Pretty true moon. Pretty true.
http://www.mobafire.com/league-of-legends/build/duffs-336706
Come hang out when I'm streaming! http://www.twitch.tv/dufftime
There's a lot less to reasonably disagree with in that video, Shadee, because it's mostly just you talking about the responses you've gotten in threads. I'm reading over the EUW thread (which I'll also decline to explicitly link here) to see what arguments have been advanced and have/have not been refuted. Because I'm too lazy to create an EUW account, I'm going to respond to a few comments on the EUW thread here. If anyone really wants to cross-post any of them, be my guest. And I apologize for the length of this post.
Nagamasa:
To use tribunal , I think you need to incease requirements like for example: have 1k wins in normals , or at least 1500 elo in ranked. Also a person that was banned before , could not do tribunal.
This, and ideas like it, are really not that I would suggest. For one thing, "hav[ing] 1k wins in normals" and having "at least 1500 elo in ranked" aren't things that necessarily prove that a player is any more stable or capable of evaluating other players than one who just starting playing LoL a month ago. Yes, these mean that the player has more experience with the game and is probably better at the game than the majority of players, but the Tribunal isn't really about player experience or skill.
Ideas like this would create a situation where some players are distinctly better than others, because they have the ability to report/review, while others do not. They explicitly grant power to one part of the community over others, without any way to know that the ones with power won't abuse it. This is the strongest objection I have to ideas like this, because I can so easily see all the ways it could go wrong. And it could go so very, very wrong. To give a couple of examples, it could set up those who can't report/review as second class citizens of the game, saying that they are worse as people than those who can (just look at how people who are and are not level 30 are viewed already). Or, it could allow those who have power to attempt to keep those who don't have power from getting it, by artificially reporting and banning them before they reach whatever magical limits the system has in place (the way to avoid this is to set the limit low enough that it encompasses a large part of the community... which is what we already have).
Finally, this idea, and others like it, give no protection to new players. If all the players who can report have 1k+ wins or are above 1500 ELO, that means that players who are below 1500 ELO have no way to report people in their games, even if the ones they're trying to report really deserve to get banned. It means that players who are new to the game, and below level 30, have no way to report people, so they can be perpetually stuck in a situation of playing with trolls and foul-mouthed smurfs but have no way to change the community. In both of these cases, the response for most players is going to be simple: they'll leave. While the trolls/foul-mouthed smurfs/people who should be banned... all get to stay.
Drawing the above to its logical conclusion (and no longer in response to Nagamasa's post), the game needs a way to remove problem elements, so that the problem elements don't cause non-problem elements to leave. Any system that allows trolls and the like to stay in game is going to end up stagnating, as it bleeds itself of the parts of the community that are worth having.
Shadeypwns:
3. You ramble on for the next 8 or so paragraphs attempting to prove your point that the Tribunal "works". I'll say the same thing I've been saying over and over. How do you know? You work for Riot? You review permabans for them? You developed the automated suspension system? No. You have absolutely no more knowledge of how the Tribunal works than me, you're simply more willing to accept anything Riot says in a casual red post and quote it. I'll say again what I've said over and over, what makes you think Riot wouldn't tell the player base, who pay for their game, what they want to hear, so that they don't have to do the work required to revamp the system or moderate it themselves? Simply by creating the system they have proven they have no care to invest money or manpower into controlling their own community, so of course they'll say what they need to, to satisfy the common LoL gamer.
This is in response to a lengthy pose by Black Flamingo, who actually seems quite reasonable. I single this out for one main reason: the whole thing up until the sentence "No." is a long string of ad hominem. You're not doing anything about Black Flamingo's argument. You're ignoring it and instead choosing to attack Black Flamingo. This is not okay.
For the rest of it, it rests upon an assumption that I have already dealt with on page 2 of this thread, so I don't think I need to rehash that argument again.
HurrzI:
I agree with the part where you say that Riot failed to provide INCENTIVES to behave in a good way. Right now all they do is punish bad behavior, enable ppl to flame and report. There is no balance. That's why everyone makes a habit out of reporting bad players and flaming when you having a bad game.
The system is broken, indeed!
This is much closer to the root of the problem. I've been mulling over this a little the past few hours, and come to a conclusion. It seems like pretty much everyone, on both sides of this argument, assume that the Tribunal is going to have some massive effect on player behavior. I don't believe this is the case. Punishment, in general, is not a sufficient deterrent. To support this, I present two examples. First, look at crime. It's against the law, you get punished for breaking the law. This doesn't stop people from breaking the law. While it may prevent some people from breaking the law out of fear, it does not, can not, and will never prevent everyone from breaking the law.
Second, I present the draconian punishments used in France right after the French Revolution. During this time, stealing was a crime punishable by beheading by the guillotine. These beheadings were public affairs, and people would gather in large crowds to watch pickpockets and the like lose their heads. Pickpockets would go around in these crowds and pick pockets, even while other pickpockets were being beheaded. The draconian punishments did not stop crime.
Even more generally, fear of what will happen to one self is not a sufficient motivator for large groups of people. Riot should have a lot more luck if they adopted a system where bans are applied not to yourself, but everyone on your friends list instead. (Note: I do not actually promote such a system, because it's evil, I only suggest that it would be effective.)
Of course, as I point out above, there does need to be a way to remove players that make the game not fun. However, if we or Riot or anyone else expect to see any actual change in LoL's community, there needs to be a system that really rewards people for not being *******s. Such systems do tend to work, and I can find evidence of such if desired.
Quoted:
Nagamasa:
To use tribunal , I think you need to incease requirements like for example: have 1k wins in normals , or at least 1500 elo in ranked. Also a person that was banned before , could not do tribunal.
This, and ideas like it, are really not that I would suggest. For one thing, "hav[ing] 1k wins in normals" and having "at least 1500 elo in ranked" aren't things that necessarily prove that a player is any more stable or capable of evaluating other players than one who just starting playing LoL a month ago. Yes, these mean that the player has more experience with the game and is probably better at the game than the majority of players, but the Tribunal isn't really about player experience or skill.
Ideas like this would create a situation where some players are distinctly better than others, because they have the ability to report/review, while others do not. They explicitly grant power to one part of the community over others, without any way to know that the ones with power won't abuse it. This is the strongest objection I have to ideas like this, because I can so easily see all the ways it could go wrong. And it could go so very, very wrong. To give a couple of examples, it could set up those who can't report/review as second class citizens of the game, saying that they are worse as people than those who can (just look at how people who are and are not level 30 are viewed already). Or, it could allow those who have power to attempt to keep those who don't have power from getting it, by artificially reporting and banning them before they reach whatever magical limits the system has in place (the way to avoid this is to set the limit low enough that it encompasses a large part of the community... which is what we already have).
Finally, this idea, and others like it, give no protection to new players. If all the players who can report have 1k+ wins or are above 1500 ELO, that means that players who are below 1500 ELO have no way to report people in their games, even if the ones they're trying to report really deserve to get banned. It means that players who are new to the game, and below level 30, have no way to report people, so they can be perpetually stuck in a situation of playing with trolls and foul-mouthed smurfs but have no way to change the community. In both of these cases, the response for most players is going to be simple: they'll leave. While the trolls/foul-mouthed smurfs/people who should be banned... all get to stay.
Drawing the above to its logical conclusion (and no longer in response to Nagamasa's post), the game needs a way to remove problem elements, so that the problem elements don't cause non-problem elements to leave. Any system that allows trolls and the like to stay in game is going to end up stagnating, as it bleeds itself of the parts of the community that are worth having.
Quoted:
Shadeypwns:
3. You ramble on for the next 8 or so paragraphs attempting to prove your point that the Tribunal "works". I'll say the same thing I've been saying over and over. How do you know? You work for Riot? You review permabans for them? You developed the automated suspension system? No. You have absolutely no more knowledge of how the Tribunal works than me, you're simply more willing to accept anything Riot says in a casual red post and quote it. I'll say again what I've said over and over, what makes you think Riot wouldn't tell the player base, who pay for their game, what they want to hear, so that they don't have to do the work required to revamp the system or moderate it themselves? Simply by creating the system they have proven they have no care to invest money or manpower into controlling their own community, so of course they'll say what they need to, to satisfy the common LoL gamer.
This is in response to a lengthy pose by Black Flamingo, who actually seems quite reasonable. I single this out for one main reason: the whole thing up until the sentence "No." is a long string of ad hominem. You're not doing anything about Black Flamingo's argument. You're ignoring it and instead choosing to attack Black Flamingo. This is not okay.
For the rest of it, it rests upon an assumption that I have already dealt with on page 2 of this thread, so I don't think I need to rehash that argument again.
Quoted:
HurrzI:
I agree with the part where you say that Riot failed to provide INCENTIVES to behave in a good way. Right now all they do is punish bad behavior, enable ppl to flame and report. There is no balance. That's why everyone makes a habit out of reporting bad players and flaming when you having a bad game.
The system is broken, indeed!
This is much closer to the root of the problem. I've been mulling over this a little the past few hours, and come to a conclusion. It seems like pretty much everyone, on both sides of this argument, assume that the Tribunal is going to have some massive effect on player behavior. I don't believe this is the case. Punishment, in general, is not a sufficient deterrent. To support this, I present two examples. First, look at crime. It's against the law, you get punished for breaking the law. This doesn't stop people from breaking the law. While it may prevent some people from breaking the law out of fear, it does not, can not, and will never prevent everyone from breaking the law.
Second, I present the draconian punishments used in France right after the French Revolution. During this time, stealing was a crime punishable by beheading by the guillotine. These beheadings were public affairs, and people would gather in large crowds to watch pickpockets and the like lose their heads. Pickpockets would go around in these crowds and pick pockets, even while other pickpockets were being beheaded. The draconian punishments did not stop crime.
Even more generally, fear of what will happen to one self is not a sufficient motivator for large groups of people. Riot should have a lot more luck if they adopted a system where bans are applied not to yourself, but everyone on your friends list instead. (Note: I do not actually promote such a system, because it's evil, I only suggest that it would be effective.)
Of course, as I point out above, there does need to be a way to remove players that make the game not fun. However, if we or Riot or anyone else expect to see any actual change in LoL's community, there needs to be a system that really rewards people for not being *******s. Such systems do tend to work, and I can find evidence of such if desired.
OTGBionicArm wrote: Armored wimminz = badass.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
Actually his argument was pretty clear and I felt like the way he worded that made a lot of sense and made me understand his point better :P
http://www.mobafire.com/league-of-legends/build/duffs-336706
Come hang out when I'm streaming! http://www.twitch.tv/dufftime
Shadeypwns
<Member>
<Member>
lifebaka wrote:
There's a lot less to reasonably disagree with in that video, Shadee, because it's mostly just you talking about the responses you've gotten in threads. I'm reading over the EUW thread (which I'll also decline to explicitly link here) to see what arguments have been advanced and have/have not been refuted. Because I'm too lazy to create an EUW account, I'm going to respond to a few comments on the EUW thread here. If anyone really wants to cross-post any of them, be my guest. And I apologize for the length of this post.
This, and ideas like it, are really not that I would suggest. For one thing, "hav[ing] 1k wins in normals" and having "at least 1500 elo in ranked" aren't things that necessarily prove that a player is any more stable or capable of evaluating other players than one who just starting playing LoL a month ago. Yes, these mean that the player has more experience with the game and is probably better at the game than the majority of players, but the Tribunal isn't really about player experience or skill.
Ideas like this would create a situation where some players are distinctly better than others, because they have the ability to report/review, while others do not. They explicitly grant power to one part of the community over others, without any way to know that the ones with power won't abuse it. This is the strongest objection I have to ideas like this, because I can so easily see all the ways it could go wrong. And it could go so very, very wrong. To give a couple of examples, it could set up those who can't report/review as second class citizens of the game, saying that they are worse as people than those who can (just look at how people who are and are not level 30 are viewed already). Or, it could allow those who have power to attempt to keep those who don't have power from getting it, by artificially reporting and banning them before they reach whatever magical limits the system has in place (the way to avoid this is to set the limit low enough that it encompasses a large part of the community... which is what we already have).
Finally, this idea, and others like it, give no protection to new players. If all the players who can report have 1k+ wins or are above 1500 ELO, that means that players who are below 1500 ELO have no way to report people in their games, even if the ones they're trying to report really deserve to get banned. It means that players who are new to the game, and below level 30, have no way to report people, so they can be perpetually stuck in a situation of playing with trolls and foul-mouthed smurfs but have no way to change the community. In both of these cases, the response for most players is going to be simple: they'll leave. While the trolls/foul-mouthed smurfs/people who should be banned... all get to stay.
Drawing the above to its logical conclusion (and no longer in response to Nagamasa's post), the game needs a way to remove problem elements, so that the problem elements don't cause non-problem elements to leave. Any system that allows trolls and the like to stay in game is going to end up stagnating, as it bleeds itself of the parts of the community that are worth having.
This is in response to a lengthy pose by Black Flamingo, who actually seems quite reasonable. I single this out for one main reason: the whole thing up until the sentence "No." is a long string of ad hominem. You're not doing anything about Black Flamingo's argument. You're ignoring it and instead choosing to attack Black Flamingo. This is not okay.
For the rest of it, it rests upon an assumption that I have already dealt with on page 2 of this thread, so I don't think I need to rehash that argument again.
This is much closer to the root of the problem. I've been mulling over this a little the past few hours, and come to a conclusion. It seems like pretty much everyone, on both sides of this argument, assume that the Tribunal is going to have some massive effect on player behavior. I don't believe this is the case. Punishment, in general, is not a sufficient deterrent. To support this, I present two examples. First, look at crime. It's against the law, you get punished for breaking the law. This doesn't stop people from breaking the law. While it may prevent some people from breaking the law out of fear, it does not, can not, and will never prevent everyone from breaking the law.
Second, I present the draconian punishments used in France right after the French Revolution. During this time, stealing was a crime punishable by beheading by the guillotine. These beheadings were public affairs, and people would gather in large crowds to watch pickpockets and the like lose their heads. Pickpockets would go around in these crowds and pick pockets, even while other pickpockets were being beheaded. The draconian punishments did not stop crime.
Even more generally, fear of what will happen to one self is not a sufficient motivator for large groups of people. Riot should have a lot more luck if they adopted a system where bans are applied not to yourself, but everyone on your friends list instead. (Note: I do not actually promote such a system, because it's evil, I only suggest that it would be effective.)
Of course, as I point out above, there does need to be a way to remove players that make the game not fun. However, if we or Riot or anyone else expect to see any actual change in LoL's community, there needs to be a system that really rewards people for not being *******s. Such systems do tend to work, and I can find evidence of such if desired.
This single post probably contains more thought out arguments than I have seen all day today. I'll have to sit on the reward idea, as you pretty much disproved all the other possible solutions I thought of, and in well thought out manner. Maybe if riot just tweaked the system to include a "thumbs up" type option, it would be enough to change the community around... hmmmm
DuffTime wrote:
Actually his argument was pretty clear and I felt like the way he worded that made a lot of sense and made me understand his point better :P
I'm rewatching the video, but still haven't seen any really new arguments. Shadee does support some of the things he said in the first video better, and advances new arguments to do so, but not any truly new material. This is what I really meant above.
Around 6:00 in the video, he starts supporting his don't-necessarily-trust-Riot argument. Shadee really does present this much better and much more reasonably, but I still believe that he's missing the mark a little. I don't believe it is reasonable to except Riot to actually tell the community anything that's untrue. Yes, they are going to ignore certain parts of the truth, they are going to play up certain parts of the truth, and they are going to play down other parts of the truth, but I doubt that they are going to present things that are actually untrue.
I also am not sure about his assertion at 7:55, that Riot would defend the Tribunal even if it is completely broken. Riot, really, has little to no control over what Lol's community thinks, even though it can attempt to guide the community's thought through press releases. The community decides, largely independently of what Riot says, whether or not the Tribunal is doing what it expects. A broken system is much less likely to work the way people expect, a broken system is much more likely to punish those who should be pardoned and pardon those who should be punished. I'd like to think that this sort of broken-ness would be fairly obvious, that there would be tons of stories of people getting banned without having done anything wrong (i.e. actually being good and helpful people, rather than just not mentioning details that explain their ban) and tons of stories of trolls laughing about how they've managed to go months without even receiving a warning. (Note that the apparent lack of such stories, not counting those where people were banned and conveniently forget to mention that every third chat message they send is "my team noobs" or "**** you" or the like, argues against the Tribunal being broken in the first place.)
In this scenario, the obvious broken-ness of the Tribunal and Riot's obvious complete disregard for the broken-ness of the Tribunal are going to drive people away from the game. But it is drive well-meaning people away from the game faster than it drives trolls and bad-mouthers away from the game. And guess which of these groups is more likely to be spending money and therefore making up Riot's bottom line? It's less likely that trolls are going to spend money as part of their trolling, after all. So it stands to reason that, were the Tribunal terribly broken, it would actually be in Riot's best interest to repair it, not simply cover it up. Cover ups only really work when they're either complete, which I argue this one never could be, due to the fact that it has observable effects.
There's nothing else in the video that I feel like I really need to respond to, largely because I agree with most of what Shadee says.
Shadeypwns wrote:
This single post probably contains more thought out arguments than I have seen all day today. I'll have to sit on the reward idea, as you pretty much disproved all the other possible solutions I thought of, and in well thought out manner. Maybe if riot just tweaked the system to include a "thumbs up" type option, it would be enough to change the community around... hmmmm
Thanks, I try.
Any reward system would need tweaks to prevent abuse. It was mentioned in the EUW thread, and some obvious abuses and problems were already mentioned there. But by giving something to players who really do try to uphold the Summoner's Code, it would encourage many players to try to follow it better. Which is about all we can hope for.
I have some other suggestions as to things that might help the Tribunal work more effectively, but I need some time to think them over and otherwise collect my thoughts on the matter. I'll probably post it as a blog here, so that people who don't want to read my walls of text don't have to even look at them.
OTGBionicArm wrote: Armored wimminz = badass.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
No I didn't watch the videos. I have no sound right now, I just meant that one quote.
But yes, Tribunal is broken because there's no "commend" option like in DotA2
But yes, Tribunal is broken because there's no "commend" option like in DotA2
http://www.mobafire.com/league-of-legends/build/duffs-336706
Come hang out when I'm streaming! http://www.twitch.tv/dufftime
Tr4ce
<Member>
<Member>
I completely agree, after getting banned twice for 2 days, I was completely scared of a third ban. To this day, I'm nicer to the point where I say "Please Ward" and people go, "DON'T tell me how to play or I'll report you" (people do this a lot). It does make me freak out! Because you never know if another little kid just like them will report you because it happen to them too. Giving tips has made me get reports. When I warn people and they die, they still blame me. I ping + type and they say, "WHY DIDN'T you come too, I'm reporting you". (But I was in base). What has made me think a lot is how you said, "If they really checked all of the tribunal reports, then how come certain areas aren't as good". I can't believe I had a brain fart. It makes sense, If there patches,glitches,etc.etc. Isn't good, how is their tribunal going to be as good? Anyway I love your video. I do agree with your points. I am a fan boy, even after my ban, just sad that they won't fix a issue that is easily manipulated and encouraged.
~zTrace
~zTrace
Shadeypwns
<Member>
<Member>
Tr4ce wrote:
I completely agree, after getting banned twice for 2 days, I was completely scared of a third ban. To this day, I'm nicer to the point where I say "Please Ward" and people go, "DON'T tell me how to play or I'll report you" (people do this a lot). It does make me freak out! Because you never know if another little kid just like them will report you because it happen to them too. Giving tips has made me get reports. When I warn people and they die, they still blame me. I ping + type and they say, "WHY DIDN'T you come too, I'm reporting you". (But I was in base). What has made me think a lot is how you said, "If they really checked all of the tribunal reports, then how come certain areas aren't as good". I can't believe I had a brain fart. It makes sense, If there patches,glitches,etc.etc. Isn't good, how is their tribunal going to be as good? Anyway I love your video. I do agree with your points. I am a fan boy, even after my ban, just sad that they won't fix a issue that is easily manipulated and encouraged.
~zTrace
Exactly. All of these points are spot on, and I couldn't have said it better myself. If giving advice to people is a reportable offense, then something is clearly wrong.
Acid Reigns
<Member>
<Member>
Something that's a little bit ridiculous, is that people will report someone as soon as they are report worthy.
For example, if a team is getting trashed, and it isn't one persons fault, they're just getting generally outplayed, if someone on their team decideds to DC, or to AFK 30 seconds before the game is over, everyone will report that person, simply because they can. Did their dc actually effect the outcome of the game? Is it their fault the team lost? No, but everyone is gonna report that guy, simply because they can. They also try and convince the other team to report said person as well, it's absurd!
Honestly, I agree that the tribunal is garbage, but I don't think that's the root of the problem. Simply the community itself is aweful, it's rotten to the core, and there really isn't a lot you can do about that. A lot of people who play this game are cynical, arrogant *******s, who just make the game frusterating.
Removing the F2P aspect of the game MIGHT cause a positive change in peoples attitude, and if not, then it would at least give a good reason for people not to troll. Trolls don#t care at all if their account gets banned, they can just make a new one, hell you don't even need to use real info, just but in some random email, with a random DoB, etc, and boom, there's a shiny new acct for you to troll on.
Anyways yeah, the problem is simply the style of game. In any tourny level team based game, where teams are randomly matched up, people are going to act this way towards each other, because people hate losing in games like these, they want their ELO up, and if someone screws that up on them, they get angry. These are also the perfect types of games for trolls as well, because competitive players give much stronger reactions, and get a lot more angry than casual gamers.
If you troll a hardcore gamer, he is going to get PISSED, which is the optimal reaction for a troll.
If you troll a casual gamer, you're gonna get one of 4 reactions.
1. They aren't going to care at all.
2. They're just gonna make fun of you
3. They're gonna get sad (imagine someone who just built something on minecraft or something, that they honestly put a lot of work into, and it gets blown up)
4. Just like hardcore gamers, some of them will get mad, however, this is a lot less frequent than in competitive play, so it is undesireable to search for here.
Something that would REALLY make the community a better thing, would be a MOUNTAIN of custom options for the community to play with. Look at SC2, it is a game that is a lot more competitive, yet the community is a lot better. Why? Well there are 2 reasons, one is something you can't fix in LoL, and that's the fact that the matches are largely 1v1, or played with partners who you know and trust. If you lose a 1v1 game, it's your fault, and you have no one to get pissed off at. It being your fault isn't a good feeling, but at least you don't have people hating each other. Alternatively, if you lose a premade game, you're with friends, and usually instead of raging at each other, you look past that, and simply say 'don't worry about it, we'll win the next one', and then you go on having fun. Anyways, the second reason, is the fact that it has an INCREDIBLE amount of custom options. You just got trashed in ranked? No problem, go and relax, and play some unique, and cool custom games with some friends, cool down, and enjoy yourself.
If they released the tools in LoL to create your own maps for customs, your own game modes etc, then I believe the community would flourish, and look together for fun, and new interesting ways to play.
At the same time (and this may sound a little drastic) something that could help, would be to completely remove solo queue from ranked, and only have ranked teams available. People are much less likely to fight with, and hate people if they get to know them. In order to increase the playability of this, perhaps they could release new ways of meeting players? Wouldn't it be cool if you really liked playing Supports, so on your profile, you could tag yourself as a support player, and so you could find teams in need of a support?
Basically, in my opinion, it's the game's style that causes the community to be flawed, and not the tribunal (though the tribunal is bad imo). Games that are all seriousness generally just don't have good communities, everyone takes it too serious, and no one has any fun. On the other hand, games that are serious, like this, don'treally work out when played with random people like this. Imagine if say, Hockey, was played like solo queue. Instead of having real teams, random players were just thrown together, and teams were basically randomly generated. On top of this, there would be no system to seperate out players actual jobs in the game, so your hocky team could consist of:
3 Goalies
2 Right wings
1 Left Defence
This is essentially what the matchmaking system does in LoL, and with this system, people are bound to hate on each other. If I'm a goalie, I'm gonna be pissed if I have 2 other goalies on my team, just as if I main solo top, then I get pissed when someone else goes top, and I have to AD carry, or jungle.
I dunno, I just think it's all screwed up. The casual/custom options for this game are extemely lacking, and the low-mid level competitive play doesn't really work that well either. It does work quite well for a professional/tourney level of play, but other than that, big changes need to be made imho.
For example, if a team is getting trashed, and it isn't one persons fault, they're just getting generally outplayed, if someone on their team decideds to DC, or to AFK 30 seconds before the game is over, everyone will report that person, simply because they can. Did their dc actually effect the outcome of the game? Is it their fault the team lost? No, but everyone is gonna report that guy, simply because they can. They also try and convince the other team to report said person as well, it's absurd!
Honestly, I agree that the tribunal is garbage, but I don't think that's the root of the problem. Simply the community itself is aweful, it's rotten to the core, and there really isn't a lot you can do about that. A lot of people who play this game are cynical, arrogant *******s, who just make the game frusterating.
Removing the F2P aspect of the game MIGHT cause a positive change in peoples attitude, and if not, then it would at least give a good reason for people not to troll. Trolls don#t care at all if their account gets banned, they can just make a new one, hell you don't even need to use real info, just but in some random email, with a random DoB, etc, and boom, there's a shiny new acct for you to troll on.
Anyways yeah, the problem is simply the style of game. In any tourny level team based game, where teams are randomly matched up, people are going to act this way towards each other, because people hate losing in games like these, they want their ELO up, and if someone screws that up on them, they get angry. These are also the perfect types of games for trolls as well, because competitive players give much stronger reactions, and get a lot more angry than casual gamers.
If you troll a hardcore gamer, he is going to get PISSED, which is the optimal reaction for a troll.
If you troll a casual gamer, you're gonna get one of 4 reactions.
1. They aren't going to care at all.
2. They're just gonna make fun of you
3. They're gonna get sad (imagine someone who just built something on minecraft or something, that they honestly put a lot of work into, and it gets blown up)
4. Just like hardcore gamers, some of them will get mad, however, this is a lot less frequent than in competitive play, so it is undesireable to search for here.
Something that would REALLY make the community a better thing, would be a MOUNTAIN of custom options for the community to play with. Look at SC2, it is a game that is a lot more competitive, yet the community is a lot better. Why? Well there are 2 reasons, one is something you can't fix in LoL, and that's the fact that the matches are largely 1v1, or played with partners who you know and trust. If you lose a 1v1 game, it's your fault, and you have no one to get pissed off at. It being your fault isn't a good feeling, but at least you don't have people hating each other. Alternatively, if you lose a premade game, you're with friends, and usually instead of raging at each other, you look past that, and simply say 'don't worry about it, we'll win the next one', and then you go on having fun. Anyways, the second reason, is the fact that it has an INCREDIBLE amount of custom options. You just got trashed in ranked? No problem, go and relax, and play some unique, and cool custom games with some friends, cool down, and enjoy yourself.
If they released the tools in LoL to create your own maps for customs, your own game modes etc, then I believe the community would flourish, and look together for fun, and new interesting ways to play.
At the same time (and this may sound a little drastic) something that could help, would be to completely remove solo queue from ranked, and only have ranked teams available. People are much less likely to fight with, and hate people if they get to know them. In order to increase the playability of this, perhaps they could release new ways of meeting players? Wouldn't it be cool if you really liked playing Supports, so on your profile, you could tag yourself as a support player, and so you could find teams in need of a support?
Basically, in my opinion, it's the game's style that causes the community to be flawed, and not the tribunal (though the tribunal is bad imo). Games that are all seriousness generally just don't have good communities, everyone takes it too serious, and no one has any fun. On the other hand, games that are serious, like this, don'treally work out when played with random people like this. Imagine if say, Hockey, was played like solo queue. Instead of having real teams, random players were just thrown together, and teams were basically randomly generated. On top of this, there would be no system to seperate out players actual jobs in the game, so your hocky team could consist of:
3 Goalies
2 Right wings
1 Left Defence
This is essentially what the matchmaking system does in LoL, and with this system, people are bound to hate on each other. If I'm a goalie, I'm gonna be pissed if I have 2 other goalies on my team, just as if I main solo top, then I get pissed when someone else goes top, and I have to AD carry, or jungle.
I dunno, I just think it's all screwed up. The casual/custom options for this game are extemely lacking, and the low-mid level competitive play doesn't really work that well either. It does work quite well for a professional/tourney level of play, but other than that, big changes need to be made imho.
You need to log in before commenting.
<Member>