All those threads talking about role-queuing.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

01-22-2013

xrisingforce, I'm not just "making a claim" about increased queue times. Read through the thread.

I've made the claim that queue times will be increased. I've explained why that is true. And I've explained why that is bad.

All you have done is claimed that this is would not be the case. You haven't addressed the logic behind my arguments. You simply disagree with me, and haven't used any shred of logic in your argument.



Do you understand how match-making systems work?
Do you need to go back through and read some of my posts explaining them?

Do I need to explain it again in a somehow even simpler way?



Look, I'm not trying to come off like a jerk here or anything... but you joined the thread with one vocabulary term from a logic or philosophy class you took ("false dichotomy") and you're trying to accuse me of that logic error, but anyone actually reading my posts will see that what you're accusing me of and what's actually going on are two different things.

And I'm all for this thread being a serious discussion on the issue, but I'm not really going to tolerate people jumping in here and just hurtling phrases like "false dichotomy" simply because someone else disagrees with them.


If you want to disagree with me, you've got a few options.


I've presented a logical case explaining why queue times would be increased. You can present a logical case explaining why queue times would not be increased.

I've presented a logical case explaining why queue times would be increased. You can pick through that argument and find flaws.

I've presented a logical case explaining why increased queue times would be bad. You can present a logical case explaining why increased queue times would not be bad.

I've presented a logical case explaining why increased queue times would be bad. You can pick through that argument and find flaws.



And the are other major problems with a role queuing system besides simply increased queue times. The thread is 27 pages long now. We haven't spent all 27 pages arguing about queue times.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

xrisingforce

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

Member

01-22-2013

hey man, you don't need to belittle people for employing tools for clear thinking. a wise man once said, "the study of philosophy is important only if to merely avoid bad philosophy."

before i get to the lengthy part of my post, i want to say that your case isn't actually logically valid, because your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.

your argument basically boils down to:
a) selective queues stand to increase queue times
b) increased queue times are undesirable
c) therefore selective queues are bad

but c) doesn't follow at all from a)! your argument only applies to increased queue times in themselves, i.e. queue times being increased to no observably positive end. of course that is terrible, but no one is arguing that. consider the trolley problem: is killing one person to save five an ethical decision? we can transpose the train of thought in thinking about that problem here: would sacrificing x to gain y (and potentially, z, z1, z2, and so forth and so on) result in an overall more enjoyable lol experience?

and i've argued that yes, it would, in an earlier post which i'll just quote here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by xrisingforce View Post
you keep pushing this idea of "increased queue times" as the end-all be-all factor that narrowly defines matchmaking success, when i can easily argue that a matchmaking system that would facilitate the bringing together of like-minded people is at the least equally desirable. because the members of a team at a minimum would have a consistently higher probability of working together cohesively than if teams were determined solely by similar elo (by virtue of the fact that their expectations of each other and themselves are implicitly mutually agreed upon), matchmaking would be playing an integral part in minimizing the counter-productively random aspect of the current system's "queue up and hope for the best" mentality.

the de facto race to call roles right now is just silly. or blind pick giving the first pick the built-in ability to disregard his teammates' calls. how are those as ways to determine roles not insanely counter-intuitive?
i can break that down into a few key points.

from selective queues, players stand to gain:
a) a pleasant matchmaking experience where roles would not be fought over
a*) by extension, an increase in team morale and team cohesiveness
a**) by extension, the current, absurd de facto standard of deciding roles by who is a faster typist would be rendered unneccessary
b) giving the player the ability to choose his/her preferred team comp as opposed to having one forced on him by an obstinate player
b*) by extension, precluding many of the scenarios that currently lead to players incurring the penalty for queue dodging
c) i don't have the statistics for this, but perhaps the net time spent in queue across all lol players stands to be decreased; as queue dodges become more and more infrequent, matchmaking algorithms would only need to be run once on average per team.

and that's just a quick glossing over. i'm sure there are many more pros that everyone can think of. i think those are all very vital points to consider in weighing what exactly a player would lose in comparison in the event selective queues are implemented.

in addressing:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PogoPogoPogoPogo View Post
And the are other major problems with a role queuing system besides simply increased queue times. The thread is 27 pages long now. We haven't spent all 27 pages arguing about queue times.
you seem to contradict one of your earlier statements:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PogoPogoPogoPogo View Post
But mostly... by splitting players into two different queues for the same game type, you make the pool of players in each queue drastically smaller, so the combined wait time for matches is even worse than it would be in any other system.
and yeah, increased queue times does seem to be the central thrust of those who have anti-selective-queue sentiments. and i'm inclined to think so by how frequently this objection pops up. and it's an unsubstansive objection, as i think many others and i have shown.

i also appreciate your concern for the overall quality of discussion on the lol boards, even going so far as to take it upon yourself to post in the threads of people who think they've come up with a novelty idea in selective queues, but i'm afraid that the choice to "tolerate" people's opinions in this thread or not is not yours to enforce! i've been civil throughout this discussion and, as far as i know, haven't exceeded what i am free to talk about on these boards. perhaps bringing up the idea of a false dichotomy was in poor taste, but you need not take it so personally. propositions and facts need to be considered as such, as ideas, not something you are emotionally attached to, certainly not reflections of your personality. what these discussions should aim to do is to arrive at ways in which the greater lol community stands to benefit from.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

01-22-2013

This works a lot better when the posts are shorter and we focus on a few key aspects. You may notice my posts only address the beginning part of your posts.

It's not because I'm ignoring the rest entirely. It's because I'm ignoring them for now... until we get through with other posts. As you can see, these posts QUICKLY get out of hand, so I'm going to ask you to work with me and keep the discussion drastically more focused.

Now then,

Quote:
Originally Posted by xrisingforce View Post
before i get to the lengthy part of my post, i want to say that your case isn't actually logically valid, because your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.

your argument basically boils down to:
a) selective queues stand to increase queue times
b) increased queue times are undesirable
c) therefore selective queues are bad

but c) doesn't follow at all from a)! your argument only applies to increased queue times in themselves, i.e. queue times being increased to no observably positive end. of course that is terrible, but no one is arguing that. consider the trolley problem: is killing one person to save five an ethical decision? we can transpose the train of thought in thinking about that problem here: would sacrificing x to gain y (and potentially, z, z1, z2, and so forth and so on) result in an overall more enjoyable lol experience?
There are a handful of reasons why my logic is not bad. Let me take you through them.

(And let me just clarify, I'm not putting down philosophy or logic--they're desired here... I just don't want people throwing around vocab words from those subjects just to act like they know what they're talking about.)


All right first, there's this:
Quote:
a) selective queues stand to increase queue times
b) increased queue times are undesirable
c) therefore selective queues are bad
You can't defeat that purely with logic. That is a 100% logically valid statement. There is zero logical fallacy in that statement.

IF both A and B are true, then C absolutely must be true from a logical point of view. You can only stand to argue that A or B are false. You can't agree with me and say that A and B are true but C is not.

Now, you can argue whether or not the queue time is worse than other issues without the role based queue, but as I said in the opening of this post, let's hold off on that for a bit. I assure you I'll discuss it. I've been maintaining this thread for 3 months now. I'm not going any where soon, but all in time, please. You're accusing me of logical errors and then just skimming over stuff. So for right now, let's focus on the logic part of it, and then we'll move on to your other posts.



Again,
Quote:
a) selective queues stand to increase queue times
b) increased queue times are undesirable
c) therefore selective queues are bad
No logic error. The only way C is false is if A, B, or both A & B are false.



HOWEVER... let me make another point clear... maybe you remember this from your logic class...

This logic statement only assures us a condition in which C MUST BE TRUE.

The logic statement does NOT assure us of a condition in which C MUST BE FALSE. Point A and point B could both be false, but point C can still hold true for other reasons.

For example,
Quote:
a) Enforcing the meta is bad.
b) Role-based queuing enforces the meta.
c) Therefore, role-based queuing is bad.
Regardless of what we think of the argument from the standpoint of queue times, THIS argument could still hold true and role-based queuing would STILL be bad.



This is not a 27-page thread about the impact of a role-based queue on queue times. This is a 27-page thread about absolutely every single aspect, both pros and cons, of a role-based queue. Both sides have been greatly represented. Don't jump in on page 26 and act like it's a ultra-mega-thread of me biasedly shutting down every view supporting role-based queuing.

All points have been considered and debated logically from both sides.


Increased queue times IS a serious issue, and it's more serious than you're giving credit to it right now. If you want to discuss that, we can, but first...

ABSOLUTELY FIRST...

You MUST point out where my LOGICAL flaws are.




I don't want to here about "increased queue times" versus "position squabbles" because that's a different argument, and even if the increased queue time is desired by the entire player base over position squabbles, it does not make my argument logically invalid. It only makes point B (increased queue times are undesirable) FALSE. It doesn't change the LOGICAL validity of the statement.



So... can you point out the logical flaw I have? Or are you ready to accept that there's a logical flaw and move on to discuss something else (like the desirability of removing position squabbles versus the importance of queue time)?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Keuzen

Senior Member

01-22-2013

No one came up with this alone... I don't know who did, nor do I care. I just posted a thread and elaborated on the idea, after being an ex-WoW player. (Blizzard's dungeon system)
I hope the idea reaches Riot. Best of luck, summoners.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

xrisingforce

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

Member

01-22-2013

i'm not sure i would call your argument "fallacious", but simply that it isn't air-tight. c) clearly does not follow from a) and b) because your entire argument is constructed around a cherry-picked premise, namely premise a). "selective queues stand to increase queue times" doesn't accommodate possibilities like "selective queues stand to increase queue times and x," where x might be something like "bring together like-minded players." so c) way outstrips the premise. it simply doesn't follow that because a), not x, because given x, c) by definition can't be a valid conclusion. your argument doesn't even acknowledge x.

edit: i guess cherry picking is a type of fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

01-22-2013

No, if you want to discuss the validity of point A, like I said, we're welcome to do that.

The argument is logically valid. It doesn't guarantee that C is true. It only guarantees that C is true if A and B are true.


If anyone is cherry picking, it's you, because I've said numerous, numerous times now that queue times are not the only concern regarding the problem of a role-based queue system.


If you want to discuss the validity of:

point A (role-based queue increases queue times)

or

point B (increased queue times is problematic)



That's fine. But first we have to be in agreement that the logic statement:

A & B, therefore C

is valid.



There's no point in discussing A or B if we're not in agreement of A & B, therefore C.




So that we're clear, you're fine with A & B, therefore C, but your problem is actually with the validity of point B (the problem of increased queue times), correct?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

KlunkTheSpaceCat

Member

01-22-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pogo^(2^2) View Post
Queue times will be increased.
Queue times will likely be longer for people queuing to play only popular roles. Players queuing to play the in-demand role(s) should see no increase in queue time. This is of course only in theory - we haven't seen RBQ on the beta servers yet. But to me it makes sense that queue times will probably be a little longer for some people in RBQ.

However, this considers only the time elapsed from when you first click "play" to when you get into champ select for the first time. RBQ should reduce the frequency of queue dodging. It is possible that with the additional time wasted from dodges, the time elapsed from when you click "Play" to when you start loading Summoner's Rift would actually be reduced with RBQ, even for popular roles.

But even if it does take longer to find games, the games will be more fun. I think that would be worth it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Beilsibob

Member

01-22-2013

I like the idea of role queing. This list of links kind of serves as a mini-petition or sorts. Good idea.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

01-22-2013

While you're correct that the least popular role would likely have a shorter queue time then they experience now, this isn't exactly the queue time I mean.

I'm not talking about any individual player's queue time specifically, not necessarily. Although for the more popular roles like mid and top, the time in queue would likely be drastically long. Things COULD be balanced out by fewer dodges, but dodging won't be eliminated entirely.


No, what I'm actually talking about is the time it takes the match-making system to fill a match from the time the first player tries to queue up.

As I explained in an earlier post, as time ticks on, the queue gradually broadens its search parameters. The queuing system doesn't just sit around for hours waiting for 9 other players of your exact Elo (even in normals there is hidden Elo) to queue up and put you all in. In fact, Riot knows that this will basically never happen, so there's an initial range. No one knows what that range is (outside of Riot), but let's just say it's 25.

So let's say I'm 1200 Elo. I queue up, and match-making is going to look for 9 other players that are between 1175 and 1225 to pair me with. But the system only has so long that it's going to search before it broadens the search parameters.

After 30 seconds in queue, it may be broadened out to 1150-1250.
After a minute in queue, we may go out to 1100-1300.
After three minutes in queue (which can ALREADY happen using the current system), we may have an Elo gap on the order of 900-1500.

Now, the current system doesn't get that wide that quickly on its search parameters. But as time goes on, the search parameters are widened so that the match can be made in a reasonable amount of time.


Stick another, less flexible criteria on, see what happens. Now we've got 8 players in the 1150-1250 gap to fill all the roles but support... and no 1200ish player is queuing for support quite right now. So match-making sticks around waiting for a support player. And waiting, and waiting, and waiting.

And waiting.

Until finally a support player queues up. And by that point, match-making may not even care about Elo any more, because it's got to fill this support role.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

KlunkTheSpaceCat

Member

01-22-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by PogoPogoPogoPogo View Post
I don't believe that role-dispute is a complete non-issue
Happy that we can agree on this! Progress in the thread! Wooo!

Quote:
1) Be flexible yourself [...]
2) Be a mediator. [...]
3 [...] be prepared to dodge. [...]
Great advice, I agree completely. And this will still hold true if RBQ is implemented. (Though hopefully there will be less dodging.)

I just think that a small mechanical change with the way the game creates matches could go a long way towards getting rid of a lot of the negative frustration that currently gets in the way of the fun.