Introducing Team Builder

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

10-16-2013
87 of 101 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fomorian27 View Post
The more I think about this system, the more excited I get. Do you, as devs, forsee this overtaking the normal queue as the dominant game mode? Let's consider the facts: the majority of the playerbase plays normals and never even touches ranked because it's too "hardcore;" They feel like playing gangplank mid and don't want to be told that it's against the meta or worry too much about the perfect team comp. However, in normals you can get the situation where you aren't able to call mid fast enough and don't get to play your preferred champ/role for something like 10 games in a row. In ranked you'd be able to play your role at least some of the time thanks to pick order, but in normals it's a crapshoot. This solves the problems that hold normals back while not offering any downsides (that i can see). So what are your thoughts? Bigger than normals?

By any chance, were the role definition changes done in anticipation for this rollout?

You guys have been teasing a solution to champ select issues for a long time, and I must say, you delivered big.
I'm pretty excited about the feature myself--as a player and as a scientist.

There's been several long discussions about whether Team Builder might become the dominant queue, whether we should leave it as an independent queue and all sorts of similar issues. For us, the most important thing for launch is that Team Builder can be a healthy queue, and that Normal Blind Pick and Ranked Mode can be healthy queues that co-exist with Team Builder. Depending on the data, there are several directions we could go from there, but it's really too early to predict.

Regarding role definition changes, we definitely worked closely with Morello's team on those. The reason we worked on those was not just because we had been researching Team Builder, but because research showed that lower level players really had no clue what terms like AD Carry or AP Carry meant and it didn't really give players a proper expectation of a champion's potential playstyle.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Wood IV Smurf

Junior Member

10-16-2013

I wonder what happens if someone wants to play adc but can't get in queue very fast and instead he chooses support just to get in queue faster to play adc.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

LegionWarlord

Senior Member

10-16-2013

What are your plans for implementing this to ranked games? I was thinking that you can have it so you pick the champion and positions you want,as well as the bans you want, you are then paired against a team doesnt have the same champions to prevent any clones and then if your champions was selected as a ban you are forced to change your champion

I have an additional question if you happen to really click with your teamates could you have an option to re-que with them again?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

OmgItzJohnny

Junior Member

10-16-2013

Can you change your champ while in the team builder to correspond to the team comp?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Starvald

Junior Member

10-16-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
We believe perceived less popular Champions will get increased play and better experiences in Team Builder. In the current environment, you're choosing a Heimerdinger and forcing that intention upon other players--sometimes players are cool with that, and sometimes players are not. That's hit and miss, and not an ideal experience for any of the players in the lobby.

In Team Builder, if you choose Heimerdinger and get accepted into a group, you're already in a group that has seen your intentions to play Heimerdinger and said "Hey, we're cool with that." In addition, the research shows that players are very willing to play with a diverse pool of champions. davin's group did a lot of research on non-standard team compositions and champions and over and over again, players were happy to play with them.
The thing is that once you give players, or in this case a Team Leader, the option of saying, "No, I do not want that champion in that role" it changes the whole dynamic of the interaction. In reading your posts you have repeatedly said that "you" (Lyte) would happily accept non-conventional champions in certain roles and that your internal research (davin's group) has shown that "many" players are of a similar mindset, which is all good to me, I love to see odd champs in odd roles however I see several problems with this line of reasoning.

a) You may not represent the majority of the League community, and simply saying "many" feel the same way doesn't really mean anything. For example with the government shutdown, you may feel that shutting down the government to defund Obamacare is the right thing to do, and "many" other far right conservatives might agree, but it doesn't mean the majority agree with you or that it is the best course of action for the community as a whole. (Sorry to bring in politics, but it's what came to mind when trying to make a metaphor). So even if 10% of the League community (which number wise would definitely be "many") could say they would be happy to have a mid that is perceived as weak or underpowered that would still mean you are getting denied from 9/10 of potential games.

b) Internal research and polling individuals of the community is definitely the way to go to get a good sense of how this new system will be received, but without knowing the questions asked in your internal research the statements made could be completely misleading. This is a large issue in political polling (again politics :/) where the way the question is asked is just as important as the answer itself. There is a huge difference between asking "If you were in champ select and a player claimed mid-Heimerdinger, would you dodge or flame?" and "If you saw a mid-Heimerdinger in your game would you prefer that they were playing a champ who is currently perceived as more powerful/stronger/standard in the mid lane?". With Team Builder you now give people the power to say, "Hmmm yea I prefer a more conventional mid... no Heimers." And once you to start to give people the option, it is hard to not desire the strongest picks if you want to win, which most people want to do. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you simply polled people based on the current system it would not give an accurate representation of how they would behave when you change the system such that they can actively decide which champions they don't want on their team. I know people can prevent champs from being selected with bans, but who uses bans to prevent their team from trolling?

c) Who are the "many" that are open and willing to have what are thought of as troll picks on their team? It's probably the individuals who are also looking to troll or pick odd champions, so then you just have a complete troll team versus a potentially legit team. Which I guess is actually not really an issue if that's what they wanna do. But then you end up with a situation where the people who really want play and get good at obscure champions get paired with those who just want to dick around.

I'm just afraid that in the end you would simply end up creating an environment that encourages playing champions/meta that are perceived to be OP. And even if "many" people say they are fine with having a mid-Heimerdinger on the team there will still be a shift in general towards not allowing obscure champions into unconventional roles ending up with either 1) longer queue times for those trying to play those champions or 2) individuals who might want to play those obscure champions seriously getting matched with those who just don't care and want to troll it up.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Flagrated

Junior Member

10-16-2013

Duo queue available?


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

10-16-2013
88 of 101 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionWarlord View Post
What are your plans for implementing this to ranked games? I was thinking that you can have it so you pick the champion and positions you want,as well as the bans you want, you are then paired against a team doesnt have the same champions to prevent any clones and then if your champions was selected as a ban you are forced to change your champion

I have an additional question if you happen to really click with your teamates could you have an option to re-que with them again?
We really, really want to add some features to Team Builder that make it easier to make friends and queue with them again; but, for now, you have to just add them to your friends list post-game and queue up with them in a new Team Builder game.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

JediAmanda

Senior Member

10-16-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
We really, really want to add some features to Team Builder that make it easier to make friends and queue with them again; but, for now, you have to just add them to your friends list post-game and queue up with them in a new Team Builder game.

This sounds wonderful, and I am jealous of other people who have the PBE at this moment. This is game changing! When can you apply for beta?!?!?!


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

10-16-2013
89 of 101 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starvald View Post
The thing is that once you give players, or in this case a Team Leader, the option of saying, "No, I do not want that champion in that role" it changes the whole dynamic of the interaction. In reading your posts you have repeatedly said that "you" (Lyte) would happily accept non-conventional champions in certain roles and that your internal research (davin's group) has shown that "many" players are of a similar mindset, which is all good to me, I love to see odd champs in odd roles however I see several problems with this line of reasoning.

a) You may not represent the majority of the League community, and simply saying "many" feel the same way doesn't really mean anything. For example with the government shutdown, you may feel that shutting down the government to defund Obamacare is the right thing to do, and "many" other far right conservatives might agree, but it doesn't mean the majority agree with you or that it is the best course of action for the community as a whole. (Sorry to bring in politics, but it's what came to mind when trying to make a metaphor). So even if 10% of the League community (which number wise would definitely be "many") could say they would be happy to have a mid that is perceived as weak or underpowered that would still mean you are getting denied from 9/10 of potential games.

b) Internal research and polling individuals of the community is definitely the way to go to get a good sense of how this new system will be received, but without knowing the questions asked in your internal research the statements made could be completely misleading. This is a large issue in political polling (again politics :/) where the way the question is asked is just as important as the answer itself. There is a huge difference between asking "If you were in champ select and a player claimed mid-Heimerdinger, would you dodge or flame?" and "If you saw a mid-Heimerdinger in your game would you prefer that they were playing a champ who is currently perceived as more powerful/stronger/standard in the mid lane?". With Team Builder you now give people the power to say, "Hmmm yea I prefer a more conventional mid... no Heimers." And once you to start to give people the option, it is hard to not desire the strongest picks if you want to win, which most people want to do. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you simply polled people based on the current system it would not give an accurate representation of how they would behave when you change the system such that they can actively decide which champions they don't want on their team. I know people can prevent champs from being selected with bans, but who uses bans to prevent their team from trolling?

c) Who are the "many" that are open and willing to have what are thought of as troll picks on their team? It's probably the individuals who are also looking to troll or pick odd champions, so then you just have a complete troll team versus a potentially legit team. Which I guess is actually not really an issue if that's what they wanna do. But then you end up with a situation where the people who really want play and get good at obscure champions get paired with those who just want to dick around.

I'm just afraid that in the end you would simply end up creating an environment that encourages playing champions/meta that are perceived to be OP. And even if "many" people say they are fine with having a mid-Heimerdinger on the team there will still be a shift in general towards not allowing obscure champions into unconventional roles ending up with either 1) longer queue times for those trying to play those champions or 2) individuals who might want to play those obscure champions seriously getting matched with those who just don't care and want to troll it up.
I agree, research is very nuanced, but we did try several variations of research that were all tightly controlled. Although I don't remember the exact numbers (davin is the one that would know!), one study for example asked players to rate their satisfaction with a specific team composition. Through subtle manipulations of the presented compositions, you can determine some interesting effects such as whether players hate being on a team with a champion that isn't popular.

From what I've seen in all the studies, generally the results all trend to the fact that many players are OK with playing many interesting combinations. When I say "many" I don't mean 10% or a minority either; for example in the team composition preferences study I mentioned above, the average ratings for team compositions with unpopular champions were generally always still positive.


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

10-16-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
I read this, but my post is pretty long as is, so snip
And if you saw the First sentence of my post, you would realize that the end result is likely much, much less play, as few to no people want a champion on their team that has been intentionally nerfed out of viability to the point that ANY champion does their job better.

Perhaps in non-competitive modes this might not be true, but the moment this systems is applied to rank, these champions will no longer see the light of day, unless the player of the weak champion builds the team themselves. At that point, you actually encourage solo players to choose team leader, even though all it does is save them the hassle of having to re-queue endlessly, and instead just have an endless wait for 4 other people to be cool with not only the weak champion, but also the extended time it will take to simply fill a team with people willing to play with it. I feel that once that begins, it turns into a bit of a slippery slope.

Also, when I heim, I tend to be pretty ok with being sent anywhere, so long as I am NOT the adc. I don't care which gold stream I get, and I don't care too much about a support role vs a tank role vs an AP role. Reason being that Heimer fits just about anywhere except ADC, something that isn't exactly unique to him. For example, Annie is a bad @ss support, an awesome mage capable of traveling into the top lane, and surprising is a fair adc, as well as making a pretty good makeshift tank, should the team need one. As a result, Annie can go just about anywhere, and do just about anything, thanks to that sheild + her stun + tibbers.

I feel that being to say Ok with any role EXLUDING X role, or any position EXClUDING X position, is just as important as an unbiased choice. I get that time for choices is low, but one of the benefits of the current system is that it allows for flexibility up to the last second, where as this one you have stripped alot of the freedom and flexibility of choice away. Also, you essentially are forcing EVERYONE to autolock, which is the main reason I stayed with League over some of the up and coming competitors. I like adjusting my pick if neccessary. Need a tank, but I have to go mid? Time for Cho'gath! Going bot lane adc, but the team has no initiate? Looks like I'm playing Ashe.

Without these options you break flexibility, and are attempting to reconcile that with a kick system. Thanks, but I would rather adapt than be thrown back into queue for who knows how long.

PS. Even with that flexibility, I still get trolled hard as heimer whenever I pick him, which is why I ultimately stopped. Its not "oh look, that guy is choosing a weird champ," It's "Oh look at this @sshole, choosing a champ that has been hit with a nerf nuke. He's probably a troll, so I'm going to treat him as such." You guys really seem to ignore that problem when you "Heimer" champions (eve players from pre-rework know exactly what I am talking about).

Edit: Re-reading this, I apologize for some of the tone, but none of the content. It needed to be said, but it could have been said nicer. Also, apologies for the grammatical errors. It's been a rough day...