### Vote to kick

First Riot Post

Jaawn

Senior Member

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiotKiddington
Math is the foundation of computer science. and we need both math and computer science if we ever going to build a TrollBuster™
In This Thread: RiotKiddington tries to teach basic statistics to a bunch of people that are struggling to understand basic statistics. :-P

By the way, RiotKiddington, I think you explained it very well. I really appreciate the effort you put into this thread.

PygmieKing

Member

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaawn
In This Thread: RiotKiddington tries to teach basic statistics to a bunch of people that are struggling to understand basic statistics. :-P

By the way, RiotKiddington, I think you explained it very well. I really appreciate the effort you put into this thread.
I agree with Jaawn

I do like the suggestion of an ability to leave a game 5 minutes after an ally has disconnected without being penalized.

Also, possibly the ability to have a 7/10 all summoner vote to kick a summoner from IN game, not from que. This would could be used to get rid of people who just stand their and do nothing but ensure they don't disconnect. It could also be used to get rid of uncooperative players. With the 7/10 idea, it gives room for the defendent to vote no, and then a member of both teams to vote no as well. It also gives the fact that one team would have to convince the other that the player was worth kicking if they want a good match to play.

In the manner of replacing someone who is kicked mid-game, I have heard multiple solutions: input a new player who is solo waiting for a match to be made who is given a message requesting their infill, but that they can refuse if they prefer. It would give allied champions, current game time, and kill amount for both times to make the refusal answer more reasonable.

But level, gold, etc becomes an issue. Possibly have them come in at the same level and gold that the defaulted summoner was banned with. This poses problems if they have not been in battle, due to the banned champion having artificially low values. A more suitable idea would be to put them in game with an average XP and gold amount that is calculated using the nine remaining players.

There could be a possible "outlier eliminator" in this equation in case one player is doing much, much better than all other 9. That way the new player does not have an edge over others if there were to be an outlier. However, that may be a bit extreme of a point.
Also, if a new ally cannot be found or will not accept within a few minutes, the game could end, XP and IP awarded, and no penalties given to any of the remaining players.

These are all just thoughts, say what you wish with them. Constructive criticism always makes things better as long as the criticized are willing to listen, which I am very much so.

Elegance SG

Senior Member

Quote:
Originally Posted by PygmieKing
I agree with Jaawn

I do like the suggestion of an ability to leave a game 5 minutes after an ally has disconnected without being penalized.

Also, possibly the ability to have a 7/10 all summoner vote to kick a summoner from IN game, not from que. This would could be used to get rid of people who just stand their and do nothing but ensure they don't disconnect. It could also be used to get rid of uncooperative players. With the 7/10 idea, it gives room for the defendent to vote no, and then a member of both teams to vote no as well. It also gives the fact that one team would have to convince the other that the player was worth kicking if they want a good match to play.

In the manner of replacing someone who is kicked mid-game, I have heard multiple solutions: input a new player who is solo waiting for a match to be made who is given a message requesting their infill, but that they can refuse if they prefer. It would give allied champions, current game time, and kill amount for both times to make the refusal answer more reasonable.

But level, gold, etc becomes an issue. Possibly have them come in at the same level and gold that the defaulted summoner was banned with. This poses problems if they have not been in battle, due to the banned champion having artificially low values. A more suitable idea would be to put them in game with an average XP and gold amount that is calculated using the nine remaining players.

There could be a possible "outlier eliminator" in this equation in case one player is doing much, much better than all other 9. That way the new player does not have an edge over others if there were to be an outlier. However, that may be a bit extreme of a point.
Also, if a new ally cannot be found or will not accept within a few minutes, the game could end, XP and IP awarded, and no penalties given to any of the remaining players.

These are all just thoughts, say what you wish with them. Constructive criticism always makes things better as long as the criticized are willing to listen, which I am very much so.
People who stand there and move a little to avoid dcing actually do get marked leaver, I had a sona who just kept walking to lane and dying for 40 minutes get marked leave, ( he never dced)
Riot's algorithm is actually imo pretty darn good at detecting these.

RiotKiddington

Platform Engineer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deathcomesforyá
haha TrollBuster tm.

nice.

Also, Kiddington I love your rational approach to this stuff.
PVP.net Discussion usually is much more technical, rational and logical.
When forum members love something different, they go to the Tribunal Forum which is the opposite

RiotKiddington

Platform Engineer

Quote:
Originally Posted by PygmieKing
I agree with Jaawn

I do like the suggestion of an ability to leave a game 5 minutes after an ally has disconnected without being penalized.

Also, possibly the ability to have a 7/10 all summoner vote to kick a summoner from IN game, not from que. This would could be used to get rid of people who just stand their and do nothing but ensure they don't disconnect. It could also be used to get rid of uncooperative players. With the 7/10 idea, it gives room for the defendent to vote no, and then a member of both teams to vote no as well. It also gives the fact that one team would have to convince the other that the player was worth kicking if they want a good match to play.

In the manner of replacing someone who is kicked mid-game, I have heard multiple solutions: input a new player who is solo waiting for a match to be made who is given a message requesting their infill, but that they can refuse if they prefer. It would give allied champions, current game time, and kill amount for both times to make the refusal answer more reasonable.

But level, gold, etc becomes an issue. Possibly have them come in at the same level and gold that the defaulted summoner was banned with. This poses problems if they have not been in battle, due to the banned champion having artificially low values. A more suitable idea would be to put them in game with an average XP and gold amount that is calculated using the nine remaining players.

There could be a possible "outlier eliminator" in this equation in case one player is doing much, much better than all other 9. That way the new player does not have an edge over others if there were to be an outlier. However, that may be a bit extreme of a point.
Also, if a new ally cannot be found or will not accept within a few minutes, the game could end, XP and IP awarded, and no penalties given to any of the remaining players.

These are all just thoughts, say what you wish with them. Constructive criticism always makes things better as long as the criticized are willing to listen, which I am very much so.
There are a lot of design issues we could discuss later. I am a little busy today, but I will discuss it with you when I free up.

Rippedface

Senior Member

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiotKiddington
1) In non-ranked team there is no such concept of team captain.

2) what happen if the captain is the troll?
I can tell you that your match making system is failing hard. I have very little time to play during the week so I was pleased to have some time to play last night. I played three games. All three games had a troll that ruined it for us. I fkn hate wasting 45-60 minutes on a game just to lose because the matchmaking system fails to deal with trolls.

RiotKiddington

Platform Engineer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rippedface
I can tell you that your match making system is failing hard. I have very little time to play during the week so I was pleased to have some time to play last night. I played three games. All three games had a troll that ruined it for us. I fkn hate wasting 45-60 minutes on a game just to lose because the matchmaking system fails to deal with trolls.
So for all three games, there is a troll on your side? but not the other side?

Zinwrath

Senior Member

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiotKiddington
So for all three games, there is a troll on your side? but not the other side?
when ranked went live again friend and i duo qued and we logged 10 games in a row where we had atleast 1 leaver in the first 5 minutes if they didnt just afk in match que.
(usually over some arguement with one of the other pugs about whos solo mid or top or wanting the others champ or a champ was banned they wanted by the leader so they rage afk'd to get vengeance)

Thus we lost 10 games in a row..in ranked. It never happend on the other team and yes he quit the game after that and everytime i try to get him to come back he brings up that and goes on a rant how this game is full of trolls and the match making que sucks.

While i've never had this happen to me since then, i've had many times where i'll get 2-3 leavers/rageafks in a row on my team. So it would be nice to see it addressed...maybe i can convince him to come back haha, doubt it though. :P

sibby

Senior Member

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiotKiddington
So for all three games, there is a troll on your side? but not the other side?
As a big proponent of a Trollbuster type tool or a kick vote option I would like to point out that I'm well aware that it happens all the time and mathematically speaking I have a lesser chance than my opposition to have a troll because of my lack of bad attitude.

Ultimately, the %'s of my team vs their team don't matter to me.

What matters is having a solution so that ideally nobody will ever have to play a game with a troll. There is really no way to ensure that so the goal then is to have as few trolls as possible.

One of my proposals for a vote to kick option would include a requirement of unanimous vote of your own team (unless the troll is duo que then 3 votes would do it) and you immediately have to go write a report as to why you kicked the person.

Riot would have to set the guidelines on what would be valid reports.

These cases can go to the tribunal for final judgment. If the person was kicked fairly that person would get punished. If the voters unfairly kicked a person they get punished.

I would also make punishments for pardoned cases be pretty strong to seriously discourage people trolling.

RiotKiddington

Platform Engineer

Let’s take Rippedface’s case as an example. Assume he is better than rest of his teammates, in essence, his elo has been underrepresented and there is a sampling bias. Not only he should have a statistical advantage over the other team, but both teams should have the same probability of encounter a troll or leaver.

So there could be few things that I could think of that would cause his consecutive defeat:

1) He is not better than rest of his teammates: which our entire above analysis would not hold. Most likely he is at where he should be, and his elo is getting adjusted every time to reflect his performance.

2) The other team is also experiencing troll(s), but it is not been revealed/discovered to his team. This is important to players, assume the other side got 2+ leavers/trolls, and then his team should be able to completely dominate the other side. Assume troll is everywhere and non-deterministic, then even by pure random chance the other side should get a leaver/troll after many games. If the other team got the troll and still manages to defeat his team, then the other team is overpowered and we have a match making problem.

3) He is the troll of his team. Then it is not a problem of match making but the problem of “leaver/troll” prevention.

4) He is not telling the truth. If it is not consecutive defeat of X times, and there are actually victories in between those battles. Then it is not a problem of match making or “leaver/troll”. It has to do with his character.

There are few other cases I could think of, but I don’t have time to type it out. This reasoning can be applied to Zinwrath's case. The match making, troll prevention and many others belongs to different problems, Riot understand when a player encounters a troll and/or leaver it affect negatively on the player and the team. So we are working very hard addressing these issues. You may ask "Why is this kind of reasoning important?" Because want to build automated systems to prevent troll and leaver.