Thanks for your post.One thing I don't like about your example is that it is mixing up lane positions (which is what causes all the arguments and has a very fixed meta) with team composition (which has a very non fixed meta). For example you have "Top" as a role on your screenshot but also "Adc". Top is a lane position, adc is a team composition role.

My view is that role based matchmaking should only address the lane positions (top, mid, bottom, jungle, support).

If someone wants to play an ap carry top, play gankplank bottom or put karthus in the jungle I really don't care. What I care about is that there is no more arguments over who is going where on the map causing trolling and dodges.

But using that argument you also have extra cash for the whole team to be running oracles to counter so I do not see why having plenty of money to spend on wards is a problem.

Also while you are wandering around the map placing "infinite" wards you are not taking objectives, potentially not able to fund elixirs, and if your full team is not together you are risking being ganked in the jungle so it is not like there aren't some trade offs involved.

I don't agree with only one champion getting an extra slot. Either they all get it or no one does.

Here is some additional feedback from my post in the Suggestions forum (which is just a link to this post)

Thanks guys.

That is why I have taken great pains to distinguish between lane positions and team compositions. My suggestion only refers to lane positions. There is almost zero variance in lane positions in solo queue ranked. There is always a top laner, a jungler, a mid, a bottom lane and a support of some kind (who typically goes bottom lane). In over 1000 solo queue ranked games I have never once seen a variance to this that wasn't caused by lane arguments (no one wants jungle so you get double top lane, two people want mid so you get double mid, etc). It is never a "strategy" decision by team.

There is however a great deal of variance in team composition (i.e. what TYPE of hero goes to what lane) and I do not propose trying to control that in the slightest.

Logged in special for you just to say these (mostly) sound like tremendously good ideas.

What shocks me is that there is still no automated detection of disconnects/afkers and that the system does not take that into account when adjusting elo after a loss. That alone would be a welcome change.

LOVE the idea of role matchmaking..itd mean longer que times but less troll games.. and also love the ideas fr champ swapping. Bump.

l like what he is saying; but how many times even if you do report the player in the select champ section will there be a Riot Employee listening to help out they don't work around the clock.

Honestly I think in the champ selection portion there should be the ability to "Kick" a player (Troll), who you know will intentionally either feed, afk, or just being a drain with a Addittude problem. By a 3-4ths vote to kick the player, and get a replacement player. The timer gets put on hold... 1 player gets called in from the waiting pool. Timer starts as soon as s/he comes in.

This will help get rid of the player who is unfaithful to the "Team". Some I see on these forums still complain how this wont help. You bash it before y'all even try it. It works on CoD, WoW & various other games all the time... Yes this is LoL... League is one of the words in there, right..? league is a team, you want a cooperative "Team", not a feeder, troll, Plain Jack@ss, in your group.

I believe in giving a person a try yes, but if Most, MOST believe this person will hurt the chances more than help the team. Riot your dragging everyone down for 1 person. Its better to take away that 1 person to give the Team a chance. Like i have stated before.. In Sports who ever here has actually played Real Psychical Sports, know you don't put the crappiest player on the field if they are gonna cost you the game. you let them practice, but if that player is hurting the team... You rebench them till they learn to work as a "Team" Player...

Everyone says how this game is a sport... Time they start implementing Sports Rules. kick players from the games that are gonna cost the game. it doesn't hurt to be kicked, you just get put back in the player selection pool, till a game comes available.

Some say it will be abused. implement a 3x times limiter so that the team can only kick twice & the 3rd time your stuck with whoever comes in.

1 - kick
2 - kick
3 - play on; your stuck with whoever

Alot of people excluding "senior members" I have noticed, seem unhappy about the new system because they aren't stuck down in the Bronze bracket with "Idiots, Trolls, Cheaters, AFK's" and its like Dante's Inferno scrapping your way out of "Elo Hell" & thats what that bracket is being referred as... Not bronze.. But HELL!!

Godly - Challenger
Heavenly - Diamond
Champion - Platinum
Supportive - Gold
Purgatory - silver
Hell - Bronze

This is how i have heard the rank structure really be described.. Ive heard of more descriptive versions as well but this is the best i will put up there for others to understand.

bump. this ranked system needs fixing.

I would like to add something in, just to mention, this ranked system is similar, perhaps a reinvented version of the system used in STARCRAFT2. however... the system in SC2 takes into account a players ability to collect resources, while producing buildings and units to properly place them into a division while the players are doing their qualification matches. so for example if one player wins 5/5 placement matches but only produces 3000 resource per minute he will be placed in gold division whereas if another player with the same win streak produces 4500+ resource per minute will be placed in platinum or diamond. The point is, at the very least there should be qualification matches before players are ranked, and placement should be determined not only by wins but also by individual performance within a game. that would help prevent misplacement of players into divisions.

I avoided putting vote kicking in my list of suggestions as it is so controversial. While I agree with the principle of what you are attempting to do in practice it would be easily abused to get out of unfavourable situations. Don't like the bans? Kick someone. Get counter picked? Kick someone. Think their team setup is nicer than yours? Kick someone. It would become the new dodge.

It could potentially work if you made it so that everyone gets a quota of say one vote kick they are allowed to initiate per day. Voting yes or no to a vote that someone else vote would not use your quota but starting a vote would. This would mean that people would tend to save it for a genuine troll.

Someone would require 4 votes to be voted off or 3 if they are part of a dual queue.

Most simplistic implementation would be that a successful votekick results in everyone apart from the person voted off being re-queued and the person voted off getting a minor time penalty (say 15mins) to discourage repetitive trolling.

I'm not convinced Riot could just bring in a replacement from the waiting queue without re-queuing for a few reasons
- Lanes have already been agreed, bans have already been made yet the person being brought in did not get an opportunity to participate in planning this. This is not fair on them.
- If the person kicked has already chosen a hero it breaks the whole pick order dynamic (unless you are proposing they have to play the hero the person kicked chose which would be even more unfair)

Thinking about this some more it may be potentially be viable to bring a person in without re-queuing if they did it the following way
- Implement lane position (role) based queueing (see my suggestion 7) and only bring a person that is willing to play the lane position that the person kicked had. So for example if the kicked person was assigned top then only people willing to play top should be brought in off the waiting queue.
- Only bring a person in if the person after the kicked person in the pick order (on opposition team) has not already locked in their hero. Then you can just bring it back to their pick and restart the timer for their turn without undermining the integrity of the pick order. For example let's say the person kicked has already picked their hero and it flicked over to the oppositions pick but the opposition guys have not yet clicked in their selection. Vote kick happens and a person is brought into the game. It would delete the kicked person's pick and go back to their turn at picking so the new person could pick. If however the opposition had locked in their selections then a requeue has to happen.

That's not the point. Reporting in hero select is not about catching them on the spot, it is about the troll knowing their bad behaviour may eventually catch up with them.

If you count requeues not just ruined games a troll can clock up dozens of potential games they affect and countless hours of people time they waste - all with no repercussions. If you allowed reporting in hero select the worst offenders would eventually be nailed by the Tribunal as they would accumulate enough reports to trigger a case.

In addition to the above, the second part of my suggestion (which is to show hero select activity in Tribunal cases) would also reduce the situation where people troll blatently in hero select to try and get their own way but then act all innocent in game knowing that what they said in hero select will not show in Tribunal cases..

[CENTER]Kick System, and Laning[/CENTER]

I do believe a kick system will work because

The system is broke now, and i have seen more complaints and hostile players come into a game because of Anger from the last game full of trolls, or because no one talks in the game. (Yes, I know this is supposed to be a social game, but am starting to notice that people are just tuning each other out in character picks, which makes it difficult to plan, and counter pick the opponent team {which keeps ELO HELL populated})

like Gray Grayte stated - He would like to implement a Lane pick system sorta like how (World of Warcraft) has before you can get in a group.
- - Yes this would work, but people can also click all the positions hoping to get into a group, and then decide (hell i dont like these guys, im gonna just Troll) Then the group is stuck with this guy...

I do like the idea of laning but I'm still thinking of the Jackclowns who come into just troll, i mean their are youtube videos for crying outloud, where they teach you how to troll epically, or how funny it was to troll. (This is were a good kick system would work) {on the silent, uncommunicaticable, abusive, highly highly unskilled, or Just plain TROLLS}

Yes, I know you dont like the word kick, and it would be the new dodge, do you know how many people are pissed because they have to "lose points", "Be Benched"(5-30mins), to try to save themselves, by dodging!! Why are we being punished to escape a fate where we would be pissed of worse at the game, designers, Gm's, and other players because we got stuck with Trash...

Thats why i think the 3 to 4 vote would be viable because it puts the responsibility in all the teams hands not just 1 person being able to kick. But it also forces them to be placed back into a group again (Same people + 1 new) so if they fail even after all that they will know maybe it was the person they kicked but their own incompetents. Or if they win, that it was a good call.

1. Laning - pre-picks before que (i like it)

2. Kick system for trolls - I am so pro for this you have no idea.
- - But if you think it will be abused, make it so after the person is kicked they have to write a reason why he was kicked not a check mark box, but give a reason.