Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a ton of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out the boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

GO TO BOARDS


Player Behavior Experiments and Restricted Chat Mode on PBE

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Drevarius

Social Systems Designer

02-21-2013

Quote:
Xelnath:
I'm very excited to see how this works out.


Me too!


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Fomorian27

Recruiter

02-21-2013

Quote:
jheregfan:
I read it as a temporary IP ban on new account creation, but who knows *shrug*


I don't know if they can afford to do that, as the reason IP bans were originally off the table was that it affected places where more than one player played on the same IP address, for example in Internet Cafes or university dorms. If some player in a university dorm had just gotten his account banned, and an unrelated player had managed to convince his friend to play the game in the same dorm, the new friend wanting to play the game would be out of luck. Not to mention that IP bans aren't an effectual method of locking someone out of play, since duping IP bans by masking IP addresses is so easy.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

jheregfan

Member

02-21-2013

Quote:
Fomorian27:
I don't know if they can afford to do that, as the reason IP bans were originally off the table was that it affected places where more than one player played on the same IP address, for example in Internet Cafes or university dorms. If some player in a university dorm had just gotten his account banned, and an unrelated player had managed to convince his friend to play the game in the same dorm, the new friend wanting to play the game would be out of luck.


I don't think necessarily a blanket IP ban against connecting, for those reasons exactly, but instead a temporary ban on creating an accounts from a specific IP. But that's just speculation anyway, and I'm sure Lyte won't actually comment as to the specifics so as to avoid people being able to figure out how to bypass it easily.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

WarlordAlpha

Recruiter

02-21-2013

I like that this will replace/augment bans. This is getting more into the punishment fitting the crime, which I really like. In my view there are two major kinds of players that ruin the game, or at the very least create a toxic environment:

1. Hyper-competitive or hyper-angry (or both) people who rage hard and make everyone angry (ironically decreasing their chances of winning).

2. People who don't give a **** and intentionally throw or ruin games, especially as acts of revenge.

But I've always thought it was strange that they've been getting the same exact punishments.


As someone who is in the process of trying to not be a jerk, I approve of this change.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Exploding Barrel

Senior Member

02-21-2013

Very cool. Is the idea that if this goes live, the alternative punishment would be given through the Tribunal, or automatically by the system?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Phourc

Senior Member

02-21-2013

To those saying 'zomg ip banz?':

Quote:
Lyte:

Secondly, we hope that by tying the punishment to games played instead of a set duration of time, we can enable toxic players to assume more responsibility for their actions. Players will no longer be able to make new accounts for a few days to escape their timeban—they will have to play matchmade games in restricted chat mode to unlock their account chat privileges again.


If you read the whole paragraph the implication seems to be:

- Under the current system, the players account is inaccessible for x units of time. This means if they wish to play league during the ban, they'd have to make a new account (and ruin low level games). Alternately, they can wait out the timespan and go back to their already established pattern of trolling/verbal abuse.

- Under the proposed system, the player has to play x games without being an ass to get chat privileges restored. This means if they wish to play league during the ban duration, they are not only able but encouraged to play on their main account. Even if they take a break from league, they have to play whatever number of games while maintaining good behavior to restore their account as the new punishment will never expire..

Sounds clever on paper, at least xP


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

jheregfan

Member

02-21-2013

Quote:
Phourc:
To those saying 'zomg ip banz?':



If you read the whole paragraph the implication seems to be:

- Under the current system, the players account is inaccessible for x units of time. This means if they wish to play league during the ban, they'd have to make a new account (and ruin low level games). Alternately, they can wait out the timespan and go back to their already established pattern of trolling/verbal abuse.

- Under the proposed system, the player has to play x games without being an ass to get chat privileges restored. This means if they wish to play league during the ban duration, they are not only able but encouraged to play on their main account. Even if they take a break from league, they have to play whatever number of games while maintaining good behavior to restore their account as the new punishment will never expire..

Sounds clever on paper, at least xP


I didn't catch that on first or second read, my bad! I'm not unduly worried about how things work but I do like to think about how they might if that makes any sense.

What you've outlined (and I think is a reasonable interpretation) is a pretty solid plan from Lyte.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Viro Melchior

Recruiter

02-21-2013

Quote:
Vacus:
I'm not sure I like the idea of being in a game with someone who has a cap on the number of messages they send.

Yes, it would reduce their ability to rage, but it seems to me like someone who didn't learn anything from their punishment would hit their cap and then be unable to communicate with the rest of the team for the rest of the game. Yeah, they're being punished, but they say useful things sometimes too. I don't like them raging and making the game no fun for anyone, but I also like winning games, and I'm not sure whether them being utterly silent is actually an improvement in that regard.

(I know this is an experiment and I'm sure you've already thought of that, I just wanted to put my opinion out there).


I have someone on my own team muted within the first 10 minutes of 10-20% of my games. Its always the one who yells at some other laner for being bad, or just raging in general.
So, to me, this is BETTER, because they will get into these games, and won't have the ability to say things that would make me ignore + report them simply for language. Which means they'll be able to communicate all game, not just until I hit the mute button.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Wards win games

Senior Member

02-21-2013

Oh lastly, will "Restricted" players be identifiable in game to non-restricted players?? I can see folks using the "Oh well then I'll be reported for failure to communicate" excuse....emphasis on "excuse"


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Zerglinator

Senior Member

02-21-2013

Quote:
XenGaming:
Oh lastly, will "Restricted" players be identifiable in game to non-restricted players?? I can see folks using the "Oh well then I'll be reported for failure to communicate" excuse....emphasis on "excuse"

They'll use the excuse anyways!