Riot has finally acknowledged it:

HalcyonDweller·Sep 26, 2017·19 votes·1,259 views

Since the temptation to try new champs in ranked queues is a leading cause of lost LP, this filter only applies to non-ranked queues.

Source: Champ Select Upgrades Incoming - at the bottom of the article under the header "Hextech Chests."

Can Riot please finally implement something to prevent players from first-timing any champion in Ranked? It could be as simple as requiring 1 game (maybe more) in non-ranked queues as that champion. This would significantly improve the quality of ranked games for everyone.

EDIT 1: I've created a post to enable deeper discussion of this topic, feel free to jump in and contribute!

If Riot were to prevent players from first timing a champion in ranked...

42 Comments

HalcyonDwellerSep 26, 20174 votes

INB4 someone complains, "But muh freedom!" It's one game, it's not that bad. Get over it.

ErockandrollSep 26, 20173 votes

{quoted}

INB4 someone complains, "But muh freedom!" It's one game, it's not that bad. Get over it.

I mean, someone on my team might complain about my inability to fulfill a certain strat/niche/etc, all because I can't select a certain champion. (This is your Auto filled support speaking, I can't actually pick a support champ.)

HalcyonDwellerSep 26, 20171 votes

Honestly it's not that hard to get a few support champions and play one game on each of them. That's what, like 2-3 games? Then you'd be all set.

It would have to not force players into roles they don't have champions prepared for. This would be unpractical though, as the whole point of auto-fill is to shorten queues, and players would simply avoid owning or preparing champions for roles that they do not want to play.
Or it would have to require more than just ownership for the champions required to play ranked. Perhaps it should require one game on each of that many champions.

La Belle SauvageSep 26, 20171 votes

Which means you should invest some times in norms with support champs, since auto-fill is a thing.

La Belle SauvageSep 26, 20173 votes

I'm with the OP, but the minimum requirement should be according to Rank.

Bronze -Silver: Champ Level 4 minimum. This ensures not that the player is good, but has a healthy amount of games with the champ, has at least encountered common matchups and has at least a basic understanding of the champs kit and meta builds.

As you become better the minimum champ level should be reduced.

I realize this isn't a popular idea, but it's one I've used to some success in Bronze To Silver.

HalcyonDwellerSep 26, 20173 votes

Thanks for standing with me on this. it's hard to convince people that this is a good idea, because everybody is afraid for their own freedoms, but it really does help improve matchmaking and they would have better games as a result because their teammates would feed less often.

I wonder if it should be by champion difficulty.

Like champions that are considered easy to use such as Annie, Janna, Garen, etc. would not require much, either 1 game or not any requirements at all.
While more complicated champions like Azir, Kalista, Yasuo, Taliyah, etc. would require more, maybe 2 or 3 games minimum.

Thoughts?

La Belle SauvageSep 26, 20171 votes

Maybe a mix? it's just Let's say I decide to Learn Annie Mid, most agree she's straight forward and has one of the best win buttons in the game, Tibbers. However, if we say you have to play fewer games with Annie because her kit is easy to learn; that negates my biggest issue with people taking champs they've never played before into Ranked. The matchups.

I don't care how easy a champ is, if you never faced a Cassiopeia main, a Kassadin Main, or and LeBlanc main, you're going to get stomped. Until you've faced those matchups a few times and understand Annie's Kit relative to your opponent kit.

Which is why I advocated above Silver, the minimum should be less, because I assume that these players have faced these champs at some point in their climb.

It's why I think that Champ Level is better. The less you win with the champ, the longer it will take you to get to Level 4, forcing you to play the champ more, forcing you to face not only Meta Matchups, but the off-meta.

So in Norms I play a crap ton of Teemo. I'm fairly comfy vs. his normal matchups (I'm not saying I win them, but I at least understand what I'm up against and the options available to me like Counter Builds and Rune Setups). I struggle mightily with off-meta matchups.

However, if you say you are only required to play one game if N champ us considered easy, you only have to play 1 game? To me it means they are completely clueless with the new champ. True, worse if the Champ is mechanically hard. I'm apt to say if you decide to buy Riven and want tot play her ranked? You have to get to Champ Level 5 before you can.

HalcyonDwellerSep 26, 20172 votes

I respect your opinion on this, but I disagree with your methods.

I think it would be unfair to judge or limit a player's choices based on their opponents decisions. Experience against other champions comes with time, but it is a lot less dependent on the player's champions. For example; you can learn how to play against Xerath while playing Annie, and you don't forget how Xerath works if you then play other mages against him such as Lux or Twisted Fate.

Even in Silver and Gold, players will get into matchups against champions they have never played against. This is a separate situation and should not reflect on the player's experience with their specific champion.

Champions such as Riven that require more skill to use effectively should - of course - require more games. I agree with you on that. But it is impractical to expect someone to stop playing ranked for 5+ games in order to gain enough points on a champion in order to select them in ranked.

Trust me, I've been down this road many times before. Taking such a hardlined stance of 'mastery lvl 5 required' will make it extremely difficult to get anybody to go along with the idea or support it enough to get Riot to notice the post.

La Belle SauvageSep 26, 20171 votes

I agree with you to an extent. However, if I were on the team deciding this, it's the suggestion I'd put forward.

In my opinion, 1 norm game played on any new champ (ie champs you've never played) is the same (experience wise) as no games. I'd rather they not change it if the requirement was 1 game played.

It's the whole reason Champ lvl makes a lot of sense to me. The worse you are,the more games you will need to get to lvl4.

I concede it's a hard line, but one I stand by.

HalcyonDwellerSep 26, 20172 votes

I might be more inclined to support your stance if it was more like champ lvl 2 or champ lvl 1, as this would ensure that the player is familiar with their champion and won't make simple mistakes such as accidentally blinking / dashing into the enemy's range and feeding a kill.

Expecting more than that is impractical and unrealistic, for the reasons I've said before. Nobody will go along with it. Even the more moderate people such as myself who agree with the principle, will not stand up for, "require champion lvl 4 or 5 before allowing it to be played in ranked."

You've got to learn more about negotiations. If you are negotiating a business merger you cannot simply demand that the other company fork over their company for whatever price you wish, you have to be aware of their concerns, needs and wishes. In order to come to an agreement you have to work with them, you cannot simply say, "my way or the highway." or they just won't do business with you.

La Belle SauvageSep 26, 20173 votes

Sadly, you're correct. Just expressing my thoughts. I hope they implement something though!

HalcyonDwellerSep 26, 20172 votes

Fair enough, thanks for understanding!

La Belle SauvageSep 26, 20171 votes

I take small issue with this:

"You've got to learn more about negotiations" I'm not in negotiations. I'm expressing what I think should be implemented with no expectation that any Riot employee will take notice.

Playing along though, sure that's one way to negotiate. It's also a tactic to start large to get to the magic middle ground in an attempt to bring the low-ball number up. Sure, it's basic, but it can be effective if executed properly.

You assume I am unaware of negotiations and business practices, that's your bad.

P.S. Since tone in writing is difficult to convey, please understand the intended tone is cordial and not combative.

HalcyonDwellerSep 26, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=Bello Bagheera,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=R1EmIV0g,comment-id=0002000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2017-09-26T20:57:13.753+0000)

P.S. Since tone in writing is difficult to convey, please understand the intended tone is cordial and not combative.

Noted! No offense taken :)

You assume I am unaware of negotiations and business practices, that's your bad.

That's fair, my apologies for the unsubstantiated claim.

I take small issue with this:

"You've got to learn more about negotiations" I'm not in negotiations. I'm expressing what I think should be implemented with no expectation that any Riot employee will take notice.

Playing along though, sure that's one way to negotiate. It's also a tactic to start large to get to the magic middle ground in an attempt to bring the low-ball number up. Sure, it's basic, but it can be effective if executed properly.

I am not talking about discussing it with Riot, as I believe they will be more receptive to the idea anyways.

I am referring to the real barrier to getting this implemented; trying to get enough comments and upvotes from the players themselves so that the post is visible enough for a Rioter to find while browsing the forums.

La Belle SauvageSep 26, 20171 votes

That point I concede 100%, but I don't think the community wants any restriction. That's despite it benefiting all who play ranked. That's why I hope Riot will discuss it internally and come up with something.

And whatever they come up with though will be met with large negative feedback. And that's because most people's default position is to resist change. And that is based on ten solid years of helping to implement process changes in a manufacturing plant.

If you want to experience real crankiness, try changing how someone works. And that's after many months of line worker team sessions.

HalcyonDwellerSep 26, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=Bello Bagheera,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=R1EmIV0g,comment-id=000200000000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2017-09-26T22:06:13.535+0000)

That point I concede 100%, but I don't think the community wants any restriction. That's despite it benefiting all who play ranked. That's why I hope Riot will discuss it internally and come up with something.

Me too amigo/a, me too.

And whatever they come up with though will be met with large negative feedback. And that's because most people's default position is to resist change. And that is based on ten solid years of helping to implement process changes in a manufacturing plant.

If you want to experience real crankiness, try changing how someone works. And that's after many months of line worker team sessions.

Oh I believe you. I worked in a bottling plant for a while, line teams most definitely do not like change and they love to tell the engineers how things should be fixed. XD Not looking down on the teams, they're just following human nature. But yeah, it's a funny and difficult situation.

HalcyonDwellerSep 26, 20171 votes

I created a new discussion to better enable people to debate this idea, please feel free to come join in!

https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/a78zjPwE-if-riot-were-to-prevent-players-from-first-timing-a-champion-in-ranked

SciFi ScrivenerSep 26, 20172 votes

I was thinking similar. Mastery level would be the perfect tool to allow champs to be played in rank. Personally, I try not to use any champ not mastery 4 in ranked games. I want to make sure I'm comfortable with how the champ's abilities work, how much dmg I can take, and have a good feel for maneuvering.

I play new champs in Bot matches first, then norms and ARAM or RGM.

Serika ZeroSep 26, 20178 votes

I disagree with you. A level 4 doesn't mean you encountered common match-ups.

For example. I could play Akali mid or jungle to get lv4. And then could play her top in ranked and have no clue about the top match-ups. And I could just build random shit.

And honestly getting lv4 takes a while, but it can be done by just trolling or similar stuff. So, my simple requirement to play a specific champion in ranked is a very simple one: get an S- or better rank on that champion. Then you can play it in ranked. However, this is difficult to get on 15+ champions. So, I'll have to settle for A or better (A, A+, S-, S, S+).

This or either: have 5 games on your hero before you can play him(her)(it) in ranked.

La Belle SauvageSep 26, 20173 votes

I agree, but I'm looking for total number of games where you will ecounter some or most. There isn't much they can do for off meta picks, but at least it's a start. If you played Akali Jungle to lvl 4, you'd encounter the meta picks along the way. I'd much rather play with an Akali lvl 4 jungler vs a top laner Akali with 1 game under their belt.

Serika ZeroSep 26, 20173 votes

i've tried it a bit, you either need a very specific rune page with a lot of armor or you almost die in the jungle but its cool if nobody invades ya.

still beyond weak compared to mid/top but at least this way, you won't feed the enemy :p

HalcyonDwellerSep 26, 20171 votes

I created a new discussion to better enable people to debate this idea, please feel free to come join in!

https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/a78zjPwE-if-riot-were-to-prevent-players-from-first-timing-a-champion-in-ranked

NeokilljoySep 27, 20171 votes

Can't wait to go Renekton support when I get autofilled.

DoozkuSep 26, 20172 votes

Riot will never do such a thing because since people like to buy champs and try them in ranked, and they may not if they can't play them immediately in ranked and therefore lost sales.

HalcyonDwellerSep 26, 20172 votes

I have my doubts about that particular conspiracy theory. The claim that Riot only cares about sales stands on shaky ground already. Riot has made choices that cost them sales in the past.

See Xayah and Rakan being sold for IP, Runes refunds at the start of the upcoming preseason, philanthropy efforts by Riot to fun programs that benefit disadvantaged people, etc.

DoozkuSep 26, 20172 votes

I'm not assuming that Riot's a greedy company, more that a vast majority of their money comes from people wanting to try champions and first time them in ranked.

But I assume that from reading this old ask riot which i misinterpreted. They've already discussed this a long time ago and they said that there's nothing on the radar. I doubt a system like this will be coming anytime soon.

If you're wondering: http://nexus.leagueoflegends.com/2017/04/ask-riot-should-new-champs-be-disabled-in-ranked/

HalcyonDwellerSep 26, 20171 votes

Indeed, it is on their radar, but there are no concrete plans to implement it yet.

While we think the new Practice Mode will help some with this problem, we also have discussed requiring you to play with the champion – even if it’s as little as one game – before you take him or her into ranked. No concrete plans at the moment, but it’s something we’ll keep on our radar.

I believe that by sparking discussion on it we can improve the quality of ideas surrounding it. And by drawing attention to those discussions we can ensure that Riot implements something fair when they do implement it. I simply want to find the best way to implement it that will keep it fair for the most players while also ensuring that games are fair and nobody gets a first-timer as a teammate in their promos.

gimmieninjaSep 26, 20172 votes

mastery four might be a little steep mastery two or three i could see as a reasonable requirement since you already require 15 champs to even play ranked. Odds are that by the time you earn 15 champs you should have a good number of them around a two plus mastery this means you have played them enough to have some experience behind you at least enough for a competitive player to feel comfortable with them and understand a good amount of their underlying mechanics.

this does help prevent someone from dropping a bnch of rp at account lvl one and jumping into ranked with no clue what their doing, and this is something that should be taken into consideration with the removal of the level cap; unless you still need an account level of 30+ to que up for ranked.

HalcyonDwellerSep 26, 20171 votes

Those are some great points, thanks for contributing! I have created another post to better enable discussion of these ideas, please feel free to come join in!

https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/a78zjPwE-if-riot-were-to-prevent-players-from-first-timing-a-champion-in-ranked

KlydeFrogSep 26, 20172 votes

thats how it works in heroes of the storm. Your champion needs to be a certain level to be used in ranked

HellioningSep 26, 20171 votes

It's a joke, come on.

HalcyonDwellerSep 26, 20171 votes

I mean, I was intentionally biased with my title because I wanted to draw attention to the issue.

My actual views are plain to see in the other post I linked to.

Sun Wu RyuumokuSep 27, 20171 votes

It would be so stupid !!!! So i would be f*cked if im autofilled... Not like i care to play Wukong as adc.

DemainaNyxSep 27, 20171 votes

Would VS AI count? Just saying I literally played nothing but AI when I first started out, maybe played 5-10 normal games, went to ARAM for a bit, and then went into ranked when one of my friends convinced me to at least do my placements to see where I was placed. Obviously I learned a lot from ARAM, but that's a completely different game from SR.

HalcyonDwellerSep 27, 20171 votes

I think so, games vs AI are just as good for becoming familiar with your character's abilities. It's not really about learning how to play pvp, more-so just becoming familiar with the kit.

DemainaNyxSep 28, 20171 votes

Then yeah, I think that would be fine to require some small requirement before you play a new champ in ranked.

Maybe have one exception if you are autofilled, but if you are choosing a role, get that role, and have never played the champion you choose before, that just seems dumb.

HalcyonDwellerSep 28, 20171 votes

Agreed!

The Yetii RiderSep 27, 20171 votes

Same argument, different day. I should really type this up and past it into a word document so I can just Ctrl + V it into any of these threads.

Riot needs players to be able to play new champions in ranked so the players will have a reason to buy a new champion with RP. They increase the IP cost of new champions in order to encourage this behavior (and are removing the option of players to reroll Champion Shards into champion permanents so that veterans can't get every new champ for free) so that players will be more likely to spend RP on those new champions.

And while you're at it, spending RP, why not take advantage of the bundle for the first week? You get the release skin for cheaper!

Cry about it all you want, we don't spend money on a subscription for this game so employees' salaries have to come from somewhere.

HalcyonDwellerSep 27, 20171 votes

Most players will still buy champions, putting a small barrier between them playing a champion in ranked will not prevent them from still wanting the champion enough to get it.

And players who are too wishy-washy or lazy to not get a champion if faced with a small barrier such as that have bigger problems.

The Yetii RiderSep 27, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Most players will still buy champions, putting a small barrier between them playing a champion in ranked will not prevent them from still wanting the champion enough to get it.

And players who are too wishy-washy or lazy to not get a champion if faced with a small barrier such as that have bigger problems.

But those wishy washy players are still spending money now that they wouldn't after. They're already taking a big hit to their revenue by making runes free.

HalcyonDwellerSep 27, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Yetii Rider,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=R1EmIV0g,comment-id=000900000000,timestamp=2017-09-27T16:17:59.050+0000)

But those wishy washy players are still spending money now that they wouldn't after.

I doubt they are a significant majority.