: But a fix that doesn’t fix something isn’t worth coding. Code is difficult, a lot can go wrong... the golden rule of coding is to never add anything that isn’t necessary otherwise your asking for bugs... this idea doesn’t fix the problem therefore there is no point in coding it in, it adds unnecessary bugs and hassle for players for minimal benefit... where as a more elegant solution could be thought of which fixes the problem without adding new ones. Game design isn’t easy and can’t be done hap hazardously... if your going after a problem what you add to the game to solve it needs to actually solve it... and if it’s not that big of an issue then you might as well leave it That’s why I’m focusing on this fact... because it’s an important fact... a fix to a problem needs to actually fix the problem and your solution just doesn’t do that
Yes I know lol, but just because I haven't coded the solution in my forum post does not mean it isn't worth thinking about. You cannot code something if you don't first at least consider it. You haven't yet established that it won't fix anything, you have only reiterated the point that it won't fix EVERYTHING, which is simply poor logic for not doing anything. More games played makes a player better than less games played in general; It's just a fact. Yes some players will still suck, but in general most players improve after their first game which in itself offers a clear and significant benefit. And as an example, I literally just played a game where 4 people were playing champs they had no games played with. It happens all of the time.
: I think I’ve had it once in all of my ranked games this year... and they where playing Janna for the first time so not even that big of a deal... we also won that game. It’s down to luck but it’s not that common, it just seems common as you remember it better. Also remember that most of those players have probably had 10 games of that champion at some point... so your idea wouldn’t prevent those games,
Again I think you are focusing on the fact that it won't 100% fix the problem and latching on to specific things. As I said in my post, i don't know the right number of games, I just believe it shouldn't be 1. I agree it is down to luck, and that is what I would like to reduce. Of course this won't go away entirely, but it will reduce if people know their champions vs having 0 games. I don't remember it better because it's bad either. I have just been paying attention and noticed a clear pattern. Like i said I am going to keep playing either way - it is just something which bears thinking about.
: But the thing is that this is rare, very few people actually don’t use their mains in ranked... so the pay off for doing this is tiny, it’s not a common issue and this does nothing to prevent the issue.... while adding more issues.
Have a look on op.gg before your games and I guarantee you will have at least 1 (probably more) people with 1-3 games played in the majority of your games, unless I just have a specific type of bad luck xD
: But that still doesn’t at all solve anything... 10 games is nothing, you might be ready to take yi into ranked with that but your still below the curve with any actual difficult champion, at which point your still going to loose games for your team because on the champions who you can’t take into ranked on your first game then you still shouldn’t be there on your 10th. Also proves nothing... 10 games of disco nunu and blue Shen would let you play them in ranked... not like you learnt anything playing them. The idea doesn’t solve the issue at all and still adds unnecessary grinding for people with small champion pools.
I think you are looking at this too narrowly. Yes obviously 10 games isn't enough to be a master, but you will certainly be better after your 10th game than your first. However this is not the primary point. The primary point is that this system would prevent players from picking a champ they didn't have 10 games on, which in effect forces them to play a different champ, which is likely to be one they know. As I have said in my original post, I understand that this won't completely solve the issue. Of course it won't and of course there will be jerks who take advantage of the system no matter what. I don't think that is a good argument for sitting and doing nothing. If a champion is broken, do you believe Riot should do nothing at all with that champion? It is unlikely that whatever they do, they will fix the problem 100%, so why (if your logic is sound) should they do anything at all? Why ever try to balance or change anything? That logic is obviously foolish, as all we can do is try and make the system better. Take ranked queues, or runes, or any other change that has been made - they are not perfect, but they are certainly better than than they used to be.
: There is one huge problem (besides the fact that it severely punishes OTPs)... assuming that mastery means you actually know what your doing. Nothing stopping me from playing aatrox for the first time in ranked... I had level 4 mastery on him from before the rework so with your system it’s completly fine for me to play him for the first time in ranked. And mastery is just received through grinding... someone can be bad at a champion and have no idea what they are doing but play enough games to get to mastery 4... frankly I suck at gnar and loose a vast majority of my games on him, but I’ve played him so much he is level 5... if I decided to take him into ranked I’d still prob make my team loose, and it would be like playing for the first time... but your system would allow it. The harm it does with making it tedious for players to get into ranked, creates a barrier that makes people not want to play (no one wants to grind just to get into a game mode), and frankly just throws OTPs under the bus. And I exchange it doesn’t completely solve the issue. Hell I’ve played only 7 champions in ranked, and only 4 more than once... each champion I’ve played in ranked has been 4 or higher barring one (who I got to level 4 with that game)... why should I be punished and barred from ranked for not having 20 champions over level 4 when I’m realistically only going to use 4 of them if not one of them (frankly I’ve got triple the amount of games on sion than the next highest). It’s unfair, and it’s flawed.
If you read my post, I have not suggested that players need to be level 4. I have suggested that they play 10 games with a champiom before taking it into ranked. RE: The fact that a player can play lots of games and still be bad - of course this is true but clearly the general quality of play will be better if people are playing champions they are comfortable with rather than ones they have no experience with. RE: The fact that it would not 100% solve the issue - if this is your position then you couldn't justify making any changes (e.g. champion balances) to the game because there will always be a wild card factor of players who just aren't very good and others who are very good. The point is that it would significantly improve the situation, and therefore it is worthwhile. RE: OTPs - I assume this means one trick ponies but please correct of I'm wrong. If I am right, then this describes me for the most part, and I disagree that it severely punishes us. 99% of players will have already fulfilled or mostly fulfilled a 10 game requirement simply through ARAMs and random games. Ideally this 10 game system wouldn't be linked to mastery anyway so the amount of grinding would be small for most players.
Baarzal (EUW)
: Riot can you create a rule to don't allow play champs with less than LV 4 or 5 in RANK
Ha - I just did a long post about about why this should happen. Totally agree!
: You say there are multiple warnings, i dont think they are really warnings. Maybe you havnt realized, but the chat restrictions and the 14 days ban are not warnings, they are a ladder going down, with the problem they cant be climbed back. When i get a chat restriction, i normaly behave well for a lot of games right after, my honor level stays the same ofc. And as soon as i missbehave, even the slightest, the next punishemnt arrrives. This way its imposible for me to improve. And when i fall inebitably in this one way ladder, i create a new acc, do you think i behave better?
It feels like the obvious answer to this is to stop misbehaving... Most people don't even have a ban, let alone 50 or 80 perma-bans. Perhaps if LoL is causing you so much grief that you are toxic so often (for the record, the number of times should be 0), then you need to stop playing. It is probably bad for your health.
: I'd rather have a 1st time champ user smurf in my game rather than a 700K mastery Fiddle mid main who's silver 2 with 450 games 43% win-rate....lul
I agree, but I would also rather have Faker duo with me. It doesn't change any of the points made above ;)
Raptorz (EUNE)
: First of all, I didn't read the whole post, so sorry if you said something about this. How would you define "first timing" a champion? I have played league for 8 years and have played with every single champion at least once. So to the suggested system it's ok for me to pick anything? Some people have suggested being able to play with only champs that you have mastery lvl 4 or higher on. But even this system would pose the problem that some new players might face nowadays, You'd need at least 16 champs to have mastery lvl 4 or higher to be able to play, and at that point you only have that amount of champs to pick from. After ban & pick phase you might have a lot less.
I did deal these points, but in summary, my view is that the tediousness of needing to play 16 or 20 champs up to a certain level is outweighed by the benefits it brings. I don't know what the best answer in terms of number of games is, but my suggestion was "at least 10". I accept that this would obviously require some thought in order to balance the tediousness of normal games with the benefits this system would bring, but the reality is that normal needing to do a number of normal games is unlikely to be more frustrating, in my opinion, than having so many games where people pick stuff just to try it out, etc.
Rioter Comments

Cheeseburgers

Level 65 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion