: is 3 LP penalty sufficient for dodging?
I would feel the same if it wasnt for the ability to look up your teammates on something like op.gg . If you do that and see that your teammates are first timing champs or onetricking weird champions they have less than 50 percent winrate on, you will want to dodge that game. Dodging potential losses is going to save you lp in the long run and preserve your mmr. People will stop dodging when the general population of ranked players start picking sensible meta champions. We could also do without spreading the poor advice of "you can play whatever you want in ranked and you will climb".
m0nsteR100 (EUNE)
: Support Build. Help.
Hi. First of all, one thing that is important to understand is that different supports and different builds are used in organised pro play than in solo queue. Generally in pro play, tanky supports like Alistar and Braum are favoured for the crowd control that they bring to teamfights. Also, there are in general less kills in pro games, so levelling is slower and therefore scaling champions will take more time to become relevant. There are several other reasons as well, this is just to give you an idea. Righteous Glory for instance is a team oriented item designed to help chase down and engage on the enemy team. It can work in solo queue, but you do need your team near you and it is more often the case that your solo queue team will be in different parts of the map. Redemption is interesting because it is an Aoe heal that is a core item on many enchanter supports. I wouldnt describe Braum as an enchanter, but in this case the item does work on him because he benefits from the 200 health, health regen and cdr. The mana regen is also nice on him. Locket is like the redemption for tank supports. The active, which shields nearby teammates, increases with your bonus health and tank supports naturally build other health items. Knights vow is an item you build to protect your adc, because it takes some of the damage dealt to them and deals it to you instead. Zekes convergence boosts the damage output of your adc temporarily after you've ulted, if you are close enough in range of your adc. I recommend looking at guides on champions that you want to play, such as those on probuilds. At first, just copy them and try to understand why the items are picked while you play. Some items are good most of the time because of their stats and cost effectiveness, while others may be better in certain situations depending on e.g. How well you use their actives. Some items are better in combination with certain runes, so maybe try a few variations of builds and compare.
: I would. I have done it against high elo players and won games. Also one should roam unless you have push in lane to begin with. Which Nautlius is on of those tanks which can easily do such thing.
> [{quoted}](name=The Hero Simon,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=ZvGHEG6i,comment-id=0005000000000000,timestamp=2019-04-10T20:18:28.060+0000) > > I would. I have done it against high elo players and won games. > Also one should roam unless you have push in lane to begin with. Which Nautlius is on of those tanks which can easily do such thing. Do you mean ban Sivir in the case that you are definitely going to pick Nautilus regardless of what everyone else picks? You could, but Sivir's banrate is already low if you look at something like lolalytics plat+. There are better adc bans right now, like vayne. I dont agree on your second point either. If you're Nautilus, the wave is being pushed into your tower and you roam, then you must get something from it and if you don't you will be behind in xp. It depends on what side you're on as well. If you're blue side, your pathing has to go through tribush so you need a pink ward there. If you're red side then it is easier pathing, but in both cases it is going to make alarm bells ring on the enemy team that you're not there in lane picking up free xp and using relic shield. Alternatively, I'd rather work towards a scenario where our lane and mid lane push at the same time, and that way we can look for an invade on the jungler or gain control of bot side river. It is a safer tactic than rolling the dice on a roam, where even as a tanky support you can get caught out by an early game jungler that you cannot fight back alone.
: How did Twitch kill Shaco?
The only explanation is that it's a bug.
: Why ban Sivir? Hook champions are really good roaming champions and having an ADC in the enemy team that can't go all in until she gets 2-3 items, is like a dream for roam champions.
> [{quoted}](name=The Hero Simon,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=ZvGHEG6i,comment-id=00050000,timestamp=2019-04-07T14:43:43.482+0000) > > Why ban Sivir? > Hook champions are really good roaming champions and having an ADC in the enemy team that can't go all in until she gets 2-3 items, is like a dream for roam champions. Sivirs shield blocks both Nautilus hook and ultimate, so thats annoying for the Naut. She can also push fast, so it can be difficult for the Nautilus to roam as well. I probably wouldn't ban sivir, but neither would I pick Nautilus into Sivir.
: > One case in particular that I remember is a guy who told a teammates to kill themselves (using the infamous acronym) and got suspended for it. What he meant was he wanted the player to execute to the turret in order to avoid giving gold to the enemy team, not for the player to kill themselves in real life. False positives happen super rarely - I'm familiar with this example too, and the decision was eventually overturned iirc. >Sure, that's an extreme example so let's look at another one. If I'm talking about my female dog I will often use the correct term which is "b.i.t.c.h". I have no doubt though that if I use that term in-game and get reported for trolling, the IFS will activate and I will be punished for using that word, That's not how it works at all. Two reasons: 1. You need to be reported for the IFS to check anything. So if you're not reported, it doesn't matter what you say really (don't use this as an excuse to go off the rails - it's just a statement). 2. It doesn't just hone in on "swears". Sure, there's a zero tolerance list which it will hone in on for the super bad stuff - but the system is actually in a position where it can distinguish the context - e.g. "son of a b!!!!h in game would be glossed over and not really counted. "You're a b!!!!h" in game, however, where it's directed at someone is completely different and likely to be logged. >Context is very important, and the IFS cannot distinguish context It can. It just doesn't factor in the other persons typing - because your responses are your conscious decisions, involving a thought process in which you type the answer, and have to send it yourself. So if we're defining "context" as other peoples logs, then no, it's irrelevant. They may have provided the spark, but when you retaliate, you're just throwing gasoline on it, along with a bunch of lit matches.
> It can. It just doesn't factor in the other persons typing - because your responses are your conscious decisions, involving a thought process in which you type the answer, and have to send it yourself. > > So if we're defining "context" as other peoples logs, then no, it's irrelevant. > They may have provided the spark, but when you retaliate, you're just throwing gasoline on it, along with a bunch of lit matches. Are you saying that the toxic players side of the chat log is all the context or enough of the context? I see a lot of this argument on the boards where "It doesn't matter what they did, only you", and my response is like "yes, but you're missing half on the conversation". It feels like people want their first judgement on the matter to be correct without accounting for all the text. Some posters on here do try to explain what they're responding to, but it gets shot down by "it only matters what you did". That sounds pretty ignorant of then.
duelıst (EUNE)
: Hansiman > Here you're stating that you're giving up, and won't play because you were autofilled. Everyone is autofilled at some point, but that doesn't mean it's alright to intentionally stop playing because you don't want to. That's just ruining the game for everyone else. Can you explain why im Forced to play Role Which i dont want? I allways trolling if i get off role because I dont see any particular reason play what i dont want. Can you explain How this suppose to be fun To play role which you dont want?? I know what i want to play and for that reason i take draft mode to get roles Which i want to play but Riot games thinks that They know better what we want. Riot logic IS like that. WE cant waste time in queue like 20min instead we will make 3min queue and put you off role and make you waste 30+ more min in game playing role which you do not want. is that what Riot consider funny and interesting experience??? Look at this system. Pros: 1 Reduce Queue time Cons: 1 Forcing player waste time playing role which they dont want. 2 Promotes trolling because people do not try win game in off role. instead they just intentionally play poorly to lose game faster. 3 Playing off roles mostly makes snowball effect which other people who get their role cant carry team cause of autofilled player.
> [{quoted}](name=duelıst,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=mREb1gLb,comment-id=0000000000010002,timestamp=2019-03-21T20:40:33.909+0000) > > Hansiman > > Can you explain why im Forced to play Role Which i dont want? I allways trolling if i get off role because I dont see any particular reason play what i dont want. > Can you explain How this suppose to be fun To play role which you dont want?? I know what i want to play and for that reason i take draft mode to get roles Which i want to play but Riot games thinks that They know better what we want. > > Riot logic IS like that. WE cant waste time in queue like 20min instead we will make 3min queue and put you off role and make you waste 30+ more min in game playing role which you do not want. is that what Riot consider funny and interesting experience??? > Look at this system. > Pros: > 1 Reduce Queue time > Cons: > 1 Forcing player waste time playing role which they dont want. > 2 Promotes trolling because people do not try win game in off role. instead they just intentionally play poorly to lose game faster. > 3 Playing off roles mostly makes snowball effect which other people who get their role cant carry team cause of autofilled player. You could dodge? That would save a lot of time and in the long term will save both LP (assuming you're dodging a likely lost game) and MMR.
Voldymort (EUNE)
: i'm sorry... {{sticker:cass-cry}}
> [{quoted}](name=Voldymort,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=mREb1gLb,comment-id=0000000000010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-21T12:01:50.271+0000) > > i'm sorry... > > {{sticker:cass-cry}} No worries, gimme those six tears. Oh wait, you can only give me one now.{{item:3070}}
Voldymort (EUNE)
: you forgot about the "/s"
> [{quoted}](name=Voldymort,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=mREb1gLb,comment-id=00000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-21T11:57:36.428+0000) > > you forgot about the "/s" Well I wanted him to see that for himself, but I guess it is out there now.
ViaYan (EUNE)
: honestly get lost of everything I said ...... can't even match someone saying idiot .... legit read it all first I haven't said a singl bad word and u guys call it flame what are u %%%%% cat what u want nanies or what %%%%ing read the chat logs and find toxic comments actually toxic comments idiots.................................
> [{quoted}](name=ViaYan,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=mREb1gLb,comment-id=000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-21T11:48:52.717+0000) > > honestly get lost of everything I said ...... can't even match someone saying idiot .... legit read it all first I haven't said a singl bad word and u guys call it flame what are u %%%%% cat what u want nanies or what %%%%ing read the chat logs and find toxic comments actually toxic comments idiots................................. You're right, I can't find any toxic comments in the above quote ...
ViaYan (EUNE)
: I don't see any harassment I asked Him in an aggressive manner " can u %%%%ing play the game" that is harassment" He called me an idiot when I picked jhin coz and trolled me not letting me get a single minion in first waves he didnt even come to leash the jg and seriously asking some "can u %%%%ing play the game" is considered harassment? Btw Rengo is 1/5 he was autofilled and we had 3 autofilled in 1 single game and i didnt say it to him i said that in all chat coz they wanted to report me . their reason " I picked a champ i dont play coz i was autofilled" that is not harrasment not by anymeans. "rep him first" seriously bruh? \ "ViaYan: tell this mother %%%ciung talon that trolling auto filled players is bad" I didn't say it to talon I said it in all chat and in this im explaining talon that my supp trolled me when i was auto filled. Rengar and panth were feeding 1 5 rengar at 10 min and enemy darius was 5 1 i said that at 15 min i told them that there is no point playing this game coz we have 3 autofilled it was reasoning not a flame.
> I don't see any harassment I asked Him in an aggressive manner " can u %%%%ing play the game" that is harassment" He called me an idiot when I picked jhin coz and trolled me not letting me get a single minion in first waves he didnt even come to leash the jg and seriously asking some "can u %%%%ing play the game" is considered harassment? This is confusing. You don't see any harassment, then acknowledge that what you sad was harassment because you said it in an aggressive manner, but then question whether it is harassment. Which is it? > Btw Rengo is 1/5 he was autofilled and we had 3 autofilled in 1 single game and i didnt say it to him i said that in all chat coz they wanted to report me . their reason " I picked a champ i dont play coz i was autofilled" that is not harrasment not by anymeans. "rep him first" seriously bruh? \ > > "ViaYan: tell this mother %%%ciung talon that trolling auto filled players is bad" I didn't say it to talon I said it in all chat and in this im explaining talon that my supp trolled me when i was auto filled. Talking about someone in that way in all chat is pretty rude. You cant possibly know whether Rengar or Talon have muted all chat, so in general they can read what youre saying and you cant pretend they arent participating in the chat. > Rengar and panth were feeding 1 5 rengar at 10 min and enemy darius was 5 1 i said that at 15 min i told them that there is no point playing this game coz we have 3 autofilled it was reasoning not a flame. Doesnt really matter what the reasoning is here, this is negative attitude. Nobody wants to see that one guy in their team saying they should give up.
: What would you do in this situation?
I would not put myself in that situation by checking the ping in a custom before entering any game type with other players. However, assuming that isn't an option, I would play on regardless of game mode. Once you've accepted the game, you agree to play until one team wins by killing the others nexus or one team surrenders.
: He want the other guy to be punished too. And this is low elo, a "random" place, so you dodge the first game and you get another troll in the next one. I don't dodge the game because some times I still win with that troller in team, or some times they even change the champion in the last second just because they still care.
> [{quoted}](name=TheToysTracker,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=w6FAMG9n,comment-id=000000020000,timestamp=2019-03-18T16:23:00.823+0000) > > He want the other guy to be punished too. And this is low elo, a "random" place, so you dodge the first game and you get another troll in the next one. I don't dodge the game because some times I still win with that troller in team, or some times they even change the champion in the last second just because they still care. The implication being that this doesn't happen in higher elo? This is false. Also, decisions shouldnt be made based on the worst case, it should be made on the most likely case, which is that if you have a troll in champion select you will probably lose the game. Therefore, if we care about LP, MMR, game quality, enjoyment e.t.c. dodging is the better option.
: The importance of consistency in a competitive environment - A message to Riot
In the video, how is high ground and low ground defined? Is it only the two distinctions or are there multiple levels? I suppose the river is the lowest of the low ground, but say im in bot lane and I want to aim a Thresh hook, then do I consider all of the lane to be high ground (which is what most players would assume) or does the height vary slightly in the lane that needs to be taken into account?
: Don't dodge, send a ticket to the support with the game, wait one week, see how they get banned.
> [{quoted}](name=TheToysTracker,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=w6FAMG9n,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-03-18T10:13:13.764+0000) > > Don't dodge, send a ticket to the support with the game, wait one week, see how they get banned. But you'll lose LP, MMR and still the chance of being in that situation again every time you accept a game. Much better to dodge because you don't lose MMR, on average lose less LP over time and don't have to endure a horrible gaming experience of which there is no escape for at least 15 minutes (if you're lucky).
: Those scenarios of "very poor decitionmaking" can be put almost equally to inting. Dopa once stated, a good player is capable of playing all roles to a certain lvl. This shows off in high lvl ranked by people having to know the paces of other positions to properly adjust their decition making on their strongest role/champion. So technicly a good player should be able to still have decent to good decition making even playing offrole. Another thing is, doing a poor decition that causes one death happens to every player. Yet repeating the same mistake again and again? If you misjudge a situation, go in by trying to get a lead and end up %%%%ing up for whatever reason, why would this person try it several times again later into the game?
> [{quoted}](name=Señor Arzo,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=TNvXVdQA,comment-id=000400000000,timestamp=2019-03-10T00:52:46.844+0000) > > Those scenarios of "very poor decitionmaking" can be put almost equally to inting. > > Dopa once stated, a good player is capable of playing all roles to a certain lvl. This shows off in high lvl ranked by people having to know the paces of other positions to properly adjust their decition making on their strongest role/champion. So technicly a good player should be able to still have decent to good decition making even playing offrole. > > Another thing is, doing a poor decition that causes one death happens to every player. Yet repeating the same mistake again and again? > > If you misjudge a situation, go in by trying to get a lead and end up %%%%ing up for whatever reason, why would this person try it several times again later into the game? I would agree that the impact on the game is very similar between somebody inting and somebody making poor decisions, but they are two different things. Intentionally, by definition of the word and in the context of the game, means that the player knows and decides that they are going to make moves that will feed kills to the enemy. All Inters belong to the group of those players who make poor decisions to feed kills, but not all those who make poor decisions that feed kills belong to the group of players who are inters. In regards to your last two questions, yes those players are annoying and are giving away advantages to the enemy team, but still doesnt mean they're inting. It is easier to call it inting because it makes us feel better and it takes less effort than actually having to judge on whether they're just having a bad game. That is why I think they should have an extra category in the report system because if we continued banning players by labelling them as inters when they're not, then goodbye to most of the playerbase.
: What is wrong with being a one trick pony?
I don't mind OTPs, I'd rather have them than someone first timing a champion of course. However, for players who one trick there seems to be a disregard for anything else that happens in champion select. Because of their lack of flexibility, this can force teammates into a strategy or tactics that are not suited given the other teams composition. It can also give the enemy one of the stronger picks in the meta for that role the one trick plays if they're not going to play it themselves, so a ban may have to be used when it was otherwise unnecessary. Another thing is that it is already difficult enough to cooperate with teammates in solo queue and with one tricks it can feel at times that you have to go with their plan (which you may not be comfortable with) or no plan. Not saying all one tricks are like this, but I would prefer teammates who attempt smart bans and picks in champion select.
: Whether someone says they are inting or feeding doesn't matter, in majority of cases both are used for the same means. Autofill is no justification on going 0/8 in 10 minutes, if you have such feeder stats as soon as you have to play something out of your comfort zone, then you're simply at the wrong rank. On a certain rank you need to start developing a feeling and knowledge for other lanes and matchups outside of what you play, simply because if you want to roam you need that knowledge aswell to not make horrible mistakes. If someone goes 0/8 straight in 10 minutes, this indicates for me that they aren't even trying. Even on an autofill position, avoiding even soft feeding isn't that hard until you reach a certain rank. If an autofilled toplane dude picks riven, engages all the time on the enemy toplane and tries to pick fights (even tho it should be obvious af that neither all ins, nor trying to trade will work) and they end up feeding with really horrible stats, I'm going to hit the report button in the category for "intentional feeding". You're autofill, so you're on an unfamiliar position, perhaps even in an unfamiliar match up or the champ alone. You do NOT have the priority on your lane over someone who isn't autofilled. You are NOT in the position to try "Faker, Faker, playmaker" stuff. Your job is simply to suck your teams D's, chill out and just focus on not throwing your team behind and just follow the lead of your team to get carried. Many people can't even carry on their main role/champ, yet they want to try to carry themselfes autofilled? If you play that way and end up feeding, you should get punished for INTING, since your feeding is indirectly intentional
> [{quoted}](name=Señor Arzo,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=TNvXVdQA,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2019-03-01T20:12:23.736+0000) > > Whether someone says they are inting or feeding doesn't matter, in majority of cases both are used for the same means. > > Autofill is no justification on going 0/8 in 10 minutes, if you have such feeder stats as soon as you have to play something out of your comfort zone, then you're simply at the wrong rank. > > On a certain rank you need to start developing a feeling and knowledge for other lanes and matchups outside of what you play, simply because if you want to roam you need that knowledge aswell to not make horrible mistakes. > > If someone goes 0/8 straight in 10 minutes, this indicates for me that they aren't even trying. Even on an autofill position, avoiding even soft feeding isn't that hard until you reach a certain rank. > If an autofilled toplane dude picks riven, engages all the time on the enemy toplane and tries to pick fights (even tho it should be obvious af that neither all ins, nor trying to trade will work) and they end up feeding with really horrible stats, I'm going to hit the report button in the category for "intentional feeding". > > You're autofill, so you're on an unfamiliar position, perhaps even in an unfamiliar match up or the champ alone. You do NOT have the priority on your lane over someone who isn't autofilled. You are NOT in the position to try "Faker, Faker, playmaker" stuff. Your job is simply to suck your teams D's, chill out and just focus on not throwing your team behind and just follow the lead of your team to get carried. > Many people can't even carry on their main role/champ, yet they want to try to carry themselfes autofilled? If you play that way and end up feeding, you should get punished for INTING, since your feeding is indirectly intentional This highlights a problem with the report system, rather than as a justification for intentional feeding. The unfortunate truth is in the scenario that you described, it is at worst really poor decision making rather than intentional feeding, but the lack of a category in the report system to distinguish the two leads to players reporting under intentional feeding. Perhaps if they added a category for exceptionally poor play then that could assist in altering the ranks of those players more towards the bottom of the ladder. Not sure how (if at all) effective that would be though.
: Unfortunately many players don't go their main champs at all , thus almost 80% of the games will be dodged at this rate, the problem is they know they won't pay for that decision and make the whole team frustrated and unable to play a nice game with all the game-play which it cannot be muted :( . that's what it has become sadly.
> [{quoted}](name=Max of Gotham,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=fMJIeqWF,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2019-02-28T19:42:50.334+0000) > > Unfortunately many players don't go their main champs at all , thus almost 80% of the games will be dodged at this rate, the problem is they know they won't pay for that decision and make the whole team frustrated and unable to play a nice game with all the game-play which it cannot be muted :( . > > that's what it has become sadly. Yes and those same people wonder why they can't climb and complain about it. It wasn't until I started using opgg that I noticed the ones who flame are actually the ones not in their main role and not picking a champion they're used to. There is no logic that applies it seems, it just happens.
Vistha Kai (EUNE)
: >Not sure if you meant to say "appear to have a lower chance of winning" rather than losing, but otherwise I understand. Oh, yeah. I stuttered there. _Tee hee._
> [{quoted}](name=Vistha Kai,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=fMJIeqWF,comment-id=00020000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-28T14:29:54.347+0000) > > Oh, yeah. I stuttered there. _Tee hee._ Hah, no worries. Thanks for the advice.
Vistha Kai (EUNE)
: A clarification to the last paragraph you quoted: The idea behind purposely skipping divisions is to dodge all games that appear to have a higher chance of losing _(not just promos)_ and play those games that seem much more winnable. Then once you're nearing promo, dodge to get rid of LP. What you want to do is to inflate your MMR without changing your division. After, say, 20 won games _(assuming you properly identified which games are winnable and which aren't)_ when you reach promo you will skip at least one division, maybe two, but that depends on which division it is. If you are in, say, Silver 2 you are going to end up in Silver 1 regardless of your MMR, because you must play the Best-of-5 promo to advance to the next tier, period. Now, I'm not certain, but I do think I've once, in one of previous seasons, managed to skip divisions winning a Best-of-5 promo. For the sake of argument let's assume it was a promo in Silver 1 which upon finishing I ended up in Gold 4 instead of Gold 5.
> [{quoted}](name=Vistha Kai,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=fMJIeqWF,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2019-02-28T00:06:34.363+0000) > > A clarification to the last paragraph you quoted: > > The idea behind purposely skipping divisions is to dodge all games that appear to have a lower chance of losing _(not just promos)_ and play those games that seem much more winnable. Then once you're nearing promo, dodge to get rid of LP. > What you want to do is to inflate your MMR without changing your division. After, say, 20 won games _(assuming you properly identified which games are winnable and which aren't)_ when you reach promo you will skip at least one division, maybe two, but that depends on which division it is. If you are in, say, Silver 2 you are going to end up in Silver 1 regardless of your MMR, because you must play the Best-of-5 promo to advance to the next tier, period. > > Now, I'm not certain, but I do think I've once, in one of previous seasons, managed to skip divisions winning a Best-of-5 promo. For the sake of argument let's assume it was a promo in Silver 1 which upon finishing I ended up in Gold 4 instead of Gold 5. Not sure if you meant to say "appear to have a lower chance of winning" rather than losing, but otherwise I understand. You're delaying getting promoted so your MMR increases to a point that allows you to skip a division, thus saving you the time it would take to gain the LP to climb that division. I think you're correct that you can skip a division from a BO5 as I went from Plat 1 straight into Diamond 4.
Vistha Kai (EUNE)
: I have a strict policy on dodging _(priority in descending order):_ 1. If I lose first game of a Best-of-3 promo, I dodge the next match. 2. If I lose first and second (sometimes only first) game of a Best-of-5 promo, I dodge the next match (or two if I only played 1 match). 3. If there is obvious trolling going on, such as teammate(s) griefing me or somebody else. 4. If I'm in a very unfavourable matchup, for example, not only I had my main champions banned/picked, but also ended up getting counter-picked badly. 5. If my team's teamcomp is shit. --- No.1 and 2 date back to 2013 where "Ladders" were added to the ranking system, although it's been in effect on my end since about 2015/16. Not only it's a way to "cheat" the poorly designed system, but also saves you a lot of time, you'd otherwise waste gambling. **Example:** If I win the first game of Best-of-3 I only need to win one more match and I have 2 tries. If I lose the first match I MUST win the next 2 games and if I lose either of them I'll be left at around 50-70 LP, meaning I have to play 2 games to get back into promo. If I dodge the second match I'll almost always be only one game away from promo and the-now-hidden-ELO or more commonly known as MMR will only take a hit from one game, not two, because dodging does NOT impact your MMR which dictates people you play with and against and how much LP you earn or lose. Therefore losing a Best-of-3 promo is much worse long term than simply dodging the second game, because you may eventually have to play 3 or ever 4 games to get back into promo, which is a needless waste of time. Also, if you take this kind of dodging up to 11, you are going to skip divisions and therefore waste much less time playing promos, which are there solely for the purpose of gating your progress... especially now, since with a new tier (Iron) meaning you have to go through Best-of-5 promos more often. --- Side note: I quite frankly don't care if somebody picks their best champion or improvizes a little. I care about results. Even if you have 3 million mastery points on Master Yi, you're still going to be a liability if your team lacks CC and is full of squishies. --- My attitude also extends to surrendering. Yes, the enemy team MAY throw, but if you are in a position that even Ace'ing them 3 times in a row isn't going to get you anywhere, then you are only wasting everybody's time. The only excuse here could be promo, but even then you aren't even gambling for a 5% chance to win. Think about it, if there is a 5% chance for the enemy team to throw and you don't surrender 100% of games, then you are wasting hours if not DAYS of your life playing lost games. I'd say on average for every 2 lost games you could easily play another game (and possibly win) if you surrendered when it was obvious you're having your ass handed to you. "Never give up, never surrender" as a principle in a video game like League of Legends is, excuse me for my language, plain idiocy and nothing more. --- I hope I enlightened someone and one day, when we meet in ranked, you'll ease my suffering and dodge or surrender for once.
> Example: If I win the first game of Best-of-3 I only need to win one more match and I have 2 tries. If I lose the first match I MUST win the next 2 games and if I lose either of them I'll be left at around 50-70 LP, meaning I have to play 2 games to get back into promo. If I dodge the second match I'll almost always be only one game away from promo and the-now-hidden-ELO or more commonly known as MMR will only take a hit from one game, not two, because dodging does NOT impact your MMR which dictates people you play with and against and how much LP you earn or lose. Therefore losing a Best-of-3 promo is much worse long term than simply dodging the second game, because you may eventually have to play 3 or ever 4 games to get back into promo, which is a needless waste of time. > > Also, if you take this kind of dodging up to 11, you are going to skip divisions and therefore waste much less time playing promos, which are there solely for the purpose of gating your progress... especially now, since with a new tier (Iron) meaning you have to go through Best-of-5 promos more often. Thanks for your post. The above in particular I hadn't thought about much but I'll give this a try. Noticed recently when using opgg multi in promos that there is more chance of teammates being on offroles or losing streaks, so the less time in promos the better. Not sure I would go with your approach on surrendering but go with whatever works for you.
Shozis (EUNE)
: I usually never dodge, because you never really know how the game will turn out and I've actually seen even trolliest trolls winning. I think it's a bad idea to dodge based on op.gg. You will just lose loads of points if you dodge every game where the odds seem to be against you. However, I think it's completely fine to dodge some troll games now and then when someone troll picks and is clearly threatning to lose your game because someone banned his main champion or because he got autofilled and demands other role. After all when you dodge you only lose points but not MMR.
> [{quoted}](name=Shozis,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=fMJIeqWF,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-02-24T20:24:22.795+0000) > > I usually never dodge, because you never really know how the game will turn out and I've actually seen even trolliest trolls winning. > > I think it's a bad idea to dodge based on op.gg. You will just lose loads of points if you dodge every game where the odds seem to be against you. > > However, I think it's completely fine to dodge some troll games now and then when someone troll picks and is clearly threatning to lose your game because someone banned his main champion or because he got autofilled and demands other role. After all when you dodge you only lose points but not MMR. Depends on how much lp you have as well, so you wont be dodging every time. You lose more points by losing a game than you do at dodging; 3 for the first, then 10 for every subsequent dodge. Assuming you lose 16 lp per loss, if the game is very unlikely to go into your favour then you'll be saving 6lp at least. Rank also plays a factor. If at low elo the games always look bad from op.gg then sure you'll just have to play most of them out, but I don't know if that's actually the case.
Montïel (EUW)
: Is there anything I can do about the ban where I was genuinely trying to win the game?
I found the replay of the match and watched all of your deaths up to the ninth, because I'd seen enough to make a judgement. I give you a pass for your first death and maybe even the second, although I do wonder why you chose to flash so late on the first one. But for the third and fourth death, you should know that at your elo you are already behind at this point, so fighting from behind here isn't good. You even acknowledge your behind in one of your support tickets when talking about the third death, but you still chose to double down. Oh and no, Yasuo W isn't broken you just misjudged the hit box, but that shouldn't matter anyway because you know you shouldn't be fighting. You also shouldn't be going for the plays you described given that you know you're inexperienced on the champion. Next bit is where the alarm bells ring. Before your fifth death, you ignored your team in your blue side jungle as you were walking back to lane. Had you gone to their aid your team would have killed their jungler and mid laner but instead you chose to fight Yasuo while being two levels down. Then on your sixth death, you are still two levels behind and willingly trade half your health to get to your outer turret. You needed to abandon your lane, and no you weren't going to turn it around. The next few times you were just mindlessly pushing the lane way beyond the point of no return, and again as a diamond player you should... correction, you DO know this, you have to at this point of the game. The ninth death you pushed all the way to his tier one without vision AND STAYED, and then of course yasuo killed you when he tp'ed. This is where I stopped watching, and honestly I have no sympathy. Your teammates were even pinging you way before then to say "hey look, you're doing something wrong", so your teammates didn't want you to feed for sure. Chat doesn't show up in spectator mode so I don't know what was said, but that's irrelevant anyway. Best thing you can do is to let this one go I'm afraid.
Rioter Comments
: > I agree there will be situations where for example Sona becomes the only engage champ on the team and so you're forced into that style, but then if that's the case it perhaps suggests a mistake made in champion select? Most of the time I imagine that if you can pick appropriately you can avoid that scenario, assuming your other lanes pick well too. Remember that in solo queue (especially in low ELO) players will rarely pick for the team, and instead will just pick whatever they want. If I'm first pick more often than not I will pick Sona, because I feel comfortable playing her into any match up. If the rest of my team all picks squishy champions with no engage, I have no choice but to change my playstyle. > I agree as well on Thresh but Leona I am on the fence about. With Thresh there is like an element where you don't have to fully commit to a fight on his abilities: With hook you don't have to activate it the second time, with lantern you can either bring a teammate in to engage or get someone out, with flay you can either bring an enemy towards your side of the map or push them away and with ult you can keep someone in or block a pathway to get out. With Leona, it's her e where you have to go in once you've connected in order to hit your q and w. Technically you can wait to use your e in order to peel like you say, but it just feels like overall that Leona is somebody they want you to engage with, also it would feel super weird in a team fight if your team is expecting you to engage with ult but you don't. Generally yes, you want to engage as Leona, but again it depends on the champions involved. If your team already has a lot of engage and you are facing a fed assassin like Kayn or Zed, I might still use Leona ult to engage since it has a long range, but then I would stay next to my adc to peel. As soon as the enemy assassin jumps in, use your Q and then follow up with E to guarantee the hit. There are many ways to use a champion's kit, and sometimes you need to think outside the box a little. > Yes with Morgana I thought about the flash-ult engage would tip the scales in that direction. The sitting in the back and shield tactic would work too but wouldn't there be better champions for that? You could do the same with Janna except obviously you cant block a spell like Morgana can, but the rest of her kit mostly supports that style of play for her (or it did in the days before people maxed w first). Yes there are definitely better champions to peel for your adc than Morgana, but what if you only know how to play Morgana? It's all very well saying "pick the best support for the job" but you might not know who you are facing before you pick, and you might not know how to play all the available supports.
> Remember that in solo queue (especially in low ELO) players will rarely pick for the team, and instead will just pick whatever they want. If I'm first pick more often than not I will pick Sona, because I feel comfortable playing her into any match up. If the rest of my team all picks squishy champions with no engage, I have no choice but to change my playstyle. Thats fair enough. Would that include changing your runes as well? When I've looked at stats for champions on third party sites there is usually one rune page per champion that is played much more that any other. It makes sense to change the runes based on the situations, but it is not clear how much or if it is even worth it. > Generally yes, you want to engage as Leona, but again it depends on the champions involved. If your team already has a lot of engage and you are facing a fed assassin like Kayn or Zed, I might still use Leona ult to engage since it has a long range, but then I would stay next to my adc to peel. As soon as the enemy assassin jumps in, use your Q and then follow up with E to guarantee the hit. There are many ways to use a champion's kit, and sometimes you need to think outside the box a little. Yes that makes sense, thanks. > Yes there are definitely better champions to peel for your adc than Morgana, but what if you only know how to play Morgana? It's all very well saying "pick the best support for the job" but you might not know who you are facing before you pick, and you might not know how to play all the available supports. I cant play every support of course, but I like to think I am versatile. I try to take into account all the info I have in champ select before having to make guesses about what I might be facing, but I am not very consistent at that. I suppose if I only know how to play Morgana then of course I would have to make it work. One tricking doesnt really interest me though.
: Lane wise I’d place them in the same place as engagers, as while it’s in lane your generally doing the same things as an engage champion like Leona. Outside of lane they differentiate more though. The way I tend to categorise things is kill, sustain, and poke lanes... which combines both the adc and the support but mostly comes from the support. It has the same Rock Paper Scissors vibe as the one you use, but focuses more on what they tend to do in lane than what they have in their kit. Though it’s also got flaws particularly with champions fitting into multible lane types (soraka can be a sustain and poke lane). Bot lane has a lot of variables and supports tend to be able to do a lot of different things... so I don’t think there’s a single catagory which fits perfectly for everyone.
> [{quoted}](name=swampert919,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=tFKRPEV4,comment-id=00000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-21T16:59:33.880+0000) > > Lane wise I’d place them in the same place as engagers, as while it’s in lane your generally doing the same things as an engage champion like Leona. > Outside of lane they differentiate more though. > > The way I tend to categorise things is kill, sustain, and poke lanes... which combines both the adc and the support but mostly comes from the support. It has the same Rock Paper Scissors vibe as the one you use, but focuses more on what they tend to do in lane than what they have in their kit. Though it’s also got flaws particularly with champions fitting into multible lane types (soraka can be a sustain and poke lane). > > Bot lane has a lot of variables and supports tend to be able to do a lot of different things... so I don’t think there’s a single catagory which fits perfectly for everyone. Thanks for your response. I'll take this into consideration in champ selects and see how it goes.
: AoE engage tends to be AoE cc which helps start and set up a teamfight for their team. And that’s why personally I’d have a 5th category of supports for catching or making picks... cause bitz and thresh can’t actually engage (they are weaker than even morg in that regard, she at least has the AoE ult), but their main power comes from separating a single champion for their team to make a pick on them. Categorising champions is difficult, supports alone have at least 3 different categorising systems which nobody can agree on...
> [{quoted}](name=swampert919,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=tFKRPEV4,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-21T13:56:04.820+0000) > > AoE engage tends to be AoE cc which helps start and set up a teamfight for their team. > > And that’s why personally I’d have a 5th category of supports for catching or making picks... cause bitz and thresh can’t actually engage (they are weaker than even morg in that regard, she at least has the AoE ult), but their main power comes from separating a single champion for their team to make a pick on them. > > Categorising champions is difficult, supports alone have at least 3 different categorising systems which nobody can agree on... Hmm good points. How would you place the fifth category in the support cycle if you had to? Maybe it isn't even a cycle and each group is strong/weak against more than one other group. I guess I have more sympathy for people now when they don't know what to pick against the enemy.
: I would hesitate to use such categories simply because lots of champions can fulfil different roles in the team. For example, Sona isn't well known as an engage support but I've been on many teams where I have the only hard cc and I'm the only one who can engage. A champion like Thresh can either be used for backline peel or engage. Same with Leona. Morgana? She can either put her black shield on herself and flash-ult for an engage, or she can stay near the front, let someone else engage and follow up with her ult, or sit in the back and shield her carries. Trying to rock-paper-scissor the situation is just going to complicate things and cause mistakes.
> [{quoted}](name=Wandering Mist,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=tFKRPEV4,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-02-21T11:30:15.340+0000) > > I would hesitate to use such categories simply because lots of champions can fulfil different roles in the team. For example, Sona isn't well known as an engage support but I've been on many teams where I have the only hard cc and I'm the only one who can engage. > > A champion like Thresh can either be used for backline peel or engage. Same with Leona. Morgana? She can either put her black shield on herself and flash-ult for an engage, or she can stay near the front, let someone else engage and follow up with her ult, or sit in the back and shield her carries. > > Trying to rock-paper-scissor the situation is just going to complicate things and cause mistakes. I agree there will be situations where for example Sona becomes the only engage champ on the team and so you're forced into that style, but then if that's the case it perhaps suggests a mistake made in champion select? Most of the time I imagine that if you can pick appropriately you can avoid that scenario, assuming your other lanes pick well too. I agree as well on Thresh but Leona I am on the fence about. With Thresh there is like an element where you don't have to fully commit to a fight on his abilities: With hook you don't have to activate it the second time, with lantern you can either bring a teammate in to engage or get someone out, with flay you can either bring an enemy towards your side of the map or push them away and with ult you can keep someone in or block a pathway to get out. With Leona, it's her e where you have to go in once you've connected in order to hit your q and w. Technically you can wait to use your e in order to peel like you say, but it just feels like overall that Leona is somebody they want you to engage with, also it would feel super weird in a team fight if your team is expecting you to engage with ult but you don't. Yes with Morgana I thought about the flash-ult engage would tip the scales in that direction. The sitting in the back and shield tactic would work too but wouldn't there be better champions for that? You could do the same with Janna except obviously you cant block a spell like Morgana can, but the rest of her kit mostly supports that style of play for her (or it did in the days before people maxed w first).
: Utility... you pick her for the black shield primarily, hence a utility role. She doesn’t build damage so not ap, engage implies an AoE engage not the pick tool morg has, and she has no sustain... so utility fits her best
> [{quoted}](name=swampert919,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=tFKRPEV4,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-02-20T23:44:17.261+0000) > > Utility... you pick her for the black shield primarily, hence a utility role. > > She doesn’t build damage so not ap, engage implies an AoE engage not the pick tool morg has, and she has no sustain... so utility fits her best Thanks. What do you count as an aoe engage? Seems obvious for something like Leona, but what about the likes of Thresh and Blitzcrank? They both have pick tools but no aoe engage, rather they have aoe ults to supplement their engage, unless that is what you meant.
Rioter Comments
Paper1 (EUW)
: > Of course it is, so decide where you draw the line of what counts as toxic enough behaviour and let the algorithm treat everyone equally. We did and the line is where it is now. > Of course there's going to be disagreements if the matter is subjective. But you're talking as if something about bans being permanent isn't subjective. It's the same thing, here I am disagreeing with having permanent bans. Okay, but I don't think you've given a convincing enough argument for that yet. See further down in this post. > Are you saying it shouldn't be algorithms, but players, who decide who should be banned? Weren't you the one talking about prejudice? Humans are the ones who get attached and make exceptions, we're the ones who make prejudiced decisions. The algorithms are constructed and influenced to a degree by humans though. The algorithms are a means to automate bans on a large scale so that somebody doesn't have to take the enormous amount of time looking through each individual case. So to a certain extent, yes I do think the community should have a say in some way on which kind of players should be banned because it is ultimately affecting our games. I think it is weird that you would frame that answer as something to be ashamed of. > It wouldn't be less effective in the slightest. The truly dedicated toxic players are making account after account, so with the current system you're getting rid of the best of the worst (the ones who would stop being part of "the worst" over time) and keeping the worst of the worst. I don't agree that you can make that conclusion from that statement. There are those that make new accounts after being banned, and those that don't. The latter is what we want when we issue permanent bans: We're saying you are not allowed to play this game anymore, so they don't. Ban successful. > I'd argue it'd be more effective, because the possibility of recovering their accounts in the future might bind them more strongly with their original account and motivate them to try and keep it. Right now most people don't give a shit what account it is theyre on, the fifth? The seventh? It becomes a bragging matter at this point. These people are completely deattached from their accounts so permanently banning them solves nothing. If they already consider their accounts disposable, then their original account will also be considered disposable by them, so your argument doesn't make sense.
> Obviously, yes. This would be part of the work that would have to be done if my suggestion went through. I just don't get what purpose it serves to state this. I believe I was talking about how my possible system could work and you seemed to use that as a response, which was odd, considering it's a known fact which is also irrelevant to the discussion. Since I am completely confused about which thing you said that I stated, I don't know how to answer this. > But it doesn't imply that. I think prejudice means similar cases are being treated differently, that's not the case. All cases are being treated equally right now, I'm making the point that the current system can be changed without becoming prejudiced, without becoming unfair. I'd say, in fact, becoming even more fair. We agree on the meaning of prejudice, but the point that you are making now is not the same point that you were making before: "My point is, with the current system, unreformed people are getting punished pretty hard and reformed people are being treated just as the unreformed, whether a single individual is reformed or not, whether they'd be lying or not, isn't relevant." > As I've just said, I didn't. > > It did seem like you were trying to make a counterargument, to me. If you say you weren't, now I just don't know what the purpose of that is. Stating obvious facts that have already been taken into account is just weird. The way that we've been quoting each other's text means that we've been trying to separate each comment into its own part, but really they're all about the same subject topic, so at this point I really have no idea where we are at. > As I've said, permanent bans treat different cases equally. That might sound like the best thing ever, right? Equality at its best! Okay, let's have equality at its best, let's treat absolutely everyone equally in this same way. Let's hire people without studies, let's hire PE teachers to design Nasa rockets, some guy got the death sentence? What about the rest of humanity? Do we not get equal treatment? Better have all humanity get death sentence > > You see where I'm getting at? Yes, you will say we're treating everyone who's done a certain thing equally. The thing is people who years ago broke the rules are being treated just like those who have been breaking the same rules for years and will keep on doing so (they have, therefore, contributed hundreds of times more to the negativity of tbe community). Do you not think this is unfair? You're taking extreme examples of equality to argue there is too much equality when permanently banning players. I really don't think it the treatment of banned players when looking at permanent bans in isolation is unfair. I think comparing your examples with the equality present in the current ban system is unfair. All permanently banned players were banned because they have one thing in common: they all broke the rules repeatedly. Is it not fair then that they all get the same kind of ban? > That what you'd do. As I've explained several times, there's people like me who are more attached to their account. Do you think the system should only take into account those who in all matters act like yourself? I think the system should take into account what is best for the whole community, usually but not necessarily always taking into account what the majority want. Unfortunately, you are in a small minority of players like yourself so no, I don't think the system should change to cater for this group of players given the subject matter. Sorry. > You can't be saying this seriously. I'm not attached to my account, right. What do you even think the purpose of this whole post is? Why do you think I'm putting so much effort into defending my proposition? I want my account back and I think it makes sense for me and everyone in my position to have a chance to get our accounts back, so I'm trying to make a difference. That's fine, you can do that, but it's very unlikely to change anything because successfully persuading people that the system should give your account back because you say you have reformed and deserve it back is very, very hard to do. > No. > > As I've explained in my post, my "reform" had nothing to do with the ban, not even with the game at all. I was toxic because I hated my life, my life changed immensely and I now enjoy it. This big change in my life happened while I was banned. Good to hear that your life has changed for the better. However, that really does nothing to persuade anyone to give you your account back. Since we're talking about life, have you not considered that you didn't ruin multiple lives because of your behaviour in game? > I've just explained why this is not true. I don't think it's a good explanation. > Oh man, I thought you had read my post. I'm not suggesting there should be more warnings. I'm suggesting years bans should be the highest tier ban, which simply repeats itself if, after a whole year, the player is the same. Does it take 3 years of ban for a player to quit the game? That just means he'll play a couple weeks more (over the span of **3 years**) than he would've with the current system. Is he the kind of player who simply makes new accounts all the time because he's not attached to any account? This system change doesn't affect him in tbe slightest, everything stays the same for him. Does it take 7 years for some other guy? Welp, he'll just play a couple weeks more than the last guy (over the span of **7 years**) . These unreformable players are simply almost unaffected by this change. The only people who are affected are those who are attached to their account, it makes them hope for redemption, and possibly reforms them. That's rather insulting to be honest. Your year ban, because it is of the length of time of a year, is a temporary ban. Anyway, for those people who you say are attached to their account, I think that is wishful thinking. > No, lol. It's like saying "We don't want you like this. You're out for a year, try again next time." > > "Deciding to change". I don't think that's how changes like these work. You can't decide to change, you end up changing over time in the right circumstances and you don't change if you're unlucky. To think it's so easy to decide what happens to you is just dumb. Why haven't you decided to change your personality in a way that gets you higher paying jobs yet? I mean, you can decide to change according to yourself. We're not talking about a personality change here, were talking about social etiquette in a video game, something that mostly everyone understand and is capable of. Nobody needs a doctorate to behave properly among other people. > If they can switch to a single other account which can last them a whole year, wouldn't they have to be reformed? > > I've just adressed this, but I thought I'd point something out about this part because it sticks out. You say the current system is the best available while admitting it has the same > single problem you've mentioned there is in my suggested system. Yes... the two can exist at the same time. Look, I think were just going around in circles here, so this is my last post. You haven't changed my mind and I think any system which proposes to remove permanent bans will make the game worse off.
: Pretty disappointed by this discussion. "Your proposition is not viable because you, personally, were rightfully banned" is all I'm hearing from most people here.
> [{quoted}](name=Low Brain Usage,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=5XJmxYzw,comment-id=000a,timestamp=2019-02-19T10:43:26.408+0000) > > Pretty disappointed by this discussion. "Your proposition is not viable because you, personally, were rightfully banned" is all I'm hearing from most people here. Sorry to hear that you feel that way. I hope that during our debate specifically you didn't feel that I was intentionally attacking you, because that is not what I was going for. It seems clear that we will just have to agree to disagree.
Paper1 (EUW)
: > Of course it is, so decide where you draw the line of what counts as toxic enough behaviour and let the algorithm treat everyone equally. We did and the line is where it is now. > Of course there's going to be disagreements if the matter is subjective. But you're talking as if something about bans being permanent isn't subjective. It's the same thing, here I am disagreeing with having permanent bans. Okay, but I don't think you've given a convincing enough argument for that yet. See further down in this post. > Are you saying it shouldn't be algorithms, but players, who decide who should be banned? Weren't you the one talking about prejudice? Humans are the ones who get attached and make exceptions, we're the ones who make prejudiced decisions. The algorithms are constructed and influenced to a degree by humans though. The algorithms are a means to automate bans on a large scale so that somebody doesn't have to take the enormous amount of time looking through each individual case. So to a certain extent, yes I do think the community should have a say in some way on which kind of players should be banned because it is ultimately affecting our games. I think it is weird that you would frame that answer as something to be ashamed of. > It wouldn't be less effective in the slightest. The truly dedicated toxic players are making account after account, so with the current system you're getting rid of the best of the worst (the ones who would stop being part of "the worst" over time) and keeping the worst of the worst. I don't agree that you can make that conclusion from that statement. There are those that make new accounts after being banned, and those that don't. The latter is what we want when we issue permanent bans: We're saying you are not allowed to play this game anymore, so they don't. Ban successful. > I'd argue it'd be more effective, because the possibility of recovering their accounts in the future might bind them more strongly with their original account and motivate them to try and keep it. Right now most people don't give a shit what account it is theyre on, the fifth? The seventh? It becomes a bragging matter at this point. These people are completely deattached from their accounts so permanently banning them solves nothing. If they already consider their accounts disposable, then their original account will also be considered disposable by them, so your argument doesn't make sense.
> ...What does that mean? You haven't "bought the possibility"? You mean you're not considering any argument i put forward? It means there is no point in discussing a line for what is toxic enough to earn a year ban unless there is a chance on me agreeing with you on the removal of permanent bans. That is your proposal isn't it? Get rid of permanent bans and replace it with year bans. > Yes. That wouldn't happen at all with the system I'm suggesting. This is not a counterargument, then. Let's rewind, we've jumped from arguing for one point and going to another. Here is what you originally stated: "My point is, with the current system, unreformed people are getting punished pretty hard and reformed people are being treated just as the unreformed, whether a single individual is reformed or not, whether they'd be lying or not, isn't relevant." This implies that you think there is prejudice in the current system. I'm saying it isn't, which you apparently agree with, but then deeper into the conversation you also said: "Are you saying it shouldn't be algorithms, but players, who decide who should be banned? **Weren't you the one talking about prejudice?** Humans are the ones who get attached and make exceptions, we're the ones who make prejudiced decisions." You asked if I talked about prejudice, but you actually introduced the idea that the current system was prejudiced. This is now a confusing mess of messages that is difficult to make sense of, because now you're claiming I am making a counterargument to your new system, when we are talking about the current system. > Also true. That would still happen with the system I'm suggesting. All people who'd break the same rule would get the same year ban punishment. If after a whole year one is being toxic and the other isn't, the one who is will recieve another year ban punishment, along with all those who break the same rule again. Those who don't break it again after the year ends simply will not be punished again, because they won't have broken the rule. > > This is not prejudiced in any way. I don't see how it is, at least. As i said above, you have to persuade me that removing permanent bans is somewhat of a good idea first. What is so special about a year anyway? If I was a player that was banned for a year and got a new account, I wouldn't even think about going back to that account, I'd just play on the new one. > This is a good point for those players who really don't care about anything. At which point it'd seem weird to me that they're even playing the game. The thing is, these players are the ones being punished the less by the permaban, so something is clearly wrong with the current system. For players like me, with 700k mastery points and several skins on their favourite champion, for cases which are not that lost, does it not look like we're attached to our accounts? No, because you still decided to be toxic enough to get a permanent ban knowing that you could lose all your stuff. If you really are attached to your account, then you made a bad decision after receiving plenty of warnings. Not the fault of the system, that's on you. Note that I still remember that you didn't ask for a second chance, I am just using you as an example because you are presenting yourself as one of those people. > Uh... You see a year ban as a reward? I don't think people would be happy if Riot gave away year bans as the Ranked Rewards for 2019, do you? Again, you are twisting the point. In a nutshell, your argument is that we should alter the system to change permanent bans to year bans because that isn't fair for the people who are supposedly reformed some time after the ban and have lots of stuff on their accounts that they presumably care about. If they reform, that is a choice they have chosen to make that is more strongly influenced by getting permanently banned than any temporary ban ever could (assuming the previous warnings didn't do the trick). Logic dictates therefore the permanent ban should stick, regardless of what happens next. Having a years ban as well is just like an extra warning, but it isn't going to be a very effective one because like I said above, it is more likely that players would just jump to a new account and forget about the banned one. It is like rewarding them because it's just like saying "You behaviour is really unacceptable in this game, but instead of giving you a permanent ban, you just have to wait it out for a year and you get to stay if you reform". Deciding to change their own behaviour is something they should figure out for themselves. Making them wait for a year isn't a trigger to change their behaviour if they can just switch to another account. You will no doubt argue that the same can be said for permanent bans, but they are currently the best option available.
Paper1 (EUW)
: > Of course it is, so decide where you draw the line of what counts as toxic enough behaviour and let the algorithm treat everyone equally. We did and the line is where it is now. > Of course there's going to be disagreements if the matter is subjective. But you're talking as if something about bans being permanent isn't subjective. It's the same thing, here I am disagreeing with having permanent bans. Okay, but I don't think you've given a convincing enough argument for that yet. See further down in this post. > Are you saying it shouldn't be algorithms, but players, who decide who should be banned? Weren't you the one talking about prejudice? Humans are the ones who get attached and make exceptions, we're the ones who make prejudiced decisions. The algorithms are constructed and influenced to a degree by humans though. The algorithms are a means to automate bans on a large scale so that somebody doesn't have to take the enormous amount of time looking through each individual case. So to a certain extent, yes I do think the community should have a say in some way on which kind of players should be banned because it is ultimately affecting our games. I think it is weird that you would frame that answer as something to be ashamed of. > It wouldn't be less effective in the slightest. The truly dedicated toxic players are making account after account, so with the current system you're getting rid of the best of the worst (the ones who would stop being part of "the worst" over time) and keeping the worst of the worst. I don't agree that you can make that conclusion from that statement. There are those that make new accounts after being banned, and those that don't. The latter is what we want when we issue permanent bans: We're saying you are not allowed to play this game anymore, so they don't. Ban successful. > I'd argue it'd be more effective, because the possibility of recovering their accounts in the future might bind them more strongly with their original account and motivate them to try and keep it. Right now most people don't give a shit what account it is theyre on, the fifth? The seventh? It becomes a bragging matter at this point. These people are completely deattached from their accounts so permanently banning them solves nothing. If they already consider their accounts disposable, then their original account will also be considered disposable by them, so your argument doesn't make sense.
> I'm talking about a line of what counts as toxic enough behaviour to get year-banned repeatedly. Okay, but that's assuming that I've already bought into the possibility of repeated year bans, which I haven't. > Of course they are, because they have to be. The thing with algorithms is there is just 1 for each thing. Because of that we can have lots of people working on what is best for the same algorithm which will be applied equally in every situation. Otherwise we get individual people working individual cases, making the whole matter exponentially prejudiced. I feel like we've derailed from the original point and has been blown all out of proportion. If you have two cases of toxic behaviour which are more or less the same, but you don't ban the one that is a pro/streamer and you ban the one that isn't, that is prejudice. I had said before "all people who break the same rules regardless of their reformedness should receive equal punishments" and if that is the case (which it is), there is much less prejudice such that it doesn't even deserve that label. > Yes, some make new accounts and some don't. Which of these two is worse for the community? Those who do continuously make new accounts. These are the ones making the most amount of games terrible for people. I think it's pretty safe to assume, then, that this is the group you should prioritize on getting rid of. They are making new accounts so it's not possible to make them want to quit the game. You must give them a reason to want to keep their original account. You must make their accounts less disposable. If you give them a chance to, after a long time, maybe, recover their account, they might spend money and effort on one of these accounts, which might motivate them to want to not get banned for year-long periods. Well, there are already plenty of reasons to keep your original account but they rely on the player actually putting value on those things in the first place. Things are like owned champions, skin collection, icons, loading screen borders, time it would take to earn all those back if you were banned e.t.c. Evidently people don't though if they are just happy to start anew over and over after so many bans. I don't know how you would make people care about those things in a free to play game, but it's definitely not by rewarding them for waiting for a years ban to expire, or for rewarding them period.
: >There isn't a discrete measure of how reformed somebody is. It is subjective. How I may judge somebody to be reformed is different from how you would judge them or how anybody else would judge them. Of course it is, so decide where you draw the line of what counts as toxic enough behaviour and let the algorithm treat everyone equally. >Riot may choose to judge players to be reformed that a lot of the player base may not agree with, so thats how it can be prejudiced. It wouldn't be all that surprising to see pro players or streamers get preferential treatment. Of course there's going to be disagreements if the matter is subjective. But you're talking as if something about bans being permanent isn't subjective. It's the same thing, here I am disagreeing with having permanent bans. >The thing that everyone objectively agrees on is that a permanently banned player must have broken the rules, and it only makes logical sense that the punishment system never allows permanently banned accounts to be played on again, because thats what permanent means. Well, yeah. We all agree that whatever happens is caused by whatever the cause was. The fact that this process happens this way is pretty objective I'd say. This process, however, is affected by Riot's policy, which is decided through subjective opinion. >Algorithms aren't the players, humans are the players. If a player has been toxic for many many games, we as a community of human players do not think that should be allowed and if we deem it so bad, then we dont want to play with that player anymore. We have therefore lost trust in that player to behave appropriately to such a degree that we collectively don't believe that player will not act that way in game ever again. This is the scenario for the overwhelmingly majority of permaban cases. Are you saying it shouldn't be algorithms, but players, who decide who should be banned? Weren't you the one talking about prejudice? Humans are the ones who get attached and make exceptions, we're the ones who make prejudiced decisions. >The choice you have presented in this question isn't what is actually happening though. I am not for changing the duration of the most severe form of punishment in the system for a minority when the current form of severest punishment works for the majority, especially when a change you're suggesting would be less effective for that majority. It wouldn't be less effective in the slightest. The truly dedicated toxic players are making account after account, so with the current system you're getting rid of the best of the worst (the ones who would stop being part of "the worst" over time) and keeping the worst of the worst. I'd argue it'd be more effective, because the possibility of recovering their accounts in the future might bind them more strongly with their original account and motivate them to try and keep it. Right now most people don't give a shit what account it is theyre on, the fifth? The seventh? It becomes a bragging matter at this point. These people are completely deattached from their accounts so permanently banning them solves nothing.
> Of course it is, so decide where you draw the line of what counts as toxic enough behaviour and let the algorithm treat everyone equally. We did and the line is where it is now. > Of course there's going to be disagreements if the matter is subjective. But you're talking as if something about bans being permanent isn't subjective. It's the same thing, here I am disagreeing with having permanent bans. Okay, but I don't think you've given a convincing enough argument for that yet. See further down in this post. > Are you saying it shouldn't be algorithms, but players, who decide who should be banned? Weren't you the one talking about prejudice? Humans are the ones who get attached and make exceptions, we're the ones who make prejudiced decisions. The algorithms are constructed and influenced to a degree by humans though. The algorithms are a means to automate bans on a large scale so that somebody doesn't have to take the enormous amount of time looking through each individual case. So to a certain extent, yes I do think the community should have a say in some way on which kind of players should be banned because it is ultimately affecting our games. I think it is weird that you would frame that answer as something to be ashamed of. > It wouldn't be less effective in the slightest. The truly dedicated toxic players are making account after account, so with the current system you're getting rid of the best of the worst (the ones who would stop being part of "the worst" over time) and keeping the worst of the worst. I don't agree that you can make that conclusion from that statement. There are those that make new accounts after being banned, and those that don't. The latter is what we want when we issue permanent bans: We're saying you are not allowed to play this game anymore, so they don't. Ban successful. > I'd argue it'd be more effective, because the possibility of recovering their accounts in the future might bind them more strongly with their original account and motivate them to try and keep it. Right now most people don't give a shit what account it is theyre on, the fifth? The seventh? It becomes a bragging matter at this point. These people are completely deattached from their accounts so permanently banning them solves nothing. If they already consider their accounts disposable, then their original account will also be considered disposable by them, so your argument doesn't make sense.
: >Having read some of your other comments though, you seem to care a lot about this problem that a part of you wishes that you did get a second chance. Not a second chance. A chance for everyone to redeem themselves after a **long** ban time has passed. But, yes, of course I'd want the same treatment I'm asking for everyone. The contrary wouldn't make much sense. >You are correct, all people who break the same rules regardless of their reformedness should receive equal punishments, and that should remain the case. Otherwise it would be prejudiced. Prejudiced how? Those who aren't reformed would get banned for another whole year after some toxic games and those who are reformed wouldn't. How is that prejudiced? >I don't want to see players in the game who have displayed truly horrible behaviour to such a degree that they got themselves a permanent ban. You can't distinguish between reformed an unreformed because like I said before people lie about themselves and its a matter of who you trust and who you dont. No, it's not. This is the 21st century, we have algorithms already in place which don't go around deciding who they make friends with. They don't trust or mistrust. >It's not pointless. This idea of reformed actually only comes about because those people are banned. Some people out there may be capable of changing their behaviour after a permanent ban, but that number is so small that it's not worth changing the ban rules over. We're not worth it, for you, so you're okay with consciously harming those who no longer deserve it simply because there's not a lot of us?
> Prejudiced how? Those who aren't reformed would get banned for another whole year after some toxic games and those who are reformed wouldn't. How is that prejudiced? There isn't a discrete measure of how reformed somebody is. It is subjective. How I may judge somebody to be reformed is different from how you would judge them or how anybody else would judge them. Riot may choose to judge players to be reformed that a lot of the player base may not agree with, so thats how it can be prejudiced. It wouldn't be all that surprising to see pro players or streamers get preferential treatment. The thing that everyone objectively agrees on is that a permanently banned player must have broken the rules, and it only makes logical sense that the punishment system never allows permanently banned accounts to be played on again, because thats what permanent means. > No, it's not. This is the 21st century, we have algorithms already in place which don't go around deciding who they make friends with. They don't trust or mistrust. Algorithms aren't the players, humans are the players. If a player has been toxic for many many games, we as a community of human players do not think that should be allowed and if we deem it so bad, then we dont want to play with that player anymore. We have therefore lost trust in that player to behave appropriately to such a degree that we collectively don't believe that player will not act that way in game ever again. This is the scenario for the overwhelmingly majority of permaban cases. > We're not worth it, for you, so you're okay with consciously harming those who no longer deserve it simply because there's not a lot of us? The choice you have presented in this question isn't what is actually happening though. I am not for changing the duration of the most severe form of punishment in the system for a minority when the current form of severest punishment works for the majority, especially when a change you're suggesting would be less effective for that majority.
: maybe so, but that was an idea in order to fix the loading time issue on queuing on prisoner island, otherwise the island concept isn't viable since at startup there will be too few players
> [{quoted}](name=Sir Prepuzius,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=EpoV34Ki,comment-id=0013000000000001000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-18T11:27:31.482+0000) > > maybe so, but that was an idea in order to fix the loading time issue on queuing on prisoner island, otherwise the island concept isn't viable since at startup there will be too few players That could act as a deterrent though. Not only do you get other toxic people in your games but you have to wait much longer to get into it.
: but they will still be punished: they will be in prisoner island
> [{quoted}](name=Sir Prepuzius,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=EpoV34Ki,comment-id=00130000000000010000000000010000,timestamp=2019-02-18T08:01:03.284+0000) > > but they will still be punished: they will be in prisoner island There should be both, but permanent ban means permanently banned for the game, as in you cannot come back at least on that account. It should remain that way.
: i personally read several threads made by players admitting that they have accumulated that number of permabanned accounts
> [{quoted}](name=Sir Prepuzius,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=EpoV34Ki,comment-id=0013000000000001000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2019-02-18T08:02:46.446+0000) > > i personally read several threads made by players admitting that they have accumulated that number of permabanned accounts Well then they probably exaggerated their number of accounts.
: >The point of preventing you from doing it again is that there is no way to know for 100% sure whether you wouldn't do it again. This is not me asking for a second chance. I'm stating my genuine disagreement with the current state of affairs. My point is, with the current system, unreformed people are getting punished pretty hard and reformed people are being treated just as the unreformed, whether a single individual is reformed or not, whether they'd be lying or not, isn't relevant right now. I'm suggesting permanent bans should be replaced with 365+ day bans, that way the reformed get the chance to redeem themselves and the unreformable just end up banned for an extra year every time. Does it take 3 years of ban for someone to quit the game? That means this guy might play for a couple weeks more(over the span of **3 years**)than he would've with the current system. Thankfully, though, this way, we are not having reformed people pointlessly banned. It *is* pointless to have knowingly reformed people banned. Yes, you can't know for sure when someone really is reformed or is simply lying, but you *can* know that there's some people out there who are reformed, who are banned. Is their ban not pointless, whoever these people happen to be?
> This is not me asking for a second chance. I'm stating my genuine disagreement with the current state of affairs. Having read some of your other comments though, you seem to care a lot about this problem that a part of you wishes that you did get a second chance. > My point is, with the current system, unreformed people are getting punished pretty hard and reformed people are being treated just as the unreformed, whether a single individual is reformed or not, whether they'd be lying or not, isn't relevant. You are correct, all people who break the same rules regardless of their reformedness should receive equal punishments, and that should remain the case. Otherwise it would be prejudiced. > I'm suggesting permanent bans should be replaced with 365+ day bans, that way the reformed get the chance to redeem themselves and the unreformable just end up banned for an extra year every time. Does it take 3 years of ban for someone to quit the game? That means this guy might play for a couple weeks more(over the span of **3 years**)than he would've with the current system. Thankfully, though, this way, we are not having reformed people pointlessly banned. I don't want to see players in the game who have displayed truly horrible behaviour to such a degree that they got themselves a permanent ban. You can't distinguish between reformed an unreformed because like I said before people lie about themselves and its a matter of who you trust and who you dont. Generally as players, we can't put trust in random strangers not being toxic to us or anyone else in our games in the future once we have experienced it. We are still experiencing it by other players who haven't been banned yet, it happens almost every game for at least one team. I would not be in favour of opening the doors to the game back open for these people after a year, they had plenty more warnings from Riot already than I would have given. > It *is* pointless to have knowingly reformed people banned. Yes, you can't know for sure when someone really is reformed or is simply lying, but you *can* know that there's some people out there who are reformed, who are banned. Is their ban not pointless, whoever these people happen to be? It's not pointless. This idea of reformed actually only comes about because those people are banned. Some people out there may be capable of changing their behaviour after a permanent ban, but that number is so small that it's not worth changing the ban rules over. Also, most people who are capable of changing their behaviour do so after their first one or two warnings, so I am unsympathetic to those who get to the permaban stage. They were afforded the same opportunities to improve their behaviour earlier and they chose not to.
: >I am talking about the reform card you get when you log into the client. I don't know what the reform card is, when i log onto this account i get a popup with the chat log of the game that supposedly got me banned. >Well I think if someone with Amnesia breaks the law, he still doesn't get a free pass for it afaik? That'd be the current law in whatever country we're talking about but deciding to do something just because someone else is doing it is very often not a wise choice. >But still this is a different thing. You made it sound like the toxic you and the current you are 2 different beings. They aren't. I could argue they are different, that we're never the same being at all. But that's already getting into philosophy. People don't like that, which is why I'm arguing from a more practical sense. If the current me will not be toxic again, a ban is simply pointless. >Sure you've changed your behavior but at the end of the day, you are still you. You broke the rules in the past, not toxic you. Yes, but what is the point of preventing me from doing something I wouldn't do regardless? >Whatever, it can sound good to you, but majority of the playerbase wants to keep the permabanned players banned If people manage to have so much hate towards people they dont know that they're okay with consciously harming the undeserving I'd argue these people are most likely very toxic themselves in ways, luckily for them, Riot simply doesn't care as much about. >and I don't think that's changing anytime soon especially with how these experiments have gone in the past. well that just sucks
> [{quoted}](name=Low Brain Usage,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=5XJmxYzw,comment-id=000300000000000000020000,timestamp=2019-02-18T00:31:21.493+0000) > > Yes, but what is the point of preventing me from doing something I wouldn't do regardless? Not the guy you're replying to but wanted to chime in on this in particular. The point of preventing you for doing it again is that there is no way to know for 100% sure whether you wouldn't do it again. You or anyone who got a permaban could easily lie about changing your behaviour, not saying that you are lying, but the point is that you could be and that becomes more likely for those that are known to have been banned before.
: > [{quoted}](name=Paper1,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=E9ocEsoG,comment-id=000300010001,timestamp=2019-02-14T01:09:15.922+0000) > > I am not the original guy why you're responding to, but I'll give this discussion a go. You misunderstand how the mute button should be used. When players use it, it means the damage has already been done, and yes that damage is done after one insult like "fu". By saying that, you're basically saying you're not at all interested in cooperating with your team. And that goes against presumably your goal of winning your games. You need your team to win, bottom line. And if other people do that to you, that doesn't justify you doing it to others either, it's even worse, > "Damage is done".. either the game is full of pusseys or this game is a pre-school. So, I can troll and play like a moron and I MUST expect my team to carry me, even tho I'm not helping, just because. Now imagine this scenario: I'm being a %%%%%%, someone tell's me that I'm a degenerate and they vote-kick me. I get a 3 day ban and realize that I should not be a %%%%%% in games. I like that European school of thought, bend over the and the bully take you to magical journey. God forbid you react. > Truth is when you get a troller or afker, you now have more workload on top of doing your own role to cover the guy who isn't doing their job in the team, and that's just unreasonable. > Unreasonable is that that they will not get punished. Do you know why? I was banned a few times for just calling someone a %%%%%%, I don't get banned for that anymore. You know why? Because (((rito))) lovez them moneyz, and ever since I bought my first skin a while ago I never got banned again. > Finally, just so we're clear, the fact that people mute has nothing to do with their feelings being hurt by your insulting comment. It is more to do with the hopeless feeling of not being able to encourage your team to work together brought on by observing similar comments over loads of other games. > Incorrect, had a game today. Told one dude to grow up since he said he will troll for some reason. He told me that he fcked my mom. I told him "k" and he went on with that, calling me a balkan scum. Now you see, I'm not western european soiboi %%%, I won't stand and let him pound my behind, so I told him to kill himself and spare his friends and family from the suffering of his degeneracy. I have no intention of playing games like that, bottom line is that I'd rather play with someone who's flaming but still playing, then with someone who's afk. > Suppose for a second you're a jungler and I die in a lane, then maybe I die to a second time because of an enemy jungler gank, and maybe a third time. Maybe after processing what just happened, I ask you my jungler "Could you come and gank please?" Perhaps along with a reason why. I guarantee the majority of the time that will be taken personally by you and you say "fu", and it does happen a lot of the time. That's exhausting for the laner to deal with when you as a jungler could either say no because of reason X or yes I'll try to come. And you know whos fault is that? Yours. Why? Well because %%%% you, learn to play. Just ask rito.
> "Damage is done".. either the game is full of pusseys or this game is a pre-school. So, I can troll and play like a moron and I MUST expect my team to carry me, even tho I'm not helping, just because. > > Now imagine this scenario: I'm being a %%%%%%, someone tell's me that I'm a degenerate and they vote-kick me. I get a 3 day ban and realize that I should not be a %%%%%% in games. > > I like that European school of thought, bend over the and the bully take you to magical journey. God forbid you react. If this game was exclusively for adults then I guarantee this still applies. That language is simply unacceptable. Also, there is no such thing as vote-kick in league, as in your team can't vote to make you leave the game while it is still going, so I really don't know what point you're trying to make. Same with that last remark. You are EUNE ... > Unreasonable is that that they will not get punished. Do you know why? I was banned a few times for just calling someone a %%%%%%, I don't get banned for that anymore. You know why? Because (((rito))) lovez them moneyz, and ever since I bought my first skin a while ago I never got banned again. You're dodging my point. Everyone has a role on the team when they enter a game, and with that comes an expectation of what kind of actions you need to take in game. If one teammate doesn't do their role properly, all those actions now need to be done collectively by the other four teammates. Do you not agree? > Incorrect, had a game today. Told one dude to grow up since he said he will troll for some reason. He told me that he fcked my mom. I told him "k" and he went on with that, calling me a balkan scum. > > Now you see, I'm not western european soiboi %%%, I won't stand and let him pound my behind, so I told him to kill himself and spare his friends and family from the suffering of his degeneracy. > > I have no intention of playing games like that, bottom line is that I'd rather play with someone who's flaming but still playing, then with someone who's afk. Yeah, you told the guy to grow up... not acceptable, sorry. That not only does nothing to encourage him to play properly, that gives the guy fuel to continue to troll even harder and that makes the game experience that much worse for the other three people on your team. You know what else isn't acceptable? Death threats or telling someone to commit suicide, but you already know that. > And you know whos fault is that? Yours. Why? Well because %%%% you, learn to play. Just ask rito. I didn't say it was anybody's fault, you completely missed the point. It's a scenario where your teammate is asking you a reasonable question without swearing or being rude or anything like that. There is no blame or malice behind it. It is simply an attempt to communicate with you, but unfortunately time and time again the person receiving the question wants to immediately throw punches, when all that is needed is a yes or no because of X.
: > [{quoted}](name=Wandering Mist,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=fFcfBPNY,comment-id=000400000000,timestamp=2019-02-17T03:54:24.760+0000) > > The misuse of the chat box set off a chain of events that ruined the game. If nobody had written anything in the chat, none of what the OP spoke of would have happened. If you int vbecause someone flames you you are the one who should get banned. Nothing said in chat ever gave the enemy team gold. Your logic is as stupid as riots
> [{quoted}](name=DreamsOfBlue,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=fFcfBPNY,comment-id=0004000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-17T13:06:31.270+0000) > > If you int vbecause someone flames you you are the one who should get banned. Nothing said in chat ever gave the enemy team gold. Your logic is as stupid as riots You're not wrong, but neither is the other guy, it's cause to effect. Person says "i'll do worse if you point out my mistakes", rest of team presumably points out his mistakes. Result: he plays worse. That's not stupid or surprising really.
Cryptidian (EUNE)
: I shouldn't be punished when I go afk in a 100% guaranteed ARAM loss and team doesnt wanna surrender
Actually, it is irrelevant how lost you think the game is or even how objectively lost the game is. Your team doesn't surrender? That means the majority of your team wants to keep playing, so you owe it to them to see the game through. Why? Because you accepted to play the game from match queue and whatever comes of it until it ends, no matter how long that takes.
: That's probably because Riot gets thousands of reports every day, since players don't seem to understand the difference between playing badly and trolling/inting. Honestly I'm amazed anyone gets punished given how much players abuse the system.
> [{quoted}](name=Wandering Mist,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=fFcfBPNY,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2019-02-16T20:23:48.719+0000) > > That's probably because Riot gets thousands of reports every day, since players don't seem to understand the difference between playing badly and trolling/inting. Honestly I'm amazed anyone gets punished given how much players abuse the system. Yes I give Riot some sympathy for having to deal with that on a large scale. Still, I'm afraid I don't think they've done enough and patience only lasts so long.
: well, how you want them to detect a ? to punish it :D
> [{quoted}](name=Murdarici,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=WM4mWQll,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-02-16T19:50:24.548+0000) > > well, how you want them to detect a ? to punish it :D Probably one of those things that would have to be reported, but assuming that can't be the case, can you think of any other situation in game where you would feel the need to say "?" by itself? Nothing comes to mind. Edit: somewhat misread the OP. Thought it mean't ? was from a teammate rather than an enemy. Anyway, that behaviour is still bad.
: from the board universal rules, on the top left of the boards Please don't report a potentially misbehaving player in these boards. If you see or hear about another person breaking the rules, send us a ticket directly so we can investigate and take action if necessary. We know that players report publicly with the best intentions, but it often leads to a witchhunt, rarely resulting in a positive discussion. We’ll be taking action against players who have violated rules, so please report these players correctly. Moderators will be looking for the following: Posts that accuse others of being toxic players in-game Posts accusing others of malicious activity Posts that accuse others of cheating or using illegal services Posts accusing others of trolling in the boards (there’s a report button for that) Posts claiming to have "reported" someone (There's no need to post this information)
> [{quoted}](name=Conphucius,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=fFcfBPNY,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-02-16T19:10:27.741+0000) > > from the board universal rules, on the top left of the boards > > Please don't report a potentially misbehaving player in these boards. If you see or hear about another person breaking the rules, send us a ticket directly so we can investigate and take action if necessary. We know that players report publicly with the best intentions, but it often leads to a witchhunt, rarely resulting in a positive discussion. > > We’ll be taking action against players who have violated rules, so please report these players correctly. > > Moderators will be looking for the following: > > Posts that accuse others of being toxic players in-game > Posts accusing others of malicious activity > Posts that accuse others of cheating or using illegal services > Posts accusing others of trolling in the boards (there’s a report button for that) > Posts claiming to have "reported" someone (There's no need to post this information) This is all well and good, however I think many including myself think that reporting isn't very effective. That is including tickets and the way they give replies via a bot. You have to go through about two or three of these before you even get a human response, so it can take up to a week before the request seems to be taken seriously. My point is it shouldn't be a surprise that people are ignoring this board rule, because it can seem like Riot is ignoring them.
: > I think it is more important to respect the surrender vote no matter what, and if somebody afks in base I think the report for afk is justified and there should be a punishment for it, even if the game is so obviously over. The thing is, if a surrender vote doesn't pass, that tells you the majority of the team want to keep playing and regardless of what situation you are in, the players who say no owe them their participation because each player made that choice to accept that match and whatever comes of it before champion select. You know, I could almost believe that, except that I know for a fact that a lot of people refuse to surrender under any circumstances. There is this mythos that every game is winnable and all you have to do is believe in the heart of the cards or the power of friendship to win. The sad thing is that the people who refused to surrender don't even believe they can win, they just press "no" by default. I actually went through a phase of asking my teammates in such situations if they truly believed we could win, or what we can do to win. Nobody, once, ever game me an answer to these questions. They just sat there like dumb animals with no clue what is going on around them. These players don't know how to win, don't even think they can win and yet still refuse to surrender. Why should I waste my time on people like that?
> [{quoted}](name=Wandering Mist,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=EpoV34Ki,comment-id=0013000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2019-02-15T12:36:13.193+0000) > > You know, I could almost believe that, except that I know for a fact that a lot of people refuse to surrender under any circumstances. There is this mythos that every game is winnable and all you have to do is believe in the heart of the cards or the power of friendship to win. The sad thing is that the people who refused to surrender don't even believe they can win, they just press "no" by default. I actually went through a phase of asking my teammates in such situations if they truly believed we could win, or what we can do to win. Nobody, once, ever game me an answer to these questions. They just sat there like dumb animals with no clue what is going on around them. > > These players don't know how to win, don't even think they can win and yet still refuse to surrender. Why should I waste my time on people like that? You shouldn't waste your time on people like that, but unfortunately unless they flat out say that they didn't surrender and know they can't win you have to assume otherwise when deciding on afking or not. It's sad that people seriously consider afking at all, but thats the reality of it I guess. Maybe they didn't answer you because they think that if they do they'll start a flame war? This kinda ties in with our discussion in the other thread about muting all, where I think we both agree that you should get a response to your question but they just didn't see it because they muted you.
: Don't be so naive! If there were a solution to every problem we would have cured Cancer by now. Hell we would have cured the common cold by now too! Are you suggesting that the scientists who study cancer for years without finding a cure just don't care? Some problems have no true solution. Not only this but a lot of the "solution" players come up with are nothing more than bandaid fixes that cover up symptoms instead of dealing with the underlying problems. It's like putting a plaster onto an infected wound. Yes you've covered up the wound but you haven't dealt with the infection. There are 2 core problems at the heart of this report and punishment system: 1. The game genre itself incites toxicity. You are put on a team with 4 complete strangers and expected to work as a cohesive unit, where even one person playing badly can cause the whole team to lose. It is a recipe for rage right off the bat, and there is no solution to this. 2. Most players don't use the report system correctly, either because they don't know any better or can't control their emotions and need a scapegoat to blame for all their losses. Every single game I play, at least one person (usually on the losing team) says something along the lines of "report x for trolling". 90% of the time the player they want to report isn't trolling at all. Or sometimes a player will afk a match when it is clear they cannot win and their team refuses to surrender, and the people who don't surrender want to then report the afk-er. I was in this situation myself today. I afk'ed a match at 24:50 in because my team refused to surrender a lost match. At that time we were down 7 towers to 0, 3 dragons to 0, 11k gold behind and the enemy team had just taken Baron. We had no chance of winning it and yet my team still refused to surrender. Thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of reports sent in every day and I'd be willing to bet that most of the ones that aren't flaming related are false reports. The report and punishment system Riot has in place is probably a lot better than you think, but if the players don't use it properly then it is worthless. It's like driving a car into a lake and then complaining to the company who sold it to you that it didn't work.
> [{quoted}](name=Wandering Mist,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=EpoV34Ki,comment-id=00130000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-14T14:26:58.625+0000) > > Don't be so naive! If there were a solution to every problem we would have cured Cancer by now. Hell we would have cured the common cold by now too! Are you suggesting that the scientists who study cancer for years without finding a cure just don't care? Some problems have no true solution. Not only this but a lot of the "solution" players come up with are nothing more than bandaid fixes that cover up symptoms instead of dealing with the underlying problems. It's like putting a plaster onto an infected wound. Yes you've covered up the wound but you haven't dealt with the infection ... Wanted to comment on the part about surrendering. I think on every surrender vote, players at the end of the day have to take the rough with the smooth. I've wanted to surrender games that have been in the same game state as your example but my team doesn't want to so I have to wait longer before I can move on, and its frustrating. On the other hand, It is a much more common occurrence to have teammates surrender at every available opportunity because they themselves are adamant the game is lost, when in reality the game is definitely not over or not clear cut who is going to win. I think it is more important to respect the surrender vote no matter what, and if somebody afks in base I think the report for afk is justified and there should be a punishment for it, even if the game is so obviously over. The thing is, if a surrender vote doesn't pass, that tells you the majority of the team want to keep playing and regardless of what situation you are in, the players who say no owe them their participation because each player made that choice to accept that match and whatever comes of it before champion select.
Show more

Paper1

Level 92 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion