All those threads talking about role-queuing.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Wolvenlight

Member

01-10-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by XxAWAX21xX View Post
Ive read alot of these posts and i consistently see the starter of this thread BASHING on anyone who suggests this. Quit being so arrogant this game needs changes and help in the "lower elo class"

(snip)

As far as pogo goes. Be more respectful to people instead of laying into them over some idea you dont like. Its just rude
Aww. Don't worry about Pogo. Besides calling people "idiots" in the first post, (for a reason that everyone here is likely also annoyed by alongside him anyway,) I can't remember him bashing anyone and he certainly isn't trying to be rude.

He's really just a puppy dog on a pogo stick, deep down in his LoL loving heart.

(Just kidding, nobody likes LoL.)

((iKid))


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Wolvenlight

Member

01-10-2013

So, I finally got a chance to look at this again! I sped read through the thread. (With my head while in bed. Hah!) It seems people are bringing up tons of good arguments and counter arguments and counter counter arguments.

(I'll probably come shorten all this and reorganize it when I have more time, but for now...)

---

So far, the ideas for Role Queue Systems we have:



No changes: No pre-match made choices. Wait times/elo discrepancy remain unaffected.
Single Choice Role Queue: Pick a role, wait for it.
Double Choice Role Queue: Primary and Secondary choices, wait for them.
Multi-Check Role Queue: Window to check role preferences. Can even check them all. Or none. Wait for them.
Lane Role Queue: Where you pick a lane and not a champion type. (Edit)
Guild System: Proposed as an easy way to keep track of like minded players for communication and a gathering point for invites.
Card System: Proposed to check off preferences that people can look at and stuff, (Sorry, I glossed over that one.)
Any I missed: (I last read this thread around page 12 or so. Had to catch up.)


RQS can be forced, optional, or not implemented. It can apply to solo and duo queues. Unnecessary for Quints.


Pros of RQS: Less confusion. Less chance of baby-trolls (Ragers.) People will likely get to play what they want if they're willing to wait for it.

Cons of RQS: Split queues, thus larger wait times. With large wait times comes higher elo gaps if not addressed with new matchmaking algorithm. Easier to fish-troll, (Rage-inducers. These are actual trolls, btw. The other ones are just whiners.) People who don't deserve certain ELO's might rise to them.


Problems to be addressed:

If you introduce a RQS, how do we keep wait times at an acceptable level, keep elo levels close together, and make sure the community doesn't get split way more than it is with just maps and bots and custom games to choose from? Also, what champions will constitute these roles?

I believe that an enforced RQS will be toxic to League, increasing wait times for all roles, (except mine, GO SUPPORTS!) and all game types, as well as opening up the possibility that people can pick a role on the list and then not follow it in order to just be a nuisance.

However, an optional RQS splits the player base even more. People who choose to use it will be in one queue, and people who don't in another, amplifying problems, even if it's "freer."

As for the Lane Queue system, it leaves champion and lane creativity more in tact. Now you can play anything anywhere, while still not playing a champion you don't want to play in an average to top elo setting because you aren't fighting over a lane. Except for the support issue. Now it's almost guaranteed that there will be an argument over bot roles. Also, if done poorly has no room for changes such as duo jungling, triple early mid into double roamers, all top, and etc. So how do you make it clear what you're doing bot lane without adding roles into the mix. How does this queue system know you don't WANT two people bot, but instead two people jungling? Will the choices simply be, Top, Mid, Bot, Jungle, and Other, (meaning support?) It better keeps the current meta intact while still allowing champion diversity, but the meta isn't just champion diversity. And does this still allow ample time in champ select to say "Hey guys, you know what would be funny to try?"

(I think discussion time in champ select can make anything happen, so I'll render that last question useless. But the other questions are still pretty damning of a system like this, in my opinion at least, which I suppose is why I forgot about it. That and maybe a bit of sleep deprivation.)

The Guild System, from what I could understand from the post about it, would be like chat rooms, but with actual membership data, functioning as an extended friends list, so you and people you like playing with can talk to each other and do whatever they agree upon in the guild before a match. Essentially, 5 man premades made easy. Which won't help solo queues wanting to have their role available, but it's a neat idea and I liked it.

---

Now, I've thought on these before, so I'll address them again here. I think allowing one team to be role queue and another to be non role queue and still letting them go against each other (RQS v nRQS or RQS v RQS or nRQS v nRQS) would lower the increased wait times. Widened Elo gaps are less an issue by proxy but still an issue. Likewise, if we go by the multi-checklist model, you can pick as many or as little roles as you want (or turn it off) and it is on you to realize what that will do to your own wait times. (In other words, if you want short wait times, get used to always checking and being willing to support sometimes. Community service, if you will.) This may also help to one day change the meta, having the popular strategy on a team, and having those willing to experiment on a different team, yet still letting them play against each other.

Remember, with it off, you are on the nRQS team and at risk to "experiments." But you can use the RQS and just choose everything if you wish to be on a team that will be more "traditional."

So from this, I believe an optional, competitively open, multi checklist role queue system would be a benefit to average or so ELO. By that, I mean ELO that is neither too high nor too low to already have long wait times with system as it is currently. Which is another problem that may need addressing with any RQS implementation. As well as the widened elo gap, even less lengthened wait time is still lengthened wait time. From there we might have to consider a change to how matchmaking gathers players based on ELO from the pool. Or let it be and hope for the best.


Now, as for champion roles. Does the RQS attempt to lock champions that aren't the role you picked? Or does it just state your intention going into champion selection for others to see when they mouse over you, while still giving you a choice of all champions so bruiser soraka jungle remains an option? On this note: How will you tell who's trolling you and who genuinely believes they're on to something with their super OP Soraka build?

Personally, I think it should just state the intention and be subject to change in champ selection. This opens up the floor to trolls, sure, but it also makes sure champions don't become stagnant in their fields. Secondly, Riot won't have to go through and carefully re-tag every. Single. Champion. And lastly, it keeps the floor open if people change their mind/their champ gets banned.


Any new system put into place will change things up quite a lot. It's up to all of you (though ultimately Riot,) to decide whether this is worth it or not. And from here, any problems/alternatives I didn't address can be added to the discussion.

So hopefully I'll keep seeing some good discussion going on here!

---

And if you're wondering why the giant post, I mentioned to Pogo (if he still wants me too, it's been a while) I'd make a list like this and give it to him. That list will be shorter, a lot more streamlined, and much less opinionated than this, (thought it will probably include more ideas from other people,) but I figured I'd still post this one here because honestly, after this thread gains 5 more pages, who'll even see this anyway?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Boagster

Senior Member

01-10-2013

It's that time again! The RQS threads are pouring in today, so it's time for a nice healthy

BUMP!


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

01-10-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boagster View Post
It's that time again! The RQS threads are pouring in today, so it's time for a nice healthy

BUMP!
If there are threads that I have failed to add to the original post, please feel free to bring them to my attention by putting links to them in here.

I would like the original post(s) to be as comprehensive as possible in listing all the threads that have come up. After all, part of the point of this thread is to get all of the ideas located in one central location, and the fact of the matter is, some of these side threads may have some small side point that hasn't been made or addressed here.

Ultimately, a lot of people that are FOR this idea would mostly just like to see a Riot response. This thread aims to make it easy for Riot to track down all of the opinions on the idea, so I think it's important to include all the links...

...and I can't patrol the forums 24/7.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

01-10-2013

The guild system is the only idea I'm really not completely opposed to. And this can be done right now. You don't need any client changes. If someone here is interested in starting up a chat room for making premades with people who want to play the meta (or any other strategy), I'm all for it.

The only downside is that this becomes problematic if you want to play ranked solo/duo queue. But that's sort of the nature of the beast when it comes to ranked solo/duo queue. You have to accept that at least 3 players on your team are players you didn't queue with. You need to learn how to cooperate with your teammates, and that begins with the bans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolvenlight View Post
Now, as for champion roles. Does the RQS attempt to lock champions that aren't the role you picked? Or does it just state your intention going into champion selection for others to see when they mouse over you, while still giving you a choice of all champions so bruiser soraka jungle remains an option? On this note: How will you tell who's trolling you and who genuinely believes they're on to something with their super OP Soraka build?

Personally, I think it should just state the intention and be subject to change in champ selection. This opens up the floor to trolls, sure, but it also makes sure champions don't become stagnant in their fields. Secondly, Riot won't have to go through and carefully re-tag every. Single. Champion. And lastly, it keeps the floor open if people change their mind/their champ gets banned.
Yea, there's pretty strong evidence that Riot is horrendous at tagging their champions. A lot of the best supports right now don't have a support tag (Blitzcrank, Nunu just to name two), and there are other completely viable non-troll pick supports that lack the tag (Fiddlesticks, Zyra, Jarvan IV, Alistar). Udyr doesn't have the jungle tag despite Riot's own character description of Udyr saying he's one of the best junglers in the game.

There is a "carry" tag, and all of the acceptable ranged AD carries have this tag. But Tryndamere, Gangplank, and Master Yi all have this tag. You want to let the trolls queue as ADC and play Tryndamere or Yi?


There are a ton of viable jungles missing the tag. In fact, only 11 champions have the jungle tag, and of those 11, four were released since this past August (Diana, Kha'zix, Rengar, Elise).

Meanwhile, I doubt Ezreal will ever, under any circumstance, get a jungle tag. Yet just recently a professional player played jungle Ezreal (I think it was Team Curse?) in an online tournament.

And how do you determine who gets to mid? There's a mage tag, but plenty of viable mids that lack this tag. Akali and Katarina don't have the tag, for example. There's an assassin tag, but plenty of viable mids lack this tag like Ryze, Karthus, etc. I mean, there's just no good way for Riot to determine who is and isn't viable in mid lane.

Or top for that matter...



Unless Riot starts tagging champions specifically by the role(s) they can fill in the current meta. Which will kind of work... until the meta changes...

But even doing this, how does Riot address a champion like Zyra?

In a role based queue system where Zyra is released and has the mid tag and is only ever allowed to mid, no one would ever even try Zyra support because Riot said "Zyra is a mid, and a mid only." The people who work for Riot are not as good at the game as many people who play the game. No one at Riot envisioned Zyra's support possibilities, and by now, you might argue that she's a stronger support than a mid...


But in a queue system that prevents even the possibility of me attempting Zyra support, she never gets played as support.




The fact of the matter is, the champion tags are mostly used simply as guidelines for new players who are unfamiliar with the game, and as a guidelines for where a new champion might fit.

It's not Riot's intention to tell you where or how to play a champion. Unlike some other game companies (Blizzard, for one) that will watch you play in a way completely unintended and unpredicted by the developers only to go in and patch it out preventing you from doing it in the future, Riot seems to actually encourage creativity. They'll only go back in and patch anything if the new, unintended, unpredicted game play is too overpowered. And then, all they'll do is rebalance the champion for that new style of play.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Boagster

Senior Member

01-10-2013

Nah, Pogo, I believe you caught the threads I was bumping for. It was just that this was off the front page, so I felt we should get it up there for visibility. I'd love to add to the discussion, but any points I can add have already been discussed.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

01-10-2013

Yea, I don't know, somehow it seems that NEW threads on this same topic are more likely to appear if this thread is on the first page.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Wolvenlight

Member

01-11-2013

Maybe people think multiple threads means more attention and more likeliness of getting noticed.

I personally think Riot has better things to do than address a bunch of the same topics with no ample thought given to them.


I forgot to mention a system of RQS that I thought had potential but knew it had it's own set of problems. So I'll say it here and edit it into that other post.

Lane Role Queue: Where you pick a lane and not a champion type.

Pros: Leaves champion and lane creativity in tact. Now you can play anything anywhere, while still not playing a champion you don't want to play in an average to top elo setting because you aren't fighting over a lane. Except for...

Cons: Doesn't address the support issue. Now it's almost guaranteed that there will be an argument over bot roles. Also, if done poorly has no room for changes such as duo jungling, triple early mid into double roamers, all top, and etc.

Problems that need addressing: How do you make it clear what you're doing bot lane without adding roles into the mix. How does this queue system know you don't WANT two people bot, but instead two people jungling? Will the choices simply be, Top, Mid, Bot, Jungle, and Other, (meaning support?) It better keeps the current meta intact while still allowing champion diversity, but the meta isn't just champion diversity. And does this still allow ample time in champ select to say "Hey guys, you know what would be funny to try?"

I think discussion time in champ select can make anything happen, so I'll render that last question useless. But the other questions are still pretty damning of a system like this, in my opinion at least, which I suppose is why I forgot about it. That and maybe a bit of sleep deprivation.

Also, this doesn't mention the longer wait times, and therefore higher elo gap, that you'd get with this system. You could apply the Checklist format to it instead of List format, and even the Open Versus format, but supports will still be few and far between and wait times will still increase.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

KnightxSScarlett

Senior Member

01-11-2013

Again, what is wrong with the current system? Do *not* say trolls. Trolls will exist in every system no matter what. You can't get rid of trolls, and I really think you're fooling yourself when you say, "Just report people that don't play what they signed up for". It's ridiculous to think that Fiddlesticks can't support or Sona can't do top. Just stop.

I'm going to pose my question again, (in case people missed it).

With all programming aspects done perfectly, no one has come up with a reason as to why (from Riot's point of view) this queue is NECESSARY. Not wanted, NECESSARY.

You WANT the queue because you're tired of having people fight over roles, potentially leading to a loss. But the summoner's code emphasizes teamwork. Surely, two people that have agreed to the summoner's code can come to an agreement, no? The "problem" with the current system is with the people, teamwork at champ select. The point of the game is to work together, and if you can't work together at champ select, and would rather report my support Rammus top (which I have been verbally abused for doing), then it's not my fault we lost (also I almost never lose with Rammus support top). It's OUR fault because YOU (not me) didn't want to work together (I'm all about the teamwork).

People say, "Well you only managed to pull that off in normals, try it in ranked" to premades that do trolly things and succeed. The reason they pull it off in normals isn't because the playerbase is worse. It's because they worked as a team. You can easily pull off double jungle in ranked if you know what you're doing and work as a team. Also, do not forget that the queue tries to match you with a game that you have a 50% chance of winning, so odds are that you'll lose half of your games anyway.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

01-11-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolvenlight View Post
Maybe people think multiple threads means more attention and more likeliness of getting noticed.

I personally think Riot has better things to do than address a bunch of the same topics with no ample thought given to them.


I forgot to mention a system of RQS that I thought had potential but knew it had it's own set of problems. So I'll say it here and edit it into that other post.

Lane Role Queue: Where you pick a lane and not a champion type.

Pros: Leaves champion and lane creativity in tact. Now you can play anything anywhere, while still not playing a champion you don't want to play in an average to top elo setting because you aren't fighting over a lane. Except for...

Cons: Doesn't address the support issue. Now it's almost guaranteed that there will be an argument over bot roles. Also, if done poorly has no room for changes such as duo jungling, triple early mid into double roamers, all top, and etc.

Problems that need addressing: How do you make it clear what you're doing bot lane without adding roles into the mix. How does this queue system know you don't WANT two people bot, but instead two people jungling? Will the choices simply be, Top, Mid, Bot, Jungle, and Other, (meaning support?) It better keeps the current meta intact while still allowing champion diversity, but the meta isn't just champion diversity. And does this still allow ample time in champ select to say "Hey guys, you know what would be funny to try?"

I think discussion time in champ select can make anything happen, so I'll render that last question useless. But the other questions are still pretty damning of a system like this, in my opinion at least, which I suppose is why I forgot about it. That and maybe a bit of sleep deprivation.

Also, this doesn't mention the longer wait times, and therefore higher elo gap, that you'd get with this system. You could apply the Checklist format to it instead of List format, and even the Open Versus format, but supports will still be few and far between and wait times will still increase.
Yea, you pretty much nailed all the would-be issues with simply queuing by lane rather than by role.

I mean, queuing by lane or role is pretty much identical for top, mid, and jungle, so now all queuing by lane does is lead to every team having two players that want to ADC and no players that want to support.

And what if a lane swap would be good. Let's say my team decides that it'd be best for a bruiser to go solo bot and ADC/support go top. Do the two people who queued as bottom go top and the one who queued as top go bottom? Or does the one who queued as top pick an ADC or support and one of bottoms just go up there with him, sticking the one bottom down there by himself?

And like you said, you've still go the problems where it doesn't really allow for any strategy outside of 1-1-2-J.

The only way in which queuing by lane is better than queuing by role is in terms of queue times since it's just going to throw two ADC in since they just picked bottom lane, but this really isn't better.