You can report for "GIVING UP!?"

Someone gives up in a game.

At that moment, only one of three options is true:

a) The player has incorrectly assessed the game, and their team is actually ahead b) The player has incorrectly assessed the game, and their team has roughly an even win/loss probability c) The player has correctly assessed the game, and a win is quite improbable statistically

Now, the statistical determinants of win/loss probabilities include indicators such as:

-gold totals/differentials (from CS/Kills/Assists etc. at some point in a long enough game the differentials will not matter i.e. everyone is full build on both teams) -objectives secured (towers/inhibitors and which lanes, drags and which kinds, Barron, Rift Herald) -experience totals/differentials (at some point in a long enough game the differentials will not matter i.e. everyone is level 18 on both teams) -where the gold differential is invested (who exactly is fed, is it someone that scales hard or someone that has a stricter limit on the impact they can make with that feed) -vision on the map -etc.

The determinants I listed above is not an exhaustive list, but they are some of the more quickly quantifiable. Comp matters, but the calculations of what 5-champ combos against what other 5-champ combos would be statistically more advantageous, is not something a person can easily do in their head on the fly (obviously there are some comp choices that have glaring weaknesses, such that knowledgeable enough players can eyeball the disparity in comps and roughly factor that into an assessment on the fly).

So, to my knowledge, unless LoL players are all stats nerds like me and make their grad-school professors endure project presentations involving probit and logit regressions to determine the predictive power of various determinants at different levels and given different chosen conditions -in order to really get a feel for how these variables impact win/loss probability, then it makes no sense to allow players to report each other on this basis. If the quitters are going off of some sort of laymen's guesstimate as is the reporter, then how is this any kind of effective.

We have all had the hilariously dramatic teammate that says "GG" in chat when the first three kills of the game go to the enemy, as if Faker himself could not carry a team to victory after such a set back. Surely, when everyone reports that player for "quitting", that would be an example of an effective use of this tool (though I would argue in a future post that the tool though effective is relatively inefficient). Similarly, we have all had those games where our whole team is making a team effort towards the worst game ever, and we effectively use the surrender tool to spare each other further torment.

I will admit that the ability to report someone that quits trying in the above scenario, is probably a good thing (not the best idea, but better than nothing). However, most of the situations that I see of people quitting are post 20 min. Like I stated earlier, most players do not go to sites like http://oracleselixir.com/2017/05/elemental-drakes-value-priority/ (shout out and props, these guys are awesome) in order to see statistical analysis akin to what I mentioned was necessary to make an educated assessment of the win/loss probability, nor do they have the training to run the regressions themselves.

If most of the games with quitters that could be reported on are in a grey area that would require a statistical analysis in order to determine the odds, and most players cannot do this, then I believe that either there should be a rule where this is never acceptable, and you play the game accepting that fact, or that quitters are something that players are going to have to live with. Some players play as if quitting is never acceptable and a hard and fast rule, and this is almost a moral issue for them. On the other hand, I have met -and can also personally identify with- players who believe that if you can correctly assess a game as a loss, then they can maximize the time they have to spend climbing by ending the losing game as soon as they can. If you have ever played WoW, what I mean is similar to calling for a wipe in a raid when you know that there is no chance to beat the boss. This is a strategic decision that will allow the raid more chances at killing the boss within the time you have to raid for that night.

The knee-jerk reaction is to say do not make players have to live with quitters, and instead to make a "no quitting" policy. That could allow an effective use of the reporting tool. Did someone quit? Yes. Then report. However, it is wrong to say that this is good for the players in all cases or long term. If quitting was not categorically against the law, then I could imagine an outcome where quitters cause everyone else to lose more games than they would if they were exercised from the game via the reporting system, and those that show up to play and try have their game ruined.

If quitters are allowed, they speed up the end of games by quitting. If the game could have been won this is a problem, but if the game was a lost cause then this is a boon that grants more winnable game time to everyone (both the winners and losers in their game). If you are +50% win rate, then more games equals a faster climb. Therefore, it could just as easily be the outcome that by allowing quitters to quit, that everyone gains more LP than they would have if all of the quitters are pushed out of the game or to conform to the rules.

Which is true? When the numbers are crunched, does a no tolerance policy for quitting cause players to lose gain LP in the long run, or does it cause them to lose LP?

If quitters are left in, one thing to remember is that they give you wins (by being on the other team in a given game) as well as cause you losses. If it works out that over time they cost your enemies a game about as often as they cost you a game, then waving a magic wand to eliminate quitters from the game would not change anyone's climb. In which case all that has changed is that a bunch of players have been punished or ran off from the game. However, if a game has to have some indicators that it is bad to make someone want to quit, and this means that quitters are right about a losing game more often that non-quitters are right about any given game being a comeback, then quitters might be doing non-quitters a favor by minimizing time in games that have no chance of being won, thus maxing time in games that can be won (which is helpful). Some people may want to push back and say that they have gained great experience by what they learned when finishing out such games to completion, but I would just point out that when you are getting steamrolled, it can be the case that you are getting manhandled so bad that you are not learning anything at all, and that if learning was your main goal, then getting out of the beat-down and into a fresh game would actually support the idea of leaving quitters alone.

Again, which is best for players and their LP in the end? As my professors would say, "That is an empirical question." One that can and must be calculated before we go setting up reporting infractions for quitters.

YOU CAN ALL GIVE YOUR OPINIONS HERE, BUT WE SHOULD ALL WANT THE EMPIRICAL FACTS. PLEASE MENTION THE DESIRE FOR RIOT TO RESEARCH THIS OR TELL US OF THEIR RESEARCH THAT LED TO THE CREATION OF THIS REPORT-ABLE INFRACTION IF YOU ARE GOING TO LEAVE YOUR OPINIONS. OTHERWISE WE WILL JUST ASSUME THAT YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT WHAT IS RIGHT OR CORRECT, JUST YOURSELF AND WHAT YOU THINK.

THANKS!