Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a tonne of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out Boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

GO TO BOARDS


Chat restriction!!!

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

vinseur

Senior Member

06-02-2014

Quote:
Voluge:
I'm actually stating that people have people have the "capacity" to reason pass the set limitations set by other similar people who happen to have been set in the positions to make this very system and those very people who are put in charge. Sorry that I'm indirectly comparing you to another human being who could be employed anywhere, I mean, you're certainly a perfect example of how one could potentially translate a complicated text which easily misleads you on the way.

Regarding the actual numbers. That is from January, four months (+ some days), further more, as you can already view in the comments, the numbers could very well have been made public with the thought of "at best" 63 million players "have" been online in one month's time, where about at an optimistic point of view, it could "at best" be about 27 million players online in one single day, however, as previously mentioned, even if one and the same player plays once or even twice a month, it doesn't equal to a player who plays 10+ games a week, meaning 40+ games a month, do they truly "love" this game? Going by your train of thought, one could interpret that these numbers could very well indicate that almost 50% of the LoL community is "playing" every single day, where about, another statement made in the article is that "at best" the amount of players online across ALL platforms were "at best" up from 5 million to 7,5 million players. No then, now that we have "translated" these numbers, how big is the database in reality? How big percentage is the percentage of "active" players which "I" am "referring" to? I'm clearly not referring to the ones who are merely playing once a month or merely being "online" which the number 27 million "could" have referred to.

One last thing, are you one of these "everday experts" who are "used" to reporting in "moderate" amounts?


Voluge, nice try.

Me and the others have usually two options.

1. Official information from riot. Behavioral team led by scientists.

2. Random guy on the internet questioning everything.

Sorry to tell you, but _you_ are nothing but a random guy on the internet claiming stuff.

These are the facts according to riot:

A normal player gets reported in approx. 5% of his games INCLUDING false reports.

The thresholds for punishments are 4 times that number, i.e. 20%.

Chances that you get the same player in every game, who reports you also in every game, are miniscule, even in the highest brackets. Trying to argue with this is ridiculous.

The system is tweaked in a way that only the worst offenders get punishments at all.
This means that if you get one, the chances are overwhelming that you deserved it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

GangrelCat

Senior Member

06-02-2014

Quote:
Voluge:
I'm actually stating that people have people have the "capacity" to reason pass the set limitations set by other similar people who happen to have been set in the positions to make this very system and those very people who are put in charge. Sorry that I'm indirectly comparing you to another human being who could be employed anywhere, I mean, you're certainly a perfect example of how one could potentially translate a complicated text which easily misleads you on the way.


That's a no then.

Quote:
Voluge:
Regarding the actual numbers. That is from January, four months (+ some days)


So? I doubt anything major changed in those few months.

Quote:
Voluge:
, further more, as you can already view in the comments, the numbers could very well have been made public with the thought of "at best" 63 million players "have" been online in one month's time, where about at an optimistic point of view, it could "at best" be about 27 million players online in one single day,


Again, so? Of course they are going to present numbers that are most positive. Still, that would realistically mean that tens of millions of active accounts are online every month.

Quote:
Voluge:
however, as previously mentioned, even if one and the same player plays once or even twice a month, it doesn't equal to a player who plays 10+ games a week, meaning 40+ games a month, do they truly "love" this game? Going by your train of thought, one could interpret that these numbers could very well indicate that almost 50% of the LoL community is "playing" every single day, where about, another statement made in the article is that "at best" the amount of players online across ALL platforms were "at best" up from 5 million to 7,5 million players. No then, now that we have "translated" these numbers, how big is the database in reality? How big percentage is the percentage of "active" players which "I" am "referring" to? I'm clearly not referring to the ones who are merely playing once a month or merely being "online" which the number 27 million "could" have referred to.


The highest amount of online at the same time in a day is 7,5 million. The 27 million, naturally goes for all active players, those that are active every day, only once a week or only once a month. Since the 27 million isn't just a look at a single game but an average over many, many days, logic would dictate that the largest part would be players who play nearly every day.

Quote:
Voluge:
One last thing, are you one of these "everday experts" who are "used" to reporting in "moderate" amounts?


I nearly never report others, only when I feel that they have gone too far or seem like habitual flamers/ragers. Most games I've played in LoL have been pleasant in general. Why do you ask?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Voluge

Senior Member

06-02-2014

Quote:
GangrelCat:
That's a no then.



So? I doubt anything major changed in those few months.



Again, so? Of course they are going to present numbers that are most positive. Still, that would realistically mean that tens of millions of active accounts are online every month.



The highest amount of online at the same time in a day is 7,5 million. The 27 million, naturally goes for all active players, those that are active every day, only once a week or only once a month. Since the 27 million isn't just a look at a single game but an average over many, many days, logic would dictate that the largest part would be players who play nearly every day.



I nearly never report others, only when I feel that they have gone too far or seem like habitual flamers/ragers. Most games I've played in LoL have been pleasant in general. Why do you ask?



The ones who looks through those reports are humans like you and I, that's the point I'm indirectly stating.

We are still having different opinions regarding what we reconsider active players, then again, given those numbers, they would indicate that 50% if not even more of those 60+ millions people are playing more than once, now then, how many of them plays more than 5 games a month or even more than 10? We do still not have a certain amount of people who "I" could regard as "active", where about you're trying to imput your own definitions of "active" onto me.

Regarding the last cantel. I'm sorry, I drew in your credibility there, your ability to judge rather than your opinions. Lets drop that point completely as the "test" I made with you, has proved that "we" shouldn't discuss it further. Meaning, you and I shouldn't discuss it "together". Have a nice time!


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

GangrelCat

Senior Member

06-02-2014

Quote:
Voluge:
The ones who looks through those reports are humans like you and I, that's the point I'm indirectly stating.


Humans are naturally flawed beings. All systems are made by humans. We counteract these flaws by repetition, checking thing again and again, and in different ways. This will decrease the mistakes made, but can never make something flawless.

Quote:
Voluge:
We are still having different opinions regarding what we reconsider active players, then again, given those numbers, they would indicate that 50% if not even more of those 60+ millions people are playing more than once, now then, how many of them plays more than 5 games a month or even more than 10? We do still not have a certain amount of people who "I" could regard as "active", where about you're trying to imput your own definitions of "active" onto me.


It seems so. I believe that most active accounts play on a regular basis and that the less regular players are in the minority. I merely state my opinions and theories, as do you. Just like, I presume, you are not trying to dictate the definitions of 'active' to me, I am not dictating it to you.

Quote:
Voluge:
Regarding the last cantel. I'm sorry, I drew in your credibility there, your ability to judge rather than your opinions. Lets drop that point completely as the "test" I made with you, has proved that "we" shouldn't discuss it further. Meaning, you and I shouldn't discuss it "together". Have a nice time!


Ok.
You as well.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

KiwiGeneral

Senior Member

06-02-2014

According to Riot: active playerbase = playerbase that plays at least once in a month. So according to Riot, the active playerbase is ~67 million.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

TSMO TriForce

Senior Member

06-02-2014

Quote:
Voluge:
What do you expect Triforce, if you don't wait out your time between the games you're playing, then it's highly likely that you're going to be either with or against the same player(s) the next game, given that you are within the same elo "range" or did this fact not magically appear before you as obvious? I'm tired of your constant doubts, so please excuse my rude tone. Meeting even one of these potential up to 45 players isn't unlikely, if you play enough within a short time of frame, you're nearly bound to meet many of them again in a near future, unless you're queueing up with others, which can dramatically lower the amount of new faces. As to how, you're asking HOW people who CAN "reason" CAN get BY the eyes of employees hired by Riot? If you can "reason", then you're bound to "try" to find ways so you "can" do it, otherwise, one is but a naive and lucky individual, if one manage to do so without any "thought".


anyone who is not in diamond 1 is in the same elo range as 100's of others who are online at that same particular time. so the change of getting the same guy over and over again is so small its almost non-existant.

your "use" of "quotation marks" in the next "part" is just downright "annoying" and the text that surrounds them isnt actually saying anything.

i want you to explain this:
1: person who does nothing wrong gets reported by a your imaginary swarm of trolls who have report superpowers (wich you still havent explained btw)

2: riot employee sees this person have a lot of valid reports and takes a look at the games

3: riot employee does not see any sort of misbehaviour, since this innocent person got reported with no valid reason

4: riot employee still punishes the person because........?


point 4 is of particular interest

my constant doubt comes from the problem that you are using arguements i expect to find on a forum about how vaccination causes mental illness, or how aliens are abducting people. you state a conclusion, and after that a load of text that does not actually adress how you got to the conclusion, but fills space nicely


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Voluge

Senior Member

06-02-2014

Quote:
TSMO TriForce:
anyone who is not in diamond 1 is in the same elo range as 100's of others who are online at that same particular time. so the change of getting the same guy over and over again is so small its almost non-existant.

your "use" of "quotation marks" in the next "part" is just downright "annoying" and the text that surrounds them isnt actually saying anything.

i want you to explain this:
1: person who does nothing wrong gets reported by a your imaginary swarm of trolls who have report superpowers (wich you still havent explained btw)

2: riot employee sees this person have a lot of valid reports and takes a look at the games

3: riot employee does not see any sort of misbehaviour, since this innocent person got reported with no valid reason

4: riot employee still punishes the person because........?


point 4 is of particular interest

my constant doubt comes from the problem that you are using arguements i expect to find on a forum about how vaccination causes mental illness, or how aliens are abducting people. you state a conclusion, and after that a load of text that does not actually adress how you got to the conclusion, but fills space nicely


My bad, mixed up 2 out of 5 being 20%, it's actually 40%, that's quite the big mistake, so meet 1 out of optimally 45 people who doesn't like you all the time, you're sure to receive a "punishment" sooner or later, if you still haven't received one, then you most likely haven't played enough.

The quotations marks are there, in order to annoy you to such an extent that you can't ignore them, or rather, in order to clarify a thing.


Now then, on to your "points".
1: Person who's disheartened by the sudden warning decides to NOT use the chat again, even after the punishment has been dealt out, this very person still gets a punishment which is supposed to be used for chat misuse, despite not having used it. The very same person is left with no reason nor motivation as to why it "happened".
2:Riot employees have to look through A TON of reports every single day, it wouldn't be "surprising" if they tried to manage their time "effectively" even if it may lower the accuracy of their judgement. (Before you stated that the average employee had a better judgement than the average tribunal player, it might be because employees are employed for a reason, where about tribunal players could be just about ANYONE including children who believes that they are doing a "good" thing)
3:The person in question having that many reports is enough of a valid reason to "punish" said person, because the "average" player only gets reported in 5% of their games. We have already agreed that we've different standards as to what we see as "active" players, so our views of "average" players could very well differ there as well, continuing on this point is also therefor pointless, despite it being a point of yours.
4:That's the issue, yet you try to make it sound completely "obvious" despite giving no answer yourself.

Can you please try to act as a reasonable human, rather than throwing a wall of text with no facts nor with the ambition of actually standing for your words, where about even if you had facts, going by how you've reasoned so far, I don't see myself not being able to take advantage of them in that case. Facts are doubled edged weapons if not handled carefully.

I stand for what I state, do the same if you wish to discuss, an argument got at the very least one side which is wrong, while a discussion is questioning possible scenarios.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

vinseur

Senior Member

06-02-2014

Quote:
Voluge:

Can you please try to act as a reasonable human, rather than throwing a wall of text with no facts nor with the ambition of actually standing for your words, where about even if you had facts, going by how you've reasoned so far, I don't see myself not being able to take advantage of them in that case. Facts are doubled edged weapons if not handled carefully.

I stand for what I state, do the same if you wish to discuss, an argument got at the very least one side which is wrong, while a discussion is questioning possible scenarios.


You still don´t understand. There is no base for a discussion.

I have already pointed out that your view is just a claim without any backup. You don´t have the numbers, you don´t the statistics of the games. You have no idea, what you are talking about, just assuming premises and concluding possibilities.
On the other hand there is riot with all the data and their official numbers.
Sorry, but I and most of the others prefer the official numbers.
Your discussion is a "meta-discussion". What would be if we assumed that only those players might be considered active, who log in according to these premises which are important to me and selected by me, and then yadayadayada.
Riot employess including the head of behaviour have stated countless time that their systems are tweaked to get only the worst of offenders. If that was their goal why would a team of scientists shoot themselves in the knee by making a noob-mistake and defining the "average player" in a wrong manner, so that nothing works AND not seeing this mistake for years and years.
This is just so ridiculous, that this meta-disussion just makes no sense.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Voluge

Senior Member

06-02-2014

Quote:
vinseur:
You still don´t understand. There is no base for a discussion.

I have already pointed out that your view is just a claim without any backup. You don´t have the numbers, you don´t the statistics of the games. You have no idea, what you are talking about, just assuming premises and concluding possibilities.
On the other hand there is riot with all the data and their official numbers.
Sorry, but I and most of the others prefer the official numbers.
Your discussion is a "meta-discussion". What would be if we assumed that only those players might be considered active, who log in according to these premises which are important to me and selected by me, and then yadayadayada.
Riot employess including the head of behaviour have stated countless time that their systems are tweaked to get only the worst of offenders. If that was their goal why would a team of scientists shoot themselves in the knee by making a noob-mistake and defining the "average player" in a wrong manner, so that nothing works AND not seeing this mistake for years and years.
This is just so ridiculous, that this meta-disussion just makes no sense.


This place is meant for discussing, not argumentating, your statement is amplifying the reason why this place is meant for discussions. You and your friends who are lurking at this part of the forum aren't discussing, you're merely stating facts, you're denying the option of being capable to reason. I've already mentioned before that it may very well be better to abolish this system till it's either straightened out more or could provide more information. Riot can't spend more than a certain amount of time at each report, so errors are bound to occur.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

vinseur

Senior Member

06-02-2014

Quote:
Voluge:
You and your friends who are lurking at this part of the forum aren't discussing, you're merely stating facts


Yes. That is exactly what "me and my friends" are doing. Stating FACTS. Thank god, you understood.

Now, I ask you: What is the point in questioning the facts?

Discussion for the sake of discussion. That is not "reason", it´s pointless.