Boards›Player Behavior

What LoL could learn from Rainbow Six Siege

zeskgames·5/22/2018, 5:51:20 PM·3 votes·7,174 views

Rainbow Six Siege is a strategical, objective based, arena shooter that has a lot of things in common with League. For example: Both have a large cast of unique characters. http://media2.giga.de/2015/08/LoL_ArcadeSplash-rcm992x0.gif https://api-projections-io.s3-accelerate.amazonaws.com/gifs/compressed_gif_final_ef089c0e73557b811d2cbdddb5f743ec4fa9a2db3ad7a3988569f019db664bc9_1518766095054.gif

Both have meme characters that are fun to play, but not in any way useful. https://media.giphy.com/media/PfQD02h8gcUWQ/giphy.gif https://thumbs.gfycat.com/JoyfulHandyGreatdane-size_restricted.gif

Both have characters that are extremely controversial due to their kits or the type of people who play them. https://thumbs.gfycat.com/UnnaturalElderlyCrownofthornsstarfish-size_restricted.gif https://steamusercontent-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/876376085818440694/6807CF03491C8B5D4162E7057FA8BD7DAD8AAC8B/

And both games are fairly competitive. https://riot-web-static.s3.amazonaws.com/lolesports/Image-Assets/nalcs-1400.png https://pcgamesn.com/sites/default/files/Rainbow%20Six%20Siege%20Pro%20League.jpg

And most importantly for this post, both are known to have toxic communities. But Riot and Ubisoft have dramatically different approaches on how to handle these players. Now I'm not talking about what programs they uses to ban these players, that's a discussion for another day, I'm talking about how they address the issue of toxic players. Riot uses what I call the ostrich approach, when a player is banned for whatever reason, they stick their heads in the sand and act like that player was never there in the first place. Ubisoft has a different approach that I like a lot better. Whenever a player is banned, all players (currently in game anyway) are notified with a little line of white text in the upper left of the screen. For example, "Adolf Hitler has been banned for toxic behavior" or "Hackerman has been banned for using 3rd party software". Ubisoft accepts that it's community can be toxic and shows its playerbase that those players are being punished. And since we (the players) are constantly remined of their efforts it 1. Discourages people from being toxic and 2. shows that Ubisoft is actually trying to make the game a better place.

TL:DR; if Riot started telling us what players were banned and why, it could lower the chances of people being toxic and give players an idea that Riot is actively trying to make the community better.

11 Comments

Umbral Regent5/22/2018, 6:18:11 PM6 votes

There are parts where I agree and parts where I disagree. In general, I'd agree that Riot's community could benefit from more clarity in regards to the punishment system, as, with what we've got now, people frequently feel left in the dark as to whether or not the IFS does anything.

However, you phrase it as though Ubisoft's punishment announcements have a different end-result from League's discreet IFS punishments. I would argue against this point - Riot is very visibly working to make the game a better place, and I don't know what could discourage toxicity more than the promise - not the threat, but promise - that you will lose access to your account and all indefinite access therein (skins, summoner icons, etc.) if you fail to follow the rules.

And, you may call Riot's method the "ostrich approach", but, honestly, I find it to be a very suitable and professional approach to handling punishments. It's like discreetly telling the player "we no longer have a place for you in the community, please be on your way." - like severing ties.

Besides, you gave Riot's method a borderline disrespectful moniker, why not do the same for Ubisoft? If Riot's method of quietly getting rid of and disregarding problem players is the "ostrich approach", should we not call Ubisoft's punishment announcements the "public execution approach"?

(this is, of course, another reason why I disagree with you. I can understand if your intent wasn't to disrespect Riot, but, the fact that you only gave Riot's approach such a terminology but glossed over Ubisoft's shows a little more bias than you might like.)

Jamaree5/22/2018, 6:29:04 PM5 votes

So you want a more in depth version of the "A player you reported was banned." feature then? That's fair.

AeroWaffle5/22/2018, 6:16:40 PM1 votes

Whenever a player is banned, all players (currently in game anyway) are notified with a little line of white text in the upper left of the screen.

If Riot started doing that, doesn't that mean that you're punishing the entire team even further? They now have to fight a 4v5.

Lauchmelder5/22/2018, 6:47:34 PM1 votes

Something that doesn't really stand out perfectly from the post: EVERYONE that is currently online will see that message in R6S, not just the people currently in the game with said player. Every single player online at that moment, even if that player is on their first game having never encountered another player before, will get the message that Suckm Ydick has been banned for toxic behavior.

BLACK REALM GOD5/22/2018, 6:55:55 PM1 votes

doubt it. rainbow six siege isnt free to play and unless you want phones and social security numbers being used to create accounts i'd just leave it at that.

when you buy rainbow six siege you have 2 options. buy a physical disc that may tear up or buy a digital version that is linked to your account. most players for convenience sake have started purchasing digital versions of games and their accounts are not exclusive to any one game. if league was hosted through steam for example and you had to link your steam account to your league account to play it'd be a lot less likely that a player would risk having their steam account banned.

as it is currently playing rainbow six siege and having your account banned literally means you can no longer use your account that may very well have tens of thousands of dollars worth of video gaming content. usually after getting banned from siege you are very likely to get suspended at the very least from whatever service you're using. whether that be steam, xbox live, or psn.

so it's not a matter of how it's approached, but a matter of how much is a player losing when they are punished. currently riot has very little bargaining power. and i for one do not want them using 3 step account verification in order to play their free to play moba

Campingstove5/23/2018, 6:47:40 PM1 votes

This is something I've been discussing for awhile. League has such a toxic community that I have friends that have left it. Riot MIGHT be handling these toxic people appropriately but since we aren't able to be informed of the outcomes of our reporting and they just disappear into the ether we are all left to wonder if they actually do anything/handle it appropriately. They desperately need to implement a system of tracking reports you've made and the results for those. It's not complicated and the excuse I've heard of 'privacy' is also a cop out. Privacy matters much less in a game of avatars without our names and it also means Riot considers privacy of a reported person more than the reporting party knowing there was justice.