A potential solution to the 'dodge problem'

Recently in my attempts to climb ranked, I have discovered the strategy of dodging games. Matched with a troll? Dodge. Get out drafted? Dodge. Bad matchup in lane? Dodge. After some cursory googling, apparently this is a very old strategy, and it seems many people want to make it easier to dodge/reduce penalty for dodging, while just as many people seem to be against it and Riot has issued no canonical statement in regard to dodging as a strategy such that I have seen.

The best argument I have seen for dodging as a strategy is giving players the power to quality control matchmaking. We all know full well that matchmaking is not infallible, and Riot seems to have no solution to offer (playing with the troll and reporting them after doesn't count, neither do support ticket reports because Riot actively discourages you doing that) since there is no other option for players being held hostage by a troll or griefer in their lobby

The best argument I have seen against dodging as a strategy is that drafting picks is a skill based gameplay mechanic, and sanctioned dodging punishes more skilled play and better team communication. To not return the punishment to the dodger is unfair and creates an easy-out situation for lower skill teams and defeats the competitive nature of ranked matchmaking.

I agree with both arguments to a point, but that seems to be where the discussion ends as people quibble over what the magic number of punishment should be to sufficiently discourage dodging. Everybody else just flatly denies there's a problem, or cannot come up with any solution that satisfies those who admit to matchmaking's flaws but don't want to encourage such anti-competitive behaviour.

So here's where I throw my hat in the ring: The remake system that already exists is a simple fix for a simple problem. If one person obviously compromises matchmaking at the start of the game, everyone gets to effectively dodge. It doesn't count as a loss, so it's not a forfeit or an AFK, it simply allows the players to actively quality control matchmaking as fellow players. So, I suggest Riot implements a similar system into the pregame, and for the sake of clarity and simplicity I will refer to this system I propose as 'premake.'

First of all, bring report functionality into pregame. Honestly I find it ridiculous that the only way to report someone natively in the launcher is from the postgame stats anyway. With this done, if there's someone griefing the pregame, actively trolling or otherwise acting negatively, they can be reported. Then, if someone gets reported in the pregame it can trigger an automated search that attempts to detect negative behaviour, i.e. literally saying "I will feed" in chat or playing jungle without smite, or any of the other fun grief-detection mechanics Riot already has up their sleeves. If such behaviour is detected, the system can then prompt a 'premake' vote before the last ten seconds of pregame where both teams are given the opportunity to decide whether the game will actually be played. Then, if enough players decide they rather wouldn't play with or against a troll/griefer, the match is simply cancelled and the reported player is treated as having dodged, and gets put on a queue timer as they normally would. Matchmaking begins anew for everyone else.

Obvious questions and my preemptive answers:

• How many votes should be required to trigger/decide a premake?

I left that intentionally vague, ultimately the decision would be whatever Riot thinks is appropriate but I would suggest a single report triggers auto detection, and three reports automatically start a premake vote regardless of auto detection. In terms of deciding the premake vote, four. At least three from the team that triggered the premake and any amount from the enemy team. Votes should also be anonymous, the same as forfeits. Unlike forfeits, not even the player who started the vote or the subject of the report should be named either.

• What if the automatic detection or the premake vote fails?

That's why I specified the vote should happen before the last ten seconds of pregame. If the vote fails, a player should always have the last ditch option of dodging themselves, and facing the penalty for doing so. Otherwise, perhaps the report or the premake wasn't justified on such an occasion.

• The current system works well enough, why is this even necessary at all?

Improvements can always be made. In this case, I believe most players would see almost no benefit at all from this system. I also think the current dodge penalty system is as fair and balanced as it can be. However, there is unfairness to being matched with a troll or griefer, and the current matchmaking system is unable to or ineffective at removing these people from gameplay, especially those that have already made it into a pregame lobby. To those who are being held hostage in their lobby by a troll or griefer, however, the ability to premake would vastly transform their experience.

• What about false positives for off-meta picks?

Playing an off-meta pick is not a reportable offence currently, this system wouldn't make it one. There's a big and obvious difference between playing off-meta and trolling. Smiteless jungle for example. Also, the barrier to getting negatively impacted by a premake is mitigated by the democracy required in actually effecting one. It's unlikely that all four of your team mates will care so much about you playing an off-meta pick that they'd rather wait another n minutes to find a game, risking yet another premake in the process. Also, consider the people who unfairly lose games because of remakes due to circumstances outside their control. The losses are considered acceptable then, I feel the losses would be even fewer with a premake system.

• This just sounds like dodging with extra steps.

Basically, yes, but they are some very big, well defined and impactful steps. People dodge all the time already, and people will probably continue to dodge even if this system were to be implemented. The benefits to matchmaking quality and gameplay would far outweigh any downsides, and the ability to dodge would remain unaffected along with the punishment for doing so

• Why do both teams get to vote, surely the enemies would always vote to play an easy win?

That is the intuitive response, but I don't think it's necessarily the case. People generally (especially people who play competitive games) have a good idea of fairness, and value it almost above all else. I have heard many people offer the sentiment that they would rather lose a fair game than win an easy one. This is how I feel, and how I believe the overwhelming majority of other players do too. Giving the option to both teams also removes the strategic information, as you can't know absolutely which team triggered it, so people will vote more honestly.

Thanks for sticking with me if you made it this far. Let me know what you think!