: Shen support
Given how short the range on your taunt is, initiating a fight usually isn't possible unless you get a really good flank off. I personally would focus on peeling for your own adc in teamfights. If you do want to be the main initiator for your team, I would personally get Righteous Glory over Dead Man's Plate. You will be slightly less tanky with it but your initiations will be much more reliable, plus it's cheaper than Dead Man's Plate.
: I find the stance of anonymity and the internet incredibly interesting actually. I don't think it's a case of people forget that the person at the other end of the screen. I think it's more that the thought processes that we have include taking into account all the consequences of our actions (most of the time. Me on the weekend does not do this. Poor life choices yay!). I think when we remove the factor of a physical consequence from the equation, people are more likely to act... wrecklessly. ---------------------- The reason I believe this is the stance vs forgetting it's other humans is purely from the Battle.Net saga from a few years back. Some people may remember this, or those of you who are familiar with the inner workings of the Blizzard franchises (mind you it was pretty much just WoW, Starcraft and Diablo at these stages). There was a proposal to have forum users be marked by their RealID - meaning you could detect alts, know who the person was etc. Uproar from the community immediately followed - because people wanted to protect their anonymity - it had nothing to do with the fact it was people on the other screen. It's because people on the other screen would now KNOW who you are, and so there was a weight of consequence attached. Their final idea of it didn't even expose too much personal info at all, just kind of let you pick up on people trying to post from alts to troll. It never went through in the end, although I think it would have been a rather interesting experiment.
I don't think this is limited to internet activity, but to life in general. It's a lot easier to condemn someone's actions behind their back than it is to say it to their face. It's also easier to assume the worst in people who you don't know personally. For example, if you are driving along and someone cuts you up on the road, most people will naturally assume that that person is either doing it on purpose or is a complete idiot. They probably won't think "oh, that person made a mistake and didn't see me in time". The exact same thing happens in game. As yourself honestly, when you see someone die in a stupid way do you automatically think? a. "that guy is an idiot" b. "that guy is trolling/inting" c. "that guy made a mistake"
: > That is the theory. However, the reality of the situation is that your single report could very well result in a player getting a perma-ban if they are are at that stage in the punishment cycle. That's exactly my point ! If a player is in that stage of punishment, then he fully deserves it since he kept being toxic over many games and despite the warnings and former punishments. > We've seen quite a few cases on these boards of players who have received suspensions and bans based on what I consider to be very minor and tame flaming. My point is : Yes saying noob is very minor and don't deserve a perma-ban, it doesn't even deserve a ban. But if someone keeps using it all the time as a way to belittle his teammates and annoy them. If he gets chat restricted and keep doing that (it's flaming). Get a 14day ban and keep doing it. Then yes, saying the minor word "noob" definitely deseves a perma-ban in this specific case. Which means that you shouldn't look at the case alone, but at all the behavior and history of that player (this is my opinion of course, and not a general truth).
Regarding harassment (one of the main reasons why players get punished in this game) I found this which is rather interesting: https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q153.htm Quote: > For harassment to be committed, there must be a 'course of conduct' (i.e. two or more related occurrences). > The law takes into account the "reasonable person" test. Basically this means that if it was felt that a person of reasonable firmness (i.e. the average person on the street) would not be alarmed or distressed by the behaviour, the offence is not committed. The offender must also be aware that the course of conduct they are pursuing would cause the victim to be alarmed or distressed. So, for example if you called someone a noob multiple times in the same match, that would be harassment. If you said it only once, it wouldn't be harassment. If you called a person a noob once in the first match, then a different person a noob once in the second match, this wouldn't be harassment, according to this definition. There is also the "reasonable person" clause, meaning that just because someone gets offended by something someone said doesn't necessarily mean they are being harassed.
: >Was it? The last I heard Riot support refuse to remove the ban despite the context. That's not true at all. I've seen a few bans over my time lurking on the boards be overturned because it was a false positive - It's not very common because false positives are super rare. One thing to remember is when people post chat logs, that unless they post the screenshot directly from the client, you need to take it with a grain of salt. It's super easy to edit the text in posts to make it look like they weren't doing anything wrong when in reality, they were. This is part of the reasons that most Emissaries, for example, won't specifically say who was in the right or wrong in all these theoretical situations, or take sides. Because unless we have that screenshot data, we have to factor a chance that it's been edited to a degree. >Yes, I'm well aware of that. However, if a teammate reports me for trolling the IFS will still scan the chat and will punish me for words I have said that it deems punishable, even if I wasn't reported for flaming. Again, to reiterate. Swear words are fine (to a degree, we all know the scale of ok to extreme here). _**Swear words directed at other players are not fine.**_ The IFS can tell the difference. So your proposed scenario here is actually not accurate at all.
> That's not true at all. I've seen a few bans over my time lurking on the boards be overturned because it was a false positive - It's not very common because false positives are super rare. One thing to remember is when people post chat logs, that unless they post the screenshot directly from the client, you need to take it with a grain of salt. It's super easy to edit the text in posts to make it look like they weren't doing anything wrong when in reality, they were. This is part of the reasons that most Emissaries, for example, won't specifically say who was in the right or wrong in all these theoretical situations, or take sides. Because unless we have that screenshot data, we have to factor a chance that it's been edited to a degree. Maybe it does happen, maybe not. All I know is that the last I heard of this particular case, (and saw the screenshots as proof) Riot support had refused to remove the ban. If they did remove it afterwards, I don't know. I'm just going by what I saw. And yes I'm well aware that chat logs that are copy-pasted onto the boards can be editted, although I'm not sure why someone would bother, since we the players have absolutely no control over how a person is punished and Riot have the unaltered logs to refer to. > Again, to reiterate. Swear words are fine (to a degree, we all know the scale of ok to extreme here). Swear words directed at other players are not fine. > > The IFS can tell the difference. So your proposed scenario here is actually not accurate at all. You haven't really addressed my issue here. Let me give an example how how I believe the system works and how it is flawed. Player A and Player B are on a team together. Player A makes a genuine mistake and Player B thinks that Player A is trolling. Player A then says to Player B "omg you suck at that champ", but Player B doesn't take offence to that. At the end of the match Player B reports Player A for trolling. The IFS activates and identifies the phrase "omg you suck at that champ" as negative and issues Player A with a punishment. Player A has effectively been punished for flaming even though Player B didn't take offence to the words said, and instead actually submitted a false report.
: > I start by defending myself No, you didn't. "Defense" means "preventing harm. You didn't do that. You attacked people, that doesn't prevent jack shit. It increases attacks towards you, that's the opposite of defense. Defense in League means muting, it's perfect protection and all you need to defend yourself. > I would like to know from the playerbase perspective how bad I am in comparison First of all: Comparison to others is irrelevant. The only things you need to compare yourself with are the rules/behavior standards. Did you break the rules? Yes you did, that's all that matters. How toxic others are is not relevant for that. But if you insist on a comparison: You used homophobic slur to insult people. That is pretty rare and quite extreme and a kind of behavior that is not at all tolerated by the vast majority of the League Community (or even the entire global gaming community). So if you insist on comparing yourself to other players, I'm afraid you did indeed behave much worse than almost all other players. Sure, I am sure there are people worse than you. But is that your standard? > For a permanent ban I also only got provided with one game of my chat log. But I'm honestly curious... Is this really the 0.006%? Yes and not. It's accurate that this makes you part of a very very tiny minority who behaves this way. However the exact number "0,006%" is probably not accurate anymore. This number comes from a time when the "zero tolerance system" (that comes down hard on stuff like sexism, homophobia, RL threats, racism, suicide encouragement etc) didn't exist yet. So permabans are slightly more common now and this numbers is probably not correct anymore. But it's still super rare.
> First of all: Comparison to others is irrelevant.** The only things you need to compare yourself with are the rules/behavior standards.** Did you break the rules? Yes you did, that's all that matters. How toxic others are is not relevant for that. To be fair, the rules and guidelines are vague at best, for example: > Harassing, stalking or threatening other players while using the the Riot Services What do you define as Harassment? Calling someone a noob? Saying they lost their lane? Literally every player has their own standard for determining what is defined as harassment. And yes it is important to compare your behaviour to others, because that is how society works.
: > 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.
> False positives happen super rarely - I'm familiar with this example too, and the decision was eventually overturned iirc. Was it? The last I heard Riot support refuse to remove the ban despite the context. > That's not how it works at all. Two reasons: > > 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). > > 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. Yes, I'm well aware of that. However, if a teammate reports me for trolling the IFS will still scan the chat and will punish me for words I have said that it deems punishable, even if I wasn't reported for flaming.
Kurotsu (EUW)
: How do you use Titanic Hydra?
The main benefit of using Tiamat, Ravenous Hydra or Titanic Hydra is as to cancel animations, allowing for faster combos. Riven and Renekton for example are very good at doing this. I don't know if anything like that works for Yi.
Voldymort (EUNE)
: > there are enough good reasons to not forbid such action. can you elaborate on the reasons or provide a quote/link that does it instead?
The main reason is because if it is a highly contested champion and your team doesn't have first pick, they are unlikely to get it before the enemy team does. Better to remove it from the table completely than risk letting the enemy team have it.
Voldymort (EUNE)
: some people claim they can do 1-30 in 2 weeks. it depends on how much time you have to throw into league when i made my last smurf it took me 2 or 3 months because i'm a filthy casual :P
I think most serial offenders just buy a new level 30 account instead of going through the hassle of leveling it up themselves.....
Smerk (EUW)
: What context? It doesn't really matter if you decided to flame on your own or someone else started it first. You both break the rules by flaming and you both deserve to be punished
Context is very important. We've seen cases on these boards of people using certain terms in a non-inflammatory way, but get punished by the IFS for it. 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. 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, even though I didn't use the word offensively, nor did my teammates take offence to me using that word (they didn't report me because I used that word, but for other reasons). Context is very important, and the IFS cannot distinguish context.
Murdarici (EUNE)
: Those are great ideas, a report in champion select after doge to make people that bait others to doge get punish would be great. Now players just escape free after they force doge on others. Second one is also great idea to teach the AI (if it's really an AI with learning machine and not a stupid scan bot) what is offensive, sadly second idea will never work because of RIOT confidentiality and protection to the players and things like that so I am sure they will no give chatlogs away like that. But the idea is pretty great.
I don't think confidentiality would be an issue, since a teammate would already have known what was said in the chat logs and Riot and the IFS can already pull up chat logs of any match without our permission. Also to clarify, this system wouldn't affect what the IFS did, and it wouldn't tell the offending players what the IFS considers to be offensive. It would merely be a tool for players to communicate to others which parts they found offensive.
Voldymort (EUNE)
: >Add a system where if a player dodges a match, they get a notification asking them to state why they left the lobby. Options could include: >Queued up by accident Had to leave due to personal issues grieving teammates Client bug Then if you chose the "grieving teammates" option, it would then ask you if you wanted to submit a report for it. i've never done this but to my understanding dodging implies either closing the client OR not selecting a champion/not locking in. in the evet of the former, would that dialog box open up the next time you log in? also does this imply not losing lp or losing but providing justification for it? you weren't clear on that aspect. if it's the former then i imagine it would pretty damn abusable, since i imagine that inva;id reports on others still won't do anything >The second is to help toxic players identify things they said that other people find offensive. When you report someone for flaming, you will get a copy of the chat log on your screen. You then have the option to highlight sections of the chat that you deemed offensive or toxic, and this information would be included in the reform card in the event of the player getting punished. This wouldn't affect what the IFS did, only notified the punished player of things that their teammates found offensive. the reason riot doesn't do this is quite simple: if such information on how the ifs works leaked out do you **seriously** imagine nobody would ever abuse it and dodge all those words or retype them using numbers and symbols or shorthand while continuing to flame? in case you missed the memo, humans are quite the creative creatures {{sticker:sg-lux-2}}
> i've never done this but to my understanding dodging implies either closing the client OR not selecting a champion/not locking in. in the evet of the former, would that dialog box open up the next time you log in? > also does this imply not losing lp or losing but providing justification for it? you weren't clear on that aspect. if it's the former then i imagine it would pretty damn abusable, since i imagine that inva;id reports on others still won't do anything The client can already tell when you dodge a champ select because it automatically deducts IP for it, although it honestly wouldn't take much for Riot to put in a "dodge" button if they wanted to. And yes, you would still lose get punished for dodging. This is just a way of reporting why you dodge a match. I can understand why Riot wouldn't want to do that though as they don't want to encourage dodging. > the reason riot doesn't do this is quite simple: if such information on how the ifs works leaked out do you seriously imagine nobody would ever abuse it and dodge all those words or retype them using numbers and symbols or shorthand while continuing to flame? in case you missed the memo, humans are quite the creative creatures That's why I specifically stated that it wouldn't affect what the IFS did. We still wouldn't know what words or phrases the IFS considers to be punishable (I agree it's better if the playerbase doesn't know that information), but this system would allow hurt players to communicate with toxic players which parts of their speech offended them. Right now the reform cards just post the entire chat log with no indication about which parts were considered toxic by their fellow players, and sometimes it's hard to tell which specific things offended others. The other benefit to this is it would allow Riot to monitor reports better and help them determine the reasons behind the reports, not just the reports themselves.
5minutes (EUW)
: I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of the things going on in this forum (especially because this forum is spammed by toxic people (and ofc not all of them are toxic) who don't understand that you shouldn't say anything you wouldn't say to someone irl), but could you link to a logical explanation why these would be bad ideas? Getting them away from ranked was all I wished for - I quit playing ranked for the same reason. But the question is: Where do you care more when someone flames? In ranked or in normal? I think it makes more sense to have them in normal as it doesn't matter as much if a game is destroyed. BUT, if you wanted to perserve normal, you could still restrict draft pick to honor level 1+ and you really have to try to get below 1. Blind pick is a clown fiesta nonetheless, so you could just mute all without noticing a huge difference. I agree on the second paragraph, but take a look at a much more extreme example: The algorithm sees a bunch of mmr numbers and matches them up accordingly which gets me people like this in ranked: Mind, these are all of his season 9 ranked games: [Image](http://i.epvpimg.com/VHwCcab.png) The algorithm just sees he has the same mmr as me, as he just turned lvl 30, but every human would know that any game he plays around his current elo is losing (oh, and he also went afk after feeding, inspiring me to write up this post).
> I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of the things going on in this forum (especially because this forum is spammed by toxic people (and ofc not all of them are toxic) who don't understand that you shouldn't say anything you wouldn't say to someone irl), but could you link to a logical explanation why these would be bad ideas? https://boards.euw.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/champions-gameplay-en/QAro9Ash-suggestion-introducing-a-different-evaluating-system-considering-wins-losses?comment=0000 https://boards.eune.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/champions-gameplay-en/NAY9Tq9o-ranked-losing-less-lp-when-you-have-an-afk Not the most convincing arguments to be sure, but honestly I can't be bothered scanning through the dozens of threads on the topic to find the perfect responses. Needless to say though that these ideas have been suggested for years and the same replies have always been given. As for your other idea, it seems very selfish if you ask me. Why should players who only play normal games, ARAM or URF suffer just so the special snowflakes in ranked can be "free" of toxicity? Not only that but your idea will force players of completely demographics into the same queue, which is going to cause even more toxicity. Players who are very serious about the game when playing ranked don't want to play with people who like to chill, try weird builds, etc. Putting those 2 groups of players together is a recipe for disaster, which is exactly why we have multiple queues to choose from.
Rioter Comments
M3GTRDragon (EUNE)
: Dude, I got to gold by reporting the trolls every god damn game. and I'm a %%%%ing newbie. if the IFS can't handle it solo, no system will be able to do that on its own. They need to start using multiple systems targeting the same behavior, otherwise, this thing just gets worse.
I'm not sure what you mean by "multiple system targeting the same behaviour". Could you give an example?
Infernape (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Wandering Mist,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=VOlJpn34,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-03-22T01:24:46.131+0000) > > I'm aware of that. What I'm asking is does the IFS scan the chat regardless of the report category (I.e. Trolling, inting or flaming) or only for reports of flaming. I do believe it will scan chat no matter the report reason. EG someone that's inting might admit to it in chat while doing it etc etc.
If that's the case then there is a serious problem with the system. Right now the system relies somewhat on the players judgement to decide what they consider to be toxic behaviour which is why the IFS only activates when a report is sent instead of automatically monitoring all chat logs. Simply put, if you have been offended by something someone has written in the chat, you send a report and then the system checks the logs. But let's say you are misguided and report someone for trolling when they actually aren't. You weren't offended by anything that person said in the chat but the player in question might have said negative things that the system will deem as punishable. Effectively a player could be punished for flaming even when they didn't offend anyone with what they said simply because the system is so strict on what it considers to be flaming.
: Permanently Banned - A story of the 0.006%
Personally no, I wouldn't say this is ban-worthy at all, but as I found out when I wrote this thread: https://boards.euw.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behaviour-en/U7QUnYOm-when-do-you-report-your-teammates-for-flaming Some people are very very intolerant of anything that is negative, even if it's not directed at a particular person. One thing that I think players need to understand is that when they send a report about a player, they are effectively telling the system that they think the offending player deserves to be banned. After all, we have no idea what part of the punishment cycle a player is currently on, so I always assume that my report is going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back and gets someone perma-banned.
: I think as a person I'm more susceptible to want to prove that I am not at fault for a situation. Especially in a competitive environment like league, where this type of conflict will almost certainly happen
You aren't alone. Many many people feel the need to defend themselves in-game even when logically speaking it's pointless. After all, you probably won't see or play with those people ever again so there is no need prove your worth to them.
ItsNarsty (EUW)
: Im banned. What happens now?
> Where do I stand from here? Why does my 5 years of consistent play and honour mean nothing? I've had a rough few months and all of a sudden i'm at risk of losing my account. This to me, seems unfair. Perhaps, but that is what happens when Riot relies almost entirely on an automated system to deal out punishments. In the real world a judge and jury might consider your previous good behaviour when deciding your sentence, but a computer cannot do that. Riot have purposefully designed a system that treats all cases the same, for better or worse. > Will this stay with me forever? If i have consistent honour for months will I move back a step in the process? Or is it one more time at any moment and i'm gone forever? https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/207489286 Quote: > BUT WHAT IF I REFORM? IS IT POSSIBLE TO GO DOWN THE ESCALATION PATH? Yes! Players who show consistent reform or show positive behavior in their games will help heal their accounts reputation. We don't know how long this process takes, nor what status your account is in at the time, so it's hard to suggest anything except for "be a model of good behaviour from now on".
: Possible changes to stop trolls being as big of an issue
Both RayleighTT and NotAFlannel make some very good arguments on what is a very hard debate. The problem is that different people have different views on what is a "winnable" game and in a match there is no real higher authority to judge who is right or wrong. I've known players who will consider a game to be lost as soon as an enemy carry goes 3/0. I've also known players who refuse to surrender at any point because they truly believe that every game is winnable. Both the system we have now and NotAFlannel's proposal have flaws that are open to abuse, so swapping out one for the other is rather pointless in my opinion. What you have to consider though is which system is more likely to be abused. Are you more likely to get a 2-man premade who hold the rest of their team hostage by refusing to surrender, or a 3-man premade who spams surrender votes during a "winnable" match until the surrender vote goes through. Even if the current system we have is more open to abuse than the proposed system, is it worth spending hours implementing a system that is only slightly better? I have an idea for a third system, but it again can easily be abused. Keep the current 4-1 surrender vote initially but if gold difference reaches a certain amount (say for example, a 10k gold difference) then the players of the losing team will be alerted and offered a surrender vote which only requires 3 yes votes to go through. The downside of this system would be that it would encourage players who believed the match to be lost to int and feed as much gold as they can to the enemy to inflate the gold difference. > as i am of the belief that trolling is one of the leading causes for league toxicity as when people are dealing with game after game of this they become quite agitated and (in my opinion quite understandably) toxic. I somewhat agree with one key change in your statement. "as i am of the belief that **PERCEIVED trolling** is one of the leading causes for league toxicity as when people are dealing with game after game of this they become quite agitated and (in my opinion quite understandably) toxic." I've lost count of the amount of times I've been accused of trolling for bad Bard ults that I have done, usually because someone on my team died or lost a kill due to my ult. I never purposefully do bad ults but like most abilities that affect both teams, it is very hard to use well all the time. It doesn't help that players seem to automatically assume the worst in others and the best in themselves. "I'm allowed to make mistakes and have a bad game, but if my teammates die clearly they are either trolling or inting."
: every time u win u have fun at the expense of others. If you're so kindhearted u shouldn't play lol in the first place. The entire idea of urf is having fun and messing around. How can you expect people to play it like ranked and play only to win.
That is your opinion, but some people who play urf all the time take it pretty seriously. Are they wrong for taking it as seriously as ranked? Let's look at 3 different scenarios of fun at the expense of others in game and see whether you believe it constitutes toxic behaviour. 1. Winning a match. As you said before If someone hates losing and you enjoy winning technically speaking you are enjoying yourself at their expense when you beat them. 2. Using a champion or build that is fun but you know is worse than the meta builds. This could be as simple as picking an offmeta support which causes you to lose the bot lane, effectively ruining the landing phase for your adc. If we look at an extreme example of this, the smite support singed, they definitely were enjoying themselves at the expense of their teammates. 3. Laughing at someone in all chat when they make an obvious mistake like a failed flash. There is no hard or fast rule when it comes to this sort of thing and a lot of it comes down to who is involved.
: > I only report someone who I believe should be banned. Reports aren't meant to ban people, they are just meant to alert the system that someone did something bad. The system won't punish people for a first offense (unless it's 0 tolerance) and there are lesser punishments like chat restrictions. > Do you really think calling someone a noob deserves a perma-ban? Someone calling another player a noob once definitly doesn't deserve it. And the system won't ban him for that anyways. But someone doing it constantly in all his games and flaming all the time even after his first warning (14day ban) definitely deserves it. And that's how the system work. I personally agree with this part of it.
> Reports aren't meant to ban people, they are just meant to alert the system that someone did something bad. That is the theory. However, the reality of the situation is that your single report could very well result in a player getting a perma-ban if they are are at that stage in the punishment cycle. > Someone calling another player a noob once definitly doesn't deserve it. And the system won't ban him for that anyways. But someone doing it constantly in all his games and flaming all the time even after his first warning (14day ban) definitely deserves it. And that's how the system work. I personally agree with this part of it. We don't know enough about the IFS to know how seriously it responds to insults like "noob". That is partly why I only report someone who I believe 100% deserves a perma-ban because we just don't know (aside from a few zero tolerance words that we have deduced) what the system considers toxic language. We've seen quite a few cases on these boards of players who have received suspensions and bans based on what I consider to be very minor and tame flaming. https://boards.euw.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behaviour-en/2VbUz1d6-permanently-banned-a-story-of-the-0006 Classic case of it right here. I would not say that this player deserves a perma-ban based on what they said in that match. A chat restriction maybe, not certainly not a ban. And yet, someone reported them (possibly thinking they will get chat restricted or warned) and effectively got the player perma-banned.
: Obiously it only works when trigered by reports. Otherwise it would be making infinitely big unecessary work.
I'm aware of that. What I'm asking is does the IFS scan the chat regardless of the report category (I.e. Trolling, inting or flaming) or only for reports of flaming.
: Getting kills is fun? its not as fun for you, but for them... they're just having fun. I personally hate it when people go backdoor or try to end the game asap. I like longer games, especially in urf and even if im on the losing side.
Well now here is a sticky situation. Is it OK to have fun at the expense of others?
: You can say all u want, im a cientific, i base my knowldge on experience. But lets actualy coment on the text you quoted. "specially if you are derailing the match by constantly demanding reports of other players". Do you consider asking for a report explicitly in after-match lobby as "constantly demanding reports"?
Just FYI, Anecdotal evidence does not usually qualify as scientific or proof of causation. In this case, you are assuming that the times you got punished "faster" by the system were because you were reported by more than one person in a match. However, you have no idea how many reports are sent about your behaviour so you can't even prove a correlation between the number of reports sent and the speed of punishment, let alone causation. Put very simply, just because someone says they are going to report you doesn't mean they will, and a person might very well report you without saying anything at all in the chat. You have no idea how many reports are being sent about you so you have no idea if the system works faster based on the number of reports.
: Intentionally stalling or not ending a game.
To me, this falls under the category of unsportmanslike behaviour, similar to saying "gg ez" or spamming emotes/taunts at the end of the match. Yes it is a jerk move and I hate it when players (both my own teammates and the enemy) do it, but at the same time I don't consider it worthy of a ban from the game.
: Thanks for being the only slight of support or understanding i recieved. Sadly, the person to whom i asked the question is too bossy to actualy answer that.
Well, as I said before, when I asked a similar question I got some very extreme answers. I personally think there is a line between behaviour that is jerkish, and behaviour that warrants a ban from the game. But clearly I'm in the minority on that. That said, the other posters are right in that the actions of other people against you don't and shouldn't affect your behaviour and your punishment. The one good thing about the IFS is that it is completely impartial and that all players are treated equally under it. If you reported the players who flamed you, they will have been punished for their actions just like you were. Do I wish that the punishment system had a more human-focused element in place that could determine context and intent? Absolutely, but that isn't going to happen.
: I dont defend that people should get forgived only becoz they didnt start the fight. But im gona repeat myself coz it seems your justice sense is quite biased. People should get baned for saying "troll" or "bad" 2 times in a game (in which they have been treated horribly wrong by the team)? Its like justifying puting someone in prison coz he argued in the work place... just feels overpenalized.
My own personal feelings aside, here is the reality of the situation. The system the game uses for issuing punishments isn't that sophisticated, simply because it needs to function with minimal human support and deal with probably thousands of reports every day. The Instant Feedback System has to assume that if you got report for flaming, it's because someone took offence to what you said in the chat. All it then does is scan the chat logs to identify any words or phrases it has been told are negative and punishes accordingly. Someone in that match either genuinely took offence to what you said or just wanted an excuse to report you, knowing that the system would punish you for what you said, regardless of what was said to you first. Is it fair? In my opinion no, but every person has a different interpretation on what they consider to be "toxic" behaviour, as I found out when I made the following thread: https://boards.euw.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behaviour-en/U7QUnYOm-when-do-you-report-your-teammates-for-flaming I got all sorts of answers to this question, ranging from people who would report at the slightest sign of negativity (even if it wasn't directed at another player) to those who would only report for things like racism, xenophobia or homophobia. As sad as it is to say, the only way to be guaranteed not to get punished for flaming is to never say anything in the chat at all, because we simply don't know enough about the IFS to know how far you can go before you get punished.
Rioter Comments
: (Ab)using the report system
I've lost count of the amount of times people have threatened to report me for trolling or inting over the years, usually after I have done a single bad Bard ult that got them killed. I don't know why but players see my huge amount of Mastery points on Bard and naturally assume that every ult I do will be perfect, so when I do a bad ult (which sometimes happens out of my control) they automatically assume I am trolling them. I don't know how many of those players have actually reported me after saying they will, but so far I haven't been punished (not so much as a single chat restriction), so take that as you will. What annoys me about it is not that they are wanting to report me in itself, but the fact that they want to report me in the first place clearly shows they have no idea what true trolling or inting is. Not only this but so many false reports surely slow down the system which means it takes longer to punish the truely toxic players.
Lari (EUNE)
: Non melee adc, people picking champs out of strategy and not out of whim stuff like that
What tends to happen in high diamond and master matches is you get a lot of players forced into off roles. The player pool is a lot smaller so you could easily get a team with a top main, a jungle main and 3 mid mains. Whether you like it or not 2 of those mid mains will have to play their off roles. Then of course you get a lot of pro players in the high diamond brackets who either don't care too much about climbing the ladder or simply don't have the time to. They use solo queue to try out weird picks and builds for pro play. It can be very frustrating for players looking to climb the ladder.
Lari (EUNE)
: " What did you do all game, you are a f*ng Noob"
Even in challenger matches players will look to pin the blame on someone else and refuse to admit their mistakes. It is human nature. In the lower ELO brackets players often don't have enough game knowledge to understand their mistakes. They believe they played perfectly even though they didn't.
: I got demoted 2 divisions and i don't know what to do
It sounds like you need to take a break, from ranked at the very least if not the game entirely. Take a couple of days off away from the game then come back and you'll probably find your gameplay is back to normal.
Hansiman (EUW)
: > WookieeCookie: Agreed! That’s why we can’t endorse it. Instead of trying to restrict or prevent smurfs, various teams across Riot try to minimize issues caused by smurfing. For example, one of the teams that works on meta-game systems developed pretty good detection methods that quickly separate new players from experienced smurf accounts in the early levels. Within a few matches, smurf accounts only end up playing against other smurf accounts. [Source](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/community/q/lets-talk-smurfs-snow-and-bans-ask-riot).
Doombot (EUW)
: You can just google it if you are that interested in the topic. I really don't care to prove something because of a random sidenote comment in an off topic discussion, especially not when I see that i get downvoted for a reasonable reply. This pretty much tells me that some people don't care, no matter what I say.
Why comment on something if you aren't willing to prove it? It makes no sense, especially when all you had to do was post the link of the website you got the statistic from, like this: https://quanticfoundry.com/2017/01/19/female-gamers-by-genre/ A random statistic with no back-up is not a "reasonable reply". I can do it too, for example: "90% of Muslims are terrorists" (_please don't take this as a real statistic because it definitely ISN'T_). Does saying that without proof contribute anything of worth to the discussion? No, it's just a random number that I've pulled out of my ass in an attempt to justify my point of view. In order for a statistic to be worthwhile we need to know where it comes from, how and when the data was collected. As shown above, the study regarding the gender disparity in LoL is largely pointless because it relies on data that is 9 years old, at a time when the game wasn't as widely available as it is now.
5minutes (EUW)
: How to make League ranked less frustrating
I'm a little surprised nobody has replied to this yet. Anyway, I'm not going to talk about the first 2 ideas since they have been discussed to death on these boards before and quite frankly I'm sick of talking about how bad of a suggestion they are, so let's move on. Your flaming punishment combined with the honour requirements is interesting, to say the least. Will it remove toxic players from ranked? Most probably. The problem is that those toxic players would just move to normal draft and ruin the matches there instead. One of the reasons why I stopped playing ranked is to get away from those types of players, who in my opinion take the game far too seriously and will flame anyone who gets in their way. The other problem is how honour is accumulated. More often than not people will just honour the player who carried the match, even when they weren't the person with the best behaviour. This is a problem because of how normal draft matchmaking works. You can very easily get Bronze players matched up against Plat and Diamond players, which usually results in the Bronze player feeding like crazy. It's by no means intentional feeding, but the skill gap is just too large that feeding is inevitable. Your last point about the client I 100% agree on. it's ridiculous that it is still as buggy as ever, and needs fixing.
M3GTRDragon (EUNE)
: so whats the counterplay to neeko?
If you played Neeko yourself you would find out pretty quickly how to play against her, but here are some pointers anyway. She is very squishy and has low range and low mobility if she is playing AD. Her only survivability is a 0.5s stealth which is easily countered by any form of aoe cc ability.
: > There is a similar stereotype in WoW that all female WoW players play healing classes That is obviously bullshit, because the word "all" makes it an absurd theory. It would be more reasonable to say that healing classes might be more popular among women than among men. That might actually be true (and I am sure someone researched that). And it makes sense. Like the study "Stand by your man" shows, there is a reason for that. It's not even some vague evolutionary argument about women being more supportive by nature or something like that, it's pretty practical: A significant part of female gamers joins games because of their romantic partner. And since couples often want to play together and supportive roles are predestined for that AND often happen to be more accessible for newbies, it's an obvious choice if two people with a big difference of experience want to play together. > The major issue is their assumption that there is a big gender disparity in LoL players, despite having no real data to back up this claim That is not an assumption. Riot has this data and they got their data from Riot. I work in gaming myself and this particular statistic is super easy to come by. There are so many ways to check what audience you have, with gender and age probably being the easiest of them all. > "more than 2000 nationally representative households", You sure you found the right study? This study was done with 17.000 Leauge players, which is MASSIVE for a small study like that. A fraction of this would already be extremely reliable. Also the study is from 2015, not 6 years old, so I am pretty sure you looked up the wrong study. Here is the correct one again: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275656456_Stand_by_Your_Man_An_Examination_of_Gender_Disparity_in_League_of_Legends
> It would be more reasonable to say that healing classes might be more popular among women than among men. As far as I know there has been no study to suggest that at all, and like I said from my personal experience, it is wrong. > That is not an assumption. Riot has this data and they got their data from Riot. I work in gaming myself and this particular statistic is super easy to come by. There are so many ways to check what audience you have, with gender and age probably being the easiest of them all. When I wrote my initial reply I had only read the Abstract and the Study 1 portions of the report, and in the abstract the only source that is mentioned in detail regarding the disparity of gender in games was the ESA 2013 annual report, which I linked above. But now let's talk about the data that Riot supplied, which makes up the bulk of the study. You are right that 17,000 league players is a substantial number but there are some severe drawbacks to it. First of all, that survey was conducted in **November 2010**. This is significant because at that time not only were there a lot less players in general, but more significantly the game hadn't been globally released yet. At that time there were only 3 servers: NA, EU and SEA. No dedicated Korean or Chinese server, and no sub-regions that allowed players to connect to the game from a much larger area of the world. Essentially we are talking about data that is 9 years old, that was collected at a time when the game was a lot smaller and less widely released than it is today. It is (in my opinion) not a fair representation of the current state of the playerbase and I would therefore be wary about citing it. The only recent statistic I have found is from here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/744606/gender-share-esports-games-fans/ Which states that apparently LoL esports is watched by 45% females, and 55% male. That said, I can't find out how this data was collected so it is largely irrelevant. The most recent survey done by Riot themselves was in July 2018 but didn't ask for participants gender.
Doombot (EUW)
: Only 10% of female gamers actually LIKE mobas, it's even less for grand strategy, shooters, tactical shooters. They just prefer other genres that are less competitive and with more social interaction, like rpgs. So it only makes sense that they would favor support, a role that is focusing on helping others. It's just a natural tendency that you can't ignore. Tendency means, there can be quite a lot of exceptions too.
Again with the random statistics. Where did you pull this one from?
Azar1ya (EUW)
: Which champion to play/buy
My advice would be to first go to the league of legends youtube channel and watch the champion spotlights for each champion you are interested in. This will give you a rough idea of what each champion does. After that ideally wait until those champions come onto the free rotation to try them out for free before you buy them.
Vistha Kai (EUNE)
: Since the OP didn't deliver (OP never delivers) I'll link it instead. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1DIlJ0dOrKhdjBISUpPaXpyckU/view Preliminary reading shows that the study was published in 2015 and data was collected in 2013, which, truth be told, could mean that it's a greatly outdated study. For example, the study focuses for about 2-3 pages about communication of female participants, noting that text-based communication was virtually non-existent, but I personally noticed that ever since the chat restriction system was introduced _(which would ironically be in 2015, iirc)_, basically everybody behaves like that. The chat can remain silent, as far as written messages are concerned, for 20 minutes straight on occassion.
That file has apparently been deleted by the owner so I can't view it. That said I'm less concerned about that study than these mystical statistics that said support is the most popular role for female players. There is a similar stereotype in WoW that all female WoW players play healing classes, which from my experience was completely false. Over the years I can think of 4 females who I raided with regularly over voice comms and none of them played a healer. One was a warrior tank, the second was a dps paladin (never healed in her life), one was a rogue and the last was a feral druid. EDIT: I've found the study in question and I'm in the process of reading it, but I have a few issues with it right off the bat. The major issue is their assumption that there is a big gender disparity in LoL players, despite having no real data to back up this claim. The only source they talk about in detail regarding this is the Entertainment Software Association's Annual Report from 2013, linked below: https://www.isfe.eu/sites/isfe.eu/files/attachments/esa_ef_2013.pdf Which let's be honest is a pretty shallow source to base an entire study on. Not only is the information 6 years old now, but the survey was restricted to "more than 2000 nationally representative households", meaning it was limited to the US and only surveyed a tiny fraction of the US population. On top of that they don't clarify what they define as a "video gamer", nor do they state what games each gender plays or how long they play for each day. All in all, it doesn't really tell us much. But for the sake of argument let's put all that aside and assume that their percentages accurately represent the whole world and that the percentages were consistent across all game genres. 45% Female to 55% male isn't that large a gap in the grand scheme of things, so I'm still not sure where the whole "big gender disparity" is coming from. The only thing I can agree with is the very small amount of female representation in professional e-sports, which is very obvious to see. BUT....we are talking about the top 0.001% of the total playerbase here, which is in no way indicative of the majority of the players. As far as I'm aware there has been no survey done in recent years to determine how many female and male players play LoL on a regular basis. If there is I would love to see it. I'll write more about this once I have read through the rest of the study.
: Should i play Lux supp?
The ability to play a champion is different to the ability to play a role. Simply put, just because you are a good lux player doesn't mean you are good at support lux. In fact, I had a match yesterday with a perfect example of this. I was against an AP shaco one-trick who was playing support. He was very very good at playing Shaco, but knew nothing about playing support, so he had no impact on the lane which meant he had no impact in the mid-late game. I legit ignored him completely during the landing phase and just denied his adc. Easiest lane I've had in awhile. What does this have to do with lux support? Well unfortunately lux has a reputation for being picked by mid laners who get autofilled support, and although they can play the champion well enough, they don't have the supporting mindset or skills. The result is the poor adc is left behind while the "support" tries to carry.
Hellscape (EUW)
: Does normal game decide where u start after your unranked games?
https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/201752954-Matchmaking-Guide To quote this post: > Your Matchmaking Rating (MMR) is a number that Riot uses to determine your skill, and when matchmaking, the skill of your opponents. Everyone’s MMR starts at the same point when playing a queue for the first time. So no, your normal game MMR has absolutely no impact on your ranked MMR.
Xiley (EUNE)
: It's not about requiring. It's about it being WAY better way of comunication and right now you don't even have an option to do it with randoms.
So, back when I played WoW there was an ingame voice chat for raid and dungeon groups and most of the time it wasn't needed at all. The content being done by randoms was easy enough that you didn't need the better communication that voice chat offered. The one time I did join a PUG for harder content (the heroic final boss of the current raid) the raid leader told everyone to get on the ingame voice chat for the fight. Guess what, that increased level of communication didn't help us kill the boss. There is a lot more to good communication than just being on voice comms.
: You are of course right that randomly shouting out stereotypes is idiotic and not okay. But, just for the record: The "support gamer girl" stereotype is not complete bullshit. Using it on an individual person of course is still bullshit (because applying statistics to one person is nonsense), but the stereotype itself is correct. Statistically, support is indeed the most popular role for female players and this is indeed caused by them playing with their romantic partner. Women who play independently don't play that much support, but the significant amount of women who play with their partner have a much MUCH higher ratio of playing support which leads to the very high overall popularity of support among female players. How do I know this? Because it was actually scientifically researched in a study called "Stand by your man". Luckily this study did more than just confirm this cliche. It also destroyed a cliche, namely the assumption that women are less talented gamers. They are less skilled (again: on average of course), because they spend less time on the game. Male and female players who spend equal time on the game have equal skill levels. So the speed at which men and women acquire skill (i.e. talent) is the same and differences in average skill are caused by time investment, not a difference in ability/talent. Sorry for going a bit offtopic, but I find this study so interesting that I just feel the need to share it as often as I can^^
> Statistically, support is indeed the most popular role for female players and this is indeed caused by them playing with their romantic partner. Women who play independently don't play that much support, but the significant amount of women who play with their partner have a much MUCH higher ratio of playing support which leads to the very high overall popularity of support among female players. I would love to see those statistics you are talking about. Do you have a link?
FADY GODA (EUNE)
: A reason why most League community so toxic?
I think you are right that part of the toxicity comes from people who are very passionate about the game, and that they feel the game isn't rewarding them for their efforts. I DON't think the low chest drops have anything to do with it, but more to do with the fact that ranked gameplay and climbing the ladder feels so unrewarding for people. You can put 110% effort into a match, play your heart out and still lose due to factors completely out of your control, and that feels terrible to play. Imagine you were playing a Dark Souls game, and you were on the final boss. You do the mechanics perfectly, dodging every single attack, etc. Then when the boss is just about to die a big coin appears in the middle of the screen. If it lands on Heads, you kill the boss. If it lands on Tails the boss turns around and 1-shots you and you have to start the fight again. Think about how infuriating that would be, and that's the feeling a lot of people get while playing ranked. At this point it doesn't even matter if they aren't even playing perfectly, because in their minds they deserved to win, and have been "cheated" by the system. Now, onto your suggestion, would I like to see more lore-based events? Personally they don't really do anything for me (I don't pay much attention to the game's lore at all) but I know a lot of people loved the previous events. Would it solve the toxicity problem in ranked matches? I doubt it, especially since any lore-based events would either be done on a completely new/separate map or at the very least wouldn't happen in ranked matches.
Murdarici (EUNE)
: I did not read what you say but, the reason is they are immature, dumb, self centered, spoiled brats, narcissist, tunnel vision sheeps!
Not related to the topic at hand, at all. If you can't even be bothered to read the OP and understand what is being said, why comment on it? You are literally the guy at the office party who hears a single word out of context and then bulldozes into a conversation talking about something completely different to what is being discussed.
Xiley (EUNE)
: Because random people are often unwilling to join your Discord even if it would give you way more chances to win the game.
If I were playing in a situation which required that level of communication, I wouldn't be doing it with random strangers hence I'd be on Discord with friends instead.
: Actually not true. Below diamond most teams struggle heavily vs a properly executed funnel strategy and even higher it can be successful.
Most players below Diamond don't even know what the funnel strat is, and certainly haven't got the skill or coordination to pull it off, so the point is moot.
Ian San (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Torpedosheep,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=w6FAMG9n,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-03-18T10:25:22.175+0000) > > Greetings. > > Obviously this behavior was not cool. Dodging that game is definitely understandable. > It's really debateable to what extend you were "punished"... Cause waiting 5 Minutes probably won't kill you. > > I can understand that you feel like you came out short here, of course it sucks. > ---- > But I'd like you to actually think about this problem! > **How would you avoid such a situation if you were in charge of the game?** > > Would you allow dodging under any circumstances? > Would you allow dodging only if people troll? > > Then how exactly do you define trolling? And how do you build a system to differenciate? I love the way this dude just won the argument by asking a simple question as "What would you do if you were the creator of the game ?" a lot of people these days only complain, but offer no actual solution themselves.
> a lot of people these days only complain, but offer no actual solution themselves. Yeah and it really pisses me off when people do this. There's a saying in the business world: "Bring me solutions, not problems". Any idiot can stand up and say "this is really bad, it needs fixing" but then don't offer any solution to the problem. We see it all the time on these boards, with players saying stupid shit like "omg Rito fix ur matchmaking!!!", as if all Riot had to do was snap their fingers and fix the problem. Some people are so clueless.
Show more

Wandering Mist

Level 100 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion