Reporting in Champ Select

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PureGG

Senior Member

09-23-2012

Like I said, I like the idea, but there's nothing enforcing someone who que'd as support to go support. Maybe someone wanted to adc, but knew queing as support would be insta, so they que for support then just insta-lock adc. It would just be a cool feature, it wouldn't really do anything if the community doesn't go by some sorta honour code, but you know... from my experience, LoL is the one of the poorest communities I've ever belonged to, and I'm sure everyone would agree with me. For every 1 person who's willing to be honest and play by the rules, there are 7 others who just wanna **** around cuz they can.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PureGG

Senior Member

09-23-2012

Bump


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

J Learned Hand

Junior Member

09-23-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by PureGG View Post
Like I said, I like the idea, but there's nothing enforcing someone who que'd as support to go support. Maybe someone wanted to adc, but knew queing as support would be insta, so they que for support then just insta-lock adc. It would just be a cool feature, it wouldn't really do anything....
Not directly no, but there is an incentive, at least in rated. Most people don't want to lose games. So, assuming a player wants to win, they won't q for a role they don't plan on playing just because the q will pop faster. Sure, doing what you suggest would mean playing sooner than would be the case otherwise, but it would also negatively affect the team comp and decrease one's odds of winning. I don't think players would be willing to jeopardize their rating for a slight decrease in q times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PureGG View Post
For every 1 person who's willing to be honest and play by the rules, there are 7 others who just wanna **** around cuz they can.
IMO most of the trolling goes on because people don't get what they want. The people who are there intentionally trying to troll their team are the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of players are there to win, but many of them only play one role, so rather than get made fun of for being a noob or just sucking during the game, which is never fun, they troll their team, either in spite or in the hope that someone will dodge and they will get another shot at getting what they want. This problem could definitely be ameliorated by a role-based q system.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Korpce

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

Junior Member

09-23-2012

just institute a queue system of Mid Top Jungle and Bot and that will help not fix but it is a start.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

9 Artz Dragon

Member

09-23-2012

I like the idea, I think if used responsibly it could greatly improve the Ranked games of the LoL community. This should only be for ranked though...

My other two cents is that the majority of the LoL community is really cool, but I'd say about 30% of the community is toxic (ragers/trolls/etc.) We need safety measures to ensure that this group will not abuse this new system if it is used. For example, a rager in que wants kick another player because they just played a game and he tells everyone "he's a noob, kick him if you don't want to lose." It is not true, the rager just wants to kick his former teammate... we need to think things through for riot to take this thread seriously.

1 idea I have is..... What if we set a limit to how many times you could start a vote to kick a player? Like say each player can only start a vote to kick people 2 times a day and each at a cost of 50IP each vote. In short, people who do not start votes will not have to waste their IP. All of this is to encourage players to responsibly kick other players so they do not use up their other votes or waste IP.

The numbers can be tweaked... but please read this riot! We just want to make ranked games more fun and more fair! :3


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PureGG

Senior Member

09-23-2012

@ J Learned Hand, I agree it would work as well as the idea to implement a report in champ select, it wont completely solve the problem, but it will definitely be a step in the right direction, lowering the number of trolls/afkers. I'm just trying to get a debate going about it just so we can get some more idea's out of other people.

@ 9 Artz Dragon, I already posted an idea similar to this one, stating that only 2 kicks every 3 hours or 3 games, whichever comes first, and I like the idea of costing IP, but maybe after a certain number of kicks in a day.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

A Space Rabbit

Senior Member

09-23-2012

Trolls will just act normal in champs select. Pick a viable champ. Pick viable summoners.

Then troll while in game.

Though I'm for the idea, I think it'll stop a few trolls, but it will hardly get rid of all of them


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PureGG

Senior Member

09-23-2012

Well my aim isn't to get rid of all of them right now, my aim is to make riot aware that this is an active problem, and this will be a solution, no matter how minor it may be.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PureGG

Senior Member

09-24-2012

bump


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Aureline

Senior Member

09-24-2012

I see a great potential for misuse with this idea, which was addressed on the first page, I think - people booting a pug, as they sit in a 3 or 4-man premade.

Or even someone looking up a user's profile, seeing they have less wins or a poor win/loss ratio than they want to play with, and elect to have them removed.

Allowing players to remove other players from the game in a voting sense is a bad idea, in my opinion. I agree and acknowledge the basis of the idea, that it's a terrible thing when someone announces they're going to feed since they haven't gotten a certain lane, or a certain champion, but denying the user the right to play the game feels counter-intuitive.

You can announce you're going to feed, but then not feed. I played a game with a Fizz the other day, actually, who raged that we wouldn't dodge for him, and announced that he was going to troll. Then, when we loaded in, he stayed at the fountain quietly for a second, but then trotted out to mid-lane and played a perfectly normal game, and was a total gentleman.

What if we had booted him from the game? He told us later he had cooled off while loading in, and decided he might as well play a game rather than have a 30-minute penalty.

It's a good idea, but it operates under the "guilty until proven innocent" concept. You cannot boot or remove players because you think they might do something wrong, before they do it.