-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Valve is making Dota 2 players pay to avoid toxic gamers
- Thread starter Ricky_R
- Start date
It works.
But now if you are not toxic and you did not pay the $10 every game is loaded with toxic no-pay $10 payers
nah it's about the new monkey that throws shit at your enemies and claps when you get a last hit or deny.
but he doesn't actually affect anything
I don't even play Dota 2 and I already know the article is full of it... This feature is ONE of the things people get from the BattlePass, and as other posters have pointed out, Valve is beta testing it before implementing it for everyone. It's also quite funny that the writer chose to present a post by a player who bragged about being VERY toxic in the past as "proof" that the feature doesn't work.
But of course this is going as well as one would expect from a Valve thread here...
But of course this is going as well as one would expect from a Valve thread here...
Oh come on now, you really think "never match with this player again" is complicated enough to require beta testing? Seems like an incredibly simple thing to implement.
If everyone and their mother did it to every player, it would create serious problems in the game's playerbase, so I can't say I blame them for taking implementation of it slowly.
Looks like payers get beta access to new features, which means this is included. It's not a big deal, though I can see how the juxtaposition can make it questionable.
Nothing is too simple that it can't go wrong in software development.
Yeah, that's obviously a feature that should be free by default. I hope more game journos and YTers grill Valve on that.
It's definitely not a simple thing--and there's a reason most matchmaking systems don't have this feature--because it complicates the process by quite a lot.
Actually I'm quite surprised Valve implemented this, as I wouldn't even entertain the idea in a game I was working on.
Last year TI Battlepass introduced queued roles, allowing players to queue as a specific role in ranked games. This feature became a feature for DOTA+ players after the TI finished. This year the ability to avoid bad players has been added to the TI Battlepass, and will more than likely appear as a DOTA+ feature once the TI finishes.
The idea that these features don't need testing is an odd one, as they both affect the queue times of ranked games.
Does the feature work?
If yes, does it affect queue time?
If yes, how much longer do players queue before finding a suitable game?
Is queue time increase within acceptable measures?
If no, is feature worthwhile sustaining?
Is there any fine tuning to feature we can do?
This feature isn't just making sure you don't play with players you've avoided, but also you don't get paired with players who may have chosen to avoid you too. So that's a possible double check it needs to make. On top of that if you're in the queued roles it needs to find people who have queued in the correct roles, so if you've avoided a bad mid, it needs to filter through the players within the same MMR bracket as you, with the correct role, and check you haven't avoided them and they haven't avoided you.
That isn't simple.
The more people that get listed, the more checks need to be made.
So in simple terms:
Checks;
MMR
Ranked Role
Have any of the players chosen to not play with each other; if so find a new player for removed player's role
Recheck; have any of the players chosen to not play with each other; if so find a new player for removed player's role
Recheck; etc.
This is a F2P game with an option premium mode in DOTA+, most people who play DOTA don't actually care that this feature is 'behind a paywall'. It's a feature that will add some value to DOTA+ outside of the seasonal quests and shards, similar to how the queued roles works. Normal ranked queue still exists within the F2P option.
Pretty sure this isn't true or was a bug. I've never seen the monkey help me last hit - that's for sure! It throws shit at enemy heroes nearby though. There was a bug where the battle drums would cause certain attacks to proc, which could be abused (until they fixed it).
The idea that these features don't need testing is an odd one, as they both affect the queue times of ranked games.
Does the feature work?
If yes, does it affect queue time?
If yes, how much longer do players queue before finding a suitable game?
Is queue time increase within acceptable measures?
If no, is feature worthwhile sustaining?
Is there any fine tuning to feature we can do?
This feature isn't just making sure you don't play with players you've avoided, but also you don't get paired with players who may have chosen to avoid you too. So that's a possible double check it needs to make. On top of that if you're in the queued roles it needs to find people who have queued in the correct roles, so if you've avoided a bad mid, it needs to filter through the players within the same MMR bracket as you, with the correct role, and check you haven't avoided them and they haven't avoided you.
That isn't simple.
The more people that get listed, the more checks need to be made.
So in simple terms:
Checks;
MMR
Ranked Role
Have any of the players chosen to not play with each other; if so find a new player for removed player's role
Recheck; have any of the players chosen to not play with each other; if so find a new player for removed player's role
Recheck; etc.
This is a F2P game with an option premium mode in DOTA+, most people who play DOTA don't actually care that this feature is 'behind a paywall'. It's a feature that will add some value to DOTA+ outside of the seasonal quests and shards, similar to how the queued roles works. Normal ranked queue still exists within the F2P option.
Pretty sure this isn't true or was a bug. I've never seen the monkey help me last hit - that's for sure! It throws shit at enemy heroes nearby though. There was a bug where the battle drums would cause certain attacks to proc, which could be abused (until they fixed it).
Last edited:
From a business point of view, it makes sense to include this in the premium option of the game. As I've said before, I haven't seen anyone who actually plays DOTA complain about this. Just seems to be a bunch of random people on the internet who want to stir up a fuss over something they don't actually have any interest in.
The avoid function isn't for toxic players, that's what reports and mutes are for, they even specifically say in game when you click to avoid someone that they won't be reported.
This is only for people you don't want to queue with, maybe they just played really bad and you don't want them to ruin another game, even if the chances of matching up again are really small.
I imagine most of the people complaining about this either don't play dota or just don't like valve because they aren't making what they want.
This is only for people you don't want to queue with, maybe they just played really bad and you don't want them to ruin another game, even if the chances of matching up again are really small.
I imagine most of the people complaining about this either don't play dota or just don't like valve because they aren't making what they want.
This. It's basicly for carry players who don't buy a bkb in ranked :D
Oh come on.
Being able to choose your role going into a ranked match is a QoL feature that should be available to anyone. By locking it behind a paywall you're just making life worse for both F2P players and the subscribers by making the pool smaller.
I'm all for them having a subscription which offers the challenges, shard stuff etc. However I will never be able to get behind them locking QoL stuff like this behind pay walls.
By all means offer testing for payers, but when the feature is complete, locking it behind a paywall is just not a good look.
F2P players and Subscribers can still play against each other, DOTA+ subs can however choose to queue up as a specific role, which in theory should hold people accountable for their hero picks. This doesn't always work, and can quickly see you burning through your reports when people who queue don't play their assigned role. Thankfully, this is few and far between now.
If queue days are slow you can still choose to queue in normal ranked queue too.
Would it be nice if everyone had access to queued roles? Of course. Yet, I can look beyond it as it's a F2P model. Again, this isn't something I've ever seen people who play the game complain about. We just get on with it. Most of us queue as duos anyway, so we know that we'll have at least a support and core role covered.
If queue days are slow you can still choose to queue in normal ranked queue too.
Would it be nice if everyone had access to queued roles? Of course. Yet, I can look beyond it as it's a F2P model. Again, this isn't something I've ever seen people who play the game complain about. We just get on with it. Most of us queue as duos anyway, so we know that we'll have at least a support and core role covered.
This is a feature that goes way beyond toxicity and just puts you in a big advsntage in matchmaking so it makes sense that its paid. They shoulf implement more basic frstures to deal with the toxicity so that people don't have to resort to an avoid button of all things.
People putting up with it is hardly a good look lol. There's monetisation models that don't lock QoL features behind a paywall.
By the way I have over 1000 hours in Dota so stop assuming everyone who complains doesn't play.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If Sony or Microsoft asked for another $50 per year to avoid people under 18 years old I would do it in a heartbeat, buy more MP games, play them more, and consequently do more mtx.
i really dont know how this is supposed to work, practically speaking... i see ever expanding matchmaking times
i mean it's one thing if the service determines a particular player is toxic and sets them aside in a toxic pool
but this just lets people put the worst performing player on their 'list' every time, so there will always be someone new to add, and sometimes people are going to add you; it doesn't mean you don't deserve to be there, assuming matchmaking is doing it's job properly... people should be allowed to have bad games, even the best players do
i see this increasing the toxicity within the community imo
i mean it's one thing if the service determines a particular player is toxic and sets them aside in a toxic pool
but this just lets people put the worst performing player on their 'list' every time, so there will always be someone new to add, and sometimes people are going to add you; it doesn't mean you don't deserve to be there, assuming matchmaking is doing it's job properly... people should be allowed to have bad games, even the best players do
i see this increasing the toxicity within the community imo
If you flag a person every game then you'll run out of people to match with thus reducing toxicity. Because if you flag a person every game...you are the toxic one.
I have post on neogaf dating from 2013 asking for role queue in dota 2.
I've asked the avoid player option at least since Overwatch ( and argued against removing it from Overwatch when they did ). With obviously the need to do it right, as to avoid abuse at high mmr where the player pool is low for example.
I've asked the avoid player option at least since Overwatch ( and argued against removing it from Overwatch when they did ). With obviously the need to do it right, as to avoid abuse at high mmr where the player pool is low for example.
it's not necessarily about toxicity tho, it's about altering matchmaking to separate individuals who dont 'jive.' which ideally if both players agree to this, i see no problem with a mutual separating, but as a unilateral measure i think it fails
just having this type of feature introduces toxicity and stress to the community, people are going to use 'i'm blacklisting you' as threats and on and on
Oh there you go. I don't play DotA so I had to look that up. But that looks about right. I want to chill with a hot towel and extra legroom in my exclusive $10 club.
I'm not defending valve, but the feature does say "experimental". Is there confirmation, anywhere, that this feature will be locked behind a paywall when/if its rolled out to the general population?
Otherwise the whole article seems unnecessarily inflammatory as rolling out the feature's beta on the battle pass seems like a good way to get a decent test pool for the feature.
Otherwise the whole article seems unnecessarily inflammatory as rolling out the feature's beta on the battle pass seems like a good way to get a decent test pool for the feature.
Maybe Valve lock role queues behind a paywall because they like more money. But do I wonder if it's also about making the feature feel premium in the hopes that it will have a psychological effect on those that do pay to play that mode?
You still get the few assholes that queue for support and select mid but, for me, it's so few that I can't remember the last time that happened. In regular queue I've had 2 matches last week where two people fight for mid and ruin the whole match.
So while I would like it if role queue was available to everyone (sure would reduce queue time) may be paying for ranked roles keeps people from abusing it.
You still get the few assholes that queue for support and select mid but, for me, it's so few that I can't remember the last time that happened. In regular queue I've had 2 matches last week where two people fight for mid and ruin the whole match.
So while I would like it if role queue was available to everyone (sure would reduce queue time) may be paying for ranked roles keeps people from abusing it.
It's in Beta which means they wanted to do a limited release for now and work out the kinks. I don't understand the problem. Assuming the Beta goes well, there is no reason at all to believe it won't be rolled out for everyone.
Play turbo, whatever you pick to ban will be off the table.
Surely we shouldn't pay toxic players?
Or maybe we should? 🤔
---
To be honest, I don't like the idea of avoid players. It has its use for sure but I can't imagine it not being awfully abused and filled with "ur terrible, get avoided" comments in chat.
It'll be interesting to see the results nevertheless.
At what should have been to the surprise of no one :
Paid avoiding toxicity.