Permanent Bans are NOT Enough

Sorin Alucard·Mar 15, 2018·37 votes·3,790 views

I'll keep it short and simple.

If a player was justifiably banned for something, it doesn't really mean a negative person is removed from the game.

It means you've created a new smurf, and that new smurf is going to go do the same things he did to his elo to your new player (client) base.

I made a 2nd acccount to practice, and almost EVERY SINGLE GAME I've filed a report AND gotten an immediate feedback report. I'm not exaggerating. Thats a ridiculous amount of players crapping all over games. It's good punishment is swift and all, but they usually are bragging about making a new account and not caring about the report. "Idgaf". "Accounts are free". "this my X number account" "X insult"

They run it down mid, say fuck you for not opening mid lane at 10 when they lose, call out their jg's position in all chat, or trolling hard. This shit's bad man. Imagine someone whose never played this game having to deal with that. I love this game and I feel I might just let my smurf die to avoid those players.

No system is 100%, but I think its time to get a stricter one anyways.

137 Comments

ModThe DjinnMar 15, 201848 votes

Out of curiosity, what is your proposal?

Email addresses are disposable, as are phone numbers. These are unreliable for ensuring players don't make new accounts.
The game is a free-to-play game with a player age of 13+, so you can't tie it to credit cards.
The game is multi-national, so you can't tie it to social media for any specific site. Further, many sites you COULD use do not let 13-year-olds make profiles.
The game is played by many families, played at colleges, and played at cyber cafes, so you can't ban computers or locations.
Personal ID bans take time to gather enough data to be 100% confident a player has returned on a new account, and that gives more than enough time for those players to ruin additional games.

In short, Riot can't really enforce anything stricter than a permanent ban, in my eyes. Would be interested to see if you have any suggestions.

Jo0oMar 15, 20186 votes

You're not wrong, but more deterrents couldn't hurt, right? I doubt Riot's bottom line would be adversely affected if they made it a teensy bit more complicated to make a new account.

(I still think the best solution is to require an amount of money up front for every new account and then pay that cost back several times over in RP, like a new account costs $5 but then begins with $20 worth of RP, but I doubt Riot would be willing to implement that for several reasons).

ModThe DjinnMar 15, 201818 votes

{quoted}You're not wrong, but more deterrents couldn't hurt, right? I doubt Riot's bottom line would be adversely affected if they made it a teensy bit more complicated to make a new account.

Every time you make it more complicated to make a new account you make it less inviting to players who want to try League, while those insistent on returning post-ban are likely to jump through the hoops anyway.

(I still think the best solution is to require an amount of money up front for every new account and then pay that cost back several times over in RP, like a new account costs $5 but then begins with $20 worth of RP, but I doubt Riot would be willing to implement that for several reasons).

This definitely has a number of issues, including the previously stated "requiring payment," which not all players can afford or acquire methods of payment for. Additionally, given that account sellers exist, money clearly isn't a deciding factor in players choosing to return.

Jo0oMar 15, 20183 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=UxG5apjF,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2018-03-15T17:26:45.670+0000)

Every time you make it more complicated to make a new account you make it less inviting to players who want to try League, while those insistent on returning post-ban are likely to jump through the hoops anyway.

I'm not sure if I follow your reasoning. Permanent bans in themselves are deterrents to a player returning to the game, and I'm sure I read somewhere that a large percentage of permanently banned players stay away, opting not to bother with a new account.

Tying one's League account to something tied to an individual's identity, such as a personal email or a facebook profile, shouldn't be a real deterrent for new players. It would, however, be an extra hoop to jump through for a banned player attempting to jump back into the game.

How many players would Riot lose if they enforced one account per email, and banned emails along with the accounts that were associated with them? That doesn't seem like it would prevent new players from joining the game at all.

This definitely has a number of issues, including the previously stated "requiring payment," which not all players can afford or acquire methods of payment for. Additionally, given that account sellers exist, money clearly isn't a deciding factor in players choosing to return.

Well, if Riot actually implemented this, it would destroy account selling entirely. Riot currently plays wack-a-mole with botted accounts, and account sellers are counting on some percentage of those accounts making it past Riot's defenses to level 30, right? If every attempt they make costs them money, their entire business model would be thrown out the window. At the very least, the price of each account would need to be increased significantly.

ModThe DjinnMar 15, 20188 votes

{quoted}How many players would Riot lose if they enforced one account per email, and banned emails along with the accounts that were associated with them? That doesn't seem like it would prevent new players from joining the game at all.

It does make legitimate smurfing more frustrating though, and additionally doesn't really prevent the issue at hand, because emails are disposable. The issue here is that a lot of banned players don't come back, and those that do are usually quiet persistent.

Well, if Riot actually implemented this, it would destroy account selling entirely. Riot currently plays wack-a-mole with botted accounts, and account sellers are counting on some percentage of those accounts making it past Riot's defenses to level 30, right? If every attempt they make costs them money, their entire business model would be thrown out the window. At the very least, the price of each account would need to be increased significantly.

That's fair, but it would also mean League has a cost to test out, and that banned players willing to pay that cost can get their stuff back faster. I just don't see it as a net upside, loss to revenue from giving out free money aside.

Jo0oMar 15, 20182 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=UxG5apjF,comment-id=00030000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-15T17:40:19.291+0000)

It does make legitimate smurfing more frustrating though, and additionally doesn't really prevent the issue at hand, because emails are disposable. The issue here is that a lot of banned players don't come back, and those that do are usually quiet persistent.

Emails are disposable, but making a new one for every new account is a deterrent, right? Blocking their original personal email along with the banned account means they need to maintain that disposable email if they want to purchase RP and such, or if they ever have a security issue.

That's fair, but it would also mean League has a cost to test out, and that banned players willing to pay that cost can get their stuff back faster. I just don't see it as a net upside, loss to revenue from giving out free money aside.

Make the cost trigger at level 10/15/20, then.

The revenue upside would be similar to a major reason why Riot bans people even when they've spent hundreds or thousands of dollars on the game: removing toxic players from the community keeps the community happy and more willing to buy RP shit overall.

ModThe DjinnMar 15, 20187 votes

{quoted}Make the cost trigger at level 10/15/20, then.

Again, I feel Riot is pretty keen on ensuring that players do not NEED to spend money to play League. I can't see that changing, nor do I think changing it is a good idea. Further, putting a cost on higher levels wouldn't stop people making multiple accounts and poisoning the low-level experience.

Dokueki KenshinMar 15, 20181 votes

Okay, so I now that it’s not a foolproof method, but one method of blocking specific machines from accessing specific servers is essentially banning their MAC address, the hexidecimal ID that all network cards are hard-coded with. While it’s not 100%, since MAC spoofing is a thing, it would potentially deter a large number of toxic users without negatively impacting the experience for everyone else.

ModThe DjinnMar 15, 20186 votes

[{quoted}](name=Dokueki Kenshin,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=UxG5apjF,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-15T18:41:10.494+0000)

Okay, so I now that it’s not a foolproof method, but one method of blocking specific machines from accessing specific servers is essentially banning their MAC address, the hexidecimal ID that all network cards are hard-coded with. While it’s not 100%, since MAC spoofing is a thing, it would potentially deter a large number of toxic users without negatively impacting the experience for everyone else.

The thing is you don't WANT to block specific machines. Cybercafes are a huge source of players, especially in the Asian market, and forcing a cafe to get a new machine just 'cause one player is a jerk is awful.

HalcyonDwellerMar 15, 20182 votes

I've proposed this as well, the problem with it is that it would unfairly impact people who play on a shared device such as a library computer, a shared home computer, or a computer at an internet cafe.

Now I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing, perhaps Riot could institute a process by which owners of such shared devices could appeal to have the device un-blocked after showing that the individual responsible has faced real-world consequences of some kind, such as being banned from the cafe or library, or punished by their head of household if on a shared home computer.

Supreme Senpai69Mar 15, 20182 votes

What he's saying is the ones who do this behavior are going to find a way through it no matter what. At the very least, during their trek to level 30, they can't ruin ranked games anymore. Making it harder would only make it worse for those who did nothing wrong, while the ones who were banned are going to go through any hoop regardless. Yes you're making it harder for them, but they're going to do it anyway

3TWarriorMar 15, 20182 votes

#Number 1 being that the game's primary attraction is that it is FREE to play

if they require a $5 verification, they'll cut off untold numbers of players

Pacattack25Mar 15, 20183 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=UxG5apjF,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2018-03-15T17:05:57.621+0000)

Out of curiosity, what is your proposal?

Email addresses are disposable, as are phone numbers. These are unreliable for ensuring players don't make new accounts.

The game is a free-to-play game with a player age of 13+, so you can't tie it to credit cards.

The game is multi-national, so you can't tie it to social media for any specific site. Further, many sites you COULD use do not let 13-year-olds make profiles.

The game is played by many families, played at colleges, and played at cyber cafes, so you can't ban computers or locations.

Personal ID bans take time to gather enough data to be 100% confident a player has returned on a new account, and that gives more than enough time for those players to ruin additional games.

In short, Riot can't really enforce anything stricter than a permanent ban, in my eyes. Would be interested to see if you have any suggestions.

If he doesn't have one then I do: MODERATORS PLAYING THE GAMES - your most honored players could effectively apply for a staff postion to play low level games to try to keep the toxicity in low level low - if a moderator goes out of hand you know who has moderator position and what they are doing, but basically you have people who want to keep the game clear playing the game who have the capability to hand out punishments INSTANTLy for games that get out of hand.

This way ANY game can have someone looking over it ("Riot won't ban me from your ticket" - oh... you can ... crud) - someone who had to apply that you have a record of every moderated action they have done (to keep people from handing out bans for lost games and such)

It works fairly well for minecraft servers - let's give players the ability to actually DO SOMETHING about toxic players

ModThe DjinnMar 16, 20185 votes

{quoted}If he doesn't have one then I do: MODERATORS PLAYING THE GAMES - your most honored players could effectively apply for a staff postion to play low level games to try to keep the toxicity in low level low - if a moderator goes out of hand you know who has moderator position and what they are doing, but basically you have people who want to keep the game clear playing the game who have the capability to hand out punishments INSTANTLy for games that get out of hand.

I can fairly confidently say that if Riot were to even CONSIDER giving that level of in-game power to players (which I'm pretty sure they wouldn't do, as the potential for abuse is super high), they'd want to make sure each and every one is specifically briefed on exactly what constitutes problematic behavior -- which means a large amount of time expenditure. Even then you'd need thousands -- likely TENS of thousands -- of individuals doing this, and one rogue player could cause a LOT of damage before being identified as giving incorrect punishments. It just seems to have too many weak points to be an especially strong proposal.

Pacattack25Mar 17, 20182 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=UxG5apjF,comment-id=000300020000,timestamp=2018-03-16T04:07:03.399+0000)

I can fairly confidently say that if Riot were to even CONSIDER giving that level of in-game power to players (which I'm pretty sure they wouldn't do, as the potential for abuse is super high), they'd want to make sure each and every one is specifically briefed on exactly what constitutes problematic behavior -- which means a large amount of time expenditure. Even then you'd need thousands -- likely TENS of thousands -- of individuals doing this, and one rogue player could cause a LOT of damage before being identified as giving incorrect punishments. It just seems to have too many weak points to be an especially strong proposal.

Ok let's be honest here - most of us know problematic behavior when we see it - so that specific briefing isn't REALLY necessary but for sake of arguement let's say that it is it's not like you can't do this in waives (get 30-40 in a let's call it one hour briefing?) but let's be honest here - we don't need tens of thousands of individuals doing this - we only need enough that the threat of someone able to do this keeps players from being extra toxic - and for that you probably only need a hundred or so on each server. But let's talk about your one rogue player shall we? if we limit in game punishments from moderators to their specific games (IE I can only say this guy is being super toxic and deserves a chat ban while I'm in IN THE GAME with him) then you limit the damage that is dealt - I would also suggest that the punishments stack similarly to how they do normally - so if I say this guy needs a chat ban and he's been chat banned several times for good reason then it automatically goes up to a (I forget if it's 1 week ban after chat ban or two week - but you get the idea) likewise if I say that this is toxic enough to be a 1 week ban but it's a first offense then it gets looked at but probably goes to a chat ban instead. Riot actually being reasonable with the system (eyes roll at riot being reasonable with something for a change... still haven't fixed death recap...) would both limit and increase the power at the same time- powerful enough that their ability to just take toxic people out of the game is there - but not powerful enough that they can cause serious damage... unless the people they are targeting are truly the worst of the worst in the first place.

Sorin AlucardMar 17, 20182 votes

It doesn't need to be overly complicated or impossible to implement ---- we used to have tribunal after all.

Sorin AlucardMar 17, 20181 votes

What if instead of giving them too much power, the moderators gain access to a "moderator report" that is a higher priority report? Since you wouldn't necessarily have to do away with the auto system, you could instead use them to scout troll actions. They could volunteer, but then be vetted like accounts are for PBE. Maybe start with players from the PBE pool.

What do you think about dividing the punishments? As chat offense leading to chat suspensions and confirmed throwing/inting to result in actual bans?

ModThe DjinnMar 17, 20182 votes

[{quoted}](name=Sorin Alucard,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=UxG5apjF,comment-id=0003000200000001,timestamp=2018-03-17T04:11:07.550+0000)

What if instead of giving them too much power, the moderators gain access to a "moderator report" that is a higher priority report?

I think it's largely pointless, as the system rates all reports highly now, and only acts if it sees behavior. I'm not sure jt really geta us any additional benefit

What do you think about dividing the punishments? As chat offense leading to chat suspensions and confirmed throwing/inting to result in actual bans?

I don't like this idea. The biggest reason is that they've tried it in extensive experiments in the past, and they have big data on it. It didn't work, and a large enough percentage of players resorted to other, harder-to-identify forms of toxicity that it was discontinued.

Additionally, I don't see a problem with a team-based game removing those community members who have proven themselves so problematic that they have been denied their ability to communjcate with their team.

In short, I'm against most systems that go easier on toxic players unless there is a corresponding ADVANTAGE to the rest of the community. Having a bunch of players who are know to get angry at their team AND literally can't communicate doesn't seem like an improvement.

TegashMar 15, 20184 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=UxG5apjF,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2018-03-15T17:05:57.621+0000)

Email addresses are disposable, as are phone numbers. These are unreliable for ensuring players don't make new accounts.

Email and phone addresses are disposable, but considering how much of an investment a new phone is, it would certainly be a lot more disincentivizing to require both from a player. Repeat offenders would have to pay upwards of $100 out of pocket each time they get banned, just to make a new account.

If Riot wanted to enforce this, they could release a phone app that links with your account. On top of providing 2-Factor Authentication (which will only improve security against scams and account theft), it would also be able to ensure that a problem player couldn't spoof the system simply by changing their phonenumber.

Tbh I think that would deter all but the most dedicated shit-stirrers.

ModThe DjinnMar 16, 20182 votes

{quoted}...but considering how much of an investment a new phone is, it would certainly be a lot more disincentivizing to require both from a player.

A burner smartphone can be purchased for under $30 these days, and websites exist that can duplicate phone/text numbers. Additionally, again, mandatory phone authentication cuts out a portion of the playerbase, as not everyone in League's target age range necessarily has their own phone.

Siegfriedx1Mar 16, 20182 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=UxG5apjF,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2018-03-15T17:05:57.621+0000)

Out of curiosity, what is your proposal?

Email addresses are disposable, as are phone numbers. These are unreliable for ensuring players don't make new accounts.

The game is a free-to-play game with a player age of 13+, so you can't tie it to credit cards.

The game is multi-national, so you can't tie it to social media for any specific site. Further, many sites you COULD use do not let 13-year-olds make profiles.

The game is played by many families, played at colleges, and played at cyber cafes, so you can't ban computers or locations.

Personal ID bans take time to gather enough data to be 100% confident a player has returned on a new account, and that gives more than enough time for those players to ruin additional games.

In short, Riot can't really enforce anything stricter than a permanent ban, in my eyes. Would be interested to see if you have any suggestions.

"Personal ID bans take time to gather enough data to be 100% confident a player has returned on a new account, and that gives more than enough time for those players to ruin additional games."

What does that mean? If you need to provide your personal ID there is no such thing as you are saying. In korea you need to give your social insurance number if i'm not wrong and that work just fine.

I just don't understand how personal ID have any "time to gather enough data" if the player just need to input his ID number when creating an account.

TheWhiteElephantMar 16, 20183 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=UxG5apjF,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2018-03-15T17:05:57.621+0000)

Out of curiosity, what is your proposal?

Want a simple solution?

Rito's epic punishment system is linear regardless of offense category. There are basically no merits to this flow, and it is extremely ineffective at accomplishing what it sets out to do: 10-game chat restrict -> 25-game chat restrict -> 14-day ban -> perma-ban

So what you end up with are permabanned accounts for "toxic" chat. (Which seems to be judged on an "if you wouldn't say it to a 2 year old" judgment system.) What do those players do? Leave, maybe. Or get a new account, with a fresh honor level, no chat restriction or whatever. So what do they do? Reform, maybe. Or not.

I propose my radical, life-changing, fantastical solution: TWO(?!) punishment tracks:

Toxic in chat? 10-Game Chat Restrict -> 25-Game Chat Restrict -> Permanent Chat Restrict -> Permanent CHAT Ban
Extremely toxic in chat? (Racism, etc.) Start at Permanent Chat Restrict or Permanent Chat Ban
Intentionally feeding? 14-Day ban -> Permanent ban

Notice that the chat-related punishments bar you from using---you guessed it---chat! If Tyler2 is extremely toxic in chat and gets permanently chat banned, he's going to have a lot less incentive to level (or buy, etc.) a new account. Now he can continue playing but cannot flame his teammates. If he redirects his efforts by intentionally feeding, now his account gets banned.

This still has the potential eventuality that accounts get banned and players acquire new accounts, but in the likely much more common case people will continue to play but just without chat privileges. Now:

They keep their skins, rank, etc
Fewer smurfs! When that Platinum or Diamond(+) player gets chat banned, they continue playing in their elo instead of starting fresh at high Silver/low Gold.
Fewer [anti-smurfs?]! When that Bronze player gets chat banned, they continue playing in Bronze instead of starting fresh at high Silver/low Gold.
Fewer [anti-]smurfs means less toxicity. The Diamond Riven player stomping the Silver Yasuo in top lane is probably going to cause the Silver player to get flamed. Likewise, the Bronze player that starts over at basically Gold 5 MMR is probably going to feed and CS poorly until they fall back to Bronze, because they are playing above their elo.
Fewer accounts are created
More summoner names for everyone!
Less people are raging in chat
More people retaining accounts without chat privileges vs acquiring new accounts
The message regarding intentionally feeding is firmer and stronger

I literally cannot conceive a single reason as to why anyone would think this is not simply a better solution.

Sorin AlucardMar 16, 20183 votes

I think this would help greatly.

To add to your point

I think moderators could help, even contributing to this system (to determine the track). Give them very high vetting standards with a chest as incentive to view a game or two.

Then at least a captcha for login (if it works at all against bots in this game. Idk if it would for sure, just because its simple and I've never seen it used for League)

TheWhiteElephantMar 16, 20183 votes

I think moderators would help greatly as well. I recently played a game with a Riot player on my team and I swear that was the least toxic game I have ever played in, ever. People were apologizing for other peoples' mistakes.

A moderator system doesn't have to be complicated. For example:

1000 matchmade games at Honor Level 5. ( Maybe this becomes Honor Level 6?)
Dropping below Honor Level 5 at any point revokes moderator status
Moderators can flag accounts, triggering human-review, and leave a note as is done in regular reports.
The moderator doesn't have the power to ban
Trivial flagging could revoke moderator privileges and/or reduce honor level

Boom, simple. Give them some loading screen flair and your game pretty much just became toxicity-free. It's exactly like highway patrol and speed trap cops: You give tickets when you need to, but your presence serves as a deterrence in most cases. Who's going to flame, intentionally feed, or ragequit knowing that there's someone in the game that can trigger a guaranteed review on your behavior?

Then for the games where no moderator is present, the standard report system continues on its merry way.

DontEvenTryBlinkMar 16, 20182 votes

Create a "priority pool" for players with certain "mile-stones" on their account , like hours played ,how much MONEY they have invested into their account, date account was created etc. with this you can create an algorithm and filter out players into these "priority" pools accordingly, as these players are less likely to grief because they will be at risk of losing their access to the "priority pool",by having their accounts banned.

You basically trying to evaluate or define and account by giving it a rating .With a rating you will likely be able to determine whether or not the person on the account is serious and holds his account dear to him OR if he doesn't and considers it expendable.

Because its a 13+ game that's free you can't regulate it in a simple cookie cutter type of way. There is no blanket solution to this ,you need various solutions in conjunction with one another to actually to make things work.

This will help low elo ranked games ,where anyone can buy a level 30 account for 10$ and troll/grief till they get banned over and over ... As well as help those new players who have maybe invested money into the game by adding them into the "priority pool ".

I know this does not solve the entire issue with banned players returning to ruin other peoples games but it will help a considerable amount ,surely ...

item 3147 summoner 21

ModThe DjinnMar 16, 20182 votes

{quoted}

Create a "priority pool" for players with certain "mile-stones" on their account , like hours played ,how much MONEY they have invested into their account, date account was created etc. with this you can create an algorithm and filter out players into these "priority" pools accordingly, as these players are less likely to grief because they will be at risk of losing their access to the "priority pool",by having their accounts banned.

This solution worries me. Partly because toxic players are no more or less likely to spend money, but mostly because this equate account age, hours played, and money spent with how important a player is to the community. That's pretty unfair to the guy who picked up League a month ago to play with his kids, plays only rarely, and spends money elsewhere, but passionately loves the game. It basically says "if you're not a devoted, long-term player who spends money, we care less about you."

GeauxxMar 15, 201812 votes

instead of just saying "waaa get a better system"

How about giving ideas? And decent ideas that are well thought out.

Sorin AlucardMar 15, 20185 votes

First, being rude doesn't help either. "Waaa get a better system"? Come on person. Wtf did you help with that first sentence?

2nd, I don't know what to suggest that would be effective, as the post below this is correct that IP would be hard to enforce. So how do you ban consistently and accurately? Idk, but the current system from my perspective doesn't seem to be working.

ChermorgMar 15, 20185 votes

Have you considered that maybe the current system is the best that can be done?

Toxicity in League is already much better than in many other large multiplayer games so...

Sorin AlucardMar 15, 20182 votes

I disagree with your second statement for many reasons and I could post evidence all day.

However, as to your question, thats half the reason i posted the complaint. I definitely don't know for sure if anything else can be done or if they have anything in the works. I mean if they can't, they can't. End of story. Do you know? :/

Still feel bad for newer players :/

ChermorgMar 15, 20187 votes

Well, keep in mind that your new account was likely within 2-3 games recognized to be much higher skill than an average new player, and as such you were by definition matched with players who were smurfs. New players do not tend to get matched with smurfs unless they constantly duo with friends.

MankoSlayer68Mar 16, 20183 votes

I can attest to League being ridiculously toxic and confusing for new players. I would even go as far as saying that the elo system when leveling is broken beyond all recognition.

I am a DotA 2 player with approx. 3.5k hours in game. A friend suggested I try league of legends as well. One weekend I was bored enough to try and I created an account.

The first games were easy of course (bot matches) and then the first 5 matches against real players were easily won with my moba knowledge from DotA (ganking, csing, objectives and basic spacing and prediction). HOWEVER, after about 10 games of decently challenging opponents where I really felt I was learning about LoL and aclimitmising to the structure of a different MOBA beast, things went horribly wrong. Suddenly my level 6/8 account was matched against level 20 and above accounts. I even had some opponents that were level 30 and were mid silver tier players.

This turned my games sour in the worst way. I was flamed constantly for not knowing every skill of every hero in the game. I was reported constantly and I lost 10ish straight games. That's when I quit. DotA was no where near that level of absolute ridiculousness. When I started in 2012 I played with my friends and I fed horribly, but I was having fun and learning at the same time.

I really think measures need to be taken to ensure new players have a decent experience first time. The level 30 grind is far too long as is, compared to almost every other Moba.

In conclusion, what I have seen of the matchmaking system in league has led me to view it as archaic, with no place in the modern Moba world.

I don't hate the game, I hate the system (as well as some of the players).

Jo0oMar 15, 20183 votes

{quoted}

Toxicity in League is already much better than in many other large multiplayer games so...

That's a tough position to defend. Plus, even if it is true, the impact of toxicity is worse in League than it is in, say, World of Warcraft, or similar MMOs. Probably Overwatch too, though I'm not personally experienced with that.

LuminevMar 15, 20185 votes

There would be no way to consistently enforce this. IP bans don't work because a roommate or sibling could be banned and it's not good to ban innocent people. A lot of people who are banned for toxicity either quit League after, reform, or keep making alts till they quit.

Sorin AlucardMar 15, 20182 votes

I don't feel thats a good enough standard to settle on though. Unless its absolutely impossible to do otherwise?

obsesseMar 15, 20183 votes

Riot has actual data to back up these things. Try to keep in mind that your experience is subjective and anecdotal.

Sorin AlucardMar 15, 20185 votes

This is pretty unoriginal. "you are one person you can't see the whole picture". I get it, for the most part I agree.

But its also not an entirely valid way of tossing out my observations.

The statistics say that most new accounts are just returning players. If that's the case, maybe its not just the learning curve keeping people away..

There are articles upon articles posted over the past few years about this game's community being notoriously unwelcoming. I'm pointing out something that's true even if in this one post I only used my singular anecdote. Need I really put an entire thesis with evidence that you wouldn't read all the way through anyways? lol

Also. I said "not exaggerating". Every game a report filed. Almost every game IFS back. Where's the true reformation??? This seems like its more of sifting all the shit into new accounts.

But hey, if its true NOTHING can be done, then I'm just making a complaint that can't be answered lol

Winnie The BroMar 15, 20183 votes

Online 3D face recognition

GULAG 4 UMar 15, 20181 votes

Yeah, because that shit isn't creepy at all, lmao. And I'm sure the U.S. government won't abuse any of this information...

Winnie The BroMar 16, 20183 votes

Your name combined with your opposition to the USA is pure gold . Although i was being sarcastic about a set of cameras 3D reconstructing your face, turst me on this one, your personal data are arleady being abused daily.

LoonaaMar 19, 20181 votes

I'm pretty sure the U.S. government already has this information. This idea peeks interest to me though. Instead of a driver's licence you get a league licence lmao. Still that would be way too daunting on new players that just want to have a good time and want to try out the game.

z63XnLCMwXMar 15, 20183 votes

Require photo ID to create account. Come at me haters.

PeachyPosteriorMar 16, 20183 votes

I read somewhere that Riot knows smurfs from newbies and matches accordingly. I don't know how true this is and have no sources, but I know when I was new I did meet more newer people. When I created a smurf I met more smurfs.

You're right though, the toxicity for new players can be overwhelming. My boyfriend quit playing because he was just tired of dealing with all the negativity people bring in.

######(so long partner; QQ)

It was a lot to handle. Sometimes it still blows me away with how awful people can be in game and post lobby chat. It's just awful.

Is Riot not able to make IP bans? I don't see why they couldn't make it so after two or three accounts get perma-banned that they would just opt to IP ban you instead.

Scary DoorMar 16, 20181 votes

{quoted}

I read somewhere that Riot knows smurfs from newbies and matches accordingly. I don't know how true this is and have no sources, but I know when I was new I did meet more newer people. When I created a smurf I met more smurfs.

You're right though, the toxicity for new players can be overwhelming. My boyfriend quit playing because he was just tired of dealing with all the negativity people bring in.

######(so long partner; QQ)

It was a lot to handle. Sometimes it still blows me away with how awful people can be in game and post lobby chat. It's just awful.

Is Riot not able to make IP bans? I don't see why they couldn't make it so after two or three accounts get perma-banned that they would just opt to IP ban you instead.

People still think that IP bans are effective?

You realize most people have dynamic IPs right? Getting a new IP is literally as simple as power cycling your router.

PeachyPosteriorMar 17, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Scary Door,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=UxG5apjF,comment-id=00110000,timestamp=2018-03-16T21:18:31.959+0000)

People still think that IP bans are effective?

You realize most people have dynamic IPs right? Getting a new IP is literally as simple as power cycling your router.

i did not realize this!

IP bans still might be effective for a good chunk of people though.

Scary DoorMar 17, 20181 votes

{quoted}

i did not realize this!

IP bans still might be effective for a good chunk of people though.

They really wouldn't. Let me give you an extended list as to why IP bans can't and won't work:

Dynamic IPs change (not just from power cycling a router) at random intervals dependent upon the ISP. They can also be changed by use of ipconfig /release all, ipconfig /renew all and other means also.
Many people that play League do so from a college campus, banning an IP could block an entire campus or at least a block of computers on a campus. Thus, innocent people would be banned.
Families share internet connections. An IP ban may block an entire family because of the actions of one individual.

Also, as is the case with any system, those that want to come back will do so because ANY measure you use has a workaround, IP addresses are easiest to change, MAC Addresses/hardware IDs are pretty easy to spoof, there are websites dedicated to circumventing two-factor authentication issues so that you don't have to use your real phone number and so on.

Threads like this, while certainly based upon good intentions, aren't really realistic in their solutions. Permabans in a free-to-play game are relatively meaningless, the only way Riot could really mitigate this issue is by changing the fundamental structure of their business model to a subscription based service, even then it would only have a marginal impact on toxicity and would have a far worse consequence to the number of players that they would lose as a result.

PeachyPosteriorMar 18, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Scary Door,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=UxG5apjF,comment-id=0011000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-17T14:56:21.788+0000)

They really wouldn't. Let me give you an extended list as to why IP bans can't and won't work:

Dynamic IPs change (not just from power cycling a router) at random intervals dependent upon the ISP. They can also be changed by use of ipconfig /release all, ipconfig /renew all and other means also.

Many people that play League do so from a college campus, banning an IP could block an entire campus or at least a block of computers on a campus. Thus, innocent people would be banned.

Families share internet connections. An IP ban may block an entire family because of the actions of one individual.

Also, as is the case with any system, those that want to come back will do so because ANY measure you use has a workaround, IP addresses are easiest to change, MAC Addresses/hardware IDs are pretty easy to spoof, there are websites dedicated to circumventing two-factor authentication issues so that you don't have to use your real phone number and so on.

Threads like this, while certainly based upon good intentions, aren't really realistic in their solutions. Permabans in a free-to-play game are relatively meaningless, the only way Riot could really mitigate this issue is by changing the fundamental structure of their business model to a subscription based service, even then it would only have a marginal impact on toxicity and would have a far worse consequence to the number of players that they would lose as a result.

Thanks for the in-depth response. (: I guess we'll just have to keep banning account by account.

Yordle XayahMar 16, 20183 votes

Yeah. I've been leveling a Smurf. So this Riven I had a couple days ago threats to run it down mid if Nasus doesn't come Bot. So Nasus goes Bot, Riven dies, insults our Yi and when I ask about banned accounts, they say Seven and how they don't care in the slightest.

It's a wonder new players don't get fed up and quit before 30.