8 ms·

League of Legends doesn't seem to suffer from bots - if you don't want to believe me, check out https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/eieyz2/why_ar

League of Legends doesn't seem to suffer from bots - if you don't want to believe me, check out https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/eieyz2/why_are_there_less_cheaters_and_hackers_in_league/ https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/eieyz2/why... , and their regional rank system works well enough and not only useful and provide good values to the players, it is absolutely necessary at higher ranks. Likewise, AFAIK, dota2 doesn't seem to suffer much from bots, and their rank system seems to work ok. Arguably Fortnite / Overwatch / PUBG style games do suffer from aimbots, but whatever downside they bring, those games seem wildly successful. And the regional / global ranking system seems integral to their success. Given that a large number of highly successful games do have it, I don't think your argument has much of a merit - it's surely a challenge to implement them but it seems like a worthwhile problem to solve, rather than avoid, at least if your goal includes global / regional success beyond small niche.

danShumway 7y ago
Not going to argue get into an argument on this, but I believe a large portion of both League and Dota's widespread community toxicity problems have their roots in the global ranking systems that they use. I also think that their ranking systems make them much, much less accessible to new players, and encourage their existing playerbase to experiment less. To the extent that some games can legitimately get away with global competitive ranks without suffering bots, that doesn't mean it's a healthy choice for every (or even most) other games. Of course, no design rule is absolute, we're just speaking in generalities. That being said, both League and Dota are investing massive resources to prevent botting on a system that arguably would be just as if not more enjoyable if it was redesigned. I feel the same way about games like Overwatch, even some inherently globalized systems like Pokemon Go that would be difficult to change -- I don't personally believe the ranking systems are making them better. I think they're there because they're expected to be there, not because they're reinforcing the core design of the game.
- nwallin 7y ago
  If you think DotA2's matchmaking is unfriendly to new players, I don't think you ever experienced DotA1 matches. Every single game was wildly unbalanced, and as a result of one or so players, every single game was an absolute stomp where the losing team never had a chance. The skill gap between good and bad players is ludicrous. It's like putting LeBron James against middle schoolers. There simply isn't a fun game when the game is determined by the singular best player, and the other nine players are being carried to victory regardless of their contribution, or being pounded into the dirt because they're less than exceptional. I could never go back to random matchmaking after experiencing global rankings.
  - danShumway 7y ago
    Of course, using a bad metric is often better than using no metric at all, but it doesn't follow that the current strategy is optimal. It especially doesn't follow that global rankings should be a user-visible metric, or an explicit player motivator (a la seasonal rankings). People don't bot because they're unhappy with the players they're matched against. They bot because they want a publicly visible number to get bigger and because player rewards are locked behind competitive rankings.
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      But there are no bots available that can play the game for you competently. Even deepmind had to have quite a few restrictions to do so and such a system most likely can't even learn an evolving metagame. People who join ranked want to compete. If you don't want to then there is another queue available that's not a public ranking.
      - danShumway 7y ago
        > But there are no bots available that can play the game for you competently. Then who cares whether or not players bot? Let them. Heck, go all the way and actively support it if it's not an issue. On the design side, I'm seeing a number of people commenting on here that getting rid of a publicly-facing global ladder would mean that these games couldn't be competitive. I don't believe that's true. We have wildly competitive games in the physical space that don't use global ladders, and they don't suffer for it. Global ladders are a very specific, very narrow mechanic -- they have some advantages for competitive play, and a whole lot of downsides. And we have options. At the very least, even if we do nothing else, we can shrink the size and make them regional. Or because things are digital we can throw out geography entirely and base them off clans. Competition in small groups is often preferable to competition in large groups anyway, since that can foster rivalries, and because repeat matchups between competitive players are usually more interesting than random ones.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  The game wouldn't work without a ranking system. At least you can't go from a matchmaking system back to one without, because there's a segment of the player base that is so good that if you throw them together with the average player then the average player won't have much fun. Games like LoL and Dota snowball too hard for it to be fun to lose at every stage of the game. It also wouldn't be much fun for the good player, because they won't face a challenge. Also, I have some severe doubts about the origin of toxicity in that game being in the matchmaking system. Dota was the game where you were abused as a noob when you started out ("welcome to dota, you suck"). It's a niche game from 2003 after all.
- celticmusic 7y ago
  leagues toxicity has its roots in them not allowing players control over themselves. You can get stuck in a game with an asshole and they force you to play it out. That would put anyone in a shitty mood, and is why I stopped playing the game.
- munmaek 7y ago
  This is wildly offbase. The toxicity, for the most part, doesn’t come from ranks. It comes from being stuck in a bad game for 20-60 minutes. Competition just exacerbates it because now ranks/points/money are on the line. I’m talking about being stuck with an asshole that rages for any number of reasons, then decides to kill themselves the whole game to the enemy (feeding). Or people who flame you for any number of reasons. And you can’t quit because then you get a strike for being the first person to abandon the game, with penalties for doing it more than a few times. Being 1 person down in a 5v5 can be incredibly hard to come back against. This is also why Overwatch is so incredibly toxic. A 5v6 fight is almost unwinnable, one person throwing is enough to lose the match. Dota handles this with comeback mechanics, but that’s only if a player actually disconnects/abandons. If they stay in the game purposefully throwing, you’re trapped and out of luck. Unlike Overwatch, TF2 isn’t quite as toxic because matches consist of 24 or 32 players, meaning each person’s actions aren’t as crucial as a 5v5. You can also freely leave and join casual matches. For the majority of the playerbase, that’s fine. Ranked introduces a bit of toxicity but that’s unavoidable in a team game. It’s also unavoidable whenever you have anything at stake- whether it’s money or points, etc. That’s just the nature of competition. No one forces anyone to play ranked matches instead of casual ones. Competitive ranks and matchmaking can be fun, but you have to balance it right. With team games it’s very difficult, but it would be the same without a global rank system. Actually it would be worse because of imbalanced matchmaking. And for many people, that rank is -why- they play. It’s fine to not be competitive like that, but understand that a lot of people are indeed competitive like that. Ranks are an indicator of skill and time invested, and there’s no reason to take that away from people just because one personally doesn’t care for ranked or whatever. Dota still has casual mode, and it’s still toxic, because of the length of the matches and having to rely on random teammates.
Icathian 7y ago
See, this is just absolutely true. When 7 or so of the top 10 most successful games of the last decade all share features like global matchmaking, you can't tell me those features bring more trouble than value. I agree there are hard challenges there, maybe ones that cannot be solved perfectly, but for success at that scale they are clearly worth attempting.
- danShumway 7y ago
  7 of the 10 most successful games of the last decade listed here also offer in-app purchases. I don't ignore success -- Overwatch, League, Dota, and Fortnite are all objectively well-designed games. But that doesn't mean that every decision they make is good design. If success was the only metric I used to judge design quality, I would have to conclude that Farmville was a better game than Hollow Knight.
  - drivebycomment 7y ago
    I do agree Hollow Knight is a so much better game than Farmville (and most games, for that matter). But in this case, global/regional matchmaking is an essential part of those successful games and their game experience (unlike in-app purchases which are essential for moneymaking but not essential for game play experience). If those games didn't have regional matchmaking, they would provide very different experience. You keep saying you believe the global matchmaking is not important, but I'm afraid you have presented no coherent argument or evidence so far - hence it looks like you're simply ignoring the reality unfortunately. Given how much core part of the experience the global matchmaking is for those games, the onus is on you to prove the otherwise. So we'll likely have to agree to disagree.
- VRay 7y ago
  Those online competitive team games are pretty unfriendly, though. If you try something new or fail to keep up with the latest flavor-of-the-month playstyle, people will flip out on you. You're suddenly preventing this guy from realizing his life goals of climbing to the top of the ladder and becoming a world-renowned player. I love MOBAs, but I can't bring myself to try out LoL or DotA2 again since I don't want to deal with angry teammates
discreditable 7y ago
> League of Legends doesn't seem to suffer from bots Depends on where you look. I used to see them a lot in certain game modes and when playing with friends that were new. As one commenter put it: > To play devil's advocate here -- If you were to play summoner's rift AI games, ARAM, or even some summoner's rift on a sub-30 account late night EST you will be DROWNING in bots. They are EVERYWHERE. They also go almost entirely unpunished. You can track their summoner ID's through OPGG and watch them play the same champion 24 hours a day until 30, change name, and swap champions entirely. > I tried to get some friends to come to league, and they all quit because their teammates were AI every single time. Not "lul ur bad r u a bot??" but a literal bot grinding exp to sell level 30 accounts. Sure, scripting Xeraths/Cassio's are much more rare -- but League has a huge bot problem sub-30.
dylz 7y ago
They've shut down entire game modes PACKED full of bots. Low level ARAM and TT you would often have out of 10 players, 1 = you, 9 = leveling afk bots that run around to prevent auto-kick.
stefan_ 7y ago
What improvement can a cheat offer a League of Legends player?
- Banditoz 7y ago
  I think the big one right now is dodging skillshots, or having the cheat make skillshots for you.

danShumway 7y ago

Not going to argue get into an argument on this, but I believe a large portion of both League and Dota's widespread community toxicity problems have their roots in the global ranking systems that they use. I also think that their ranking systems make them much, much less accessible to new players, and encourage their existing playerbase to experiment less. To the extent that some games can legitimately get away with global competitive ranks without suffering bots, that doesn't mean it's a healthy choice for every (or even most) other games. Of course, no design rule is absolute, we're just speaking in generalities. That being said, both League and Dota are investing massive resources to prevent botting on a system that arguably would be just as if not more enjoyable if it was redesigned. I feel the same way about games like Overwatch, even some inherently globalized systems like Pokemon Go that would be difficult to change -- I don't personally believe the ranking systems are making them better. I think they're there because they're expected to be there, not because they're reinforcing the core design of the game.

nwallin 7y ago
If you think DotA2's matchmaking is unfriendly to new players, I don't think you ever experienced DotA1 matches. Every single game was wildly unbalanced, and as a result of one or so players, every single game was an absolute stomp where the losing team never had a chance. The skill gap between good and bad players is ludicrous. It's like putting LeBron James against middle schoolers. There simply isn't a fun game when the game is determined by the singular best player, and the other nine players are being carried to victory regardless of their contribution, or being pounded into the dirt because they're less than exceptional. I could never go back to random matchmaking after experiencing global rankings.
- danShumway 7y ago
  Of course, using a bad metric is often better than using no metric at all, but it doesn't follow that the current strategy is optimal. It especially doesn't follow that global rankings should be a user-visible metric, or an explicit player motivator (a la seasonal rankings). People don't bot because they're unhappy with the players they're matched against. They bot because they want a publicly visible number to get bigger and because player rewards are locked behind competitive rankings.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    But there are no bots available that can play the game for you competently. Even deepmind had to have quite a few restrictions to do so and such a system most likely can't even learn an evolving metagame. People who join ranked want to compete. If you don't want to then there is another queue available that's not a public ranking.
    - danShumway 7y ago
      > But there are no bots available that can play the game for you competently. Then who cares whether or not players bot? Let them. Heck, go all the way and actively support it if it's not an issue. On the design side, I'm seeing a number of people commenting on here that getting rid of a publicly-facing global ladder would mean that these games couldn't be competitive. I don't believe that's true. We have wildly competitive games in the physical space that don't use global ladders, and they don't suffer for it. Global ladders are a very specific, very narrow mechanic -- they have some advantages for competitive play, and a whole lot of downsides. And we have options. At the very least, even if we do nothing else, we can shrink the size and make them regional. Or because things are digital we can throw out geography entirely and base them off clans. Competition in small groups is often preferable to competition in large groups anyway, since that can foster rivalries, and because repeat matchups between competitive players are usually more interesting than random ones.
Mirioron 7y ago
The game wouldn't work without a ranking system. At least you can't go from a matchmaking system back to one without, because there's a segment of the player base that is so good that if you throw them together with the average player then the average player won't have much fun. Games like LoL and Dota snowball too hard for it to be fun to lose at every stage of the game. It also wouldn't be much fun for the good player, because they won't face a challenge. Also, I have some severe doubts about the origin of toxicity in that game being in the matchmaking system. Dota was the game where you were abused as a noob when you started out ("welcome to dota, you suck"). It's a niche game from 2003 after all.
celticmusic 7y ago
leagues toxicity has its roots in them not allowing players control over themselves. You can get stuck in a game with an asshole and they force you to play it out. That would put anyone in a shitty mood, and is why I stopped playing the game.
munmaek 7y ago
This is wildly offbase. The toxicity, for the most part, doesn’t come from ranks. It comes from being stuck in a bad game for 20-60 minutes. Competition just exacerbates it because now ranks/points/money are on the line. I’m talking about being stuck with an asshole that rages for any number of reasons, then decides to kill themselves the whole game to the enemy (feeding). Or people who flame you for any number of reasons. And you can’t quit because then you get a strike for being the first person to abandon the game, with penalties for doing it more than a few times. Being 1 person down in a 5v5 can be incredibly hard to come back against. This is also why Overwatch is so incredibly toxic. A 5v6 fight is almost unwinnable, one person throwing is enough to lose the match. Dota handles this with comeback mechanics, but that’s only if a player actually disconnects/abandons. If they stay in the game purposefully throwing, you’re trapped and out of luck. Unlike Overwatch, TF2 isn’t quite as toxic because matches consist of 24 or 32 players, meaning each person’s actions aren’t as crucial as a 5v5. You can also freely leave and join casual matches. For the majority of the playerbase, that’s fine. Ranked introduces a bit of toxicity but that’s unavoidable in a team game. It’s also unavoidable whenever you have anything at stake- whether it’s money or points, etc. That’s just the nature of competition. No one forces anyone to play ranked matches instead of casual ones. Competitive ranks and matchmaking can be fun, but you have to balance it right. With team games it’s very difficult, but it would be the same without a global rank system. Actually it would be worse because of imbalanced matchmaking. And for many people, that rank is -why- they play. It’s fine to not be competitive like that, but understand that a lot of people are indeed competitive like that. Ranks are an indicator of skill and time invested, and there’s no reason to take that away from people just because one personally doesn’t care for ranked or whatever. Dota still has casual mode, and it’s still toxic, because of the length of the matches and having to rely on random teammates.

Icathian 7y ago

See, this is just absolutely true. When 7 or so of the top 10 most successful games of the last decade all share features like global matchmaking, you can't tell me those features bring more trouble than value. I agree there are hard challenges there, maybe ones that cannot be solved perfectly, but for success at that scale they are clearly worth attempting.

danShumway 7y ago
7 of the 10 most successful games of the last decade listed here also offer in-app purchases. I don't ignore success -- Overwatch, League, Dota, and Fortnite are all objectively well-designed games. But that doesn't mean that every decision they make is good design. If success was the only metric I used to judge design quality, I would have to conclude that Farmville was a better game than Hollow Knight.
- drivebycomment 7y ago
  I do agree Hollow Knight is a so much better game than Farmville (and most games, for that matter). But in this case, global/regional matchmaking is an essential part of those successful games and their game experience (unlike in-app purchases which are essential for moneymaking but not essential for game play experience). If those games didn't have regional matchmaking, they would provide very different experience. You keep saying you believe the global matchmaking is not important, but I'm afraid you have presented no coherent argument or evidence so far - hence it looks like you're simply ignoring the reality unfortunately. Given how much core part of the experience the global matchmaking is for those games, the onus is on you to prove the otherwise. So we'll likely have to agree to disagree.
VRay 7y ago
Those online competitive team games are pretty unfriendly, though. If you try something new or fail to keep up with the latest flavor-of-the-month playstyle, people will flip out on you. You're suddenly preventing this guy from realizing his life goals of climbing to the top of the ladder and becoming a world-renowned player. I love MOBAs, but I can't bring myself to try out LoL or DotA2 again since I don't want to deal with angry teammates

discreditable 7y ago

> League of Legends doesn't seem to suffer from bots Depends on where you look. I used to see them a lot in certain game modes and when playing with friends that were new. As one commenter put it: > To play devil's advocate here -- If you were to play summoner's rift AI games, ARAM, or even some summoner's rift on a sub-30 account late night EST you will be DROWNING in bots. They are EVERYWHERE. They also go almost entirely unpunished. You can track their summoner ID's through OPGG and watch them play the same champion 24 hours a day until 30, change name, and swap champions entirely. > I tried to get some friends to come to league, and they all quit because their teammates were AI every single time. Not "lul ur bad r u a bot??" but a literal bot grinding exp to sell level 30 accounts. Sure, scripting Xeraths/Cassio's are much more rare -- but League has a huge bot problem sub-30.

dylz 7y ago

They've shut down entire game modes PACKED full of bots. Low level ARAM and TT you would often have out of 10 players, 1 = you, 9 = leveling afk bots that run around to prevent auto-kick.

stefan_ 7y ago

What improvement can a cheat offer a League of Legends player?

Banditoz 7y ago
I think the big one right now is dodging skillshots, or having the cheat make skillshots for you.