Riot, please stop punishing the team for 1 AFK

Murford·Nov 6, 2017·2 votes·855 views

I'm tired of losing LP because 1 player on my team DCs. This game is meant to be played 5v5. Why am I being punished when I'm forced to play 4v5 because of an AFK? The Summoner's Code already recognizes that going AFK ruins the experience for everyone. If Riot already acknowledges that the experience is bad because of an AFK why pour salt in the wound of the teammates by also taking their LP for a loss? You already have a mechanism for loss prevention if a player never loads in. Why not have that throughout the game if someone DCs? Punish the person actually violating the Code, not the team that your system placed with them.

20 Comments

Rand0mH3r0XNov 6, 20172 votes

Riot implemented /remake.

Anything beyond that and players would just take advantage.

It's not Riot that did it.

MurfordNov 6, 20171 votes

That's why I said punish the person who went AFK. Hell, Riots matchmaking system knows if you're queued with someone, so punish the players queued with an AFK too. But why punish players who have no connection to the AFK beyond Riots system putting them on the same team?

VreivaiNov 6, 20171 votes

{quoted}

That's why I said punish the person who went AFK. Hell, Riots matchmaking system knows if you're queued with someone, so punish the players queued with an AFK too. But why punish players who have no connection to the AFK beyond Riots system putting them on the same team?

So what happens if a person disconnects?

Get DDoSed? Banned. Power goes out? Banned. Comcast does Comcast things? Banned.

See the problem there?

At least, I'm assuming you want bans for first time offenses, because repeat offenders are already punished.

MurfordNov 7, 20171 votes

[deleted]

Jax PoeticNov 7, 20171 votes

{quoted}

No, I'm saying take the LP away from the AFK. Don't take it away from the team that lost because of something beyond the game. It's not the team's fault that they were forced to play 4v5.

you know there's a reply button, right? you know no one will know who you're responding to if you delete the quote?

MurfordNov 7, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=Jax Poetic,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=8BpYWrag,comment-id=00000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-11-07T05:48:49.498+0000)

you know there's a reply button, right? you know no one will know who you're responding to if you delete the quote?

Actually, I didn't realize I had to quote the previous comment in order to respond to it seeing as literally no other platform I use requires that. Everything else I use understands when I click "reply" to post the comment with the one I'm replying to without having to quote the previous comment. So thanks for the info, and that's a really dumb system.

Jax PoeticNov 7, 20172 votes

{quoted}

Actually, I didn't realize I had to quote the previous comment in order to respond to it seeing as literally no other platform I use requires that. Everything else I use understands when I click "reply" to post the comment with the one I'm replying to without having to quote the previous comment. So thanks for the info, and that's a really dumb system.

chronological is objectively the superior format for forums. with reddit and "discussion" layouts, all it does is create a circlejerk on the top comment, with no real discussion going on. it was the way forums were before reddit plagued the internet, and it's the way GD will always remain

GlobDaBlobNov 7, 20171 votes

{quoted}

No, I'm saying take the LP away from the AFK. Don't take it away from the team that lost because of something beyond the game. It's not the team's fault that they were forced to play 4v5.

And then people harass others to get the to leave when it is likely they are going to lose so that they dont lose LP.

And "its not the team's fault" can be applied to so many more things. Do you also think teams with intentional feeders should not get punished either? How would you detect an intentional feeder vs. a bad game? In fact even if someone is just having a bad game, its not the team's fault that they had a bad game and fed o why should the other 4 get punished?

MurfordNov 7, 20171 votes

{quoted}

And then people harass others to get the to leave when it is likely they are going to lose so that they dont lose LP.

And "its not the team's fault" can be applied to so many more things. Do you also think teams with intentional feeders should not get punished either? How would you detect an intentional feeder vs. a bad game? In fact even if someone is just having a bad game, its not the team's fault that they had a bad game and fed o why should the other 4 get punished?

That's what the report system should actually be used for. Riot has been praising the abilities of Leaver Buster for seasons now. They can instantly determine if someone was AFK. Riot claims they can tell the difference between an intentional feeder and someone just having a bad game though the report system. If that's true then why shouldn't they be able to go back and wipe the LP loss from teammates that had to deal with that? So yes, I believe that teams that were placed into a game with an inter, or anyone else breaking the rules, by Riot's matchmaking system should not be punished. They didn't choose to play with that person, so why should they bear the burden of consequences for that person's actions? That's like saying if someone on a subway or other form of public transit breaks a law, everyone on the subway with them should be arrested. They didn't knowingly choose to be on the same subway as the law breaker. The public transit system put them together by having a certain train at a certain time that both the law breaker and normal citizens chose to use.

GlobDaBlobNov 7, 20171 votes

{quoted}

That's what the report system should actually be used for. Riot has been praising the abilities of Leaver Buster for seasons now. They can instantly determine if someone was AFK. Riot claims they can tell the difference between an intentional feeder and someone just having a bad game though the report system. If that's true then why shouldn't they be able to go back and wipe the LP loss from teammates that had to deal with that? So yes, I believe that teams that were placed into a game with an inter, or anyone else breaking the rules, by Riot's matchmaking system should not be punished. They didn't choose to play with that person, so why should they bear the burden of consequences for that person's actions? That's like saying if someone on a subway or other form of public transit breaks a law, everyone on the subway with them should be arrested. They didn't knowingly choose to be on the same subway as the law breaker. The public transit system put them together by having a certain train at a certain time that both the law breaker and normal citizens chose to use.

"And then people harass others to get the to leave when it is likely they are going to lose so that they dont lose LP."

You have ignored this point multiple times now.

Also, does this mean you agree that if someone on your team has a bad game then no one on their team should be punished for it?

And that analogy has no parallel to this.

MurfordNov 7, 20171 votes

{quoted}

"And then people harass others to get the to leave when it is likely they are going to lose so that they dont lose LP."

You have ignored this point multiple times now.

Also, does this mean you agree that if someone on your team has a bad game then no one on their team should be punished for it?

And that analogy has no parallel to this.

I've ignored it because it's a ridiculous point. What's more likely: a person rages and flames and gets someone to quit so that they don't lose LP, or someone rages and flames and the person selects the "mute" option in game, plays it out, then reports them post game? That's the reason mute was put into the game. No one actually has to see anything the other people in the game type. And no, I don't think just because someone has a bad game that no one should be punished. Having a bad game still falls into the parameters of the game. You still have 5 people against the opponent's 5 people. All I'm asking for is an expansion of the safety net that is the remake system beyond the first couple minutes of the game. DCs can happen at any point of the game. If Riot already gives the team with a DC a free pass at the beginning of the game, why not extend that throughout with a few stipulations added in? Riot acknowledges in the Summoner's Code that having an AFK ruins the experience for everyone. Then they go on and add insult to injury for the losing team by telling them "yeah, so we realize that your experience was unfairly impacted by not having a complete team, but we're still going to take away your LP because your team lost."

And how exactly does the analogy not have a parallel?

You decide to use the public transportation system. You decide to queue for a League of Legends game.

The public transportation system has a set schedule of what times/which methods you can use to get to a certain place. Riot has a set system determining who you can be matched with in game.

Law abiding citizens and law breakers can both choose to take public transport. Players who follow the Summoner's Code and players who don't both have the ability to queue up for a game.

Law abiding citizens are not arrested for using the same public transportation as law breakers. Summoner's Code following players ARE punished for being put in the same game as someone who breaks the code.

Seems to run fairly parallel until you get to the end results.

GlobDaBlobNov 7, 20171 votes

{quoted}

I've ignored it because it's a ridiculous point. What's more likely: a person rages and flames and gets someone to quit so that they don't lose LP, or someone rages and flames and the person selects the "mute" option in game, plays it out, then reports them post game? That's the reason mute was put into the game. No one actually has to see anything the other people in the game type. And no, I don't think just because someone has a bad game that no one should be punished. Having a bad game still falls into the parameters of the game. You still have 5 people against the opponent's 5 people. All I'm asking for is an expansion of the safety net that is the remake system beyond the first couple minutes of the game. DCs can happen at any point of the game. If Riot already gives the team with a DC a free pass at the beginning of the game, why not extend that throughout with a few stipulations added in? Riot acknowledges in the Summoner's Code that having an AFK ruins the experience for everyone. Then they go on and add insult to injury for the losing team by telling them "yeah, so we realize that your experience was unfairly impacted by not having a complete team, but we're still going to take away your LP because your team lost."

It doesn't matter what is more likely, the outcome doesn't matter at all. People are still going to harass other players to try to get them to leave. Riot won't do anything that will promote toxic behavior. Riot acknowledges many things are against the code, it does not follow that because someone breaks it you should not lose LP.

And how exactly does the analogy not have a parallel?

You decide to use the public transportation system. You decide to queue for a League of Legends game.

Going on a public transport has no obligations to social interactions. Playing a game of league you are agreeing to be put into a team and all be impacted by each others performance.

The public transportation system has a set schedule of what times/which methods you can use to get to a certain place. Riot has a set system determining who you can be matched with in game.

I dont see how this are analogous at all. One is about a destination of a public transport and the other is what people are on your team for a game. For starters, you know where the bus/train is going and where you are going to get off. In ranked you don't know what role, what teammates, or what side you are going to be on

Law abiding citizens and law breakers can both choose to take public transport. Players who follow the Summoner's Code and players who don't both have the ability to queue up for a game.

Someone committing a crime does so on purpose, DCs are not done on purpose.

Law abiding citizens are not arrested for using the same public transportation as law breakers. Summoner's Code following players ARE punished for being put in the same game as someone who breaks the code.

No they are not. People that have teammates that break the code do not get chat restrictions and bans for the actions of their teammates.

MurfordNov 7, 20171 votes

{quoted}

So what happens if a person disconnects?

Get DDoSed? Banned. Power goes out? Banned. Comcast does Comcast things? Banned.

See the problem there?

At least, I'm assuming you want bans for first time offenses, because repeat offenders are already punished.

No, I'm saying take the LP away from the AFK. Don't take it away from the team that lost because of something beyond the game. It's not the team's fault that they were forced to play 4v5.

VreivaiNov 8, 20171 votes

{quoted}

No, I'm saying take the LP away from the AFK. Don't take it away from the team that lost because of something beyond the game. It's not the team's fault that they were forced to play 4v5.

Then you're going to have two things happening:

If someone feeds, other members of their team would start pressuring that person into leaving the game to save them LP loss.
If a group of friends queues together, they'll take turns leaving on clearly lost games to minimize LP losses.

MurfordNov 8, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Then you're going to have two things happening:

If someone feeds, other members of their team would start pressuring that person into leaving the game to save them LP loss.

If a group of friends queues together, they'll take turns leaving on clearly lost games to minimize LP losses.

That's a reportable offense. It might occasionally work, but chances are the people pressuring someone to leave will be reported and have to deal with Riot's punishment.
Already referenced this at least once. Riot knows if people are queued together (it affects matchmaking) so go ahead and take LP not just from the DC but also those queued with them. There, now teams can't rotate leaving games.

Quality ContentNov 6, 20172 votes

They can't prevent your LP loss from a DC because that opens up the potential for abusive behavior. Someone might feel convinced the match is a loss and then harass someone in an attempt to make them leave so they don't lose LP.

ChermorgNov 6, 20171 votes

So, let’s say Riot puts “Loss Prevented” on for the other 4 team members (assuming the AFK was solo queue). How do you compensate for the ~80 LP artificial inflation that happens when you have the enemy team gaining around 100 LP and your team only losing around 20 LP (the AFK loses normal and the team loses 0)?

MurfordNov 7, 20171 votes

{quoted}

So, let’s say Riot puts “Loss Prevented” on for the other 4 team members (assuming the AFK was solo queue). How do you compensate for the ~80 LP artificial inflation that happens when you have the enemy team gaining around 100 LP and your team only losing around 20 LP (the AFK loses normal and the team loses 0)?

It's already inflated. The team gaining 100 LP did so against an incomplete team. Assuming 20 points per player, they gain 100 points for beating 80 points worth of opponents. The 4 on the losing team who didn't DC didn't get to play the game the way it was intended, ie 5v5. Why punish them when they're already being handicapped?