Boards›Gameplay

My team just had 2 AFKers, why does riot let this persist?

Linna Excel··77 votes·5,113 views

Why is it too much to ask riot to implement a feature that ends a match WHEN THERE ARE 2 BLOODY AFK PLAYERS ON A SINGLE TEAM? You'd think that riot's designers would have a little bit of mercy on those who are stuck in an unwinnable situation, but no, they force those games to be dragged out and waste everyone's time. I get that AFKs happen. What I want to know is why riot gives zero craps about the people who are left on the receiving end of being down a player (or two in this case)? We all know LOL can detect when players go afk.

Why is riot happy letting people suffer through 4v5s, or 3v5s, day in and day out?

STOP BSING US ABOUT HOW THE GAME NEEDS COUNTERPLAY WHEN THERE IS NO COUNTERPLAY POSSIBLE WHEN TWO PEOPLE HAVE QUIT ON YOUR TEAM. Throws don't count.

You guys can pay to move into an expensive new LA building that cost millions. You guys can pay expensive CA taxes. You can pay an art team to advertise new champs that smart people have IP saved up for. That ekko video probably cost many thousands to make. So why can you guys not seem to be able to afford to pay your coders to add a quality of life thing the players have been begging for FOR BLOODY YEARS NOW. I mean you have those coders on hand, you just aren't letting them do their job.

What's more important? A lore video from a company that just took a dump on their lore not that long ago or making people suffer through one of the more unfun situations you can face that riot can actually do something about then and there? The Ekko video as nice as it looks, say you all care more about that than fixing 3v5s.

I'm starting to think riot wants people to deal with 3v5s and 4v5s because they've had more than plenty of opportunities to do something about it. I'd just like to know why?

97 Comments

Singing Lark15 votes

The issue is, when do you draw the line between, "This person had computer issues and will reconnect in a few minutes." and "This person rage quitted."? Implementing something where a match is ended if there are AFK's is somewhat clunky because you never know if the AFK is going to reconnect and if they were going to and you end the match before they get a chance to, would they get unfairly punished? The other thing is, there are plenty of 4v5 games where the team with the AFK gets the win.

You could possibly say that if there is an AFK, the team with the AFK is allowed to surrender without the game being marked as a loss, but this could be abused if losing teams start randomly AFK so their game doesn't get marked as a loss. You could say to punish anyone who randomly AFKs, but with what? Low priority queue? What if someone gets an AFK because of computer issues tries to re-login just to find that their game ended in forfeit and now they have to sit in low priority queue because of one game? Just that would cause a huge amount of rage.

I think something has to be done about 3v5s and 4v5s but these are some issues that I, at least, don't have answers to.

Linna Excel4 votes

Implementing something where a match is ended if there are AFK's is somewhat clunky because you never know if the AFK is going to reconnect and if they were going to and you end the match before they get a chance to, would they get unfairly punished?

Livia, for the sake of the argument I'm less concerned about punishment right now and more concerned with coding and riot's unwillingness to do anything about it from a systems perspective.

Yes people who disconnect can come back but really that match is a ticking time bomb as far as the team with fewer players is concerned. At some point the 5 will get an advantage that 4 players usually can't overcome. Let's be honest, when your team gets an AFK, some people will give up on the match even if they are playing. So you might only have 2 people still trying to win it and the other two only half in the game. Even if the last person comes back, he's going to be out a lot of money and XP so it's still a 4.5 vs 5 until he can catch up some.

T RexHasTinyArms2 votes

So I posted it in response to someone else, but I'm curious, are you looking for an early surrender option, or one where AFK team gets no loss, but the winning team still gets a win?

If you mean you want a no loss/free win situation, then I see this topic come up a lot, and in my estimation there is a really good reason to not do this. The reason is the community wouldn't be happy w/ the only solution that makes sense. If you don't lose when someone goes AFK, but you do win when someone goes AFK then the system is inherently flawed in a ranked system. The problem is that if you keep playing and people AFK at a consistent rate (let's say 10%, and the new system always gives the people who didn't AFK on the 4 man side no punishment, and always gives the 5 man a full win), then you will end up with the same system as (using the numbers above) add 20LP to the account after every 10th game played. In that situation you could just leave the system the way it is, and add 20 LP to an account for every 10 games played where the account doesn't go AFK. No one seems to support the system of just leaving the system as is or letting you FF early, and giving LP w/out playing a game every X number of games, but I also don't see people supporting a system that give you 0LP for a win if the other team had an AFK, and 0LP for the loss as well. It would just feel shitty to play the whole time and then get nothing bc someone was AFK.

I haven't heard a response to this yet as people tend to not say anything when I bring it up and I'm really hoping to hear a good argument as to why I'm wrong, bc I'd love to see a system that worked to deal w/ this, I just can't find one myself.

Linna Excel3 votes

Well for non-ranked games, I just want something that ends the game swiftly if there's an AFK.

If you don't lose when someone goes AFK, but you do win when someone goes AFK then the system is inherently flawed in a ranked system.

True. I'm thinking a solution would be discounting the game for everyone but the quitter. No wins, no losses, save for the one person (or two) who gets a loss. So for the eight or nine, the game never happened.

However, to rebut your point, a lot of times people will go AFK because they got their butts handed to them in the first 10 minutes and quit. So if we can assume a rage quit (given riot's servers I say that's 50-50), his attitude was enough to sink his team. Thus a lot of the time, you were going to win anyways if the person on the other team rage quit.

Another thing is using the loss prevented system, the winners don't really gain as much LP. As it stands, they gain more when someone rages quits as they get the full value of the win for a game they had a large mathematical advantage in. Part of the way elo needs to work is the bigger your advantage, the less you gain on a win and the more you lose in a loss. Riot's current system doesn't meet that criteria as far as AFKers/quitters go.

So even if the game counts ending it early still speeds up the inevitable for most of those matches you have someone leave and not return.

It Hertz When IP6 votes

It's an online game; if they frequently have connection issues, they should not be playing.

Sammystorm3 votes

Its almost like Riot gave the player base a way to check their ping to Riots server before you queue for a game.... Oh wait

Big Bang Bob11 votes

Easy solution: If 6:00 have passed since a player has afk'd, you can surrender. It counts a second for each afk player (so 2 afk's would make the time pass at double the speed). If 3 players afk, you may instantly surrender.

Now you aren't forced to sit in 4v5's or 3v5's for long, but the afk'd player can still reconnect if they only ran into a minor problem with their internet.

T RexHasTinyArms4 votes

God I'd love that system, especially if it let you surrender pre 20. Then if you are getting crushed you can opt out but if your team is dominating and you think you can win you can play it out. Waiting 10 minutes when someone feeds and two people start raging and AFK at 10 minutes bc they are mad at each other is an annoyingly pointless requirement.

N30NP4NDA1 votes

Go play DotA, it has a real system in place.

Ancient Wisp1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Livia the Rose,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=iwR2EKdM,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2015-05-17T20:18:45.615+0000)

The issue is, when do you draw the line between, "This person had computer issues and will reconnect in a few minutes." and "This person rage quitted."? Implementing something where a match is ended if there are AFK's is somewhat clunky because you never know if the AFK is going to reconnect and if they were going to and you end the match before they get a chance to, would they get unfairly punished? The other thing is, there are plenty of 4v5 games where the team with the AFK gets the win.

You could possibly say that if there is an AFK, the team with the AFK is allowed to surrender without the game being marked as a loss, but this could be abused if losing teams start randomly AFK so their game doesn't get marked as a loss. You could say to punish anyone who randomly AFKs, but with what? Low priority queue? What if someone gets an AFK because of computer issues tries to re-login just to find that their game ended in forfeit and now they have to sit in low priority queue because of one game? Just that would cause a huge amount of rage.

I think something has to be done about 3v5s and 4v5s but these are some issues that I, at least, don't have answers to.

I think 5 minutes is a reasonable cut-off time. If you can't reconnect within a full 310 seconds of dcing, then you're probably not coming back. As for punishment, that's not the issue. Nobody gives a shit about how much trouble the person who wasted their time will get into, they care about the time they lost in the first place. In DOTA, once two people afk there's no punishment for leaving yourself because the game is already over. I don't know what to do about ranked games considering the obvious potential for cheating, but at least implement it in normals where formally winning doesn't mean shit all.

Edit: Reading the thread gave me an idea for how to better govern ranked afking. Again, 5 minute cut-off, and if they leave permanently then they suffer a massive LP loss. There should also be a system in place for appeals, especially considering the tribunal seems to be completely internal now. I know that there would be an insurmountable number of fake appeals and people raging at Riot because they believe they were punished unjustly, but I'm with OP on this one. Stop committing so many resources to minute long movies and start actually giving a shit about the people watching them. Have an entire department dedicated to these appeals if you need to, the alternative is what's already happening. Your player base slowly falling away like a glacier under the ozone hole.

Singing Lark1 votes

Personally I find 5 minutes a little short. As someone who owns a toaster and plays daily on it, I can tell you that if my computer crashed and I had to restart, reload and reconnect, it would take me up to 10 minutes. Obviously this puts me at a really disadvantageous position because now I'm ten minutes behind in gold and exp and the question becomes is it worth it to reconnect at all, but giving me 5 minutes is definitely not enough.

MohawkBird2 votes

Honestly the 4v5 argument is really invalid. I mean sure, it happens but it is no justification for allowing your team to be at a handicap and just getting lucky the enemy team doesn't know how to coordinate.

The "Let me purposely AFK because I don't want a loss" is invalid as well. There are other punishments for people AFKing, let alone consistently. It's called low priority queues, which could go up to 40 minutes I think, and I don't think anyone wants to wait 40 minutes to get into a game. You also mentioned that what if people have to sit in low priority queue because of one game, I see. The system already does not throw out low priority for one game. It is through consistent AFKing, so the guy with occasional internet problems won't get it, but the guy who AFKs left and right does get it deservingly. It will not change a thing.

As far as your argument about the AFK reconnecting only to find a forfeiting team, this can be easily solved through a simple clock system. If the AFK doesn't reconnect within 5-10 minutes of the game starting, or since he disconnected, they are given the option to surrender. If some guy AFKs for 10 minutes he either is not coming back, or the game is lost by then unless your team was already ahead to begin with.

Every Loss-Prevention thread I've seen uses these arguments and I really don't get where they come from. Especially someone saying it shouldn't be implemented because it can be "abused". Systems can be put in to easily prevent abuse, one namingly called Low Priority Queue, which effectively does it's job at making people think twice before AFKing or making people check connection first (which people should be doing anyway). Everyone has connection problems or something to do sometime though, but people need to know one or two AFK games every once in a while will not get you banned.

Singing Lark1 votes

The reason why I say it can be abused is because people can find ways around it. Look at it like this:

If you don't implement special punishment, people will randomly AFK so they don't lose a game. You can afford to AFK 2 or 3 times before you get put into low priority queue. We're not talking about the reasonable people who play league here, we're talking about the idiots who will rage at their teammates and then proceed to rage quit. If they now know that rage quitting will prevent them a loss and they wouldn't get immediate punishment for it, this is just further encouragement for rage quitting. In fact, by rage quitting, they've prevented their team from losing as well.

If you do implement immediate punishment if a game ends early because of an AFK, that would prevent abuse from rage quitters, but you run the risk of teams getting upset because someone had computer or internet issues, ending the game early and the person with internet issues, who might have a completely clean slate, get punished with low priority queue. Once again, you could attempt to find a happy medium and say the someone with a clean slate shouldn’t be punished because this is their first offense. But then, how many offenses would be required before immediate action is taken? What if the first offense is a rage quit? What if someone had a bad history of AFK, is trying to fix it and accidentally AFK’s again? These are all questions that you have to look at, because in releasing a new feature, the goal is to satisfy EVERYONE.

Even if you do implement immediate punishment, people will eventually find a way around it. People have always been able to find a way around it. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t do something about this. Just that it’s not as easy of a system to make as it sounds like.

I’d love to hear more opinions on this, because I’m definitely not covering all of the bases.

MohawkBird1 votes

While I can see what you are saying about not having an immediate punishment for players that AFK purposely before they get low priority, but the fact is that most players will not take advantage of that. Not the mention the people who do AFK that easily most likely already have some sort of record for AFKing, letting the punishments be given out easier. Why should 95% of the players get punished because a mere 5% decides to take advantage of a clearly beneficial system.

As for your argument based on someone having a previous record of AFKing and getting punished because bad connection I find quite blind. People already get punished for bad connection. If Guy X AFKs because of his internet connection in a blind pick he would still get the punishment. Anyone with a record should think twice before getting into a game, blind pick or not.

Singing Lark1 votes

Lol. I think I just lost my own argument.

MohawkBird1 votes

I am passionate about this subject as you can tell by my test walls previously lol.

rtbf649145956 votes

if they did that people would automatically have two people afk to have a "loss prevented" happen! even if the the enemy was at your Nexus and is super lose to killing it!

WillHealForHonor16 votes

no man its not hard u just let the person who afked lose double the lp and the rest gets lost prevented.. problem solved

T RexHasTinyArms2 votes

I'd hate not getting LP though from wins, or getting super shit LP from wins (since you'd only get whatever the amount is from the person who DC'd and lost LP since no one else did).

WillHealForHonor1 votes

i have no idea what u meant there can u pls rephrase.. but it sounded like u misunderstood me.. the team who wins will always get their lp..

T RexHasTinyArms3 votes

TLDR; You can read below for explanation or just know that I was pointing out what you're asking for is rank inflation, and a better way to do it is giving everyone who plays a free 20 LP every X number of games played. It's way easier to code that than it is to set up an AFK system and is exactly what you're asking for.

So I think you missed the point that I was trying to politely point out that a system in which people don't lose LP, yet others are still awarded LP is inherently flawed. What you're asking for is not actually for AFK to stop affecting you, it's asking for you to have a free rank increase. Essentially it is the same as asking for a system where every X number of games you play you are given a free win without queing up for a game. Eventually you will climb even if you aren't winning more games than you lose (like if you were perfectly even you would still climb). The problem with this is that it makes ranking players really hard, bc instead of having a ranking system that tries to place you where your skill level is, you now have a ranking system that has to place you a little higher than your skill level to balance out and keep it even.

Essentially I was saying the system you propose is flawed and was tying to politely say it shouldn't exist bc if you spammed enough games you'd end up a tier above where you deserve to be (IE bronze against silver, silver against gold, gold against plat, should all lose more games than they win, but could get to the tier above if they spammed enough games, bc they'd still go up in ranks even if they lose more than they win bc there is LP being added that isn't ever being lost anywhere). It would end up w/ riot having to bump the rewards at end of season up a tier bc each tier would become the people at that skill level who play occasionally and don't get enough bonus wins for playing X number of games, combined w/ the people who are a skill level below, but spam enough games to move up. Bronze would get smaller, silver and gold would be where most players were now, and plat would be gold sized, w/ diamond either having the most painful clamping ever at D1, or bumping a ton of new players into masters.

Now if you want to just get free wins, that's fine, but I'd rather it be a more transparent system and instead of having a new AFK system you just get 20 LP added to your account every 5-10 games. Of course then I'd be kinda sad when I got to the next rank bc it wouldn't mean I was improving really, but just that I spammed a ton of games.

LeeDark1 votes

LP is not zero-sum.

T RexHasTinyArms1 votes

Got any numbers on that or a reason? Bc logically it seems like it would approximate it. The number of games people don't lose LP bc they hit a new tier, is probably close to the number of games people don't gain LP bc they win a promo (or reasonably close given the number of games played each day), and the LP gained and lost is adjusted by MMR relative to the team/opponents, but at an aggregate level this would balance out and serve to help move players up or down faster individually, while still balancing the scales over the massive number of games played each day.

Maybe I missed something riot said, but it seems like it would come close, and any condition that adds a game where no one (or one person) loses, but many people win, should in theory inflate the average rank of players when that is played out over a million games a day or something.

LeeDark2 votes

LP gained or lost is based on your MMR, either relative to other players in the game, or relative to the average for your rank and division. I suspect the latter, since LP gains and losses do not change game to game, as you would expect them to, at least slightly, if they were dependent on the average MMR of your team compared to your opponents. Add this to the fact that you can be in your promotion series with and against people who are NOT in their promotion series, and it is obvious that the total LP gained by your team is not equal to the total LP lost for your opponents. You win a game, but gain no LP because you are in your promotion series, and you do not see an increase in LP gained when you win a regular game with a teammate who is in their promotional series. Otherwise, you would expect to see a 20% increase in LP gains with a teammate in the promotional series in at least some games, because their won't always be an opponent in their promotional series as well.

Now, the system does APPEAR to approximate something like a zero-sum outcome, but this is largely coincidental, due to the fact that advancing a division requires you to win at least 3 out of the next 4 games. I say 3 out of 4, because if you lose your promotional series, you must win at least one game to advance back to the promotional series, then win two out of the three promotional games. This inflated win rate requirement stifles some of the inflation in the system, but that still does not make LP a zero-sum equation like MMR is.

58738074DEL12 votes

[deleted]

WillHealForHonor2 votes

excatly.. but the most important thing is that the others should get loss prevented.. the only problem is that u can find people who can dodge for u.. and then u will never loss lp.. But the thing is u should find a way that people dont lost lp when they have a leaver and the leaver should be punished so hard the he wouldnt ever leave.. It should at least be so undesirable that u cant force somebody to do and if u have a premade that does it, it should then be impossible to get into high elo that way because u lose too much lp or something.. BUT RITO GET ON IT!!! havent DOTA solved the problem?

High54 votes

There's has to be a systematic way of fixing this. Playing 4v5 because someone didn't connect or connects after 10 mins have gone by sucks. People not surrendering when when you have 2 afks is incredibly frustrating.

Silents4293 votes

Here is the uncommon solution, it's an online game and if you harp at every loss you get instead of enjoying yourself you are spoiling the fun for yourself and others when you come here to complain about it.

If its a 4v5 or 3v5, surrender, and click play again. The problem is the human race is generally too arrogant to do this and they need to let the rage be known, they need to let Riot know this is unfair, When you could have gotten into a new game and forgotten all about it.

I know this isn't as easy for ranked, and I know I piss a lot of people off saying it's a game, but it IS a game, you don't have money on the line, you don't have a gun to your head, or fans to disappoint. You got a negative number, learn to lose.

WeFlyNoLie4 votes

You know what the funny part is?

You only hear people complaining when they have the AFK on their team.

If the AFK is on your opponents team, you don't see them coming to the forums being "outraged" that they got a free win because of an AFK.

CoolKnightST3 votes

Guess you didn't had game with 3 afk's yet.

T RexHasTinyArms2 votes

I think there's a huge difference between 3v5s and 4v5s, and I also can't tell if you mean pre 20 or not, but I definitely agree that it would be nice to be allowed to FF at like 5 or 10 min if there are DC players. There are some 4v5s I'd still play but if we are 3v5 and it's been more than 60 sec I'd love to be able to just FF early, take the loss and move on to the next game.

Fricasee Lemons2 votes

Why not have an option for players to join a match in progress? They would take over the champion and keep the same items, runes, and masteries. This doesn't fullly solve the problem but at least gives the afker's team a somewhat better chance to make a comeback.

TelekniTech2 votes

According to Riot Lyte, 99% of the playerbase is awesome and only 1% is toxic and is going afk.

There is no need for you to complain since clearly, the amount of afks is too low to be of concern.

Cindikle2 votes

Because there's a very fine line between punishing the bad and punishing the unlucky.

If you double the IP loss for the AFK and none on the rest. How does that fix anything? What if someone had a random power outage and just lost 40+LP to something out of their control.

Also how does this prevent abuse?

  • If someone just hit 0 LP, the LP they lose doesn't matter.
  • If someone is at 10 LP losing 20 or 40 is the same thing.
  • If someone is in their promo, a loss is a loss.

This is still a very abuseable system that also heavily punishes people who were just unlucky.

This would also make players want to rage more to get others to AFK when the game is going to be a loss.

Just have to also remember. Everyone has to deal with AFK's. The enemy team isn't magically never running into the same problem.

What Riot does need to do is shorten the surrender timer if someone is AFK for 5 minutes. Someone on Reddit posted a list of win rates vs time AFK. 5min was 50% if I recall, dropping quite a bit to 20min(5-15%?).

I understand why Riot doesn't have better systems for AFK's. There is no way to satisfy everyone with it. I don't understand why they don't have tools to help get the game to the next game. Just another reason to miss Dawngate. AFK's would enable early surrender timers as well as large gold differences. Just because every game is considered winnable, doesn't mean i want to spend an extra 30min to lose at 40m when I we're 2-15 at 10min. Some games start bad and they put you in a bad mood for the rest of it. It's often best to just get to the next one than risk becoming more frustrated trying to come back.

OyddAWqJ5r2 votes

Trust me, the system in place is more than enough for punishing AFK's. 20 minute pre-Q time for 5 games where they can't touch anything on the client except the cancel Q button. And if you leave a single time after that for about 2 weeks or more you will get put back on the 20 minute pre-Q time for 5 games again.

Vekkna2 votes

As I stated elsewhere, I think the solution to this is guilds where guild officers can handle the difference between a tornado forcing somebody afk and a rage-quit by keeping or kicking.

The simple fact is that trolls and afk-ers would be a rare problem if the majority of queues were in groups of 4 or 5 instead of 1 or 2. Trolls and quitters have all the power when it only takes 1 person to ruin things for 9 other people. If normal, decent players have options to avoid queuing with trolls altogether, the trolls lose their power.

There are 3 ways to beat trolls: social stigma, refusing to play with them/ignoring them, or retaliating. League has no mechanism to stigmatize bad behavior (eg gkick, blacklist, etc). You can't refuse to play with them since matchmaking is random and you're punished for leaving. And you can't fight back without risking punishment of your own.

The Allies Guy2 votes

I won a 3v5 once cuz the enemy team threw too hard

Rootworth2 votes

I won a 3v5 game before. So fuck your idea.

Ancient Wisp1 votes

{quoted}

I won a 3v5 game before. So fuck your idea.

[{quoted}](name=The Allies Guy,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=iwR2EKdM,comment-id=0023,timestamp=2015-05-18T23:08:03.628+0000)

I won a 3v5 once cuz the enemy team threw too hard

If you haven't won a 3v5, then you're probably not level 30. Neither of you are special, and you're both fucking idiots for thinking that your comments have any bearing on this conversation. Now get out.

Rootworth2 votes

Fuck you, you piece of trash. Don't insult intelligent humans like me.

powerbats1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Ancient Wisp,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=iwR2EKdM,comment-id=00240000,timestamp=2015-05-19T01:03:56.336+0000)

If you haven't won a 3v5, then you're probably not level 30. Neither of you are special, and you're both fucking idiots for thinking that your comments have any bearing on this conversation. Now get out.

If all you want is a bunch of yes men responses then go post on 4Chan because you won't find all yes men here. Oh and as far as being special goes you don't qualify either and these forums belong to Riot not you.

Ancient Wisp1 votes

{quoted}

If all you want is a bunch of yes men responses then go post on 4Chan because you won't find all yes men here. Oh and as far as being special goes you don't qualify either and these forums belong to Riot not you.

You really have no idea what 4chan is, I mean no fucking idea, you could say that it's the largest land mammal and you'd be more correct. As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I never said I was special. I was informing those two fine upstanding gentlemen that they weren't, and likely never will be. Anything else? I'm in a great mood, I could do this for a while.

powerbats1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Ancient Wisp,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=iwR2EKdM,comment-id=0024000000010000,timestamp=2015-05-19T01:23:14.482+0000)

You really have no idea what 4chan is, I mean no fucking idea, you could say that it's the largest land mammal and you'd be more correct. As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I never said I was special. I was informing those two fine upstanding gentlemen that they weren't, and likely never will be. Anything else? I'm in a great mood, I could do this for a while.

Actually I do have an idea of what 4Chan is like which is why I suggested you post there if you want yes men responses because people over there will believe pretty much anything you post. While you may ahve felt telling them they weren't special all you really did is prove you wanted to insult them not have a discussion. You could've just as easily said you disagree with them instead. I'm in a foul mood right now, good earlier due to Win 8.1 corrupting it's registry again after updates. I can go all night as well if you want to have a sarcastic debate about things or just bash Windows.

Ancient Wisp1 votes

{quoted}

Actually I do have an idea of what 4Chan is like which is why I suggested you post there if you want yes men responses because people over there will believe pretty much anything you post. While you may ahve felt telling them they weren't special all you really did is prove you wanted to insult them not have a discussion. You could've just as easily said you disagree with them instead. I'm in a foul mood right now, good earlier due to Win 8.1 corrupting it's registry again after updates. I can go all night as well if you want to have a sarcastic debate about things or just bash Windows.

You make me sad. Seriously there are several layers of metagame here that you're not privy to, and that level of ignorance should be funny but honestly it's just kind of depressing. And to be clear, most of the fucking kids on 4chan in the past few years have no idea what it is, don't assume to understand it because you're aware that it exists.

alaskaneagle1 votes

{quoted}

If all you want is a bunch of yes men responses then go post on 4Chan because you won't find all yes men here.

54367

You say that but all you are is one of riots little fanboy yes men.

Krigjer1 votes

There can never be a really harsh punishment for afks until the system can detect the difference between an afk and a legitimate disconnect.

You already have innocent people complaining about Leaverbuster.

N30NP4NDA1 votes

Umm, DUH, Just go play fucking DotA.

Digielf1 votes

{quoted}

Umm, DUH, Just go play fucking DotA.

Whats the diference this happens in all moba games its just how these genre is designed you will always encounter leavers no matter where you go

Kbalz1 votes

Riot keeps saying they are working on a solution for this but I think its all a huge lie.. they are too scared to do anything. When it happens to them.. they just open up the database and fix their games.

GundayMonday1 votes

One time I won a 2v5 that became a 2v2 and then a 4v3. I think we need to fix comcast first.

More from Gameplay

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

More by Linna Excel

A skin line idea for supports
Concepts & Creations102 comments
284
votes
I feel bad for RiotRepertoir
Gameplay364 comments
214
votes
@Ghostcrawler, can you do the playerbase a favor?
Gameplay197 comments
213
votes
Riot, can you please stop changing lores like this
Story, Art, & Sound40 comments
168
votes
Riot, I don't think diamond players like your reworks
Gameplay159 comments
154
votes
So riot forgot about one of the main problems of supporting you have to deal with
Gameplay124 comments
85
votes