[NA] Inhouse Game Discussion - October

[quote=NateDog13][quote]I don't know what you mean by not talking to the people with attitude problems, because the hosts have definitely done that. It's just simply a player doesn't like another, and I'm not going to not let a player play because they aren't liked. Also, none of that stuff is ignored at all, there are just thing you can't control in a game because if a person wants to play a certain champion, no one's going to say they can't, it's their choice. All-chat conversations are almost non-existent in NA inhouses and when there is most of it is just bantering. Some of the hosts have actually talked about the problematic players in efforts to remedy the situation. No one accepts these problems, things are just more apparent when they do happen. I'd be glad to hear what you think the problems are regarding your losses in the inhouse are, because it is indeed questionable. [/quote] Not talking to people with attitude problems? If this has been done before, what are the next steps to fix such a thing? Warnings? Things like sitting out of inhouses for unchanging attitude? Or sillier actions like gimping people with problems and making them play the worst things they have (Hell you could do this to the person who does the best on each team). Regardless, my point is that there are so many unexplored options that you can bring up and attempt to put into play, you're the ref, not me. If you want the stale old complaints of "This shit isn't balanced" , or attitude problems still staying in the inhouses, by all means let it continue, but really... how many options have you explored? -------------------------------- Players not liking other players. This I find really hard to believe, I've seen some pretty significant indications of toxicity at points in inhouses and had it directed at myself, with nothing being done to stop it. This isn't just a case of "oh I don't like the way he talks, or how he plays", its more along the line cases of "I don't agree with the way he/she not only doesn't play with the team, but he/she does it on purpose." It gets blatantly obvious if things like this are happening. It isn't just a surface case, this kind of stuff needs to be more understood. Tied in with this is my mention towards Champion picks/Item builds, its moreso the latter I'm bringing focus to, most champion picks are meant for the player to enjoy and do whatever, yes, sometimes players don't wanna play for the team, or they have a flavor champ they wanna try, or they just wanna have fun with, that's all fine and dandy. However, if you have a higher ranked player (generally "lower" ranked players might be harder to point out) building in a way that's toxic towards their teams ability to win and is blatantly making an item build that would never be considered "normal" in a norm 5s, ranked, or arams (Even reverse damage builds like AP Nasus fit in the normal category), and its inhibiting their teams ability to do anything, that's when it needs to be brought to attention, I can only think of one case off the top of my head this has really occurred. ------------------------------- My losses in inhouse. Brownie points for using my Questionable indeed towards this, though it was meant for the whole argument, well played. Anyway, back to my point in terms of why and how teams lose; what players are the contributing factors (winning or losing), is there a person who is prominently trolling, are champion picks just bad, are teams stacked with players who can't play a role to the level needed to match the person on the other team, etc. It sounds like a lot to deal with, but honestly it isn't that hard to look at end game screen and say "Bam, these are the people who suffered this game, lets test out a new order with these two people who suffered on the same team being split across both teams and placed into same/different roles to test if it was a bad game for them or not. Teams dont need to be permanently randomized and juggled around, sometimes stability is necessary, and you can start figuring out who can be replaced on teams when they have relative skill levels in roles. In terms of champions, you really don't even need to go that in depth and make it complicated. Just like that, you're on your way to making teams balanced, you can easily take notes on players skill levels, and the experience for everybody is all the sudden more "fun" (relatively). (I don't know your process, so if I sound like a condescending or something + idiot for something that's already being done, feel free to tell me) ---------------------------------- Overall, I'm just trying to bring some new ideas to the table, because frankly this is has just been painful to read and hear about constantly as inhouses have continued. I eagerly await the reply(ies).[/quote]

[quote=The_Nameless_Bard][quote=utopus]Ah, amanda! That is the root of your problem! When you look at your blunders, you need to narrow your scope to the extent that you aren't the center of the problem. When you look at your mistakes, you should think of it something along the lines of, "I shouldn't have traded with this champion when his main damaging spell was off cooldown", or "I needed to have allotted more of a buffer zone, because my [[flash]] was off cooldown", or "This is a cannon minion wave; I can't initiate a trade in this condition else i'll take too much damage". You get the idea :P Throatslasher taught me that confidence is just an external validation of success. If you're looking to improve your confidence, just let someone review a game and tell you all the things you're doing right.[/quote]I'm not good at that. I seriously do that with almost everything and I'm a perfectionist to a fault when it comes to myself. [size=1]Like I cause physical harm to myself in an attempt to deal with perceived "flaws"[/size] and, like I said, when I get confident I feel like I need to be "kept in check" and basically immediately proceed to mentally beat myself down again.[/quote]

[quote=utopus]Good idea, nate; We have historically been balancing teams by ELO, although i'm sure there are other thing s that ought to be taken into consideration too - Having played a decent amount of inhouses with the NA community, i can say that there are some people who play better than the elo they are in, and that there are some players who... may not play up to the tier that they are in (for example, i haven't been performing all too well). Perhaps it's time to really take advantage of that knowledge and balance teams based off of skill as opposed to ELO. Another thing that I haven't done was look at the previous game team composition. Perhaps it'd be best to do some radical switchups in teams, so that you are playing with a whole new crew of people each game. The one difficult thing about NA - to no fault of the players themselves, is that there is a wide range of skill. It can be difficult balancing teams, just because the players' game experience can vary so much[/quote]

[quote=GrandmasterD]First of all, I am not going to quote stuff here because I will be forced to go through the entire thread - filled with walls of text - and I really cannot be arsed. Second of all, let us start with OTG. @OTG: Your behaviour mimics that of an eight-year old and it is not really helping anyone, including yourself. You keep looking for confrontation, but once you realised more people are against you than expected, then you run home, avoid it, and lick your wounds. This is more or less unrelated to the inhouses so I will leave it at that. Whilst I think that you should probably word your posts a little bit more carefully, I do see - and understand - where you are coming from; stomps are not really fun, I mean that game was going alright for me personally, hence I was less affected by it, but I do see your point. What I do not understand, however, is you bashing Bryun constantly for his champion picks; the poor British fellow is not around to just make your inhouse experience a living hell, quite the opposite actually. Also, I do not think that I have heard you complain about others who pick certain champions; just Bryun and Pure. On top of that - while I think you have the right to be angry - I do not think that lashing out to me - when I am defending Bryun's champion pick by explaining that Syndra is just a meta champion - is really going to help anyone; it is just going to result in more people being annoyed with your attitude. Additionally, I do think that everyone has a right to play whichever champion they want to play, be it a snowball-y assassin or jungle Taric. The moment that I lose my right to play the champions I enjoy because I just happen to be higher rated than - most - other players, that is the moment I really cannot be arsed to join these inhouses. Bryun, also, is not a player who is that much higher rated - no offence Bryun by the way - than most of the other players, including yourself. While this may be taking it a tad too far, I think that this lane would have been a learning opportunity, because - assuming you want to play Viktor in ranked - this is the kind of match-up you will be running into a lot. Enough about that particular game though, I mean there is a much bigger problem going about here. Mostly I just want to give you the message of - assuming you are still willing to play in these inhouses - to think twice because you make another post filled with anger and frustration. Bryun is not the kind of person who takes pride and joy in beating players lower rated than himself, and I am pretty sure that you know that. The fact that you interpret it that way has something to do with the overall atmosphere I suppose and not just you, although thinking about that premise for more than ten seconds should make you realise that there is probably more going on than you think. Speaking as someone who is higher rated than most in the inhouses; I really just pick champions I want to play and happen to enjoy playing; lately that champion being Azir. However, it could just as easily have been a champion who snowballs a lot harder and if that would have been the case, then it would have been a total coincidence. In the end it is probably best to just let it rest, order some prostitutes, do some cocaine, and eventually pass out on the sofa due to a combination the aforementioned drug and Whiskey, whilst the prostitutes are trying to make their way out with your wallet, which is empty as cocaine is not cheap. Then, when you wake up about two days later without trousers on, go online and talk with the people involved about your experience and what you would like to see improved. Also, you can ask people about the motives of their champion picks, rather than just straight-up calling them Satan incarnate. @Nebrasketball: Irrelevant. OTG is not talking about winning; he's talking about one-sided stomps. @RottedApples & Nameless: Talk with each other and learn. That's all there really is to it and that is probably the best way to give these inhouses more use. Mostly the lower-rated - again, no offence - should be able to take the most from these games just by conversing and watching other players play and react to your plays. @Sirell: Do understand that I say this with all the love, care, cuddles, hugs, and all that crap in the world, but I doubt that you should get yourself involved here. I do not think that you are really aware of the overall atmosphere of the inhouses and the tension that comes along with it. I do understand your need to stand up for OTG as I get why he is frustrated, but really going to the bottom of a game you were not part of is not really going to be of that much use. Additionally, the problem goes beyond that game, but I am sure that you have noticed that. I appreciate your willingness to be involved and to resolve this, but I do not think that it is really your place to do so; you were not actually there. I must stress, however, that you are raising some valid points, but I think you should stay out of it. I am saying this with all the respect of course; no bad blood between non-friends. @Bryun: I understand that you are vexed by OTG's accusations, but I am fairly certain that you have been around this guy long enough, so you should know by now that he does not mean it the way he phrases it. Some people have less optimal ways to deal with frustration, but then again, I am not sure if there really is a best option for that. Personally I just go out and murder some strangers, but I am certain that there are people around who frown upon that particular modus operandi. Regarding the unbalanced nature of most NA inhouse games I would suggest talking to other hosts and gain information about how they do it; Khazem is well-known for creating very balanced inhouse games, even on NA he did a pretty good job. Assuming I am remembering it correctly of course. Also, I would like to ask, if everyone involved is okay with that - from a Polish guy to a British one - to loop me in regarding the PMs; I feel that I have a few things of use to mention. In the end I think that the biggest issues are the clashing personalities and the fact that the games have a tendency to be unbalanced. At least we have enough people showing up now to play more than one game, but we need some good talks to see what everyone expects, wants, and finds vexing as of now regarding the inhouses. Also guys, it really is not Obama's fault.[/quote]

[quote=Bryun][quote=NateDog13] Not talking to people with attitude problems? If this has been done before, what are the next steps to fix such a thing? Warnings? Things like sitting out of inhouses for unchanging attitude? Or sillier actions like gimping people with problems and making them play the worst things they have (Hell you could do this to the person who does the best on each team).[/quote] I refrained from doing this solely because of the numbers we receive to play the inhouses in general, we have done this on occasions when someone is too out of hand and starts trolling (Thalia Kael), although it has helped a little he does tend to go back to the same habits (also, he barely plays anymore :[). Kicking them out of inhouses seems to discourage players from playing anymore inhouses, so I tried to go to different outlets. [quote=Natedog13] Regardless, my point is that there are so many unexplored options that you can bring up and attempt to put into play, you're the ref, not me. If you want the stale old complaints of "This shit isn't balanced" , or attitude problems still staying in the inhouses, by all means let it continue, but really... how many options have you explored?[/quote] I would never want the same comments I received beforehand and I don't see very many other options besides keeping a player in the game and gimping them (or some other type of method to decrease the problem whether it be skill/behavior) or kicking them from the game giving them some time to cool down. Again, if you have any suggestions I'm up for them. [quote=Natedog13] Players not liking other players. This I find really hard to believe, I've seen some pretty significant indications of toxicity at points in inhouses and had it directed at myself, with nothing being done to stop it. This isn't just a case of "oh I don't like the way he talks, or how he plays", its more along the line cases of "I don't agree with the way he/she not only doesn't play with the team, but he/she does it on purpose." It gets blatantly obvious if things like this are happening. It isn't just a surface case, this kind of stuff needs to be more understood.[/quote] This paragraph is difficult to interpret of what you're trying to say. I have received comments of players not wanting to play with another player because they clearly just don't enjoy playing with that one player and I'm not only referring to the obvious OTG and Purelulz case there are other minor cases of this. Regarding someone not liking someones champion pick or play-style in general, do you really expect me to tell someone not to play a champion because it's a nightmare? I mean even if that person is playing like that on purpose the person isn't breaking any rules. What I do have to say is people's personality can be interpreted very negatively when x person did not mean it. I can give helpful suggestions to ultimately urge someone to change an unfavorable pick, but I'm not going to force them. [quote=Natedog13] Tied in with this is my mention towards Champion picks/Item builds, its moreso the latter I'm bringing focus to, most champion picks are meant for the player to enjoy and do whatever, yes, sometimes players don't wanna play for the team, or they have a flavor champ they wanna try, or they just wanna have fun with, that's all fine and dandy. However, if you have a higher ranked player (generally "lower" ranked players might be harder to point out) building in a way that's toxic towards their teams ability to win and is blatantly making an item build that would never be considered "normal" in a norm 5s, ranked, or arams (Even reverse damage builds like AP Nasus fit in the normal category), and its inhibiting their teams ability to do anything, that's when it needs to be brought to attention, I can only think of one case off the top of my head this has really occurred.[/quote] This isn't really a concern because it barely happens. As long as the champion build path/pick works (ie. AP Nasus) it's not breaking the rules. On the otherhand champion build paths like AP Miss Fortune or AP Vayne would be considered as troll picks because it doesn't do anything at all. [quote=Natedog13] My losses in inhouse. Brownie points for using my Questionable indeed towards this, though it was meant for the whole argument, well played.[/quote] Thanks [quote=Natedog13] Anyway, back to my point in terms of why and how teams lose; what players are the contributing factors (winning or losing), is there a person who is prominently trolling, are champion picks just bad, are teams stacked with players who can't play a role to the level needed to match the person on the other team, etc. It sounds like a lot to deal with, but honestly it isn't that hard to look at end game screen and say "Bam, these are the people who suffered this game, lets test out a new order with these two people who suffered on the same team being split across both teams and placed into same/different roles to test if it was a bad game for them or not. Teams dont need to be permanently randomized and juggled around, sometimes stability is necessary, and you can start figuring out who can be replaced on teams when they have relative skill levels in roles. In terms of champions, you really don't even need to go that in depth and make it complicated. Just like that, you're on your way to making teams balanced, you can easily take notes on players skill levels, and the experience for everybody is all the sudden more "fun" (relatively). [/quote] This is a process that I try to take into account, I for one don't place players by ELO. I take in the fact of their skill level in game (unless they are totally new members playing, and I have nothing to go by). The thing that stops most of my decisions is back to the problem with players not wanting to play with each other, or players wanting to play with each other because they are in the same room, etc. EDIT: BTW, as someone whose played in the EUW inhouses the reason why I believe they're so successful is because: [list] [*] They have a stable group of members willing to play [*] They actually make inhouses more competitive than NA [*] They actually look at the team compositions [*] They all communicate everything (ie. when flash is down, when someone's gone, etc.) [*] Their players are closer in skill [*] They have fun, even if they lose [*] They don't target ban as much as NA does [*] Balancing is much easier due to the consistency in players [/list] I'm pretty sure if VaporaDark was in NA, people would mistake his attitude in a negative manner, and his love for [[Talon]] a nuisance.[/quote]

[quote=Jovy]1. They have a stable group of members willing to play. Yes 2. They actually make inhouses more competitive than NA. Yes 3. They actually look at the team compositions. Not sure. 4. They all communicate everything (ie. when flash is down, when someone's gone, etc.). Depends on the players. A lot of regulars complain about the lack of communication during inhouses, though I, personally, have no issues with communication. This is mostly due to the fact that I already have a habit of noting down spells, ultimates, objectives and then also partly due to the fact that I'm friends with most if not all of the regulars there, and I like talking. 5. Their players are closer in skill. The regulars are all plat+, mid-high gold at least; so, yes. 6. They have fun, even if they lose. This is also not necessarily true, and it largely depends on the player. I know at least a handful of people, though, including me, that do not enjoy the game if they are losing or have lost. [quote=Bryun][list] [*] They don't target ban as much as NA does [/list][/quote] [img=http://puu.sh/c2KA2/a081b0659a.jpg] 7. Balancing is much easier due to the consistency in players. Yes.[/quote]

[quote=oxide110]Can confirm, will target ban to hearts desire.[/quote]

[quote=Khazem]uhm my team told me to do it[/quote]

[quote=GrandmasterD][quote=MissMaw]1. They have a stable group of members willing to play. Yes 2. They actually make inhouses more competitive than NA. Yes 3. They actually look at the team compositions. Not sure. 4. They all communicate everything (ie. when flash is down, when someone's gone, etc.). Depends on the players. A lot of regulars complain about the lack of communication during inhouses, though I, personally, have no issues with communication. This is mostly due to the fact that I already have a habit of noting down spells, ultimates, objectives and then also partly due to the fact that I'm friends with most if not all of the regulars there, and I like talking. 5. Their players are closer in skill. The regulars are all plat+, mid-high gold at least; so, yes. 6. They have fun, even if they lose. This is also not necessarily true, and it largely depends on the player. I know at least a handful of people, though, including me, that do not enjoy the game if they are losing or have lost. [quote=Bryun][list] [*] They don't target ban as much as NA does [/list][/quote] [img=http://puu.sh/c2KA2/a081b0659a.jpg] 7. Balancing is much easier due to the consistency in players. Yes.[/quote] [list=1] [*] Agreed. [*] Overall yeah. [*] I think that it is true, though you have those games in which everyone's like "I'mma just play this". [*] People on EU may complain at times, but it is a lot better than it is on NA; the amount of people who actually actively speak during the game, about the game, is almost twice as much on EU, relative to NA. [*] Definitely. [*] Depends on the player but generally it is true. Sure at loss stings, especially when it is more one-sided, but I don't think many players look back and think "I had an awful time.". [*] PJsalt. Nah just kidding, I have got to agree with MM here; some popular bans just get banned anyway because people actually play them (e.g. [[Zed]], [[Kassadin]], [[Kha'Zix]], [[Braum]]), although there has been moments during which specific champions get banned to target players; it happens, just ask Dork. [*] Largely true, it does not just depend on their consistency, but also the fact that the skill difference is smaller. [/list][/quote]

[quote=Jovy][quote=GrandmasterD] 7. PJsalt. Nah just kidding, [...] [/quote] [img=http://static-cdn.jtvnw.net/jtv_user_pictures/chansub-global-emoticon-18be1a297459453f-36x30.png height=15][color=transparent].[/color] Nah, it's true. I legit had a horrible time three weeks ago just cuz I couldn't play Thresh, and had to play Braum, for the third time that game. Um, as in I played Thresh twice before that, and couldn't a third time. Though, to be fair, that game we laned vs 4 people in bot lane, so it could have been that.[/quote]