Boards›Gameplay

If someone DCs for long enough, let a teammate...

ValyrianBlade··5 votes·1,504 views

choose to control that champion. simply go to the shop, click something to take over if dc over 5 min. All kills, deaths, assists are recorded on the champion the player was originally playing instead, while all gold is earned on the controlled champion. items cannot be sold but can be purchased (prevent a teammate trolling). If they reconnect, they immediately reclaim their champion and the switching player is put back on their champion (who is at base).

Why? I think this would greatly lessen the impact of someone dc'ing. typically the support could jump on the available champion. More importantly though, if I've worked hard to snowball my late game scaling ally and they dc, all of my efforts have gone to waste. I should have taken the kills myself because I'm there to use the gold. When I've helped get a teammate fed, I shouldn't lose that work when they dc. If I've fed someone enough to carry with them, I should get to do so even if they dc (although the ally jumping on the Fed champion probably won't be as good on him). The switching back when reconnecting should prevent any funny purposes of trading champions.

thoughts? Could this work or am I crazy?

18 Comments

Binxy Prime4 votes

if someone is dc'd for more than 5 minutes we should be allowed to surrender early, and if it happened very early they should restart the game

Omicron Austin3 votes

I don't think this could work.

  1. Who decides who gets to control the player? If anybody can just take control, I imagine things will get hectic, and having a vote held would just make things unnecessarily complicated.
  2. This would require the introduction of all sorts of new sub-game mechanics that would never be needed in an actual game where everybody is playing.
  3. No player should be expected to control two champs at once. And if you're only controlling one at a time, then it's still a 4v5.
  4. The majority of DC's aren't intentional, and often the player does come back. If he had a particular build idea and he returns to find an ally bought him an item he didn't want, then what?

It sounds nice, but I think there's a host of problems that would make this nearly impossible to implement and for the community to use it properly. DC's are unfortunate, but they'll happen and we just have to deal with them.

ValyrianBlade1 votes

I would say whoever goes to the shop first after it's available can pick him up. I can see how some cases would get hectic, but in general I think you'd discuss with your team who should take over.

The only mechanic would be a takeover button, and the KDA earned while controlling needs to be set up. Not too much work.

You'd only control 1 champion, it would still be 4v5. The point is, if I've worked as Lee sin for example (whose job is to snowball his lanes) and I turn my top laner in to a killing machine who can carry 1v5, that does me little good when my top laner dcs. If the support or myself can hop on that fed champion, we'll likely still win the game.

The build thing kind of sucks, but I'd envision that you're spending gold you earn while playing that champion. so if he comes back and doesn't like what you bought he can sell it if necessary? he'll still end up with more gold that way, and as I noted selling would be prevented.

I'm just thinking lots of times me and a teammate are far enough ahead to 2v5 if we had to, but if that teammate is the one that dcs I can't carry the other 3 solo. It might not be ideal but I'd want to try it.

ShadowParker3 votes

it would cause to many problems, sure, we all hate having afk's, but there's nothing riot can do about that. If they implemented this it would make toxic players harass teammates even more and pressure them to leave just to take over their kills/assists.

As well what if the teammate came back?

Besides, riot has the new ranking system coming out for trolls on ranked, just play that and you'll be fine

Watch92 votes

Instead of taking over the player, have maybe an intermediate bot take over the champ. Sure bots are idiots sometimes, but I dare you to take on an army of fully built bots 1v5 style

Omicron Austin1 votes

Past a certain level of play, a bot will simply feed the enemy team and get in the way, not to mention messing with everybody's expectations on both sides.

And if you make it such that the bot dying won't give the enemy team any gold, then that's simply unfair, and might even be considered an advantage depending on the actions of the bot.

ValyrianBlade1 votes

I agree that the bot could feed. simultaneously, I would guess that higher levels of play see fewer DCs (as they likely play more and hence would invest more in a quality computer and connection). perhaps allow the team with the DC to choose if the intermediate bot gets to take over.

The bot should still give gold on kills, but perhaps make it drop by more than a normal player with successive kills bottoming out at half as much. if the bot is feeding they still get gold but less, if it's staying alive then the change does nothing.

junglerboy162 votes

Dcing doesn't usually have anything to do with connection, and when it does it is often game wide. Most Dcs I ever see are people who rage quit/troll/have to leave the game for a real reason. Having a bot take over would make the situation worse imo, because the bot would invariably be lower skill than any other champ in the game (unless actually playing a bot game, in which case who cares about dcs, you'll stomp anyway). Bots cannot do a lot of things a person can, primarily not being able to coordinate any form of coherent team fighting. Having a bot on your team is like giving the enemy team a free gold objective that predictably will always go up a lane, like a fool that walks back up to get kicked over and over again. On the flip side, if the bot didn't give any gold or XP, then it would be unfair as a free lane pusher that mindlessly applies constant pressure with almost no benefit for taking it out. I think a simpler way to help out a team who is down a player, other than restarting if the dc happens super early, would be to give increased passive gold gain for the players still in game, increased for each member who has dced from your team. this would let the 4 person team take advantage of the one thing they have going for them: faster leveling and harder early snowballing. In almost every game I play that has a dc before 10 minutes, the game usually goes average length because all the remaining players out level the other team just enough to stay in it, but almost never enough to still be able to win ever. with just a touch more gold then they would be able to—with skill and smart play—be able to out level enough to still have a shot at winning before the other team catches up. This still wouldn't address the issue of having a dc late game or if the team you are fighting capitalizes on the dc, but it is a start.

ValyrianBlade1 votes

That is an excellent point! Perhaps the passive gold gain of the missing player should be distributed among the remaining players. To make up for late game, perhaps an xp drain and item/gold drain could be applied to a disconnected player after some time and be split among the active players (so eventually the dc will be level 1 with no items and the remaining players will have the full benefit.

Of course, with the range of some skillshots I wonder if you could one shot a level 1 standing in fountain? E.g. a ziggs ult, luv ult, etc... or even caitlyn's peacemaker for example. So this could result in some free kills (especially the global ults since you don't even have to be close to land it).

junglerboy161 votes

While that sounds like a good idea, the only thing I don't like about it is if the dced player actually DOES have connection issues, and ends up rejoining the game, then they will be at a really harsh disadvantage, more so than normal. I guess you could make it only apply after X amount of time, but the time frame will require a lot of tuning to get right.

ValyrianBlade1 votes

Well, excluding the xp part you could make it that if they do reconnect then each player's gold gain goes directly to the reconnected player until each player has "paid back" the amount they collected from the player. So if each player got 1000 gold from passive gain each would see the next 1000 gold they earned go to that player instead. If I get a kill I individually pay him back faster (as to avoid gold redistribution).

Only problem I see now is it being done intentionally to give some players a gold advantage to get some kills, then rejoining and not missing out on much, but I think the level disadvantage would be sufficient deterrent (not to mention missed active gold gain).

Netechma1 votes

bots don't follow 'roles' primarily those of jungling, tanking and supporting. They are also extremely limited. A lot of people myself included do first win of the day bonus for a fast east consistent win vs bots. It is not a viable solution, at least not right now.

Tinkorn1 votes

Good idea. But I think that if a bot takes over the champ it wont be that bad. I've seen that work in the heroes of the storm alpha and it seemed good.

AnomalousChimera1 votes

If you get disconnected for over 5 minutes, have a bot on Intermediate difficulty take control. If you reconnect at any point, any purchases that the bot made in the shop are reverted so that you can buy what you originally intended. Too bad for the opposing team if it can't capitalize on a 5 minute afk and can't beat a bot.

ValyrianBlade1 votes

Thanks for all of the feedback. It seems like most people would prefer a bot to takeover, with the downside being at higher levels a bot will just feed. a pre fed bot might be able to hold its own though.

Netechma1 votes

That is incredibly over powered. The reason is synergy primarily, in that in there heavily team work prefaced games 1+1 does not =2 it equals 3. Team work can over come things they otherwise could not either produce. Like both persons barelky surviving a 2v1 on an OP opponent.

The roaming and 1v1 skirmish potential or solo dragons or tanking potential is also absurd, You have to also take into consideration unfortunately that people would abuse this feature and do it on purpose on some occasions. What about ranked? If it's fair there would be an argument made against having it there as well.

I don't see the gain in this honestly. I don't see a way of having it fair enough. It is terrible when a team mate leaves, but this is why there should be stricter punishment and loss prevention.

Here's another scenario for you
Player 3 dc's and player 1 gets buffed, player 1 roams and gets into a 1v1 and player 3 spontaneously logs back in..... now what?

ValyrianBlade1 votes

Sorry, I don't follow your argument. I'm saying that player 3 dcs, player 1 chooses to abandon his champion and take over player 3s champion. Any KDA that player 1 earns on player 3s champion is recorded on player 1s summoner but gold is earned on player 3s champion. It's basically like player 1 chooses he should dc instead of player 3.

Netechma1 votes

Sorry, I don't follow your argument. I'm saying that player 3 dcs, player 1 chooses to abandon his champion and take over player 3s champion. Any KDA that player 1 earns on player 3s champion is recorded on player 1s summoner but gold is earned on player 3s champion. It's basically like player 1 chooses he should dc instead of player 3.

I did misunderstand you, I apologize.
I thought you had meant that the player could take the dc'd build or items or gold. Taking another players champion and kda after x amount of time being dc'd?
...No problem with that personally, nor can I think of something controversial as the firmly believe the dc'er not on ly should not have a say after x amount of time, but should also be punished if possible.

However this sounds like a massive undertaking in programming (not that I know what i'm talking about) and we're not definite in knowing it will solve the problem. Still I am curious.

More from Gameplay

3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay764 comments
7,167
votes
3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay156 comments
3,510
votes
UPVOTE FOR URF
Gameplay606 comments
2,440
votes
Yes plz.
Gameplay456 comments
1,721
votes
3 Refunds per season, up vote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay114 comments
1,716
votes
When is ANYONE at riot going to address the awful new player experience?
Gameplay634 comments
1,383
votes

More by ValyrianBlade

Pretty shocked this wasn't thought of in New Champ Select
Gameplay69 comments
157
votes
So giving up CS to teammates can actually cost you an S rank - wow...
Gameplay105 comments
99
votes
Can we please make a small adjustment to the Black Cleaver build path on PBE?
Gameplay66 comments
92
votes
Hold on, Rune pages are on sale 2 for 1 - Why wasn't this ANYWHERE ON THE LEAGUE WEBSITE OR CLIENT?
Gameplay53 comments
89
votes
Probably not a good idea to try to save a champion who has more mobility than you
Gameplay58 comments
85
votes
Why isn't there a dragon that boosts defensive stats?
Gameplay107 comments
73
votes