Idea: Chat restricted players aren't allowed in ranked while chat restricted.

Moist Alcoholic·Apr 12, 2017·3 votes·1,095 views

title:

effect: reduces flaming in ranked, as flamers often get chat restricted and 20+ games

(as a previously very toxic player, i can tell you ive been chat restrictions come multiple times before a temp ban and then a perma ban) i think if i wasnt allowed to ranked while chat restricted, (20 games is a lot of play time, in normals [something i rarely do] i would have cleaned up my demeanor way before getting my first account banned.

forced to play normals if youre going to play would likely result in players not attacking others in the future.

reform. i also think riot should ban "smurfing". i think everyone should only have 1 account. claim youre a smurf and someone reports? #chatlogs #banned.

smurfs ruin the game for the opposing low elo players in ranked they get smashed, and often times it creates a toxic situation where an individual either doesnt want to play that match because someone is claiming smurf, so no point. OR it creates a situation where team mates argue over the legitemacy of the claim. "if youre a smurf im a millionair", "youre no smurf. you fucking suck" are examples.

opinions?

25 Comments

i did u dirtyApr 12, 20171 votes

lol Ranked would be dead though

Moist AlcoholicApr 12, 20171 votes

i dont think ranked would die. i think people would clean up their act or at the very least learn that old saying "if you have nothing nice to say dont speak"

Warlord ScrapApr 12, 20173 votes

they did this in the past were you had to play so many norms games before you could play ranked. they also tried the lvl 20 challenge. Neither caused reform. Both increased toxicity in norms. Riot removed both.

Moist AlcoholicApr 12, 20171 votes

toxicity in norms > toxicity in ranked. a lost rank game loses you MMR ELO and time. a lost normal game loses you time.

HethaleanApr 12, 20171 votes

Toxicity is toxicity no matter where you experience it. It's no more or less of a problem in any situation.

Moist AlcoholicApr 12, 20171 votes

its a problem, agreed. but if that problem were to be primarily in either normals or ranked, i think all individuals who play ranked and arent toxic would prefer it be shifted to normals. you have nothing but time to lose in a normals. you have much more to lose in ranked and toxicity most certainly contributes to the outcome of each game

Warlord ScrapApr 12, 20171 votes

i was informing you of riots stance. elo and mmr are made up and unless ur a pro or a streamer ranked and norms are the same

Lil Lewd WitchApr 12, 20171 votes

{quoted}

they did this in the past were you had to play so many norms games before you could play ranked. they also tried the lvl 20 challenge. Neither caused reform. Both increased toxicity in norms. Riot removed both.

I was actually a member of the "Banned from Ranked Games" group and had to do like 25 Normal games to go back into ranked, it was legitimately often. I reformed on my own terms, thankfully, but that was NOT an effective method. Normals are just a completely different game mode it feels like when you mostly play ranked so when you're already annoyed and then playing games with teemo ADC and Vayne mids and so on, you jsut get more frustrated.

HethaleanApr 12, 20171 votes

Smurf accounts are kind of needed in some cases. Streamers and super high elo players I feel like have a legit reason to have smurfs.

Moist AlcoholicApr 12, 20171 votes

i dont think they are. with practice tool you can now teach viewers anything you could on a smurf, actually you could before the practice tool in a private with a low elo player.

the only 2 reasons to have a smurf are in my opinion: 1: make money off streaming/youtube a series of bronze-Xrank 2: completely stomp on low elo players because youre either A: getting rekt on your main atm, or B: to further stimulate your ego.

HethaleanApr 12, 20171 votes

Streamers often will take request for which champion to play. Having a smurf will allow you to play on that account and not potentially tank your main ELO because you're playing all these champions that your fan base wants.

High HIgh elo players (say in like masters and higher) will often have queue times of 30+ minutes on Fill, and smurf accounts allow you to get lower queue times without having super lop sided teams. Sure they'll stomp a few games, but legit will rank up super fast anyway and won't really make too many games that were GOING to be wins for one team a loss for that team instead. Watching someone like imaqtpie on his main. If the queue goes long, it's pretty much guaranteed to be a f***ed up game of masters vs plats and imaqtpie (another example of a ruined game). So if you're on a smurf that is in diamond, you get a lot more games where it's diamonds against diamonds instead of plats and a challenger against masters. Matchmaking at the upper echelons is screwed up still I feel but getting better.

Moist AlcoholicApr 12, 20171 votes

meh, let us agree to disagree :]

HethaleanApr 12, 20171 votes

We can do that. None of those apply to me anyway. I'm a scrub ass Silver lol

vOmvbrawfUApr 12, 20171 votes

Ruining the games of low elo players for shits and giggles is not a legit reason.

HethaleanApr 12, 20171 votes

I agree. Also, I did not say that. I said "some cases". I don't know about your imagination, but mine can think of far more scenarios than just 'lez rekt some low elo bois'. Also Low Elo players ruin their own games. I know. I'm low elo. Sometimes I do it without trying and sometimes other people do it.

Mostly Low elo invent reasons their 'game was ruined' (Thresh missed a hook! We would have won 100% if he had. He ruined the game!) because they don't know enough to know WHY it was actually ruined. It's not an insult. It's just a game knowledge. There is a lot in LoL.

vOmvbrawfUApr 12, 20171 votes

So then what is your reasoning for super high elo players and streamers to have smurfs in ranked games?

HethaleanApr 12, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Streamers often will take request for which champion to play. Having a smurf will allow you to play on that account and not potentially tank your main ELO because you're playing all these champions that your fan base wants.

High HIgh elo players (say in like masters and higher) will often have queue times of 30+ minutes on Fill, and smurf accounts allow you to get lower queue times without having super lop sided teams. Sure they'll stomp a few games, but legit will rank up super fast anyway and won't really make too many games that were GOING to be wins for one team a loss for that team instead. Watching someone like imaqtpie on his main. If the queue goes long, it's pretty much guaranteed to be a f***ed up game of masters vs plats and imaqtpie (another example of a ruined game). So if you're on a smurf that is in diamond, you get a lot more games where it's diamonds against diamonds instead of plats and a challenger against masters. Matchmaking at the upper echelons is screwed up still I feel but getting better.

vOmvbrawfUApr 12, 20171 votes

So in order to avoid losing viewers do to long queue times, they smurf to pub stomp lower elo players and get followers. Doesn't seem like a very good reason to me.

HethaleanApr 12, 20171 votes

You're quite stuck on that one reason. That's not the case all the time. Generally whenever I watch a high elo streamer place, they're in plat and quickly rise to diamond. As for how that 'gets followers', pretty sure that's not the case, as typically they don't make account ater account after account anyway, so maybe 1 day of 'pub stomping' anwyay. But you're probably not going to get passed them 'doing it to pub stomp silvers' that they don't play against lol

vOmvbrawfUApr 12, 20171 votes

Better idea: Chat restrictions for negative chat, ranked restrictions for trolls.

The simple fact is that you're not going to solve toxicity by only addressing the effect and not the cause. Without punishing trolls, you will not fix the toxicity problem in League. It is what it is. The community doesn't want to do that. They just want to keep throwing chat bans and bans on people who are toxic in chat and that's all. I'm not sure why they think this will solve the toxicity problem, as it hasn't the past 4+ years of them doing so.

Moist AlcoholicApr 12, 20171 votes

its hard to penalize a troll, because its not black and white. text is one thing, analyzing if the player is bad or intentionally griefing requires man-power, instead of software to analyze text and a lot of it.. additionally, anyone consistantly trolling does get banned if caught i think 0_o

vOmvbrawfUApr 12, 20171 votes

I think 100+ games of averaging 42 deaths and 0 kills is pretty black and white. Yet I follow a fella on op.gg with over 250+ games of it. I think going AFK in 50+ games is pretty black and white. Yet, I reported a guy 2 months ago for doing just that. Check his op.gg yesterday and he has 4 AFK games in the past 24 hours. (support told me it's impossible to get banned for intentionally AFKing, just a longer queue time).

Trolls are not punished. And it's the reason League is the most toxic gaming community.

Moist AlcoholicApr 12, 20171 votes

i think runescapes community is more toxic, but yeah i wish theyd penalize differently

vOmvbrawfUApr 12, 20171 votes

In regards to your smurf idea, rito will never have it. In fact, they are actively encouraging smurfs. They halved the XP required to reach level 30 a lil bit ago. Does that benefit new players by throwing them into ranked with less XP? Nope. Just smurfs. Does weighting your first provisional games heavily benefit new player who get placed falsely high and then feed every game? Nope. Just smurfs.

When they ban an account, the player can create a smurf and respend money. For that reason, smurfing will always be a thing.

Moist AlcoholicApr 12, 20171 votes

yeah youre right about that, i forget riots a buisness . 0_o