here is a proposal for AFKs [must read]

Oddysseas·Apr 20, 2015·13 votes·2,254 views

Ok i know this is hard to do, simply there are so many cases of afk that keeping track of it would be impossible, however i have this idea that could work.

Now for every minute that a player remains afk the team with the afk will be getting a point.

The longer someone is afk the more points a team gets. Now when the game is complete and the team with the afk losses. They will get reduced LP loss based on how many points they have. If the points exceed 15 or so( which is 15 minutes or more of afk), they will get no lp loss.

If on the other hand the win with an afk, the mlre points they got, the more lp they will gain.

Of course the gain will not be huge as the game could go on for 50 minutes. There will be a maximum capacity like for example +10 lp if the afk is over 20 minutes.

I wanna hear your thoughts on this one. I think this afk madness needs to stop and the people on the afk side need some compensation for their awful experience.

Answer to the poll if you like this point system or add your suggestions if you want, thanks.

60 Comments

DaenApr 20, 201510 votes

This system would be extremely easy to abuse. If you realize after ten minutes you are losing the game, you can have two people go AFK and have the rest turtle/try to draw out the game as long as possible. Since you could have one person per lane, it would dramatically delay the enemy push and pretty easily allow for two people to be AFK for seven minutes.

The impact is less serious if the AFKers are punished with the LP loss in full, but the fact remains that it's still very possible to inflate rank in this way. You could even orchestrate this as a duo; once you realize you're losing one person could AFK and negate almost all of the LP loss, allowing the other person to gain LP for winning and lose nothing for losing.

OddysseasApr 20, 20151 votes

Ohhh i didn't make it clear, the person or people who go afk will NOT get reduced lp loss, the afk will have the same losses as before and in case of a win will get the same lp as they would normaly do

Baron of BreadApr 20, 20151 votes

Really good point here. I think if we added the minimum LP loss that Rare Like Rarity mentioned that would help.

However, trying to abuse this would leave to some pretty quick Leaverbuster hits.

DaenApr 20, 20151 votes

I think if we added the minimum LP loss that Rare Like Rarity mentioned that would help.

It would help, yes, but the fact still remains that a system like this introduces potentially game-breakingly abusable mechanics. This will likely be unpopular, but I would honestly rather deal with an AFK than someone abusing the anti-AFK mechanic proposed in this thread.

This doesn't, however, apply to people that are AFK from the start of the game. I feel there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that one team should be forced to have an unfair fight from the very beginning just because someone never connected to the game in the first place. If someone doesn't connect within the first five minutes it should allow everyone to leave without penalty, with the person that never connected being saddled with full LP loss.

trying to abuse this would leave to some pretty quick Leaverbuster hits.

This is a great point. People abusing this system would likely be removed relatively quickly due to Leaverbuster, but occasional abuse wouldn't necessarily be caught.

Occams RaiserApr 21, 20151 votes

The leave buster is automated I thought. Why would you rather deal with AKFs than the abuse of a system that doesn't effect you? Best case: someone figures out how to "actually abuse this system rising to ranks they don't deserve only to have their asses handed to them on a constant. I don't know how this would happen by simply NOT losing points. I hope you give me a scenario. Remember that almost no one wins 4 v 5 enough for it to become a thing. So aggressively getting someone to drop in the hopes of getting more LP wouldn't do shit. The only thing wrong is the time to LP ratio.

DaenApr 21, 20151 votes

The leave buster is automated I thought. Why would you rather deal with AKFs than the abuse of a system that doesn't effect you? So aggressively getting someone to drop in the hopes of getting more LP wouldn't do shit.

A system like this basically incentivizes players to figure out ways to game the system. If, for example, I wanted someone to carry me to Platinum, I could have my duo opponent leave every time we started losing a game. We could then turtle for x amount of time and I wouldn't lose any/as much LP for that loss. I'd still get exactly the same amount for winning, but losing would hurt me less.

It also indirectly encourages aggressively forcing someone to leave the game if things aren't going well. The Tribunal and LeaverBuster can address these issues, but a system that is likely to make this behavior more prevalent is extremely risky.

Occams RaiserApr 21, 20151 votes

They are welcome to try and game the system. You have to learn how to game the system to get out of bronze now. I want a scenario of how it can be gamed and who it effects. Duo queue sharing AFK penalty goes without saying by this point. If not...I just said it.

The cyber-bully argument is something that would have to be tested before I consider it. If someone was forcing me to quit, I would be an asshole, mute him and hang around my base till everyone agreed to FF. Worse case: I am the cause of the loss, I want to quit cause I don't want to AFK so I base troll. Best case: I am the reason for the loss and I selflessly Afk\DC to give my team a fighting chance at redemption. The toxic level fall off as everyone develops a new sense of personal responsibility and LOL becomes the greatest community in gaming.

Let me know when cyber-bullying makes someone kill themselves over LOL. When it becomes prevalent enough to hit mainstream media I will entertain that argument compared to a victimless crime.

Losing would still effect your MMR. Which might be worse. The loss isn't negated. Who would risk MMR to boost LP when losing is astronomically more likely?

DaenApr 21, 20152 votes

You have to learn how to game the system to get out of bronze now.

I want a scenario of how it can be gamed and who it effects.

I just gave you two examples. Sharing the duo queue AFK penalty helps deal with one of them, but the other (bullying another player until they quit) is still out there. I'll touch on that below.

If someone was forcing me to quit, I would be an asshole, mute him and hang around my base till everyone agreed to FF.

At which point both you and the initial aggressor would be reportable, likely with you actually at more fault than the person trying to get you to leave.

Worse case: I am the cause of the loss, I want to quit cause I don't want to AFK so I base troll. Best case: I am the reason for the loss and I selflessly Afk\DC to give my team a fighting chance at redemption.

The thing is, neither of these usage cases come into play at all if this system doesn't exist. If I'm the reason my team is losing, in the current implementation of the game, we just power through it and try to win. There's no thought minigame of "if I leave at x time or if we can get y person to leave, we have a better chance", it's just win or lose.

Let me know when cyber-bullying makes someone kill themselves over LOL. When it becomes prevalent enough to hit mainstream media I will entertain that argument compared to a victimless crime.

This has very little to do with the original point. The leap to killing yourself over League of Legends isn't even part of this conversation; it's a potential result but has very little to do with gameplay and social system design.

Bullying is bullying, regardless of whether it happens in person or through a game. I don't have a data-informed background on this topic (so grain of salt), but I'm pretty sure the game would be a lot less fun if there was baked-in incentive to try to get people to leave matches.

Occams RaiserApr 21, 20151 votes

At which point both you and the initial aggressor would be reportable, likely with you actually at more fault than the person trying to get you to leave.

Who cares? that is side issue. I still didn't quit allowing him to game the system.

The thing is, neither of these usage cases come into play at all if this system doesn't exist.

I realize this. In fact Riot actively fights this ideal. I actually only root for a system that saves you from immediate DCs not later game AKFs. Losing a game cause you got DC at level three is bullshit.

The leap to killing yourself over League of Legends isn't even part of this conversation

It kind of is. Once you bring in bullying someone to the point they have to leave the game instead of do nothing, I have to take it to is natural conclusion. Seems like todays kids can't hit the mute button resulting some catastrophic outcomes. You are concerned with someone getting berated to the point of giving up.

There is a belief system that says everything is less intrusive than trolls. This is the first game I have played where symptoms brought on by trolling are looked down on more than the troll itself.

First Guy leaves for undetermined reason. Second Guy: Hey fellas i don't really want to play 4 on 5 for the rest of the game. Lets ff at 20.

Met with: Don't be a bitch. We aren't quiting and if you leave you are reported. Vote 2/2.

Second guy: Guys come on we are down 5 to 30 pushed to our inhib towers. I'm out.

Met with: REPORTED

DaenApr 21, 20151 votes

I realize this. In fact Riot actively fights this ideal. I actually only root for a system that saves you from immediate DCs not later game AKFs. Losing a game cause you got DC at level three is bullshit.

How would you feel about a system that allows all players to leave a game if someone doesn't connect during the first 5 minutes? No penalty for anyone except the person that didn't connect, who receives full LP loss.

Seems like todays kids can't hit the mute button resulting some catastrophic outcomes

The goal with social system design is to facilitate the most positive experience possible; muting is a last resort, not a solution. If a player has to mute someone the experience has already been negative for that individual, muting is just a way to stop further negativity.

There is a belief system that says everything is less intrusive than trolls. This is the first game I have played where symptoms brought on by trolling are looked down on more than the troll itself.

This comment is confusing to me. Trolling is absolutely an issue, and is addressed pretty effectively by currently existing systems. The issue with the suggestion here, from my perspective, is that it provides another avenue through which trolling can take place.

KazaashiApr 21, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Occams Raiser,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=lUdXIhMH,comment-id=00020001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-04-21T17:35:58.317+0000)

Who cares? that is side issue. I still didn't quit allowing him to game the system.

I realize this. In fact Riot actively fights this ideal. I actually only root for a system that saves you from immediate DCs not later game AKFs. Losing a game cause you got DC at level three is bullshit.

It kind of is. Once you bring in bullying someone to the point they have to leave the game instead of do nothing, I have to take it to is natural conclusion. Seems like todays kids can't hit the mute button resulting some catastrophic outcomes. You are concerned with someone getting berated to the point of giving up.

There is a belief system that says everything is less intrusive than trolls. This is the first game I have played where symptoms brought on by trolling are looked down on more than the troll itself.

First Guy leaves for undetermined reason. Second Guy: Hey fellas i don't really want to play 4 on 5 for the rest of the game. Lets ff at 20.

Met with: Don't be a bitch. We aren't quiting and if you leave you are reported. Vote 2/2.

Second guy: Guys come on we are down 5 to 30 pushed to our inhib towers. I'm out.

Met with: REPORTED

AFKing is a reportable offense. Just like intentionally DCing or flaming someone. Just because one thing happened first, doesn't exscuse the second.

Just because YOU don't wanna play, doesn't mean the 2 other people don't wanna have fun trying to fight the other team, and maybe comming back to win, or at least messing around to have fun. Maybe the DC will come back and you have a shot at winning the game. Maybe the other team will get a DC and the game turns into a 4v4. Maybe they get cocky cause it is a 4v5 and lose a teamfight after 50+ mins and your team can push for a win. A million things could happen and to give up just means you have to win more later.

I understand that you may not want to play anymore, but that is no reason to force it on other people.

Occams RaiserApr 21, 20151 votes

What does "you can have two people go AFK" mean? Of course the afks get the full treatment just like normal. The only Problem with the OP is the time ratio to points forgiven.

BADxW0LFApr 21, 20151 votes

I think a good solution to not abuse this would be to increase the amount of LP lost for the AFKers per point in comparison to the amount reduced for the others. This would deter people from going AFK in fear of losing a shit ton of LP.

DaenApr 21, 20151 votes

This is true, but it also means that if your internet craps out or if your team bullies you into it the punishment is astronomical. I'm just very wary of introducing a system that directly incentivizes a thought minigame where someone leaving can be a good thing or better than just playing the game through. A leaver is and should always be a bad thing, and the key is to minimize its impact or turn it it into a neutral.

Take a look at these two measures for mitigation, just as an example:

If a player doesn't connect within the first five minutes of the game, all players are allowed to leave with no punishment or gain. The player that didn't connect loses LP.
If a player quits during a game for longer than x minutes, the allied team is able to request (with a 4/5 vote) a mercy vote from the enemy team. If this vote succeeds (4/5), the game ends immediately. The enemy team is registered as the winner and both teams' LP gains/losses are halved (with the exception of the AFK player). MMR changes exactly as with a normal game.

The first one, as far as I'm aware, is not abusable at all. A player not connecting means they left after champion selection but before the game starts; if someone wanted to leave the game before it starts, why not take the much smaller Champion Select leave penalty?

The second one is abusable, but it's difficult. Here are the steps required to take advantage of the system:

Get someone to AFK
Acquire a 4/5 vote to allow the enemy team to be merciful
Have the enemy team decide to end the game with a 4/5 vote

This system relies on people being generally decent, which I believe they are. Personally, I would love the ability to end unfair games and move on, even if I'm on the team that's giving out the mercy vote. I understand it's ranked and all about winning, but I value fairness of matches over winning a clearly disproportionate match. Plus, it guarantees the win for me while simultaneously helping soften the blow of an AFK for the enemy team, and saves all of us some time.

I GONNA FK ON UApr 20, 20153 votes

This sounds very reasonable. Too bad Riot will never do anything like this because of a few babies crying about it being "abusable."

OddysseasApr 20, 20151 votes

True this happens alot, i was hoping tho that some one in riot may like the idea and be like'we should try it'

MyozthirirnApr 21, 20151 votes

They dont need to try it, anyone with half a brain can see how it would end. Also i dont understand why you dont like AFKs they literaly benefict your winrate since there are 5/9 (55%) posble afks in the enemy team but only 4/9 (44%) possible afks in yours. Thats anet 11% statistical advantage, witch translates in play a lot and climb for free.

EleshakaiApr 20, 20152 votes

The problem with this is not so much that people would try to abuse it themselves... but rather that this would lead to people attempting to force OTHERS to afk through abuse/etc. Don't get me wrong, I don't expect they'd SUCCEED often, but that's not the point. The point is that we'd be providing them a potential reward for TRYING to harass others into afking.

And while that would eventually get caught and punished, the damage would be done at that point. They'd have already created negative experiences for many other people in an attempt to get those people to afk. And designing behaviour systems that reward negative behaviour like that is not good design.

Occams RaiserApr 21, 20151 votes

You can't worry about gamers susceptible to cyber-bullying in a system where they have mute button and their mere presence foils the bully's STUPID plan. Their kind won't survive the next wave of human evolution.

EleshakaiApr 21, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Occams Raiser,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=lUdXIhMH,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2015-04-21T02:55:36.943+0000)

You can't worry about gamers susceptible to cyber-bullying in a system where they have mute button and their mere presence foils the bully's STUPID plan. Their kind won't survive the next wave of human evolution.

Ah the inconsiderate bully's response to people trying to prevent bullying. "But they can just mute me"

Occams RaiserApr 22, 20151 votes

People with the pemerment to do them selves in solely for text on a screen will not make it. There are other underlying factors to people that are effected by cyber bullying. If you focus purely on the cyber part you will miss the other red flags.

I'm not one of the bullies anyway. But when considering a system that is made to stop trolls. telling me it will create trolls without knowing if it is more or less than the original number isn't really an argument.

This is all just a fun conversation though. Riot has directly addressed this path as something they actually feel is detrimental to the game. This could never be implemented in any incarnation. Riot believes that DC and AFKs are just a natural part of the game that you have to deal with like trolls. BUT THEY PROMISE the amount in which it happens is a negligible amount that shouldn't effect your gaming experience. I don't know why everyone keeps talking about AFK\DC in ranked anyway. It almost never happens. ;)

EleshakaiApr 22, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Occams Raiser,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=lUdXIhMH,comment-id=0003000000000000,timestamp=2015-04-22T00:47:59.953+0000)

People with the pemerment to do them selves in solely for text on a screen will not make it. There are other underlying factors to people that are effected by cyber bullying. If you focus purely on the cyber part you will miss the other red flags.

I'm not one of the bullies anyway. But when considering a system that is made to stop trolls. telling me it will create trolls without knowing if it is more or less than the original number isn't really an argument.

This is all just a fun conversation though. Riot has directly addressed this path as something they actually feel is detrimental to the game. This could never be implemented in any incarnation. Riot believes that DC and AFKs are just a natural part of the game that you have to deal with like trolls. BUT THEY PROMISE the amount in which it happens is a negligible amount that shouldn't effect your gaming experience. I don't know why everyone keeps talking about AFK\DC in ranked anyway. It almost never happens. ;)

I don't know why you brought suicide into the discussion. I was merely saying that we shouldn't encourage people to act negatively towards others. Not that I expect those others to go and kill themselves, but rather than encouraging people to treat others poorly is never a good way to improve a community. And if a system that is designed to reduce one type of negative activity has the almost guaranteed side effect of encouraging another form... it's probably not a well designed system.

Occams RaiserApr 22, 20151 votes

It was commentary on the fact that certain people's lack of resistance to text abuse falls below the threshold of consideration when trying to create a system that helps the greater number of people.

No one wants anybody to get bullied but trolls have free reign to do, say, and ruin what ever they want to a high degree of freedom before being inconvenienced. I don't like hypocrisy and inconsistency. I would love to see what Riot considers the number of uses of the "N-word" is before resulting in a Permaban.

If text is a weapon, all words are not created equal.

EleshakaiApr 22, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Occams Raiser,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=lUdXIhMH,comment-id=000300000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-04-22T05:12:36.057+0000)

It was commentary on the fact that certain people's lack of resistance to text abuse falls below the threshold of consideration when trying to create a system that helps the greater number of people.

No one wants anybody to get bullied but trolls have free reign to do, say, and ruin what ever they want to a high degree of freedom before being inconvenienced. I don't like hypocrisy and inconsistency. I would love to see what Riot considers the number of uses of the "N-word" is before resulting in a Permaban.

If text is a weapon, all words are not created equal.

The majority of people are affected by other peoples' words. It's not a 'certain people' thing like only 1 in 1000 people are affected. The words people say to MOST people - subconsciously or otherwise - do leave a mark. The reality is that the OPPOSITE is in fact true, only a very small percentage of people are completely unaffected by others' attitudes towards them. And, honestly, I'd rather not deal with those people since they don't care about others typically(kinda like you really). So no, the MAJORITY do not fall under the threshold of consideration. Sorry buddy, they're the majority.

Trolls do not not have 'free reign' - the system punishes people for consistent negative behavior of any type - be it leaving, afk, or trolling. And no, Riot will never share the numbers because doing so is just empowering the trolls to skirt the system

Occams RaiserApr 22, 20151 votes

And, honestly, I'd rather not deal with those people since they don't care about others typically(kinda like you really). So no, the MAJORITY do not fall under the threshold of consideration. Sorry buddy, they're the majority.

We are having a discussion on a post about how to not be victimize by a reoccurring scourge to the community often brought on by deliberate action and sometimes by technical difficulties. A solution is presented.

Your side says "some feelings might get stepped on."

My side says "Is it more than the people that are already being effected now? Cause it might be worth it."

You: "I don't think you care about people as much as you think if you are willing to sacrifice some players."

ME: "I have never seen a system that can save everyone from every factor. There are no panaceas."

YOU: "Monster! You are part of the problem."

Me: "Huh?"

You see that I qualify my hyperbole In the very same sentence YOU QUOTED. I didn't say absolute free reign unless you cut my sentence in half.

I know words hurt people, but how much stock should we put into text that can be ignored or turned off versus tangible actions that effect the community that we have no defense to?

EleshakaiApr 22, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Occams Raiser,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=lUdXIhMH,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-04-22T13:53:11.691+0000)

We are having a discussion on a post about how to not be victimize by a reoccurring scourge to the community often brought on by deliberate action and sometimes by technical difficulties. A solution is presented.

Your side says "some feelings might get stepped on."

My side says "Is it more than the people that are already being effected now? Cause it might be worth it."

You: "I don't think you care about people as much as you think if you are willing to sacrifice some players."

ME: "I have never seen a system that can save everyone from every factor. There are no panaceas."

YOU: "Monster! You are part of the problem."

Me: "Huh?"

You see that I qualify my hyperbole In the very same sentence YOU QUOTED. I didn't say absolute free reign unless you cut my sentence in half.

I know words hurt people, but how much stock should we put into text that can be ignored or turned off versus tangible actions that effect the community that we have no defense to?

Talk about misrepresenting both of us. Remember, I've had other discussions with you in the past. We aren't having this discussion in a vacuum - I already KNOW how you think before coming into this. You are a paladin for bullies. You're a lobbyist for those who are telling others to kill themselves. You've argued AGAINST people telling others to be nice to people before.

As your chosen nomenclature dictates... the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. If you defend bullies, argue against people telling others not to tell people to kill themselves, and support systems that would encourage verbal abuse... the simplest explanation is that you are doing that sort of thing yourself.

But on topic of this thread... it's simple: We already have a system that punishes afks. It's called leaverbuster. If you don't feel it's effective enough, then tell Riot to make it more severe. We don't need to add a system that not only destroys the integrity of the rating system(by making your gains and losses no longer entirely decided by mmr) but also encourages verbal abuse.

Occams RaiserApr 22, 20151 votes

I thought everyone's frustration was that the rating system was being destroyed by trolls and afks and DC. Getting enough good games in a row to get a decent promo series if excruciation for many.

It is OK to have multiple systems that don't over lap to fix one problem. Leavebuster punishes. AKF systems protect those that didn't leave.

I think you have me confused with someone else though. My whole thing is protection from trolls. I never told anyone to kill themselves that I remember. Maybe it was a troll. I have little sympathy for people that derive pleasure from the misery of others.

I think RIOT cares for my take on the severity of punishments as they do the OP's take on what to do about those that are left in a 4 v 5. They care less about his opinion actually case they have address the idea of this post and many like it. On there support board it says, tough titties. I'm paraphrasing of course.

EleshakaiApr 22, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Occams Raiser,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=lUdXIhMH,comment-id=0003000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-04-22T17:45:51.094+0000)

I thought everyone's frustration was that the rating system was being destroyed by trolls and afks and DC. Getting enough good games in a row to get a decent promo series if excruciation for many.

It is OK to have multiple systems that don't over lap to fix one problem. Leavebuster punishes. AKF systems protect those that didn't leave.

I think you have me confused with someone else though. My whole thing is protection from trolls. I never told anyone to kill themselves that I remember. Maybe it was a troll. I have little sympathy for people that derive pleasure from the misery of others.

I think RIOT cares for my take on the severity of punishments as they do the OP's take on what to do about those that are left in a 4 v 5. They care less about his opinion actually case they have address the idea of this post and many like it. On there support board it says, tough titties. I'm paraphrasing of course.

The rating system isn't destroyed by trolls. People are just suffering from various cognitive biases. People DON'T run into trolls that often unless they're contributing to their creation themselves. Trolls are a rare incident, they just stand out more in your mind because it is a natural survival instinct to remember negative occurrences more than positive.

It is pointless to have multiple systems to address the same problem. It is wasteful of development resources, and thus money. As to 'protecting' there is no way to protect them that doesn't result in extreme inflation over time. The only exception is that, as many have said, if a person never connects the game should be rendered null and void for all participants. By rendering the game completely null and void it does not result in inflation. The Rating system is essentially a zero-sum system so anything that causes points to be given or lost without balancing out will cause inflation and impact the integrity of the system.

People losing games due to trolls/leavers/etc. still result in a zero-sum situation which has NO IMPACT ON THE INTEGRITY OF THE RANKING SYSTEM. And since trolls/leavers/etc. will typically always even out in the end (every player will both BENEFIT and be HURT by them to an approximately equal degree), they aren't even going to affect your ranking much in the long run.

So the only problem with them is the emotional impact they have. Which, for many people, seems to be significant - understandably so for trolls, less understandably for leavers/afks. So since they have a significant impact on many people's emotional state, even if they have largely no impact on the competitive integrity of the game, Riot has built systems to deal with them. But these systems are designed so that they never impact the competitive integrity.(the only exception being 'loss forgiven' which is why Riot tries to use it as infrequently as possible) Because that is important to them, especially since they're the largest name in e-sports.

Occams RaiserApr 22, 20151 votes

People DON'T run into trolls that often unless they're contributing to their creation themselves.

This lets me know we live in two different universes. Or you just happen to have a much narrower view of what a troll is than I do. OK either way.

I have asked someone to explain the inflation argument. I don't what it is. I just started playing ranked and everyone says that MMR is the most important thing.

League is unique cause it is the only game I have ever played that forces you to continue after a player drops. DCs and late connects seem to be detrimental in people's eyes. You say its not. OK

People losing games due to trolls/leavers/etc. still result in a zero-sum situation which has NO IMPACT ON THE INTEGRITY OF THE RANKING SYSTEM.

If you say so.

And since trolls/leavers/etc. will typically always even out in the end (every player will both BENEFIT and be HURT by them to an approximately equal degree), they aren't even going to affect your ranking much in the long run.

This is correct only in theory of probability. It is possible for someone to always have a troll in the game on their side.

We have different philosophies. But I can see arguments for every side. It's fine I guess. Its a game where the pro side is so far away from the casual side it doesn't really matter anyway.

EleshakaiApr 22, 20151 votes

Inflation refers to the situation where everyone, gradually, improves in rank. This is impossible if the rank system is working properly because every time someone wins, someone else loses and thus the system retains equality. If my team wins and we, combined, gain 75 LP then the other team's combined LP loss should equal 75 to ensure that the overall system remains as it should be.

If this isn't the case, then that means the overall integrity of the system is being compromised since people are gaining too many points. Loss Forgiven already does this, but is used sparingly enough that it shouldn't be an issue.

Thus a leaver, or a DC/AFK/etc, under the current system does not have any impact on the integrity of the system since the total LP gains still equal the total LP losses. If the OP's proposal were to be used, this would no longer be the case and every single time someone left a game it would cause there to be MORE LP GAINED than lost. So over time, EVERYONE would gradually rise in rank since everyone is equally effected by leavers on average. This would compromise the integrity of the system overall.

And as to my definition of troll, it's simple: Someone who intentionally sabotages the game or, for no reason, is constantly insulting their allies. An intentional feeder, a ragequit(or rage-afk), someone who refuses to communicate AND work with the team, someone who starts the game talking with derogatory terms, etc. I saw them MAYBE 1 in 20 or 30 games. Maybe. But then again, I was a nice guy in game and I went into every game with the ASSUMPTION that the people I was playing with were nice as well and those two things make a massive difference in how those around you act, whether you realize it or not.

Occams RaiserApr 22, 20151 votes

Your Definition is the same as mine. I say shit talkers are toxic cause they may still follow plans while cussing you and actively be trying to win. Trolls aren't concerned with the outcome of the game.

Thanks for the explanation of inflation. If this is how it indeed works, it looks like tough titties of everyone with bad luck. Bad being those that rise above the probable numbered encounters with trolls and DCs.

Seems like Riot would have their hands tied by the system they created. That forces them to only have punishment as a real option for correctives. Since trolls use alt accounts for fun, we are at the mercy of probability.

I once said that you don't rise on the ladder because someone else falls. Looks like I was wrong. LOL You can't just climb past them, you have to kick them off too. I did not know this.

EleshakaiApr 23, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Occams Raiser,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=lUdXIhMH,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-04-22T22:44:37.657+0000)

Your Definition is the same as mine. I say shit talkers are toxic cause they may still follow plans while cussing you and actively be trying to win. Trolls aren't concerned with the outcome of the game.

Thanks for the explanation of inflation. If this is how it indeed works, it looks like tough titties of everyone with bad luck. Bad being those that rise above the probable numbered encounters with trolls and DCs.

Seems like Riot would have their hands tied by the system they created. That forces them to only have punishment as a real option for correctives. Since trolls use alt accounts for fun, we are at the mercy of probability.

I once said that you don't rise on the ladder because someone else falls. Looks like I was wrong. LOL You can't just climb past them, you have to kick them off too. I did not know this.

The reality is if you want an accurate rating system, you need to make it zero-sum. Anything else just leads to everyone being at the top eventually.

But I don't think probability really has THAT much of an impact. Afterall, it's not like you're doomed to a troll every game unless YOU are that troll. Trolling is still a statistical outlier. The games with leavers effect everyone approximately equally, so the people who make the OTHER games count the most are the ones who rise to the top. Sure there are a handful of people who are artificially low or artificially high due to probability, but they're such a minority that it's folly to build the system around them.

AND the system DOES have two built in counterweights for people who have really bad luck - one that only a tiny percentage ever see(I've actually never heard of anyone triggering one of the two, but have experienced the other myself). If your MMR gets far enough above your ranking, you can actually COMPLETELY skip your series. So if you perpetually win every game outside of your series and then lose every game in it, you'll eventually rise to the point where the game corrects itself. This is the one I've never heard of anyone triggering, although I'm sure someone has. The other system is that if you're enough above the MMR level of the division you're advancing to, it will sometimes skip a division for you. For example, in S3 I skipped from gold 5 to gold 3 because I was on an amazing win streak and the system deemed I was better than Gold 4 when I won my promo to go from G5 to G4.

So there ARE systems in place to try to ensure that luck isn't too much of a factor, by balancing the scales in the absolute extremes of bad luck.

WastelandKittahApr 21, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Occams Raiser,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=lUdXIhMH,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2015-04-21T02:55:36.943+0000)

You can't worry about gamers susceptible to cyber-bullying in a system where they have mute button and their mere presence foils the bully's STUPID plan. Their kind won't survive the next wave of human evolution.

Yeah but in this community the simple act of MUTEING will also constitute a report for none com, you can not have both a mute button and a punishment for no communication it makes no sense.

scazzmanApr 21, 20152 votes

Another thought I had. Would be if someone was afk or so long. Your team would get a buff on par with baron until said. Person comes back

BemaponApr 20, 20151 votes

~~The reduced gain makes sense, however i feel like it is punishing the other team for someone leaving. ~~ (Ignore that part, I misunderstood) I also do not think it should completely negate LP loss, maybe have a minimum of like 5. It is hard but it is still possible to win a 4v5.

OddysseasApr 20, 20153 votes

Yes i know but since assuming MMR matches same skill lvl players it means that 4 v 5 is a huge advantage. Like imagine the LCS, having c9 vrs tsm where bjergsen goes afk. Its impossible for tsm to win.

Also i don't think that the other team gets punished whatsoever as their lp gains/losses will remain intact.

Morgan SlavemanApr 20, 20152 votes

He's not talking abut normals where 4v5 and even 3v5 victories happen frequently. It is more or less impossible to win a 4v5 against an equally skilled team.

BemaponApr 20, 20153 votes

I know that. All I am saying is completely negating LP loss might not be as good as it sounds. While I am a fan of what he is suggesting all I was trying to do was further the discussion.

Completely negating LP loss sounds amazing. However I feel the system would work better if it went: "Person is afk for 15+ min, if that team loses they lose 5 LP" With the pre 15 mins working like the OP said.

I would be even okay if it was like -1 LP. I just don't feel like -0 LP is the correct way of handling AFKs.

Occams RaiserApr 21, 20151 votes

Why don't you feel zero is the way to go? It doesn't effect you one way or the other.

BemaponApr 21, 20151 votes

I cant quite put my finger on it, but something just doesnt sit right with me with losing 0.

Occams RaiserApr 21, 20151 votes

It rarely happens and he already built in a check. To get the most out of this a team would have to get an afk when they still had a winnable, be convinced they could hold till negation or win so the remaining players didn't FF, stall while keeping or gaining the lead, then closing the deal on 5 dunderheads that shouldn't have lost in the first place. Anytime you have won 4 v 5 there was a skill mismatch that MMR couldn't account for or the afk\dc came late game when you were already winning . AND it was probably normals. I don't care what you say.

BemaponApr 21, 20151 votes

I don't care what you say.

Whatever floats your boat bro. Just trying to further the discussion. Your other points before

Anytime you have won

Were what I was looking for. Thank you.

Occams RaiserApr 21, 20151 votes

"I don't care what you say." is in context to people win 4 v 5 in normal games and then say they win 4 v 5 in ranked all the time so what is the big deal. Not in context to the thread.

Why don't you feel zero is the way to go? It doesn't effect you one way or the other.

BemaponApr 21, 20151 votes

I said

It is hard but it is still possible to win a 4v5.

Possible, not likely though. I have seen 4v5s win in ranked, its just very rare and hard to do.

I think my main problem is that if someone afks and your team would have deserved to lose anyway, but can manage to stall the game until the negation, those people that should have actually dropped will instead be able to stay above where they actually belong.

It is great for the people who should be able to climb, but it seems a little too good for those who deserve to drop.

Occams RaiserApr 21, 20151 votes

I see the typical "abuse arguments". It think by now we must all assume that the person that leaves IS not in duo queue with someone that stays. The person that leaves will of course be docked with normal losses and punishments. I am getting tired of posters having to list these checks and balances. People's best arguments seem to be centered around getting penalized when your queue buddy dips out and you get his penalty. You knew he had a bad connection, often leaves, was a troll, or had poor time management skills. If you didn't maybe you shouldn't queue in ranked with him. How often does someone on your buddy list DC and never come back and you keep them on your buddy list?

Where is the abuse in system that has a cap on the leniency it gives? Imagine you get your ass kicked by 4 when you are five. Why would the fact that they got extra points for whooping ass at a deficit even enter your mind as you read defeat on your screen? If they lost due to a dc\afk, why would you care that they didn't wind up losing the appropriate LP?

There are other people making threads that suggest ending the game on dc's. OP wants the game to continue when it shouldn't. Even then someone screams abuse. Abuse that has no effect on you what so ever.

You don't get higher on the ladder cause you see someone else climbing down.

MyozthirirnApr 21, 20152 votes

How abount lp inflation?

she Iooked lvl18Apr 21, 20151 votes

I've solo carried a 4v5, its really not that hard you just have to end before 35-40 mins

OddysseasApr 22, 20151 votes

I have won a 3 v 5 and i won't exaggerate when i say that some people in the enemy team were equally fed. I was trundamere and using my ult wisely i carried this 3v5.

However, it's rare, and if you are going to win 4v5s that means you are much better than the enemy team, this is however where MMR comes in play, MMR supposively matches people of the same skill level, the exact analogy would be C9 vrs TSM where one person of one of the teams goes AFK, this would make it impossible for them to win, not in 1000 matches they couldn't win with afk.

Matthias9119Apr 22, 20151 votes

You can't give reduced LP and/or MMR losses unless the other team gets proportionally reduced gains as well. It creates "inflation" in the rankijg system that breaks the ladder over time.