I think I posted on your original one as well. disagreed with many of them, including some that got added, but discussion is how we get the best ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray the Grayte
1) Make the ELO system fairer for blatent 4v5 situations and have instant penalties for the leaver
2) Remove randoming entirely from ranked
3) Implement Hero swapping properly
4) Have different penalty schemes for ranked vs blind pick
5) Have different honor pools for ranked vs blind pick
6) Allow reporting in hero select and show hero selection chat log in tribunal cases
7) Add "roles" to the matchmaking
8) Shelter the experienced players from the brand new players
9) Add ward only item slots
1) Make the ELO system fairer for blatent 4v5 situations and have instant penalties for the leaver
Summary - Give special treatment to games where there is an easy to detect 4v5 situation
- Make the team of 4 lose less ELO for a loss and gain more ELO for a win
- Leave the 5 team on normal ELO gain/loss
- Penalise the AFK/Leaver's ELO gain/loss to balance the total ELO to zero sum game
- Auto ban the AFK/Leaver for a day from ranked (can still play blind pick). Longer bans for subsequent offenses.
|
The basic problem with creating different ELO situations based on the content of the individual game is there becomes this minigame of optimal game theory that detracts from the actual gameplay. It becomes beneficial to 'play the system' as opposed to focusing on becoming as skill as possible in League of Legends, this is a bad thing.
We see this with the removal of elo lost on dodging ranked games, players now feel they are "forced to dodge" because they feel if they dont do it, they will be at a disadvantage compared to players who do dodge and are able to have the time to cherry pick optimal games.
If riot is able to identify easy 4v5's and prevent them I think they would, it probably is alot more complicated than we think though, I might be in favor of allowing a 2 minute pause for solo queue, or maybe only allow it within the first minute of the game, provided 3 players agree to the pause.
But anything to do with adjusting elos to compensate for a 4v5 creates too many unintended consequences that we dont want a part of the system.
Quote:
2) Remove randoming entirely from ranked - There should be no ability to choose random in ranked. Blind pick is the place to try heros.
- If someone doesn't lock in on time then this should be treated as a dodge rather than resulting in them getting a random hero, i.e. they get hit with the standard dodge time penalty and everyone gets requeued.
|
In addition to the dodge time, id be fine with reintroducing the elo loss accompanied with it, the original purpose of eliminating the elo loss was supposedly to prevent players from tanking their elo via dodging in order to stomp bad players, if you kept the 30 minute scaling timer that would make it take a significant amount of time to tank your elo, but you would eliminate the mini game of being 'forced to dodge'
Quote:
3) Implement Hero swapping properly- Picking a hero on behalf of someone lower in picking order is a good concept but the current Riot implementation is flawed.
- The main flaw is that it requires both the picker and recipient to own the hero. Sometimes the people earlier in the pick order own hardly any heros.
- This is not fair as you do not get a say in who your teammates and captain are in Solo Queue so should not be disadvantaged by what heros they do or don't own.
- I propose the following solution
- During hero selection when it is your turn to pick you can click on another player that has yet to pick and a dialog would pop up offering to trade positions in the picking order.
- If they agree it would simply swap the players in the pick order.
- Credit to Pĝtatoes for this simple solution
|
This takes away the benefit of having many champions, its important for Riot financially for there to be a way for players to spend money to gain an advantage without selling power, this is a core of their business model.
Overall its a minor issue, as you move up, players have more and more champions to select from, I wouldnt be upset if they implemented this, but its just not a significant issue and does take away from their profits. As a result I'd say no to the idea.
Quote:
4) Have different penalty schemes for ranked vs blind pick- Playing ranked should be treated as more of a privilege than blind pick as the ELO ratings in ranked matter more to people than just IP gain.
- Right now my impressions are the chances of going to tribunal are same for blind pick vs ranked and the penalties are the same for ranked and blind pick.
- If you get banned currently it is typically for a short period of time (1 week or less) and the ban applies equally to all forms of the game.
- I propose that the reports from ranked should have more weighting in terms of making it into tribunal cases
- Also the penalties applied should be different for different forms of the game. Instead of say a one week blanket ban from all games someone might get a one week ban from blind pick and a one month ban from ranked
|
I dont think we know the specific details of tribunal, its tough to form suggestions for it, I understand there are alot of trolls, but i'm hesitant to invoke harsh penalties quickly, the point isnt to remove people from the pool, but to adjust their behavior, we still want a large number of people playing the game, and we should only remove them when they absolutely have no plans to reform their ways
Quote:
5) Have different honor pools for ranked vs blind pick- Right now there is no difference between honor gained in blind pick vs ranked
- Given there is more at stake in ranked people that are decent teammates in blind pick can become total trolls in ranked.
- I myself have seen people with "good teammate" flags that behave like total trolls in ranked
- By having different honor pools for ranked vs blind pick people will be more incentivised to behave well in ranked
|
Its interesting because you would think people are more likely to be a 'team player' in ranked than they are in solo queue, I would be willing to bet that they typically are not toxic players, but the game went south as they got frustrated, and as a result they had bad behavior, I dont feel its a significant problem that people are building up teamwork points in normal to troll people in ranked.
Overall id be for the idea, I just dont think it would really have much benefit to the ranked solo play.
Quote:
6) Allow reporting in hero select and show hero selection chat log in tribunal cases- At the moment people can say and do whatever they like in the hero selection with no consequences.
- Examples of blatent troll behaviour can include threatening to feed, deliberately choosing a hero and summoner spell combination to annoy the team, verbal abuse etc.
- The troll behaviour results in two equally unpalatable situations
1) They manage cause a dodge and therefore get off get off scot free as you cannot report them if the game does not start. Solution is to allow reporting in hero selection.
2) The game starts and people report them after the game but since the tribunal cases do not show the hero chat log and activity they are not punished by the case reviewers. Solution is to include full chat log and hero banning/selection activity in tribunal cases
|
Id be okay with this, my question would be what about selections where someone dodges?
Quote:
7) Add "roles" to the matchmaking- Most of the troll behaviour in solo queue ranked hero select is caused by people clashing over what roles they want to play
- Some people are happy to play any role but others want to play just one or two as they specialise. There is nothing wrong with this in principle.
- The problem comes where people disagree over roles which seems to happen a high proportion of the time
- Some people "call" their desired role by frantically typing it as quickly as they can into the chat log. They feel that gives them the right to trump the pick order. "I called first!"
- Other people ignore chat and simply pick their role when their turn comes. They feel that "calling" roles is merely a request and pick order takes precedence. "I don't care what you typed! Ranked works in pick order"
- Then it all spirals downhill from there resulting in trolling behaviour - verbal abuse, afk at fountain, doubling up of roles etc
- The solution I feel is fairly simple
- When you Queue it gives you a list of possible roles (all checked by default) and you can uncheck any that you are unwilling to play.
- The matchmaking process would then assemble teams that had all roles covered.
- In the hero selection it would actually show what roles the person had selected to help reduce arguments and would also allow people to focus on planning their hero composition without all having to frantically type their preferred roles
- If the person doesn't change anything from the defaults then they will be shown as willing to play all roles
|
I mean this takes away another aspect of skill in the solo queue ladder, plasticity and teamwork, when you look at your rating in the macro sense, the more skills you have allows you to move up to higher brackets compared to players of equal skills as you, but lack the teamwork and flexibility that you have. It can be annoying and cause people to rage and troll, but ultimately thats sort of the point of "pug" matches, assigned roles are for arranged 5's. This doesnt even factor in that at higher elos this becomes a huge problem, extremely long queue times.
I also wanna point out that forcing players to play more roles does produce better players, they are forced to learn the powers and limits of different roles, which helps them when they return to their specialized role, there also becomes the problem that I would not be comfortable playing top lane, however if the enemy picks Vladimir I would have no problem going top lane if I am able to take Jarvan IV, there are many situations like that, where as a whole I wouldnt want to play the lane, however in specific matchups im willing to, and this gives me an advantage(that will over time be represented in elo) over players who specialize the same as me, but dont have access to being comfortable with certain matchups.
Quote:
8) Shelter the experienced players from the brand new players- Which would you rather have on your team? Someone playing their first ranked game ever or someone that has 500 wins and 500 losses?
- I'm pretty sure 95% of people would answer the latter. Yet according to the ELO system they are rated the same.
- It is VERY frustrating to be lumped with a bunch of brand new players to ranked just because you happen to currently be sitting in that awkward 1000 to 1300 ELO segment.
- What would be great is if for their first few games games of ranked new ranked players were matched in their own pool sheltered from the rest of the more experienced player base.
- They would only join the main pool of players when they hit a certain number of completed games (say 20?)
- Riot could even extend this concept further to blend experience with ELO for match making purposes rather than merely having separate pools. However I cannot suggest exactly how they would do this.
|
I would still answer the new player, he's more likely to listen to what I want to achieve.
The thing about this complaint, is that players stuck in that bracket suggest that its the new players that are keeping them down, what they dont realize, is every time they remove the new players(IE they move up the brackets a little) they are unable to capitalize off the enemy new players, and they move back down due to the higher quality of players.
When you shelter players you create 2 different ladders completely, its possible to be placing an 800 elo player at 1600 due to him being constantly matched up against 600 elo quality player. Overall you are adding an unnecessary aspect to the game that doesnt really solve a big issue, but causes plenty of problems on its own. This concept only works if you have qualified people moderating games and then valuing new players at different ranks, however with the range of skills someone can be good at, its tough even with someone moderating games to make a fair estimate, a 1400 player can play 20 games and look like a 1k player in all of them if they're in the wrong situations.
Quote:
9) Add ward only item slots- This is a quality of life change that would encourage better teamwork in ranked and blind pick.
- Right now in any game beyond a certain length only the designated support is able to ward as they are the only player has space left in their inventory.
- I cannot tell you the amount of times I have seen conversations like this...
- I don't mind if someone actively chooses not to ward for team but it is frustrating when you want to contribute but can't because the item slot is too precious to give up
- Seems crazy that players have to choose between an item that may cost 3000+ gold or being able to place a 75 gold ward for the team.
- Solution is to add an extra couple item slots that can only be filled by vision wards or sight wards.
|
It nerfs Wriggles Lantern for one thing, but also it takes away from decision making, do I buy that extra dorans or that next part to my big item? Do I sell one of my dorans so I have a slot for wards? These decisions are what separates players, by eliminating these choices, you are simplifying the game and taking away from the skill that many players have.
??
Senior Member
