6 ms·

>The problem is if even one person decides to troll in a game then the rest of the players really have no choice. Why is this? I've played online FPS and RTS g

>The problem is if even one person decides to troll in a game then the rest of the players really have no choice. Why is this? I've played online FPS and RTS games for about 15 years now and have never felt like I "had no choice" when it came to engaging with trolls or joining in their behavior. Granted my only experience with MOBAs is Heroes of the Storm, but is LoL that much different?

diamondlovesyou 10y ago
It has to do with late game mechanics, which is dominated by team fights. Thus if one team has only 4 effective players, that team will lose, even if this team did everything else perfectly and the opposing team stumbled around early game. LoL is heavily team focused w.r.t. strategy.
Keats 10y ago
MOBAs (Dota, Lol) are vey dependent on balance. To use a RTS example since you mention playing them, imagine a 3v3 game. If one player leaves and it becomes 3v2, the 3 player team has a huge advantage. Now in MOBAs, you can let the ennemy team kill you or die repeatedly so they get more resources and xp than you. Imagine for the RTS game that it is possible and one player starts helping the other team and that game becomes a 4v2. The 2 person team will have pretty much no chance of winning. Playing a dota game with someone feeding (ie diying intentionally to the other team) is pretty much a game ender but there is no way to concede so you still have to play for ~20min with 1% chance of winning.
- codinghorror 10y ago
  it is an issue of player count -- with so few players per team even if one player is seriously off, you are basically doomed. That's why I prefer games with 16v16, statistically one player can't determine the whole game. Unfortunately endemic to all MOBAs :(
  - chipsy 10y ago
    It's both player count and "weakest link" syndrome. Games more like TF2, where weak or out-of-position players don't necessarily break a team, don't grow as toxic over the long haul, even if you're playing them competitively. But all the MOBA-style games have feedback loops that require everyone to play at a minimum standard or the game is definitely lost, and that just isn't conducive to a good experience in online/pub games.
  - mattmanser 10y ago
    Not really, CS:GO is 5v5, while having one bad player is bad, it's not crippling to the point that "you are basically doomed".
    - fenomas 10y ago
      This is a skillcap issue, surely. One great CS:GO player might easily wipe out five bumbling opponents; in Dota-likes skill is much less likely to overcome numbers.
- navbaker 10y ago
  Gotcha, I thought "troll" in this case was referring to verbal behavior. Didn't realize it was more about bad team play.
  - pvg 10y ago
    HoTS has also made several design choices that reduce the negative effect of poor play by a single individual - team-shared XP, lower complexity (no items), shorter games. LoL is much more 'snowball' prone and players have to live with the consequences for longer.
- gozur88 10y ago
  I play a lot of Dota and don't see feeding much. Maybe once or twice in the last year. Though there's nothing that raises your blood pressure like being accused of feeding when you're already frustrated because you're having a bad game.
  - StavrosK 10y ago
    Maybe not intentional feeding, but if one or two people are having a bad game, you can get to a point where you've clearly lost in the first ten minutes, but since the opposing time is refusing to advance and there's no surrender, you have to waste 20 more getting slowly crushed.
    - gozur88 10y ago
      True. That just comes with the territory, I'm afraid. It would be nice if there were a surrender option.
dikaiosune 10y ago
In ranked play, an early quit (like if your team dropped and/or kicked a badly behaving player and you decide to leave instead of playing on) can undo days or weeks of successful matches, and can even bump you into a lower matchmaking category. Which can have long lived consequences on the quality of subsequent opponents and teammates you have.
VonGuard 10y ago
I like to think of MOBAs like sports. Particularly, like basketball or baseball. It's a team game, and if one person is not pulling their weight, the entire team will suffer and lose. You can't win a baseball game with a pitcher who's wandering around in left field, eating popcorn and looking at spectators instead of pitching the ball.
- edem 10y ago
  You don't play baseball with random people. And if you do you see if someone is a moron and move along. You can't do this in lol.
  - VonGuard 10y ago
    Well, yeah! That's why people rage!
    - edem 10y ago
      That's why I don't play online anymore (only with friends on LAN).
    - edem 10y ago
      That's why I don't play online anymore (only with friends on LAN).
qudat 10y ago
40 minute games where you are heavily penalized for leaving even when someone else leaves. It's a team based game where you can see your entire team on a map. Ranked matches are competely dependent on teamwork. It seems obvious to me why there is so much vitriol in league.
- onetwotree 10y ago
  Dota2 has fixed this by removing the penalty for leaving once another player has abandoned. It's a simple fix and I'm surprised LoL hasn't done it.
  - arohner 10y ago
    That only applies to unranked games. Ranked games you'll still lose MMR if a teammate abandons.
    - yarou 10y ago
      That depends, there are two distinct states. One is triggered if there are network connectivity issues, in which case the game isn't scored for anybody. This is to get around the MMR abusers that would queue bots to leave on the other team so they would get a quick win. The second state is usually triggered if a player has left after first blood. Even then, there are compensatory mechanisms. You lose less MMR than you would normally, and if a player leaves, your team will receive unreliable gold at a faster rate.
      - gozur88 10y ago
        >This is to get around the MMR abusers that would queue bots to leave on the other team so they would get a quick win. Why would anyone do something like that? Every time you played a legit game you'd lose.
        yarou 10y ago
        In order to sell a high MMR account. This explains why there is massive amounts of MMR inflation across regions. Prior to ranked matchmaking, the top 1% was typically around 4.2k hidden MMR. After ranked was introduced, it became closer to 5k. Now you have close to 8-9k MMR, because people are buying 5-6k accounts, and lose until they reach their true skill level (usually somewhere between 2-3k). The account buyer essentially feeds 3000 MMR to their opponents, which is why a 5k player back when ranked was introduced is now an 8k player.
Pxtl 10y ago
Dotalikes (I refuse to use the term mobas) are a great study in unintended consequences. The game has strong RPG elements because those are fun... but that creates a vicious cycle where winners win more. The game has defenses that are tough so that the losing teams can hang on... but those prolong a one-sided game. And the RPG elements mean you can't just let players drop and come back like an fps game, so you're committed for the entire round. Now add in its RTS roots - an overhead God's eye view lets you watch your teammates. RPG elements means a bad player isn't merely useless, but he's actually feeding power to your opponents. So a long game, with a prolonged endgame that often results in 10+ minutes of moribund gameplay after the match is prettymuch already decided, without even the dignity of a quick execution like an rts generally provides. No leaving allowed, either. And you get to watch your teammate (you only have 4) who brought this fate on your head, and you're stuck together for the whole round. They couldn't have designed a game that makes you hate your weakest teammate more if they tried.
- waterhouse 10y ago
  This sounds quite interesting. In chess, most grandmaster-level games are resolved by a resignation or draw agreement; rarely does it reach checkmate, stalemate, threefold repetition, or a 50-move-rule draw. I'd expect a similar solution for any other game that has a long "slowly and surely crush your opponent" ending period. You say players aren't allowed to leave? No one can prevent someone from quitting the application or shutting down their computer. But I'm guessing that the service won't let you join a different game until the current one finishes... Is there a way for a team to resign? Surely if a team unanimously thinks they've lost, they can surrender immediately...?
  - mashlol 10y ago
    A team can surrender if 4/5 teammates agree and at least 20 minutes have passed in the game. Players often believe the game is over before 20 minutes though, which causes these problems.
  - bojo 10y ago
    The system penalizes you for leaving in the middle of the game, to the point where if you do it often enough you can get your account banned. Your team can resign, but it requires at least a 4/1 vote. You typically end up with that one try-hard player who refuses to end with dignity and get 3/2 non-resigns, forcing everyone to play out a lost game. On top of that if you afk or troll yourself there is a reporting feature at the end of the game where you can flag players, which can also result in account suspensions and bans if they occur too often. It really is a terrible system all the way through.

diamondlovesyou 10y ago

It has to do with late game mechanics, which is dominated by team fights. Thus if one team has only 4 effective players, that team will lose, even if this team did everything else perfectly and the opposing team stumbled around early game. LoL is heavily team focused w.r.t. strategy.

Keats 10y ago

MOBAs (Dota, Lol) are vey dependent on balance. To use a RTS example since you mention playing them, imagine a 3v3 game. If one player leaves and it becomes 3v2, the 3 player team has a huge advantage. Now in MOBAs, you can let the ennemy team kill you or die repeatedly so they get more resources and xp than you. Imagine for the RTS game that it is possible and one player starts helping the other team and that game becomes a 4v2. The 2 person team will have pretty much no chance of winning. Playing a dota game with someone feeding (ie diying intentionally to the other team) is pretty much a game ender but there is no way to concede so you still have to play for ~20min with 1% chance of winning.

codinghorror 10y ago
it is an issue of player count -- with so few players per team even if one player is seriously off, you are basically doomed. That's why I prefer games with 16v16, statistically one player can't determine the whole game. Unfortunately endemic to all MOBAs :(
- chipsy 10y ago
  It's both player count and "weakest link" syndrome. Games more like TF2, where weak or out-of-position players don't necessarily break a team, don't grow as toxic over the long haul, even if you're playing them competitively. But all the MOBA-style games have feedback loops that require everyone to play at a minimum standard or the game is definitely lost, and that just isn't conducive to a good experience in online/pub games.
- mattmanser 10y ago
  Not really, CS:GO is 5v5, while having one bad player is bad, it's not crippling to the point that "you are basically doomed".
  - fenomas 10y ago
    This is a skillcap issue, surely. One great CS:GO player might easily wipe out five bumbling opponents; in Dota-likes skill is much less likely to overcome numbers.
navbaker 10y ago
Gotcha, I thought "troll" in this case was referring to verbal behavior. Didn't realize it was more about bad team play.
- pvg 10y ago
  HoTS has also made several design choices that reduce the negative effect of poor play by a single individual - team-shared XP, lower complexity (no items), shorter games. LoL is much more 'snowball' prone and players have to live with the consequences for longer.
gozur88 10y ago
I play a lot of Dota and don't see feeding much. Maybe once or twice in the last year. Though there's nothing that raises your blood pressure like being accused of feeding when you're already frustrated because you're having a bad game.
- StavrosK 10y ago
  Maybe not intentional feeding, but if one or two people are having a bad game, you can get to a point where you've clearly lost in the first ten minutes, but since the opposing time is refusing to advance and there's no surrender, you have to waste 20 more getting slowly crushed.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    True. That just comes with the territory, I'm afraid. It would be nice if there were a surrender option.

dikaiosune 10y ago

In ranked play, an early quit (like if your team dropped and/or kicked a badly behaving player and you decide to leave instead of playing on) can undo days or weeks of successful matches, and can even bump you into a lower matchmaking category. Which can have long lived consequences on the quality of subsequent opponents and teammates you have.

VonGuard 10y ago

I like to think of MOBAs like sports. Particularly, like basketball or baseball. It's a team game, and if one person is not pulling their weight, the entire team will suffer and lose. You can't win a baseball game with a pitcher who's wandering around in left field, eating popcorn and looking at spectators instead of pitching the ball.

edem 10y ago
You don't play baseball with random people. And if you do you see if someone is a moron and move along. You can't do this in lol.
- VonGuard 10y ago
  Well, yeah! That's why people rage!
  - edem 10y ago
    That's why I don't play online anymore (only with friends on LAN).
  - edem 10y ago
    That's why I don't play online anymore (only with friends on LAN).

qudat 10y ago

40 minute games where you are heavily penalized for leaving even when someone else leaves. It's a team based game where you can see your entire team on a map. Ranked matches are competely dependent on teamwork. It seems obvious to me why there is so much vitriol in league.

onetwotree 10y ago
Dota2 has fixed this by removing the penalty for leaving once another player has abandoned. It's a simple fix and I'm surprised LoL hasn't done it.
- arohner 10y ago
  That only applies to unranked games. Ranked games you'll still lose MMR if a teammate abandons.
  - yarou 10y ago
    That depends, there are two distinct states. One is triggered if there are network connectivity issues, in which case the game isn't scored for anybody. This is to get around the MMR abusers that would queue bots to leave on the other team so they would get a quick win. The second state is usually triggered if a player has left after first blood. Even then, there are compensatory mechanisms. You lose less MMR than you would normally, and if a player leaves, your team will receive unreliable gold at a faster rate.
    - gozur88 10y ago
      >This is to get around the MMR abusers that would queue bots to leave on the other team so they would get a quick win. Why would anyone do something like that? Every time you played a legit game you'd lose.
      - yarou 10y ago
        In order to sell a high MMR account. This explains why there is massive amounts of MMR inflation across regions. Prior to ranked matchmaking, the top 1% was typically around 4.2k hidden MMR. After ranked was introduced, it became closer to 5k. Now you have close to 8-9k MMR, because people are buying 5-6k accounts, and lose until they reach their true skill level (usually somewhere between 2-3k). The account buyer essentially feeds 3000 MMR to their opponents, which is why a 5k player back when ranked was introduced is now an 8k player.

Pxtl 10y ago

Dotalikes (I refuse to use the term mobas) are a great study in unintended consequences. The game has strong RPG elements because those are fun... but that creates a vicious cycle where winners win more. The game has defenses that are tough so that the losing teams can hang on... but those prolong a one-sided game. And the RPG elements mean you can't just let players drop and come back like an fps game, so you're committed for the entire round. Now add in its RTS roots - an overhead God's eye view lets you watch your teammates. RPG elements means a bad player isn't merely useless, but he's actually feeding power to your opponents. So a long game, with a prolonged endgame that often results in 10+ minutes of moribund gameplay after the match is prettymuch already decided, without even the dignity of a quick execution like an rts generally provides. No leaving allowed, either. And you get to watch your teammate (you only have 4) who brought this fate on your head, and you're stuck together for the whole round. They couldn't have designed a game that makes you hate your weakest teammate more if they tried.

waterhouse 10y ago
This sounds quite interesting. In chess, most grandmaster-level games are resolved by a resignation or draw agreement; rarely does it reach checkmate, stalemate, threefold repetition, or a 50-move-rule draw. I'd expect a similar solution for any other game that has a long "slowly and surely crush your opponent" ending period. You say players aren't allowed to leave? No one can prevent someone from quitting the application or shutting down their computer. But I'm guessing that the service won't let you join a different game until the current one finishes... Is there a way for a team to resign? Surely if a team unanimously thinks they've lost, they can surrender immediately...?
- mashlol 10y ago
  A team can surrender if 4/5 teammates agree and at least 20 minutes have passed in the game. Players often believe the game is over before 20 minutes though, which causes these problems.
- bojo 10y ago
  The system penalizes you for leaving in the middle of the game, to the point where if you do it often enough you can get your account banned. Your team can resign, but it requires at least a 4/1 vote. You typically end up with that one try-hard player who refuses to end with dignity and get 3/2 non-resigns, forcing everyone to play out a lost game. On top of that if you afk or troll yourself there is a reporting feature at the end of the game where you can flag players, which can also result in account suspensions and bans if they occur too often. It really is a terrible system all the way through.