Boards›Gameplay

[Proposal] Matchmaking Improvements and Labels

LockedWalrus··135 votes·11,044 views

The time has come for Riot to tackle community issues and turn league of legends into the true MOBA dream. I am a frequent player of League of Legends who is determined to try to improve this community. However, with my recent experiences in league of legends consisting of toxicity and the occasional intentional feeder, it is obvious action must be performed. Today I will be proposing a series of features that will in theory inspire players to be more positive, and give vital punishments to disincentivize whatever riot deems as improper behavior.

#[The Plan]

(Note, this is a long term solution, and probably won't have much influence when first introduced.)

#PART 1: Matchmaking and Labels

My theory revolves around a system of visible and invisible labels, as well as mods and similar qualified community members working together to identify truly bad members of the community. The first part of this plan, the labels, will be used to more clearly assist in overall tribunal activity. This would include having players labeled as toxic or as feeders (more on how these labels would be dispensed in the mods/community part of the plan). This can be applied to any aspect of the report system, from people who frequently leave, to people who are just generally rude or disrespectful to teammates and other members of the community. Additionally, the same could be done for positive community influences, similar to the honor system. My personal belief is that negative labels will be kept inaccessible to regular members of the community, while positive influences will be proudly displayed to other people.

http://i.imgur.com/ASj7ZcT.jpg

Another way to promote the benefits of positive players is to group positive players when in matchmaking. This can also be applied to making games full of people labeled as prone to toxicity. This feature will incentivize being positive, which will effectively lead to a more positive community. Positive members of the community will be rewarded by being grouped with other positive people, overall improving the League of Legends experience.

http://i.imgur.com/8BupMhl.png

Tiers of negativity and positivity can also be created in order to avoid the problem of more neutral players being matched with serious offenders. A simple way to complete this is to have "+" signs as a way to ranking positive tiers. These plus signs can be displayed next to usernames in loading screens, chats, as well as on profiles.

http://i.imgur.com/Q6z8Xi9.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/vdj1owd.png

Tribunal wise, people labeled as prone to leaving or toxic can be taken better care of by experiencing their own problem first hand (getting a taste of their own medicine, so to speak). This can be done with a series of "-" signs labeling the player, however, in the case of a negative attitude player, their negative tiers should only be available to mods, in order to avoid any conflicts pertaining to outright saying "this guy is toxic" to the whole community.

http://i.imgur.com/H3XiYUP.png

After this feature is implemented, "+"s will be acquired possibly by assisting a mod who has joined a game (more on that later), or just having "+"s distributed based on a players in game honor, based on frequency of their honor, of course. Adding on to that, at the end of the game, members of both team could nominate a person from the game to get a "+" (most likely a ranked game, due to the more serious nature of the queue), in which after this a mod will review the game's chat logs and even possibly spectate a game from the nominee. If the nominee deserves to receive a "+" then bam, we have an accurate assessment of good people in the community. The opposite of this should also be possible, with players able to nominate multiple players for a "-" tier. Mods can easily see the chat logs of these players and most likely assign them with their well deserved label. In order to avoid a literal ELO hell, players vote as toxic trapped with other toxic players will be able to apply for a mod to reset their label. In this case, a mod would view the applicant's games and chat logs and deem them worthy or unworthy of leaving ELO hell. This system is efficient because it doesn't give complete control to either side. The only way this system can be corrupted would be with the inclusion of corrupt mods who don't attempt to uphold league's rules. Part 2 of the proposal covers my theoretical mod system.

#PART 2: Mods and Community Members.

This portion of my proposal is dedicated to a possible mod and player system to label the toxic members of the community. The first part of this revolves around having a process to recruit frequent and beyond outgoing members of the community as mods. These mods will have authority to join games and settle problems between players first hand. Mods will have full chat logs of each team, as well as the ability to deal with minor problems such as chat restrictions. Additionally, these mods can flat out end games in drastic enough situations. My proposed process of this will be mods determining the full extent of a games situation. The mod will then give a ban of various sizes to the violator(s). This will be followed by a loss prevention to the team with the unfortunate fate of dealing with the violator(s) and a win will be given to the enemy team due to the wrong place, wrong time nature of the encounter. The process of becoming a mod would be more up to Riot themselves to design, as I am only trying to propose a base for an improved system. This can theoretically be done various ways, one of which being an application system, or a promotion system based on number of "+"s. Additionally, a new voting system could be created where everyone within a game could request a mod (example shown below). In this way mods will be able to effectively label wrong doers amongst the community, while also giving normal members of the community more power to influence the community in a positive manner. This voting system would have to revolve around the amount of "+" (described in part one), with people possessing more "+" positive tiers having more influence in the vote.

http://i.imgur.com/Fao7DAK.png

With a staff of mods and a method of showing positive League members, neutral players will no longer have to become toxic to combat the insults of other community members.

(Note, an abundant staff of mods is needed for this plan, in which I'm sure the community would be more than happy to help riot improve the community. After all, the community is how we are represented, and no one wants to be represented as toxic.)

Conclusion: This proposal has been created as a way to both solve the problems inherit in the League of Legends matchmaking system, as well as in their reporting and honor system. This plan incentivizes being a good sport and supporting others, rather than forcing it on unwilling people. People who are just generally toxic will be stuck with their own kind, giving a new meaning to ELO hell. In this environment these players will learn to become less toxic and more supportive in order to avoid their own kind as teammates.

  • This is being sent to various League of Legends YouTubers and other influential community members in order to determine the viability of this system as well as improve it. All YouTubers involved in recommendation and improvements will be credited below

SkyWilliams- No Response Yet Gnarsies- No Response Yet More to add (Please recommend) :

I inquire that everyone viewing this post adds on to the idea, and provides their thoughts on the proposal. I intend to make this post a nest for people to list complaints and suggestions that are otherwise ignored by the community and riot.

##The community should be rewarded for positivity, rather than punished for negativity. Focusing on the positives is the only way to cause negative aspects to change.

107 Comments

ModAttysu The Poro20 votes

Great idea! You can always post the proposal in Gnarsies' comments section to his toxicity video, he replies to a helluva lot of comments on his videos because it's the only reliable way he gets notifications.

LockedWalrus2 votes

Just messaged him. I thought that after his recent video he would have some insight into this issue. Thank you so much for the feedback :D:D:D:D:D:D:D.

ModAttysu The Poro2 votes

{quoted}

Just messaged him. I thought that after his recent video he would have some insight into this issue. Thank you so much for the feedback :D:D:D:D:D:D:D.

No problem! The only issue I have, is that I'll be seeing a LOT of negative signs in my games and I'll always be like "eeeeergh another idiottttt" xD

LockedWalrus4 votes

Well, in my post I meant for mods to be the only people in game to see negative signs. However, a person with multiple negatives would be placed with other negatives, creating an ELO hell like complex where only truly kind members of the community can participate with other kind people. However, members of this unofficial ELO hell can appeal for a neutral reset after displaying enough positive behavior, and after a mod reviews their most recent games. But feel free to make any recommendations of edits or such :D.

ModAttysu The Poro2 votes

{quoted}

Well, in my post I meant for mods to be the only people in game to see negative signs. However, a person with multiple negatives would be placed with other negatives, creating an ELO hell like complex where only truly kind members of the community can participate with other kind people. But feel free to make any recommendations of edits or such :D.

OOOOH! I get you now xD

The one thing I'd add, is making positive signs public, so people can know if they're playing with nice people, like badges. (Not sure if that's what you meant by positives, but yeah xD)

Also, that old layout tho. :3

LockedWalrus3 votes

Positive signs are public! The first pictures I put displayed how I would intend to show them, such as on loading screens as well as chats. At a normal person's view, people who are neutral and have negative signs are identical.

ModAttysu The Poro3 votes

{quoted}

Positive signs are public! The first pictures I put displayed how I would intend to show them, such as on loading screens as well as chats. At a normal person's view, people who are neutral and have negative signs are identical.

Ah, yes! I give your post:

10 item 3902 / 10 item 3902

LockedWalrus3 votes

Thank you good sir!

ModAttysu The Poro3 votes

{quoted}

Thank you good sir!

:D We need more logical people like you in these boards. I tip my fedora for you.

http://i.imgur.com/fz4A9CP.gif[/img]

Manwalrus2 votes

He has a subreddit where he answers some questions too I believe.

Brascus10 votes

I'm all for some of your suggestions especially the "vote in a moderator", the only thing I have gripes with is that relegating players to a prison like environment won't make them better people, the US incarceration institute is as much evidence you need to understand that depravity does not change people for the better. If you look at Scandinavia though, rehabilitation proves to be more promising to get people to drop bad habits and I think Lyte is pretty aware of this, but as far as implementation goes, I can't say.

It's important that toxic players are separated from (the most) flammable environments, so taking them out of ranked is a start, but moving into rehab do they interact with other players? Do they play along side bots that spam tips in blue text? Who knows :)

LockedWalrus2 votes

Like I said in other comments, the system will have to be refined based on how it runs at first. My belief is that a toxic player will stop being toxic in order to avoid other toxic players, but it would be impossible to truly know until actually tested. The main purpose of a system like this, however, would be to award outgoing members of the community by queuing them with other outgoing members. The real dream is for a person good enough for plat to get from bronze to plat without any feeders, afks, or overall toxic environments. The shifting of the matchmaking system would allow skilled players who are helpful towards their teammates and opponents to flourish in the ranked system. And let's be honest, if someone is toxic enough to be trapped in a negative loop, they probably do not deserve to play with quality teammates.

T RexHasTinyArms2 votes

The problem isn't toxic players not being unable to reform, like prisoners' island somehow makes getting back impossible, but rather the question of the burden of reentry. For instance, if you have 3-4 players raging at you, threatening to afk, going afk, it becomes more difficult to be positive. Personally I think the only way I'd remain level headed is to just mute all and never speak. This creates the issue of whether or not just not speaking is of value. It doesn't constitute positive behavior really and doesn't model reform as much as it does restraint.

Maybe I'm too prone to negative behavior, but I would bet that given the work I've done regarding my anger I probably am more aware of and resistant to reactivate impulses than many lol players who are not toxic. So if a neutral player would have difficulty not being negative and might only be able to not interact with the people in order to avoid negative behavior, is it reasonable to expect someone who has a history of negativity to be able to practice/learn how to be positive in this environment? If you can't get out by being silent, would the average lol player be able to get out (because if a neutral player put in the toxic prisoners' island is unable to get out it is an unreasonable burden to expect toxic players to reform there)? If you can get out by being silent and not reforming, won't it just be a cycle of "be quiet, get out, rage at teammates, get put in, be quiet, get out, ad infinitum?"

Personally I like the idea of mods to review negative behavior/frequently reported accounts. Yeah the auto system exists but wasn't that up before Forgiven was banned and he as reported in a ton of games before anything happened. Also more concrete incentives for being positive, such as being in the same que, but maybe the more positive behavior (not good play or skill, but being kind) points someone has the higher (by a small %) chance they get for 1st pick, 2nd pick, etc. Then for positive behavior you get better pick order average over a large enough games played sample. However, w/ riot saying they wan to institute TB draft for ranked next season that would be redundant so I'm not sure what would be a good incentive.

Troll for Trump4 votes

Putting people with other toxic people isn't healthy. It just punishes the toxic people even harder by putting them together with people who will provoke them. You should probably keep the pool mixed. Bring back the original tribunal.

disregardable4 votes

From the look of the comments, I don't need to explain to you why prisoners' island is a bad idea that will never be implemented. It's been explained.

Let's talk about toxicity in general and community mods.

"Toxic" is a word Dr. Lyte invented, meaning any negative behavior onto a victim that causes said victim to then spread negative behavior onto others, like a spreading poison. It is a word that describes an action that causes a specific reaction. When you report someone, any multitude of things could be causing that report. I've seen time and time again where a team will latch on to the failures of one person, for absolutely no reason, and blame the entire game's "inevitable" loss on that player. It's only over many games of being consistently reported can you see a possible cause and effect. That is why we have the report system we have today.

Calling in an individual community mod completely undermines that whole logic. It makes a potentially innocent person subject to the decision of one random stranger.

Whose fault is it when:

  • Draven goes 0/7
  • Karma says he's bad and never last hits
  • Draven tells her to shut the fuck up and peel better

I'm sure you have your own answer to that question, but the fact is that some people will blame both, some only one, some wouldn't even call it negative behavior. You said that, "The only way this system can be corrupted would be with the inclusion of corrupt mods", but the fact is that toxic behavior has too many interpretations for even the most good-intentioned community member to accurately judge upon. Even with your plus/minus thing (that in most likelihood could just as well turn a mod away from the truth as towards it), any punishment given off of that one game would likely be unrepresentative of what either deserves.

Furthermore, let's assume Karma's team calls a mod in on Draven, and the mod does nothing. Karma still thinks Draven is bad and will still be angry with him, and Draven will be even more upset that he was persecuted by his whole team. In a lot of cases, calling in a mod would just be avoiding the problem of getting players to actually use the mute button and act maturely.

tl;dr: A single mod can't determine whether someone is toxic for punishments, and sometimes that won't even fix the problem in the immediate term. I fail to see how community mods would be a significant improvement from our current system.

no one wants to be represented as toxic

As a side note, I take resentment to that. If nothing else, I am honest about what I believe, and I persistently share those ideas regardless of how they make me look. That is what being very toxic means to me. I do not attempt to be popular, I just want to be true to myself and what I think. Would it be better to not share some of my more critical thoughts? Probably, but that's not who I want to be. You were warned when you read my name.

ThePartyLeader3 votes

If you label all the good people or the (not toxic and trolls). Isn't it the same as labeling the trolls. And if you put the non-trolls and toxic into the same games by default you would be putting the toxic and trolls into prisoners island. Both of these strategies have been proven ineffective in social reform.

LockedWalrus4 votes

The point of making this prison like structure is to be a temporary state for toxic players. Toxic players experiencing their own problems can apply for a reset in their tier, in which a mod will review them and see if they are willing to be a kind community member. The point of this isn't necessarily to satisfy uncooperative community members, but to save the positive members of the community from the struggle of feeders, toxic people, and everything inbetween. Thank you so much for the feedback though!!!

LockedWalrus4 votes

Additionally, labeling positive players is an incentive to make players positive, with their own fancy label that they can brag to the toxic players about.

ModAttysu The Poro5 votes

{quoted}

Additionally, labeling positive players is an incentive to make players positive, with their own fancy label that they can brag to the toxic players about.

^^ great idea. I'll be in my games rocking a positive badge like:

http://i.imgur.com/epnjjmt.gif[/img]

I think I've been toxic like once. When someone was attacking my friend. :P

LockedWalrus3 votes

The mod system is also a way to ensure people don't sink to the toxic player's level and start being toxic themselves.

43161549_DEL4 votes

{quoted}

The point of making this prison like structure is to be a temporary state for toxic players. Toxic players experiencing their own problems can apply for a reset in their tier, in which a mod will review them and see if they are willing to be a kind community member. The point of this isn't necessarily to satisfy uncooperative community members, but to save the positive members of the community from the struggle of feeders, toxic people, and everything inbetween. Thank you so much for the feedback though!!!

Ok, ima just go out of my way and say it. I was in this "toxic island" you dont get out of it. Only reason I did is because of the reset to everyones shit. I had reformed but was constantly reported when I wouldnt talk in game, or would "taunt" the enemy team by saying "Don't touch my damn pink wards!" when theyd try to clear em. (the "taunt" is what one of riots "wonderful" player behaviour specialists told me). A lot of the time these "toxic" people are created when they play with feeders trolls and stuff, or other toxic players. It's been proving time and time again that toxicity breeds toxicity.

I'm waiting for all the down votes cause I spoke the truth....

LockedWalrus2 votes

Umm... the post I put described a team being able to vote a person as a negative player. This includes feeders and such. Additionally, people don't need to become toxic towards feeders or afkers if they can simply bring in a mod to instill a loss prevention. No harm done to either team, only the troll. And I also included the part about people trapped in toxic island. I proposed that these people can appeal to have it reset, in which a mod will review their player. I'm glad you took my comment out of the context of my post though sir. Only people who deserve to get out of "toxic island" will get out of "toxic island". I must also say I feel your comment about down voting as childish and quite rude.

43161549_DEL3 votes

{quoted}

Umm... the post I put described a team being able to vote a person as a negative player. This includes feeders and such. Additionally, people don't need to become toxic towards feeders or afkers if they can simply bring in a mod to instill a loss prevention. No harm done to either team, only the troll. And I also included the part about people trapped in toxic island. I proposed that these people can appeal to have it reset, in which a mod will review their player. I'm glad you took my comment out of the context of my post though sir. Only people who deserve to get out of "toxic island" will get out of "toxic island". I must also say I feel your comment about down voting as childish and quite rude.

First I feel like this needs addressing before I say anything else. I added that down vote comment because its true. As soon as someone who has an "unpopular" opinion comments, even if its true they get down voted.

Okay, now onto the actual rebuttal.

LockedWalrus, have you ever actually been in "toxic island"? Cause riot has a very similar system to what you have proposed (without asking for mods and the such) in which, toxic players get matched with toxic people. However because of this, people who get reported a lot for "toxicity", even if they are truly not toxic and are just getting false reported, will get placed into this prison. I for one, started out as a quite toxic player as their were no repercussions at first, well eventually I got stuck in this place where I would get false reported and chat restricted, hell after my first chat restriction I hid my chat off screen. Guess what though, I just kept getting chat restrictions. The chat logs given to me every single time were from a year and a half ago every single time (I could tell cause i haven't played evelynn in that long .-.). I was constantly getting placed with toxic players, trolls, afks. I was stuck in "toxic island" for no reason.

Now, what if you are a four man team with a player on your team you dislike? You four could easily down vote those people just cause the four of you asked him to pick X champion and they didn't. I did not take your comment out of context, I just replied with what was needed.

TL;DR. System will never work as their are many loopholes and ways to screw over good players. Riot has been using the "toxic island" segregation for years and it has not worked. You are just looking for ways to make it look like people are picking on you.

Have a good day, Sir or Madame.

UpsilonX1 votes

[deleted]

43161549_DEL2 votes

{quoted}

With this system people who are jerks get to play with other jerks. You can also make your way back up through being kind. This system wouldn't match people who don't voice chat with jerks, it will only do so if you are consistently rude.

Heres the thing, Riot has been using this system and has stated it doesn't work. When you get reported by people who are the ones trolling you get a "stack" against you. Yes, these decay over time and slowly get removed from honours but people do not tend to actually honour players in their games. Since the reset on restrictions, I have been false reported 15 times so far. Majority of em offensive language when I don't actually say anything all game funnily enough. I have a replay of one game where I got reported, and guess what. Only thing I said all game to the enemy team(i was in a five man so no worries from my team) "First penta as darius :D). The system just doesn't work.

UberAffe3 votes

I hope riot seriously considers this.

LockedWalrus3 votes

The purpose of this is to gain attention among the community for a new system. Thank you for your post and please spread the word!

Carnage3 votes

this is really cool

Gunslinger7443 votes

I think your chat example is honestly rather bad. That Sona's reaction is a direct response to an insulting implication (being poor) from the enemy Lulu. Of course in true League of Legends fashion, the cause is COMPLETELY ignored and the effect is what gets looked at and punished.

If someone tells me I'm poor for not owning a 30 euro skin I might just snap at them too. Because no, I can't spare that kind of money, especially not on a single skin. Rubbing my face in the fact that I can't do such a thing will be taken as a personal insult and replied to as such: angrily.

By only drawing attention to the "flaming" Sona, you're ripping it out of context and creating a situation where they get antagonised and will feel targeted and betrayed. A situation of "They're toxic!" instead of "Why are they toxic?" I may be dwelling on this too much, but being a person that has been punished for no reason and legit reason alike I can't deal with this injustice. Allow me to create a better example for you.

0/5/0 Graves overextends for the 6th time and dies again trying to 1v2 the enemy laners. Sona: "WTF ARE YOU DOING YOU AUTISTIC SHIT, FUCKING HELL ARE YOU ACTUALLY RETARDED? DEINSTALL I'M REPORTING YOU FOR FEEDING"

That's flaming, that's what should earn you negative marks. Now, lets look at this same situation a little bit differently.

0/5/0 Graves overextends for the 6th time and dies again trying to 1v2 the enemy laners. Graves: "gg report this sona, doesn't know how to play support" Sona: "flames in ethwal" (I'm pretty sure any more cursing will cause my post to be automatically deleted, you know the drill though)

See what I'm getting at? Graves didn't explicitly curse or insult anyone, so he doesn't get any negative marks. Meanwhile Sona retaliates because Graves is the one that has no idea what he's doing, not her. But that would get her negative marks and as such punished. Simply for defending her case from some idiot that thinks he's hot shit.

Also, Gnarsies is a fucking %%%%. His videos and behavior online are a facade. Just letting you know.

LockedWalrus2 votes

I appreciate your feedback and understand your complaints. The picture wasn't perhaps ideal, but it was meant to be a visual representation of what a mod might see. In that case, the sona was also in the wrong, and because the mod could see she had negative marks, she would be suspected for instigating a fight. However, you are correct about the hypothetical situation of sona and graves. This isn't perfect, but it's meant to at least inspire some sort of improved system against feeders and toxicity. By the way, gnarsies has some credibility, and this post relates to his newest video concerning the current system. It's always nice to have opinions and ideas from important influences in the community. Also, the graves who was in the wrong in situation two could be dealt with, if a vote to call in a mod was created. Then the mod could easily give the teammates in the wrong a punishment and perhaps instill a loss prevention in drastic situations.

Faded Lich2 votes

I can see how it would need some tweaking to fit Riot's general style and way of doing things (Let's be honest, Riot will never willingly hire enough people to be able to handle this proposed system as it is presented) but I love the idea and base work you did. Very good job and very nice work. Hopefully riot will at least take an idea or two from the overall and perhaps do something with it.

Shroom Junkie2 votes

Maybe people with full positive marks could, if they wanted to, be free volunteer mods? The only possible problem I see is somebody gaining full marks and then selling it off to somebody, but I think it would be really hard and take awhile to get full marks and only the truly positive people would ever get it. Anyone who is a troll mod though could probably be reported somehow, so that could fix that part of things.

LockedWalrus1 votes

I was thinking that in the application to become a mod, the marks would somewhat play into what qualifies them. Additionally, it can be required that a volunteer mod must do so and so amount of mod duties to sustain their status. Thank you for the feedback!

Shroom Junkie2 votes

Ooohhh, wait, you already had the community mods idea in there. Woops, first time I read it I just kinda skimmed, lol.

LockedWalrus2 votes

All good bro :D

GigglingAngel2 votes

I like this idea, because all people have to show now for their positive behavior are ribbons ... something that I haven't even seen on one of my specific friend's profile, even though he has tons of honors and is one of the most positive people I know.

Though, of course, this would mean that Riot would have to actually hire people to follow through with this plan... which isn't going to happen. This is why I don't take them seriously, anymore. (Or give them any of my money.)

Hellioning2 votes

Splitting people based on toxicity will do nothing but increase queue times. Especially for people on the really high and really low end of the spectrum.

And giving a loss forgiven for having a toxic player on the team would be a nightmare. They'd never have enough people to get to every game with a toxic player, and if someone played a game with someone they thought was toxic and didn't get the loss forgiven, they'd freak out and get mad and probably get more toxic because 'the other guy got away with it, so it doesn't matter what you say.'

LockedWalrus2 votes

Well, it doesn't necessarily need to increase the queue times. It would be a shift of current players. Queue time would only increase if number of people decreased. As shown in the picture, teammates grouped together aren't necessarily of the same label rank. It just means that the majority of teammates would have above average positivity level or negativity level. Additionally, the vote to call in a mod would be influenced more by members of the community proven to have integrity, the plus system. Players with negatives will have less influnce in the vote. This can be done with a value system, such as so and so amount of influence being needed. This is meant to be a large scale thing with many, many mods able to volunteer.

Hellioning2 votes

If positive players only ever get matched with positive players, queue times will go up because now there's an additional thing to check when matchmaker is attempting to matchmake (MMR, experience, etc.) It would reduce queue times because the number of people that are allowed to queue with you is reduced.

A positive player might call for a vote. That vote might bring in a mod. That mod might not think it's worth a loss forgiven (the toxic player is just kind of annoying instead of actively detrimental.) That positive player feels like they wasted time, and now consider 'kind of annoying' acceptable.

And why would I want to volunteer to be a mod? I'm willing to take some time and do Tribunal, because that doesn't take long and I can do it at my leisure. But if I wanted to be a mod, I'd have to be on call all the time between when I click 'I wish to be a mod now' and 'I do not wish to be a mod now.' Meaning that is a fair portion of my day in which I can't do anything that might take up time, and I don't even get to play the game that I am trying to improve.

LockedWalrus1 votes

So this is about you not wanting to be a mod, not that there is a flaw in the system. Personally, I would love to be a mod, helping people in ranked to not be trolled and other problems. The queue will only increase in time if they use the most basic system to calculate queues. It would be as difficult as changing queues to put bronzes against bronzes, which it of course already does. It would add a minuscule amount of strain on the queue length. As for amount of people, well, everyone is going to be either positive, negative or neutral. It would just make the queue take these in consideration when matchmaking. It wouldn't be restricted, it would be aimed towards the goal of making positive and negative teams. A team with a negative and a positive player is in no way impossible, but if someone works their hardest to be a high positivity player, they should be with other people labeled as kind members of the community.

Hellioning2 votes

It's not hard. They could probably do it. But it WOULD increase queue times. The vast majority of players, according to Lyte, are neutral, meaning both positive and negative players would have less people to play with.

And what you said about you 'personally' wanting to be a mod is exactly the problem. YOU want to be a mod. Most players are not like you. Remember the people wanting IP gains added back in to the Tribunal because clicking a button 10 times a day is hard enough to warrant recompense? Now imagine if you had to put actual work into it.

Drewrocker1 votes

Queue times would increase, but would it not be worth it to wait an extra, lets say, 20 seconds, and have a severe decrease in trolling and rude players?

Hellioning2 votes

Would it really be a 'severe decrease', though? I don't run into many in the first place.

AscendedxBlade2 votes

Its a great idea but not the real issue balancing and matchmaking both in normals and ranked should be the main focus as some champs who are to strong or a crappy rework not pointing fingers can cause hate and toxicity its self also the matchmaking needs a rework as its slowy getting getting worse whitch causes hate and anger that leads to trolling and feeding and toxicity. not saying this is a bad idea but its not the root of the problem.

Inosak2 votes

Matchmaking should be change a little bit.. when I saw that in normal game met 3x platina + 1x silver + 1 gold vs 3x silver and 2 gold.. I know it doesnt prove "worth of players" but .. 2. team was destroyed without mercy or chance almost.. there is some difference -_-

But this + and - is quite good idea :) Im up for it

Kitten of Evil2 votes

I'm a bit worried about this from the other aspect. In like 80% of my games, nobody's toxic and nobody's saying much (except through pings). Does everyone in those games deserve a +? Or how do you decide which game is un-toxic enough to deserve a +? Do you have to be super friendly and talkative to get a +? Or do you have to get "lucky" enough to be in a game where someone is toxic, and help out the mod to get a +?

Basically, I'm okay with systems punishing toxic players, but systems that reward "good" players bother me, because everyone should be presumed to be a "good" player until they prove otherwise, and I'm not sure this system does that.

The current teamwork/friendly/honorable opponent "honors" system is okay in my book because it seems arbitrary but it also doesn't affect who you get in queue with (to my knowledge) or any other aspect of gameplay. Which is probably good, because not everybody honors teammates, some people honor their friends way more often, and that system can be gamed.

HalcyonDweller2 votes

Really cool idea :) I like it a lot, I have some ideas to add.

What if there were a pop-up at the end of a bad game? Like an AI system would identify from chat and stats if a neutral player was having a rough game and behaved in a toxic manner, and suggest they wait a few minutes before playing again?

It could be as simple as, "Did that game make you feel frustrated? Maybe you should take a quick break! Your next game will be more fun if you do not go immediately back to playing."

It could even send messages to players that queued together. "Your friend had a bad game, maybe they need a short break. If you wait 5 minutes before you queue up, your next game may be more fun."

LockedWalrus1 votes

Thank you for the reply and the idea :D. This first post was more of a base for a more complex system to be proposed to Riot themselves. I've been compiling all the points people have been having to create a more better system in this fashion. You're idea would be a nice twist on the current system to detect hateful speech and such.

HalcyonDweller2 votes

thanks! :) I'm glad it helped.

Silver Fluffenbu2 votes

I've got my clasped gauntlets on my one and only account, but I am fully against your Plan.

With a staff of mods and a method of showing positive League members, neutral players will no longer have to become toxic to combat the insults of other community members.

I consider myself a neutral player as much as one can be neutral. insults do not force anyone to behave in a toxic manner; if you become toxic it is due to your own failings of self control.

I do not desire to be insulated from toxic players, but rather to process toxicity in a healthy way.

furthermore, I do not like the idea of badges for compliance to positive extroversion, nor do I like the idea of a hierarchical system of implicit community value the basis of which is both subjective and secondary to actual gameplay.

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