RiotTuxedo

I remember noticing some delay in updating player's list of matches, but I wasn't able to quantify that delay. Haven't heard anything from community developers on this issue apart from "this match is missing" and then later when I check for the match it's there.

If this is something players are noticing I can definitely bring it up to the team. We're mostly focused trying to ensure we transition as many third party projects over to new match history and that we can support their traffic. I'd say that's still our priority but my hunch is that is likely due to long cache times and cache evictions not working as expected.

TL;DR Had a feeling, wasn't sure how big or widespread this might be. If players are noticing it, I can definitely escalate it.

Now you're speaking my language. Grew up with Halo. I also loved their website. Heat maps. Medal counts. Bungie really did a great job and set the bar super high. When I look back on that whole product it feels like an outlier. There weren't a lot of web experiences that Bungie provided apart from that. I'm assuming they decided this was an important core player experience that they wanted to provide and specifically wanted to make it available everywhere and not just in game.

When I look at our match history, at least the web part doesn't feel like a core part of the experience and we have other methods which we're using to make this data available out of game. Even today what 10 years later? I think the Bungie website is still the gold standard for web match history. I think there are some community websites that are close if not on par with Bungie. At least right now creating a great web match history experience isn't a priority for Riot. Bungie did a lot of things right...

I can definitely understand this perspective, but I definitely don't share this point of view for a couple reasons.

1. There are areas that Riot is uniquely positioned to solve. Player Behavior systems are one example. We've seen community developers create products in this space and we generally discourage it. Replays were originally a community endeavor but they weren't positioned to create a quality product (a lot of the community solutions were hacky). Players asked for this repeatedly and Riot was uniquely positioned to provide a reliable solution. A web based match history product, in my opinion, doesn't fall into this category. Other Rioters have talked about this before, but when resources are limited you have to focus your attention and our focus is typically on problems Riot is uniquely positioned to solve.
2. This is mostly my opinion, so I wouldn't say this is Riot's opinion or the opinion of my colleagues: Riot is a video game company as opposed to a w...

Tagging u/GitGene here. He's in charge of the comms for the Riot Games API. I believe the best place to follow for updates is the Riot Games Dev Rel Twitter account. There's also a community managed ...

After Monday, Sept 13th ACS will no longer ingest new match history and will effectively become read only. It may stick around a bit longer than the match history website, but it won't include new data from live shards. If you're a developer, you should move to match-v5 in the Riot Games API. If you're using ACS for pro matches that data should be obtained from Bayes.

I'll pass that feedback along. I'd also suggest googling and searching for a Clash tool if you're looking for scouting info. There's several sites that do this and you'll want to find the one that you enjoy, but if you don't already know of any I'd check out https://www.lolvvv.com. I remember talking with them when they were iterating on their Clash tool they seemed to be pretty passionate about Clash scouting.

Over the years there's match history website has suffered from a lack of strong ownership resulting in a lot of bugs that never really get fixed. In my mind, there's two possible solutions: 1) we decide this product is super important to the player experience and prioritize maintaining it over other opportunities OR 2) we decide community developers do this better than we do and we get out of the business of maintaining products that community developers have done and will do better than we could.

I'm a huge advocate of APIs and sharing data and in my mind giving this problem space to the community is what's best for players. Basically I believe in competition and I think a community of developers competing to build the best match history website will result in some kick ass tools for players. Not just now, but in the future as new developers enter the space and try to outdo their predecessors.

In general, custom games are considered private. The old system which allowed custom games to be viewed if you knew the game id is a poor security practice which is typically referred to as security through obscurity. In essence, we allowed people to view custom games if they knew their id but if we truly consider custom games private we should properly secure them. If players believe customs games shouldn't be private, then the...

We're also looking into solutions that will allow players to query for their own private custom games with OAuth tokens through the Riot Games API. These are tokens unique to a player which allow us to ensure a player is looking up their own match history. This solution is something we're looking into but wasn't a requirement for deprecating web match history. In the interim, the tournament code solution is what should be used to create public custom games.

I believe this should be Tuesday, Sept 7th Monday, Sept 13th. The article should be updated soon.

I believe this should be Tuesday, Sept 7th Monday, Sept 13th. The article should be updated soon.

Our goal for the initial launch of the VALORANT API was to ensure a level of stability while also ensuring that players have access to tools powered by the API. We accepted submissions from the community leading up to the launch and then carefully sifted through those applications to chose a group of applications to be part of the initial wave of access to the API. As you pointed out, it feels bad that not everyone got access all at once but we wanted to make sure those that did get access had enough resources to make something cool while also ensuring that the API remains stable.

Specifically, I'd like to clarify two things:

1. The initial wave wasn't chosen based on wealth, but rather compelling concepts and the ability to deliver on those concepts.
2. We do plan on granting access to more products in waves so we can continue to ensure the stability of the API.

If you're interested, there's a discussion going on related to this in the ...

Depends on if you're closer or further from the angle in relation to your opponent.

If you're closer to the angle, you're at a disadvantage so quickly wide peeking is the best way to negate this advantage because your opponent will see you before you see them. This is the suggestion in the video.

If you're further from the angle, slowly peeking means you'll see your opponent before they see you. This is the example I gave.

I'm so happy that others have found this to be helpful. I remember when I first realized this, it figuratively blew my mind. I've played differently ever since. Now if I could only get good at clicking heads.

:(

AYAYA

Yep my team has been talking with developers interested in the space and we're working with the VALORANT team to expose a set of APIs for the game. No timeline on this yet but it's looking it'll be post close beta. There's a lot of work the VALORANT team has to do before launch.

All developers are given a development API key when they sign up so they can explore and experiment with the API. However if you're building an app that gets used by players, we require developers to register the product (and stop using the development key). Once a product is reviewed and there are no concerns, we grant a production API key that remains static. Some developers were skirting our policies and registration process by making requests with multiple developer keys. Expiring developer keys after 24h makes this approach less feasible.

In the last example, Viper is holding the close angle and Jett is peaking with a pistol. Jett can see Viper before Viper can see Jett because Jett is further away from the edge. Each has its risks, the slower you work you way up the more exposed you are from your left (from A site) but you can beat someone holding a close angle if you slowly check it from a farther angle. Hope that makes sense.

Not necessarily. There's always reasons to peak and smart ways to do it (with a buddy or with utility). If you're going to peak long C, I'd say don't do it slowly because the person holding the long angle will see you before you see them.