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

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

Milky Wombats

Senior Member

08-26-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phreak View Post
This is something that I actually encountered playing StarCraft 1: Players would simply unplug their Internet cable (or disable through Windows, whatever), and get a "Disconnect" instead of a Loss. So while this is definitely detectable, it's not entirely reliable. Certainly you'll catch *some* rage-quitters, but it's easy enough to fake an Internet outage that I'm not sure it'd be effective. Maybe an incremental improvement is worth it though.

Lyte, is it reasonable to track something around KDA or streak of deaths, or "difference in team gold/kills/turrets", and assume intent behind a leave? Someone who disconnects at 0/5 is more likely to be a rage-quitter than someone who never connected at the start? Or track language used by the player leading up to the disconnect? Maybe past reports (They tend to be a jerk?) Maybe this allows us to flag leaves as "intentional" versus "unintentional"?
If that were the case, if they knew the game was going to be a lost, they could just not say anything toxic and in the same case as faking an internet outage, they could also fake the fact that it was intentional.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

BelligerentGnu

Senior Member

08-26-2013

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?
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?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Purgatory Ace

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

Senior Member

08-26-2013

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?
Can you elaborate more on this? Do you guys actually have people that run reports on outages in areas? Weather in areas? And so forth for people who leave games?

I do understand that some people have outages every now and then, but in what way do you guys pull up background information on it? I know some of my friends who leave games when they get frustrated just exit out of league. They usually don't come back on for hours if not days. It isn't an internet outage, they just closed league.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

matrinox

Senior Member

08-26-2013

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.
Err, what about "ready" button? It's still lock in but not permanent. That way champ select is still sped up (which honestly I feel it usually goes to the 60 second mark anyways) but permanent lock-in is gone.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Platinum Ashes

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.
If I may put forward an idea- maybe a good middle way is to have a toggled lock ability that only permanently locks when the entire team has simultantuosly locked in. More like the 'ready' button that a lot of other games have in their lobbies.

This way, teams can still lock in just as quickly, but the experience of a player forcing themselves into a specific role by locking in isn't as toxic.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

IS160fcc745a5ee411cbe48

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

Junior Member

08-27-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
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.
Then replace it with a "ready" button. You could still change whatever you want (possibly even unready yourself), but the game would start only after all 10 ppl would press "ready" and in draft mode champion select would proceed only after 2 ppl that are picking will both press "ready" or when the time's up.

Also, please make the swap champions pop-up appear ON TOP of the masteries page. It's really bad when I'm waiting for accept/decline answer for 30-40s and then I don't have enough time to set up my masteries right(ARAM). And of course I can't accept/decline either. I have to save masteries and close them first.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

IS160fcc745a5ee411cbe48

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

Junior Member

08-27-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phreak View Post
Players would simply unplug their Internet cable (or disable through Windows, whatever), and get a "Disconnect" instead of a Loss. So while this is definitely detectable, it's not entirely reliable. Certainly you'll catch *some* rage-quitters, but it's easy enough to fake an Internet outage that I'm not sure it'd be effective.
Then make it appear only on tribunal and shhhh, don't tell anyone! Just like ppl still think, that reporting for "unskilled" can get you banned. My GF got banned once because her PC used to crash a lot... so unfortunately these things happen.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Raptamei

Senior Member

08-27-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phreak View Post
Lyte, is it reasonable to track something around KDA or streak of deaths, or "difference in team gold/kills/turrets", and assume intent behind a leave? Someone who disconnects at 0/5 is more likely to be a rage-quitter than someone who never connected at the start? Or track language used by the player leading up to the disconnect? Maybe past reports (They tend to be a jerk?) Maybe this allows us to flag leaves as "intentional" versus "unintentional"?
Assuming them going 0-5 is the reason why they disconnect, and their internet (read: Riot's famously stable EUW servers) isn't the reason why they both went 0-5 and disconnected.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Gryxs

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.
I have a different view on this. There are plenty of games where a "insta-locker" causes frustation for the whole team, often ending in someone else dodging that queue. I don't think you'd have to remove the Lock button altogether to create a better environment, adding something like a 5 second delay after you select a champion would be enough. Its true that some people would still lock as soon as they could, disregarding their team's choices, but that small delay is probably enough to avoid some "confusion locks", where two people happen to lock for the same position. And in the end its not those 5 seconds that are going to make the queue that much longer.

This could also work for Blind Pick games, I guess. Lock button is only enabled after 20 seconds or everying getting in or so.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Xeiom

Senior Member

08-27-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
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.
How about a system where the game checks how quickly someone locks in every game. If they lock in instantly x games in a row (less than x time selecting a champion) then for the next few games they have a grace period of ~5 seconds where they can not select a champion, allowing others a small portion of time to find the guy they want?

This system only punishes people that instant lock every game! I assume this is an issue for blind pick games?