Boards›Gameplay

RiotBanksy: "Our explanation on Sandbox is weak, straight up"

MrBuffington··6 votes·1,593 views

I thought this should have some extra visibility. Pwyff's post is much longer but provides a more context

Banksy:

There's a lot of your argument that I agree with (especially this part)

"Don't tell me that's difficult to do."

And to make it clear we are not completely opposed to building systems to practice and improve at League. We think there is real player value in a some version of a training mode, especially when one considers the sometimes complex champions we introduce to League. Just as much as you, we understand League is a competitive game by design and, for most, best enjoyed as player vs. player. But for those who want to double down on their skills, League should provide avenue for them as well.

The blog's intent was to peel back the curtain and give you transparency into the trade offs we are making in development. We knew that some things we are (and aren't) doing wouldn't win us any popularity contests but imo talking about this stuff is better than turning a deaf ear to players. Our explanation on Sandbox is weak, straight up. We made it sound like a binary decision which it's not. The strength of the message (or lack therein) reflects the internal Riot debate about how to best solve the problem for players. I think our product, engineering, and design teams are fully capable of solving this in a innovative way that players can use. The unpopular thing is that it is not on the currently an item in development but based on this feedback it may be that's what we need to adjust.

Pwyff:

Haha, oh dear.

First, Banksy has a comment on sandbox mode that is basically a TL;DR of this. I just wanted to think out loud.

So if today (http://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/riot-games/announcements/riot-pls) was a lesson in anything, it's how to not communicate a nuanced - and internally debated - stance in a public forum. I think discussion on reddit has hit that critical mass point where no new points can be introduced, so I'm just going to muse..

First, a mea culpa (that's latin for "whoops I fucked up"). When discussions get heated, I pick up an equally opposed perspective to see if a held opinion can be challenged. If I seemed like I was taking a hard-line stance on things, I was focused on getting that alternative perspective out rather than acknowledging arguments. Sometimes when you do that, it becomes "hey if you understand us, then do it!" and I didn't want to turn it into that but holy shit did I turn it into that.

Anyway!

I'm going to represent this view correctly: the concept of a training sandbox mode - something where players and teams can hop in to understand new champion abilities, in-game mechanics, or basic fundamental League skills like last hitting, flashing over walls, etc is necessary for a game that adds so much additional complexity (teamplay, map movement, strategy, etc) on top of fundamental mechanical skills. Learning one (mechanics) in isolation of the other is extremely beneficial so you can 'fall back' on it in the heat of the moment. Value-wise, if League is on its way (if not already there) to becoming a marriage of sport and video game, then a training mode - the ability to practice fundamentals - is a logical thing to ask for.

Period.

This is particularly true when you hit the highest level of engaged player (ie: pros) who expect the same level of investment from his/her peers. At a casual level you might get some heavy cultural pressure to sit in sandbox mode rather than engaging with the game, but that will always be the case whether it's bots vs. AI or limiting yourself to 5-person teambuilder games for fear of reprisal.

I wanted to make sure I properly represented that view because... I get it. And a lot of designers and Rioters do too. I think I was looking for acknowledgement on the other side (re: behavior expectations on what it takes to achieve mastery in a game) so I ended up chasing too hard.

My bad.

Most players have said that "cultural expectations of sandbox mode grinding is just patently false" and have examples of other great games that have sandbox modes that don't run into problems. This is true. That said, in the early stages of League, I do think it was beneficial when the optimal path to mastery was (and still is) "just get into another game." This is how I got better at playing DotA - I just mashed thousands of games out with Puck and picked up a broad fundamental skillbase. It was a default expectation - either because there were no better alternatives (a la League) or there were sandbox modes available but playing games was the best.

Either way, that's not a great stance, especially when you talk about the pro scene. It's not bulletproof, it doesn't convince our largest detractors, and it only serves to divide people on an already contentious subject.

We also know this. I've had dozens of conversations past and present (oh boy particularly today) about sandbox mode and why we should or shouldn't do it. I'll reiterate: this is a heavily debated topic internally.

The problem we had with this message was that we wanted to do a few things with a single tool. We wanted to say "it's not a priority" because it's not (but might reconsider given your feedback). There are other things we've chosen to prioritize over sandbox mode because we think those will have a larger impact on a larger playerbase. From your feedback, maybe that's not the case and it's worth having another conversation. But right now, it's not on the list.

The other thing we wanted to do was make it firm. This was where I really screwed up. To me, replays have been an ongoing conversation for a while, and I've argued that it's because we haven't taken a firm stance on it. Re-prioritizing and shifting takes months at a time when you want to work at scale, so it was a conversation I wanted to put to rest (even if it meant getting punched) and then we could re-surface it if we realized it didn't philosophically align with our future goals.

Both of these things made this statement far more 'firm' than it really needed to be, and it was because we were going for an end result "no sandbox for now" rather than actually engaging on the topic. Talking about sandbox mode and its incredible potential for unlocking higher levels of pro play is important to acknowledge, but I think where we got quagmired was this:

An idea can be good and compelling for a group of players, but it can also not be a priority.

That requires you to talk about why you're doing all of these things and not this thing, but we didn't want to come out defensive and now we're... probably in a worse position. We chose our firmest stance and said "okay this is why we're not doing it" when really we should have just said "we aren't doing this because we have these other things that are very important to the longevity of League and its foundational structure. We still think it's a good idea." Totally our bad and something to learn from. Your feedback makes it a bigger thing that probably helps in conversations, so that's good.

I think we've come to equate acknowledging a concept as "good" as also a promise we'll do it. I wonder if we can get better at having open discussions about that.

Anyway, some last thoughts before I go eat. Sorry for the long post!

17 Comments

46104328_DEL4 votes

I enjoy they made a section to respond to concerns and show what they're doing.. And promptly ignored everyone who posted a concern.

MrBuffington1 votes

I find it odd that a lot of Reds turn to their personal Twitter to give context on things instead of higher traffic platforms like Boards or Reddit (or the comments section of the relevant post, as you said).

EDIT: Actually, nevermind, I know why. It's because when they do, they get downvoted and actually lose visibility if the topic is controversial, even if they're trying to make themselves be available to discuss: http://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/I4iBcowH-516-juggernaut-reworks-and-item-changes-discussions

SpiderTeo3 votes

The real shame is that long post by Pwyff will probably not be read, let alone understood, by a majority of the nay-sayers clamoring for a sandbox. Personally, I understood all of that from the "Riot pls" post. So it boggles my mind how some people have gone up in arms over the decision of not making it a priority.

That Pwyff felt a need to make a well articulated and apologetic public posting (just to repeat the same thing that was already said in that first "Riot pls" blog entry) not only further boggles my mind but also further crushes any revival of hope that I would have for the human race as a whole.

Though to be fair, I am a tired, cynical, bitter, old man (and definitely older than many of the players who have called me "kid"), so hopefully I am wrong about this whole thing, and that more words posted on the Internet to be read by the masses will actually do some good. I don't think it will, but I do hope I am wrong.

46104328_DEL2 votes

{quoted}

The real shame is that long post by Pwyff will probably not be read, let alone understood, by a majority of the nay-sayers clamoring for a sandbox. Personally, I understood all of that from the "Riot pls" post. So it boggles my mind how some people have gone up in arms over the decision of not making it a priority.

That Pwyff felt a need to make a well articulated and apologetic public posting (just to repeat the same thing that was already said in that first "Riot pls" blog entry) not only further boggles my mind but also further crushes any revival of hope that I would have for the human race as a whole.

Though to be fair, I am a tired, cynical, bitter, old man (and definitely older than many of the players who have called me "kid"), so hopefully I am wrong about this whole thing, and that more words posted on the Internet to be read by the masses will actually do some good. I don't think it will, but I do hope I am wrong.

See, while I am one of the ones who didn't read, I simply disagree with the thought. After all, HoTS's practice "room" is a wonderful addition, never making me feel like I need to waste hours perfecting anything, but giving me a chance to try champs, builds, and ideas. I'll read through Mr. Pwyff's post soon enough.

Also, don't use League as a barometer for the hope of human kind.. There's plenty of other god awful examples.

Edit: Ok, I've now read the post, and I still disagree. The fear of the cultural need of sandbox training isn't a factor, as there's the cultural need of custom and normals now... All sandboxing would do would replace the custom.

SpiderTeo1 votes

{quoted}

Also, don't use League as a barometer for the hope of human kind.. There's plenty of other god awful examples.

I'm quite aware of more horrid examples. However, the amount of ignorance and ego-centric sensibilities found on these boards and within the game aren't helping.

Edit: Ok, I've now read the post, and I still disagree. The fear of the cultural need of sandbox training isn't a factor, as there's the cultural need of custom and normals now... All sandboxing would do would replace the custom.

Fair enough. But if custom and normal games can still accomplish what a sandbox mode would be intended for, then why bother allocating resources toward it if there are much more pressing matters that Riot should attend to? The supposed need of a sandbox mode seems to come from the perspective that a player's individualism trumps interaction with other players when it comes to self improvement. The sandbox is desired so it can solely be about a single individual's experience, to the exclusion of everyone else. It's practicing in a vacuum, and that only goes so far for improvement. To get to "the next level," a player needs to get out of that comfort zone, to have his skills tested in a real environment rather than an idealized constructed one where the chance of success can unrealistically be skewed in any direction.

Maybe I'm just too old school, where the original gamers didn't always have the luxury of practice mode. You put the quarter into the slot, and you learn by playing. You had to find out stuff on your own with little to no documentation. Cheat codes were just that: a method of cheating. Of course, the games were much simpler back then, so maybe getting a sandbox mode for Pac-Man or Super Mario Bros. or Double Dragon would have been redundant anyway. And that's how I see the intended sandbox mode, a redundancy that could easily be made possible with the options we have right now.

{quoted}

The original blog entry was far more decisive than either of these comments; both of them acknowledge that.

So the problem lies in that Riot communicated in a way that the decision to put a sandbox mode on very low priority under other more important projects would be interpreted as a personal snub to the community. If I am to interpret this correctly, then maybe Riot should not even bother with a "Riot pls" blog, because haters are gonna hate regardless of whatever is posted. By giving a little information to the player base, Riot opens itself to direct criticism of its own decision making process. There will be people who will agree and people who will disagree. Unfortunately, the dissenters are being whiny little bitches when things are not done according to their expectations. So why even bother? Just don't bother with that kind of blog, keep the players in the dark, and what they don't know won't piss them off into nerd-raging and flaming over the Internet, which would then prompt a following response from Riot in a less decisive and more apologetic manner.

(Yeah, I'm really damn cynical...)

Personally, I like the fact that Riot is doing so much to be transparent in in many of its operations. It's pretty ballsy and also respectful of its player community. Sure, it's not without risk, but then anything that's worth a damn will involve a cost or risk. So I find it upsetting that this same player community are whining, bitching, and complaining as ungrateful little kids. The posts by Banksy and Pwyff are essentially damage control. It makes for good PR, because it is seemingly pandering to the angry little voices. Whether how much of it is true or not can be argued elsewhere (I believe they are being genuine), but those posts are accomplishing (or trying to) the task of placating the nerd-raging masses. And in all that angry rhetoric, the real message is lost.

In business as in personal life, if you try to please everyone, you would more than likely please no one, and end up pissing everyone off. Sure, a sandbox mode would be nice, but so is a pretty pretty pony named Butt Stallion. Despite not getting a sandbox mode, I am still impressed with what Riot is doing. This Bilgewater: Burning Tides event was pretty dope. Everything from the promo website to featured game modes and new available icons, Riot executed it very well. I still hate ARAM and I'm not too fond of the Black Market Brawler mode, but I still played them, and still tried to get the carrot hanging in front of me. It was more than just palette swapping and new singular models; Burning Tides provided an interactive experience that got me to consider playing modes I don't like, to immerse myself in the Bilgewater setting (I never really cared about Bilgewater or Gangplank, and their respective lores), and to appreciate what Riot wants to give to its players. So it is really discouraging to see Banksy and Pwyff doing damage control for the sake of whiny-ass bitches when all of this cool shit is going on.

MrBuffington1 votes

How is it that you had some clairvoyant insight on what Riot "truly" meant in their original post, and yet manage to misread my comment? Sure, people are still going to complain with an unpopular decision no matter what, but there is a reason why all these complaints are related to the sandbox mode and (fewer, as you said, haters gonna hate) are directed at the replay system, even though neither are being worked on. It's the way they communicated this.

SpiderTeo1 votes

{quoted}

How is it that you had some clairvoyant insight on what Riot "truly" meant in their original post,

I have decent reading comprehension skills.

and yet manage to misread my comment?

How did I misread it? You said that the original "Riot pls" post seemed a bit too "decisive" in regards to this sandbox mode, which many people have interpreted as being flat out rejected and no longer considered. I read that as, "Okay, it's not being considered right now. They got better stuff to do at the moment." Others, however, had a knee jerk reaction and said, "WTF??!!1? Why is Riot not listening to us? Why are they disregarding us and our voices?"

Sure, people are still going to complain with an unpopular decision no matter what, but there is a reason why all these complaints are related to the sandbox mode and (fewer, as you said, haters gonna hate) are directed at the replay system, even though neither are being worked on. It's the way they communicated this.

That's fair. Maybe they need a professional PR writer to do these kind of blogs for them, so as to avoid any potential backlash. But, I would not place all blame on Riot either. The knee-jerk reactions were really uncalled for, when a simple and much more reasonable approach would have been enough: "Yo, Riot! Does this mean you are tossing out this [idea/project/concept/etc] for good, or is it just on a really really low priority that we shouldn't be expecting it any time soon?"

Many people were outraged. That was not Riot's intent, despite their name. Why were they outraged? Well, they simply didn't like what they heard. Riot can't be at fault there. And (this is my personal opinion) Riot shouldn't need to always respond to negative feedback with apologetic, placating, follow-up posts. If my grandmother is cooking up pork ribs for lunch, and I have my Jewish friend over, my grandmother wouldn't and shouldn't be offended if said Jewish declined the offering of cooked swine (of course, if i were to refuse the offering of cooked swine, then my grandmother would definitely be offended and indignant, and then guilt me into eating the whole thing). It's the same case here, where players need to understand that such a decision was probably not made lightly, and was not intended to exclude further feedback from the players.

MrBuffington1 votes

How did I misread it?

You just did it again:

You said that the original "Riot pls" post seemed a bit too "decisive"

My quote:

The original blog entry was far more decisive

There's a pretty big difference between "a bit" and "far more". If you compare the language I quoted in my original comment to the language they use in the above comments, it's very different. When you look at it in context, like when I referred to how they handled the replay issue (like how they listed the replays were on hold "For now"), it stands in stark contrast and seems far more definitive in comparison. Pwyff even states that he was trying to make the statement definitive. Speaking of Pwyff

Maybe they need a professional PR writer to do these kind of blogs for them

Pwyff's job title, as listed on his Board's profile is "Player Communications". On his twitter he lists his job as "Design Communications Lead". This is his job. I'm not saying he deserves the flak he's getting over this; absolutely not. A lot of the reason I posted this thread in the first place was to try to give him whatever cross platform visibility this post might generate, give him another chance to speak for himself.

The point is much more subtle than the community flaming Riot for an unpopular decision. Assuming Pwyff's and Banksy's statements above are Riot's position on the matter (which I'm willing to believe; Riot is generally willing to adjust their position based on feedback, even if the community's perception of that is otherwise), the original blog post misrepresented their position. They made a mistake in communicating their position. Both of them acknowledge this:

Banksy: "We made it sound like a binary decision which it's not"

Pwyff: "Both of these things made this statement far more 'firm' than it really needed to be"

It's one thing not to forgive someone for mistakes made; as you said it happens quite a lot in the community, it's immature and frankly doesn't do anything besides foster animosity between the two parties. It's another thing entirely to not acknowledge a mistake when it's made. Doing so actually hurts both parties because it doesn't allow them to learn and grow from the mistake.

SpiderTeo1 votes

{quoted}

You just did it again:

Geez, there is no satisfying you guys...

There's a pretty big difference between "a bit" and "far more".

Fine, I misread the _degree _ of decisiveness that you have interpreted in the original post from the latter ones. But I still understood what you meant, and what the original post was saying. Semantics aside, one's interpretation of "decisiveness" would vary from person to person. The varying levels of decisiveness you see in the different posts is probably different from how I would measure or view the varying levels of decisiveness. We both agree there is a difference of decisiveness. I hope we can agree on that (if not, then we are certainly not on the same page, so let's just leave it as is and say we both don't know what the other is trying to say). As to the extent of how much Pwyff was trying to make the decision regarding sandbox mode appear more "decisive/definite/etc." in his follow up post, then yeah, I can see where we would disagree. You see it as a greater difference, so you see that Banksy's and Pwyff's follow-up posts would indeed have greater merit in ameliorating the situation through demonstrating further clarity on their stance. I do not see it as such a greater difference, so I see those follow-up posts more as damage control and meae culpae in an attempt to placate the masses.

We both see the same things, but we both disagree on how we would interpret them. Much like Tuesdays.

Pwyff's job title, as listed on his Board's profile is "Player Communications". On his twitter he lists his job as "Design Communications Lead". This is his job. I'm not saying he deserves the flak he's getting over this; absolutely not. A lot of the reason I posted this thread in the first place was to try to give him whatever cross platform visibility this post might generate, give him another chance to speak for himself.

So maybe he should have written that first blog entry instead? Banksy and ScuttleChris were the names signing off in the first blog entry. I don't know if Pwyff had a chance to comprehensively review and edit the entry before stamping his approval on it. Maybe it just slipped through the cracks this one time. I don't know. That's why I said "Maybe they need a professional PR writer to do these kind of blogs for them." Pwyff is that guy, and he's also the one who has posted a follow-up to further clarify their position. Of course that means Pwyff would need to be micromanaging things even further, if he hasn't already been tasked to do so.

That you re-posted his follow-up comment is admirable and a good direction in generating constructive discussion rather than triggering knee-jerk reactions. That's why I said the "real shame is that long post by Pwyff will probably not be read, let alone understood, by a majority of the nay-sayers clamoring for a sandbox." Again, my personal thought that it won't pacify the masses as much as it should, and that is due to my cynical nature. Was he and Banksy right in making those follow-up comments? Yeah, I'll agree with that. They put in the effort to address the situation; they were doing good and doing their job. Do I think they would be successful with those follow-up comments? No, I don't think so, at least not to the degree that others would expect. And again, that is my personal judgment, but I do hope to be proven wrong in this case.

The point is much more subtle than the community flaming Riot for an unpopular decision... et al.

Okay, I will go back to that original point, that Banksy and ScuttleChris' first blog entry made a mistake in misrepresenting their position. I got that much. But then this whole issue ended up becoming another Filioque controversy, so much so that Banksy and then Pwyff made follow-up comments to address those concerns. That is what boggles my mind, the extreme reaction of some of the player community, not that Banksy and Pwyff are trying to make good. They are owning up to it. My original comment was then shifting attention to the other side of this whole mess: the nerd-raging community. Just because Riot makes a mistake is no justification to be a jackass. Now Riot is addressing that mistake. Does the nerd-raging community still need to be jackasses? Will any one of them acknowledge that Riot is actually trying to make good? And will any of them maybe consider that they might have overreacted to that first blog entry, that maybe they themselves made a mistake in creating a more hostile environment rather than just asking, "Yo dude, does this mean you are abandoning the whole idea, or just putting it really really far back in the queue for now?"

MrBuffington1 votes

Just for the sake of irony:

I misread the degree of decisiveness that you have interpreted in the original post from the latter ones. But I still understood what you meant

That is what I meant. My point was 'the degree of decisiveness'; if you misread that, then you did not understand what I meant. Just saying :P

In any case, I was also trying to show why my interpretation (and the interpretation of many others, including numerous professional players, analysts, coaches, esports journalists, etc.) was the way it was. There are a few layers here that make this issue more complex than your typical nerd rage:

  1. Your typical nerd rage. People don't like that Sandbox mode isn't a priority, so they throw a fit over it. Not much to explain here, just entitled people not getting what they want and not being mature enough to have civilized discourse. This is where I agree with you; the snowballing opinions choke off discussion and, as Pwyff said, lead to that critical mass point where new ideas can't really be introduced (which is why he took to his personal twitter to make that response, as oppose to Reddit or Boards).

  2. People who disagree with Riot's arguments. Of course some nerd rage (sarcastic humor, blatant flaming, etc) got mixed into this, but there is more merit to this position, and it's the position you see a lot of the aforementioned pro players, analysts, etc. take. I think MonteCristo's vlog on the subject was one of the more balanced opinions, particularly because he also considered the later comments, as well as his own bias on the topic (he's an esports person, so he's very much in favor of a dedicated practice mode to hone skills). Here there is more potential for discussion, however:

  3. As we've been discussing, the original post came off, to many, as being far more definite than the situation actually is. Pwyff mentions they intentionally used very strong language in order to convey that sandbox mode is not a priority at the moment, but they also wanted to insert some of their internal debate regarding the topic, where it isn't as clear that they should not be working on sandbox mode. The net result is the original post which seems to understand why players want the feature, but refuses to take action on it anyways, and because of the definitive language, make it seem like the topic is not open to debate. I think this is what really flipped the switch for a lot of people, myself included.

I know hindsight is 20/20, but there are other ways their position could be conveyed, for example: "We think sandbox mode can be a valuable tool for players to improve specific skills within the game, however, in paying off our tech debt, we want to focus on changes that will affect the broadest audience. While many players could benefit from this tool, we don't believe that a majority of players would, or would want to, focus on drilling their fundamental mechanics over playing full games of League of Legends, and as such we want to focus more on delivering content that would provide a more fun experience for all players, not just those who would utilize these drills. This is something we debate internally very heavily, and do want to pursue similar training tools in the future, but for now we want to focus on delivering the best content for the most amount of players"

Is it water proof? Absolutely not; people in the first two camps will probably still take issue with it. But I do think it avoids sounding like they're shutting down the option of a sandbox mode, or similar tools, completely, and therefore opens up a bit more room for conversation. Will the community still flame them? Probably, it's still an unpopular decision, the community is still on a hair trigger, but at that point the fault is less with Riot and more with the community for their reaction to it. It doesn't introduce sections of a larger argument where there isn't space to go into the nuances of it, thus avoiding confusion. I think it also refocuses conversation on popular decisions they're prioritizing, like a new client. I don't think it would pacify all the detractors, but I also think something like what I wrote above (I'm sure they could write something better than what I have) wouldn't have blown up the way that it did.

Regarding Pwyff writing the original: he seems to be taking ownership of the position, which could be for multiple reasons, but I think one of which is that he did have a fair bit to do with the position Riot took, if not the actual word-for-word text.

And will any of them maybe consider that they might have overreacted to that first blog entry, that maybe they themselves made a mistake in creating a more hostile environment rather than just asking, "Yo dude, does this mean you are abandoning the whole idea, or just putting it really really far back in the queue for now?"

I will fully admit to overreacting to the initial post; I actually had a pretty salty thread (which I deleted as soon as I found these comments from Pwyff and Banksy) before posting this one. The point I want to keep drilling though, is that it did not sound like they were simply de-prioritizing sandbox mode, more outright rejecting the idea. Again, these are the two quotes I brought up in my original comment:

"For this point, our stance is that sandbox mode is not the way to go"

"We do want to support your ability to grow in mastery, and there may be other avenues to do so, but not this."

SpiderTeo1 votes

{quoted}

That is what I meant. My point was 'the degree of decisiveness'; if you misread that, then you did not understand what I meant. Just saying :P

Yeah, I know what you are saying. Did I not say I misread the "the degree of decisiveness?" I did say that, correct? if I didn't, then let me make it clear:

I misread the degree of decisiveness that you have interpreted in the original post from the latter ones.

In any case, I was also trying to show why my interpretation (and the interpretation of many others, including numerous professional players, analysts, coaches, esports journalists, etc.) was the way it was.

And that's valid, too. It's different from my interpretation, but no less valid. Possibly because I am not heavily invested or interested in a new proposed sandbox, I didn't feel a need for the follow-up comments posted by Banksy and Pwyff. Again, it's probably just my cynicism, but I deal and witness so much absurdity that I was more than willing to accept what Riot posts as their priorities and their reasons for them. Because I do not have any vested interest, I cope and move on; hey, I don't know the whole story, so it seemed, at least for me personally, not to argue over something that has been decided upon.

But that does not invalidate any opinions contrary to my own. It was never my intention to do so. If I had been misread, due to the language that I have used, then I do apologize in kind. However, my original intention was to see some sort of resolution to this whole mess, not highlight the difference in opinions (though explaining them is always helpful, nonetheless). So I guess this leads to:

1 . Your typical nerd rage. People don't like that Sandbox mode isn't a priority, so they throw a fit over it.

This is my primary concern. Whether or not you agree with Riot's priorities, you still don't have the right or privilege to act like jackass and still be taken seriously. I do like the fact that Pwyff did try to address the issue in a different forum where it can possibly be heard. But of course, my cynical side believes most of these jackasses won't even bother reading it. That's the real travesty, as I see it.

2 . People who disagree with Riot's arguments.

Hey, everyone here is can agree or disagree, as long as we are not dicks about it. I'll touch lightly on this one, so as not to make my lengthy post even more lengthy. It seems that most of the counter arguments have come from people within the professional e-sport scene. Again, I am not saying that those arguments are not valid. Hell, they do make perfect sense. However, we are now seeing the evolution of Riot's identity as a company. Is it a gaming company that provides a service (i.e. the game software and access to other players using the same software) as entertainment? Or is it the ruling authority for the emerging e-sport scene that utilizes that very same game software? Or is Riot both, and possibly more? If we look at the major pro sports ruling organizations (such as the NFL, MLB, NBA, NCAA, etc), we see that they determine the rules and regulations concerning everything that would involve competitive play under their jurisdiction. Additionally, those organizations make agreements and regulations regarding media coverage, marketing of the game, marketing of their players, salary caps, penalties for infractions, and a whole mess of stuff that doesn't even take place on the field. But do these organizations "own" the game? No, they don't. The NFL has its own little sphere of influence when it comes to football. The NCAA, however, also has its influence over football, but in a different sphere from the NFL. Yeah, the two organizations may interact at times, but their authority over the sport itself is exclusive to each other.

But with League of Legends, that is not the case. Riot owns the "game" and also regulates its own competitive scene. The NFL doesn't manufacture footballs, though each of the sports franchise buys them from approved retailers. If someone wanted to start their own nationwide football competitive organization, then they are within their right to do so, since the NFL does not "own" the game. Each team hires various personnel to make their franchise work, whether it is for training new players, or finding new marketing avenues. If they want to purchase new training equipment for the benefit of their players, they are within their right to do so. But with LoL, pro teams can't just buy a new training equipment outside of what is currently available to all players.

I can see the appeal of a new sandbox mode. However, if it will mostly benefit the pro scene, is Riot willing to devote its resources for the sake of competitive e-sports? This is new ground that Riot is treading. Hell, the whole SpectateFaker incident is just the beginning of Riot's issues involving competitive play. Even the pro sports leagues have problems to deal with on a regular basis, and they have had decades of experience!

And that's how I see Riot's internal debate regarding a sandbox mode. Sure, anyone would be able to use it, but it is the competitive scene that would have the most to gain from it. A Little League team could have its own staff of analysts, media personnel, multiple coaches for specific positions or roles, equipment handlers, and all of that, but most of that wouldn't be necessary or even used for the most part. But a pro team definitely could use all of that and more. Riot might be viewing a sandbox mode as that, and so they may need to reevaluate its identity as a company as it makes its priorities.

Yeah, that wasn't brief... apologies...

3 . As we've been discussing, the original post came off, to many, as being far more definite than the situation actually is............................................................... I know hindsight is 20/20.......

Eh, you win some, you lose some. As long as you learn something out of it, then it's auh-good.

Regarding Pwyff writing the original: he seems to be taking ownership of the position, which could be for multiple reasons, but I think one of which is that he did have a fair bit to do with the position Riot took, if not the actual word-for-word text.

Well, he is the _lead _ for his team. If heads rolls, his would be very close to the front of the line.

I will fully admit to overreacting to the initial post; I actually had a pretty salty thread (which I deleted as soon as I found these comments from Pwyff and Banksy) before posting this one.

Eh, no harm, no foul.

The point I want to keep drilling though, is that it did not sound like they were simply de-prioritizing sandbox mode, more outright rejecting the idea.

Point taken. At least this whole affair hasn't ended up like the Filioque controversy...

MrBuffington2 votes

Yeah, I know what you are saying. Did I not say I misread the "the degree of decisiveness?" I did say that, correct? if I didn't, then let me make it clear:

I was just poking fun at imprecise use of language; I know you understand my point because you restated it and showed you understood my point with the rest of your comment. Again, was just poking fun :P

But that does not invalidate any opinions contrary to my own. It was never my intention to do so.

I didn't feel like you were invalidating anyone's opinions, I just wanted to make my opinion clear. A lot of people throw out the "everyone's entitled to their own opinion" card without making an effort to understand the other side; I'm not saying this is you, in fact it's apparent that this isn't you (and I appreciate you sticking with this conversation for this long), it's just something I see very often, and it does, as you say, invalidate a person's opinion (in a passive aggressive manner).

Whether or not you agree with Riot's priorities, you still don't have the right or privilege to act like jackass and still be taken seriously. I do like the fact that Pwyff did try to address the issue in a different forum where it can possibly be heard. But of course, my cynical side believes most of these jackasses won't even bother reading it. That's the real travesty, as I see it.

Again, I agree completely. I could go on about the absurdity of it all, but I think we're on the same page here.

[Re: point #2 (I'm not going to paste your entire comment here just for the sake of brevity)]

As you pointed out, pro players in league are much more restricted to Riot's offerings than professionals in the NFL or otherwise. If I wanted to practice throwing a football, I can just get a football and throw it at a target or something. If I wanted to practice CSing in league, the best I can do is load up a custom game by myself and practice CSing. The analogy would be like needing a football field and setting up dummies of various players in order to practice throwing a football (obviously it takes far more effort in the football example, but the example is just that it takes more effort than necessary to get the same practice; we can get deeper with the analogies but I think you understand my point).

I don't think, however, that this would be exclusively or even primarily a benefit to pro players. Pro players already have a really good grasp of the fundamentals of the game, other players do not. Put differently, your average player has much more room to grow as far as learning fundamentals and improving mechanics in the game. Of course, it's up to the player to actually practice them, where for a pro, it's part of their job, but the average player still has much more to gain from this, just like, say, my field goal % has much more room to improve than an NFL kicker's field goal % (especially considering my % can improve astronomically from just understanding basic techniques and a bit of practice, where the NFL kicker already understands those techniques and has mastered them, and must work harder for smaller gains in their statistics)

For the record, I'm fine with sandbox mode not being a priority at the moment. I think the mode would be invaluable for many players, not just pros, but given the rest of their position they laid out in the blog, I completely understand them deprioritizing the mode.

SpiderTeo1 votes

{quoted}

I was just poking fun at imprecise use of language; I know you understand my point because you restated it and showed you understood my point with the rest of your comment. Again, was just poking fun :P

Ah, okay. Humor is in short supply these days. And nerd raging jackasses don't help with that, either. Maybe if we used a much more precise language, such as Latin, then maybe there would be less imprecise use of it. Then again, wars have been fought for less, so...

I don't think, however, that this would be exclusively or even primarily a benefit to pro players.

Well, I have been thinking about it, and yeah, the average player has the most potential to gain from a sandbox mode as a training mode. However, in practice, such a training mode would mostly be realized by the top elite or professional players...

You know, nevermind; I just reread that last paragraph and I'm just repeating what you already said. My reading comprehension is pretty decent, but I sacrifice reading speed in the process. Plus, I think I'm hungry. I did enjoy this discourse, and I will say that I did learn something out of all of this. Peace out!

MrBuffington2 votes

Haha, I learned a lot as well, one of the rare moments of having an actual conversation on these forums. Usually I just devolve into throwing out dank memes

MrBuffington1 votes

The original blog entry was far more decisive than either of these comments; both of them acknowledge that. From the original blog:

"For this point, our stance is that sandbox mode is not the way to go"

"We do want to support your ability to grow in mastery, and there may be other avenues to do so, but not this."

Sounds a whole lot like they're not considering sandbox mode at all, especially since that last bit is the last part of their statement, instead of just saying that it's not a priority, especially given the way they handled the topic of Replays (specifically mentioning that it's not a priority "for now" and that there were technical reasons behind deprioritizing it, as oppose to ideological reasons).

On most topics I might agree with you, but on this in particular I think there was a pretty blatant miscommunication.

Voidgolem1 votes

TL;DR should proooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooobably rehearse or super-proofread ultra-polarizing statements before posting them.

Not that I ever do that, but I'm not Riot.

MrBuffington4 votes

Maybe they could practice making statements if they had a sandbox mode /joke

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 MrBuffington

Here's why ADCs are "mandatory"
Gameplay117 comments
89
votes
To those who only want to pick one role, you can!
Memes & Games25 comments
85
votes
@ZenonTheStoic: Congratulations on Taliyah
Story, Art, & Sound56 comments
73
votes
[Analysis] 'A New Dawn' Teamfight Breakdown
[ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous44 comments
47
votes
HOLY Malzahar
Story, Art, & Sound96 comments
42
votes
Next Year's Gamemode: S.M.U.R.F (Super Mega Ultra Rapid Fire)
Memes & Games20 comments
40
votes