-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
League of Legends |OT7| She Ezreal To Me, Dammit!
- Thread starter PhillipCostigan
- Start date
- Status
No, Teemo top. If you don't have a jungler that is willing to help, he's aggravating to deal with if you've chosen a melee champion. If you have a ranged champion, he's less of an issue, but people who counter pick melee tops with Teemo are bad people.
I've had some good luck going against Teemo, but only because people have made a big mistake or I've just conceded that I'm going to have a hard time with CS and probably not getting kills without help.
I'm thinking of picking up Trundle to diversify my top-lane game.
Currently, Renekton is my main, and Shyvana/Ryze are my secondaries.
I like his safe laning phase, as well as his tank melting abilities with his Q and Ult. Also he seems to be absent from the FOTM (Maokai, Alistar, Nidalee) discussion, keeping him safe for nerfs. Is he a good pick, or should I try someone else?
Meh, Teemo's just a lane bully that falls of late in team-fights.
Currently, Renekton is my main, and Shyvana/Ryze are my secondaries.
I like his safe laning phase, as well as his tank melting abilities with his Q and Ult. Also he seems to be absent from the FOTM (Maokai, Alistar, Nidalee) discussion, keeping him safe for nerfs. Is he a good pick, or should I try someone else?
Meh, Teemo's just a lane bully that falls of late in team-fights.
Eh. I honestly think dismissing the issue and saying it's entirely out of Riot's hands is just a subservient means of saying they are an infallible company. Most of what you're saying is just wrong. Knowing people get banned after the game does make people feel better and goes towards cementing the fact that intolerance, ignorance, and making the game unpleasant for your teammates is frowned upon by the entire community. It also helps to iterate to all players that punitive measures are in place for bad behavior. Dota 2 does it for a reason.
Do you have any idea how much it sucks to have someone intentionally feed in your game to just see him the next day? And guess what, he's still playing today and nothing will probably ever happen to him.
Don't bother. It's shit.
PhillipCostigan
Member
I think you're misunderstanding my point. My point is not to say "it's not Riot's fault and they are great and blah blah". If anything it's closer to the opposite. It's 100% in their hands. My point is that bans alone don't solve the issue, there needs to be preventative measures because there will always be those people no matter how many are banned. If anything it's a failure on Riot's part that they haven't come up with a better solution than bans at this stage. I don't know what to do, but I'm also not paid to think of something.
And of course I know that sucks, it's happened to me before. I've reported people in Dota and got the message to say they were banned. It never made me feel any better. It was more of a "cool, I guess" feeling. I certainly can't imagine it feeling any better in League, knowing I've already lost the LP.
Start with bans like normal, eventually remove them from ranked play entirely. They can go crap up normals and keep getting bans, but keep them from ruining someone's effort to play ranked. Maybe make the ranked bans last for a full year or something harsh like that. At that point they either stick to normals, burn the account and start a new one (which would keep them out of ranked for a long time), or quit.
You could make it more clear too. Maybe your second ban in a 6-month period will earn you the ranking ban. Let them know that they're on thin ice and they'll clean up if they truly want to keep playing ranked games.
PhillipCostigan
Member
so the people (like me) who prefer to play normals and not ranked have to deal with all the assholes? No thanks. It doesn't only happen in ranked you know. It might have an added effect of costing someone their rank, but even in normals people like that cause shit games for everyone, whether there's LP on the line or not.
That's not the right solution.
Well, I like what they (supposedly) do on Xbox Live and in some other matchmaking services. Players who get reported often are given matchmaking priority to be paired with other players who get reported a lot. If you're a toxic piece of trash and you queue up, it's going to look for toxic players before anybody else. I think that this would be a great solution. If you want to start getting back into good games, clean up your act.
A lot of that could be automated, so it eases up the burden of the "tribunal" members or whatever non-replacement they're using. Sure, you'll still catch people on a bad day where they're just trolling, but if they do that often, they get walled off to play with equally terrible people.
You keep saying this but I don't understand why.
So? At least taking those people out of the system means the game counts as a weighty report against people ruining games.
Doesn't make him feel good about the "wasted" game, is his point. Not that I agree with it but it's an obvious conclusion for many people.
EDIT: Basically, the Report system does nothing for him, at that precise moment, which is when he feels the worst.
EDIT: Basically, the Report system does nothing for him, at that precise moment, which is when he feels the worst.
Stone Ocean
Member
The problem with this is that people are not going to reform. If you pair up assholes with assholes, they'll just keep being assholes to each other.
People are more likely to just quit the game or start a new account rather than trying to clean up their act. If they quit that might sound good for the remaining players but losing players is not something Riot would ever want.
Hefty chat restrictions and more punishing bans is the way to go IMO. Screw the tribunal
PhillipCostigan
Member
They've spoken extensively about the Prisoner's Island concept before and why it's not a great fit for League of Legends.
A lot of it came down to Prisoner's Island being a good fit for more binary offences, but when interpretation of actions is needed it doesn't really work. Prisoner's Island work for things like leaving/going afk because it's a very binary issue: "Does this player leave a lot of games/rage quite/afk?" if yes, then you can put them into a low priority queue because there is evidence it was done.
Toxicity/intentional feeding/other less binary issues don't really work with Prisoner's Island/low priority queue because a lot of it can be open to interpretation/requires examination of a player's in-game behaviour. Say you go 1/8 in a game as Teemo top. Were you intentionally feeding, or did you just have a bad game? It could easily have been the latter, but people assume it was the former. If that happens enough and you get enough bad strikes on your account in an automated system, that would feel like shit for the player. it would feel like being punished for not being good at the game or being on tilt. Here, Prisoner's Island is a bad idea. It's also incredibly hard to react to that in a decent time. It requires people to review the case and a decision to be made, none of which would be a quick process.
I imagine the improved Tribunal we keep hearing about (but still hasn't appeared in any form...) will contain improvements to some of these issues, and they have already said they're working on Leaverbuster improvements.
I think there needs to be a better solution at the champion select level than "well, this guy is probably gonna troll so I have to dodge and get punished to preserve my LP/sanity". But how do you implement a solution in champion select that doesn't make champion select a chore and isn't open to abuse? It's awful that people feel the need to dodge and then be punished for it. There has to be a better solution in that scenario. What that is, however, I don't know.
because it won't. No matter how many people you ban there will always be more to take their place. Especially in a free to play game. if there are no preventative counter-measures and all punishments are reactive alone (I'm not disagreeing that more need to be banned) then you're not stopping the issue from happening. You're not stopping a shitty situation for people. You're merely reacting to one that happens. That's not the best solution. In all cases you want issues solved before they have a chance to occur.
A lot of it came down to Prisoner's Island being a good fit for more binary offences, but when interpretation of actions is needed it doesn't really work. Prisoner's Island work for things like leaving/going afk because it's a very binary issue: "Does this player leave a lot of games/rage quite/afk?" if yes, then you can put them into a low priority queue because there is evidence it was done.
Toxicity/intentional feeding/other less binary issues don't really work with Prisoner's Island/low priority queue because a lot of it can be open to interpretation/requires examination of a player's in-game behaviour. Say you go 1/8 in a game as Teemo top. Were you intentionally feeding, or did you just have a bad game? It could easily have been the latter, but people assume it was the former. If that happens enough and you get enough bad strikes on your account in an automated system, that would feel like shit for the player. it would feel like being punished for not being good at the game or being on tilt. Here, Prisoner's Island is a bad idea. It's also incredibly hard to react to that in a decent time. It requires people to review the case and a decision to be made, none of which would be a quick process.
I imagine the improved Tribunal we keep hearing about (but still hasn't appeared in any form...) will contain improvements to some of these issues, and they have already said they're working on Leaverbuster improvements.
I think there needs to be a better solution at the champion select level than "well, this guy is probably gonna troll so I have to dodge and get punished to preserve my LP/sanity". But how do you implement a solution in champion select that doesn't make champion select a chore and isn't open to abuse? It's awful that people feel the need to dodge and then be punished for it. There has to be a better solution in that scenario. What that is, however, I don't know.
because it won't. No matter how many people you ban there will always be more to take their place. Especially in a free to play game. if there are no preventative counter-measures and all punishments are reactive alone (I'm not disagreeing that more need to be banned) then you're not stopping the issue from happening. You're not stopping a shitty situation for people. You're merely reacting to one that happens. That's not the best solution. In all cases you want issues solved before they have a chance to occur.
Dang.
Whatever, I guess you deal with it less the higher you climb, because by nature of ladders the more toxic players will lose more and stay down in the Bronze/Silver ranks at higher numbers. It's just rough though. 3 times real recently I've been one win from promos and then ran into a bad run of toxic trash. It happened last night, it happened earlier in the week, and it happened last week. I've had promos ruined by AFK guys.
I guess it's just going to be part of the experience. You either love the game enough to overlook it, or you let it drive you away. Right now I'm not sure how much more I want to invest in ranked play, but I'll stick it out at least through the end of the season and see if anything changes.
Lone_Prodigy
Member
Finally got to play Morgana support since she wasn't banned. Won two games with her.
I should pick up Janna again. I won so many games with her in S3 but lost a bunch this season before her minor buffs.
I should pick up Janna again. I won so many games with her in S3 but lost a bunch this season before her minor buffs.
Banning people, unfortunately, does not improve player behavior at the large-scale level. It helps the individual instance but doesn't really do much to prevent that behavior from others in the future.
Edit: Well, unless we get to the ideal case of actually removing everyone toxic. In which case it worked. The problem is that getting to that point isn't realistic.
If anything, it's the exact opposite.
PhillipCostigan
Member
Essentially. People look at a dude's Lolking and decide that they don't want to play with him, so they threaten to report if he doesn't dodge. It's a mess.
I guess when it comes down to it, trolls hold the upper hand in most situations and you just need to be lucky in how often you draw one.
I mostly agree with you. I want to highlight the chat restriction thing though. I'm no psychologist but more severe chat restrictions are definitely the step in the right direction. Trolls want attention. If they can't chat, they're going to have a lot of trouble garnering that attention.
Crab Milk Mickey
Member
Trundle top has never been 'universally' strong. He had his moment in the spotlight when the likes of Shyvanna, Renekton and Jax were a regular occurance, because that's the environment where he thrives. Champions like Nidalee or I Am Oak (current FoTM's) on the other hand are unphased by him as a lane opponent, and so help him if he runs into a top laner with a multitude of ranged attacks or kiting abilities because those can be borderline untouchable for Trundle.
So right now, I wouldn't call him safe at all for that particular role.
I guess I just don't agree with the premise that banning people doesn't help. One of the few benefits to the pay for champions model is that accounts have a meaningful value in League because there is an investment of time and often money into those accounts. If you want to show players that the rules matter they need to be actively enforced, or people will just be unaware of the standards policy in place because it means nothing to them.
Like, we are all on GAF, and even if we don't think it's perfect some of the moderation policies in place that have a no tolerance policy are massively beneficial to things like racial slurs showing up far less frequently.
If you are regularly going 1/8 on Teemo you should feel bad, and your account should be flagged. Tell me you want this guy on your team.
Stone Ocean
Member
The current system can basically make it so players are permanently banned from chatting.
We need more of that.
PhillipCostigan
Member
Man, I never said bans don't help. What I've been saying all along is that bans alone don't solve the issue. There are 67 million people playing this game every month. Granted, a lot will be smurfs, but still. You cannot expect to solve an issue based on bans alone with a community of this size. It's impossible. Like, how do you police a community that large? No matter how many people you ban, more will always take their place.
even if only 1% of the community is toxic, that's still over 670,000 accounts that their behaviour studied and a punishment handed out.
Unless you implement preventative measures, you cannot stop the issue with bans alone. That's my point.
You can't really compare it with GAF because the scale is on a completely different level. In a niche community like GAF it works better, however even on GAF you look at some threads and some posters and you wonder how it takes them so long to get banned.
DotA2 player will become insufferable after that. As if dodging lasers from a phased plasma rifle in a 40W range wasn't bad enough...
Hey, just what you see pal.
To be fair, they're pushing towards this. More preventative measures and more reactive measures. We just keep hearing this said and not seeing too much of it yet.
something something omelettes something eggs
i kinda think killing smurfs would go a long way, tho there should be a solution to allow you to play with your lower elo friends
or maybe allowing smurfs but having them be linked to your main account and if you're found playing on an unlinked smurf then all your accounts get banned?
cos like prevention of toxic behavior is really difficult in that by nature your system needs repeated offense to know if it was just a one time thing (we all had terrible games that we've fed hard).
i think for this sort of stuff promoting positive behavior is the way to go, the honor thing was cool but it was left out to die unfortunately. and like i get riot doesn't want to give out free ip for some reason but tbh i think if they did like a 5% more ip or something for honorable players that'd be a really good incentive. you know, finding a better balance for how much honor you need and how difficult is is to keep. it's probably the only way ppl will listen, and in the end i don't really want to met genuinely nice people while playing league, i just want not to be abused or trolled or whatever
also i do think riot needs to let you know x got banned, i think riot should actually say in the client "everything you say gets recorded, even in pre and post game lobbies and will get reviewed by rioters and get you banned", actually post banned ppl lists, shit like that to have a more transparent behavior thing. mostly cos there's a huge image problem in that you run into people trolling and saying no one ever gets banned and u know, i don't believe that's true, but i'm not sure somedays
or maybe allowing smurfs but having them be linked to your main account and if you're found playing on an unlinked smurf then all your accounts get banned?
cos like prevention of toxic behavior is really difficult in that by nature your system needs repeated offense to know if it was just a one time thing (we all had terrible games that we've fed hard).
i think for this sort of stuff promoting positive behavior is the way to go, the honor thing was cool but it was left out to die unfortunately. and like i get riot doesn't want to give out free ip for some reason but tbh i think if they did like a 5% more ip or something for honorable players that'd be a really good incentive. you know, finding a better balance for how much honor you need and how difficult is is to keep. it's probably the only way ppl will listen, and in the end i don't really want to met genuinely nice people while playing league, i just want not to be abused or trolled or whatever
also i do think riot needs to let you know x got banned, i think riot should actually say in the client "everything you say gets recorded, even in pre and post game lobbies and will get reviewed by rioters and get you banned", actually post banned ppl lists, shit like that to have a more transparent behavior thing. mostly cos there's a huge image problem in that you run into people trolling and saying no one ever gets banned and u know, i don't believe that's true, but i'm not sure somedays
You will never see the effects of anything they do to police behavior. It will always be too subtle to notice by any single person but some day in the distant future you'll look around and realize things are pretty good.
That is unless Riot just goes crazy and bans half the player base.
That is unless Riot just goes crazy and bans half the player base.
I don't know, they like to brag.
True.
Though I would think that they'd do something big whenever they get enough changes in place.
well yeah.
Yeah, I even think that Trundle's FOTM status was undeserved when it came around. Granted, I watched a lot more of it than I actually played, but he never seemed very good at dominating lanes, just surviving or ekeing out a small lead against the more common top lane champs. Most noticeable thing though was that even in games where Trundles would win their lanes, much of the time they weren't just unable to carry, but would often have less of an impact than their lane opponent that they had a lead on.
He just doesn't have the teamfight presence of someone like Shyvana or the scaling of someone like Jax. Even someone like Renekton with a reliable gap close and stun often better than him in later team fights, despite being known more as a lane bully and mid game champ. Fact of the matter is that his tower, awesome as it occasionally is, isn't reliable enough, and the ability to shred tanks isn't comparable to the ability to close in on and kill (or at least drive off) a carry.
- Status