Simply put if I get stuck in another game with the instant AFK, I'm going to be irritated. Why should I be punished with a losing game cause some guy queue up to troll? How about open surrender after five minutes with the afk automatically voting for? Seriously though fix it some way, because waiting twenty minutes of constantly losing is not fair for the people that actually wanted to play.
Sir ArmaMalum6 votesThe problem with this is the same one for any early surrender or "ease of loss" mechanic dependent on someone leaving. Riot is very wary to implement a system that can encourage flaming. In this case if a game isn't going well and someone wants to leave early they can either a) leave themselves or b)flames someone else until they leave. It wouldn't happen every game sure but I think we can all agree we've had games with someone who really would do this. And the thing that started that behavior was a mechanic that Riot introduced. It's not a bad idea, but we as a community need to be clever and think of a way to implement "ease of loss" mechanics that do not leave the possibility of toxic behavior stemming from the mechanic's existence.
Minehead4 votesIn theory, this would help, but there are so many reasons why it couldn't work, which is why Riot hasn't implemented anything of the sort yet. Because AFKers are such a major cause for frustration, Riot are obviously trying to come up with some sort of solution, but it is easier said than done, e.g. if someone were to be AFK from the start, their team would surrender at 5 minutes, but what if that person were connecting at the 6 minute mark. They would only be 4 minutes behind on cs, which is salvageable with teamwork, but they wouldn't get the opportunity with a 5 minute surrender timer.
However having someone AFK on your team from the start should at least count as 'Loss Prevented' imho.
Dragonheart NA2 votesI agree. Maybe they could come up with some status or badge for 'serious' players and when you want to play a game you can select 'serious players' only. I would even be willing to pay $1 a month or so for that status. That way if you are afk too much RIOT knows where to find you!
Minehead1 votesThat's actually a really good idea, and a way for RIOT to make more money. Jump on this RIOT!
ShadowNinetails2 votesI don't believe in the (apparently popular) sentiment that Riot does anything and everything they can to squeeze money out of us especially when it's something that could potentially hurt the game experience.
Minehead1 votesI'm not saying it because they can make more money, I'm saying it because it's a good idea, but RIOT would obviously appreciate an idea more if they can make money from it!
Bowling900Series2 votesI agree, but there should be another way to gain this status than paying. I for one, would not be willing to pay for this status, but maybe if they could find another way to make it possible to receive? Maybe taking some IP out of the account every month? I do not know but I do know that I am not alone when I say that I am not willing to pay for this. I am just saying there should be an alternative way to pay for this, similar to the IP or RP option given when buying champions.
Minehead1 votesI agree that lots of people wouldn't be willing to pay for it, and actually I wa sthinking about this while I was out earlier - perhaps there shouldn't be an elite at the top but rather the 'leavers' at the bottom. Regular leavers would get placed in games with other regular leavers, leaving people that actually want to play the game with worthwhile combatants. (It could work in a similar way to GTAV's 'bad sport' system?)
ShadowNinetails3 votesThe "Prisoner's Island" idea has been tossed around for years, but according to Lyte's research, that island would be MUCH smaller than you'd imagine plus it's not really seen as a viable way to really reign in bad behavior.
ShadowNinetails2 votesBut then the trolls know where to find you too...
Nine Ravens2 votesPaying to be matched with other paid players isn't going to make your matchmaking much better. Ragers and AFKers could easily pay into the system too. If you want to implement a special group of players for higher quality matchmaking it would need to be merit-based for who gets in.
Bowling900Series1 votesI like the idea of 'Loss Prevented', especially because I was playing one of my qualifiers in ranked, and I was doing pretty well as 
, something like 6 and 0, and then 15 minutes in, my support, 
, said he would brb, and then disconnected for 10 minutes. He came back just before we lost the game so it doesn't count towards the automatic program in place already, but it does not change the fact that it cost me a chance at a victory since we were destroying lane. I am not complaining that he messed up my stats because I did finish 15 and 15, respectable imo. I am just upset because it does negatively affect my placement in ranked now.
Minehead3 votesThat's the exact reason why I always duo queue bot lane with a friend - even if someone goes afk, we still have a chance of salvaging botlane and maybe winning the game.
But back on point, 'Loss Prevented' needs to be used for this, because it can, like you say, ruin ranked placements or promotion matches.
ShadowNinetails3 votesHow would that not be abused, though? How would you not have a situation where "Oh it's 15 minutes in and the enemy marksman is 6-0. This is obviously lost so someone d/c so we don't take the loss"?
Bowling900Series1 votesUnfortunately, it is inevitable that some will choose to do this, but I would like to think my fellow summoners would not abuse it too much.
Sir ArmaMalum3 votesWe all do man, we all do, but sadly it only takes one to abuse it. Yet it takes the entire community to not.
ShadowNinetails4 votesMy opinion on fixing surrender for ranked: Disable surrender for ranked.
If they're going to win, make them win. If they're going to throw because "4v5? We got dis", let them throw. I've lost 5v4 multiple times and I've won 2v5 so I'm a firm believer that a game isn't over until the nexus pops if you have good teamwork and a positive attitude.
ProfDrDeath3 votesGiving an early option of surrender if someone never connected might be a decent idea.
Dragonheart NA2 votesI agree, if everyone can't connect on startup there should be an option to surrender without it being held against you.
Loftydreamer3 votesThe other option would be to also set a time limit based on game mode. For instance Twisted Treeline and Howling Abyss, Twenty minutes is absurdly long. That pretty much is the game. Especially if it is a situation where the lack of teammate is causing a huge dearth. I was in Twisted Treeline and the guy never connected. I was still at level 3 when the enemies had hit 6 already. It was just a huge slide down to the inevitable loss. But I still couldn't surrender before they had won the game. I had to just sit there and wait for other team to finish it.
Boundless1 votesI get this a lot. Some people just try and let the other team win quickly if they have an afk but its never satisfying if you give up and let the other team kill you.
Sir ArmaMalum2 votesActually I beleive you can surrender in 3v3 at 15 min. Don't quote me on that though, it's been awhile.