If we lose a match because of an afk, we should not be chrged 20 LP for that.... instead only 4/5 of that; i.e. 16LP or some other LP but not 20... it wasn't our fault that the 5th one dc'd
rather, he must lose full 20 LP or more. this way we wont be frustrated and wont be much in elo hell cz of afks... 
ThatH1N117 votesActually I think you are onto something there. We all know leaverbuster doesn't really deal out any real punishment that sticks with a player to make them not want to afk/leave. Let's say that when it is obvious there is a leaver, you lose 3/4 of the LP you were suppose to lose, so, 15 instead of 20 and then it takes that 5 LP and gives it to the afker for each teammate. That way it would be like the person who left the game took two losses instead of just one. I think that would certainly encourage people to stick around and play a game out rather than just 'gg afk' after first blood.
ZGM Dazzling4 votesThat sounds great but LP loss really doesn't effect your climbing. A loss is a loss no matter how much lp you lose, if riot pretended you didnt lose anything because of an AFK then theyd just be cheating you out. Your MMR still suffers no matter how much lp you lose, which is the only thing that really determines how much your climbing. On a side note, your afks per game should even out usually. Whenever i get an afk, I remember each game i play with an afk on their team and well yeah basicly it does even out but you dont remember the games that are 5v4 for you only the games that are 4v5 for you :/
Darcade3332 votesBrother, in higher divisions you gain 7 LP for a victory and lose 24 for a defeat...that means an extra 3 games to cover up that loss and in those 3 you pray to god that no one is afk, else its a chain reaction... either RITO should implement this, or give us more LP for a win in higher divisions.
Sammystorm2 votesCan you tell me what leaver buster actually does?
Also adding any of these ideas for decreased lp is just going to make more people try to bully other people to leave if a game is not going well.
ThatH1N11 votesCan you tell me what leaver buster actually does?
Also adding any of these ideas for decreased lp is just going to make more people try to bully other people to leave if a game is not going well.
Yeah because people don't already do that now or anything, lol. /Mute all is OP.
Sammystorm2 votesSo you are advocating we just ignore and potentially make problems worse in the community?
Let me ask you something else. What does it actually solve? It won't make afk's stop. Probably won't even really decrease them because the penalty for leaving a ranked game is already very harsh.
Tim is fire1 votesIf someone harasses you, you can harass back, take it like a man, or ignore it. I find ignoring it works best because eventually the person winds themselves and I just play the game like I normally would. Having fun and laughing. :D
Davids Uploader9 votesPlaying Devils Advocate here and saying that this could be easily abused. Just duo-queue with a friend on a smurf and if you are going to likely lose just have the smurf afk so that way the friend loses less LP. This has been discussed so many times before and people better then I have given great explanations as to why, search here on the forums and I'm sure you'll find at least 2 or 3 threads about it.
Btw: fuck afk'ers, I feel you on this one.
TheRakkun11 votesIf you're duo queueing with the afk then you don't get the reduction? That might work.
blujadajhdja2 votesI see no way to abuse it with your suggestion. Someone hire this guy.
Jingerbeardman4 votesits called rage at your team till someone leaves...
blujadajhdja1 votesIf people don't know how to mute by now, then I'm not sure if they should be playing ranked. You would expect the worst kind of people in the most serious situations (ranked games).
Jingerbeardman1 votesmute has an odd stigma attached to it. People are afraid to mute teammates because they think that constitutes refusing to communicate.
Darcade3331 votesthat wont work as friendships will be broken :P
& 
will become
& 
Knucklefist2 votes[{quoted}](name=Davids Uploader,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=8GMVM05U,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2015-04-15T15:21:26.173+0000)
Playing Devils Advocate here and saying that this could be easily abused. Just duo-queue with a friend on a smurf and if you are going to likely lose just have the smurf afk so that way the friend loses less LP. This has been discussed so many times before and people better then I have given great explanations as to why, search here on the forums and I'm sure you'll find at least 2 or 3 threads about it.
Btw: fuck afk'ers, I feel you on this one.
yeah but realistically how many games could you abuse it in before leaverbuster punished you? 2 or 3? Then after that you wouldn't be able to do it for a while.
Sammystorm1 votesLeaver buster punishes people far faster then people get punished for player behavior. So more accurately is probably a couple of months at the minimum. Also people are less inclined to report a rager if someone leaves. Which could make it take substantially longer. You need to also take into account that the tribunal is still down which slows the process even further.
Darcade3331 votesassuming 
as the smurf and 
as the noob
man first things first... if a smurf, most probably they should not lose and even if they do, will get a ban soon...
so will also be stuck 20 minutes before each game or after sometime there will be a one week ban for ...
if this system is applied, it will help too, to climb during that one week and losing less LP....
and one day will become 
2HdJlAmDY15 votesI could agree with this in theory, but with adjustments...
The LP shouldn't be a static x was AFK so get back 20/x lp. If it was that simple it could be easily gamed, by having someone willing to sacrifice LP to keep the others up. Maybe when I'm triyng to go up a tier I bring a bunch of friends who promise to AFK if were loosing, and exchange I promise to do the same for the later at moments when they really can't afford to lose the AFK. If a team of 5 rotates who goes AFK every 5 loses they save a 4 lp per lose every game.
However, a simple adjustment can fix that.
The amount of LP lost is decreased by the number of AFK players and when they went AFK If someone goes AFK right when the game is already lost you only save a little LP on lose, but if someone goes AFK witin 5 minutes of the game and stays AFk then the LP savings goes up noticably because at 5 minutes the game wasn't yet decided and there was a chance that the game could be won. You could even get fancier and base if off of when they go AFK and what the gold/xp/tower advantages are, some rough calculation that says "yes, you may have stood a chance to win this if your AFK person hadn't left, here lets compensate you" rather then "your AFK guy left because your being steamrolled, sorry for you, but you still lose"
In general the savings for having an AFK character has to be small to avoid it being gamed. It should be adjusted so that it's never advantages for anyone in the game to have someone go AFK, ie there is never a situation where a guaranteed loss with an AFK compensation is likely to yield more then trying to win the game and risking full LP loss. Thus any gains would have to be only when heretics can say you looked to have a decent chance of winning with the player, and the savings for having an AFK player should be kept low.
Another option that could be implemented instead or in addition to the above is to give an LP savings for length of time a player is AFK. If you play with an AFK player for half the game before losing you get a savings because clearly a game that long without the player would have had a chance of winning, and because there is no benefit for delaying a game forever to save just a little LP. The real benefit of this option though is for characters that are not rage-quitting.
Imagine I'm playing and my power fluctuates. My laptop is still on, but I lose my internet and it's going to going to be a few minutes before I can establish a connection.
During a close game, perhaps one where were slightly behind, everyone sees me AFK, perhaps assumes I rage quit, and surrender because they can't stand 4v5 when they weren't certain they could even do 5v5. Now my team looses for sure, and I get hit with extra penalties for 'rage quitting' when i had no control over it.
If you lose less LP for having a character AFK for awhile there is some incentive to delay the game at least a little longer to save LP. This may cause my team to have incentive to see if I come back, since even if I don't they save some tiny LP. Thus I'm given time to come back from my network blip. And since I'm back perhaps my team will have a chance to rally and win even after the disadvantage of loosing a player for 5 minutes.
You could take it even further, and adjust the LP based off of length of time with AFK players. If we lose the game and I was AFK for 10 minutes before coming back adjust the LP slightly to compensate for the fact that even though I came back my AFK hurt the team. Apply all the above caveats about adjustments being based off of the odds of the team losing because of the AFK player, only more so since there is more incentive for someone to game the system if they AFKer doesn't get an auto-lose out of it. AFKer would lose all LP without the adjustment the rest of his team gets for him going AFK.
Again though, the problem is that while the idea is good in theory it has to be implemented very carefully to avoid gaming. The effects must be kept mostly minor, and must have more complex heuristics to avoid gaming. It would be a nice to have, but is it really worth the dev team putting in the time to implement this, and communicate it to others, when the effect must, by it's very nature, be kept a very minor effect that is unlikely to adjust the LP gains by any noticeable margin (how often do you really have AFK players where you honestly had a chance of winning with them?)
Also keep in mind that something like this may incentive more AFKs. If I don't think my team is going to win my main incentive for staying is to support my team and be a good player, not force them to quit because I give up. If I know know that my team will benefit, by saving LP, if I quit and I already have given up on the game well..now the best way to support my team is to walk away from a frustrating game! I imagine any change you make would incentive more AFKs, perhaps disproportionately compared to the actual affect it has on your LP scores.
All things considered I would say that I would like to be able to snap my fingers and implement one of my above approaches, with full heuristics and a general "error on side of taking away the most LP" approach. However, at the same time I think the ultimate effect would be minor, perhaps too minor to justify Riot spending time implementing it, time that could be spent in balance patches or creating new cool stuff for us.
....I went from wanting to argue very strongly for an adjusted version of this approach to mostly talking myself out of it by the end of the post. Wow, I'm either a very good arguer or easily swayed lol.
Darcade3331 votesif i get dc'd 5 min before we lose in a 50 min game, riot does not count me as an AFK, instead it shows "Loss" in my stats
RITO's afk detection system is perfectly fine and thats the reason this will work effectively your algo is somewhat what RIOT uses currently, hence we need to focus beyond it...
TIP: buy 
for taric
. He'll be happy :)
tofutime3 votes"This can be abused" replies incoming.
But honestly, something needs to be changed about 4v5 situations. They should not be the way they are and people should be willing to allow new ideas to change this before they keep rejecting it with the "this can be abused" response. Anything can be abused. The report system can be abused. Queue dodging can be abused. The fact that there's no report function in champ select can be abused. Lots of things exist already that can be abused. Saying something can be abused isn't saying much at all.
Jingerbeardman3 votesthis subject is not a new one. it has been brought up hundreds of times because the problem has been around for ages. there is no way to lessen the impact of having an afk on your team. It just boils down to promoting players to piss off their teammates to the point that they leave/afk so you get a lighter loss. It takes only 2 afk/left games with the new leaverbuster in ranked to get slapped with low priority queue or ranked restrictions. It is the best way to nip the behavior in the bud without it being abused by negative behavior players.
In a perfect world this would work. but our world is far from perfect.
Sammystorm1 votesIt sometimes only takes one game in ranked.
Jingerbeardman1 votes2 if you have not left a game prior. 1 if you have
Sammystorm1 votesI don't want to track down the post but lyte I believe said you can get punished for as few as 1 afk in ranked.
Jingerbeardman1 votesallow me to clarify more. If you have yet to receive the I agree not to leave any more games window then it will be 2. otherwise it is 1.
Sammystorm1 votesThat would be more accurate.
Kazaashi2 votesAs long as you are not the one who AKF's/DC's/Leaves, you will win more games than you lose due to them.
4 out of 5 slots on your team can be a potential undesirable vs. 5 out of 5 slots on the enemy team. If you play enough games they even out.
Knucklefist1 votesAs long as you are not the one who AKF's/DC's/Leaves, you will win more games than you lose due to them.
4 out of 5 slots on your team can be a potential undesirable vs. 5 out of 5 slots on the enemy team. If you play enough games they even out.
Your proof of this? People always throw that statistic out there but I never see any charts graphs or cold hard numbers. I've had afks 4 or 5 games in a row before. I've never won because of afks 4 or 5 games in a row before. Furthermore you lose more points because of an afk than you gain because of an afk, so even with the wins factored in they still force everyone further down than they ever bring them back up. Also, I've played plenty of games where I probably should have gotten a loss prevented and didn't, yet they shut down ranked queues shortly after my game ended where people got dced and couldn't reconnect. Its a fucked up process when you lose the same amount of points in a game that was 4 vs 5 the majority of the game as you do an even match. I wont even get into how many promo games I've had that were 4 vs 5. Riots statistics they throw out to placate people about how you are just as likely to win because of an afk as lose are bullshit. Its a random occurrence that happens ALL the time, but there is no even distribution I assure you.
Kazaashi1 votesYour proof of this? People always throw that statistic out there but I never see any charts graphs or cold hard numbers. I've had afks 4 or 5 games in a row before. I've never won because of afks 4 or 5 games in a row before. Furthermore you lose more points because of an afk than you gain because of an afk, so even with the wins factored in they still force everyone further down than they ever bring them back up. Also, I've played plenty of games where I probably should have gotten a loss prevented and didn't, yet they shut down ranked queues shortly after my game ended where people got dced and couldn't reconnect. Its a fucked up process when you lose the same amount of points in a game that was 4 vs 5 the majority of the game as you do an even match. I wont even get into how many promo games I've had that were 4 vs 5. Riots statistics they throw out to placate people about how you are just as likely to win because of an afk as lose are bullshit. Its a random occurrence that happens ALL the time, but there is no even distribution I assure you.
10 people in each game. 5 out of 10 slots on the enemy team and 4 out of 10 slots on your team (You take up one slot). This gives you a 51% chance that the enemy team will have an undesirable vs 49% chance that your team will have one.
Over 100 games with 1 DC/AFK in it and everything happens according to statistics, you will win 51% of those games and lose 49%. That is a winning record and you will climb. Since things generally don't work out like that, it is more of a 50/50 split.
I think about Ranked this way and it has helped me tremendously:
40% of your games are going to be lost due to DC/AFK/Feeder/Troll/etc on your team.
40% of your games are going to be won due to a DC/AFK/Feeder/Troll/etc on the enemy team.
Only about 20% of the games you play in Ranked will you be able to have any meaningful impact in. It is those games that you have to identify and make sure your contribution is positive and leads your team to a win.
Ronnie Law1 votesYour math is complete trash and your statistics is worse.
Assuming 1 troll in a game and it isn't you, 44.4% chance your team has a troll, 55.5% chance the enemy team has the troll.
This actually seems incredibly favorable, but it isn't the whole story.
Without knowing the rate of trolled games this is still rather meaningless statistic.
It also depends on what you define as a troll.
Is a troll someone who actively feeds? Is a troll someone who passively feeds? Is a troll someone who is playing CoD FFA instead of working with the team to push objectives? Is a troll someone who plays champs they've never played? Is a troll someone who has bad runes and masteries, poor itemization, and no understanding of the mechanics of the champions in the game? Is a troll someone who can only play one position? Is a troll someone who is unable to play ALL positions? Is a troll someone who does not understand the meta, or the strategy of the game? Is a troll someone playing ranked "just for fun"?
Somewhere in there, you can zero in on what a troll actually is. The line between an unskilled player and a troll becomes blurred.
There is also the fact that the above statistics do not account for more than one troll.
What if each team gets a troll? What if the troll stops trolling and starts to participate? What if a team gets two trolls?
Moving back to the topic, if we simply define the "troll" as an afker or leaver, that clarifies the data.
At my current rank, I get a leaver about every 5 games.
Fully 1/5th of the games I play will essentially be a waste of time.
This means that over 500 games I will have 100 leavers, of that, 55.5 will be victories, 44.4 will be losses.
255.5 victories 244.4 losses.
Over 500 games, the "statistics" will favor me with just a shade over 11 victories.
If league of legends were a full time job, it would take you over 6 weeks to see this divergence.
If you play two games a day, it would take just over 8 months.
8 months of a leaver every 5 games.
And that's assuming the law of large numbers doesn't fuck you.
Kazaashi1 votes[{quoted}](name=Ronnie Law,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=8GMVM05U,comment-id=0005000100000001,timestamp=2015-04-15T19:14:30.262+0000)
Your math is complete trash and your statistics is worse.
Assuming 1 troll in a game and it isn't you, 44.4% chance your team has a troll, 55.5% chance the enemy team has the troll.
This actually seems incredibly favorable, but it isn't the whole story.
Without knowing the rate of trolled games this is still rather meaningless statistic.
You actually don't, because the statistic is irrespective of the type of undesirable player. You can apply it to any type of person you don't want on your team.
At my current rank, I get a leaver about every 5 games.
Fully 1/5th of the games I play will essentially be a waste of time.
This means that over 500 games I will have 100 leavers, of that, 55.5 will be victories, 44.4 will be losses.
255.5 victories 244.4 losses.
Over 500 games, the "statistics" will favor me with just a shade over 11 victories.
If league of legends were a full time job, it would take you over 6 weeks to see this divergence.
If you play two games a day, it would take just over 8 months.
8 months of a leaver every 5 games.
And that's assuming the law of large numbers doesn't fuck you.
The problem with the above is that, beyond the games with a leaver, you won 50% of them. That means you are at the correct rank and shouldn't climb any higher, unless you do something to improve your skill at this game.
The Law of Large Numbers actually proves my point.
"According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
This means, since we can expect a 55% chance that the enemy team has an undesirable player and a 44% chance on you team, when you play a large enough set of games, you should expect that statistic to hold true.
LeeDark1 votesIt also means that in the short term, over the course of say, a week, you could see an unusual number of trolls on your team that drops you a division.
Kazaashi2 votesIt also means that in the short term, over the course of say, a week, you could see an unusual number of trolls on your team that drops you a division.
I hate to break it to you, but Ranked isn't about the short term. You are just as likely to have a string of trolls on the other team that bumps you up a division.
I have quite stable internet, so I don't have a problem with that.
Darcade3331 votesmy brother, once you get in higher divisions, you lose thrice more than you win for a game
Sammystorm2 votesLeaver Buster is already pretty damn harsh.
Also adding incentives for people to be asses and try to make people leave is a bad idea.
Darcade3331 votes/mute all
people raging cz you noob? PLay normals nd get better
move from to 
Sammystorm2 votesThe mute all excuse is a cop out because all it does is allow people to ignore something that is obviously a problem. Also people rarely rage because someone is "noob". Instead they rage because the perceive someone as worse then them which may or may not actually be true. however one thing is true and that is that the people that are raging are more likely to throw a game then the person that is getting yelled at.
Curling Veigar1 votesIDK how it could be exploitable because he said the person who leaves gets -20 all around, while the other 4 get a light loss
XxCatatoniCxX3 votesDrophack/DDoS would become more prevalent again.
r11na1 votesInb4 some genius and top mind feels really clever for coming up with some ridiculously obscure scenario where this can be abused, because unless something is 100% abuse proof in every conceivable scenario it shouldn't be implemented.
Oh wait I'm too late ofc. Shocker.
Sammystorm2 votesWere you around when drop hack was prevalent? Riot has tried a lot of things and the current system minus the tribunal being down has made the game a lot better. Also it isn't obscure to think that more people will bully people to leave or to think that people will drophack or whatever else people come up with. Also the "solution" doesn't actually solve anything. You will still have afk's you will still have people leave. If someone is leaving then generally do not care about the consequences. Another down side is you punish people who are victims of exploits and you also heavily punishing people for leaving one game. To many downsides out weigh the good.
Snowball4u1 votesI know that its really annoying to get afks and stuff but the main reason is because people will leave the game the second before they lose to get the lesser of the lp loss.
Darcade3332 votesi didnt understand what you meant to say, can you plz clarify
???
Snowball4u1 votesBasically if we are on the same team in a duo. We are about to lose. I will afk. Then you will lose less lp.
Darcade3331 votessee, here riot has a perfect system to detect afk's... sometimes i get dc 3 min before the game ends and i dont get an afk warning sometimes i go afk for 10 min in the start and am connected till the game completes, still i get an afk warning. so they wont go afk trust me :)
Snowball4u1 votestrue, but It still might be an issue if people learn the system and try to squeeze a way around it.
Darcade3331 votesmany people have already learnt a way around it, but the discussion is that people who get caught must be punished more, and the people who suffered must be punished less...
no one plays LOL specifically for squeezing a way around and going afk... we all wanna play more...
i started this discussion after knowing all factors about it and till now i didn't find any drawbacks of this system.
Trivia: 
should heal from 
Snowball4u1 votesTBH i have a feeling they havent implemented a system like this yet because of how much rage people can build up. I played a game as adc, and i honestly didnt do good. Was 0/2 at 10 minutes with 40 cs. My 0/5 support here just swore at me every time he got caught and every time i got caught. I muted him, he spammed me with pings, and i afkd.
Firstly, they should implement a system to mute pings
Secondly people need to stop being babies and start acting like an adult like they say so (most of the time) i recently had a post raging about the worst players ever given to me in solo q. Me saying a "your mom" joke caused them to say im bad and swear at me the whole time. One of them afkd. And when we lost... "Report lux for toxic and making other person go afk." Sure I sounded just as bad as them when i commented on the boards, but what riot needs to learn is the one thing i said came nowhere near as bad as one out of the hundrud things they said to me. A lot of the time i go into a game like that and after something as stupid as a yo mom joke, they have to mute me and type in all chat "report x for y"
Also thats a really good idea. They should make only brands e burn someone, instead of all abilities. Then do x with y ability. Then his passive is the healing from bleeding, and reduced damage taken from every x ammount of hits taken.
While its going, i came up with an ashe passive cause her current one is crap. Every nearby ally grants her 1/2/3/5% crit (scaling at 1/6/11/16) early game she will have a 2% crit chance, and later through the game in 5v5 teamfights at level 16+ she will have 25% (considering she is nearby herself)
It may seem a bit op but numbers can change if needed. Doubt riot is listening so when i make my own version of lol ill do exactly that :D
Darcade3331 votesown version of lol? you just got a partner... i'm in :)