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

First Riot Post
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

09-04-2013
96 of 107 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whohangs View Post
Hi Lyte,

Thanks for these great discussions!

I think there's two different AFK/Leaver situations. One where somebody doesn't load at the beginning of the game due to PC, internet, or client crashes and the second situation where somebody disconnects (or rage quits) after the game has started and is already well underway.

I think the one that should be addressed first (and can probably be addressed more easily) is the first situation where a player doesn't initially connect to the game. If somebody doesn't connect before the 2-3 minute mark, the team with the leaver should be able to abandon the game (via vote or some other mechanism) without penalty and the AFK/leaver should be penalized heavily (auto-reported, queue ban and/or IP/LP loss).

If I happen to be the leaver, I would rather receive the penalty than have my team go through 20+ minutes of having me be far behind due to my technical issue (and probably a 20+ minute toxic situation where I am constantly blamed for the loss). I know there's situations where the disadvantaged team can still win (I've been involved in some), but I would gladly trade those rare situations for the vast majority of horrifically one-sided games that occur, saving everybody time so they can get another game.

I have a job and kids and only get a handful of games in every night, getting one-sided games caused by someone not connecting is one of the more frustrating (and probably preventable) situations in League for me.
I agree, the Leaver/AFK situation where a player fails to even connect to the game is an issue that we do want to solve for in the future. It's certainly easier to solve for then trying to design systems that are significantly better than LeaverBuster to combat the spontaneous Leaver/AFKer that leaves because they've given up on a game.


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

09-04-2013
97 of 107 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginga View Post
Hey Lyte, mind if I ask a hypothetical question to test an idea out?

A team gets a troll player who decided to screw around and play jungler Vayne. The team is understandably stressed out and confused about whether the Vayne is just trolling or if it's just a joke. In the end Vayne really DID opt to be a jungler, the entire team's comp is in disarray because half the team didn't think he'd seriously troll in a Ranked game, the other saw it coming. The game went as well as you'd expect and everyone reports the troll.

Now here is my idea. Once the Troll does get his comeuppance months later, that player should lose 5x(5 player team) the LP/win and IP for that game's lost, and 4/5 of that amount should be evenly distributed among teammates. This way, losing a game due to a troll or leaver won't be nearly as toxic for everyone because IF the tribunal does it's job right, they should rightfully get all their lost points back. Less stress=cooler heads=less toxic players.


What do you think of that? I KNOW your first thought would be that people would be encouraged to report spam the weakest player in their team every single game, they would start every game with a "report ___ for ___" please at the start of every game where they have someone they dislike. But if you really think about it...NOTHING CHANGED. People are ALREADY harsh to the one player supposedly losing the entire game for the team(whether it's true or not makes no difference). People ALREADY spams "report ___ please". Can you really say that an idea like this would encourage toxic behavior when it's already set to overload?

In my opinion, once you're at the bottom, there's no where to go but up.
It's an interesting idea, but there's one assumption that's incorrect. Although it's true that players might be verbally abusive or harass the worst player on the team, players don't actually report the worst player in every game that often. This feature would give players a new incentive to do so for the rare chance that they could get something in return (for almost no cost).

So what's the cost and value of such a feature? We've created an incentive to always report the worst player in every game in the hopes of a future return; but have we increased the accuracy of reports? Have we reduced the number of negative incidents in a given game? Have we shielded players who are performing poorly from the verbal abuse or harassment they receive in the heat of a match? How do we quantify the value we're getting from legitimate players reporting toxic players recovering some LP weeks down the line, where feedback is weaker due to time lag? We already agree that the time lag in the Tribunal is a big weakness, do we want to tack more feedback loops to such a long time lag?


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

09-04-2013
98 of 107 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pruck2 View Post
Let's think simple.

How about you implement a "all loss falls on the leaver" rule, but also a more enforced ban system for bullying, especially if it shows that they generally do it to get out of losses.

Stop protecting criminals and hurting the fair players. Just start being WAY more harsh, and it'll stop happening. Also, less time between actions and bans would make the system way more effective. It's like psych 101.
If all losses fall on the leaver, you've given players a reason to harass someone until they leave the game in a losing scenario. No psychological research suggests that extreme punishment is the most effective way to shape behavior. To give a quick anecdote, we already permanent ban players from the game--one of the most severe punishments possible in an online game. How come that hasn't stopped negative behavior completely? Why has positive reinforcements and rewards had much larger community change than punishment?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

nyvrvyn

Senior Member

09-04-2013

Hey Lyte, have you seen the idea I formulated and tweaked over the past couple months regarding champion select? It's garnered some popularity on the forums, was wondering what you thought of it.

It's called "War Rooms"

http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com....php?t=3668970


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

A Giant Boulder

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

Senior Member

09-04-2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxE8wTbYJs8
Lyte, I don't know if you have seen this but he talks about how one of the reasons people rage, go on tilt etc is that we place significance on individual games instead of the overall picture. Why do we have a system that artificially places importance for us (promotions) and just increases the odds of players being frustrated and reacting poorly. This is a far cry from the original intention of promotion series being fun and rewarding.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

DeanKeaton259

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

Senior Member

09-04-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
If all losses fall on the leaver, you've given players a reason to harass someone until they leave the game in a losing scenario. No psychological research suggests that extreme punishment is the most effective way to shape behavior. To give a quick anecdote, we already permanent ban players from the game--one of the most severe punishments possible in an online game. How come that hasn't stopped negative behavior completely? Why has positive reinforcements and rewards had much larger community change than punishment?
I've seen you make this argument before about people "bullying a player into leaving the game." The reality here is that this never actually occurs in real games. There is an ignore button and a report function. People rarely ever leave the game because of what another player said to them. I have personally never witnessed it even 1 time. I have played around 4000-5000 league of legends games and I've been playing since beta.

If this was really a tangible thing I would have seen it at least a few times after playing that many games. The truth is, players realize that they are only hurting themselves and the team by leaving the game. People usually leave the game when they feel there is no way to win- not because someone "bullied" them into doing so. And even then, the number of leavers is still pretty low.

Granted, I'm not in favor of stricter leaver penalties. It just irks me that you and other Rioters continue to reference this illusory argument that does not really hold water when you look at actual gameplay and the way actual games play out.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Give Me LP

Junior Member

09-04-2013

I still don't understand why you can't opt-in to restricted chat.

Let's say you know you have a bad temper in game, and you wan't to try to both improve yourself, and keep the REST OF THE COMMUNITYfrom experiencing toxicity, why can't you just opt in?

That makes absolutely zero sense, you're just setting people up to get banned because you guys don't want to implement an easy fix to toxic chat. You could argue "Well just don't be toxic", but telling someone to not **** talk while getting stomped on by an enemy team in a high stakes ranked game is easier said than done.

Either allow players to opt-in to restricted chat, or don't ban for verbal abuse, except in extreme cases (Racism, threats, etc.)


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Hlud

Junior Member

09-04-2013

This is my first forum post, so be gentle.

If punishing players for going afk is not the solution, then it would seem that rewarding players for not would be the alternative.

What if after playing say, 100 straight games (or however many), without going afk a player was given a "free" provisional series?

If players AFK out of frustration, or believing that they are stuck in ELO hell, or that what they do doesn't matter and they might as well give up - maybe this would provide the motivation to stick through it to try to "reseed" themselves. It would also give players who geniunely had "bad luck" with teammates as well as players working hard to improve a motivation to continue doing so and possibly catch a break. Obviously this would have to be conditional on not receiving any punishment from the tribunal during the time period and limited to maybe once per season, but it may help... It would also in effect nullify the impact of lp loss due to afk'rs with commitment to the game.

At this point, afk'rs are not punished, just miss out on an incentive.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Pryotra

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

Senior Member

09-04-2013

Hey lyte, I have a question for you.

How effective is punishment that seems to come from thin air versus a punishment that comes from a clear source?

For example, The Tribunal today is a clear source, it is given email notifications on bans/warnings, players are warned previous to entering the tribunal, and players get to see what they did wrong. Previous to that, The tribunal, in its initiation, was pretty shrouded. Players would receive bans without warning, and there was many a thread on GD asking for the ban repealed claiming innocence. In a way, I miss the PENDRAKILLS, but in all honesty I'm glad those days are behind us.

In my eyes, this was always supposed to be about rehabilitating the players that could be saved, and losing the players that could not. Which tribunal satisfied that goal best?

Edit: As for leavers/afkers, why not return the whole consecutive games finished bonus for IP? Just attach it to leaverbuster so that it will detect afks on top of leavers.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ding an Sich

Senior Member

09-04-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanKeaton259 View Post
I've seen you make this argument before about people "bullying a player into leaving the game." The reality here is that this never actually occurs in real games. There is an ignore button and a report function. People rarely ever leave the game because of what another player said to them. I have personally never witnessed it even 1 time. I have played around 4000-5000 league of legends games and I've been playing since beta.

If this was really a tangible thing I would have seen it at least a few times after playing that many games. The truth is, players realize that they are only hurting themselves and the team by leaving the game. People usually leave the game when they feel there is no way to win- not because someone "bullied" them into doing so. And even then, the number of leavers is still pretty low.

Granted, I'm not in favor of stricter leaver penalties. It just irks me that you and other Rioters continue to reference this illusory argument that does not really hold water when you look at actual gameplay and the way actual games play out.
I'm not sure if you can understand how Lyte references his argument. He references from the data of the majority of all Lol players. So while a primarily ARAM playing person, or a primarily ranked only player gives their input, it's a pretty incomplete or meaningless one overall.

Let me put it this way: If there was a piece of art on a wall, Riot has the ability to go right up to the art, nd inspect it. Whether that means getting a complete picture, or finding flaws. You, I, every individual player however if we were to try and view the same art, would arguably only be able to see it as if we were squinting our eyes really hard, and looking at it from 30 feet away. We see something, but hardly anything negligible.