Use of game replays to enforce intentional feeding / AFK

RuTRoH··8 votes·2,553 views
NA1-2380582143.rofl

Can we encourage better community behavior through player enforced game reviews?


For a full context feel free to download the attached game replay. TLDR:

  • Singed player (with name indicating intent to report players) intentionally fed before minions spawned
  • Continued to throw the game
  • Riot responded with "As a reminder, please do not use replays as a form of reporting this is not their intent"

Question I wanted to raise, is that if there is clear cut abuse that can be confirmed with a video upload, shouldn't we expect more from Riot when it comes to discouraging this sort of behavior?

Riot has implemented a 10 game chat restriction system for verbal abuse--which ironically is likely often triggered by such inflammatory in game actions as either intentional feeding or AFK. In the name of both transparency and fairness, it seems only logical that Riot would implement a system whereby summoners were able to provide better context for their actions, and game replays seems to provide the perfect avenue to do so.

1. A simple algorithmic check could be run on logs to see volume and timing of deaths tied to the flagged player for feeding, or if they left tower for AFK players. 2. I would additionally recommend game replays could be used to provide richer context to enhance the verbal abuse feedback system.

29 Comments

ModUlanopo2 votes
  1. A simple algorithmic check

If only it were that simple.

RuTRoH1 votes

**It is that simple. **

As suggested it could be implemented fairly easily on post game logs if and only if there was a report of intentional feeding. As a reminder I suggested that this would only help to qualify IN players who we have strong reason to believe were feeding, which would then rely on the use of the game replay to conclude . This would help reduce the volume of feeding reports that would need to be reviewed, to keep costs low for Riot, as they would not need to waste their time reviewing replays if player behavior was clearly NOT feeding.

Worst case scenario you would be able to alert to players that they were flagged for intentional feeding, and show how their distance from tower, and enemy health% varied compared to the global average for that elo (could be extended to contextualize champ, and role, and be normalized for global gold difference).


FeedingBuster to warrant a live video review if accompanied by a player report of intentional feeding. Only run on games where summoners receive reports of intentional feeding.

All of this data is readily available as you can see it online in the post game report, which shows gold, towers, and deaths by player as a function of time, along with where they happened on map.

FeederScore = 0 //First check to see if they feed early If (Summoner.getDeathsByTime>1 && game.getTime<2:00){ FeederScore+=1 IntentToFeed=True }

//Next check for playstyle to see if they are dying under tower or just running at the enemy and dying no where near their side of the map repeatedly //**Contextualize deaths based on furthest tower standing for the position they play as a function of time. If they are dying under tower no big deal, if they die far from their tower with comparably low damage inflicted to the enemy champion, that is, by definition, feeding. Combined with intent to feed you can conclude probable cause of feeding.

TotalDeathDistanceFromTower=0 EnemyHealth%=0 lastdeathTime=0

For each death in Summoner.getDeaths() { _ //See if they just run back to lane and die immediately at any point in the game_ If death.time-lastdeathTime<Summoner.getRespawnTime+120{ FeederScore+=1 IntentToFeed=True }

lastDeathTime=death.time

//Calculate how far they were from tower and how much damage was inflicted on enemies for each time they died to see if they were playing safe or running at fed enemies just for shits FurthestTower=GetTowers(death.time)[0] TotalDeathDistanceFromTower+=death.location-FurthestTower.location

EnemyHealth%+=death.getKiller.getHealth%

}

AverageDeathDistance=TotalDeathDistanceFromTower/Summoner.GetDeaths().count AverageEnemyHealth%=EnemyHealth%/Summoner.GetDeaths().count

If AverageDeathDistance>GlobalEloDeathDistanceAverage { FeederScore+=1 IntentToFeed=True }

If EnemyHealth%>GlobalEloEnemyHealth% { FeederScore+=1 IntentToFeed=True }

//Finally calculate if they player was teamfighting at anypoint during the game, or not for further context of player behavior. If no one else on the summoners team inflicted any damage on the champion that killed the feeding summoner, it is highly likely (not guarenteed, but again this is just to flag probably cause) that they were not team fighting.

For each death in Summoner.getDeaths() {

If death.getKiller.getDamageSources.count<=1{ FeederScore+=1 //No intentToFeed=true here cause this could just be them split pushing which is fine, but coupled with the other feeding behviors above makes for a more conclusive test } }

If (FeederScore>=2 && IntentToFeed){ SummonerFeeding=True FlagForReview }


AFK TEST

The client clearly tracks inputs and clicks in order to move champs, etc a simple timer that calculates how long it has been since last input, while champ location = on tower (or inside base if people figure it out) makes for a simple 4 line test for AFK

Summoner.TimeAliveOnTower=0

While (game = true) { If (Summoner.Location==OnTower && game.time > 500){ Summoner.TimeAliveOnTower+=1 } }

Happy to chat.

ModUlanopo2 votes

None of those work. At all. I was going to go through and rebut them individually, but it's a Gish Gallop married to bad programming.

The simplest response is that your "simple algorithms" would have to be adjusted to account for all sorts of things, making them no longer simple. They would also waste millions of dollars in manual reviews based on false positives. Finally, they encourage highly passive play by being far too simplistic. Anyone who gets flagged as a feeder simply for falling prey to an early invade or hook is probably going to stop playing.

But, by all means, if you think your ideas are the way to go, you should apply to Riot and make them real.

RuTRoH1 votes

Really appreciate the response! More importantly, Gish Gallop has to be--with out a doubt--the coolest phrase I have seen on a league forum =).

Ironically, I see your Gish Gallop and raise you one no true scotsman fallacy for your response. As I'm sure we can both agree, simply typing something on a forum board does not make it so.


I take it from your original "If only it were that simple" comment that you agree something like this should be done. I only sought to highlight that it in fact could be done.

Clearly didn't mean for my 3 minute psudo-code to be implemented as is--it was only meant as a thought experiment to demonstrate that one could clearly enhance generic feeding reports (a simple volume counter that if high enough surely must trigger some review or else why even have the system in place) through the use of post game logs data to detect feeding behaviors based on parameters such as:

  • time of death
  • frequency of death
  • proximity to towers @ time of death
  • % of enemy HP dealt at time of death
  • of teammates who also dealt damage to feeder's killer

Obviously if you are split pushing and have the most gold in the game and no one on your team reports you for feeding then this is a moot point as the automated review would not be triggered. Regardless, it seems legitimately useful to be able to contextualize feeding reports with how much better or worse than the average player of that elo + champion a specific summoner was. Perhaps an explicit definition from Riot about what exactly constitutes feeding, might both help reduce false negatives in terms of feeding reports, and encourage more competitive play (sorry but dying past mid lane when the enemy is full health means you should probably have B'd or sat under tower and waited for your jg--even if you're 50 CS back it certainly doesn't help to die again for that one siege minion...but then again if Im off base here I guess I misunderstand what feeding is).

As for the real concern you raised of the false positive rate being two high, you can easily tune the count in the last test from 2 to any number higher than that, along with adjusting the missing enemy health % required to trigger an increment on the counter.


I'll leave the code reviews & implementation to the pros @ Riot, but guess I am confused as to why forums exist if not to address legitimate concerns from the community and implement enhancements that would improve gameplay?

ModUlanopo1 votes

I think you misunderstand the after-the-fact nature of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It's a revision of the thesis to rebut a counterargument. For example:

"Liberals want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment and confiscate all our guns." "I consider myself a liberal and I don't want that. In fact, I own several guns." "Well, obviously you aren't a radical like they are."

Notice how the definition of liberal has changed? Nothing in my argument has changed. Specifically, I don't think you're giving Riot enough credit for having already considered your ideas, possibly even having implemented some of them. I also argue that you're representations of what the algorithms may look like are far too simplistic.

I'll leave the code reviews & implementation to the pros @ Riot, but guess I am confused as to why forums exist if not to address legitimate concerns from the community and implement enhancements that would improve gameplay?

No one is telling you not to post, least of all me. No truly worthy idea, however, fails to stand up to scrutiny. This is also a forum for discussion. You should expect people to reply, some of whom are going to disagree. That's a good thing.

vOmvbrawfU2 votes

"Liberals want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment and confiscate all our guns because they don't give a fuck about the constitution and want Muslims to take over the country >:O !!!!"

If you're going to quote conservatives, at least do it accurately :D

RuTRoH1 votes

Bro "No truly worthy idea, however, fails to stand up to scrutiny" is again a blatant appeal to authority--not an argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

In saying that you are suggesting that my ideas have failed to stand up to scrutiny and thus no longer worthy of consideration. This is almost as insulting as suggesting that obvious psudo-code was a "gish gallop married to bad programing" and thus not worth of legitimate scrutiny. If you have legitimate issues with what I suggested then I encourage you to prove that it would not work.

No offense meant, but who made you the be all and end all judge of worthiness? I welcome scrutiny, but you have not provided any whatsoever, other than simply saying "It wont work, its more complex that you said, and we've already considered and or implemented some of those ideas anyway".

That sounds a hell of a lot like validation, not "failing to stand up to scrutiny."

If you have a real reason why you cannot detect intentional feeding that you would like to contribute to the thread--including that it simply isn't a priority, or riot does not have the resources at this time--then I welcome you to present it, as "no truly worth idea would fail to stand up to scrutiny". If you do not then I would ask you kindly please stop diluting the value of the thread.

As an aside, had you invested the same amount of your personal time watching the video I uploaded instead of arguing that there is nothing you can do about feeding, so I shouldn't bother to stir the pot asking Riot to use video replays, we'd have one fewer trolls on the rift.

ModUlanopo1 votes

Bro "No truly worthy idea, however, fails to stand up to scrutiny" is again a blatant appeal to authority--not an argument.

I really don't know how to reply to this. An Appeal to Authority would be like if I said "I have been around since Season 1 and I can tell you you're wrong." I'm not claiming any sort of inside knowledge or special expertise. I'm giving you my opinion, as informed by my experiences. I don't know what else I can do.

If you want to claim that I should have been less tart with you, sure. I'll admit to that.

No offense meant, but who made you the be all and end all judge of worthiness?

None taken. I'm not trying to come across that way, but you clearly feel I'm judging your ideas too harshly. Perhaps some explanation would help.

EARLY DEATHS AS A SIGN OF FEEDING

You can't just say that a death before the 2-minute mark is a sign of feeding. There was a time when Blitzcrank invades were all the rage because of the way Blue Golem reset. If you didn't hook the jungler, you got the golem. If you did get the jungler, he was usually dead. Similar things can happen with pretty much any CC. I have had level 1 kills with Nami because I landed a bubble. This can be especially true in low MMR.

PROXIMITY TO TOWERS AS A SIGN OF FEEDING

I seriously question the value of this as a metric for two reasons. First, people will overextend and will get caught out. Second, there are a lot of dive champions out there and gain the ability to dive effectively as the game progresses. Where someone dies probably isn't an indicator of feeding in the majority of cases. Feeding is based on why you're there and what you do there, not the location itself.

Another problem with this as a metric is, once the community becomes aware of it, passive play will result. People will come to the forums and state their fear that they need to huddle under the tower or they'll get hit by FeederBuster. That's not good for the game.

SHORT-INTERVAL DEATHS AS A SIGN OF FEEDING

While I can see some possibility in this measurement, I worry that it will produce false positives in situations where a team is mounting a last-ditch base defense. Given that this is also a time in which players may be tempted to phone it in to get the game over with, this may be a situation where intent is impossible to gauge, which lessens the value of the metric.

NOT BEING IN A TEAM FIGHT AS A SIGN OF FEEDING

I think this misses the nature of the skirmish phase or skirmish actions. The game doesn't just shift from everybody mostly in their lane to great, walloping battles. There's a fair bit of roaming in the mid-game. Getting caught out in this phase is usually pretty dire. This isn't a sigh of feeding.

FEEDING SCORE TRIGGERING A VIDEO REVIEW

This is my biggest problem with your suggestions, as I don't think you have any idea how much this would cost and how little benefit it would provide. Your "algorithms" are set to trigger a review pretty easily and favor removing false negatives very strongly over preventing false positives.

Here's how I would do it. Riot already gathers a TON of invisible statistics. If you clicked on your "Year in Review", you saw that they track the number of times you use each ability with every champion. They know how you play in all sorts of circumstances. I have a strong feeling this type of information is used to verify boosting, as you can't mimic someone's play to that level of precision.

I would have reports trigger a review of those things, looking for changes in behavior.

As an aside, had you invested the same amount of your personal time watching the video I uploaded instead of arguing that there is nothing you can do about feeding, so I shouldn't bother to stir the pot asking Riot to use video replays, we'd have one fewer trolls on the rift.

I'm not saying there isn't anything that can be done about feeding. I'm saying that I disagree with your suggestions. If that makes me a troll in your eyes, then our discussion can go no further.

Picanha961 votes

{quoted}

I really don't know how to reply to this. An Appeal to Authority would be like if I said "I have been around since Season 1 and I can tell you you're wrong." I'm not claiming any sort of inside knowledge or special expertise. I'm giving you my opinion, as informed by my experiences. I don't know what else I can do.

If you want to claim that I should have been less tart with you, sure. I'll admit to that.

None taken. I'm not trying to come across that way, but you clearly feel I'm judging your ideas too harshly. Perhaps some explanation would help.

EARLY DEATHS AS A SIGN OF FEEDING

You can't just say that a death before the 2-minute mark is a sign of feeding. There was a time when Blitzcrank invades were all the rage because of the way Blue Golem reset. If you didn't hook the jungler, you got the golem. If you did get the jungler, he was usually dead. Similar things can happen with pretty much any CC. I have had level 1 kills with Nami because I landed a bubble. This can be especially true in low MMR.

PROXIMITY TO TOWERS AS A SIGN OF FEEDING

I seriously question the value of this as a metric for two reasons. First, people will overextend and will get caught out. Second, there are a lot of dive champions out there and gain the ability to dive effectively as the game progresses. Where someone dies probably isn't an indicator of feeding in the majority of cases. Feeding is based on why you're there and what you do there, not the location itself.

Another problem with this as a metric is, once the community becomes aware of it, passive play will result. People will come to the forums and state their fear that they need to huddle under the tower or they'll get hit by FeederBuster. That's not good for the game.

SHORT-INTERVAL DEATHS AS A SIGN OF FEEDING

While I can see some possibility in this measurement, I worry that it will produce false positives in situations where a team is mounting a last-ditch base defense. Given that this is also a time in which players may be tempted to phone it in to get the game over with, this may be a situation where intent is impossible to gauge, which lessens the value of the metric.

NOT BEING IN A TEAM FIGHT AS A SIGN OF FEEDING

I think this misses the nature of the skirmish phase or skirmish actions. The game doesn't just shift from everybody mostly in their lane to great, walloping battles. There's a fair bit of roaming in the mid-game. Getting caught out in this phase is usually pretty dire. This isn't a sigh of feeding.

FEEDING SCORE TRIGGERING A VIDEO REVIEW

This is my biggest problem with your suggestions, as I don't think you have any idea how much this would cost and how little benefit it would provide. Your "algorithms" are set to trigger a review pretty easily and favor removing false negatives very strongly over preventing false positives.

Here's how I would do it. Riot already gathers a TON of invisible statistics. If you clicked on your "Year in Review", you saw that they track the number of times you use each ability with every champion. They know how you play in all sorts of circumstances. I have a strong feeling this type of information is used to verify boosting, as you can't mimic someone's play to that level of precision.

I would have reports trigger a review of those things, looking for changes in behavior.

I'm not saying there isn't anything that can be done about feeding. I'm saying that I disagree with your suggestions. If that makes me a troll in your eyes, then our discussion can go no further.

Hey Picanha96,

We know you want to get your message across but please refrain from spamming this comment continually amongst one or many sub-boards as it is cluttering other discussions and/or considered low effort.

Here is a link to your post below:

http://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/cAPiaEi1?comment=00010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000008 http://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/cAPiaEi1?comment=00010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000100020008

What is this, anonymous abuse of power?. I cannot communicate with support at all!

vOmvbrawfU2 votes

I would literally watch replays of people reported for intentionally feeding (that had a description of what they were doing in order to avoid a flux of false reports) FOR FREE just to get fuck bois that troll out of the game. Seriously, wouldn't ask rito for a dime.

I think you'd be surprised at how much more of an effect something like that would have on "toxicity" than simply trying to throw bans at everyone that "flames". (because 3+ years of that should tell you it isn't working)

RuTRoH1 votes

Totally agree. This notion that the community cant be trusted to self moderate and "Riot alone can solve it" is essentially confirming they believe there are more trolls who would abuse such a system than people who want them off the rift.

It is absurd that you cant account shame for explicit trolling because you feel like you might hurt their feelings. If they intentionally troll they shouldn't be playing the game at all, let alone have account protection rights.

Same goes for chat. To prohibit complaining about hurting someones feelings over chat when they intentionally throw a ranked game shows how little faith riot has in their own elo matchmaking system to pair players of relatively comparable skill...

Now obviously there will be flammers who throw the game and are toxic, but those people already exist, and likely flame--to your point--because of other players actions far more than their own.

Strilter2 votes

videos can be edited?

RuTRoH1 votes

Yes and your point is?

I understand that people can edit videos or upload the wrong ones, but that is why Riot would be auditing the original replay .rofl file, not some random mp4 upload.

Additionally I fail to see why someone would edit a replay clip to NOT highlight the intentional feeding they were taking the time to report.

Or did I miss your point?

Icy Hot Shoto2 votes

That's odd, as I've used replays as evidence before to add on to reports before and I wasn't told I couldn't.

Could you possibly show proof, via screenshot and not copy paste, of being told to not use Replays as a way to report someone? No offense or anything, I just can't believe you were told that when I've done the same thing. ^^"

RuTRoH1 votes

Sure thing, this is an email I got back when I followed up with account support after reporting for intentional feeding / trolling mentioned in this post.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4Fq2Rb_7zMvY3RqTUcyTUtZanc

RuTRoH1 votes

Also would have been happy to inline an image but I dont know how to do that on this forum >_<

Papa Andrei1 votes

Be nice to see somethingg like CS:GO Overwatch system in place

V The Support V1 votes

Account shaming is frowned upon. You should remove the player's summoner name.

RuTRoH2 votes

Updated to remove summoner name, but have to ask why is that the case if its a clear cut example of trolling? I would think that the community standing up to such activity should be a strong deterrent to such negative activity.

I can totally understand not wanting to shame players who were trying their best and just died a lot, but if you watch the replay its pretty clear that you don't die between inhib and second tier turret pre minute 2:00 unless you are trolling (and then continue to feed for the rest of the game).

vOmvbrawfU1 votes

Because it hurts their feelings.

But seriously, it's because they don't want to go through everyone that's naming and shaming to figure out whether it's legit or just made up. So they ban it completely. Lame, yes. Understandable, also yes.

RuTRoH2 votes

Id love to see the numbers on churn rate from players who stop playing league, due to forum account shaming that comes from legitimate gameplay mistakes as opposed to intentional feeding/trolling...

Seriously, even just the raw % of league players who have ever read a forum post is likely below 20%, so I find it impossible to believe that that false positive rate of account churn from hurt feelings from just strait up being bad at the game would be that high...

vOmvbrawfU1 votes

Most people on the boards aren't going to watch a replay. They're just going to see "X player is a troll". Now, if they get that player in a game, they're just going to harass them for being a troll, regardless of whether they actually are or not.

RuTRoH1 votes

I could see that if there were a league service like "TrollsInMyGame.com" where people could quickly check that that might happen, but I highly doubt that people will be able to remember every troll account they ever saw on some forum board and then start harrassing in game prior to the game starting.

Even if they did, either:

a) the person is actually a troll, and the person trolls in game, deserving the harrassment and gets reported or b) the person is not a troll, they get harassed, and the harassers get chat restricted.

As mentioned its pretty hard to draw conclusions about how wide spread this would be without any numbers or data from riot about churn rates, feeding reports, or chat harassment.

It is safe to conclude however, that if the numbers were sufficiently low, then Riot would be bragging about them, and happily share them. Since Riot has not shared them, it seems safer to conclude that they are actually quite high, as evidenced by the number of forum posts about how often people run into trolling in game.

Azrael0051 votes

Dont worry nothing but chat related and afk/leavebuster bans ever happen you are wasting your time.

RuTRoH1 votes

Yea but isnt it a tad infuriating that we have irrefutable video evidence and were told not to use it at all for reporting purposes?

vOmvbrawfU1 votes

I was playing Halo 5 with my brother. He got pissed at some AFK on our team and killed him. Then he went afk for like 5 mins to piss and who knows what else. After the game, he got hit with a time ban for "trolling". If only League was 1/10th as strict on their trollos.

RuTRoH2 votes

But if they encourage actual competitive play then their DAU (daily active users) / MAU (Monthly active users) would drop, and they would be less valuable as a company.

Guess our option is to make it to platinum, or suck it up.

Maximum Morde1 votes

Excuse me if I'm hesitant to agree to be judged by a tribunal of teenagers. Or am I misunderstanding and it would be judged by Riot employees after being flagged by Bieberites? Either way I disagree. Don't trust Riot any bettwr after their repeated poor decisions.

More from Player Behavior