This may have been done before, but why not start an in-client function that pairs a new player with an experienced player upon request? A lot of people get satisfaction from teaching new players, and this could ease the new player experience a lot.
Can a Rioter comment on why this has not already been done? I'm sure it's been tossed around in a discussion before.
Martensitic3 votesCan a Rioter comment on why this has not already been done? I'm sure it's been tossed around in a discussion before.
No rioter is required, because the reason is obvious:
#ABUSING THE SYSTEM.
You may think of this place as a nice fantasy land, where people are itching to help each other out. Well, here are news for you: You are wrong. Most actual human bings are selfish, driven by greed, avarice and ego, and unwilling to do anything for a stranger if there is nothing in it for them.
So, you would have to hand out rewards, otherwise the system would starve to death.
Rewards for things done by anonymous persons on the internet ALWAYS means: Clever Bastards will invent ways to abuse the system to reap a maximum of rewards, with a minimum of, or no effort being put in.
Just an example how bad this can get: In the good old says when the great sh*t tribunal was still in place, riot used to give IP for participating, IF your verdict was the same as that of a majority on a given case. So, what happened? People wen't "fk it, I want IP!", and voted guilty ON EVERY SINGLE CASE, because there was statistically a higher chance of cases being punished than not. That lead to a metric sh*tton of punished people who had literally done nothing wrong, and forced Riot to shut its nice garbage system of handing out IP-for-"justice" down.
Now, could you design the system in a way to prevent that? Yes, you could. With a huge pile of ressources, and constant supervising on the part of Riot invested into it. And at that point, the cost simply outweigh the basically non-existent benefit.
Also, if new players want to learn the ropes, there are PETABYTE of instructional vids and written guides out there.
Rio Risotto1 votesHow about only people who got the Great Mentor crest of honor get to participate as mentors?
Martensitic2 votesLets assume 15% of them would be willing to do it (and thats probably overly generous):
How many people would that be? A couple hundred in each region? Now factor in
language barriers (NA is not 100% english, and it gets progressivley worse in OCE, EUW, EUNE,...)
time (nightly players, daily players, people with jobs vs. people with school...)
and the fact that these active players certainly don#t wanna spend more than a few minutes each day with that
And you get a system that is so starved of tutors that you can safely delete it.
Rio Risotto1 votes{quoted} And you get a system that is so starved of tutors that you can safely delete it.
Like the honor initiative?
Martensitic1 votesGood example.
Because, other than rewarding a tiny percentage of players with ribbons that say exactly nothing, what is that thing really doing?
Nothing, which is why, since its invention, it just sits there.
Great Muta1 votesDon't mind Martensitic. He's one of the RBSC thought policemen here and doesn't like anything that implies Riot could be doing better.
Martensitic1 votesWhereas you are a little Rageposter who cries because he can't get to terms with getting punished for being toxic, and now quits the game over it.
But hey, seems like I got another fanboi :D
Blue Collar Bear1 votesI don't know, man. I disagree with most of your points. I asked for a Rioter, because they actually do know about design decisions. The new player experience is garbage, and there's someone out there who's job it is to improve it.
Martensitic1 votesYou can disagree as much as you want, but they will tell you the exact same thing: Any such system is either:
gonna have so few participants that it will die out, or...
...going to be massively abused for the rewards it promises
Blue Collar Bear1 votesWell, let's see if we can catch a Rioter who'll say something about the issue.
Martensitic1 votesWhy would any answer?
You have already proven not to be interested in serious discussion by downvoting everyone who doesn't agree with you.
Blue Collar Bear1 votesI mean, I'm not downvoting anybody. I don't care enough about your argument. Everything you say says you don't want to have a discussion. You want to be right.
I've received responses from three Rioters in the last three weeks. I think that's a good statistic, and there's no harm in making the thread.
Selegun1 votesGlad I'm not the only one thinking that. I don't like his points personaly because they imply heavily this system would be like a game mode to queue into when the Clubs sections are far and above the better place to start ground work. If your going to foster a learning environment it would be best to allow players to ask for help in particular points they feel lacking in and then work on other areas as the students feel comfortable with those teachers. Honestly, this sort of thing is very much possible with only player support and participation and I'd love to help support a club like this if one ever presents itself.
Blue Collar Bear1 votesI tried starting up my own club with teaching and mentoring as the focus. It didn't really take off, but I'm apart of a community that I coach for pretty consistently.
I think it would be as simple as receiving a notification, "This player is new and looking for a mentor. Would you like to add them?"
Selegun1 votesYeah, getting a club like that up and running takes alot of advertising and pushing for enough players with interest to see. I'm sure it isnt helpful either when your post gets the attention of someone oozing enough pessimism to make your eyes water lol.
You'll have to hit me up if you try starting up that club again, I would love to join to both share and learn more about the game with people that are willing to do the same.
Z Statistic2 votesIf there is a case opposite of rose tinted glasses, this is one of them.
Riot removed the IP reward because of an accuracy deficit. No, that defacto does not mean spamming punish. That could mean picking only punish, but it could also mean picking only guilty or picking them at random or something else entirely. Don't believe me? http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=2567699&page=1#post29184148
Honestly, you have a very uninformed view of individual decision making.
Every system has unintended uses/effects, some of which are positive and some negative. The question is if the negative effects/uses outweigh the positives.
TF2 has a mentor system. It really doesn't work, and not because of people being mean. People just don't use it.
If a mentor system existed, it would have to be a community initiative instead of Riot doing it. Private charity and volunteering is an effective way to do things.
Martensitic1 votesRiot removed the IP reward because of an accuracy deficit.
aka. Because people abused the system to get IP.
http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=2567699&page=1#post29184148
Awww, cute, a post by the grand master of S.T.A.T.I.S.T.I.C.S!! himself :D "In our research, we’ve discovered that the vast majority of Tribunal voters don’t come to the Tribunal for IP"
That would be the same R.E.S.E.A.R.C.H! that also showed that most of the community enjoy Dynamic Queue, am I right?
aka. the queue that was so universially HATED that it not only caused the largest drop in player numbers League ever had, but nearly destroyed the professional scene as well, and in the end forced Rito to bring back soloQ and gut Dynamic Trash to the flex queue?
Please make me laugh more.
Honestly, you have a very uninformed view of individual decision making.
Because I don't wear rose tinted goggles about the world being filled with nice, helpful people? In that case, I prefer my "uninformed view" over getting scammed.
The question is if the negative effects/uses outweigh the positives.
So you already arrived at 50% of the realization necessary to know why such a system is garbage. Good for you. Now for the other half, go on, you can do it.
TF2 has a mentor system. It really doesn't work, and not because of people being mean. People just don't use it.
So, to convince me that a mentor system is a good idea, you mention a game with a mentor system that...failed.
what? [zombie-brand-mindblown]
If a mentor system existed, it would have to be a community initiative instead of Riot doing it. Private charity and volunteering is an effective way to do things.
Then by all means, cook up a website doing that. This discussion is not about community websites however, it is about a built-in system.
Z Statistic1 votesMaybe if you actually read my post instead of simply swinging at any reply that doesn't such your dick, you'll find that:
If you have a credible source that contradicts Lyte in this post, I'd like to see it. I think he's a bit ideological though not irredeemably so. No, massive traffic in Gameplay complaining about dynamic queue is not representative of the whole, so that's shit evidence.
I mean, what the hell do you think I wrote? If I had simply read your reply without the quotes, I wouldn't have guessed that you were replying to me. Everything you said was agreeing with me, non-sequitor, or strawmanning my position.
Martensitic1 votesI wasn't trying to argue against you for an in-client mentoring system
Then you are off-topic, because that's what this thread is about.
You either pulled the stats that prop of your beliefs out of your ass or ironically from the same source that you condemn, Lyte.
If you have a credible source that contradicts Lyte in this post, I'd like to see it.
The most credible source is riots developer team themselves.
Why do you think they pulled the plug on tribunal IP rewards? Do you really believe their "argument" that players "don’t really feel good about." ? Look at the boards in the months before that post sunshine. You will find HUNDREDS of complaints about people voting "PUNISH!" in cases where it is not warranted at all, because that's how you got IP.
Its the Dynamic queue situation all over again, which "according to research" (the data of which we never saw btw.) everyone enjoyed, but for some strange inexplicable reason THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE HATED.
No, massive traffic in Gameplay complaining about dynamic queue is not representative of the whole, so that's shit evidence.
Massive traffic IN GAMEPLAY, sunshine?
https://www.unrankedsmurfs.com/blog/why-dynamic-queue-is-bad https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/search?q=dynamic+queue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf7-hhrBMtw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl_P4fNMhHM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drjjuX0u6io The infamous Round table where even the pros sh1t on DynQueue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahItzHevJxM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNlJirp7KtA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IioxUo8MsLc https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/4m6tqd/why_dynamic_queue_is_bad_and_how_to_improve_it/ https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/4f18xx/how_the_hell_did_10_minute_queue_times_become/ http://www.nerfplz.com/2016/05/dynamic-queue-why-its-harder-to-climb.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIY5MDPHIKA&t=201s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQoCOZVN1zM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDCP5JbxYXU&t=392s http://www.idigitaltimes.com/league-legends-froggen-vladimir-dynamic-queue-and-tournament-realm-541238 https://www.drakemoon.com/blog/lol-news/lol-ranked-changes-for-the-next-season http://www.netizen.gg/2016/06/lcs-teams-drop-dynamic-queue-for.html https://www.drakemoon.com/blog/lol-news/na-pros-considering-to-stop-playing-dynamic-queue https://pvplive.net/c/pros-divorcing-dynamic-queue-bottlenecks-talent https://twitter.com/DarshanU/status/687898439611322368 https://twitter.com/Hai/status/687865696869457920 https://twitter.com/Pobelter/status/687848986976194561 https://twitter.com/KiWiKiDLoL/status/687890003767234560 https://twitter.com/FORG1VENGRE/status/688011956062679040
Want more? Because there is lots.
EVERYONE hated it. #EVERYONE From the boards, over news aggragators, community watchsides, youtubers, streamers, professionals...EVERYONE.
And yet the "R.E.S.E.A.R.C.H." somehow showed that everyone loves it and is really "excited" about it. And strange strange strange,...they trashed it in season 7, their "beloved" system. What a coincidence, hmmm....
Z Statistic1 votesThere's nothing I can really do since you are so convinced you are right based on evidence that would be thrown out on face value in any journal. But I'll do this for fun since I'm a stats guy.
You don't get to pick and choose statistics you like or dislike unless you have a methodological quality reason.
The fact of the matter is that Tribunal players were primarily motivated by goodwill. Of the minority that was motivated by IP, their accuracy was significantly lower. Was it skewed to Type I or Type II error? It doesn't say. It makes sense that people on the Forums would say 'spam punish' because of the self-selection of activeness, but what of the people who didn't post on the forums and were still in it for the IP? They may have a different distribution of error. This is something untestable except by Riot, however, so arguing this point in meaningless.
Also, youtube, reddit, gameplay, whatever. They're all self-selected samples, which means they are shit for representing the population. At best, they are simply some ideas of where to look for some opinion polling, but I'm pretty sure Riot knew that Dynamic queue was unpopular.
When we polled a random set of players across all of League of Legends the specific question: “I like that you are allowed to queue with any number of people to play ranked”, about 55% of players agreed, 20% were neutral, and 25% disagreed. We’re not saying this to sway opinions either way--it tells us the system is both polarizing, and broadly desired. We’ll check in on this statistic again next week.
Now move down to here: http://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/competitive/riot-pls-ranked-pls-2017-season-ranked-changes
Anyone who followed our ranked changes this year is now probably thinking "so what changed?" For months, we resisted calls to re-release Solo/Duo Queue alongside Dynamic Queue because we believed queue health for both queues would suffer. We also thought we could improve Dynamic Queue enough to satisfy those who feel left out by its design—specifically, those players who really hate playing against premades (or who think premades destroy the integrity of the ranked ladder). But over the course of the 2016 season, we developed matchmaking and design improvements to Dynamic Queue that have increased our confidence in our ability to support two ranked queues. So now we want to try it out. Ultimately, there are fundamental, irreconcilable differences between Flex and Solo/Duo Queue beyond their varying rules on premades. Our hope is both queues will thrive by leveraging those differences to attract different types of players.
So here is the picture that is being painted:
Significant deviation from this explanation necessitates the claim that Riot is flat out lying. Do you have a third party source that did its own research and came to a different conclusion than Riot? Because if you don't, you are talking out of your ass.
Martensitic1 votesthat would be thrown out on face value in any journal
Please make me laugh more. Because other than most people, I wrote scientific articles in my professional career when I was still in academia. Do you want to know which kind of statistics journals refuse out of hand?
#The kind where the methodology used does not even test the hypothesis.
"...the specific question: “I like that you are allowed to queue with any number of people to play ranked”, about 55% of players agreed, 20% were neutral, and 25% disagreed."
Lets forget for a moment that NONE OF THE DATA WAS SHOWN. We have no idea how many players were asked (n= ?), in what region, how the set was chosen ("Random" is such a nice term in statistics because its so well defined...oh wait...no its not^^)...not even WHEN that was done.
Even forgetting all these things, (which in itself would make journal throw a statistic back to the author immediately), the question asked didn't even test the hypothesis it was trying to support.
I wonder, how many player would have clicked "I agree", had they asked:
"Given all the influence it had on you, and the overall health of the game so far, do you like the Dynamic Queue System?"
But of course, that wasn't asked. Ever. Draw your conclusions as to why that is, sunshine
Now move down to here: http://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/competitive/riot-pls-ranked-pls-2017-season-ranked-changes
I like how you, in your quote of the announcement, comveniently leave out the part where Riot ADMITS they are prepared to cut away even the last remnents of Dyn Queues cancerous existence, the Flex Queue:
" But what if we're wrong? It may be the case that solo or duo players aren't interested in the Flex Queue, and its population—and thus queue times—could suffer as a result. All queues need solo players to survive. It may work in some regions, but not others.** If that's the case, we'll turn the Flex Queue into a strict five-man queue, **effectively converting it into the old ranked fives queue (minus the roster management restrictions and plus all the algorithmic improvements we developed during the 2016 season). "
So basically, even they had to realize in the end, what an enormous FAILURE Dynamic queue was, and how universally HATED it is in the community.
And the first step has already arrived: Flex queue can no longer be accessed by parties of 4. Guess why that is? Correct: Because soloQ players HATE it.
And that leads me to the final that smashes your argument:
Do you have a third party source that did its own research and came to a different conclusion than Riot? Because if you don't, you are talking out of your ass.
I don't need a third party. Because Riot themselves have backpaddled on their decision.
Good day.
Z Statistic1 votesAnd I'm the stats guy who you would be asking for help with the nitty gritty numbers.
You want to say Riot is compromised and we can't trust their sources? Ok, fine. I don't have a particular attachment to sourcing Riot. However, I do have an attachment to consistency of methodological standards.
You don't get to handwave an author because the data is not verifiable (very valid concern) but then use self-selected data as a representative sample. That's moronic.
You want to make a conclusion about people's opinion in general? Go cite a verifiable, high quality methodology, third party poll. If you can't do that, then we (you, me, Riot, everyone) are pulling numbers out of our asses based on what we're feeling like at the moment. There's no shame in that; people come up with guesses all the time based on anecdotes or how they feel. Sometimes they're even correct. The only problem is claiming that your conclusion is more logically sound than Riot's. Both of the methodologies are equally shitty.
Martensitic1 votesDisclaimer: You do seem like an intelligent fellow. And I like it when someone puts intellect and effort into a nerdy discussion. So I will, for the time being, not downvote your comments any more.
And I'm the stats guy who you would be asking for help with the nitty gritty numbers.
Ah yes, those guys, aka. the people we had to constantly prevent from hurting themselves by entering the lab area without safety gear, or who entered the optics lab at the PRECISE moment, when a) the self-leveling table was out of order and b) any small vibration of the floor would ruin a 30min experiment ;-)
Maybe, if you admit that conclusions based on statistics needs to be accompanied by an appendix THAT INCLUDES THE RAW DATA.
You want to say Riot is compromised and we can't trust their sources?
I'm saying riot is a company, and companies say things that support themselves. I don't even have a moral objection to this, I would do the exact same thing.
You don't get to handwave an author because the data is not verifiable (very valid concern) but then use self-selected data as a representative sample. That's moronic.
It would be moronic, had I claimed that the conclusions I draw from my data are supported statistically. Which, to the best of my knowledge, I didn't do.
I am absolutely aware that I am using anecdotal evidence here. Yes, I used the term "unversally hated", which I shouldn't do when I don't have hard statistical data. I can only say that from all the reactions I saw as an avid solo player, active community member and in touch with whats going on in the professional scene, I did see far more people hating the system, than people enjoying the system, and no arguments as to why the system was supposedly making things better.
Combine that situation with the statements we got "from above", and you can easily see where my stance about these statements is coming from.
Z Statistic1 votesOh that's fine. I full admit to being a bull in a china closet who would fuck up any running experiment simply by being in a 5 mile radius. But I know that so long as you guy scientists don't know what an F-test is and how/when you can/can't apply it, you need me for science more than a man needs a woman for procreation.
Which is why I show give 'very' serious thought to when scientists beg me to tell them whether they should use a T or a Z test for difference in means. I sit very still with my eyes closed and pretend to think very hard about the answer. It feels like being R. R. Martin and writing GoT.
But onto the substance.
A company will not lie about its statistics in this age because of people like you and me will question and propagate suspicion, which will damage credibility in he future. No, if a company wants to suppress bad publicity, it will simply cut the chord while the research is being done and burn the documents. We also have a means of looking at systemic bias in publication, so even this method is not foolproof.
That's not a perfect or professionally satisfactory defense, but it's enough for me to take it with a grain of salt instead of just dismissing it altogether. I mean, simply being published by PEW doesn't defacto mean your methodology is sound, but it's good enough to take the statistics at face value with a grain of salt.
And finally, being the statistician I am, I delineate between gut feelings and reality. If you (or me or anyone) is making a definitive statement about reality, that equates to a statement grounded in statistical evidence. This is why I give people shit when they make a very serious claim about reality and then support it with anecdotes. I'm more open to people presenting their experience as anecdote from the get go. Anecdotes are not useless, just not representative. This applies in even my day-to-day life and conversations with laypeople.
Yes, I'm fucking weird like that.
In any case, I do appreciate the olive branch.
Imperial Pandaa1 votesI would like to do it, but asides from abuse by some people, how would you balance it? This is also a reason some surfs exist. They make a new account to help level and teach a friend the game. Would the program be designated to a specific map? Level cap?
Blue Collar Bear1 votesThis is purely hypothetical and for example. Any player who has been punished by the automatic feedback system is automatically rejected from the program. Players sign up through a website, similar to how we gain access to PBE. Players are matched based on familiarity and skill level with MOBAs.
Imperial Pandaa1 votesSo, we would be on another serve like how PBE is or just using that as a sign up example? Matching based on familiarity would be problematic I believe. For the same reason as people who smurf to bully newbies. Could make an account and slick the new to MOBA and then cause chaos that way. You wouldn't be able to just ban people like that due to some people adapting to games very easily and dominating quickly. The only way I can see something like this working is if you forced it to be either a bot game, or a custom (maybe sandbox when it comes out).
Blue Collar Bear1 votesIt's as an example.
It's possible you could aggressively whitelist players that would be acceptable mentors. People always bring me fresh out of the box players who have no idea what they're doing. If I'm busy, I introduce them to my group of friends (who are also coaches) and they always have someone to be a resource. I'm not sure why this would be that much harder.
Dehitay1 votesWow, Martensitic is an idiot. At first I thought he was going to say something intelligent cause there's an obvious abuse case of this system: Being matched at a lower MMR rating just by adding somebody that will naturally have a low MMR rating and being able to hard carry because of it.
But then he went on to talk shit about people not wanting to help when just talking to people in general makes it completely obvious how wrong he is. Yet, he kept on ranting on about some bullshit made up fact. And the say the tribunal was unfair? That's ridiculous. The tribunal was pretty much the most fair system we've ever had. To say it was unefficient is 100% true cause of how slowly Riot made it operate. But the amount of troll judges was insignificant in the amount of people who honestly wanted to make the game a better place.
Blue Collar Bear1 votesHe wants to be right.
Chimp Joker1 votesI do like the idea behind it, but you can already do that by playing the game. Let's say you play a game of league, see someone on your team or the enemy's who carried hard and send request them. Ask the player if he/she can mentor you and help you. I mean, there are people on the board who have offered to teach/mentor another player. I don't see a need for Riot Games to use up time and resources to make a program that anyone can relatively already do.
Blue Collar Bear1 votesNew players often don't know where to look. The end game lobby isn't an effective place to seek mentoring. Ever get trashed, and you're immediately like, "I gotta add that guy and ask for him to be my Master Roshi." It doesn't work at the level of play that new players are at.