in an ADC before the other premade player picks it.

Ideally the best way to go about it is to list out all your preferred roles and your weakest roles at the very start of champion select. But as we all know, that very rarely ever happens. It's a race to see who can call the role they want in solo-Q


PS - even outside of those two situations, I've also noticed that bad behavior more often than not originate from the bot lane more than anywhere else. Not sure if that means anything either, but...why?


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

08-28-2013
94 of 107 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Snicklefritz View Post
How about this: don't show the names or loading percentage for everyone on the loading screen. Maybe show one percentage which is a combination of the whole group. Once that's done loading, the game starts as normal.
It's an interesting idea, but we'd have to consider at least showing your own load percentage otherwise it'd be difficult for players to understand when there's a problem with their connection, system or client and that they need to look into it.

Quote:
If one or more people don't connect, load the game up for everyone else but keep the game paused for a little longer to allow a little bit of extra time for the disconnected player(s) to reconnect. Allow people to buy stuff in the shop, change settings, etc. This will give disconnected players a chance to get back into the game while still allowing the other players to be somewhat engaged as opposed to waiting on the load screen.

Additionally, if not everyone connects before the game starts, a cross-team vote will take place to end the game before it even starts. But here's the kicker: if you disable chat and the ability to see what your teammates bought during this pause period, you eliminate the ability for either team to determine who is still connected and who isn't. There are ways to circumvent this (if everyone is on skype together), but I would guess that that wouldn't be the case the majority of the time.
If the teams aren't sure who is connected or not, and have a cross-team vote available to end the game early... what would motivate players to actually end the game early? Are we relying on the fact that teams know someone isn't connected and they aren't sure whether the person is on their team, therefore encouraging all players to just reboot the game? If that's the case, why not skip the voting step and just end the game if someone failed to connect in the first 5 minutes, and give the person who failed to connect a penalty?


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

08-28-2013
95 of 107 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by BelligerentGnu View Post
You've said many times to most common suggestions that they would encourage bullying - but honestly, I really just feel that there needs to be something - *anything* - to make leaver losses hurt a little bit less.

Perhaps an earlier surrender timer if one of your team leaves?
I agree with you and Ginga, there's more we could do to address / reduce the impact of Leavers on the other 4 players in the match.

I think LeaverBuster does a decent job against the Leaver, but I'm open to more discussion around what we can do for the other 4 players.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

TigerScream

Member

08-28-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
If that's the case, why not skip the voting step and just end the game if someone failed to connect in the first 5 minutes, and give the person who failed to connect a penalty?
Yes please.

EDIT:
Or even better, let the team with only 4 (or less) vote after 5 minutes if they want to keep playing, with the majority required to keep playing (as opposed to the majority required to end the game). That way if 3 or more on the team want to keep playing because they are doing really well and might win the 4v5, they aren't forced to quit.

I don't see how this would be much different from someone receiving a penalty for dodging in queue, except it happens later, so the penalty should be proportionally larger to the amount of other people's time you've wasted.

EDIT 2: I could see someone gaming the system by not connecting in the first 5, so that their duo partner can see if a lvl 1 invade goes well. If they get a kill, connect, if not then never connect and no consequence to the other player. So it would need to either be automatic, or late enough in the game to dissuade late connecting on purpose.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

GhostStalker

Senior Member

08-28-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
I agree with you and Ginga, there's more we could do to address / reduce the impact of Leavers on the other 4 players in the match.

I think LeaverBuster does a decent job against the Leaver, but I'm open to more discussion around what we can do for the other 4 players.
I leave a metric-**** ton of games. I don't think it's effective. I believe there are many legitimate reasons to leave a game, and so I take the opportunity to do so when I am safely able to leave without dire consequence. You are able to game the system in such a way where you won't get banned by it, but just get leaver penalty rank 1 or w/e that is.

It's sad, but I do not like being forced to play through a game because the duo-hero's decided to troll us, or if we're losing incredibly badly before 20 minutes, or even if someone on our team is trolling us, or left, or is afk.

There's plenty of legitimate reasons for leaving.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Devare

Senior Member

08-28-2013

Lyte would it be possible to do a week of testing where the chat for both in game and lobby were completely disabled? I mean when there were chat issues in the past for lobbies etc people seemed to just fall into roles with ease not to mention toxic behavior was pretty much non-existent. Now I know your counter to that point would be "League is a team game and you need to communicate in order to succeed." However with the recently updated ping system and the natural order of 1st-5th pick people would better understand what is required of them for the better of the team, and communication via pinging can still be successful.

Also (I highly doubt this would ever be done), but any chances of Duo Queue being removed from ranked play? I know it is nice to play with friends and all, but if you want to do that wouldn't that be what normals are for? People can 2-4/5 man premade all they want there and there. Not to mention for ranked it removes a given advantage to a team just because they have a duo queue.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Elastoid

Senior Member

08-28-2013

Lyte, I had a suggestion with regards to the queue nonsense that occurs in both ranked and in normals.

The current situation is that while you guys have endorsed pick order, the preference is communication. Communication can be solid, but unfortunately, it's usually been boiled down to simple role-calling. Sometimes, people will call multiple roles they can do ("top or mid"), but rarely have I seen people really communicate.

Then there are fights about whether it's call order or pick order in unranked draft, whether picking at the same time means pick order or not, and other silliness. Okay.

Riot won't and shouldn't enforce the meta, so there's no choosing roles before you arrive in queue, and there shouldn't be. Watching all the beautiful experimentation that happens in LCS, it would be a shame to limit games thus. Besides, there's already a way to settle disputes, we just want to make them happen less frequently.

So forget the meta. What if there were a 160-character message that you could type and have ready before you join queue? The message could be shown in chat as soon as you join the room, or it could be visible when you hover over a summoner, or both.

Imagine how much easier it'd be if everyone could see your preferred roles in order (without your taking the time to type):

Quote:
Top: Darius, Shen, Akali, Renekton. Jungle: Shen, Warwick, Shaco. Mid: TF, Akali, Karthus. Support: Alistar, Soraka. ADC: Caitlyn. I prefer not to adc.
Or simply
Quote:
ADC is best, then Top, then Mid. When it comes to not farming lanes, I'm pretty bad and tend to fall behind in gold. Prefer Support over Jungle if I HAVE to.
Or just
Quote:
Mid, Top, or Jungle. Won't go bot lane.
What this does is it enhances communication. If everyone's message is simultaneously posted, there IS no call-order, so there's no racing to type whatever. If it's simply displayed as hover-over text, it's available for everyone who wants it but won't clutter anything up.

The downside is that these messages can take some time to read. Limiting to 160 characters gives lots of potential, but limits to the length of a standard text message. Still, there's five of them, and you have to negotiate them, so it would probably be best to add 10 seconds where the messages are visible before the first ban is allowed.

This idea:
  • Doesn't enforce meta at all (or even endorse it, someone could just put "GL HF" in his message)
  • Allows instant communication and can eliminate fights over who called first
  • Enables speedy, detailed communication rather than just role-calling
  • Is unintrusive
  • Encourages team members to interact positively
  • Encourages players to reflect on their own ability and hopefully try to round it out better

I honestly don't see any downsides to this, and I'm pretty sure it would handle or at least mitigate many of the disputes and much of the toxicity we encounter in queue.