Boards›Gameplay

Riot, the experience for players goes to shit when you release a champion, and this is not okay.

HalcyonDweller··46 votes·14,038 views

Riot, this experience sucks. Whenever a new champion comes out or Riot reworks a champion, matchmaking goes to complete shit. I've seen numerous people come to the boards complaining about it already, and I know it's going to be awful trying to play tonight, tomorrow, and even this weekend. And it's not even your fault. People are extremely motivated to act selfishly whenever you release a new champion. But you need to plan for this and do something about it. You can't just leave us all to fend for ourselves like it's the wild west or something.

  1. Queue times take forever because WAY too many people are dodging when the new champion gets picked or banned by somebody else.

  2. There's massive competition to play the new champion, so people become super toxic about picks and bans.

  3. People take the new champion into Ranked when they don't have a fucking clue how to play it right.

League is a modern game isn't it? There has to be a solution that works for everyone involved. Blind pick doesn't cut it, everyone knows that blind pick is way more toxic than draft pick, and most people still play draft pick in either normals or ranked.

Here are a few suggestions, of varying degrees of extremeness:

  1. Temporarily increase Dodge Penalties whenever a champion is released or reworked. When just a few people do it it's not a big deal, but with new champions this goes up tenfold. The shorter dodge penalties are because Riot wants to give people some chances in case of emergencies or extremely toxic teammates, but with new champion releases the ratio of legitimate dodges to entitled-brat-induced dodges goes way down. Don't go easy on people who dodge like brats.

  2. Temporarily enable (Or give people an 'admission ticket' for x number of games of) One-For-All on the week the champion hits the free-to-play rotation. This will reduce competition to play the new champ.

  3. Require mastery 1 or 2 on a champion for it to be taken into ranked. This would ensure that people are less likely to fuck up with the new champ when they play him in ranked, and it would keep people from banning him to keep their teammates from playing him in ranked.

Thoughts? Disagreements? Other suggestions for Riot? Jump into the discussion in the comments down below.

88 Comments

Critmaster Garen43 votes
  • disable bans on the new champion in normal draft for 2 weeks
  • disable the new champion in ranked games for 2 weeks
  • put one for all on rotation for the weekends of rework champions and new champions. this way everyone who just wants to try him gets statisfied.

honestly, the mastery 2 to take a champion into ranked games should be a general requirement. this way no one ever can pick a champion that he hasnt at least played a couple games with.

DrCyanide12 votes

The only exception for the Mastery 2 rule is trading. There are champions I barely touch, but if someone else wants me to pick it for them and we can trade champs then that's cool.

Alternatively, Riot could make Trading happen before you pick, where you instead trade pick positions.

Critmaster Garen20 votes

{quoted}

The only exception for the Mastery 2 rule is trading. There are champions I barely touch, but if someone else wants me to pick it for them and we can trade champs then that's cool.

Alternatively, Riot could make Trading happen before you pick, where you instead trade pick positions.

trading pick positions instead of champions would be a really good solution. the effect is basically the same with less room for error.

also you dont have the issue of "i cant pick x for your because i dont own it"

HalcyonDweller13 votes

I'm a big fan of the idea of trading pick positions instead of trading champions.

Flawless Fetus2 votes

Meh. A major part, arguably the biggest part, of trading is champ priority. Vary rarely do I trade roles. I frequently first pick a high priority champ for someone else - or ask them to, for me.

Critmaster Garen4 votes

[{quoted}](name=ßlended Fetus,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9syf3QZB,comment-id=0001000000000001,timestamp=2018-06-01T00:12:43.928+0000)

Meh. A major part, arguably the biggest part, of trading is champ priority. Vary rarely do I trade roles. I frequently first pick a high priority champ for someone else - or ask them to, for me.

yes, im aware of that. trading pick positions would do that aswell.

Flawless Fetus1 votes

Maybe my brain isn't working. Can you explain how?

Serika Zero3 votes

Trading positions. As in, pick-ban positions. As in: first pick, second pick, etc.

So, instead of you picking champion XXXX which is high priority for one of your team members. You trade your pick position with them, and they will got from being number 2,3,4,5 to being number 1 in the pick order. And you take their spot. This way, they can pick the high priority target themselves.

And this also solves the issue of you not having said champion in your pool, because you can just allow that person to get your position in pick-ban order and pick the champion themselves if they supposedly have it.

so, you trading positions isn't: trade position/role in game (jungle, adc, etc), but trading your position in the pick-ban order ^^

ps: while this system seems amazing and having no cost, and definitely a good replacement for the current 'trade champions' system, they will most likely no implement it due to lcs and how important pick/ban is over there. As it will kill the "flex positions" "hype".

Critmaster Garen3 votes

[{quoted}](name=ßlended Fetus,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9syf3QZB,comment-id=000100000000000100000000,timestamp=2018-06-01T07:23:37.642+0000)

Maybe my brain isn't working. Can you explain how?

instead of trading champions, you trade pick order.

so instead of first picking a champion for someone else, and then trade champions with him, you simply trade your place in the draft order, swap the guy himself in as first pick, while you swap down to whatever pick order he was in.

this would have largely the same effect as trading champions and giving your teammates the ability to first pick priority picks, with the advantage that you dont have to own each others champions to do it.

RookPusher5 votes

If they brought back TeamBuilder everything would be fine.

HalcyonDweller2 votes

Perhaps. Perhaps not, I think that might be an oversimplification of the issue. Queue times would still be long.

Why do you think that TeamBuilder would fix the issue?

RookPusher3 votes

{quoted}

Perhaps. Perhaps not, I think that might be an oversimplification of the issue. Queue times would still be long.

Why do you think that TeamBuilder would fix the issue?

Queue times is the boogy man Riot loves to roll out. But when you factor in dodge time I'd bet it's not as extreme as they're claiming. It's bad math IMO.

TeamBuilder let's everyone agree up front who they're playing and in what role. It also gives people a reason NOT to use the new champ in Ranked (where it's a gamble.) If I want to play Pyke, I start a game as Pyke in the support slot and let other folks join. This gives an almost insta-option for anyone since there's an ocean's worth of support's out there.

And it meant there could be a Pyke on each team. It would solve a ton of problems.

DrCyanide2 votes

What alternative dimension did you come from?

Team Builder was a minimum of a 20 minute commitment to get a match, even if you already had a support. It was plagued by "dodges", where people would join your lobby, take one look at your team, then leave. If ~10% of the queue is all trying to play the same champion, they're unable to be matched together, which makes the whole process take even longer.

Team Builder is the opposite of solving the problem. There's a good reason that queue was put out of it's misery.

RookPusher3 votes

{quoted}

What alternative dimension did you come from?

Team Builder was a minimum of a 20 minute commitment to get a match, even if you already had a support. It was plagued by "dodges", where people would join your lobby, take one look at your team, then leave. If ~10% of the queue is all trying to play the same champion, they're unable to be matched together, which makes the whole process take even longer.

Team Builder is the opposite of solving the problem. There's a good reason that queue was put out of it's misery.

Let's play "Spot the Midlaner."

Assuming there wasn't a support release, queueing as Support in TB was an insta-game. Bring a friend to take another bullshit role and it was lightning games. I'm sorry your Yas/Mid wait times were long. Still, I appreciate the downvote.

DrCyanide2 votes

I'll repeat myself for emphasis:

even if you already had a support.

If I was queuing alone as mid I could maybe have understood some extra delay. I was queuing with a Support main every time. "Insta-game" was apparently still 20 minutes, regardless of if I was mid or ADC.

RookPusher1 votes

{quoted}

I'll repeat myself for emphasis:

If I was queuing alone as mid I could maybe have understood some extra delay. I was queuing with a Support every time. "Insta-game" was apparently still 20 minutes, regardless of if I was mid or ADC.

I find it hard to believe. I'm sorry but we had wildly different experiences.

DrCyanide2 votes

I think there was a sweet spot that worked for some players (likely some combination of MMR, teammate role preferences, their own picks, and some other factors), and that those players absolutely loved the queue as a result. For the rest of the community, the restrictiveness of the mode combined with high queue times (and an uncanny knack for mirror matchups when trying to learn a champion, even if they weren't new) lead to them abandoning it, which in turn lead to Riot abandoning it.

Regardless, I don't think it would be the best solution for new champions. People could lock in Pyke for Top/Jungle/Mid/ADC/Support, true. And they could wait as long need, but you still need to get others into that queue to play with them. To me, that sounds like some sort of hybrid queue, where there aren't bans, some people can lock in Role+Champ while others just pick/are assigned a Role. I could see that maybe working, but certainly not Team Builder as it existed before.

ZaneShadow5 votes

Hey! I read your post and think you had some good points and others not as much

  • for your point on Que times and toxicity, Riot has a lot of systems in place to deal with this, from reporting to Doge timers. After that, what can they do?

  • Ranked issues is something I’ve heard a lot of people say. Others love a champ and want to dive in right away against actually good opponents so they can learn, and ranked is a strong place to do that. I do think perhaps including a two day buffer, where on the third you can take them into ranked, would mean that the player at least has some skill at the champion after grinding a few games out with them. I do like the idea of it being mastery based though, since that could be applied to all champions and help avoid serious trolling. I would keep the bar low though, since some players struggle getting enough champions to even que for ranked, much less have mastery on each champ.

  • As for regular play, nothing anyone can do about it without damaging Riots margins, which hurts the longevity of the game. Enabling one-for-all with new champs has to cut their margins, since less people will feel the urge to buy with money. Instead they’ll just settle for one-for-all as they grind out the blue essence to unlock champ. That sounds good until you realize anything that cuts Riots profit directly reduces what they can afford to put back into the game. So while it sucks to have people dodging all the time, it’s part of the reality of a new champ.

warpenguin5554 votes

This is why I miss team builder. It was a great place to play the new champ, even though queue times sucked for the people trying to play it

Critmaster Garen13 votes

{quoted}

This is why I miss team builder. It was a great place to play the new champ, even though queue times sucked for the people trying to play it

team builder was handled incredibly poorly. they could have made improvements to decrease que times.

the mode only allowed you to que up with one single champion, for one single position.

you should have been able to que up with your entire personal champion pool, and select multiple positions for each champion.

for example you should have been able to que up with nautilus for top, jungle and support if you wanted. and you should have been able to add more champions with multiple positions each. this would have drastically reduced que times, because it would have drastically increased the number of combinations of viable teams with the same number of people in que.

Wert the Wacky4 votes

I played Pyke for two weeks in PBE, why should I have to wait until I have mastery on him to play in ranked?

My Waifu Vanilla5 votes

I mean if you are so good on him it shouldn't take too much to get mastery 2 hmm? Especially in mirror matches where you are going to win? It takes 2 wins and like a loss if you do well enough in all of them to get mastery rank 2. Climbing mastery only takes time if you lose, but since you are so confidant in your abilities that shouldn't take too long right?

KVbqbFsC8e3 votes

It also doesn't help that one of those missions requires you to play with/against Pyke in PVP matches. Thats something I'd much rather just do in a co-op vs AI game.

HalcyonDweller3 votes

Agreed! I think that maybe they were hoping to make it so people would ban the champ less, but I presume it's not working? (Haven't had a chance to play on the new patch yet)

KVbqbFsC8e1 votes

I've played two games and Pyke got through in both of them, but thats definitely too small of a sample size. But it does keep me from permabanning the new champ as I always do, because I otherwise will never complete the mission unless I buy Pyke myself, which is something I have no intention to do.

HalcyonDweller1 votes

Maybe I am wrong then. But it does seem like there is an uptick in toxicity and trolling whenever champions are released.

KVbqbFsC8e1 votes

Sometimes people will rage when you ban a new champion that they are hovering. Its pretty ridiculous.

Automated Riven2 votes

Don't ban champs people hover. It's extremely rude.

KVbqbFsC8e6 votes

Not nearly as rude as first timing brand new champions in Ranked.

Automated Riven2 votes

Don't play ranked the first week after a champion is released. Now you aren't rude, and you don't lose/gain elo, depending on the net gain loss you won't know about since you aren't playing ranked.

I personally think that banning a pick intent should be ban able.

HalcyonDweller5 votes

I agree that banning a pick hover is rude, however, it's not fair to bar people who value genuine competition from ranked just because other people want to first-time a new champion. Ranked is the competitive game mode for people who intend to play competitively.

People who want to first-time Pyke should be using normals for that. Trying new things is what casual play is for, after all.

Automated Riven3 votes

I agree with everything you said here, however, I would argue that riot should institute something like your idea here. (mastery level 2 or so to play in ranked) and then punish people who ban away pick intents without communication.

For me personally. I have intended to play riven, and had her banned away from me in ranked for stupid reasons. Multiple times. Stupid reasons like 'your winrate is only 50%' 'your a silver riven player, you probably don't even understand how to play her' 'she is too hard for silver players' 'i don't want riven on my team'

I would rather be focus harrassed by all 9 other players in the game every game then be target banned by my own team.

IMHO if someone hovers a champ then you should not be able to ban it. Period. It feels like shit to be on the recieving end. It feels like shit even when I am not playing riven btw.

If it's the problem in ranked then the appropriate response is to fix the interaction in ranked. Not foster a 'you have only played 2 ranked games on this champ. Play someone else' -ban- mentality.

Also, I never suggested barring anyone from ranked. I said in essence "if you can't stop yourself from being a dick to people then don't play ranked while your increasingly more likely to be a dick"

Note. I would also say the same to people who want to first time champs in ranked. It's also rude. The intentionally lower the skill level of your team isn't a good practice. It's not ban able. Nor do I think it should be because it really only has lasting effects on the people who choose to do it often, rather the the people who do not. But, mind you, I would also advise them to 'dont be a dick' (unless your pick intent is maliciously target banned. Then close your eyes and choose someone at random and do the best you can)

Side note edit what do you say to op.gg stalking people before the game and banning them out if they don't fit ones 'criteria' for a reasonable ranked pick. Should that also be acceptable and, dare I say it, laudable behavior? What about banning out people if the champ only has a 45% winrate. Or is almost never played? If it's ok to ban people out in ranked for first timing should these other things be acceptable practice as well?

Edit 2 I apologize if I come across as rude. I don't intend to. It just pissed me off that banning people's pick intents is considered to be acceptable when other things aren't. You are still potentially ruining someone's game. People who may not have time to play more then 1 game a day. Or even the time to play more then a few games a week. And we are to believe that telling anyone they may not play a champ because of 'reasons' is fucking stupid IMHO.

HalcyonDweller2 votes

No worries mate I know you're just passionate about this, I won't take offense nor are there any hard feelings here. TBH I agree with a lot of what you've said here anyways. But on to responding nonetheless!

[{quoted}](name=Automated Riven,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9syf3QZB,comment-id=0003000000000000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2018-06-01T00:37:37.394+0000)

I agree with everything you said here, however, I would argue that riot should institute something like your idea here. (mastery level 2 or so to play in ranked) and then punish people who ban away pick intents without communication.

I would be 100% on board with this. It's fair to all sides I think.

For me personally. I have intended to play riven, and had her banned away from me in ranked for stupid reasons. Multiple times. Stupid reasons like 'your winrate is only 50%' 'your a silver riven player, you probably don't even understand how to play her' 'she is too hard for silver players' 'i don't want riven on my team'

That is horrible, those people are garbage people, and I'm very sorry that you had to deal with any of those situations. That sucks, no ifs ands or buts.

I would rather be focus harrassed by all 9 other players in the game every game then be target banned by my own team.

IMHO if someone hovers a champ then you should not be able to ban it. Period. It feels like shit to be on the recieving end. It feels like shit even when I am not playing riven btw.

I feel for ya, I completely understand that it is frustrating and unfair. I don't think it's cool to do either, and when I'm playing with friends I discourage them from banning an ally's hover without communicating first.

If it's the problem in ranked then the appropriate response is to fix the interaction in ranked. Not foster a 'you have only played 2 ranked games on this champ. Play someone else' -ban- mentality.

Also, I never suggested barring anyone from ranked. I said in essence "if you can't stop yourself from being a dick to people then don't play ranked while your increasingly more likely to be a dick"

With you all the way here.

Note. I would also say the same to people who want to first time champs in ranked. It's also rude. The intentionally lower the skill level of your team isn't a good practice. It's not ban able. Nor do I think it should be because it really only has lasting effects on the people who choose to do it often, rather the the people who do not. But, mind you, I would also advise them to 'dont be a dick' (unless your pick intent is maliciously target banned. Then close your eyes and choose someone at random and do the best you can)

I'm not really okay with people playing random crap when their pick gets banned. People should have backups prepared since the enemy team could ban their champion too. Picking something random is essentially trolling, since it's being done specifically out of spite against the target banner. The 3 other people on the team don't deserve to have to deal with that.

Side note edit what do you say to op.gg stalking people before the game and banning them out if they don't fit ones 'criteria' for a reasonable ranked pick. Should that also be acceptable and, dare I say it, laudable behavior? What about banning out people if the champ only has a 45% winrate. Or is almost never played? If it's ok to ban people out in ranked for first timing should these other things be acceptable practice as well?

Oh hell no. People who do that are scum in my opinion. That's awful to do to someone.

Edit 2 I apologize if I come across as rude. I don't intend to. It just pissed me off that banning people's pick intents is considered to be acceptable when other things aren't. You are still potentially ruining someone's game. People who may not have time to play more then 1 game a day. Or even the time to play more then a few games a week. And we are to believe that telling anyone they may not play a champ because of 'reasons' is fucking stupid IMHO.

I hear you, like I said at the beginning no hard feelings. I agree that target banning an ally is a garbage thing to do. Nobody has a right to force their teammate to play how they want them to.

ESeTyRC3 votes

I don't remember how long it takes to get Mastery 1 on a champion, but I'd even settle for just 2 or 3 games won with given champ.

Still beats out fresh 1st time players using something in ranked.

GripaAviara2 votes

Simple solution: when you release a champion, have it be unavailable for ranked for a week. That simple.

HalcyonDweller4 votes

I liked that solution too at first, but that wouldn't stop people who prefer to only play ranked from waiting a week and just picking the champion up to first-time it in ranked afterwards.

SociopathFriend2 votes

But you need to plan for this and do something about it. You can't just leave us all to fend for ourselves like it's the wild west or something.

  1. No they don't. Their plan is to let the champion be released and get the most data possible from all modes- that includes Ranked.
  2. Yes they can. You're grown people, you can deal with someone doing something you don't like in a video game.

Players can and will take stupid things into queue even in Ranked. This is the problem, first-timing new champions is a symptom, not the problem; and the problem is not going to ever vanish.

They gave you a solution to this symptom (not the problem)- it's called a ban. Your ban. Your 1-10 chance to say, "I don't want this in my game." Did someone dodge? Separate problem, separate solution, they get timers where they no longer can play. Was someone toxic and inting in-game because you banned their champion? Separate problem, separate solution, mute and report.

Professor Ward2 votes

[{quoted}](name=Love and Peace V,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9syf3QZB,comment-id=0009,timestamp=2018-06-01T04:21:04.418+0000)

  1. No they don't. Their plan is to let the champion be released and get the most data possible from all modes- that includes Ranked.
  2. Yes they can. You're grown people, you can deal with someone doing something you don't like in a video game.

Players can and will take stupid things into queue even in Ranked. This is the problem, first-timing new champions is a symptom, not the problem; and the problem is not going to ever vanish.

They gave you a solution to this symptom (not the problem)- it's called a ban. Your ban. Your 1-10 chance to say, "I don't want this in my game." Did someone dodge? Separate problem, separate solution, they get timers where they no longer can play. Was someone toxic and inting in-game because you banned their champion? Separate problem, separate solution, mute and report.

being grown and being able to "deal" isnt a good excuse for bullshit in any case.

Ryouhi2 votes

I wish they just brought back Teambuilder.

I was really excited to play Pyke yesterday, but after people kept dodging and dodging and dodging (and the game kept putting me last pick which was hella tilting) i was so frsutrated that i don't feel like playing at all until the hype dies down.

Teridax681 votes

HotS's quick-match mode, which is the equivalent of League's Blind Pick, lets you choose your character before you start a game, rather than in a lobby (in fact, it skips the lobby section entirely). Thus, you are guaranteed to get the champion you want, and depending on how in-demand that champion is, your queue times will be longer or shorter. Additionally, the matchmaking auto-picks equivalent comps for both teams, so if one team doesn't have a support, the other doesn't either. This allows players to queue up pretty quickly for a match (plus you get to sidestep the entire lobby), while avoiding dodges and other toxicity. I think League could take a page out of this and implement this kind of method to Blind Pick, which could not only kill a lot of the frustration associated with dodging, instalocking and autofilling, especially when a new champion's out, but could also potentially diversify normal games a bit more, since getting an unconventional comp wouldn't be the end of the world (plus it'd be balanced against the opposing team's equally weird comp).

HalcyonDweller2 votes

All of this sounds amazing. I'd really like to see it in action! I guess I'll have to touch games tainted by blizzard's hands once again, at least long enough to try this quick-match mode.

Daddy SaltLord1 votes

I don't think you should be able to play a new champion in ranked for atleast 2 weeks.

HalcyonDweller1 votes

I agree, however there are a lot of pitfalls in the process to implement something like that. That's why requiring mastery 1 or 2 would be more fair, so that people who put the time in to figure out what to do won't be unfairly blocked from playing him.

Daddy SaltLord1 votes

{quoted}

I agree, however there are a lot of pitfalls in the process to implement something like that. That's why requiring mastery 1 or 2 would be more fair, so that people who put the time in to figure out what to do won't be unfairly blocked from playing him.

I just find it silly that champions that people haven't played against or with suddenly get thrown into the mix.

Linna Excel1 votes

As many people have suggested, just keep that champ out of ranked for the first week.

HalcyonDweller1 votes

That won't work though, because people who choose to only play ranked will just play other things and then start him up again as soon as the restriction lifts.

It has to be something based on non-ranked matches played with that champion. Could be a required number of matches or could require basic mastery level with the champ, just something to make sure that people don't play it in ranked without knowing what they are doing first.

Linna Excel1 votes

So what do you want, make people play a champ 10 times before they can take it into ranked?

HalcyonDweller1 votes

is that how long it takes to get mastery level one? Last I heard you can accomplish mastery one with just a few wins. Maybe with losses it would take longer but that would be fair, since loss is a sign that someone might not have figured out their champion yet.

That's my understanding of it at least.

Linna Excel1 votes

10 games is the early learning curve for most champs if you look at any of the stats sites. That would be a logical place to put a restriction if any.

HalcyonDweller1 votes

Alright then, I'm fine with that if that's the turning point most of the time.

More from Gameplay

3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay764 comments
7,167
votes
3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay156 comments
3,510
votes
UPVOTE FOR URF
Gameplay606 comments
2,440
votes
Yes plz.
Gameplay456 comments
1,721
votes
3 Refunds per season, up vote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay114 comments
1,716
votes
When is ANYONE at riot going to address the awful new player experience?
Gameplay634 comments
1,383
votes

More by HalcyonDweller

PSA: You shouldn't negotiate with champion select terrorists. Here is why:
Player Behavior193 comments
177
votes
Riot should insta-ban any account that says this in chat:
Player Behavior138 comments
130
votes
Riot, give us wish-lists.
Story, Art, & Sound27 comments
107
votes
Games are too short, and snowball too quickly.
Gameplay148 comments
103
votes
Can we please put the "safe space" argument to rest?
Player Behavior314 comments
86
votes
We mute a player in-game because we don't want their chat, so why do they get un-muted in post-game?
Player Behavior55 comments
74
votes