Boards›[ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous

Why Leaverbuster is wrong for League

YourMortgage·12/13/2014, 10:53:57 PM·12 votes·4,254 views

Since the last patch I have had some DC issues and for the first time got a Leaverbuster notice from playing a bot game with a few friends. In looking to write on the boards about it I came across the leaverbuster thread. Browsing the comments the system seems universally hated, which I thought was probably a selection effect, but now that I think about it, it may not be. If it's working and people hate afks, why does everyone hate leaverbuster? Is it only the people who feel strongly enough to post?

It would be easy to assume that is the case, but a few comments were more detailed. One thing to note is the psychology of positive vs. negative reinforcement. Incentives in games that are based on positive reinforcement do tend to work much better, and this is arguably part of what initially made lol succeed. Perceived loss leads to stronger emotion than missed gain however, giving the subject a superfluous emotional charge for example. Compare two imaginary scenarios, one in which the price of a skin increases, before you can buy it, and another in which a skin is confiscated and a refund given for the original price while the new price also increases. Anyone could tell you the second scenario would have much worse reception in the community.

The overwhelming number of complaints centered around fairness, an issue that should never be taken lightly. The league tribunal system seems very similar to leaverbuster but is largely accepted by most players. The main difference I believe is the nature of automation, and the idea that false positives are more socially undesirable than false negatives. It has been pointed out that afk-ing affects nine other people and so constitutes the closest thing to a clear cut 'crime' we have in lol-land. But in embracing the model of crime and punishment, we also bring in other principles of justice such as intent, extenuating circumstance, and even the idea of burden of proof, since the former things are likely outside the ability of riot to observe. In the real world a justice system which neglects the other principles is called draconian, and other unpleasant things, as it should be. When we implement a similar system in the game it broadly offends the moral sense of the average player.

If riot wishes to defend the current practices, it should release leaverbuster numbers, but this still leaves a fundamental flaw. In my games it seems that the number of deliberate afks and network problems is comparable. Since riot does not have any true 'control' statistics, the self reported internet problems versus true internet issues are very difficult to discern. The paradox is this, given that internet and other bug sources is statistically uncorrelated with the buster policy, if the number of true leavers is low, then most of the players it targets are false positives, making it an unjust system. If the number of leavers is high, then the system is ineffective.

Finally the last problem I will mention, perception trumps statistics. A single negative experience can have more impact than a number of positive ones, depending on the expectations of the player. It is a fact of psychology that people are bad at judging statistics, low probability expectation values, and counter-factuals in general such as opportunity cost. Even seeing the statistics, a player will likely not "feel" even a 20% drop in leavers, if they do it will be vague and spread out, emotional background as it were. What affects people are memorable events, a leaver in a big game or promo series, or an unusual number of leavers in a row, or the effect of false leaverbuster targeting. Under the old system of tribunals players could vent but I imagine the number of complaints was too large. A reform of that system to improve the logistics would probably be better, but I don't have all the answers. In the old days the enmity rested squarely on the shoulders of the player that left, but now it will reside more on riot itself.

Dealing with leavers is only one part of the more complete problem of moderating the community. And that's a struggle not just here but in the world at large.

My one positive recommendation is that a vote feature be added to the client. This will allow riot to do polling of the player base in a way that will likely be more positive and constructive than the boards. A bar or icon that has an issue to vote on, and a button to vote. Change the issue every week or patch. It could be a goldmine of data if done right.

PS. plz fix this unspecified error I keep getting in 4.21 so I can continue to feed bot lane without getting leaverbusted! Heimerdinger

41 Comments

MPendragon12/13/2014, 11:07:26 PM5 votes

It's also wrong, because you can be harassed and trolled to the point where you are no longer interested in finishing the match that you are in. If your ally decides, hey "Joe Blow screwed me over in the last match, so i'm going to AFK in well all game long."

Well why the hell should anybody else have to endure a man down disadvantage and have to play through the game?

Or if your allies refuse to surrender, yet refuse to engage and refuse to defend. It's pretty obvious that they are griefing, and just walking around to avoid being caught by leaverbuster.

Eleshakai12/14/2014, 4:33:35 AM5 votes

This is probably the most well written post on the subject. You have my thumbs up... but sadly, I think it's pointless to try to argue against it. Riot has decided that this is the direction they wish to go, and unlike most cases they seem completely unwilling to hear anything to the contrary.

But either way, I agree with virtually everything you said here, and I respect that you're still willing to try to fight for this. I gave up on that a week ago and just moved on, now I only browse the forums occasionally to pass the time when I'm bored and not feeling up to doing anything more involved...

CoCo BoEy12/14/2014, 9:10:40 AM3 votes

This will never be taken serious by riot , hundreds of posts have been made about this. Leave buster is to convenient for them. They would rather see people lose their account and spend more money on a new account.

Baculus12/14/2014, 5:49:50 PM3 votes

Not everyone hates leaver buster; mostly just people with toasters, terrible connections, and who can't read what Riot posted on the problem (there are no false positives) If you got a leaver buster ban then you DC'd too many times, that's it. Actually for four years now people have been /begging/ for more penalties for AFKers, and we got it.

Just because a player thinks they're nice and helpful doesn't give them a right to keep playing with a terrible PC/connection, dcing, and making games unwinnable. It also is the exact same end result as rage-quits/AFKs.

So, yeah. Good.

Jubbinaut12/14/2014, 8:23:32 PM1 votes

While I generally disagree with your conclusions, I have to admit that this is a well thought-out post, and very cleanly presented. I do want to clear up a couple misconceptions I noticed. If I've wrongly interpreted what you were trying to say with any of the below quotes, I do apologize, and encourage you to correct any misunderstandings that may show up between us.

{quoted} One thing to note is the psychology of positive vs. negative reinforcement. Incentives in games that are based on positive reinforcement do tend to work much better, and this is arguably part of what initially made lol succeed.

I don't disagree that positive reinforcement is important (and is, so far, less than optimally addressed by Riot), I don't think it's fair to say that it works better. Both systems have a place, and there are players who respond to each, for whom the other would be useless. I think that, in order to be successful, both positive and negative reinforcement must be addressed, with systems designed to ensure that the right people see the type of reinforcement appropriate to them. I'm actually very excited about this upcoming year, because they should be rolling out some of those positive reinforcement systems and techniques.

The overwhelming number of complaints centered around fairness, an issue that should never be taken lightly. The league tribunal system seems very similar to leaverbuster but is largely accepted by most players. The main difference I believe is the nature of automation, and the idea that false positives are more socially undesirable than false negatives.

It's my experience that the majority of players who speak about the Tribunal tend to speak negatively about it. I'm not sure how that relates to the actual numbers, but I do know that the Tribunal was pretty well accepted once it passed through the hiccup stage. Still, even at the beginning of this year, the overwhelming cry was "Tribunal is broken!" But that cry simply didn't represent the overall view of the system.

That may not be relevant in this case, as I've seen few people even attempting to take a moderate view of this new Leaverbuster, and fewer still attempting to approach it positively - and those that have tend to be doing so in a somewhat less than reasonable way. I'm not sure how meaningful any of this is, really, and I'd be very hesitant to draw any conclusions based on the thoroughly self-selected group discussing it.

It has been pointed out that afk-ing affects nine other people and so constitutes the closest thing to a clear cut 'crime' we have in lol-land.

I think considering it a "crime" is missing the point of it being clear-cut. The biggest difference between a leaver and a toxic player - recognizing that both create negative experiences and both inspire negativity in others - is that leaving is objective, while other forms of toxicity are usually subjective. Because of that subjective nature, it's important for verbal toxicity and trolling behavior to be examined by a subjective viewer - thus the human reviews of cases. However, because of the binary nature of leaves and afks, and thus the ability to judge it purely objectively, it's less important to have a human oversee each individual case.

That said, I'm sure they're keeping a close eye on the system to handle and adjust for hiccups. At least, I should hope they are. They usually do.

The paradox is this, given that internet and other bug sources is statistically uncorrelated with the buster policy, if the number of true leavers is low, then most of the players it targets are false positives, making it an unjust system.

The issue here is one of perception. You perceive that disconnects that aren't intentional must be false positives. Riot perceives that if a player is leaving too many games - regardless of the reason - they are leaving too many games. One thing to note is that this is not a new policy. The older Leaverbuster operated under the same assumption. In fact, I've yet to see anything to indicate that anything has changed with this new Leaverbuster besides the types of sanctions it issues and the threshold for issuing them (and that poorly handled "I agree" message).

And the thing is, if we can agree that leaving games is harmful to the other players in that game, I'm forced to agree with that policy. I'm less certain about this particular implementation of that policy, but it hasn't had a lot of time to make much of an impression on me yet, so while I view it with in a tentatively positive light - and therefore try to encourage a more moderate view in other players posting about it - I'm still withholding my own judgement of it.

Under the old system of tribunals players could vent but I imagine the number of complaints was too large. A reform of that system to improve the logistics would probably be better, but I don't have all the answers. In the old days the enmity rested squarely on the shoulders of the player that left, but now it will reside more on riot itself.

I mentioned this previously, but I want to make sure that I fully address it here. Leaverbuster was first implemented 4 years ago. Leaves and afks have not been handled by the Tribunal in any significant way since somewhere around then. And that older Leaverbuster system detected leavers in the same way, following the same policies that are in place now. It was not as strict (as that was the primary goal of this adjustment to the system), but it did exist.

My personal belief is that Riot was comfortable with the functions of the system, and how it handled their policies on leavers. I feel as though the new Leaverbuster was, perhaps, a necessary step in addressing the concerns of the playerbase, who indicated strongly that there were still too many people leaving games. It may be a bit of overcompensating (time will tell), but doing more was certainly a positive step.

Now, I'm going to get into some speculation. This is based on my understanding of the previous system, the changes that have been mentioned, and Riot's general goals. It's purely speculation and expectation. I simply don't have enough data (and I don't think any player could) to judge the accuracy of these statements yet.

I'm hopeful that the "I agree" message will be reworded, and perhaps adjusted to be a relatively simple click-through. I understand the reasoning behind implementing it, and I recognize that it isn't exactly a useful message to the current playerbase - who tend to understand that leaving is less than desirable. Because of that, I'm forced to assume that it will stick around in some way, but believe that it will be adjusted to be less hostile in its implications.

I believe that the number of players struck with any actual sanction will be lower than many people are expecting, particularly relating to those "one-and-done" cases Lyte mentioned were a possibility. I have a personal suspicion that he only mentioned it because there were players whose status with the old Leaverbuster was such that a single new leave would kick them over the line in the new Leaverbuster, but I have no real basis for that.

I believe that, in general, the amount of potential for leniency built into the system will be shown to be more than enough for the conscientious player, and that even careless players won't tend to see many issues with it.

I believe people will continue to misunderstand and misrepresent the system, but that over time, the general outcry will die down. Whether this occurs because more people come to understand the system (or simply begin to recognize that they aren't likely to be hit by it), or because it's tuned back, I wouldn't begin to guess - though I suspect a combination of factors.

I don't intend any of this to change your mind regarding how you feel about this system. That would be stupid of me, since I don't really know how to feel about it myself. But I do hope that I've given you some food for thought to help in your analysis.

SmokingPuffin12/15/2014, 7:44:17 AM1 votes

In my games it seems that the number of deliberate afks and network problems is comparable.

I'm not sure this matters.

If you have a pattern of afk, whether it's because you're a leaver or because you play on a shaky internet connection, the disruption effect you have on games is identical.

In the old days the enmity rested squarely on the shoulders of the player that left, but now it will reside more on riot itself.

Why do you say this?

Mindspeaker12/16/2014, 12:57:43 AM1 votes

I cant agree with you . Leave buster is a good step for league.

  1. the vast majority of people blaming riot for disconnects is most likely inaccurate ,

Just form my personal experience i very rarely ever have any problems with lag or disconnects ( have a high end system with an above average internet connection)

2 People also fake disconnects for immature reason like omg we are down some kills , omg we had quitter , omg why didn't surrender etc etc.

GundayMonday8/3/2015, 3:48:24 PM1 votes

I love leavebuster and have noticed a dramatic drop in AFKs and leavers in my games. The complaints are from the people banned by leavebuster. These are the same people that used to ruin games for 9 other people. The system is solid.