Morello Talks About Poppy Again, New Behavior Experiments Soon, Lyte and Davin on "Toxic" Players and More

[Dark] [Light]

 

Important: Interested in trying out Infinite Crisis, an exciting new MOBA based in the DC Multiverse? Curse has you covered with a massive amount of beta keys to get you into the beta! Check out here for NA and here for EU. For more information on Infinite Crisis check out the official page.


State of the PBE

For those wondering, the PBE is still getting patches (in fact, it got 2 patches today alone) however there are no changes to report. They are still just small tweaks getting it ready for live.


Morello Talks About Poppy Again

If you missed it yesterday, Morello said we should see poppy get worked on after Heimer and he said: "my prediction is Poppy is the "new Eve.""

Originally Posted by Riot (View RedTracker Source)

Well, there are two choices; I'm OK with both to some extent;

* Rework Poppy and make her a real pick in League, balance appropriately.

* Don't rework Poppy, and never ever buff her, and nerf her if she ever sees play.
How do you come to that conclusion for Option 2?
Is that the same standard you use for Shaco also?
Is Option 2 why Tryndamere and YI were nerfed?
Because if Poppy's good, she supports terrible counterplay and unreadable skills with a slew of mechanical overload. Current Poppy being strong damages the game more than Poppy players get to derive joy from playing Poppy in competitive settings.
Just one question.

When reworked, because we know its gona happen:

Will she keep her Q and E, because charging someone into a wall and SMASHING THEIR FACE IN is HIGHLY satisfying.
Football charge is the one skill on Poppy I really like and think can work.


New Behavior Experiments Soon

Originally Posted by Riot (View RedTracker Source)

Thanks for taking the time to send us the feedback Iron Bearkin. I'll be sure to pass this to the player behavior team first thing in the morning.

We're currently working hard on a few new experiments for players and are excited to talk more about them soon--we are also directing a lot of our resources to tackling the Champ Select problems.

More from @Morello

Originally Posted by Riot (View RedTracker Source)

I don't doubt the overall commitment, but I get the impression that Riot is too slow to earn up to mistakes. See Sejuani. Maybe Zyra will follow in a visual sense. The Trundle matter has players reasonably asking for changes to the Traditional skin while trying to accept new Trundle and give feedback on lore issues with him. It hasn't been responded to well. It feels like you dropped the ball to me. So I wouldn't say it's to your example's extreme but rather one where fans feel niche champions won't get properly served. See the Udyr lore response immediately instead of Trundle. Thresh, Vi, And Sejuani are more popular and typical fantasies.
This is an important topic, and I think a lesson has been learned - though lessons can't be instantly shown due to real-time considerations of development. For example, look at Vi and Lissandra's visual design in comparison to our mid-year female casters. That's about the "cook time" for a character - 6 months isn't actually long, but I think it League Time feels like it!

I think the mistake with choosing Trundle to rework is that he's niche. What that means is a small number of people have a heavy investment into the character. Reworking the character's thematics does open it up to a broader set of people and make it fit in more, but it comes at a high cost to original players because almost all Trundle players would be highly-invested. "Chapter 2'ing" (developing his story to make him deeper) might have also been OK, even if the end result had some similarities - that's all theoretical though.

Instead, I'm pushing hard for a different approach on when we creatively adjust existing champions;

* Choose champions who are not niche, but instead are weak creatively by being "flat." Basically, characters that don't have much going on outside of gameplay/art. Some people will always get mad at change, but I think this has a greater degree of success. I can pretty confidently say that almost nobody cares that Sivir is a banker, and I'd be willing to say "sorry, but that's how it is" on that subject. :P

* When changing champions, do the "chapter 2" approach like we did with Lissandra. Retconning should be a "red button" (where no other alternatives make sense to fix the problem) and we should instead tell the next piece of the story - a journey that could change the character.

* When making changes, be a bit more respectful of what is there, unless it's a nightmare. By nightmare, I mean stuff like Sion (sorry in advance, but that dude will definitely change creatively in some big way). Traditional skins are a big piece of this, but not the only tool we have available.
Would you guys ever make a Cyclops or 4-6 armed brute character? Both are rather bland archetypes but I bet Riot could make them very interesting. You guys reinvented the rather boring ranger archetype with Quinn and made a chain warden even cooler with Thresh.
Maybe the 4-6 armed guy is actually a wizard. Maybe the Cyclops is more of a demonic seer than just a giant orc with one eye.
We have looked at this, but no paydirt yet!


Lyte and Davin on "Toxic" Players and More

Originally Posted by Riot (View RedTracker Source)

The reason we use the word 'toxic' is very intentional.

In our observations and research on player behavior, we find that a single source of negative behavior can ripple through hundreds or thousands of games. For example, let's say we have a game with 10 players--9 are positive, and 1 is negative. The 1 negative player is racist, rages all game, and intentionally leaves the game. This experience can negatively influence some of the other 9 positive players in the game. Some of these 9 players will play another game of League of Legends and instead of being positive, they might start the game neutral or negative. Their actions can then influence 9 other players in the game, and toxicity spreads.

A single negative action could result in thousands of games with negative incidences--this is why many of our latest experiments focus on shielding players from toxicity (Restricted Chat Mode -- forcing players to make a decision between using limited chat resources for cooperative communication, or still using it for negative purposes and being message capped), or stemming the spread of toxicity (our next experiment).
Why is neutral bad?
Sometimes all i can hope for is a team that doesn't talk at all.
It may not be the best gaming experience possible, but i wouldn't say its a bad thing.
Neutral isn't bad. But, a neutral player may experience a game that is negative, then start the next game negative as well.
Yet I do not understand why you and your team aren't the ones deciding of others faith. You actually know what you are talking about.
You're babysitting a community in which you have no trust yet give them the power to ban individuals who paid for your game.
You can arguably say that the Tribunal "works as intended" because who in this world wouldn't be scared of the judgement of random people over the internet?
It never really solves the issue. In fact, Making these players return to the game with a smurf account and destroy the experience of new & upcoming players is what the Tribunal really does.
*Disclaimer: I've never been banned nor punished. just my 2 cents.*
In the social sciences, there's a term called inter-rater reliability. It's a stat that represents the level of agreement between a group of people doing a task or making a judgment. At the beginning of the Tribunal launch, Player Support staff reviewed every single case and assigned appropriate punishments. After hundreds of thousands of data points, we found that the level of agreement between players and Player Support was extremely high for the vast majority of cases; in fact, the level of agreement was over 80%.

Some of you might think 80% is a low level of agreement, but it turns out that the discrepancies are mainly because Player Support was even more strict than the average random sample of the playerbase. Given this data, we opted to slowly allow obvious, clear-cut cases be automatically punished while still maintaining Player Support review on the more ambiguous cases, or cases with severe punishments.

In saying this, we're moving more and more towards experiments where Tribunal can hand out account restrictions like Restricted Chat Mode instead of time-bans. We feel account restrictions are stronger for reform because it forces players to play games on their main account to unlock the restrictions instead of simply taking a break on a smurf account. While they are playing on their main accounts, features like Restricted Chat Mode can shield other players from their toxicity while they work on improving their behaviors and becoming more sportsmanlike.
thats my own area of improvement and personal challenge.
ill start with the best intentions...Ill be happy i wont rage ill try to be nice or maybe just put everyone on ignore if i notice bad behaviors and not get dragged in...
then i join my first game....someone afk...noproblems
second game ..troll pick no communication feed yell at team. may give one or two feedback then give up when i notice he doesnt care.
3rd game...another afk
by that point im ready to rage. And guess who will get in more trouble, likely gonna be me.
and this happens on almost a daily basis. there are more bad days than good days.
yesterday this guy joins a game then message that he had to leave his house is on fire...i check his history, he had a leave 3 games before that...must be catching fire a lot...
There has to be a better system.
Is there a worse feeling in the world than playing like 5 games of LoL where people drag you down by leaving or trolling and you realize that you wasted all your evening doing something 100% unpleasant? You get sucked into "just one more" in hopes of getting just a normal fun game regardless of win or lose but you keep getting people that just want to ruin games.....god its a bad feeling.
We agree, Champ Select isn't the ideal environment for seting teams up for success right now. I talked to a few scientists recently about Champion Select, and mentioned that it's like putting 5 strangers together and asking them to negotiate a plan they all agree on within 90 seconds. The scientists laughed and said, "That's a problem we've been studying for decades."

There's no easy solution to Champion Select; in fact, it might be one of the most difficult problem spaces we've ever had to tackle. However, it's currently a major focus of the player behavior team, and we hope to fix the core issues with Champ Select and find a way to really build trust among strangers before the game even begins.
If you find an amazing solution, you have to write a research article, post it to a journal, and give it to the LoL playerbase for free.
Deal?
It might have to be one of those articles where we credit an entire active community, and the editors ban me from ever publishing there again.
Just curious, im all for the restricted chat experiment...heck i practice this actively n myself at time when i suspect people will troll i mute everyone in both teams proactively then i dont get dragged down by whatever **** is being spewed.
BUT
do you not feel that letting the player play with restricted chat will create bitterness and that although he cannot talk, he may just purposely play stupid / pick bad champs or roles already taken and so on to troll the team in a somewhat not too obvious or punishable manner? As much as it sounds far fetched, ive seen so much trolling in this game that i firmly believe this will happen.
On the player behavior team, we take a lot of risks. We have to because we're often pushing boundaries on what's been tried before in the online community space. We have very little prior history, documentation, or references to learn from so we really have little information on how a player might react in a pressure situation with something like Restricted Chat Mode. We simply take what we can from psychology, cognition and neuroscience and try to make the best decisions given the limited knowledge and data we do have.

We'll make mistakes. I know we will. However, for every experiment, we reveal a few more insights about psychology and a few more insights about human behavior in general. We're going to keep trying new things, and we're going to keep learning--that's all I can ask of the player behavior team.

So far, we've learned a few interesting things already from the Restricted Chat Mode experiment:

1) It is correctly forcing a subset of players to consciously think about their chat resources. At the end of the day, players want to win, and they are learning about the difference between positive chat providing a distinct advantage versus the destructiveness of negative chat. We're mapping out the usage of Restricted Chat Mode, and are interested in seeing things like what ratio of messages are used for cooperation versus destruction. We're also interested in seeing how many games of Restricted Chat Mode is required before a player's personality or character fundamentally improves for the better.

2) A lot of players are self-aware of their own outbursts and rage in games and have asked to opt-in to Restricted Chat Mode voluntarily. This is interesting because for a long time, many developers and game studios have assumed that a lot (if not all) of toxic players simply lack self-awareness--they don't realize that their behaviors are toxic, or that racism isn't OK. However, through Restricted Chat Mode, we're finding a demographic of players that are very self-aware, but need help--they need a nudge in the right direction, and they can't do it alone. I often talk to the player behavior team about whether it's our responsibility to collaborate and work with players in these cases and time and time again, we find that the answer is "Yes."
Thank you for your answer on the other post by the way.
" find a way to really build trust among strangers before the game even begins" Although you might have thought about it (in fact I'm sure you did) What if there was an easy way of knowing what people usually play / are good at?
Not talking about the idea of "queuing to be mid" or whatever because that just cements the meta which is already kind of stale, but a way to know that Player X is really good with Y champion. Or that he plays it often.
Or his win/loss ratio with a certain champion.
In a very clear and easy way to notice. Wouldn't that help people? Yes there are some negative sides to this, but what can you really do?
I can easily imagine if I scroll over Champion X, a little diagram pops up next to his splash with stats that are relevant. Updating itself with the other champions. You see, imagine someone being good with Jarvan IV. He doesn't have the priority to go jungle because he's good with that champion. In fact, he could go top, even mid or in a kill lane bot. But it would sure help build the confidence you're looking for.
We have considered things like showing teammates your Win/Loss records on certain champions, but there's a red flag with this suggestion. On average, humans are notoriously bad at probability and statistics--this even includes smart people like doctors, lawyers and scientists.

For example, if you are in a Champ Select and someone chooses Jax and a 0-2 Win Loss record shows up... a lot of players would be instantly frustrated and politely (or not so politely!) ask the player to choose a different champion; however, realistically, 0-2 isn't a significant data point. It's meaningless.

You could argue that we wouldn't show Win/Loss until a certain number of games have played, but this creates a similar effect where if you don't have a Win/Loss record, then players lose trust because you haven't even played enough games to have your record show--it's a lose-lose situation.
Question for Lyte and his team.
I've been looking at my own player data using tools like LoLKing and noticed a trend where negativity appears after obvious skill mismatches. For example, I get matched with 4 random strangers, and we play against 5 random strangers. The match-making engine works to make sure the average hidden elo on each team is as close as possible (also adjusting for weird stuff like duos and # of games played). I've noticed a lot of instances where we'll have maybe a 1700 level player and a 1200 level player in the mix on either team which creates a huge skill discrepancy when the 1200 lanes against a 1500 or even another 1700.
Those instances generate a lot of rage from the losing team, especially when the other lanes are winning with a slight edge. Not fun to go 2/0/1 top and then get instagibbed by a mid that's been fed 11 kills in the first 15 mins of the game. These mis-matches are very strongly correlated with reportable negative behavior in my sample of game data.
Is your team looking into anything like this? Just curious.
On average, the vast majority of matchmaking matches are pretty decent; however, one of the issues with matchmaking perception is that players use third party websites to judge the 'quality' of a match.

With the introduction of Leagues, websites typically only use a combination of tiers/divisions/LP/wins/losses to assess your effective MMR, but they aren't accurate. In fact, in many cases, players have up to 300-400 MMR difference compared to their profiles on websites. Combine this with the fact that players tend to check profiles only in major snowball losses... and you can see why false perceptions and associations can form.
And expecting people to stop trash talking on the internet isn't asinine? I don't know how long you've been gaming or using the internet but trash talk has been a part of gaming since the beginning. The things people consider toxic and players receive bans for are nothing compared to some of the things that get said on national television in debates, etc, etc, etc. You aren't going to convince millions of people to act differently than a way that is acceptable beyond their monitors - but you could change and adapt the game system itself.
When has the goal ever been to get rid of trash talking?

One of the inspiring observations from player behavior research in League of Legends is how the online community has evolved over time. Think about online communities as their own infant culture, evolving over time and maturing with their own set of rules. For the first time, we can document and record every action and see how they impact the emergence of social norms in a culture. We don't believe that online behavior is worse than behavior in real life because players are anonymous. We believe it has to do with accountability and consequences. For decades, online communities matured without any semblance of accountability; in fact, in many cases when someone behaved negatively they were reinforced as others joined them because they saw that there were no consequences.

Very early on, a lot of players thought the player behavior team was out to get rid of offensive language or trash talking--that isn't true. Profanity is OK, the problem is harassment and abuse. The problem is when a player directs profanity and targets someone else. We agree with the vast majority of players in League of Legends--it's not OK to throw around homophobic, sexist or racist terms. In fact, Tribunal cases with these examples are among the most highly punished cases in the entire system. Over time, you can see that League of Legends players began to align on the idea that profanity is OK, but harassment and abuse is not--that's cool to see.

You can say that racism or the usage of the word "f*g" has been in gaming since the beginning and is just a part of the culture. I have to ask, so what? Who says that is the way things have to be? Time and time again, the players in League have shown that they are a mature, sophisticated group that don't care for that kind of language.
Isn't that a stacked question? I mean, unless you're talking about normal blind pick, but is that the format you run tournaments on? No? Why use that as an example then?
The vast majority of players play Normal Blind Pick, it's the most representative example we can use. Not to mention, 5+ minutes isn't enough time for strong negotiations either.

But if someone gets a false positive (or 2, or 3) the response is "Well, this can happen, it's unfortunate.... BUT AT LEAST (so far~My thoughts) NOBODY HAS EVER BEEN FALSE REPORTED ENOUGH TO HAVE BEEN PERMABANNED!!!" This is not how it should be.
No one has been falsely reported enough to be permabanned, and I can't remember the last time a permaban was overturned. I'm not saying the system is perfect, but it is highly effective at what it is supposed to do.
Goal or not, that's what you did. We've (d)evolved to the point where GG (GOOD GAME) has turned into an insult, and saying it at the end of a game in which you did exceptionally well is rubbing the enemy nose in it and so report.
This just isn't true. I can see this data and know exactly the number of games that end in GGs but no reports.
Truly positive post-game back-and-forth banter is unique and cannot be tracked.
If there's one thing I love hearing, it's that something can't be measured. It's my favorite kind of science challenge

You raise a fair point about GG--it can have multiple meanings (as can most words, really, since you can always inject sarcasm). However, you could do some pretty straightforward text analysis on prior chat to get good accuracy on the intended meaning.

Also, very relevant to your interests: Lyte's GDC talk has been posted for free by GDC. Thanks, GDC! It talks about a lot of this, including some really cool experiments we've run. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/1...of_Legends.php
A human can, but can a computer?
Definitely! There's some pretty cool work that's being done with things like that (natual language processing, latent semantic analysis, etc.). Even just doing very, very coarse language analysis you can get at some common patterns that have strong ties to negative behavior (Lyte has spoken some about this in the past, as regards words like 'reported' and 'noobs').
Since Lyte is here (hi!!), I figure this is a good place to ask - do you have any statistics that show the motives behind Tribunal users one way or the other? One of the most common critiques of the Tribunal I see on the forums is the assumption that trollish or toxic players will 1) spam report on everyone they play with or 2) punish-spam the Tribunal for fun without reading the cases.
One of the most annoying things about using the report system or participating in the Tribunal is having to put up with the accusation that we are only doing it to punish spam and be control freaks who like to gloat over banning accounts... which is most assuredly not the case. What kind of data do you have regarding what type of player participates in the Tribunal, and why?
Yes, in fact we did a research study just on players who visit the Tribunal. As many know, early in the Tribunal's life cycle we used to reward IP (currency) for completing Tribunal cases correctly; however, as many players noted, currency incentives might not be the ideal motivator for this type of task. We removed IP rewards September, 2012, and saw a 10% drop in the number of players that used the Tribunal; however, interestingly, the accuracy went up.

When we introduced Justice Reviews, which were profile pages that showed your personal contribution to the community, we saw a 99% increase in the number of Tribunal judges; surprisingly, the accuracy of the system jumped a second time. This experiment confirmed our original hypothesis that players visit the Tribunal to make a difference in the community--not to simply grab some currency.

We also did some demographic analysis and found that Tribunal judges tended to have 3% fewer reports per game than an average random sample of the active playerbase--the vast majority of them also had 0 ban histories. This data suggests that Tribunal judges aren't necessarily the super paragons of the community; however, they are a decent (and slightly more sportsmanlike) representation of the active playerbase. This data really inspired us because it suggested that the results and social norms emerging from the Tribunal were representative of the true community opinion.
Lyte's talk was really really interesting.
Also, I'm a PhD candidate in Linguistics, so I find this kind of textual analysis of semantic meaning really interesting.
I would guess that there are different discrete 'categories' of GGs (like there are different meanings for the word 'head' -- head of a person, head of an organization, to head a company, etc. all derived from a basic meaning). One way to approach automating the different 'types' of GG would be looking at their timing with respect to other context, as well as looking at whether they co-occur with other words that have particular connotations. Using what in-game information you have access to, to discern semantic content is a really cool problem.
Will be watching this closely. It's too bad you guys don't actually publish a lot of this stuff.
Awesome! And we agree--we want to release more of it, whether it's in talks like at GDC, academic chats like the one we participated in at the MIT Game Lab (with Lyte, status kwoh, and myself), or in more formal journal articles. Cool science deserves to be shared!
Surely win/loss ratio might cause more harm than anything else. What can be done to build trust between 5 strangers in such a limited time frame?

It might seem an impossible thing to overcome. But surely there are steps that can be taken to make people at least trust that they are with people of the same level. (matchmaking system might still need some tweaks)

The questions that need to be asked are "What is the goal that these 5 individuals want to achieve" and "Can they all participate in this unanimous goal while feeling comfortable of the role they will be playing to achieve it"

One could argue that there is no real way of pleasing 5 people who want to play more or less the same thing but you might want to consider game design at this point.

Why do most supports feel like theyre "filling"? etc.
Matchmaking is an interesting problem space. Let's say that we had a perfect matchmaker, and every game you have a 50% chance to win. However, let's say Team A and Team B play 1000 games. Team A wins 500 games, Team B wins 500 games. Technically, this means the matchmaker was quite good at matching these teams together.

However, what if every game had scores like 30-5? 25-3? If every game is lopsided, what does this mean? Players might claim that the matchmaker is completely broken. We have to separate the fairness of the potential match outcomes, and the in-game closeness of the match. In MOBAs, there's an inherent snowball factor to the games--some games have a higher snowball factor, and some have a low snowball factor; however, in all MOBAs an advantage you build early game can lead to advantages later game that can secure victory. Snowball factor can be tuned, but it's an extremely complicated parameter.

For example, if there's no snowball factor, then there's really no gravity or weight to the early game--advantages you earn are neutralized, and you don't get the satisfaction of making plays and pulling ahead. Then there's the fact that there is a delicate balance between building powerful champions and enjoying being powerful versus being on the losing side and suffering through the rest of the game.

Right now, the vast majority of games do have a 50% win chance. It's highly accurate in that aspect; however, we could debate about whether the game is too snowballey and thus feels unfair or unenjoyable to play.
Questions for you, Lyte:
I've sent in a few reports for pregame toxicity that cannot possibly be handled in Tribunal. I always include screenshots of the behavior to help with the validity of my claims. I've received very non-committal replies, usually saying "Yeah sure we hear you but we can't say anything about what we'll do about it." What kind of results does reporting this way yield, is it even worth continuing to do that?
Generally, I do see the teams act on these out-of-game reports--especially now that they have Restricted Chat Mode restrictions as an option.

Also, I would love some feedback about what happens when I report someone through the normal, post-game means. I just got out of a game with an extremely toxic player who harassed me nonstop from start to finish to cover his own mistakes, as well as declared he'd be reporting me for something or other. I'm not afraid of his report, I know how that works, but the point is that I want to know my report does something. I can go to the Justice Review to see if my judgement there has any effect, but my reports are left open-ended. Are there any ideas in the pipeline for displaying any outcomes for reports?
Giving more feedback to reporters is something we've talked about long ago--it just hasn't bubbled up to the top of the priority list.

Welcome to PR. They can't answer things that they don't have prepared answers for, or they risk the company's well-being. You've seen some of the more gigantic flops of Rioter statements that have happened because of that.
[RIGHT]Want to get more from the forums?
Why not use Worre's Forum Enhancer Kit!
[/RIGHT]
It's important to note that this isn't about PR. I get to post whatever I want. If players are constructive in their approach, I'm willing to engage in a conversation. I'm not going to waste time so I choose the best posts to respond to that can spread the most useful information.
Ah. Thanks a lot for answering my questions. I'm a little skeptical about the PR bit, since usually image is kind of important for a company, but I'll take your word for it.
It's actually true. We're encouraged to post about the stuff we know about The sort of general guideline for me is "will posting this add anything valuable to the conversation, and am I actually the right person to talk about this?". The latter means I am probably happy to talk about science stuff but not really the right dude for game balance, how LP works, etc.

As a side note: Our PR group isn't "public relations" but "player relations", and encourages Rioters to talk on the forums and keep open channels of communication. It's a rather different approach than a very closed, highly hierarchical strategy. I like it.
Why isn't restricted chat being used as a punishment? (solely) It seems to me, if you change it to that, (3 days of restricted chat, ect) And also allow opt in and opt outs(only for the people opting in) you could really make this game perfect.
Also, i mean for cases dealing with "negative attitude, verbal abuse, offensive language" only.
We always run experiments through many iterations. We agree that we may one day rely only on account restrictions like Restricted Chat and replace time bans altogether; however, it's a worthwhile experiment to test the following:

Time Bans vs Time Bans + Account Restrictions vs Account Restrictions.
He touches on an issue I personally think is possibly important though-- do you think that there is a possibility that pregame and postgame chat be added as information that the Tribunal has access to?

I've noticed a fair number of players that are unbelievably toxic in pregame/postgame chat, but act in a somewhat innocuous way during game.

I say somewhat innocuous because it would seem harmless to someone reading the tribunal, but to people in-game it's anything but-- smiley's when a teammate dies coupled with blatantly offensive/derogatory/condescending chat pre/post game, etc. The fact that this behaviour exists suggests that some players are varying their behaviour in order to avoid punishment or game the system.

I don't think the number of players that do this is particularly high, but I think they, or at least this type of behaviour is invisible to the metrics Riot has access to, and this kind of behaviour potentially has a disproportionate effect. Speaking for myself, instances like this invariably ruin my mood and leave me sour.
I emphasized the part of your post that is important. When we investigated pre- and post-game chat, the question we asked was: "What is the incremental value we would get by adding this feature? Would we identify more toxic players, and if so, how many more?" It turns out that many players who are toxic in pre- and post-game chat are also toxic in-game, and tend to be caught by the Tribunal. However, Riot does have access to the logs--they just aren't hooked up to the Tribunal system. Given the choice, should the player behavior team work on Champ Select issues, or work on pre- and post-game chat? The answer is pretty clear.

In saying this, as you might have heard from other player behavior members, we have been shifting away from feature development on punishment systems. Like I mentioned in the GDC talk linked earlier in this thread, we're focusing much of our development on making the game more enjoyable for neutral and sportsmanlike players instead of focusing on the toxic players.
Lyte, do you believe that there are any plans to allow "opt-in" to Restricted Chat soon™? I've seen quite a few players that would like that option because it forces them to not be toxic if they want to continue to communicate with their team.
Sorry if this has already been answered since I'm coming into the thread late
We're debating it, but right now we are focused on analyzing the current effectiveness of Restricted Chat Mode and whether it is increasing sportsmanlike behavior. Until we know the impact of the feature, it would be irresponsible to create an opt-in version.
Hey team PBE could we get a guide over in the Tribunal ban/Inquiries section on how to approach helping people have been banned reform, or at least how to act towards them? I have a pretty long thread going on over there because we aren't always the most positive bunch when it comes to helping out, even though we mean well.
Hm, I think this is a great opportunity for the community to band together and create a positive framework or guide. Happy to sticky it and help edit the tone and approach.
Query: Aren't the issues around Champion Select and pre-game chat the same thing?
Same space, different problems.
That hasn't been my experience...

But you've got heaps more data than I'm privy to and a specialized education in this field so I yield to your expertise.
Oh, it's not anything special due to data. We just internally view them as different problem sets.

For example, adding reports and pre- and post-game chat logs to the Tribunal is a solution to a problem--the problem might be defined as a lack of accountability for extreme toxic behaviors in Champ Select (since the solution would only identify the worst of the worst offenders for the Tribunal).

Champion Select; however, is a problem space without a solution. The problems include:

1) Time pressure creates a hostile environment
2) Putting strangers together in a lobby and forcing them to negotiate strategy is hindered by a lack of trust (in other words, everyone only has data on themselves, and truly believe they are better than everyone else in the lobby -- a reasonable behavior pattern given the lack of data on everyone else)
3) A mismatch of expectations going into the environment

If you look at the problems in Champion Select, it's very obvious that pre- and post-game logs in the Tribunal does not address them.
lyte, have you ever thought of applying the chat restriction punishment as a warning? and not as the actual punishment
seems like people (including me) need the wake up call earlier, before we actually get the temp ban
its hard for neutral people to realize that they are becoming toxic, without an earlier wake up call
You do get a Chat Restriction with a Tribunal Warning right now.
So you're saying those other players can't help but get infected by the initial rager's actions... but you want them to get punished for it anyway.
Actually, players who are 'infected' occasionally by others never get sent to Tribunal--only consistent ragers or toxic players get sent there.

This is part of the reason why we need to create systems other than the Tribunal to also tackle the player behavior problem. The Tribunal is designed to identify and reform or remove the worst of the worst. We need other systems to provide feedback and nudges to the players who are sportsmanlike 90% of the time, but may have a bad day or be influenced by a toxic player on rare occasions.
Lyte, thanks for taking the time to provide so much information, it's all very interesting. I had no idea so much science was behind the bahavioral systems you have in place.
I'm curious what kind of education/background is required by your team. Do you need degrees in psychology and/or mathematics?
We have a pretty diverse background on the team. A few of us have PhDs in different fields of Psychology (Cognitive Neuroscience and Human Factors/Applied Psychology), while others have Masters in Aeronautics and Bioinformatics. 

I wouldn't say that there is a degree requirement like Masters or higher to be on the player behavior team; we just require people who are very strong critical thinkers, and can quickly learn the latest research in a variety of fields and apply the results to game design. For example, I was not an expert in motivation, but had to dive into the research to really understand the last few decades of motivation research to determine whether we should remove IP (currency) rewards from the Tribunal or how we were going to execute the Justice Reviews experiment.

Because we have so many scientists and smart people from a variety of disciplines, we're constantly learning from one another--it's surprising how often a base idea can improve dramatically from insights from multiple fields.
Allright I have a rough start of a guide here http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/...8#post37121148 Would there be any way of contacting you when we feel that it is ready?
lyte [at] riotgames [dot] com
well its just an idea but what about puting some more tips ingame for newbies to start being honorable or as u say being more sportsmanlike or even doing a series of videos showing pros giving tips to be more honorable like the ones of them explaining theyr fav champs and like that give some good reinforcement to the comunity couse not everyone reads the forums, and i think thats a way to reach ppl and specialy those who admire the pros want to be like them so i think they see that as a good example u can even call the video serie honorable summoner showcase Xd 
srry if my english is not 2 good im from panama ^,..^ b keep the good work
Definitely doing this soon. Not next patch, but we have a large line-up of new tips.

LoL API

Originally Posted by Riot (View RedTracker Source)

Hey guys,
While I can't get into specifics, the process of developing the API is ongoing. There's a lot of work involved in creating a scalable, extensible API for a game as big and complex as League of Legends. We've got awesome people working every day to create a rock solid implementation with all the stats and goodness you can shake a stick at

23

Comments

  • #22 KajzzeR

    Poppy will be straight out OP if they buff her early game, so the best thing would be that they remake her almost fully :P

  • #21 Insanitism

    i dislike the tribunal, it is completely unfair and judged by people who just spam the same button over and over for Ip.

  • #23 SoulReaver

    you dont get IP anymore you moron

  • #24 kYwzor

    Quote from xweetok59 »

    you dont get IP anymore you moron

    yeah, I'm happy that you don't anymore, so people can't say anymore "OMG got banned roit y u trust tribunal, full of IP farmers, only got banned because of them QQ"

  • #20 Cdore

    * Don't rework Poppy, and never ever buff her, and nerf her if she ever sees play.

    This made me so mad to read.

  • #15 PedestrianA

    Holy crap that morello logic

    competitive plays never prioritize fun, they priors victory.

    To begin with, Riot nvr allow an old meta to live after it shifts, once the meta change and not a piece of it will be left, despite the players know the game better and better, the game itself by no mean evolutes, we still see a main stream meta(despite dynamic gameplay) dominating the scene (by now, global pressure, lockets on jungler, 2v1s) and good luck you ever go against it.

    An evolving game opens up new gameplay while keeping the old one alive to a various degree, and when it hits the maturity, it should allow most if not all options that player would want to be available. I feel so sick to see how Saintvicious falls off in S2 and rise all of a sudden in S3 and the former dominating EG are a shxt now, which all happens without much of the changes on the skills of the players. We don't call such kind of change of a game to be "evolving", we are simply uninstalling the former game and get another.

  • #12 kYwzor

    Of course 95% of people on tribunal get punished! If you get to the tribunal you have a very high chance of being "toxic". You have to get several reports on a consistant way. Those 5% are just the ones who got false reports and things like that. To end up on tribunal ONLY by false reports you have to be very unlucky and that's why 95% of people get punished. Makes perfect sense to me.

  • #14 sturk1

    One of the cases I voted on the player had only 1 report. It was for verbal abuse. Literally the only thing that player said the entire game was "GG". The Tribunal voted to punish.

    So no, you can show up in the Tribunal for 1 report and you can be punished for retarded reasons.

  • #16 kYwzor

    Lyte said many times you simply can't end up on tribunal with one report. When the tribunal only shows you one game it's a bug. Possibly other people were seeing that case with more games than you saw.
    Lyte also said the tribunal sometimes indeed fails. Because it happens such little times, player support/forum whining can fix it on a case-by-case basis.

  • #19 jook2oh

    Literally the only thing that player said the entire game was "GG".

    He could have fed on purpose.  Was the team harassing him?  Then again, if they didn't even know his ping, then I want to know the reason for the ban.

    Last edited by jook2oh: 4/27/2013 2:00:18 PM
  • #10 JagGentlemann

    Poppy the next to disapear, yay.

    The old Eve was absolutely useless even if you were good with her, but Poppy is not. They deleted Karma because people are metasheeps and don't give a chance to the champs that are not FotM, and the rest of us must pay their ignorance.

  • #13 kYwzor

    no, they changed Karma because she lacked non-scaling factors as a support and had little scaling as an AP Carry. Overall she couldn't ever be competitive. Also, her thematic was very confusing.

    As for Poppy, let's wait and see

  • #9 RoakOriginal

    Lot of interesting things again, but most important thing is missing... :(

    When will we see Freljord patch live??? :D

  • #6 Gameguy301
    i see he dodged comenting on shaco in that poppy section, wander whats up with that. it was a crack directed right at him and he didnt even aknowledge it.
    Last edited by Gameguy301: 4/27/2013 1:58:57 AM
  • #5 jook2oh

    I solved a few of these problems awhile ago.

      If someone disconnects, a new player can choose to join a game in progress.  In the main screen, you get a button called "games that need players", when you click it, you get a list of games, who is on both teams, and who you would be trading into.  You get the full IP of the game, so why wouldn't you want to join half a game and get full IP?  You might not be able to do much if that character was really far behind, but at least its not 4v5 anymore.  If the person reconnects, the team can vote who to keep, the new guy, or the old guy.  If they rage-quit after yelling a bunch, the team will probably vote to keep you.

      Check boxes next to your picture that everyone can see, if you have "support" and "apc" and "tank" selected, those are the roles you are most comfortable with.  It would save alot of chatting, cuz everyone can kind of make out who has to be what role.  Also, if you made those choices before the game, and the game set up only teams that fulfill all roles.  You will never get a team where everyone picked "top" or "mid" and noone wanted "bot".  And what is more, you can pick "support" "tank" "bruiser" "top" and "bot", and then the game will try to find you a team that has a "mid" "adc" "apc" ect.  No fighting over "adc", "jungle" or "top" because the rest of your team can see who wants what.  And you get a "gold vote", which is the role you want the most, so the game takes that into consideration.

      I have posted this on the official forums, but I don't think anyone important ever read it.  I am very good at solving problems.  Trust me, I'm an Engineer.

      Anyone can have these ideas, I don't care who gets the credit, I just want these features in the game already.  Its a race, someone MAKE THIS HAPPEN ALREADY!!  aaaaaand, go!

  • #7 CoolRoot

      Oh sorry, you dominated you lane too hard so your enemy ragequit and a diamond player took his place.

    Oh sorry, you dc'd for 3 minutes when the game was almost over, so one of your teammates invited a friend of his to the game for free IP

    What would happen to stuff like runes? Would the person get the original players runes for the game? Or get to switch? Either would be exploitable...

    You can bypass MMR by queueing on a smurf, disconnect, and immediately rejoin on a lvl 30 main acc.

    I assume you would need to have the champion you wish to jump in as avalible aswell?

    There's a thousand possible exploits with that kind of system, no offense.

    About your second half of the post - that idea is pretty common, and the usual complaint is that it "enforces the meta". There is no golden law saying that there has to be an AP carry, or an AD carry, or a Jungler, but with that kind of system the roles would be set in stone. I'm overall kind of positive to the generall idea of such a system (ofter called dungeon finder after MMO's).

  • #17 jook2oh

    Quote from CoolRoot »

    There's a thousand possible exploits with that kind of system, no offense.

    Name them all, I got all day...

    "Oh sorry, you dominated you lane too hard so your enemy ragequit and a diamond player took his place."

    Whatever matching system it uses to make the game, would be used to pick who can join a game.  Only people that would have been put in the game to start with.

    "Oh sorry, you dc'd for 3 minutes when the game was almost over, so one of your teammates invited a friend of his to the game for free IP"

    Easy, then give them a flat ammount for the time they spent in the game, plus a "filling in" bonus for helping.  And the person that disconnected wouldn't get IP for the game anyway, if he disconnected.

    "What would happen to stuff like runes? Would the person get the original players runes for the game? Or get to switch? Either would be exploitable..."

    True.  But what difference would it make if you were really far behind?  Using runes that aren't yours, you "borrow" them from the leaver, until the game ends.  That isn't insanely a problem.  And getting to pick your own rune page wouldnt be that bad, by 20 minutes in, the runes value is very very little.

    "You can bypass MMR by queueing on a smurf, disconnect, and immediately rejoin on a lvl 30 main acc."

    The game could prevent you from joining a game from the same IP that it was quit, regardless of account.  (Plus, you could only join games that the matching system would have let you to begin with, so if you have a level 15 account quitting, you couldn't join on a level 30 account anyway.)

    "I assume you would need to have the champion you wish to jump in as avalible aswell?"

    Yes, it only shows champs you own already.

    "About your second half of the post - that idea is pretty common, and the usual complaint is that it "enforces the meta". There is no golden law saying that there has to be an AP carry, or an AD carry, or a Jungler, but with that kind of system the roles would be set in stone. I'm overall kind of positive to the generall idea of such a system (ofter called dungeon finder after MMO's)."

    Uhm, people argue the meta already in chat.  The game uses your "top" "mid" and "bot" to pick who goes on a team, then all the "bruiser" "adc" "apc" is all up to the players.  And just add a buttons called "current meta match" "random meta match".  Problem solved.

     

    Last edited by jook2oh: 4/27/2013 1:38:31 PM
  • #8 DuskSC2

    This would encourage teams to abuse and harass a player having a bad game trying to force them to dodge so they could get a new player. this is not a fix in anyway shape or form. Its toxicity in a can

    your second "fix" would dramatically increase Que times and still not fix team comp arguments. Lets say i click top and like to play glass cannons top. well a bruiser top mid guy has to take a tank mid... well he wont want to do that so he trolls or dodges and then another very long Que time. Also this enforces meta unless you have like 25+ options to click.. and the more option you have the worse Que times get. could you imagine waiting 5-20 minutes for a game... have a few dodges and you end up spending almost an hour in Que for 2 or 3 games.

    Engineer =\= Game designer 

  • #18 jook2oh

    Quote from DuskSC2 »

    Engineer =\= Game designer 

    Have you heard of "software engineer"?  Every program/game/website was made by a software engineer.  If any problem is ever fixed, it will be by an engineer...  ("programmer" and "software engineer" mean the exact same thing)

    "This would encourage teams to abuse and harass a player having a bad game trying to force them to dodge so they could get a new player. this is not a fix in anyway shape or form. Its toxicity in a can"

    If you abuse players, you get reported.  And how do you know the new guy wouldn't be worse than the original?  Plus, if you abuse a player to rage-quit, by the time a new person joins and loads the game, they would be like 5 levels behind.  You would be worse off than if you had let the bad player stay.  If they were 3 levels behind, the new guy would be like 7 lvls behind.

    "your second "fix" would dramatically increase Que times and still not fix team comp arguments. "

    As mentioned above, 2 buttons, "standard meta", "random meta".

     

  • #4 MICHAEL419
    Yay for behavior modification. What we all need from game designers...
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes