Boards›Gameplay

To beat an already dead horse...(THIS IS NOT A RANT)

Kittencakes1··14 votes·2,651 views

I've been playing since season 1 and I have seen so much change over the course of League. I have seen: the rise and fall of Urf, the championships of the seasons, the stealth rework, many champion reworks, many new champions, a completely reworked Twisted Treeline, the addition of dominion, and much MUCH more. While I never participated in the beta of League, I consider myself a veteran. And all I have to ask is:

Why?

Why hasn't the ranked system been improved? Now I don't mean matchmaking itself. On that regards, I think it does an excellent job. The matter of hand I'm referring to is why after all of these many years I have been playing this game has there not been a fix to leavers in ranked?

Now I'm sure this topic has been discussed A MILLION TIMES on these forums. But, there's a reason for that. This is genuinely a problem.

There is NO excuse that a ranked game should count if someone leaves. None.

Leaver buster is a** good system**, but it's NOT enough. While, yes, it is possible for a team to win 4v5, it usually requires some serious misplays from the other team and/or for the team with the leaver to already be ahead. However, many of us have had a 4v5 and many of us have lost MANY 4v5's. To dismiss the argument with, "it's possible to win a 4v5," is purely unacceptable.

In a mode that's supposed to be about proving SKILL and working together as a TEAM, leavers completely blow this concept out of the water. I honestly feel as though matchmaking is completely fair, except for this issue. If this issue were resolved then I feel ranked would be completely fair in that if you lose, it's is truly you and your team's fault.

The SOLUTION: Let's look at another MOBA that IMO does it ALMOST right. Dota 2. Now, don't immediately dismiss this as me being a "Dota 2 fanboy." I'm only using it as an example here. The system for ranked Dota 2 uses is that if someone leaves (before first blood) then the match is immediately not counted and the rest of the players can also leave the match. This is CLOSE to hitting the nail on the head, but still isn't quite there because the match is still counted against MMR if the leaver leaves AFTER the first blood. However, the aspect of being able to leave after an abandonment without fear of punishment is a WONDERFUL part of the system. This means players will not be forced to waste their time in a match that is most likely inevitably going to turn out poorly for them anyways (If the leaver is on their team). Surrendering is a way to end this misery, but this too has problems in that you must wait until 20:00 minutes, and oftentimes you will get games where people REFUSE to surrender in obvious unwinnable situations. I think LoL can IMPROVE upon this system by adding an option to leave after abandonment (like Dota 2), but also nullify the match and make it not count ENTIRELY. This option is also viable because of a system League already has in place, the Leaverbuster. If an accident or emergency is truly that then it should not happen often. But for people who would try to exploit this system, they would be discouraged from doing so by the Leaverbuster.

Another possible SOLUTION: * (As quoted from Bixits G)*

Everyone picks a role and the system "matches" a team together. You would still be able to ban champions etc. But each person is put into the "slot" they were assigned. Let's say 10 minutes someone is detected afk by the system.

That player is automatically booted from the system and a new player who selected that "slot" has to option to "fill the void" and pick a game already in progress or choose to join a new game. System could say "game match found already in progress. Game time 10:23. "Accept or Pass".

Let's say it was the support that afked. New person who picked support can't pick Nami because she was banned and the other team picked Soraka. New support chooses Sona and joins the match. System detects current team level average at lvl 6. New support Sona spawns in base at lvl 6 and can join the match. Person who afked is truly removed from the match and receives a leaverbuster punishment but allows a full team so it's still a 5v5. The team will still be behind a bit but might actually have the ability to continue the game if the "new" player is spawned at the average team level.

But to add to this I believe some sort of calculation would have to be performed to give the drop-in player an equal opportunity to be successful. I was thinking taking the average total gold of the team who had the leaver (also adding the leaver's gold) and dividing it so that the person dropping in would have the opportunity to be on about equal footing as the rest of the team. (Though this still isn't entirely fool-proof, admittedly. I definitely think it would take some creative thinking to get this one to work properly.)

I doubt this will get much attention, or much likes. But I feel like this is seriously an issue that needs to just keep being pushed until a better solution is implemented, because the one is place is not good enough.

TL:DR: Implement a new system that doesn't count ranked games when someone leaves, or a type of drop-in system as mentioned by Bixits G

60 Comments

Jamaree2 votes

{quoted}

Let's look at another MOBA that IMO does it RIGHT. Dota 2. Now, don't immediately dismiss this as me being a "Dota 2 fanboy." I'm only using it as an example here. The system for ranked Dota 2 uses is that if someone leaves then the match is immediately not counted and **the rest of the players can also leave the match.

You still lose MMR however, it doesn't affect your rank, but your MMR does go down, which means you will be more likely in theory to get feeders or bad players whatever.

Why they haven't fixed it is because there is no such thing as a fix. It is impossible to without punishing more innocent people then guilty. Believe it or not, the average player doesn't constantly rage quit, sometimes server problems, sometimes irl, etc, these things can't be factored in. Is it fair to have to deal with? No, but can you honestly say you have NEVER afked, if you say yes, you are lying.

Abuz3mentPark4 votes

No but the OP has a point.

So yes, ppl AFK for tons of reasons, good and bad.

What we have to look at is this: When someone inevitably AFK's, what should happen? The OP's point is dead on: Don't have the match count against you.

What should happen to the AFK? Well, like i said, it could be anything that caused them to leave, so lets give them the BOTD, and base it on the FREQUENCY of leaves they have.

  • If they leave lots, there should be some sort of threshold they must break to initiate some sort of punishment.
  • If they left very infrequently, then they should be below the threshold and therefore would avoid punishments.
  • Perhaps a waterfall system could be in place, with increasing punishments as people leave more games.

Point is, I am guilty for leaving games at times due to factors out of my control (internet connection, friends pulling my computer plug to come outside w/ them, etc), so clearly the average player has SOME afk's.

But I would agree to a solution to having a 4v5 to be having the match not count. Its simply crazy to believe that one should be ranked when they do not have a full team. Doesn't it lose its purpose in that situation?

Kittencakes12 votes

Yes, this is exactly my point. Ranked completely loses it's grounds if outnumbering is the reason a team wins. The basis of ranked is meant to be a 5v5 with both teams at an EQUAL advantage player-wise. If an inequality occurs due to a player leaving then ranked completely loses the scaffolding that is the core of what makes ranked ranked.

Slaaneshine1 votes

The issue is that if someone leaves and the game counts against you, people might try to force people to rage quit or leave so they don't get a loss. It doesn't sound very plausible, but I've seen some stuff on League, and it only touches what incentive might make people want to do for personal gain reasons.

Kittencakes11 votes

I've mentioned this before in several other comments:

. . .I feel it would just require stricter threshholds for the leaverbuster in ranked only. Good and honest players won't be punished because they will only dc through emergencies or internet issues (Maybe 2 maximum quits over a long period of time [long period of time being the key here], or 3 at most). However, players who exploit the system would be more likely to be caught because people who have the attitude to exploit would eventually run out of times through which they can exploit. Or it could even be done on a game by game basis, say, someone could be allowed 2 quits every 50 ranked games they played. And so on so that it would be almost meaningless to attempt to exploit. Because 2 free exploits out of 50 games is almost meaningless. While I think it could be exploited to a very limited extent, I don't think it's impossible to implement. With some creative thinking, such as my solution, though it's not extremely creative, I think this system is very possible to implement. Albeit, it would certainly need some tinkering to get the most efficient use out of the system, I believe it's possible.

Kittencakes11 votes

You still lose MMR however, it doesn't affect your rank, but your MMR does go down, which means you will be more likely in theory to get feeders or bad players whatever.

This is not entirely correct either. I admit what I said about their system is inaccurate, this is also inaccurate however. MMR is only lost IF first blood happens. If someone leaves before then, then and only then will MMR actually be affected. (I have edited my original post accordingly.)

Believe it or not, the average player doesn't constantly rage quit, sometimes server problems, sometimes irl, etc, these things can't be factored in. Is it fair to have to deal with? No, but can you honestly say you have NEVER afked, if you say yes, you are lying.

Never once did I mention that I have not had to afk in a match. But I have not left through rage or anger. I have stuck through every match and have only been counted for leaving when issues with my internet has arised. Which is understandable, but how is it fair for others to lose a ranked match because someone might decide to play knowing full well they have latency issues? Or that they have a limited amount of time but they play anyways? This doesn't sound like punishing other innocent players to me, it sounds like promoting one person's issues and punishing everyone else by forcing them to take a loss. I understand emergencies happen, but can you tell me how it is fair for innocent players to take a loss due to someone leaving? I also did not mention afk'ers, only leavers.

Why they haven't fixed it is because there is no such thing as a fix.

To say there is no fix is to deny all possibility that this issue would be resolved. I can't believe that there is literally no fix to this issue.

If a team won because someone left then how is this considered to be impossible to fix? The fix is literally to just not count the match. Sure, the team without the leaver might have been playing well and they might deserve the win. Good argument, but what of the team who had the leaver and were also playing well until someone left? This denies them their right to win. This is ESPECIALLY DEVESTATING if someone leaves early on in the game. A team that had the opportunity to win is now severely impaired through no fault of their own. How is it logical for one team to deserve a win and the other to not? By saying that this punishes innocent players seems illogical because the innocent players also include the ones on the team with the leaver. It might seem unfair for players on the team without the leaver if they were doing well, but it's fair for both sides because both sides should have an EQUAL opportunity for victory. It should not come through outnumbering.

Jamaree1 votes

{quoted}

This is not entirely correct either. I admit what I said about their system is inaccurate, this is also inaccurate however. MMR is only lost IF first blood happens. If someone leaves before then, then and only then will MMR actually be affected.

Hm, not too bad of a system, but it doesn't leave room for people who disconnect and return, on top of the fact that the system punishes people who do come back with lower or even negative MMR gain.

Never once did I mention that I have not had to afk in a match. But I have not left through rage or anger. I have stuck through every match and have only been counted for leaving when issues with my internet has arised. Which is understandable, but how is it fair for others to lose a ranked match because someone might decide to play knowing full well they have latency issues? Or that they have a limited amount of time but they play anyways? This doesn't sound like punishing other innocent players to me, it sounds like promoting one person's issues and punishing everyone else by forcing them to take a loss. I understand emergencies happen, but can you tell me how it is fair for innocent players to take a loss due to someone leaving? I also did not mention afk'ers, only leavers.

If someone plays with latency isses, that obviously isn't fair to the team, but how is the system just supposed to know? How will the system magically know that someone is having latency issues, or that they afked because of an emergency. Recently, my uncle broke the shower, I had to afk to fix it, up to that point, I hadn't left a game until a good year before that, I came back and apologized, but we still lost. IRL happens, it isn't fair to the team that it happens on, but it happens and it is going to happen. It isn't fair, but at times, it isn't avoidable.

To say there is no fix is to deny all possibility that this issue would be resolved. Without looking at every single aspect and making a judgement oneself, then this is baseless.

Because there isn't a way to fix that won't be abused or won't punish players. If there was, a game would have done so by now.

If a team won because someone left then how is this considered to be impossible to fix? The fix is literally to just not count the match. Sure, the team without the leaver might have been playing well and they might deserve the win. Good argument, but what of the team who had the leaver and were also playing well until someone left? This denies them their right to win. How is it logical for one team to deserve a win and the other to not? By saying that this punishes innocent players seems illogical because the innocent players also include the ones on the team with the leaver. It might seem unfair for players on the team without the leaver if they were doing well, but it's fair for both sides because both sides should have an EQUAL opportunity for victory. It should not come through outnumbering.

So you are saying that the people who joined a game expecting to win, worked hard for their win and their elo and MMR should be punished because someone ELSE, not even ON their team didn't connect? How is that fair to them? So it is fine to for the losing team to have no loss at all, but the winning team doesn't deserve a gain period? Even then, you do realize how people would abuse this right? They would duo with friends, or just bribe off the ally to afk/dc before the match starts. Either they by some chance win a 4 vs 5, or when they lose nothing happens. How is this a good idea?

Kittencakes11 votes

Recently, my uncle broke the shower, I had to afk to fix it, up to that point, I hadn't left a game until a good year before that, I came back and apologized, but we still lost. IRL happens, it isn't fair to the team that it happens on, but it happens and it is going to happen. It isn't fair, but at times, it isn't avoidable.

While I definitely agree with you there, this is the moment where Dota 2 can be looked upon. If someone leaves then there could be a client change where the person who has left has the chance to reconnect, or leave the game entirely (like Dota 2.) And if they don't connect after so long, then the game becomes "safe to leave." Not entirely safe in Dota 2, but if the system I've mentioned were implemented into League then it truly would become safe to leave. This would help to distinguish between a pure ragequit/emergency or an uncontrollable disconnect from internet, computer issue, etc.

Even then, you do realize how people would abuse this right? They would duo with friends, or just bribe off the ally to afk/dc before the match starts. Either they by some chance win a 4 vs 5, or when they lose nothing happens. How is this a good idea?

I've already mentioned this before, how will people exploit this system? Through leaverbuster they might be able to use the exploit some, but then what? What happens when they do have a real emergency? They will be punished because they tried to exploit the system.

Either they by some chance win a 4 vs 5, or when they lose nothing happens.

Or they lose MMR? How does nothing happen? And how is it fair for the enemy team to win a 4v5? That hardly seems fair, and it HARDLY seems in the spirit of what ranked is supposed to be. Sure, it might seem fair to the team without the leaver because it becomes an easy win after this. But that's not fair for anyone in terms of ranked. No one deserves a win because of unequal players, as I've said before. The basis is ranked is supposed to be of skill and good teamwork. As variable as league games go, the team doing well could start dropping off and then the other team could start doing well. And then that team could have a leaver and it completely ruins their chance to win. How does this then become fair?

Jamaree1 votes

{quoted}

While I definitely agree with you there, this is the moment where Dota 2 can be looked upon. If someone leaves then there could be a client change where the person who has left has the chance to reconnect, or leave the game entirely (like Dota 2.) And if they don't connect after so long, then the game becomes "safe to leave." Not entirely safe in Dota 2, but if the system I've mentioned were implemented into League then it truly would become safe to leave. This would help to distinguish between a pure ragequit/emergency or an uncontrollable disconnect from internet, computer issue, etc.

This does need to be added though.

Or they lose MMR? How does nothing happen? And how is it fair for the enemy team to win a 4v5? That hardly seems fair, and it HARDLY seems in the spirit of what ranked is supposed to be. Sure, it might seem fair to the team without the leaver because it becomes an easy win after this. But that's not fair for anyone in terms of ranked. No one deserves a win because of unequal players, as I've said before. The basis is ranked is supposed to be of skill and good teamwork. As variable as league games go, the team doing well could start dropping off and then the other team could start doing well. And then that team could have a leaver and it completely ruins their chance to win. How does this then become fair?

Because they are putting their time into the match. Did they know that someone was going to afk? No. Why should they be punished by getting absolutely nothing because someone on the opponent's side didn't connect? Why is it fair that their time gets flushed down the toilet just because someone else left?

Kittencakes11 votes

Because they are putting their time into the match. Did they know that someone was going to afk? No. Why should they be punished by getting absolutely nothing because someone on the opponent's side didn't connect? Why is it fair that their time gets flushed down the toilet just because someone else left?

Because even if they're doing well, it's not possible to say that they will still win nonetheless. A team could be doing poorly but there are many times when they can still come back. When it comes down to a 4v5 this almost cements the team with 4 players' fate, making it almost impossible to come back. How then, is this fair? And as I've said before, if people were safe to leave then no one's time gets wasted. It's as simple as that, and this all ties into exactly what I've been saying all along.

Jamaree1 votes

{quoted}

Because even if they're doing well, it's not possible to say that they will still win nonetheless. A team could be doing poorly but there are many times when they can still come back. When it comes down to a 4v5 this almost cements the team with 4 players' fate, making it almost impossible to come back. How then, is this fair? And as I've said before, if people were safe to leave then no one's time gets wasted. It's as simple as that, and this all ties into exactly what I've been saying all along.

So it is unfair to punish people who get the AFK, but fair to punish people who don't?

Kittencakes11 votes

So it is unfair to punish people who get the AFK, but fair to punish people who don't?

Have you even read anything I've been saying this whole time? I've already answered this question. I'm not answering it again.

Duke Anax2 votes

Yes everyone leaves sometimes, but not all the time. Leaverbuster already deals with the bad cases, but it doesn't protect the other players.

Riot is completely right, that leavers ruin the game for other people, however what they fail to realize is that they themselves ensure that it's even possible for Leavers to ruin the game.

If it were possible to escape that situation a lot of people would just say "meh, happens" instead they are forced to stew in it. They can do nothing but build up their anger, because they are constantly reminded of the situation. And then they take that rage into the next game and possibly become toxic.

Kittencakes11 votes

I certainly agree.

Bixits2 votes

I would like to see ranked that is more like team builder. Everyone picks a role and the system "matches" a team together. You would still be able to ban champions etc. But each person is put into the "slot" they were assigned. Let's say 10 minutes someone is detected afk by the system.

That player is automatically booted from the system and a new player who selected that "slot" has to option to "fill the void" and pick a game already in progress or choose to join a new game. System could say "game match found already in progress. Game time 10:23. "Accept or Pass".

Let's say it was the support that afked. New person who picked support can't pick Nami because she was banned and the other team picked Soraka. New support chooses Sona and joins the match. System detects current team level average at lvl 6. New support Sona spawns in base at lvl 6 and can join the match. Person who afked is truly removed from the match and receives a leaverbuster punishment but allows a full team so it's still a 5v5. The team will still be behind a bit but might actually have the ability to continue the game if the "new" player is spawned at the average team level. Just my two cents.

Kittencakes11 votes

I actually like this idea a lot too. But to add to it, I think they'd have to do some calculations for average gold of the team and compensate the missed time to the player who joins. I don't think it'd work so well if a player came in the same level, but with starting gold. But other then that I think this is a vary viable idea. Thanks for the feedback! I'll add it to the solution section.

TSM Hai1 votes

"Shit we're losing, someone leave! I'll gift you a skin, I'm in my promos..."

'Nuf said.

Raptamei2 votes

[{quoted}](name=TSM Hai,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Kq4aB5Ir,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2015-02-04T07:18:10.165+0000)

"Shit we're losing, someone leave! I'll gift you a skin, I'm in my promos..."

'Nuf said.

Then you mute and report him. How is that hard?

TSM Hai1 votes

Oooorrrrrr you can just take the free skin and leave. Who would want to lose a game, when instead they can get a free skin out of it?

Raptamei1 votes

[{quoted}](name=TSM Hai,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Kq4aB5Ir,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2015-02-04T07:28:14.981+0000)

Oooorrrrrr you can just take the free skin and leave. Who would want to lose a game, when instead they can get a free skin out of it?

More like the guy will just say "lol got you".

Kittencakes11 votes

Ahh but this is where Leagues Leaver buster comes in to play. They already have the system for punishing leavers, all they have to do is fix the issue for the people who suffer for the leaver. Thanks for helping me add another point.

qetzel1 votes

I suppose it might be because you don't have to work any harder to get to where you deserve. Everyone (assuming everybody behaves in the same way - big assumption, I know) in a division is equally likely to get a leaver or an afk. Therefore, everyone is equally disadvantaged. By adding this function you woud be removing that disadvantage, but you would remove that disadvantage for everybody.

So to get an even distribution, everyone's LP gains would have to be lower. You wouldn't rise any faster or fall any slower.

Kittencakes11 votes

Why would removing the disadvantage for everbody not be viable? No one likes, or should deserve to be at a disadvantage through no fault of their own. It's an artificial disadvantage that does nothing to add to ranked but to make it unfair for the team with the leaver. Now if you were, to say, pick a worse team comp then the opposing team then this is a fair and natural disadvantage. It is that teams fault that they lost because they did not make the right decisions in drafting.

And though your assumption provides a good point, it is truly that: an assumption. Not everyone has the equal opportunity to get a leaver, it's based on so many variables that couldn't go accounted for. Many people go throughout ranked (at least the provisions) without ever getting a leaver. Many get 1 or 2, or more. Because this assumption isn't accurate it's impossible to say how easy or hard it will be for someone to get where they need to be. Because of this variable of the leaver it completely throws off the system and will make some have to work much harder then others solely because of the luck of the draw. However, if this variable were to be eliminated then it would come down solely to a true basis of skill and teamwork, the spirit of ranked.

qetzel1 votes

If everybody is at the same disadvantage, nobody is actually at a disadvantage, because it is all relative.

And my assumption is probably accurate over a large number of games. Toxic people probably get more leavers, but that is about it. I would say that a large number of games should be required to get to the rank you deserve, as conistency is important.

Kittencakes11 votes

I certainly agree with the fact that a large number of games should be how you get the rank you deserve. But I don't think people should have to work harder to get there because of leavers, as mentioned before.

qetzel1 votes

I am not getting the point across. You do not have to work harder. Rank is a relative measure of your skill. This means that, if you are better than, say, 50% of the playerbase, you will be put in low SIlver (I am not sure about the numbers). Everyone has leavers. Everyone should lose the same number of games due to leavers, so everyone is going to lose more games. But as rank is realative, everyone reaches their position in the same amount of tim anyway. You need to work harder to get, for example, a 60% winrate, you do not need to work harder to increase your rank.

Kittencakes11 votes

Everyone has leavers. Everyone should lose the same number of games due to leavers, so everyone is going to lose more games.

This is exactly what this entire thread is about. The fact that everyone has leavers is the issue. But to say

Everyone should lose the same number of games due to leavers, so everyone is going to lose more games.

is completely inaccurate. The frequency of leavers will vary from person to person. To say everyone will lose the SAME number of games due to leavers has literally no way of backing that up. It all boils down to the luck of the draw. Just because 1 person might play 10 games and get, say, 2 leavers doesn't mean that someone else will get the same results. It's also impossible to say how a match outcome will go. To say everyone will get to the place they belong in the same amount of time makes no sense logically. Two people might deserve to be in silver or gold or some other rank. 1 person could play 10 provisionals and get any number of leavers that would slow down their rank climbing (assuming they won the others, and lost the matches with leavers). While another person could get (although it would be quite rare) 10 provisionals without leavers (assuming they won) and be much closer to that rank then the person with leavers. League is incredibly variable and to say that everyone will experience the same frequency of leavers just makes no sense at all.

qetzel1 votes

It does make sense though. No, not everyone will get the same number of leavers in their first 10 games, but over 100 it will even out. Given that everyone needs a large number of games to reach their rank, this will even out. One person may get no leavers in the first 10, one may get 10, but over the number of games it takes to climb both players will get roughly the same number. This is how probability works.

Kittencakes12 votes

Probability does not equal guaranteed. Someone could buy a lottery ticket hundreds of times (or thousands) throughout their life and never win the lottery. Or look at any system with a drop rate, say Dota 2 or CS:GO. A certain item from a chest could have a probability rate of 1 in 100. 1 person could open the chest and get it immediately, while another could open 100 chests and still not get it. To say that it will even out without looking at the volatility and variability of how probability can be isn't correct. Add more variables in to the equation and it becomes increasingly unpredictable, such as with leavers. To say that 27 million people (as supposedly reported by Riot) will have about an even number of leavers over the course of 100 games is simply just false. Probability relies entirely on the luck of the draw and doesn't mean any outcome that is "probable" is bound to happen.

qetzel1 votes

I suggest you take a look at this. It isn't a great one, but I can't be bothered to search for a better one. http://www.math.uah.edu/stat/applets/GaltonBoardExperiment.html Change the probability (p) to the probability you think there is of getting a leaver. Change n to 50 (each person plays 50 games). Run the programme a hundered times, a thousand, never stop, if you want. The table at the bottom on the right shows how many leavers a player gets (Y) and the proportion of players that get this number of leavers. You should see that no player is significantly disadvantaged, given that each loss due to leavers requires only one extra win to break even.

On to your specific example: The chance of getting a winning lottery ticket is low. Very low. 1/41C6. The number of tries needed for everyone to win a similar amount will therefore be much greater. Another reason this is an unfair comparison is that the consequences of winning the lottery are far greater than losing a game. The lottery is several million pounds to get even, but you only need to win two more games (assuming you are at the point you belong at, fewer if you have a higher MMR) for a loss.

What would you say should be the minimum number of games needed to show a consistent level of play? What would you say is the probability of the average player getting a leaver each game? What other variables are there that would make some players get more leavers? We can calculate this.

Kittencakes11 votes

What would you say should be the minimum number of games needed to show a consistent level of play? What would you say is the probability of the average player getting a leaver each game? What other variables are there that would make some players get more leavers? We can calculate this.

No we can't calculate this, because I don't know. You don't know. No one could know exactly what makes someone disconnect, what the minimum number of games needed would be, how many leavers an average player would get, etc. Blindly guessing and throwing around numbers does no good for probability in a real life situation if the numbers are purely just wild guesses. It's also not even worth an attempt to guess at the average amount of leavers millions of people get over a set amount of games. Your probability is based on the assumption that average players are going to experience an equal amount of leavers throughout a course of a certain period of time. And what of those who fall above or below the average? There are always extremes when it comes to averages with numbers either being higher or lower than the average. If you're going to calculate for the average, then, as I have said, what of the unaverage in this situation? If these people have an extremely high amount of leavers or an extremely low amount of leavers then how is this fair to them? With your probability guessing it's only covering average players. This still isn't fair for the entire spectrum of players.

qetzel1 votes

Ok. You so not seem to want to learn anything new about probability or the awesomeness that is maths. I will leave you with two statements to think about, and will not return.

  1. Leavers are annoying and cause you to lose some games
  2. No player will be significantly disadvantaged by leavers wrt their overall rank.
Kittencakes11 votes

Ok. You so not seem to want to learn anything new about probability or the awesomeness that is maths. I will leave you with two statements to think about, and will not return.

The greatest way to end an argument, continually pushing the same point without acknowledging my points. Also, I'm currently in college getting my degree in Networking and Telecommunications. Trust me, I've had my fair share of math and I realize how probability works. But the fact that you're sitting here trying to convince me something will absolutely be the case for ALL players with PROBABILTY absolutely blows my mind. To use probability in an argument and then not acknowledge that it is

  1. An average: all averages require extreme ends of the spectrum (This is why it is an AVERAGE because it is the average of these extremes)

and

  1. not at all guaranteed (probability being defined as such: The probability of an event is the measure of the CHANCE that the event will occur as a result of an experiment. The probability of an event A is the number of ways event A can occur divided by the total number of possible outcomes.)

shows that you are too headstrong in your point to actually admit that this will not be the case for everyone. The fact that you use probability and then fail to acknowledge the extremes that makes the average you're using to support your argument shows, again, your stubbornness. You even ASK ME:

What would you say is the probability of the average player getting a leaver each game?

There's holes in your argument and you're not acknowledging them. To prove my point further, you can take almost any probability simulator, say, flipping a coin to keep it simple, and find that the results are almost always never the same (to get the same result would be almost completely impossible and would have such a trivially small chance of happening it's not worth mentioning). Each side has a 50/50 chance (Not 100% applicable in real life since both sides of a coin don't weigh the same) I flipped the coin 500 times and got 243 heads, 257 tails. While this isn't a large difference it's still different and not even. Let's do it again, 500 coin flips, and this time I got 261 heads and 239 tails. Tails took the lead first, and then heads did? What happened? The probability (according to your argument) says that this SHOULD even out. Yet continually flipping these coins thousands of times shows that they would almost NEVER (again back to this trivially small chance of them being even) be even. Tails or heads will always take the lead of each other.

This is simple PROOF that probability is reliant on CHANCE and that even though the chance says that they SHOULD be equal and even, they are not. To use CHANCE as an argument is baseless because it proves literally nothing other than the fact that something SHOULD turn out a certain way, even though this will never be 100% accurate.

To use probability and act as though EVERY player (including those in the extremes either with higher or lower leavers than the "average player," as defined by you) will experience pretty much the same results is incredibly mind numbing.

  1. No player will be significantly disadvantaged by leavers wrt their overall rank.

Even if no player at all is significantly disadvantaged (which I refuse to believe this is the case solely because of the CHANCE of it) this is simply admitting to the fact that it's still a disadvantage to everyone. An artificial disadvantage at that, and some will be more or less at a disadvantage. This is the problem I've been stressing throughout this entire thread, and this just helps to justify it.

However, to simply end an argument with no further proof or rebuttal shows that your point wasn't to be considered all that much anyways.

-Good day sir.

1011001110001 votes

{quoted}

If everybody is at the same disadvantage, nobody is actually at a disadvantage, because it is all relative.

And my assumption is probably accurate over a large number of games. Toxic people probably get more leavers, but that is about it. I would say that a large number of games should be required to get to the rank you deserve, as conistency is important.

Having a system with artificial disadvantages, even if everyone can be affected by them, is bad. No single team should just randomly be thrown at a disadvantage because "the enemy team had an equal chance to be disadvantaged." That's a bad train of thought to be on.

{quoted}

So it is unfair to punish people who get the AFK, but fair to punish people who don't?

If someone afks and the match becomes a 4 v 5, the team of 5 winning would not have won a fair match, and so the match is not an accurate representation of their skills in said match. This likewise speaks of the team of 4 winning, because this equally would not be an accurate representation of anyone's skills, since a severe handicap was present. Making matches affected by afks not count towards someone's MMR or ranking would help create a system that can more accurately analyze a team's capabilities.

It's also not like the afk player goes unpunished. In fact, they should be punished for leaving, regardless of their reasons, even if they're good ones. The mere act of leaving any ranked game right now spells "auto-lose ggnore ff @20" for a lot of people, and it's a generally accurate statement.

The question then becomes this: Do you want a ranked system that might be slower in climbing, but is capable of better representing your MMR/Rank, or do you want a ranked system that is comparatively faster than the suggestion brought about, but run the risk of hitting several 4 v 5s during ranked climbs that will likely set you back?

SmokingPuffin1 votes

There is NO excuse that a ranked game should count if someone leaves. None.

If the leaver is a ragequit because someone is getting stomped so hard they gave up, that game should absolutely count as a loss.

There's no reason one should have to work much harder to get where they need to be because of leavers.

If you never leave games, statistically things get easier for you the more often there are leavers. 5/9 of the time, the leaver will be on the other team.

I think LoL can IMPROVE upon this system by adding an option to leave after abandonment (like Dota 2)

Totally want this.

but also nullify the match and make it not count ENTIRELY

Totally don't want this. You'd constantly see players in their promos begging people to leave the game so they don't lose the promo, and it'll happen a nonzero number of times. That really screws with the fairness of the promo system.

Kittencakes11 votes

I've already addressed these issues in several other comments.

If the leaver is a ragequit because someone is getting stomped so hard they gave up, that game should absolutely count as a loss.

I certainly agree with this, but that's only assuming that the game is completely impossible to win. Which in some cases, can be very hard to say. A team could be stomped early and come back later in the game. A leaver almost completely nullifies this and would make it almost impossible for any sort of comeback.

If you never leave games, statistically things get easier for you the more often there are leavers. 5/9 of the time, the leaver will be on the other team.

That's based solely on the assumption that 1 player will literally NEVER disconnect. This is unreal in most circumstances, as most everyone who has been playing long enough has had uncontrollable issues that has forced them to disconnect. All players have the chance to disconnect, whether it be on purpose, or by accident, but this is variable from player to player.

Totally don't want this. You'd constantly see players in their promos begging people to leave the game so they don't lose the promo, and it'll happen a nonzero number of times. That really screws with the fairness of the promo system.

As I mentioned in another comment:

. . .I feel it would just require stricter threshholds for the leaverbuster in ranked only. Good and honest players won't be punished because they will only dc through emergencies or internet issues (Maybe 2 maximum quits over a long period of time [long period of time being the key here], or 3 at most). However, players who exploit the system would be more likely to be caught because people who have the attitude to exploit would eventually run out of times through which they can exploit. Or it could even be done on a game by game basis, say, someone could be allowed 2 quits every 50 ranked games they played. And so on so that it would be almost meaningless to attempt to exploit. Because 2 free exploits out of 50 games is almost meaningless. While I think it could be exploited to a very limited extent, I don't think it's impossible to implement. With some creative thinking, such as my solution, though it's not extremely creative, I think this system is very possible to implement. Albeit, it would certainly need some tinkering to get the most efficient use out of the system, I believe it's possible.

SmokingPuffin1 votes

I certainly agree with this, but that's only assuming that the game is completely impossible to win. Which in some cases, can be very hard to say. A team could be stomped early and come back later in the game. A leaver almost completely nullifies this and would make it almost impossible for any sort of comeback.

I tend to assume that a ragequitter, if you could somehow force them to stay in the game, would be worse for your winning chances than them just leaving. Such a player is quite likely to suck, feed, rage, troll, even outright intentionally feed.

Thus, I don't have any problem with continuing a game with a ragequit as a 4v5. If anything, that seems generous to the other 4 players.

I should mention that DotA allows teammates of a leaver to control their character as it if were their own. That's kind of a cool feature.

That's based solely on the assumption that 1 player will literally NEVER disconnect. This is unreal in most circumstances, as most everyone who has been playing long enough has had uncontrollable issues that has forced them to disconnect. All players have the chance to disconnect, whether it be on purpose, or by accident, but this is variable from player to player.

If you leave a game, you have no reason to complain about the loss.

If someone else is randomly selected to leave your game, and you don't leave, you have a 55% chance to be on the 5v4 team.

Neither of these situations is cause for complaint from an MMR standpoint. Leavers do not create elo hell.

Myself, I would prefer just getting to leave the game early in a 4v5 and eating the loss. Guaranteed zero abuse cases that way, and I don't mind being underrated for a few games if I get unlucky with teammates.

I feel it would just require stricter threshholds for the leaverbuster in ranked only.

I don't think this will work out well. If stricter thresholds were possible without causing false positives (people being banned for unintentional leaves), why wouldn't Riot have already implemented those stricter thresholds? I conjecture that Riot has tuned as tight on that as they can without an unacceptable amount of collateral damage, especially with the state of connectivity to Riot servers from the east coast.

1011001110002 votes

{quoted}

If the leaver is a ragequit because someone is getting stomped so hard they gave up, that game should absolutely count as a loss.

Why should it absolutely count as a loss? Because that ragequit perfectly jeopardized their team's ability to continue playing? Punish afkers/leavers by making them lose LP equivalent to a match loss, and leave the rest of the players unaffected. On principle, the 4 v 5 is an unbalanced match-up, and should not be taken as a serious measure of any player's ability, no matter the circumstances.

{quoted} If you never leave games, statistically things get easier for you the more often there are leavers. 5/9 of the time, the leaver will be on the other team.

It doesn't matter if the enemy team has a greater chance of having a leaver. The purpose of this discussion is to effectively come as close to eliminating the leaver factor as possible from affecting MMR and ranking statistics. If I won my next 25 matches because every match was a 5 v 4 in my team's favor because the enemy team had a leaver, I don't deserve any of those wins because everything was so skewed into my team's favor.

{quoted} Totally don't want this. You'd constantly see players in their promos begging people to leave the game so they don't lose the promo, and it'll happen a nonzero number of times. That really screws with the fairness of the promo system.

So what if they beg? If the leaver is going to get punished with LP loss anyway, why would you bother leaving for someone else's sake? You play this game as a team so that you, as individuals, can increase your ranking. Why would I take the fall for the sake of someone else's ranking? If we're going to lose the match and someone asks me to leave, I'm not going to bother. I'll suffer more from leaving than I will from just simply losing the game.

{quoted}

I tend to assume that a ragequitter, if you could somehow force them to stay in the game, would be worse for your winning chances than them just leaving. Such a player is quite likely to suck, feed, rage, troll, even outright intentionally feed.

Then report them for feeding, raging, trolling, or intentionally feeding. We also have a system for those kinds of offenses. It's not like Riot magically decided to remove all of these options from the report button at the post-game screen.

{quoted} Thus, I don't have any problem with continuing a game with a ragequit as a 4v5. If anything, that seems generous to the other 4 players.

...you don't understand the concept of generosity, do you?

{quoted} If you leave a game, you have no reason to complain about the loss.

Of course you don't have a right to complain about the LP loss, you abandoned the game. What would a leaver expect, a trophy?

{quoted} If someone else is randomly selected to leave your game, and you don't leave, you have a 55% chance to be on the 5v4 team.

I don't care about the statistical probability of my team get fucked over because League doesn't provide some sort of safety net for this bullshit. The argument is about getting rid of this stupid probability.

{quoted} Neither of these situations is cause for complaint from an MMR standpoint. Leavers do not create elo hell.

When did ELO Hell come into this? Leavers and afkers just exacerbate a player's ranked climb and fuck with MMR. ELO Hell literally has nothing to do with this.

{quoted} Myself, I would prefer just getting to leave the game early in a 4v5 and eating the loss. Guaranteed zero abuse cases that way, and I don't mind being underrated for a few games if I get unlucky with teammates.

You wouldn't mind getting warning strikes on your record AND LP loss for leaving games... okay. Have fun with that.

{quoted} I don't think this will work out well. If stricter thresholds were possible without causing false positives (people being banned for unintentional leaves), why wouldn't Riot have already implemented those stricter thresholds? I conjecture that Riot has tuned as tight on that as they can without an unacceptable amount of collateral damage, especially with the state of connectivity to Riot servers from the east coast.

Funny you mention East Coast lag, because Riot is actually doing something to deal with server lag as a whole, as they explain here. Should this dedicated network prove to significantly reduce lag (which it likely will), then there will be less of a reason for lag to be a counterpoint to applying this punishment for leavers. All the more reason to actually go through with this.

As for everyone else, cut the "your team always has a greater chance of having a leaver if you never afk" bullcrap as well. Why the hell would you even WANT your team to have a leaver? For an easy win? Fuck that. Grow a pair and take the enemy team on 5 v 5 like you're supposed to.

Cheap wins don't make you a better player.

Kittencakes11 votes

Thank you for explaining this for me. It certainly grows tiring re-explaining everything to any new comer who disagrees with my argument, even though they could take the time to read other comments that contain almost the same arguments with a rebuttal from myself.

SmokingPuffin1 votes

Why should it absolutely count as a loss? Because that ragequit perfectly jeopardized their team's ability to continue playing?

Because that player probably wasn't going to help you win even if they stayed in the game. Most of the time, I would rather a 4v5 than a 5v5 with a feeding rager on my team. Therefore, if you don't win the 4v5, you weren't going to win the 5v5 either, so you deserve the loss.

Punish afkers/leavers by making them lose LP equivalent to a match loss, and leave the rest of the players unaffected.

No can do. Too abusable. In high elo play everyone knows everyone.

If the leaver is going to get punished with LP loss anyway, why would you bother leaving for someone else's sake? ... I'll suffer more from leaving than I will from just simply losing the game.

If you only do it occasionally, there's very little downside for you. If you know the guy, and he's in his promo series, there's a chance you'll consider it.

When did ELO Hell come into this? Leavers and afkers just exacerbate a player's ranked climb and fuck with MMR. ELO Hell literally has nothing to do with this.

Many players talk about fixing the leaver problem as if it will help them gain elo.

You wouldn't mind getting warning strikes on your record AND LP loss for leaving games... okay. Have fun with that.

To be clear, I want DotA's "late abandonment" rule set. If a player leaves the game, 5 minutes later you can leave the game without it counting as a leave. You still get a loss, but no low priority queue and no possibility of being banned for leaving an abandoned game.

1011001110002 votes

{quoted}

Because that player probably wasn't going to help you win even if they stayed in the game. Most of the time, I would rather a 4v5 than a 5v5 with a feeding rager on my team. Therefore, if you don't win the 4v5, you weren't going to win the 5v5 either, so you deserve the loss.

This is assuming that ragequit left ten minutes before everyone started to surrender or the game ended. A system like this would allow for a grace period of, say, 5-10 minutes (something around there), for anyone that left the game to return. If the game ends before that time expires, the game can still be counted as a loss. It's not like a team will get aced at 50 minutes through a roughly equal match, and then go "Okay John, leave the game so we don't all lose LP".

No can do. Too abusable. In high elo play everyone knows everyone.

Very high elo players are less likely to leave specifically because immediate LP loss would be suffered anyway. Even if everyone knows everyone, people that take dives for others they know will just fall out of the rankings and be forced to play back up, something that becomes significantly difficult at such high level play. High elo players would also have to know WAY in advance that they're losing incredibly hard, assuming they want to save friends from losing LP. And at that level of play, a 4 v 5 will generally result in total collapse faster than would a losing 5 v 5 team, and the game would effectively be won before the match gets marked as "loss forgiven" or the like.

The idea put forward seems more aimed towards people who outright abandon the game 5-10 minutes into the match, wherein the disadvantage of the 4 v 5 slowly presses down, moreso than people who just outright abandon a game a minute before it's practically guaranteed to end.

If you only do it occasionally, there's very little downside for you. If you know the guy, and he's in his promo series, there's a chance you'll consider it.

Assuming you're right, then that person won't get punished under the current leaver system either. The proposed changes would at least bring some immediate consequences that become more severe as you leave more, further discouraging people from simply leaving on occasion.

Many players talk about fixing the leaver problem as if it will help them gain elo.

The intent of a player when discussing this issue does not change the fact that there ARE issues in Ranked play that can and should be addressed accordingly. I honestly don't even care if eradicating afking entirely from the game actually does raise my ELO or not, I care for playing the game on an even platform more than anything else in League (except for quality).

To be clear, I want DotA's "late abandonment" rule set. If a player leaves the game, 5 minutes later you can leave the game without it counting as a leave. You still get a loss, but no low priority queue and no possibility of being banned for leaving an abandoned game.

The late abandonment system is neat and all, but the loss is still counted, so all the system effectively does is help you not waste time, not necessarily alleviate the fact that the leaver just outright caused you to lose a game.

Edit: As side note idea, the LP punishment for leaving a game could scale with a player's Ranking, a simple 10-15 LP Loss for Bronze, Silver, and Gold (consistent with Riot's changes to rank decay), increasing by intervals of, say 5, as the player is higher in tier, meaning leavers/afkers in, say, Master, would see a 25-30 LP loss, as a deterrent in high elo play.

SmokingPuffin1 votes

It's not like a team will get aced at 50 minutes through a roughly equal match, and then go "Okay John, leave the game so we don't all lose LP".

High elo players can easily identify games that are The idea put forward seems more aimed towards people who outright abandon the game 5-10 minutes into the match, wherein the disadvantage of the 4 v 5 slowly presses down, moreso than people who just outright abandon a game a minute before it's practically guaranteed to end.

I understand the target use case. The thing is, you have to design with the abuse cases in mind. Something as innocuous as allowing players to dodging trolls for a time penalty nearly brought high elo play to a grinding halt with all the strategic dodging. If it can be abused, it will be.

Assuming you're right, then that person won't get punished under the current leaver system either. The proposed changes would at least bring some immediate consequences that become more severe as you leave more, further discouraging people from simply leaving on occasion.

There isn't much downside now, but there is zero upside. No abuse case exists.

Also, I would expect to see win deny trolling if leaver = match didn't happen. Opposing player in promos? Winning game? Gonna afk.

The late abandonment system is neat and all, but the loss is still counted, so all the system effectively does is help you not waste time, not necessarily alleviate the fact that the leaver just outright caused you to lose a game.

In the vast majority of cases, I don't believe that the leaver cost you the game. I believe the game was already lost and then they left. I suggest you track your games with leavers in them, and note the gold difference in the game at time of leaving. For games that aren't "early abandons" in DotA terms, I suspect you'll find a curiously high number of "connection issues" occur with a sizable gold disadvantage for the leaver.

I would have no problem copying over DotA's early abandon rule too (player leaves before first blood and before 5 minutes, game never happened), but in my experience League has very few qualifying early abandons. What we really have is a ragequit problem.

Kittencakes11 votes

I tend to assume that a ragequitter, if you could somehow force them to stay in the game, would be worse for your winning chances than them just leaving. Such a player is quite likely to suck, feed, rage, troll, even outright intentionally feed.

Not every disconnect happens to be someone ragequitting. This is why I did not mention the specifics of the disconnect. That player might have been crucial to the match and just had internet problems, rather than just ragequitting. Thus, if this valuable player were lost, then the possible comeback could be made impossible due to an artificial problem.

Thus, I don't have any problem with continuing a game with a ragequit as a 4v5. If anything, that seems generous to the other 4 players.

The argument I've been making this entire time, however, is that the continuity of a 4v5 or 5v4 is an **artificial ** factor that makes the system either artificially easier or harder. Ragequit or not, a person who plays poorly and rages but helps in teamfights is more valuable than no one at all. Because with no one at all, it is almost impossible to make any sort of comeback.

If you leave a game, you have no reason to complain about the loss. If someone else is randomly selected to leave your game, and you don't leave, you have a 55% chance to be on the 5v4 team.

55% chance can fail many times based on the luck of the draw. Look at any system that has a %chance of something happening. League for example, 20% Critical strike chance doesn't mean you're going to be getting a critical hit every 5 hits. It's likely that you should get the crit, but will you always get it? No, you could get 5 hits and not get the crit. Probability literally proves nothing in this case, as I have argued with others in this thread before. And even if I get the 5v4 team, it's still unfair. I consider it an unfair advantage and not fair for ranked.

I don't think this will work out well. If stricter thresholds were possible without causing false positives (people being banned for unintentional leaves), why wouldn't Riot have already implemented those stricter thresholds? I conjecture that Riot has tuned as tight on that as they can without an unacceptable amount of collateral damage, especially with the state of connectivity to Riot servers from the east coast.

Riot shouldn't have to be responsible for the unintentional leaving. People should plan ahead of time. While, admittedly emergencies do happen (I'm including power outtages, medical emergencies, unexpected internet issues with no way to possibly tell, this does NOT include internet issues that could be predicted), people can easily test their internet and connectivity by playing a normal match before, or using other websites that test their ping. It should be (most of the time) people's responsibility to plan before going into ranked matches. If someone is having emergencies that often where they would get picked up by leaverbuster, it should be THEIR responsibility to figure something out, not Riots.

SmokingPuffin1 votes

Not every disconnect happens to be someone ragequitting. This is why I did not mention the specifics of the disconnect. That player might have been crucial to the match and just had internet problems, rather than just ragequitting. Thus, if this valuable player were lost, then the possible comeback could be made impossible due to an artificial problem.

Certainly I agree, and it sucks when you lose a winnable game to a dc. The problem here is that the ragequitter case is quite common and impossible to separate from the legit disconnect thing.

Riot has quite alarming statistics on how much more likely a player has "connection issues" in games they're currently losing than in games they're winning. Last I checked, it was something like 5x more disconnects in losing game states than winning ones.

And even if I get the 5v4 team, it's still unfair. I consider it an unfair advantage and not fair for ranked.

I agree that it's unfair. Making all 5v4s a null game is unfortunately more unfair.

people can easily test their internet and connectivity by playing a normal match before, or using other websites that test their ping. It should be (most of the time) people's responsibility to plan before going into ranked matches. If someone is having emergencies that often where they would get picked up by leaverbuster, it should be THEIR responsibility to figure something out, not Riots.

I'm afraid that testing your connection by playing a normal first is not a workable plan. You will likely play on different servers with different routings in the two games. If your problem is like most people's problems, it'll show up randomly, only affect League, and only affect you for one game on one night.

However, I do have to say that connection issues are still overblown, and ragequits are a significantly bigger deal.

The leaver rate is something like 1.7% of games have a leaver in them, which means that the average League player leaves in 0.17% of their games. You're much more likely to be getting one of these random background events in your 4v5s than you are a consistent leaver, because LeaverBuster really is quite efficient at removing those players from the pool.

Kittencakes11 votes

Certainly I agree, and it sucks when you lose a winnable game to a dc. The problem here is that the ragequitter case is quite common and impossible to separate from the legit disconnect thing. Riot has quite alarming statistics on how much more likely a player has "connection issues" in games they're currently losing than in games they're winning. Last I checked, it was something like 5x more disconnects in losing game states than winning ones.

Admittedly, you got me there.

I agree that it's unfair. Making all 5v4s a null game is unfortunately more unfair.

I don't see how this is more unfair. This becomes unfair then to the people with the leaver. It's still completely unfair for both the team that will win and the team that will lose because it adds an artificial element to ranked, like I've mentioned before, that doesn't help to give a fair representation of skill or teamwork. It just throws the game off.

The leaver rate is something like 1.7% of games have a leaver in them, which means that the average League player leaves in 0.17% of their games. You're much more likely to be getting one of these random background events in your 4v5s than you are a consistent leaver, because LeaverBuster really is quite efficient at removing those players from the pool.

If this is the case, then why would it be a big deal to nullify a game with a leaver? If people leaving is such an unpredictable tangent how would this not work? 1.7% is such a small number, which seems even smaller on such a grand scale that has millions of players, that there's no reason a system shouldn't be in place to fix this issue and make it where ranked becomes completely fair for everyone involved. Not to mention, this fact simply just entirely disproved the argument that exploitation of the system would be possible. And while 1.7% is a small amount of leavers in games, it's still a problem and it's still an issue that throws off the concept of rank. Disconnect, ragequit, emergency, whatever the issue may be, it's still adding an artificial difficulty. However, through all of the discussions I've had on this forum I will remove the paragraph in my original post that says people will have to work much harder for the rank they deserve. I made that assumption based on my own experience with ranked and it didn't come across my mind that it doesn't make as huge of a difference as I made it out to be. However, I am still standing by my point as I still see it as a problem and I still believe it is in need of a fix to make ranked that much more accurate.

SmokingPuffin1 votes

I don't see how this is more unfair.

It feels super bad to be ahead 20-5 or something and have the guy you've been dunking on leave and make you get nothing.

It feels worse when the leaver tells you he's doing it because he knows you're playing your promo series.

If this is the case, then why would it be a big deal to nullify a game with a leaver?

Because the abuse cases change people's behavior.

Kittencakes11 votes

Because the abuse cases change people's behavior.

This is a problem with just about every single MMO with any sort of chat function. Almost any of these types of games will have abuse and trolling. You have to be pretty thick-skinned to play games like these and not get upset over it. Just because some people couldn't handle it, doesn't mean others won't.

It feels super bad to be ahead 20-5 or something and have the guy you've been dunking on leave and make you get nothing. It feels worse when the leaver tells you he's doing it because he knows you're playing your promo series.

Again, you make it sound like this would happen often. With the point you just made:

The leaver rate is something like 1.7% of games have a leaver in them, which means that the average League player leaves in 0.17% of their games. You're much more likely to be getting one of these random background events in your 4v5s than you are a consistent leaver, because LeaverBuster really is quite efficient at removing those players from the pool.

it'll happen some, but not all that often. People are only gonna be able to do this so much until it won't really be an issue anymore. If someone is likely to be a troll and flame, they're likely to try and do it more than once. And even if they do it once, then what? What happens when they join other games and try and do it more? They're going to get caught by the LeaverBuster.

SmokingPuffin1 votes

I don't mean verbal abuse. The statistics will change because you created a new reason for players to purposefully afk. Very counterproductive to your goal of making afks less annoying for the player base.

Because the baseline leaver rate is so low, and because there are 10 players in the game, it doesn't take many players occasionally trolling to make things a lot worse. LeaverBuster won't cull you for a 1% leave rate, and if some trolls at the 1% leave rate pull the average leave rate up to 0.3%, your cure will end up worse than the disease.

Kittencakes11 votes

The statistics will change because you created a new reason for players to purposefully afk. Very counterproductive to your goal of making afks less annoying for the player base.

Again, LeaverBuster.

Because the baseline leaver rate is so low, and because there are 10 players in the game, it doesn't take many players occasionally trolling to make things a lot worse. LeaverBuster won't cull you for a 1% leave rate, and if some trolls at the 1% leave rate pull the average leave rate up to 0.3%, your cure will end up worse than the disease.

Even if this does boost the average rate up, it'd only be temporary. All the trolls would get busted and then a lot less people would be leaving, so the rate would just fall right back down again. And people are only going to get so many marks on their account until some further action is taken.

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