Rioter Comments
Akaśhí (EUNE)
: Smurfs
Well... let's make one thing perfectly clear: There **are** certain player characteristics that are more or less common among players from certain tiers. Which means, that if for example a Diamond or Platinum tier player creates a new account, he is going to bring all his experience, comprehension and habits into a game against beginners. Now, why is that bad, you might ask? You only learn by facing better opponents. Well... yes and no. If that was always the case, then people would not be so mad at smurfs. They would learn and quickly catch up. If skill discrepancy is too big, you will learn nothing. Because if opponent is better than you at one thing, it's a lot easier to notice that difference and see a particular deficiency on your side as a cause of your failures, than if you opponent is better at everything and not **just** better - a lot better. If a bronze/silver player gets matched with a player who has a new account with similar MMR, but already has experience and skill of an average diamond tier, and that bronze/silver does not know he is playing against an undercover diamond, he probably will consider that player unrealistically superior. Because such experienced player will know a lot more, will have long-learned positive habits and will not allow that low-elo player to adapt ad-hoc and immediately see the result of the adaptation, because that high-elo player will have probably already experienced such change appearing and will have countered it before it even happened. In this terms, a low-elo player might consider a change that would otherwise be a step forward, as a dead end. It is very similar in terms of civilizations and technology. If we have two civilizations, between which a technology gap is huge, then the less advanced civilization will always view more advanced civilization's technology as magic. It is a lot easier to understand and reverse-engineer a bolt-action rifle if you already have trapdoor breechloaders, than to reverse engineer a machine gun if your civilization's most advanced ranged weapon is bow and arrows. Let's face the facts. There is a reason why MMR was introduced and why highly skilled players are supposed to be prevented from playing against low-skilled players. People don't smurf to learn anything. They smurf to play with weaker opponents, to have a victory without effort, without challenge, without risk. Hats down, it's high time someone spoke the hard, uncomfortable words: **Smurfing is cheating**. And that's exactly why I think smurfing should be a reportable offense.
: S Rank in Solo Q
Well, League is a game based on teamwork. Your personal grade is dependent only on some factors in the game, which means such system could be abused. For example, you know enemy has advantage, so you start powerfarming and basically ignore your team, avoid fighting at all so that you get S and not lose LP. Your grade does not reflect many skills that are needed to win a game. True, you just can't carry some games. But you can make others carry if you're a good, motivating leader. If that's your problem, that you can handle your champion and win your part but your team doesn't, perhaps it's the leader skillset you require.
Proppa (EUW)
: The thing which I don't understand, this simply can't be a "one of time" these trolls do that. So how do they manage to get out of bronze5 when they do that? Is it just basic statistics saying that every now and then he will be on the winning team regardless as the enemy team may also have a troll? I had a great winning streak, Climbed to Gold4 58lp from Qualification after reset. Then dropped to Gold 5 0lp literally non-stop. Yes I may have played a part in some of the losses, but having a Twitch Jungle, who trolled from Champ select by banning a team mates highlighted champ, to feeding 2 early kills then going afk and only coming back at 19 minutes to refuse the early surrender...... How does a player like that, manage to get matched with high silver/low gold? I had many matches where the quality of players was just completely different to the quality on my winning streak.
Well, had similar view in the issue since recently. As it turns out, most of trolls or toxic players you meet in game are not persistent villains. They can have a bad day or be in mood to hurt others, though most of them are perfectly normal on a day basis. At least on the outside. So it's mostly a matter of you having bad luck to be in a game where such player decides to troll.
: bruisers have 1 fatal weakness: the 12year old kid playing it in low elo that has no clue what he/she's doing and goes raging after 5 min. and yea i also feal like bruisers r bit to strong. pointing at u Jaxx cough cough, high damage/ attack speed, tanky, aa immume, a stun, a jump/wardjump, mixed damage, strong in every stage of the game and no single weakness.
His weakness is his economy. If you can harass him so that he misses farm, your teammates will become too strong for him. Jax has low level scaling and heavy stat scaling, so if he can't get his items fast enough, he'll be useless. He is just a kind of champ you always have to harass, you can't forget about him and let him farm or he will become too strong at some point.
: Oookay....
Yup, that's actually the case. Ppl rant on some champions, because some champions are just designed in a certain way on purpose. What they don't understand is that they are just figures with numbers and better teamwork will always win, regardless of picks.
: > [{quoted}](name=Commander Kozak,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=tvhFc1ik,comment-id=00000000000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2018-05-08T17:50:30.252+0000) > > The reason for this low winrate is a high discrepancy in skill level of his players. Yasuo has a high mechanical skill threshold to play well. But if his player exceeds this threshold, he becomes nearly invincible. However, most of his players are ones who just try him out for a few matches, lose a vast majority of them and never play him again. And these are the players who cause his low winrate. I admit it, Yasuo is a very hard champion to master. However, my problem is that the reward for mastering him is disproportionally high. > The discrepancy between a bad yasuo and a good yasuo is so big that in low elo the only succes a player sees with him is because his opponent doesn't know what to do against him rather than the yasuo player actually being good. That's why a lot of times at lower elo's yasuo players are extremely inconsistent because they rely on their enemies not knowing what to do rather than them knowing what to do. And yes, because of the skill ceiling a good yasuo can feel impossible to beat, but quite frankly those yasuo's are not what you see at most ranks and usually it's a coinflip whether the enemy they face is bad or knows how to counterplay him. The reward for mastering him is high? Luckily those people are as rare as exceptionally good riven players, who in my humble opinion also seem impossible to beat (not that I have faced any recently, but still), and manage to climb at high elo, where subsequently people know the matchup and thus it's not so much of a problem ; > But maybe you are right. Everybody has to lose at some point. And those Yasuo OTPs don't occur often, so I'm a lot more likely to meet a weak Yasuo than the one we just can't defeat. There are bans that can save me from more defeats than banning Yasuo. > Yasuo's i meet, both with and against, never seem to be consistent when checking their profile. Except for the occasional smurf who will manage to escape my elo with ease. But for the same payoff there are a lot of champions that can be abused, and i usually ban yasuo out of frustration of seeing one, not because of how good the champ is, but because of how boring i find it to play against him. > Yet, the problem remains. If they cross the line with percentage of crit being true damage, this might actually overpower Yasuo beyond reason, even for a casual player. And then, we might see his winrate actually matching his banrate. The change to IE might indeed break yasuo, but the problem with PBE is that it's still not so much of a realistic way to portrait a balance change and its effects when it comes to live. If the change happens to be too strong, however, it will be noticed immediately by a surge in winrate, one that will be enough to cause a hotfix probably. It's pretty much just waiting for what will happen.
because his opponent doesn't know what to do against him Ok, you've been repeating this over and over enough to intrigue me. So I will ask you: what to do against him? Please, share a higher elo player's tip :)
Brokenhz (EUW)
: the point was "that he got high banrate...People banned zoe for same reason.She was really op. And we talk about yasuo here.. I dont think if i ban riven...she will get huge banrate cuz no 1 else think she deserve a ban.. Do you understand taht or no??? Faker banned garen in all his games so???????Because as youi said he doesnt like him but still taht champ doesnt have high banrate. You ban veigar i ban riven he bans garen...But 3 people can ban the same yasuo.Thats why he got a high banrate.
> People banned zoe for same reason. When she was a new champion. Then they fixed her release power and suddenly ppl stopped banning her. New champions always have a high banrate, until they do a few patches to gradually balance them. Yasuo on the other hand can in no way be called a new champ. Yet, he still retains his ban rate. Right now, Kai'Sa has highest one, but like I said, new champions are usually if not always the most banned ones. But hey, Yasuo is a close second. And afaik, since they released next champ, Yasuo has always had a second highest banrate.
: He's already perma-banned, almost. Fizz, Yasuo, Zed, LB are almost always banned.
Idk dude... {{champion:238}} and {{champion:157}} , true enough, they are banned very often. But {{champion:105}} and {{champion:7}} ? Nah, I see them banned sometimes, but not nearly as often.
Luniya (EUNE)
: Umm, don't forget that the old IE passive is down, that increased his basic attack damage and Q damage by 20% (cuz, 20% dmg in crits.) So, Yasuo loses the 20% bonus damage, his damage goes from 120% to 100%, though 20% of those 100% will do true damage now. Which ones of these seem the best? He already gains good armor pen from his ult, so honestly I see no good reason as to why he'd rather want to cut off 20% damage off for 20% true damage on squishies that'd die immeadietly from his 120% damage crits and armor pen from ult. What about the tanks? Now that's the interesting part, reducing the damage by 20% for 20% true damage against tanks is a lovely thing, and they'd survive long enough to proc conq no matter what, meaning 40% of his damage will deal true damage, and there's armor pen from his ult. Overall, I'd say that Yasuo is now weaker vs squishies and stronger vs tanks. Of course I'm not delusional enough to think that the 20% true damage on squishies go unnoticed, however I truly think that Yasuo would have liked the +20% raw damage towards squishies (and minions?) more than 20% true damage towards squishies that don't buy enough armor to be of trouble to begin with.
> 20% true damage They didn't state which percent of crit dmg is going to be true dmg. This factor is going to decide whether 8.11 breaks Yasuo or not. What of it wasn't 20% of crit dmg, but rather 50%. Or 70%?
: did i see it good ?? does yasuo gets 4x crit chance with IE O_O !!!!!! someone shoot the balance team.
it seems insane, yes? Until you realize, that he was already getting 100% crit chance from just zeal upgrade and IE. He will still need that zeal upgrade to get 100% crit chance, because he has no crit chance of his own. So for Yasuo this particular passive actually changes nothing.
: > [{quoted}](name=Brokenhz,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=tvhFc1ik,comment-id=000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-05-08T16:16:53.602+0000) > > ppl say "winrate means nothing ban rate means nothing"Stop being stupids.. > If a champ have high ban % it means he is doing more then fine.If a champ have big winrate that means he is doing even more then fine. > Its %%%%ing logic jesus. I'm not saying any of that though. Win rate is more of a factor to determine whether a champion is too powerful or not because, well, it obviously shows how much a champion is winning. Ban rate on the other hand doesn't do that. If a champion gets banned a lot it can either be because it is too powerful, but also because people don't like to play against him. I ban champions that counter the one i'm about to play for example, not because it's a broken champion. And a lot of people ban champions because they don't like, or don't know how to, play against them. That's logic. If a champion gets banned a lot but doesn't have the winrate to back it up it mostly means it's just a frustrating champion to play against, and doesn't say a lot about the actual strength of a champion. That's a bit more logical than what you are saying, jesus.
The reason for this low winrate is a high discrepancy in skill level of his players. Yasuo has a high mechanical skill threshold to play well. But if his player exceeds this threshold, he becomes nearly invincible. However, most of his players are ones who just try him out for a few matches, lose a vast majority of them and never play him again. And these are the players who cause his low winrate. I admit it, Yasuo is a very hard champion to master. However, my problem is that the reward for mastering him is disproportionally high. But maybe you are right. Everybody has to lose at some point. And those Yasuo OTPs don't occur often, so I'm a lot more likely to meet a weak Yasuo than the one we just can't defeat. There are bans that can save me from more defeats than banning Yasuo. Yet, the problem remains. If they cross the line with percentage of crit being true damage, this might actually overpower Yasuo beyond reason, even for a casual player. And then, we might see his winrate actually matching his banrate.
: I do feel that MF is a good fit for me, but I would love to expand my champion pool as she doesn't work into every team comp. Used to have a period in Gold when I could play any ADC really well (gold level well at least) but I guess I oversaturated with MF a bit so everything else feels kinda weird. Will prob drop her for a bit when/if I hit Diamond and see how it goes then :D Oh and thanks for the feedback, it's appreciated!
You can't win everytime. But 60%+ win rate should eventually make you climb anywhere :) Seriously - if you're that good with one champion, then if you'd consider how high you'd climb one-tricking MF in the time that you'd spend training with other champs to match your winrate with MF, that training would be a wasted time.
iSneez (EUNE)
: They already do it off the record Brand - The Human Torch Malphite - The Thing Zac - Hulk Project skins - iron man Evelin - Mystique Leona - Ms Marvel (Carol Danvers)
{{champion:112}} Iron Man :) That'd be more fitting.
DunderMn (EUW)
: IDEA FOR RIOT: Dealing with afk players in ranked games
Well... I see a few decent ideas here, but i'd go for a nuke. To completely discourage players who leave or afk or have a high disconnection risk from playing Ranked games altogether. A system would monitor player's leaving (such system already is there). If a player leaves or AFKs too much within a set period of time, he or she is automatically demoted to a lower tier. Example: A player who is anywhere in Silver league starts to afk or rage quit a lot. When system decides he or she crossed the line, even if this triggers during Silver I - Gold V promo, he or she is automatically dropped to Bronze I. If player is anywhere in Bronze, since there are no lower tiers, the destination would be Bronze V with 0 LP.
L1ddd3r (EUW)
: Maybe Riot can create a system for players who can join matches if someone is afk .Like queue client will find u a game when 1 player is afk and u will replace that player ?
And how do you propose that would work? I had a similar idea for a second, but then I thought of two possible scenarios of application: > A replacer would join with the missing player's champion as it is. or > Replacer would get in with a champion they'd want (caring bans in the match), without any item and spawn with average LvL and gold a player should have at that minute. Both versions create tremendous problems. First one basically shuts down players who play few champions but play them really well - they usually have a big enough champion pool to not fear bans or overpicks, but they usually don't play ARAM so they might land in with a champion they have never played before. Player would be be forced to play a champion he or she would not want to, with a partially done build he or she might not want to play with, probably also behind in gold and level from the start. Also, such player would not be able to really impact the game that was going on for a few minutes without his champion. Players who have DCs and then reconnect after a >5 minutes of inactivity almost never have comebacks. The other one creates a major problem for the enemy, because suddenly they would find themselves fighting against a different team comp. Also, if you thought about this version, they'd have to implement a [game mode](https://boards.euw.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/champions-gameplay-en/Mxu9T9sf-a-suggestion-for-game-mode-sr?comment=0000) of a like I thought before. In Ranked. Because otherwise, such player could see what comp enemy has and just counterpick. So basically, somebody not involved in AFK would get punished. Bad idea. **Unless, that is, in first version, such replacer does not lose LP for a loss and for example gets some bonus LP if he or she manages to pull this off and win against the odds. Now that could work.**
: Best build for Kai Sa ?
I see only lane builds. Being now a jungle Kai'Sa mainer, i do builds as such (they are mostly the same with some minor differences situationally): If they are tanky: {{item:1419}} {{item:3006}} {{item:3124}} {{item:3508}} {{item:3146}} and then situationally {{item:3071}} , {{item:3036}} or {{item:3033}} If they are not tanky, either: {{item:3715}} {{item:3006}} {{item:3085}} {{item:3124}} {{item:3508}} {{item:3146}} {{item:1414}} - if I fail to score FB or enemy is vulnerable to AoE, also in situations where enemy jungler is not easily duelable but relatively easy to disengage with upgraded E. or: {{item:3715}} {{item:3006}} {{item:3812}} {{item:3124}} {{item:3115}} {{item:3508}} {{item:1414}} - if I manage to score FB but enemy is not vulnerable to AoE and in situations where I can't run away from jungler even with upgraded E. Also, fleet footwork for early sustain before you get to hextech or dd
: I mean Im still honor 2... which is tecninally the lowest a normal player can get. and what I mean is that I fight fair. No one-shoting assassins, no super OP abilities. Just straight out Frontline who even flashes to take a Urgot ult that leads to my death instead of having it land on a teammate. And I am very much the judge if Im friendly or not. If anyone would judge they would say "probobly you are toxic" like you just did without having a reason. The best judge to your behavior is yourself. Many of my friends say their bahvior is meme and cancer. Which is without doubt their own statement. The System has also banned people for no reason before, it's very rare it happens but according to the rioters it can happen 2-3 times a year.
how long have you been playing? Like this particular account. Because I see you're level 30 which means you didn't play a lot of games this season. Honor doesn't grow as fast as in 2017 season now. Now you have to constantly behave well and in a month or two you should get to honor 3. I've been playing this season since it started and still have honor 3. I think I got it in february, which is over a month of playing. I see a lot of honor 3s. In this season, I saw a honor 4 flair in loading screen once. Just once. So I assume that the most honourable players have just got honor 4 recently. Didn't see a honor 5 this season yet. So, keep the good work you say you're doing and one day you'll get the reward. It is not about the way you play, so long as you don't work against your team. You gain honor by playing those irritating one-shot assassins too. It is only about how you behave. > The best judge to your behavior is yourself No, no, no! So fkin wrong! Please dude, educate yourself on a psychological term called _cognitive dissonance_ . It is something in (probably) everybody's mind that makes us shift the blame to others, view ourselves as the ones to be doing right etc. Hitler, Stalin, Kim Ir Sen also thought they were good people. Were they the best judges of their own behavior?
: That's odd, I specialize in doing absolutely nothing special entire games - result 3 3/3 level.
exactly same, I just play, say gj if someone on team makes good play, rant on enemies, order teammates to stop making particular mistakes I see them doing... just usual games... sometimes even get one or two honors. But I never leave games and never flame. And 3lv with 3/3 checks. But you know, GamingSimon, you lose a lot more _honor points_ if you misbehave than you gain if you behave. Honor system is designed to reward constant sportsmanlike behavior. So if you get punished a few times (also for leaving games), you will get to <2 honor levels even if you are adorably friendly in most of your games. Just start _always_ behaving good, with no exceptions, and you will see your honor level improving.
GreyfellD (EUW)
: Bruisers, "League of Fleet Wars" and lack of drawbacks in the game.
Actually, I would class ADCs as Missile Cruisers, Assassins as Submarines (or their counterpart if you're talking about sci-fi) and oh... Tanks generally as Capital Ships (so ACs, Dreadnoughts, battleships etc.)... and fighters/bruisers as Heavy Cruisers. So generally the ships that make the spearhead of the fleet, come in great numbers and variations. They are the class of ships that are armored enough to survive anything you can throw at them in short time, fast enough to outrun your most destructive ships and armed enough to overcome even Capital Ships if you have enough of them. So there is only one universal counter to them - destroy enemy shipyards before they have too many of them (ie. deny them farm). These champions have very expensive builds to make them that strong and generally suck if they are behind. They usually scale well with items and are nightmares of the late game, but can be brought down quite easily in early. Their weakness is their economy. In terms of fleets - assume a bruiser means always enough Heavy Cruisers to take out your fleet made of a single class of ships. Any class other than Heavy Cruisers. So if you don't have a bruiser yourself, you have to 2v1 him early on. You have to constantly keep tabs on him and never forget that bruisers have best comebacks if left unchecked.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
Aww, how could I forget about it... yet... you must know that sometimes counterpicks make game actually a 20+ minute interactive film with a known outcome. This could be mended even in current draft if players could trade their pick orders before pick phase, so that players who fear counterpicks could pick later, and those who want to secure their champ with little regard to counterpick could pick earlier. Yes, I know ppl trade champs but sometimes two players would really want to trade, but either you or the ally who would like to trade just does not have the champ on the other side of trade. > that made queue times massively high, even as a support now that you reminded me of that though, I don't remember having to wait a very long time to get in any team. But then waiting for a team to be approved by its leader or waiting for a team whose leader doesn't kick me, because he waited for the right pick on his teammates or one that isn't left by any of the teammates... there was the real massive idle time. **You give somebody a choice whether somebody matched with him gets to play with him and you'll wait forever until he decides he has a perfect team.** This I think was the problem with Team Builder. What I suggest does not imply at any leader or lobby (when I wrote lobby in previous post I meant party screen - parties are usually quick to do their picks) - in my idea, you get your pick and when a match is found, there's immediately a game start countdown. So either you dodge and get penalty or you play with team that was matched with you. In Team Builder, a leader sees for example a Master Yi support, he kicks him and entire team waits for another supp to come by. In my suggestion it'd be like "sorry, you can either play with this Master Yi supp or dodge and face penalty". Actually, if players can't just choose to not play with some combos, we could finally see disappearance of META (because META would become so broad that it could not be considered a META anymore), as ppl would be less discouraged from trying out new ideas that don't seem optimal at first glance. > The whole point of LoL is to be strategic Idk what this "emissary" means, but I think you're wrong. The whole point of every game, including LoL, is for its players to have fun playing, because it's player's satisfaction coming from his or her demand being supplied that generates profit. Besides, I don't suggest removing blind or draft, but rather adding another normal game mode on top of the existing ones. But this could work just as well as replacer for blind pick, because it actually would be a blind pick, only enhanced, if banning was removed from this suggestion.
Rioter Comments
: It isn't just Rengar, it's just about all champions I play. I havn't thought to much about the AS, is it that important? Also, would you start machete or talisman?
do you do heavy leash? I mean, taking bottom buff first while support and ADC are helping you out? If you don't, here's your answer. Don't solo first buff and you'll have most of your hp after doing it, especially if your support is a shielder or a healer. If you're starting topside buff, get your top laner to help you out. And you will usually want to use up one of your potions. If I start blue side, I do red buff, then blue buff (both pots used up, have both buffs), then smite kill gromp (lv3) and then do scuttler (healing up). After this I have full hp, both buffs, lv 3 and ready for gank. If I start redside, same principle, only hp is high but not full (because supp and ADC leash>top leash).
: I like the idea. Seems hard to actually incorporate it into the game without some major tweaking tho. From what I gather, you can only have a single spell after every back? Sounds like it'd be a rather boring laning phase in that case, and quite easy to counterplay at that, once you know what spell he has. If you make his AA be the bayonet, it pretty much makes him a Walmart Gangplank, and if you don't, he has too large a window of not doing anything (0.5s is actually quite a long time in game, max cap attack speed allows you 1.2 autoattacks in that timeframe, and weaving in a spell makes it 2 damage things in 0.5s - and a Zed can 100-0 you in under that 0.5s). Maybe make his QWE similar to Udyr, but on a longer CD? Or make him choose one of those as his AA, while the other two have limited ammo that refreshes every time he backs, while he gains some ammo from kills? I do really like the idea of limited resource spells. The main thing that bothers me with that, however, is every champion that has stacks of abilities (Akali, Corki, Jhin, Gangplank, etc.), since none of them have a hard 0 on their ability use (esp. Corki, since his ultimate is pretty much your champion's Q). I suggest you take some time to consider how this champion would be like to play against - would it be easy to punish him for missing his skillshots, or would he just be an unstoppable lane bully that forces you to B every minute? Make changes to his kit depending on the answer you get, and slowly polish it until you get to your desired, perfect champion (if you feel like spending so much time to make a champion that Riot will probably never use (legal issues, nothing to do with how good the design is). Champion concepts are always a fun passtime, and I encourage you to keep at it! I really like your lore as well, do sent me any other works if you have any! Sorry if my response is slightly incoherrent at points, I'm quite sleepy atm
Well: > you can only have a single spell after every back Nope, you can and will have every one of them available, but you can only have one of his QWE abilities used at one time, so each of them can only combo with his ult, not with one another. So for example, you are using his Q. Then you see a situation, where his W or E would be better. You have to tap this ability for him to change ammo for shotshell or API, which takes just as much time as reload. But you can't shoot his Q then immediately W then immediately E and follow with R. You have to choose and choose wisely, according to situation, because mistake in planning, resulting in need to change ammo costs you time in which enemy can kill you or one of your teammates. > 0.5s is actually quite a long time in game, max cap attack speed allows you 1.2 autoattacks in that timeframe true, but with maxed CDR it turns into 0.3s, so more than 1.5 shots every 0.5s. And he could spam it so long as he has spare ammo, which would be unlimited for his Q. Count in also his range which in most cases is around 800 in BA range and goes up to like 1100-1200 as he stacks bonus attack speed with only 1s interval when mag comes empty (which I think would take just as much time as Graves to reload). So, with fully capped ability range he'd strike at almost twice the Caitlyn's range every 0.5s. And consider this CD would be flat so he'd make use of it since lv1. If his player played it well, enemy ADC might never get to exceed his firing rate. Keep in mind though, that only his ult has a >1 scaling with AD. > if you feel like spending so much time to make a champion that Riot will probably never use (**legal issues**, nothing to do with how good the design is) you mean copyright/intellectual property? no problem - if they see idea and like it, permission is theirs > I suggest you take some time to consider how this champion would be like to play against - would it be easy to punish him for missing his skillshots, or would he just be an unstoppable lane bully that forces you to B every minute? Well, my idea is long range zoner that has to plan and make clever use of his resources, because he can be brutally punished for overextending - he has no innate escape and basically has only 2 abilities at any given time. But also a zoner that can safely last hit creeps from beyond the range of his opponent and will most probably have time to escape. You suspect enemy support is waiting in a brush close to farm to engage for his ADC? Burn that brush down with E, just in case. You have blitz as your support? Switch to your W, keep real close to him and wait for that grab - at this range you will connect with all 8 pellets every 0.5-0.3s, depending on your CDR, which means almost instant kill on any squish (3,75 of your AD if it critically strikes). Enemy grouping for a teamfight and getting too close to each other? Combine your E with R for vastly increased team damage potential (grievous wounds, armor debuff and mini-ignite). A moderately clever player would probably never run out of ammo, but if he missed a lot, this would delay his items if he chose poorly which ammo to use in given situation. Even with 10% more gold income an average player would have to choose between more items or restocking his ammo. This problem would, however, disappear once his player reached full build, at which time Naetan would turn into a cancer that could potentially kite a full build Jax to death. **Horribly strong if he can manage his ammo while keeping up with items, failing miserably if he doesn't.** NVM, thanks for reply. Much appreciated.
Rioter Comments
Gaddafi (EUW)
: You would have to counter Riot design team which has became oriented towards making pick 2 win type of champs. I really wonder how did they lost their mind so hard? This game is one big mess of champs with overloaded kits (every newly released champ, since S4 that is) while old champs have been forgotten. Players who chose to play those older champs, balanced champs, are put at disadvantage from the start. I am looking forward to see what garbage Riot is planning to do in near future, maybe make 500$ champs which can't be unlocked in any other way but by paying. That would be honorable move, instead of replacing what once was League of Legends with one big arcade burst fest. When we get to the point where people make apology such as ''she is squishy'' for obviously overloaded champ, than we know how deep has this game fall down. Strategy, tactic? Not existing now. So, please, stop with ''she is squishy''!? Every carry is supposed to be squishy and not to have free mistake correcting innate ability. We have assassins and meat balls, only those two kinds of champs so maybe it's time to at least call the $hit by it's name instead of trying to promote all sorts of ridiculous excuses. ---- Description of champ at champ page, quote: ''As Kai’Sa, you’re a threat that’s never far, hunting down would-be killers and diving into danger to emerge the sole survivor. Track and tag isolated enemies with Void Seeker, then follow up with your ultimate and a merciless Icathian Rain for a quick kill. On the off-chance they survive the initial onslaught, a Supercharger will keep you in range for a rapid-fire takedown.'' So, basically, if you fail you have one more chance. And another chance if even that fails because her autos are ridiculous and she deals so much different types of damage. Bravo!
Can't agree with you. They actually had to boost her post-release, because she had so low winrate. As far as I know, she's the first new champion in history of LoL to not be overpowered on release. And descriptions are far from reality. Yes, she is very strong if ahead (just like {{champion:11}} ), but doesn't have it easy to get ahead in the first place. She is squishy, yes. But it's not her only weakness. Her E is only a good escape if you know in advance where an enemy is, to avoid a fight entirely. If an enemy with only moderate amount of cc catches her with her flash on CD, she's toast, unless she can beat that enemy. Her W is hard to repeatedly hit at longer ranges and even if she hits, she might be too far to immediately follow up with her R. She relies heavily on her player's ability to find her enemies isolated, because the more enemies around, the weaker her Q is. Also, she is heavily punished for bad positioning. Actually, the best description of her is her pick phrase: "Are you a hunter, or a prey". She's either that or the other, no middle ground. And her enemies are either that or the other, no middle ground, as well. She either carries her team or feeds miserably. > So, basically, if you fail you have one more chance. Only if you're ahead. Basically, {{champion:145}} is a high risk-high reward champion. > This game is one big mess of champs with overloaded kits (every newly released champ, since S4 that is) while old champs have been forgotten. Actually, there are two types of champions in game: - strategical (most of the old champs) - they mostly have easy mechanics, but rely heavily on your teamwork and overall knowledge of the game mechanics. They are best for players who don't main any particular champion, but rather excel at their versatility and have an adaptive pick strategy. - mechanical (most of the new champs) - they have mechanics that take time getting used to, are mostly hard to master, but if you do master them, you can repeatedly score high. Those champions don't reward overall knowledge of game mechanics as much as your own proficiency in playing them. They actually reward you for one-tricking them. Bronze/silver players usually focus on their mechanical skills, but lack in teamwork and this overall knowledge (or at least the ability to use it) - this starts to slowly change in gold tier and in master/challenger tiers you really see the decline of mechanical champs. This is why in bronze/silver, you won't see strategical champs shining very often - they require skills that are uncommon on this elo. The higher you move, though, the more you will see those older champs win. Low elo "cancer champs" start to fail in higher elos, because they have a strong advantage/strong weakness mechanics and they can't keep up with strategically-minded enemies who know how to play around their strengths and exploit their weaknesses.
Gaddafi (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=FranklinDelanoR,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=mfEfbYyE,comment-id=0006,timestamp=2018-04-02T10:45:42.414+0000) > > A good {{champion:145}} cant be countered in jungle. I play kasai jungle and i only lose with her if we lose all lanes, and there are 2-3 feeders in my team. What i find funny here is how you disregard this point you have made (quoted part of your post) in favor of making some strategical advice, as if your ability to adapt and think would make your opening point invalid. Those two can't be related.
Actually, this is quite good, but flawed advice against her. Just like {{champion:102}} , {{champion:145}} **heavily punishes her opponents' team for having bad teamwork**. Mix mechanics of {{champion:11}} , {{champion:64}} and {{champion:67}} in right proportions and you get {{champion:145}} . [TL;DR]Be smarter than her player. She counters bad teamwork and carelessness with little regard to picks.[/TL;DR] A good advice against {{champion:145}} ? Go for 5v5. She can't siege. She can't rain down damage from afar, as her only long range has also long cooldown. Her ult deals no damage and if she does bad play with it, she's toast. A good Kai'sa will only engage if her player knows it's safe to. This means, you can force her to play passive, which will greatly hurt her. Also, Kai'Sa can be easily countered by her own team. Her mechanics strongly prefer defensive teammates, especially tanks with multiple hard CCs. If her team comp is overly aggressive, compared to yours, she will have no opportunities for ganks. She has strong 1v1 since early game and it just gets stronger from then on. So, don't 1v1 her, especially after she upgrades her Q and E. And remember to build hybrid protection. She can easily start off with AD/AS build, to finish up with strong AP. However, as I said earlier, she has to commit to do any real damage. And she will probably use her R after some of your team is below 50% hp. If she does, switch focus immediately or you lose. Also, she has no inherent CC, and her engage is also her escape. She's vulnerable to all hard cc because of being squishy and low range of most of her damage. Place wards everywhere she can use her R and anywhere she has to pass through to be able to gank. Also, counterjungle her with your laners, she doesn't perform well if focused, though mind that her teammates might use this to push turrets and if they score one, it just repays her death. Also, after 2 items she will do drakes insanely fast, and after 3/4 items she'll be doing like 2/3 or even 75% baron damage and will also have insane splitpush potential. Which means, you can only counter her tactically. Strategically, her player can choose whether to gank, participate in teamfights, do objectives or splitpush. In fact, the if you can't kill her, because her player is cautious, best counterplay for her is to starve her. Force fights before she gets there, so she doesn't get kills/assists and loses time. Look for where she is and steal her camps on the other side of map. The more you strain her economy, the bigger chances you have to win. Also, push for early victory. Other countertip (for jungler)? Pick {{champion:121}} , {{champion:107}} , {{champion:59}} or {{champion:33}} - these champs are hard counters for her. If you're adc and you see kai'sa jungle? Pick {{champion:29}} . You play top? Pick {{champion:92}} , {{champion:83}} or {{champion:80}} . Generally all AD assassins counter her so mid can ruin her game by picking {{champion:238}} or {{champion:91}} . Another good counterpicks on jungle are {{champion:11}} , {{champion:24}} ,{{champion:141}} , or {{champion:102}} , though they are skill match-ups, so it's a bit risky. And don't pick squishy non-AD-assassins, like {{champion:28}} or {{champion:81}} - she will just counterjungle you to rage quit. Though, even if you pick her counter, remember that her kit gives her just enough to play around you. She can avoid you completely, until you are low on health and suddenly get hit by her W, followed by R and Q. Hence I said that she counters bad teamwork and carelessness with little regard to picks. Also, there is a good reason she has below 50% win rate. Which is very unusual for a new champ.
Scrinnid (EUNE)
: too weak too strong ffs guys make up your mind already. or better yet learn to %%%%ing dodge it, it has like what a whole second animation time so learn to dodge it. and when it comes from afar it' s not easy to aim it to begin with.(unless you play aram)
Exactly. Kai'sa's W is a slow moving skillshot. Besides, she has no inherent tankiness, and she loses her escape if she commits her E for attack. They actually had to boost her after release, which I think is the first time in League history that a new champion was not OP from start. In fact, Kai'Sa is like a ranged version of Master Yi - extremely dangerous if ahead, but striving to get ahead in the first place. Other thing is, her W stops on first target hit, so you can just stay behind creeps or behind a tanky champ in your team. Countering skillshots requires brains, and **there are a lot more OP abilities in ARAM than her W**. And yes, it's harder to dodge in ARAM, but let's be honest. Many champs that are hard to play in SR shine in ARAM. And since getting a champ in ARAM is random, and the game is mainly focused on SR, she would have to be OP in SR for Riot to do anything about it. Because if they weakened her because of her ARAM strength, that could lead to underpowering her in SR. And her winrate shows she's not nearly as OP as some ppl think.
Zyzyx (EUW)
: > this proves that the current system does not work at all. That's a logical fallacy. Let me explain it with an extreme example: We are not yet able to cure cancer completely. Therefore modern medicine does not work at all. See the mistake here? Just because something does not work perfectly this doesn't mean it doesn't work at all. The PB systems Riot developed have been a huge success. Did it solve everything? Of course not. Did it make things better? Hell to the yeah! Riot is without any doubt the leading force in the fight against toxicity, which was actually highlighted again just 3 days ago. 3 days ago the "Fair Play Alliance" went public. It's an alliance of some of the biggest developers in the world (including Blizzard, Riot, Discord and Intel) to fight online toxicity together. And this initiative, the whole "researching and fighting toxicity with modern methods" thing...all that started with Riot. Other companies followed their example and recently you see all kinds of companies copying Riots methods. Hell, there are even third party companies now that offer (for example) intelligent, learning chat analysis algorithms for any gaming company that wants this service. All this was started by Riot and made possible by their policy to share their knowledge openly. I don't want to make a saint out of Riot, they made their fair share of mistakes too and of course they are still far away from actually solving the problem...but still, they have been without the shadow of a doubt very successful with their methods and kickstarted an entire movement in the gaming industry.
> That's a logical fallacy. Let me explain it with an extreme example: > We are not yet able to cure cancer completely. Therefore modern medicine does not work at all. You're right, my bad. Though... I'd really like to know how you measure their success. Because without substantial data (the problem is really hard if not impossible to track and measure) this success is just an empty word. However, the frequency of rants on toxic players gives some insight into how successful measures taken are. That's why we talk about how hot the topic is. If it was a success, the topic would measurably cool down.
: > Those, that don't improve. Everyone, and by that I mean everyone, can and will improve his behaviour **under the right circumstances**, the opposite is also true
: I just lost several minutes of my life to read that ? instant problems -It will require a lot of rioters to monitor this system, and make sure that it keeps on 'spinning' -It will make higher elo games with queue with over 1 hour starting from plat. -It will endorse trolling over slipping out your toxicity where it can be monitored (chat) And ruin more and more games for people -You watch too much netflix -especially with cop/prison stories. -It will require riot to higher extra staff only for this otherwise resource-wise HUGE project, and would probably require the game to become paid, which is not an option for them, just to keep it rolling. -Not only inefficient system, but it does not work, as I mentioned it endorses trolling, which is impossible physically to be tracked. -From the statement above, one has to ask himself why would you invest so much resources to make a system that does not work. And most important: -Do not make topics, for the community to hover over with suggestions that you took 5 seconds to think up of, with 0 thought in the after math that it can result in ,and without clear perspective of what is required to happen, as you literlaly just post a 'troll' topic that way, since I can assure you that riot with their highly educated, smart people on board that are currently allowing you to play their project for free have enough brain power to think up of any scenario and any project regarding this, considering all cons and pros and if it is that a bright idea, they probably already discussed it and thought up of it long ago.
Not to be offensive, but you know... this post confirms your other one. How? You can think all you want, not gonna help at that. > as you literlaly just post a 'troll' topic that way With this words you seem to suggest I had a malevolent intention posting this thread. I assure you this was not the case. > -It will require riot to higher extra staff only for this otherwise resource-wise HUGE project, and would probably require the game to become paid, which is not an option for them, just to keep it rolling. I'm really curious about how you think it's a huge project. I mean, not the original idea, the modified version (marker making matchmaking match only other toxic players without any notification within existing queues, like a second modifier to MMR, only a binary one) - this would probably take less code lines than a single champion. Maybe you are right though, so please explain if you ever stumble here again :) > -Not only inefficient system, but it does not work, as I mentioned it **endorses trolling**, which is impossible physically to be tracked. And there are the merits. The problem is incorrectly defined. The problem is not the existence of toxic players. The problem is damage they do and this one can be solved if their access to healthy player base is restricted. The existence of toxic players is a cause of the problem, but you can't really eliminate it. So, if you can't cure a disease, you isolate it. **Who cares if trolls get more and more toxic, so long as the only players they plague with their toxicity are other toxic players who reply with toxicity?** This way, the only ppl mentally poisoned are trolls themselves. > -You watch too much netflix > -especially with cop/prison stories. Nope and nope. > since I can assure you that riot with their highly educated, smart people on board that are currently allowing you to play their project for free have enough brain power to think up of any scenario and any project regarding this, considering all cons and pros and if it is that a bright idea, they probably already discussed it and thought up of it long ago. Perhaps. Perhaps not. There were a lot of great minds even in ancient times, but there are devices that were feasible to construct back then and would help a lot... but they haven't even thought of them - ideas are usually the result of either an accident or a brainstorm. Being an educated, smart person does not necessarily mean you can come up with every possible idea. I was already informed this idea was considered before, which I had no idea about when posting this thread. And though substantially the argument mentioned above is valid, I consider the way you wrote it a bit offensive (or maybe just written by an annoyed person which causes it to be a bit offensive) - implying I have lacks in intelligence because I didn't think somebody thought about it before. I didn't force you to read it. You did it out of your own curiosity. And I don't suggest you become less curious. Don't. It's just sometimes you find a chest that doesn't contain what you're looking for. It's life. I spent several hours writing and then tracking this thread, replying to intelligent people who confronted my idea with interesting points (and I enjoyed it, perhaps some of them did too). BTW: If I didn't learn it really was considered before (and thus you probably already knew about it) I'd consider you overly trusting in infallibility of authority coming from degrees and certificates.
Zyzyx (EUW)
: > Because there is no incentive Season rewards, honor rank, hextech loot...I would say there are quite a lot of incentives. > these are the players that are real problem, because they don't want to play sportsmanlike. There is nothing League can offer such players other than people to abuse. That's correct. I always had the theory that some of those players, those who absolutely do not reform ever, are people who have a anti social personality disorder (ASPD, look up the definition, it's almost creepy how much the definition fits). We are on the same page here. But you also have to understand that those players are a minority, even among toxic players. Most of the toxicity in League is not caused by those players, but by rather "normal" players with occasional lapses of judgement. And, given that you can't change the ASPD players anyway, the focus should be on the other players. ASDP players should just be removed, because there it not really any other option how to deal with them. > Actually, it is that simple. It's not. Even if you widen "education" to "upbringing", it's still not the full picture because it ignores the current situation in which the player shows this behavior. Effects like stress or the online disinhibition effect. They have a MASSIVE influence on whether someone is toxic or not but they have absolutely nothing to do with someones upbringing.
> Season rewards, honor rank, hextech loot...I would say there are quite a lot of incentives. > It's not. Even if you widen "education" to "upbringing", it's still not the full picture because it ignores the current situation in which the player shows this behavior. Effects like stress or the online disinhibition effect. They have a MASSIVE influence on whether someone is toxic or not but they have absolutely nothing to do with someones upbringing. For an average player like me or you? Hell yeah. For a toxic player? And as I said, I don't consider every act of toxicity to make someone toxic. For some, breaking somebody's game is a reward in its own right. And trust me, it's not a minority - not among toxic players. True, most toxic players react to having a bad game. But it is the upbringing that decides how a player reacts. Some will rage in their room, making a lot of noise. Some will take it calmly with humility. And others will think "to hell with that, no one will feel good when I feel bad" - such people are a minority, true at that, but still a significant one. And this is because it's easier to bring someone down that to climb yourself up. This, is not ASPD. This is passive aggression combined with taking game too seriously - which is not **that** uncommon. These players take game so seriously, that any bad emotion they encounter during game, triggers their mental defense mechanism. If they start trolling and go toxic, they can rationalize their loss claiming they didn't want to win in the first place, which turns failure into success in their mind.
Zyzyx (EUW)
: I don't remember you specifically, but it's a topic that is frequently discussed, so I suppose it's true that I wrote about that. If you want me to reply on something specific, feel free to provide with with a link. But I am pretty sure I already said this in the last discussion (because I always say that): I am well aware there is a correlation. I wrote "MEANINGFUL correlation" for a reason. Because, yes, there is a correlation between low age and toxicity. It even is significant. But, and that's the crucial part here, it's tiny. The effect size is so incredibly small that it simply doesn't matter. It is absolutely correct to say that there is a significant correlation between low age and toxicity because that's what the data says. But whenever you say that you should remember the numbers behind that, especially the effect size. This correlation basically means that, if you are young, you are something like 0,1 - 1% more likely to be toxic. This effect size, although it definitely exists, is simply so tiny that it doesn't matter. Pretty much every other related factor is more strongly connected to toxicity than a players age. Age is a factor, but one of the least important ones and age can not at all be used to predict toxicity in any meaningful way. So if you say "It's kids who are toxic" that is simply not correct and extremely misleading, despite the correlation between age and toxicity. > the overcomplication u are posting here as law is something u dont want to face. I want to face it. Hell, I want to face it so much that I wrote my bachelor thesis about this topic, I totally dig the complexity of the topic. I love it. But I want to face the actual facts, not just SOMETHING that sounds nice and easy. And that's what blaming kids is: The easy way. Blaming the "youth nowadays" is socially acceptable (or even supported) and we all have a natural tendency to do that when we grow older. But it's deluding the vision on the actual problem here, which is why I prefer to stick to the facts here. And the facts go beyond "There is a correlation".
Not to stir any beehive there, but I sincerely think there is a correlation between age and toxicity. More "grown up" players are usually less toxic not in percentage of toxic people, but in level of toxicity. Really, I consider being called an idiot a lot less toxic than somebody wishing me cancer, suggesting that I commit suicide or implying to have an intimate relationship with my mother. Yes, I can't know for sure how old is a toxic player. But I can estimate based on his level of communication. Grown ups, even toxic ones, usually have more to say than just plain throwing meat, as opposed to toxic kids. And based on this estimate I can tell you, grown ups usually have brakes and if you approach them correctly, you can extinguish toxicity. Good luck with trying that with a kid. Of course, from every rule there are exceptions. But they say exceptions confirm the rule.
: Some time during which they will further decrease the odds of reforming
Either somebody has decency, or they don't. In virtual environment there is no reforming. It's a lie. There is just no pressure for a genuinely toxic player to reform. None whatsoever. It's a question of having such player in a game, or preventing him from joining. Not of making him behave otherwise, because there is no fkin incentive for such player to improve. He gets into a game, starts toxicity, gets reaction. His goal is fulfilled. That's the problem. **This game already meets demands of toxic players**. The only thing you can do is to meet these demands away from decent players.
Zyzyx (EUW)
: > When I say toxic player, I mean a recidivist. Someone who repeatedly behaves bad, because that's how he or she is in head. So why do you even want to keep this players in the game in any way? If you already know that they are basically psychopaths and will never become normal players...why not just remove them? Why would Riot allow them to keep playing? Also think what kind of signal that would send: "We care a lot about toxicity and we don't want it in our game...but we decided that will let the most toxic players just keep playing, so this toxicity can stay in our game". Not only is this extremely paradoxical, it also takes the edge away from the entire punishment system. Some player need the threat of a possible permaban to have a reason to improve. But if players are just moved to another queue instead of losing their account, this threat is gone. The punishment system would become a toothless beast and the amount of players who simply don't care about being punished would increase. > recent increase in toxicity rants on boards suggests otherwise. I've been active on the PB/Tribunal boards for 7 years now, writing roughly 35.000 posts and reading literally everything. Trust me on this: There is no recent increase. This was ALWAYS a hot topic, this is not a recent trend at all.
> So why do you even want to keep this players in the game in any way? If you already know that they are basically psychopaths and will never become normal players...why not just remove them? Why would Riot allow them to keep playing? because they can't really prevent them from doing so. They can't remove them. Not that they don't want to. In an open, virtual environment, it is basically not possible to contain such players, unless you give them a way to contain themselves. > Also think what kind of signal that would send: "We care a lot about toxicity and we don't want it in our game...but we decided that will let the most toxic players just keep playing, so this toxicity can stay in our game". Some battles can be won only if you deny your enemy a fight. You can't effectively remove such players. If you ban them, completely prevent their account from joining a game, they will retaliate in a new one. As i've written before: > Account permaban? Creates a new account. > IP permaban? Changes IP > MAC permaban? Changes network card - this one is just a little bit effective because not everybody can afford a new network card It's exactly the kind of attention they want. On the other hand, if you give them their own, isolated playground, they might just stay out of yours - at least some of them might feel complacent enough to stay there. As i've said before - they are not terrorists, they are customers. Customers have demands that a clever businessman meets. > I've been active on the PB/Tribunal boards for 7 years now, writing roughly 35.000 posts and reading literally everything. Trust me on this: There is no recent increase. This was ALWAYS a hot topic, this is not a recent trend at all. Ok, my mistake. Yet, this proves that the current system does not work at all. Whenever you do an action, there is a reaction you can observe. If it has been always a hot topic, with no decreases/increases, this means that whatever actions were taken, they were ineffective. But thanks for the insight - I still think the idea at its base is good. Only that genuinely toxic players should not be in any way informed that for their actions they were switched to TrollQ. This way they could just blame bad luck XD
Febos (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Commander Kozak,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=sErNtTx4,comment-id=0000000100000000,timestamp=2018-03-25T08:07:01.269+0000) > > This is exactly what Q-U-A-R-A-N-T-I-N-E is all about. It's not a "quarantine" because nothing is stopping them from making a new account. Genuinely toxic players want to spread that toxicity. A good example of that is players that create accounts on other servers whom only intent is to be toxic in it.
True. Nothing stopping them. They can. The question is, if they are not prevented from playing, what will push them towards creating a new account. It's exactly the genuinely toxic players i'm talking about - they don't want to spread it. They want reaction. And in a game, where everybody is toxic, there will be a lot of meat flying to feed toxicity... until it pops.
Zyzyx (EUW)
: That is an oversimplification. It's not that simple. You can't just take ONE factor (in this case: education) and say THAT is the reason for toxicity. This is a highly complex problem and dozens if not hundreds of factors are interacting with each other here. The human mind is complicated and so are the associated problems. Even if it were as simple as you say it would still not be correct, because one of our "animal instincts" is to be extremely social. Even newborns without any social influence whatsoever already show social tendencies. We are not parasites, we are categorized as social or even ultra-social animals. Being social is our natural behavior, not a result of education. But, be that as it may: Dehumanizing toxic players is not helpful (in general dehumanizing humans is NEVER helpful and lead to a a lot of nasty things in human history). It's actively closing your eyes to avoid seeing that the actual problem is way way WAY more complex and can not just be reduced to a single influencing factor.
Actually, it is that simple. Well, education is a bilateral word. I meant specifically upbringing - it makes us who we are. All humans are animals whether you want to admit it or not. We adapt to our environment. We shape our environment but so does the environment shape us. So, everything an individual is, is to greater or lesser extent a result of his or her upbringing. The problem is, virtual environment creates too weak a pressure to actually influence somebody. Either somebody did something toxic once (but doesn't want to), and thus reformation is not needed, just a notice that it's not right, or somebody behaves toxic repeatedly, because he or she likes the drama, and reformation attempts are pointless. Because there is no incentive. There are players who play this game **only** to feed on people's emotions - these are the players that are real problem, because **they don't want** to play sportsmanlike. There is nothing League can offer such players other than people to abuse. Is fecit qui prodest - guilty is the one who benefitted from it. And so, whenever you face a problem with a human in center of it, you look for his or her motive.
Zyzyx (EUW)
: > It's not about finding a prefect solution. I agree. But Prisoner Island is not just not a perfect solution. It's not a solution at all, it makes things worse. > People usually won't improve That is incorrect. 92% of all players who get punished improve their behavior after their first punishment and never get punished again. It is correct that fundamentally changing a person is very difficult, but this is not what is done here. Most players who are toxic online are not toxic because they are generally evil person in all situations of their life. Most are perfectly normal in RL. They are just different online. So you don't have to change their whole personality (which would indeed be difficult), you just have to change how they perceive online behavior. And that is absolutely possible and Riots system is actually pretty good at doing so. > It's all about how you perceive the problem. I disagree. It's all about numbers, it's about what actually works, it's about what actually reduces toxicity, it's about hard facts. > Because of a metaphor I mentioned, there is no real way to force a change of behavior. That's right. But there are incentives. There are ways to make not being toxic the path of least resistance. There are ways to remove stressors. There are ways to make reforming more attractive and likely. > It is not about resocializing them. I disagree and so does Riot. It's all about that. In a game where you can, as you explained yourself, always create a new account, resocialising and reforming players is the ONLY effective way to actually influence the number of toxicity players are facing in the game.
> 92% of all players who get punished improve their behavior after their first punishment and never get punished again. Meaning these are not the players that get permabanned. They are usually either ignorant of rules or behaved bad unwillingly. However, I'm talking about hard-headed toxic players, who actually do the same irl. Those, that don't improve. Everyone makes mistakes. When i'm saying toxic players I don't mean those 92%. Those 92% did something toxic, but you can't judge a person by a single deed. When I say toxic player, I mean a recidivist. Someone who repeatedly behaves bad, because that's how he or she is in head. That's why in extension of thread I mentioned multiple instances of player being reported and found guilty. > And that is absolutely possible and Riots system is actually **pretty good at doing so**. recent increase in toxicity rants on boards suggests otherwise. As you said, 92% of all players who get punished improve their behavior after their first punishment and never get punished again. These 92% are not a problem. The remaining 8% are. 92% sound nice, and inspiring. But those 8% are like a single nuke getting through missile screen.
Shukr4n (EUW)
: i want toxic player to be removed from game. REFORM happens when players are not permabanned. whenever u read a thread of someone getting permabanned it means he didnt reform. end. zoo is for animals. players banned are kids with minimal education that thinks they can do what they want in game. block them.
> zoo is for animals. players banned are kids with minimal education that thinks they can do what they want in game. block them. Every newborn child starts with only animal instincts. It's up to parents and environment to raise that little parasitic animal into a productive member of society, to weave some humanity into that animal. Toxic players are examples of failures to do so. So, still animals.
: "if they start behaving" they never will, they'll just get more and more toxic as time goes on since they'll be subject to constant toxicity with no end in sight They'll stay in that server forever and ever until they're tired of all the toxicity and make a new account where they'll just be even more toxic than before
Now think of it - if they get banned, they create new account instantly. If they're quarantined, it will take some time, during which they won't be playing and annoying normal players.
Zyzyx (EUW)
: > Perhaps it's because it was prisoner islands, not prisoner servers. I think you misunderstood. "Prisoner Island" does not refer to actual prisons islands or actual prisoners, it refers to your idea. Or rather this type of idea (i.e. putting bad players together). You are not the first to come up with this idea, not by a long shot. This idea is so frequently suggested that it got its own name that is also used by Riot (who of course had the same idea), and that name is Prisoner Island. There are a few key problems with this idea. a) This is the most important one: Prisoner Island prevents improving. Humans are social animals, we adapt to our social environment. Improving your behavior when you have an anger/self control issue is already challenging when you are surrounded by average players. But when you are surrounded by other toxic players, it's basically impossible. It's a toxic environment that suggest that toxicity is normal and constantly confronts you with behavior that might be even worse than your own, making you look like your behavior is just fine (in comparison), while it's absolutely not fine in comparison to "normal" people. It usually results in you becoming even more toxic because you are only surrounded by terrible examples. This problem is also where the idea got it's name, Prisoner Island. Because the same thing actually happens in actual prisons that are just focused on "putting them all together" instead of moving people away from criminal influences and making their lives as normal as possible. American prisons often do that and have a terrible reform rate and tend to make criminals even more criminal. Many European prison systems (for example the German or Scandinavian ones) do the opposite and try to make prison life as normal and close to normal society as possible...and they are incredibly successful. Understanding how human behavior and behavior change works is crucial for selecting an effective punishment....and Prisoner Island is just a gross misunderstanding about how humans work. b) Even toxic players do not really enjoy being surrounded by jerks all the time. Your argument that if they don't improve it doesn't matter because they will stay in prisoner island forever is incorrect. They won't. They will get sick of it at some point and just create a new account. And then they will terrorize normal players and, what's even worse, new players with their newly learned super-toxic behavior, making it more likely that those players become toxic aswell. Prisoner Island is basically a training camp for super toxic players and those players will NOT stay in Prisoner Island forever, they will switch to other accounts at some point and "infect" the normal population. c) Even toxic players have friends. If they have a friend who is "normal" (i.e. not toxic), how will they play with each other? Will the normal friend have to join the toxic queue? Will the toxic player be allowed to avoid the toxic queue? Or will they not be allowed to play with each other? None of these options are good because either normal players get in close contact with super toxic players or you provide another reason to create a new account. Long story short: There are very good reasons why this idea is not implemented and there are plenty of RL examples and studies that confirm that this kind of punishment is doing the opposite of what it's supposed to do. This is not just grey theory, we know for a fact that these problems actually exist. The reason why this is not done is not that no one ever had the idea. The idea is obvious, of course Riot and thousands of players already thought of it. The reason is that the idea is not as good as it looks at first glance.
It's not about finding a prefect solution. You have some points though. Which made me modify the idea - what if it was normal (as in normal, standard, not normal as unranked) queue, but a punished player's account would get an "invisible" marker for a set number of games, without notice, that would force matchmaking to only match him/her with players with the same marker. I know it's possible to implement in IT environment. Of course, this still leaves the problem you mentioned - no way to improve. The thing is, LoL is not real life. People usually won't improve. Preventing them from playing just gives them an incentive to make another account. Or leave the game entirely - which is bad for business. The methods can be worked on, discussed, improved, but the core idea remains the same - quarantine. It's all about how you perceive the problem. In real life banishing from society is effective, because there is a physical barrier in rejoining that society. But in case of LoL, the barrier is nonexistent. If you like spirituality, let's use a metaphor, where players are spirits capable of possessing a body, and accounts are bodies. If you ban a possessed body, this toxic spirit can just possess an another one. Never ending story. But what if you tagged that body, and through machinations within government and economic structure, forced those spirits and their bodies to live only among other malevolent spirits and their bodies... in a way that they were not aware of and could not prove. In real life you can enforce actions to resocialize criminals. In virtual one, there is no way to resocialize toxic players. Because of a metaphor I mentioned, there is no real way to force a change of behavior. The punishment is a lie, because it is monkey-easy to bypass. Toxic player gets banned? Sure, why not. Another account, a few minutes, back into game with all the venom. It is not about resocializing them. It is about isolating them from normal players **who just don't want them** in their games.
: Then it's just a version of a permaban that's slightly different, it serves no purpose if the end result isn't a possible reform
Not permaban. Read the whole idea, not just TL;DR. If they start behaving, they'd be able to play other queues again. Plus, you're mistaking ban - which prevents such player from playing, from quarantine - which lets him still play, just not **your** sportsmanlike games.
Shukr4n (EUW)
: well, your suggestion doenst block them from making a new account and have 2 queue for 2 accounts then. permaban eventually will break their morale because leveling up a new account is boring and maybe they will give up. account sharing is bannable. account selling is bannable. plus their spolied behaviour will not change so they will be banned again sooner or later. they need to improve troll ban, actually to me they should make EVERY breaking rules harsher. making a clearer ruleset and making the 14days ban message learer about the permabanned after a single swear.
Yep, it is bannable. And uber hard to detect. I wonder how many accounts have been banned for being shared/traded. I don't think that would be even a measurable percent. Rules of LoL are perfectly clear. Me or you - we are best examples of that, sportsmanlike players who abide by them. It's just that some players **don't give a damn** about rules. > well, your suggestion doenst block them from making a new account and have 2 queue for 2 accounts then. No solution is perfect. But some are as good as humanly possible. Now think of it - people want to play. Banning, especially permabanning, gives a great incentive for creating/buying another account. Quarantining... does not. Some might still not like playing with trolls, but hey - they are not prevented from playing. What would you support? A "solution", that removes a toxic player for a while, but in the end means that 100% of them can still endanger your game? Or one that makes 50% of toxic players still play, but unable to play with you, thus lowering the chance you'll get a toxic player in team. The problem with your thinking is that you look at it from the wrong perspective. You want toxic players to stop being toxic players - which is unlikely. However... why not let them play a game... so long as it's not **your** game. They say a human is not a cow and changes it's point of view. Bullshit. Some ppl just are plain animals. So, let's make a ZOO. Animal can't harm you if it's behind bars.
Shukr4n (EUW)
: I dont care. They lost their percious account. I play since s2 and got zero punishments, neither a chat ban.magic? No, behaviour. Kids must learn to grow up
Sorry dude. You're making a big error in your thinking. Revenge sometimes (rarely) does solve problems... just not in case of a video game. IRL your nemesis dies and problem is solved... sort of. In video game, your nemesis will just respawn with a new account and continue to do damage. Some people never grow up. But they can be prevented from their infancy affecting your mood. And judging from your posts... I really hate to offend, but I think it's inevitable now - you should grow up and discard vengeance as solution. Now think of it - they lose their precious account... and? It's confirmed that accounts are being traded. Many of these trolls are just spoiled, mean, nasty kids with wealthy parents, who will just buy them an another account so that they shut up, stop whining and annoy somebody else - like you or me.
: Putting toxic people in a toxic environment won't make them any less toxic
True. But putting them in toxic environment means they are not in a healthy environment. Right? This is exactly what Q-U-A-R-A-N-T-I-N-E is all about.
Shukr4n (EUW)
: I "agree". Remove the,10chat ban and to keep the 4stages add a 40d ban. Ahah No rly. A queue for toxic players is just gifting them another chance. Let the toxicity be permabanned
Think of it as an incurable disease. You can't really cure it. Humans are smart apes and determined trolls will find a way around bans. Account permaban? Creates a new account. IP permaban? Changes IP MAC permaban? Changes network card - this one is just a little bit effective because not everybody can afford a new network card Ban is not a lasting solution. It is proven not to work. Toxicity problem is a complex one. **You**, Shukr4n, want to treat toxic players like terrorists. "Don't give in to demands". But actually... **they're not terrorists. They're customers.** Problematic, but still customers. Market is all about supplying demands of customers. If they get their own queue, where they can do all they want, because they only play with other toxic trolls... what's the harm? Certainly you won't be harmed. You will be rid of them, because they will willingly isolate themselves from you. I suggest putting them into an environment where they don't harm healthy players - and one they might even enjoy.
: It's been tested, prisoner islands don't work, they just make people more toxic and frustrated
Perhaps it's because it was prisoner islands, not prisoner servers. It's one thing to isolate and restrict an important part of content at the same time. It's another to just isolate, without really restricting content. There is a difference between guantanamo and scandinavian prisons.
Rioter Comments
Typ4o (EUNE)
: Report System Active only for a Flaming player nothing else more ?!?!?!
[TL;DR]Actually, I have a better idea. Make a separate queue - The Toxic Queue. Instead of banning/suspending/chat filtering players, just lock them to the toxic queue, where chat is not filtered for anything and they can troll and be toxic all they want, because all they will be playing with will be other toxic trolls. Inhibition is not how you deal with epidemic disease. Quarantine is how you deal with it - you isolate it from healthy population. Moreover, what you are suggesting is removing players from the league. Toxic - yes. Aggressive - yes. Abusive - yes. But in many cases, also generous towards RIOT's finances. By creating a special queue for bad tempered players, like a reservoir, or a prison, you would isolate those detrimental element without ridding RIOT of a portion of paying customers. Win - win.[/TL;DR] So, how would that work? Imagine Mr Toxic. Mr Toxic is a bad guy. Perhaps not a bad player mechanically, but he is toxic and he trolls if he starts to lose or if he can't pick what he wants. So, he gets reported. A lot. Now, eventually, after having a few of these reports reviewed and found guilty, he is locked to The Toxic Queue. Meaning he can't play normal games, he can't play ranked games. Only games in The Toxic Queue. For say, 10 games. Or 20. If in this time, he is not reported for bad behavior, after playing those 10 or 20 games in TTQ, other queues are unlocked. If he gets reported, and found guilty even once in that time, this number is increased by another 10 or 20 games. For this purpose, a special team of employees would be needed, who would only review reports on quarantined players, to deal with the time pressure to review it before player is automatically admitted into healthy queues again. Now, how would The Toxic Queue itself work? Well, no chat filtering, so players there can spam all vulgar, racist and otherwise offensive types of bad words without censor. They can dodge without penalties, leave without penalties - however, the game count towards having other queues unlocked would tick only when a player finishes a match and is present when nexus explodes - however, in this queue, remakes and surrenders would not work so that the system is not abused. Mr Toxic would have to play all the fkin game, from start till one of the teams breaks a nexus. With other trolls. Other toxic players. Worst case scenario - Mr Toxic will just be isolated from healthy, sportsmanlike players indefinitely, because he will understand nothing and just keep being a toxic troll, which will cause him to have his other queues unlock moving farther and farther. And as he doesn't understand, he probably won't mind playing with toxic players, perhaps he'll even enjoy it. Best case scenario - Mr Toxic will have a change of heart. After being forced to play with other trolls, he will understand how his own behavior is offensive to other players, experiencing it on his own skin, over and over. He will have enough of this. He will understand he was justly punished and that he has to serve his time in TTQ. He will start playing fair, and will stop being Mr Toxic anymore. And after lock is raised, Mr Sportsmanlike will return to healthy queues. And that's about toxicity. If reports are on afk or leaving the game, temporary bans and suspensions are just about right measure.
Rioter Comments
Show more

Commander Kozak

Level 151 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion