This needs to be addressed by Riot

Kikirino·Apr 13, 2015·137 votes·8,143 views

How much longer will the victims of trolls be punished?

Just came from a ranked queue. We notice the enemy has no adc. Last pick was Malz even though they already had a mid. Last second someone dodges. Queue again. Last pick says 'mid or troll'. Someone else picks mid so... guess what... last pick is Malz with bullshit summoner spells. Last second someone dodges again. I gave up on ranked today. Fun.

How many people are going to lose LP because they dodge a troll champion select. This guy has caused two people to lose LP in less than 5 minutes because he literally plays 'mid or troll'. This is a major problem because it only causes frustration and that frustration is a short step from raging in a match. Either way players are fucked by these champion select trolls. You either dodge and lose LP or hope the enemy team is absolute trash and you can win a 4v5 with someone actively trying to fuck you over. Basically, you lose LP either way.

It is a lose/lose situation and does nothing but punish the victims. Either add a dodge feature similar to the surrender vote. If 4/5 vote to dodge then the match is dropped or add a pregame report option for this shit so people can at least report these trolls before they dodge them. Right now, the only way these trolls can be punished is if you suffer through a match with them and report them after. How is that fair to anyone involved?

197 Comments

qetzelApr 13, 201525 votes

What sucks is that your suggested system is easily abusable. Ranked players tend to like winning. A lot of ranked players only like meta picks. What of that poor person who like Urgot before he became meta. How many games would he have been kicked out of? And what if there is a particularly bad matchup in one of the lanes? I know a lot of people who would vote to dodge that. What if first pick didn't ban the FotM champion (despite the fact that those almost always lose more than they win because they are played by people with no experience on that champion). I know people sometimes rage about that. Wouldn't they vote to dodge?

Something needs to be done, yes, but it isn't easy to do fairly.

KikirinoApr 13, 201526 votes

I think it would be fairly difficult to convince 4 people to vote to dodge just because someone picked an off meta champion. It is hard enough to get 4 votes for a surrender in even the shittiest matches.

qetzelApr 13, 201523 votes

The thing is, though, people like to win. NEVER SURRENDER gives you a slightly higher win rate. Voting to dodge would give you a much higher win rate.

Another thought - if 3 people wanted to dodge, wouldn't that cause frustration that would lead to raging?

TheLittlestLuluApr 13, 20159 votes

{quoted} Another thought - if 3 people wanted to dodge, wouldn't that cause frustration that would lead to raging?

To be fair this already happens anyways with 3 people expecting someone to dodge for them.

Philbo BagginsApr 13, 20156 votes

{quoted}

I think it would be fairly difficult to convince 4 people to vote to dodge just because someone picked an off meta champion. It is hard enough to get 4 votes for a surrender in even the shittiest matches.

I entirely disagree. People tend to be bandwagon hoppers. It would be common for people to call an off meta pick troll.

Synx7Apr 14, 20151 votes

{quoted}

What sucks is that your suggested system is easily abusable. Ranked players tend to like winning. A lot of ranked players only like meta picks. What of that poor person who like Urgot before he became meta. How many games would he have been kicked out of? And what if there is a particularly bad matchup in one of the lanes? I know a lot of people who would vote to dodge that. What if first pick didn't ban the FotM champion (despite the fact that those almost always lose more than they win because they are played by people with no experience on that champion). I know people sometimes rage about that. Wouldn't they vote to dodge?

Something needs to be done, yes, but it isn't easy to do fairly.

You know what? "easily abusable" I stopped reading right here Seriously? I can't remember for ONCE if Riot ever tested ANY systems regarding troll champion selects and etc, in PBE , ever. You're promoting toxicity instead of trying to deal with it and solve this bullshit once and for all. Every fucking idea we come with, " can be abused , easily abused". THEN give us arguments and solutions to how to counter these things or solve them Either way i doubt that a rioter would reply to these kind of threads because they avoid them like some sort of disease. They would say the same thing obviously "easily abused , deal with it" Piss off

Occams RaiserApr 14, 20152 votes

I like your post dude. I know why they downvote you though. The thinkers and those that attempt to change a system start in the minority. You wanted an example of the abuse and a way to correct it and the very next post was nothing more than the reassertion of someone shitting on the OP. I don't understand what "abuse" is anyway. A guy thinks he is at such disadvantage that he doesn't want to play. And then..... he doesn't play. DAMN THE SYSTEM FAILED! We were unsuccessful at making these guys play a match they thought they might lose from the very beginning. How is that even a factor when considering a system.

NEW SYSTEM: "It is taking toooooo long to queue up. Just queue me with the disgruntled and trolling. Yay! I found a game!"

IndorfinApr 14, 20152 votes

[{quoted}](name=Occams Raiser,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=G1G4VBT9,comment-id=000100040001,timestamp=2015-04-14T14:21:57.753+0000)

I like your post dude. I know why they downvote you though. The thinkers and those that attempt to change a system start in the minority. You wanted an example of the abuse and a way to correct it and the very next post was nothing more than the reassertion of someone shitting on the OP. I don't understand what "abuse" is anyway. A guy thinks he is at such disadvantage that he doesn't want to play. And then..... he doesn't play. DAMN THE SYSTEM FAILED! We were unsuccessful at making these guys play a match they thought they might lose from the very beginning. How is that even a factor when considering a system.

NEW SYSTEM: "It is taking toooooo long to queue up. Just queue me with the disgruntled and trolling. Yay! I found a game!"

The idea is that if you wanted to play an unpopular champ, you may never get a game because if your team doesn't like it, they can just kick you. It could also be abused in that if the other team looks too strong, everyone could just blame one person (likely the banner), and kick them.

Occams RaiserApr 14, 20151 votes

That isn't abuse. You just have to find someone that have doesn't mind you playing that champ. I don't like Bard as a champ over other picks. If I have like minded teammates, I should not be forced to play with you if that is who you want to play. It would lessen the enjoyment of 4 people in favor of the enjoyment of one. I have heard the URGOT TOP argument. You see a pro do it so you want to do it. That isn't a great idea. By this rational, team builder is abusable.

I can't wrap my head around an actual point in your second sentence. The other team looks strong so one person on your team gets vote kicked. What could one person anti-strategically do to a team comp where his elimination would be unjustified

IndorfinApr 14, 20152 votes

[{quoted}](name=Occams Raiser,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=G1G4VBT9,comment-id=00010004000100000000,timestamp=2015-04-14T17:46:23.048+0000)

That isn't abuse. You just have to find someone that have doesn't mind you playing that champ. I don't like Bard as a champ over other picks. If I have like minded teammates, I should not be forced to play with you if that is who you want to play. It would lessen the enjoyment of 4 people in favor of the enjoyment of one. I have heard the URGOT TOP argument. You see a pro do it so you want to do it. That isn't a great idea. By this rational, team builder is abusable.

In most iterations of this (I guess not necessarily this one), the person who gets kicked also gets reported and loses LP (as they should, for that kind of behavior), which isn't really fair. It also leaves open the unhealthy option of kicking someone because the enemy won the picks and bans.

RaptameiApr 14, 20152 votes

{quoted}

What sucks is that your suggested system is easily abusable. Ranked players tend to like winning. A lot of ranked players only like meta picks. What of that poor person who like Urgot before he became meta. How many games would he have been kicked out of?

When 4 people don't want you to pick something, you don't pick it.

RaptameiMay 13, 20152 votes

{quoted}

What sucks is that your suggested system is easily abusable. Ranked players tend to like winning. A lot of ranked players only like meta picks. What of that poor person who like Urgot before he became meta. How many games would he have been kicked out of? And what if there is a particularly bad matchup in one of the lanes? I know a lot of people who would vote to dodge that. What if first pick didn't ban the FotM champion (despite the fact that those almost always lose more than they win because they are played by people with no experience on that champion). I know people sometimes rage about that. Wouldn't they vote to dodge?

Something needs to be done, yes, but it isn't easy to do fairly.

If 4 people don't want you to pick Urgot then you don't pick Urgot.

KrigjerMay 13, 20153 votes

{quoted}

What sucks is that your suggested system is easily abusable. Ranked players tend to like winning. A lot of ranked players only like meta picks. What of that poor person who like Urgot before he became meta. How many games would he have been kicked out of?

I agree with these sentiments. I don't mind the idea of a vote dodge, but the person that inspired the vote should not be punished.

Ahem, players like myself that pick Bard despite everyone saying he sucks..

ConnceptApr 13, 201514 votes

This system will be abused, what we really need is just a pregame report option which saves the pregame chat. If people were in danger of losing their account for doing this, it would happen a lot less.

KikirinoApr 13, 20155 votes

I would be accept this. Pregame chat and postgame chat really need report systems. People think they can get away with so much shit because those two chats do not exist to Riot.

JingerbeardmanApr 14, 20153 votes

they exist, and are logged, but do not hold as much weight as what happens in game. The problem is that the champ select phase is just as much a part of the game as once you are in it. I think that the current tribunal revamp is the first step in this direction though. They have to implement the proper measures for in game first before they can tackle anything else though. Everything is a process, you have to tackle each problem one at a time or you end up with to much on your plate and never finish anything you start.

Trash MammaIApr 13, 201510 votes

Agreed, a vote to dodge would be nice and yea it should be 4/5 so duos don't fuck it up. I get tired of having kids argue in champ select and i'm just thinking "wow, if I do the right thing and dodge i'll be punished. If I do the wrong thing and let this stupidity continue without stepping up and taking action i'll be punished"

Trolls have a win win situation for themselves

EleshakaiApr 13, 20159 votes

This is why they're trying to redesign champion select. You can't just give peopel the power to kick people from the lobby. There's too much potential for abuse...

but if you use a system like teambuilder where people effectively form a team BEFORE they enter the draft phase and then enter the pick/ban phase based off of the assumption that they know where they're going and are happy with who is on the team.... then you eliminate this problem from all but the most edge cases.

It's not ready for ranked yet, but it's coming and that's really what needs to happen. Just givingp eople the power to kick doesn't solve the problem, since a lot of people simply don't pay attention to champ select. What solves the problem is providing people with an understanding of what they're doing and a chance to communicate beforehand.

ShinjusukeApr 13, 20154 votes

If it is coming, it's going to come in a major downswing of League.

The Team Builder system works fine, albeit with a lack of supports/junglers because support/jungle mains know they can go into blind pick and get their role (which means blind pick should just go away).

Yet despite Team Builder working, Riot has seen fit to not provide a ranked equivalent, still, many months after Normal's Team Builder.

All you have to do is have everyone select a role and lane (not champion), and enter the queue. Display everyone's role to their team during Drafting, and tada. Done. But RIot still hasn't provided "Ranked Team Builder". Makes you think where the priorities are at.

JingerbeardmanApr 14, 20152 votes

it is not that simple though, i wish it was but it is not. what happens when someone that queues for top lane can only one champion in that lane and it gets banned... they are now fixed in their role. Or are they? a system like this would still have just as many trolls. Someone could choose support but say "yeah im not supporting, im going top and their aint nothing you can do about it"... and guess what, there is nothing you can do about it other than report them. In a perfect world that kind of system works, but we do not live in anything close to a perfect world. So we are forced to use less optimal methods because it is more difficult to abuse them compared to the optimal method.

ShinjusukeApr 15, 20151 votes

Literally that exact situation happens on a regular basis already. Using it as a negation for a Team Builder system for ranked isn't really any kind of defense.

Of course it's not perfect. Nothing is perfect. I'm saying refusing to use the current Team Builder system, which is hands-down miles above the current ranked system, just because it's not perfect is naive and stupid.

JingerbeardmanApr 15, 20152 votes

it is not a defense, it is a reason against. The major difference between the choose your role queue and the current figure it out in select is that the figure it out is more flexible so that when an unexpected hiccup occurs you can work things out with your team mates in an effort to make the best of the situation. If you add the extra limitation of choosing roles you are expected to play in, no matter what, and the unexpected happens you are now stuck with players who may not know any other role other than the one they queued for and are completely unable to adapt at all.

This situation would happen far less often in the figure it out model because the average prepared player goes into the queue knowing they might not get what they want. Knowing that they learn more than one role and more than one champ to compensate for that situation. If you truly only want to play one role all the time, you are best to make a ranked 5s team or join one. Solo/Duo Queue is really about testing your overall adaptability, versatility, and knowledge of the game where as ranked 5s is more about testing your ability to work together as a team and implement strategies to outplay your opponents in combination with your knowledge of the game.

Obviously not everyone playing ranked is actually prepared for it. Which brings me to my next point. It does not matter what system you implement because there will always be the human factor. A factor that cannot be truly calculated because everyone is different. Some follow the mainstream, while others favor a different approach... And then there are those who simply seek to ruin the experience for others no matter what, the trolls. There is nothing in the game that tells us we have to do everything one way. In fact it encourages us to do it different ways.

No matter what system is used there are going to be flaws. The teambuilder system would have just as many issues as the current one used for solo/duo, they would just be different.

ShinjusukeApr 15, 20151 votes

Then the issue comes down into an issue of "what issues ruin the experience the most?"

Put bluntly, your chance of getting your role is exponentially higher in the Team Builder setup. Sure, you're going to get the shitstains who queue for a role only to try to force someone out of the role they really want, but that should just be a highly penalized offense and your problem is resolved.

Before, you have brought up the issue of someone getting their champion banned and "being unable to play anything else", and frankly that's already something that happens.

Nobody is going to be at the same level with all roles and a multitude of champions. That's simply unrealistic, and isn't a measure of the player's skill. Sure, you can argue that the point of solo queue is to measure your own adaptability, but that's an opinion: I say it's about measuring a player's skill, and frankly there's a difference between skill and experience. If being mediocre at a bunch of different roles was really the display of a player's skill then the top players would not be exceptional at 1 or 2 roles and lackluster at the other 3 (compared to the first 2).

The point I'm making here is that your defense for the current system seems to come down to either an unwillingness for change or a defeatist/pessimistic attitude. Yes, there would be issues with a Team Builder system. Of course there would, as there are with any system. Saying it'd have "just as many" as the current system is decidedly proven to be false due to both systems already existing alongside each other in the non-ranked environment. Furthermore, the per-game experience gains from moving to a structure where the majority of your games you receive your best or most preferred role vastly outweigh the current almost-guranteed-fight-in-champ-select system that exists now.

Of course shitheads are going to be shitheads, THEY'RE the problem, not the system in place. The difference is, if you have the option to pre-choose your lane/role, not only do you have less shitheads acting like shitheads in the pregame ("mid or feed") because they're at least getting their preferred role, you also have a minimalized amount of losses due to multiple players being forced into roles they're not optimal in. Games should be decided by the skill of the players in game, using the playstyle they enjoy and are good at, not by "how well can they play a role/champion they hate to play", which whether you're aware of it or not is what you're advocating.

Being able to play multiple roles and characters should be a necessary part of game mastery, but needing to be good at roles you hate just because getting the roles you like is purely a matter of luck should not be embraced and should've had at least some steps taken against it by now. The point isn't that a Team Builder ranked queue would magically fix all the issues, the point is that it would fix one, major, game-defining issue that is hated by literally the entire community as far as I can guess: The problem that getting to play the role you like to play is left entirely to chance in ranked. This is a problem that has caused more friction amongst teams (at least in my experience) than any, and I mean any other issue by a landslide: Some guy is forced to play a role he sucks at or hates.

You aren't going to get rid of trolls. You aren't going to get rid of people who don't prepare to play other roles or champions. You just aren't. People are selfish fuckheads who suck at this game. The best course of action is to minimalize the amount of times those people are put into situations they don't want to be in, and a Team Builder queue alleviates that considerably whereas the current system does not. Ideally people would work together to build a team, follow pick order, and be competent at all roles before playing ranked. Until Riot puts HEAVY restrictions on those who do not (which they should've done ages ago), that simply will. not. happen. The most you can do is negate as many of the situations where it'd become a problem as you possibly can. Team Builder does this. Current queue does not.

The compromise might be that players are forced to queue for 2, with an optional 3rd, roles at once. Learning 2 roles to equal levels of mastery is a fair requirement for ranked. Forcing a player to learn 5 to climb the ladder is not. This would fix both sides in a few ways. Firstly, it'd lessen queue times considerably. Secondly, it'd force players to learn to play multiple champions across multiple roles to a proficient level, without forcing them to occasionally play a role they outright hate. Thirdly, it allows for team alteration in champ select without forcing players out of roles.

Sypher The PoroApr 15, 20151 votes

{quoted}

This is why they're trying to redesign champion select. You can't just give peopel the power to kick people from the lobby. There's too much potential for abuse...

but if you use a system like teambuilder where people effectively form a team BEFORE they enter the draft phase and then enter the pick/ban phase based off of the assumption that they know where they're going and are happy with who is on the team.... then you eliminate this problem from all but the most edge cases.

It's not ready for ranked yet, but it's coming and that's really what needs to happen. Just givingp eople the power to kick doesn't solve the problem, since a lot of people simply don't pay attention to champ select. What solves the problem is providing people with an understanding of what they're doing and a chance to communicate beforehand.

I agree completely, but I just had something I wanted to mention. I play Yasuo a lot, he's my main champion and I enjoy him a ton. However, to be most effective he requires team-mates with a knockup to set up ganks or teamfights. In teambuilder, I never play Yasuo unless I'm with a party due to people having already chosen their champions and the chance of getting a champ with a knockup is actually pretty rare. You get less trolls, yes, but you also get less wombo combos in TB which is why it still needs some work.

EleshakaiApr 15, 20151 votes

{quoted}

I agree completely, but I just had something I wanted to mention. I play Yasuo a lot, he's my main champion and I enjoy him a ton. However, to be most effective he requires team-mates with a knockup to set up ganks or teamfights. In teambuilder, I never play Yasuo unless I'm with a party due to people having already chosen their champions and the chance of getting a champ with a knockup is actually pretty rare. You get less trolls, yes, but you also get less wombo combos in TB which is why it still needs some work.

Ranked TB wouldn't have that problem since it'd stil lhave a pick/ban phase, I'd imagine... but yep, it's a concern that needs to be considered.

Glitter SpitterApr 15, 20151 votes

{quoted}

This is why they're trying to redesign champion select. You can't just give peopel the power to kick people from the lobby. There's too much potential for abuse...

but if you use a system like teambuilder where people effectively form a team BEFORE they enter the draft phase and then enter the pick/ban phase based off of the assumption that they know where they're going and are happy with who is on the team.... then you eliminate this problem from all but the most edge cases.

It's not ready for ranked yet, but it's coming and that's really what needs to happen. Just givingp eople the power to kick doesn't solve the problem, since a lot of people simply don't pay attention to champ select. What solves the problem is providing people with an understanding of what they're doing and a chance to communicate beforehand.

still waiting for loading screen chat

EleshakaiApr 15, 20152 votes

{quoted}

still waiting for loading screen chat

Different scope. One would require a completely new client that integrates the game into the client and handles trhe loading process differently. The other just requires them to add a new feature to the existing out of game client.

Slamurai JackApr 13, 20159 votes

I'm more concerned with 3 people voting yes to dodge, and 2 voting no. I can hear the cries of "GG, team wouldn't vote dodge OP" already. Hell, it wouldn't even take 3. All it would take is one guy to want to dodge, the rest of his team saying no, and then that guy is toxic the entire game. We all know how the 1 tends to act after a 1-4 surrender vote.

SqueekemsApr 13, 20153 votes

Dodging is negative. It ruins the game for all who wanted that game to happen. You should always be punished to dodging.

To deal with some asshole who says "Mid or troll," assume they are not going to troll. Go into the game assuming everyone on your team is planning to try to win. If it turns out that they decided to troll anyways, then they are the ones that ruined the game for everyone. They are the proven asshole. Not you.

It does suck to become the victim, but it is better than being the asshole. Until Riot can come up with a system that cannot be easily abused, do not dodge a game based on threats.

Edit: Truth hurts. Champion select is when the game starts. If you did not like the way it went, then you quit. You dodge the game. You grief the game. Go ahead and down-vote me more for telling you how it is. Yes; dodging is a mechanic of the game. Yes; you have to be punished for doing it.

Edit2: Most people are suggesting that we should punish people for what they might do in a game. I can agree with punishing people for threatening to do something negative in a game, but the question is: How can you do that without making a "get-out-of-jail-free pass" on a game where your team was counter-picked?

GodhriApr 13, 20151 votes

Any system can be abused. A system has a way it works and if you know how it works, it becomes exploitable. There is no such thing as a system that can't be abused.

I agree, dodging a game based on a senseless threat is stupid and you have yourself to blame for doing that. Sometimes the people who say they will feed or troll don't actually do it once they get in game.

SqueekemsApr 13, 20152 votes

I was speaking generally. I know any system can be abused. Just like any program can be hacked and any house can be broken into. Just because you have a password or a key does not mean you are safe. I should not have to bring that up because everyone should know that.

GodhriApr 14, 20151 votes

You shouldn't have to? Rofl. It is I who shouldn't have to. Your statement does not imply that you know what you are talking about. "Until Riot can come up with a system that cannot be abused" This implies you believe such a system exists and yet here you claim that any system can be abused and that this is a known fact. UHM OK! I think you should just be quiet now. There are already people thinking you are stupid without my contribution.

SqueekemsApr 14, 20153 votes

Correction: You think I am stupid.

I literally thought to myself as I typed that sentence, "Maybe I should reword it in case some asshole wants to be a retard about it." Fuck me right? Some asshole wanted to be a retard about it.

Matthias9119Apr 14, 20152 votes

If 4/5 vote to dodge then the match is dropped...

Would be abused. Constantly. Sorry, just not gonna work. People abused it when there was no LP penalty but still a time penalty, this would be WAY more favorable.

...add a pregame report option for this shit so people can at least report these trolls before they dodge them.

This I would like to see -- keep the current dodge penalty, but let you file a report.

You can report pregame abuse here: https://support.riotgames.com/hc/requests/new . Chat from the lobby is logged even if the match didn't go off.

Occams RaiserApr 14, 20151 votes

Pregame report is meaningless. I would be ok with a time penalty less than the actual waste of time you would face by playing with them. 5 Minutes for a drop. No LP loss.

Matthias9119Apr 14, 20151 votes

5 Minutes for a drop. No LP loss.

The problem is that people will just abuse it for competitive reasons in Ranked, making it take forever for matches to actually start. Didn't get "your" lane or "your" champ? Dodge. Other team got something "OP"? Dodge. Team comp doesn't look so good? Dodge.

For a while there were no LP losses but the current scaling time penalties, and that was badly abused. There has to be some LP loss on dodges, because there's such a strong incentive to dodge for competitive reasons.

Occams RaiserApr 14, 20151 votes

I want a vote drop. If there is a reason that 4 people would agree to drop from a game I bet it has more than just being counter picked to do with it. For every guy that says " I don't want to lane against him" there will be at least one guy that says "don't worry, I'll help you in lane once I get red. Trust me, X champ is a bitch!" Comradery in one step. Even if it isn't true they tried. 4v1 vote would not be abused more than it helped.

Matthias9119Apr 14, 20152 votes

If there is a reason that 4 people would agree to drop from a game I bet it has more than just being counter picked to do with it.

The problem with this argument being that they already tried removing the LP penalty and it was constantly abused by people dodging for competitive reasons. Totally free dodges would be more abused, since there is no downside to proposing the dodge vote.

Occams RaiserApr 14, 20151 votes

If you had a vote dodge you would still have penalties for solo drop outs. Vote kick is better cause you could pick up a new player faster than re-queuing 9 people. But if it is easier for them to code vote drop I'm cool with tat too.you can't escape all trolls but making no attempt to stem the tide is just lazy on the part of Riot.

Matthias9119Apr 14, 20151 votes

If you had a vote dodge you would still have penalties for solo drop outs.

You'll still get a lot more dodges. There's no downside to proposing a dodge that fails, so people will do that any time they think they're at a disadvantage. And there's no downside to voting for a dodge that doesn't pass, so anyone who agrees the team is at even a slight disadvantage is incentivized to vote yes on it.

Free dodges in any form will be abused.

Vote kick is better...

That generates a whole new set of problems. Even ignoring the "people will kick anyone who picks [Teemo/Bard/insert-this-week's-UP-champ]" and "people will kick anyone who's last pick and won't support" issues (which are real concerns, your dismissal notwithstanding), it's really weird to throw someone into the middle of a draft with no input on picks/bans/roles. Especially given that it's likely the team was already unhappy with the situation.

Occams RaiserApr 14, 20152 votes

You don't know how many more dodges you would get. There doesn't have to be a downside. You already have a reward system for staying. You already want to play. Dodging because you think you are at a disadvantage would only serve the particular person that thinks this. Convincing everyone else that you will troll if they don't all drop would be your best bet. But then you are the type of person no one wanted to play with in the first place. THE VERY REASON FOR THE THE SYSTEM.

Also, many people have said that it would be a good Idea for each person to get a ban or at least the first 3 people so it feels like you are a part of the plan. I never understood why they thought a team captain approach was a good idea but i suppose things weren't as toxic in the beginning.Spreading the ban means fewer people would drop due to a disadvantage. You already got rid of that champ you hate laning against.

Lots of time last pick isn't support. That might be how its suppose to be but in bronze it doesn't go that way. Even I have been 3rd pick and said support and no one had a problem.

it's really weird to throw someone into the middle of a draft with no input on picks/bans/roles. Especially given that it's likely the team was already unhappy with the situation.

This statement is very true and should be addressed. Maybe their ranked team builder will fix this. Anyway, an abused system is better than dealing with trolls. I would rather shift around in queue for 10 minutes than get trolled for 30. Trolls are more toxic to a system than who goes where and how the game is played once we start.

Matthias9119Apr 14, 20152 votes

You don't know how many more dodges you would get.

A system with more penalty for dodging than what you're proposing caused an unacceptably high amount of dodging in Ranked play. I don't think it is a stretch to think this would cause issues.

an abused system is better than dealing with trolls.

Depends on how much abuse there is and how many trolls there are. If you have to sit through 20+ minutes of lobbies on average to get into one match, that's not real good either.

Occams RaiserApr 15, 20152 votes

The abuse would have to be equal to the typical trolled game. Then you would have to be the type that would have preferred to be trolled over not playing at all. I myself find both of propositions to be nearly the same. I didn't get a good game either way you sliced it. But one way loses me LP onto of not getting a good game.

What is more sporting and closer to actual ranked play, losing cause someone trolled you from the very beginning (temper tantrums count to), or shuffling the queue until both teams feel they have a fighting chance?

Why do so many people think the element of counter picking so important that anything that undermines it is a bad thing? I never start a game thinking "Looks like both teams are evenly balanced. DAMN. Another fair fight..... not again."

Abuse leads to higher queue times. Not an argument. Untested. Assertion unfounded.

aaronconlinApr 15, 20152 votes

I definitely think there should be a report option in champion select.

blacknerdtakuApr 14, 20151 votes

I posted this a while back, and got downvoted into OBLIVION.

whatever i will repost it here. http://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/miscellaneous/Uh98OQra-give-us-a-free-dodge-in-ranked

kcStrangerApr 14, 20151 votes

Trolls notwithstanding, I don't like the idea of giving people free dodges. It's too easy to abuse. This is a problem, but I don't think that's the solution.

Occams RaiserApr 14, 20151 votes

Explain how a 4 to 1 vote to drop a match can be abused. And how it wouldn't pertain to trolls.

kcStrangerApr 14, 20151 votes

Hmm, maybe your post just wasn't very clear? Because I read it and it seemed like you could just drop without needing your teammates' permission. I don't really like any system where a player can unilaterally dodge. If the dodge was dependent on four players agreeing, I might be able to get behind that. Although even that has some problems with the four players being able to bully one player (I admit this is probably a minor issue).

blacknerdtakuApr 14, 20151 votes

yes you can drop without needing permission... the vote is for the sake of reporting a player when applicable.

but dont you think needing a group vote to dodge is more abusable than my system? 1: this means that you HAVE to bully a player - all 4 of you 2: if that person happens to be a duo then well you still get stuck

my system lets you get a free dodge a week. lets you explain why. and it's not abusable because the limit on it. 1 a week (2 a day if you have them built up) means you had better be damn sure the reason for dodging is legit.

and please explain how it's "too easy to abuse" the post is literally ripe with anti-abuse protocols. and yet everyone who's commented "ABUSE" has yet to present how that system i presented could get abused.

kcStrangerApr 15, 20152 votes

Sorry, I didn't realize that the first two posts not by me in this thread were from different people. Here's the deal. If you let people have free drops, I think it will solve some problems and cause others. It will solve the problem of people being punished for having trolls on their team, but it will create problems because some people will drop for stupid reasons. Similarly, if you force 4 players to unite against 1 to drop, it will create potential for bullying and generally have the potential to create negative vibes on a team I think. The point is, there are tradeoffs to both approaches; you gain some things and lose others. Given that neither of these solutions is all-upside (or even mostly upside, depending on what you feel is most important), I'm in favor of the solution that's simpler to implement and to understand, and that gets more games going.

On the other hand, I see no downside to putting a little flag by players' summoner names in the pre-game screen that lets you report them for trolling during champ select. It doesn't have as much upside as allowing free drops, but I also just don't see the downside to this, except for a small concern that players might get reported just for making off-meta picks or choosing champs people consider to be weak.