Let's talk about Champ Select

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


Junior Member


Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
We want to take some time today to talk about Champion Select.

1) What are the problems?
2) What are some potential solutions?

The player behavior team has been running research on Champ Select and we agree that Champ Select is currently not a great environment and does not set teams up for success. We’ve all experienced Champ Selects that have erupted in arguments and had that sinking feeling that the game is lost before it even started. In saying this, there are plenty of Champ Select lobbies that are awesome and being positive and cooperative in every lobby does help; however, being positive by itself will not solve the problems in Champ Select and we don’t expect it to.

Solving player behavior problems in League of Legends requires collaboration between us and players and we haven’t done our part in Champ Select yet. As you can imagine, the problems (and any potential solutions) are complicated.

Something we’re seeing in our research is the influence of context.

But you know what?

This player's behavior isn’t toxic. He’s just like any one of us--we all have our bad days.


Let’s break down this scenario into some of the problems that we’d like to solve in Champ Select:

1) Real-Life Context | This scenario really illustrates how context outside the game can influence behavior inside the game. Traditionally, game studios don’t design or solve for context. Or can they?

2) In-Game Context | This scenario illustrates the conflict between Pick Order and Call Order. When there are literally no guidelines, at best, half of the players believe in Pick Order and half believe in Call Order—we’ve created a situation where conflicts are expected rather than rare.

3) Time Pressure | From psychology, we know that time pressure sometimes twists context in hostile ways. Players in Champ Select are effectively trying to negotiate with each other over individual goals (i.e, what role I want to play this game) that overlap with team goals (i.e, given this set of teammates, what’s the best strategy for us to win?). Studies suggest that throwing time pressure in there is like adding fuel to the fire—the end result is more disagreements and lower quality of negotiations.

4) Cognitive Biases | Hopefully davin will talk more about this, but people show cognitive bias in many ways. For example, many of us enter Champ Select thinking we are the best at whatever role we want to play—this is statistically impossible; however, there’s no reason to trust any of the strangers in the lobby. This really isn’t the players’ fault, it’s simply being human.

These are some major problems with Champ Select that we’ve identified in our research. So what’s next? A lot of players have suggested the following:

1) Vote Kick | Players want the ability to vote kick toxic players from Champ Select.
2) WoW Dungeon Finder | Players want the ability to queue up for a particular role like “Healer” and “DPS” and placed into a Champ Select with a team
3) Prisoner’s Island | Players want matchmaking to pair toxic players with toxic players, and positive players with positive players.

What are some pros and cons to these ideas? Would they work for League?
i dont know if youll be able to see this but lets give it a go. what if summoners have the option to pick the role/lane that they would like when you press on the "match me with teammates" option in the game type part of play. like have an option to click on a preferable role for example "choose your preferred role/lane: mid, top, bot, jungle" (doesn't have to be exactly like this but something along the lines) and then after they click on some sort of accept button after choosing which roles that the person prefers you put them into queue and it will display that individuals preferred role along with others in the champ select. this will get rid of some miscomunication from call order over pick order or vice versa. yes it will encourage pick order a bit more and it wouldn't be too much of a improvement from calling but it would get rid of fighting concerning who called what first and such and wouldn't it also lessen the arguments in chat while in champ select because you know that the higher person has a little bit more priority? of course this is just my thoughts and maybe you could consider something along the lines of "the option to pick your lane/role checkbox" before entering champ select. this way nothing is set in stone for that role and you could still talk things out with your teammates and it will get rid of the call order argument because they all get in with pretty much a preferred role mentioned at the exact same time

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.


Senior Member


I like the WoW dungeon Finder idea, I think the only concern would be a much longer queue time but, the value in not having to argue with your team over the role you want would greatly out weigh the cost of waiting a little longer.

Hate the prison island idea, it only encourages the toxic players to be toxic rather than change their behavior

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.


Junior Member


I like all three ideas. One thing I have to say is that I, too, do not think that a "bad day irl" should be a valid excuse to rage on LoL. Obviously if you're provoked, the Tribunal should give you some leeway whether you had a bad day or not. But if I only meet most players once in my time playing League, then it doesn't really matter to me what the player that's making the game miserable for me does the other 99 games. I feel like any player that breaks a rule should be punished, even if it's only once. Am I allowed to go verbally abuse people irl because I had a bad day at work?

But like I said, if they are provoked, I would expect some leeway. If it is an isolated incident, then they will only get a slight time ban or something. So players don't need to keep worrying that they're going to get thrown onto the Prisoner's Island because they only raged once in their time playing LoL. I feel like the people who worry about that are really raging more than once every so often... and if they are toeing this line, they can either choose to shape up if there are more serious consequences, or keep on doing like they're used to and risk getting some iffy reports.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.


Senior Member



Instead of doing a votekick system. (Which is negative.)

Ex: This guy is a joke. Kick him. If it doesn't go through, that player is going to be negative towards the guy that tried to kick him all game long. In addition, hes going to go into the next champ select with a bad attitude if he IS kicked.

What about this?

Have an opt-out system. (Positive)
Players type /abandon or some such thing into the chat window. If 3 players vote to abandon the select, they are all placed back into the que and skewed/trended to different champion selects. This allows you to wash-out champ select if the majority of the team gets bad vibes from it, without forcing someone to choose to dodge the match and take a time penalty.

As a result, games might take longer to start, but players would be happier once they got into the game.

I must stress that abandon is not a popup type system. it should all be anonymous and handled in chat. This serves the dual purpose of being less distracting, as well as less negative. If its anonymous by default, players will not be able to target anyone specifically if the vote fails.

A summoner has voted to abandon the Lobby.
Instead of:
"Name" has voted to abandon the lobby.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.


Senior Member


I apologize if this has already been mentioned (I'm currently a bit short on time to be sifting through 270+ pages of comments), but I think there would be ways to make the dungeon finder mechanism work without making it stagnate the meta.

My suggestion: Give players the option to indicate which lane they want to play in AND whether they would like to solo, duo (or even possibly triple*) lane. This does raise the issue in the current meta that two people who want to play carries or two people who want to play supports could find themselves stuck on the same team,** but it would allow summoners to stake a claim to a role, while still allowing room for lane assignments in terms of both players in a given lane, and role per lane.

A possible problem that could arise is that less common picks, such as duo top/jungle/mid would be so uncommon that people would stop picking it simply because of how low their odds of finding a matching game would be, but I don't currently have the means of determining how likely an eventuality that might be.

*triple laning could be included, but I don't think it would be a common enough pick to warrant it, despite the fact that it would open up additional meta possibilities.

**This particular issue could be dealt with by allowing players to choose both their roles, and whether they want to be paired with an identical role in their game matching, but that might add an undue amount of complexity to a system that would already stand to increase queue timers by a noticeable margin.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.


Junior Member


My main account is in Europe West, am playing here in the US because of my exchange year.

What I can tell for sure is, that the people here in the qeues are already much nicer and more cooperative than on the EUW servers.

Personally I think the champion selection is already not bad, you just have to find a way to motivate the people more. Not to limit the selection for certain lanes/roles.

This is just the opinion from a european player on the NA servers.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.


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

Senior Member


Originally Posted by Extra Pistol View Post
This is my largest concern- alleviating the time pressure. Two propositions that are not mutually exclusive-

Proposition One:

- Players may optionally add up to three tags when queuing.
- Type A tags are "I would like to X". These tags are Blue.
- Type B tags are "I cannot X". These tags are Red.
- X= the relevant champion store tags (not stealth, melee, ranged, recommended)

Proposition Two:

- Players other than the captain may right-click champions on the ban panel, presented with two options: "request" and "ban".
- Suggested bans are highlighed with a red border, requested champions are highlighted blue (and next to each, the number of players in agreement).

While they don't necessary address the external issues at hand (players having a bad day) it does alleviate issues in game, hasten communication, and allow for players to clearly voice what they are and are not comfortable with.
I find these ideas attractive. From what I can gather by your posts, we are primarily looking for a way to prevent arguments over who goes where and what they'll be doing, and this should make a player's intentions and preferences clear at a glance. Two birds with one stone: Save time and clarify preferences.

Yes I play Galio. Anyway, in my experience I have more people quit out or rage at me based on whether or not I pick a common champion or the most common combination of summoner spells. I prefer Heal (or smite if I jungle) and Clairvoyance and people question it every game as if I'm making a mistake. To me, the spells I've chosen are useful, but there's almost always someone berating my decision, and it's the same thing every time I choose Heimerdinger- it usually takes several games before I can even get into one that someone doesn't queue dodge on.

At times I play Heimer as support- the turrets are basically permanent wards the way I use them, and I have powerful harassment tools (rockets, conc grenade) and can place the turrets next to our tower if it's in danger, to help fend off the encroaching enemies. Obviously Heimer could EASILY take a lot of the creeps if you misplace his turrets, but people don't realize the strategy I employ with the turrets, instead they assume I am trying to steal minion kills before the game even starts.

The point I'm trying to make is that common perception of champions, items, and spells varies for each person. If all someone sees every time is a Heimerdinger doing poorly, I'm automatically judged by the actions of the other players that this person has come into contact with.

The solution is clear: Make Heimer unavailable for purchase and strengthen his abilities until the majority of people are complaining about Heimer being overpowered (starting with his turrets firing infinity edges) Also Clairvoyance should be renamed to "Magnify" and should ignite enemy champions that it reveals.


To be serious, though, I've had people tell me after the game that "People just don't want to see different in ranked games, they want to win."

Am I blind to how underpowered Heimeringer is, or am I right in thinking that other players either aren't seeing or playing him properly?

How can we get everyone on the same level when it comes to perception of a character? The only thought I have is to base every ability on a non-damage-related effect, and I'm thinking it would be easier to make "LEAGUE OF LEGENDS 2: IT WAS EASIER THAN RECREATING EVERY ABILITY IN THE GAME" than it would be to ...well to recreate every ability in the game from the ground up on a non-damage-based system.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.




Seriously though, ranked trolls should just be permanently banned.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Drag0n Ace

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

Junior Member


Originally Posted by Zalera View Post
-I'm guessing how this would work is that if 4 people vote yes, it counts as a forced dodge for the toxic player? Maybe no lost LP or failed series, just a longer wait before rejoining the queue, and the other 4 would get priority matchmaking?
Also, how would it handle duo's in ranked, or premades in normals? Would the vote system exclude people in a group with someone from voting on if they get kicked?

Definite potential for abuse in normals with 4man premades, but honestly I think the benefits outweigh the cons. I'd support it.

-This, I'm not sure about. I'm fairly sure Riot have said they don't want to enforce a specific meta, which I'm guessing this would do depending on how it's handled. Also quite a high potential for abuse, since people could queue for healer and then lock in Darius or something. I guess it could work if you combine it with a votekick feature.

I see nothing wrong with this, really, as long as there's some definite notification that the toxic player gets telling them "You're toxic, so you get to play with other toxic people to see what it's like." That'd be a huge incentive for them to clean up their act.
What I want to know is how they'll end up in the toxic queue. Would they go in there if they got a warning from the Tribunal, or a specific numer of reports? What would happen if they reformed, but were still stuck in the toxic queue because some other toxic people decided to keep reporting everyone to keep them in the Prisoner's Island? I guess their report weight would drop drastically, but some people would still be stuck there longer than necessary.

Just my views on the stuff.
I feel something Riot could do for the Prisoner's Island, should they decide to implement it, would be to keep the toxic players there for a predetermined amount of time based on the severity of their toxicity over a certain amount of time (kind of like an average). When that time's up, they come back to the "mainland" and go about their business. If they continue to be toxic, they get will get sent back for a longer period of time.
Something like that I feel would be fairly effective.

I also feel the Tribunal should be the ones that are in charge of sending toxic players there for shorter periods of time, while the really long periods of time could be reviewed by Riot kind of like the system of bans works now.

This is just my 2 cents.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.


Senior Member


Originally Posted by Drag0n Ace View Post
I LOVE your ideas, especially the one about replacing the names while in champ select. Normally, I'm the one that says, "Will do anything but Jungle," and proceed to wait out the negotiations.
I've seen a few games where people throw around LoLKing stats and act like it actually means something significant. A few of those they were right, but often, someone who took a spot that LoLKing said they weren't good with actually did really well. I've had my fair share of massive losing streaks with champs I almost never lose with to know that those stats aren't exactly a great indicator, especially with lower tier players (of which I associate myself XD). These games aren't necessarily based on player performance. It's more about teamwork.
Which is why I agree with whoever asked for the pre-game prep time to sort it out.
I think the same as you do, plus I think the fact that they do that messes with the matchmaking rating (putting them higher than they deserve) and also I think they are *******s =P. In fact a have close friend that does that and I hate that.