What if you weren't up a creek when someone left your ranked match?

Karunamon··16 votes·1,222 views

Reposted by request. In another thread was the common complaint that you're screwed with no recourse if someone leaves in the middle of your ranked game (or god forbid, in your promo series).

Here's a better idea. What if we had a vote when someone disappears and isn't coming back?

Someone leaves and gets 3 minutes to reconnect.

If they fail to do so, everyone on the shorted team gets a popup (kinda like the surrender window). They're voting on staying or leaving.

  • If majority votes to stay, they're locked into the game and proceed as usual. Someone who doesn't vote is considered to have voted "stay", a tie vote is resolved "stay".
  • if majority votes to go, their nexus pops and they lose instantly.

This puts some control back in the hands of the shorted team and lets them make a tactical decision. They can't be held hostage by a leaver, and they can't really abuse this all that much.

So far, all I've described is an automatic surrender vote

Now here's where the magic happens:

What if we factored LP/MMR calculation into this as well? What if we recognize that measuring skill is a bit different when teams are imbalanced?

In short, everyone in the game wins and loses (abs(player difference) * .20) more or less LP/MMR depending on the details.

If they vote to stay, and the shorted team wins:

  • They gain 20% (or one-fifth) more LP and MMR than usual.
  • Carrying a team down a person is not a small achievement, and this serves as a small incentive to play the game out.
  • The losing team loses 20% more LP and MMR than usual.
  • Losing against a team you're up a man on should also be reflected.

If they vote to stay, and the shorted team loses:

  • They lose 20% less LP and MMR than usual.
  • Being down a guy statistically ruins games and means the match result isn't as much a reflection of skill as it should be.
  • The winning team gets 20% less LP and MMR than usual.
  • Winning against a team down a guy requires less skill.

Now, what happens if they vote to go?

  • LP is calculated normally for both winning and losing teams
  • If a player on a leaving team is in a promo series, the loss is not counted against the series. They get another try.
  • The player on the winning team still gets the win in their series.
  • In the case of both teams, Their MMR is not impacted.

The general goal here is realizing that the game is already blown, and trying to minimize the impact of the errant game, while also minimizing possibility for abuse.

The loss of LP (and the threat of demotion) is the incentive to not bail out of games frivolously or have sacrificial leavers, but the result shouldn't be held against your skill so we leave MMR alone. Bailing out when you're down a guy means that your next game should be of equal difficulty because, in a way, you were deprived of a real test of your skill.

Possible modifications of the basic idea:

  • Apply small leaverbuster penalties to those who vote to bail out of a game. More incentive to play it out, a token inconvenience for not doing so.

  • All of this adjustment goes out the window either past some time after midgame, or after an event like an inner turret/inhibitor going down. This protects against abuse of the leniency by a losing team in the late-game taking steps to minimize the loss to their stats. At that point, the normal surrender system should be sufficient.

  • Timers and percentages are best effort and pulled completely out my ass and could be moved either way.

  • LP and/or MMR subtractions are stacked entirely against the leaving player(s). That is, if the guy who quit early and invokes the vote causes a 4v5 loss, costing the winning team 4 LP per player, that 4LP is taken directly from the guy who quit. (so if everyone on the losing team lost 15LP, but would have lost 20, an additional 20 is deducted from the leaver - we can consider this a 5 point per-remaining-player penalty given to the winner - this way, the per-team gains and losses are normalized). Similarly, if the team wins a 4v5 after voting to stay, the extra points the rest of the team won are taken out of the hide of the guy who left.

31 Comments

Sona Ping6 votes

Not a good idea. "they're locked into the game" I would even say an awful idea. Not just because just it's gambling points which is not the purpose of the matchmaking system.

But because it's going encourage two people to get chat restrictions. The benefits are so weighted to leave, with it being such a better option, that people are not going to be very understanding when two people lock them into a game for whatever reason, because they like gambling or are one of those never give up types or whatever it may be.

Especially when the alternative is that he had the opportunity to not get a loss on his promos, which a teammate took away from him.

Karunamon2 votes

It's already gambling points. If your game sucks, you can either bail out and eat the L, or decide if doesn't such enough to stick it out. This just makes it an explicit, rather than implied, choice, while leaving skill calculation (MMR) alone.

The benefits are so weighted to leave,

Well, no. If you leave:

  • You still have a loss on your ranked record
  • You still lose LP and could wind up demoted
  • You still take leaverbuster penalties

The only thing you're not eating if you vote leave is full MMR loss (reflection of the reality that losing a game down a person is not as accurate a measurement of _your _ skill) and a loss on your promos if applicable. This is just one facet and could be modified one way or another.

At the same time, if you manage to win a 4v5, not only do you deserve your win, you also deserve a bigger MMR boost (reflection of the reality that it takes more skill to win a 4v5 than a 5v5).

I'd argue the incentive is to stay, with an escape hatch so you don't get clubbed on the head for circumstances outside of your control.

Especially when the alternative is that he had the opportunity to not get a loss on his promos, which a teammate took away from him.

Remember, majority vote, with a presumptive "stay" in case of tie or no-vote. We could make it supermajority, and then it's identical behavior to the current surrender system. We could also tie the result to what you voted - if you vote "stay" and got overruled by your team, you shouldn't get dinged for it.

NGO Maleficent4 votes

If they vote to stay, and the shorted team wins:

  • They gain 20% (or one-fifth) more LP and MMR than usual.
  • The losing team loses 20% more LP and MMR than usual.

The initial idea about the surrender vote in a 4v5 disconnect is something I would agree with. However, the quoted part above of the idea you put forward is stupid and I'll explain why by directing your attention to this part of your idea:

If they vote to stay, and the shorted team loses:

  • They lose 20% less LP and MMR than usual.
  • The winning team gets 20% less LP and MMR than usual.

This idea just takes all agency away from the team that isn't shorted and gives it to the other team and then on top of that, rewards the shorted team and punishes the other team for no real reason.

If you want to bail because it's a 4v5, you take the L there and move on with your life or you play it out and hope you can pull it off. But this notion that it's fair to punish the other team for something that is out of their control is ridiculous and unfair.

Karunamon1 votes

This idea just takes all agency away from the team that isn't shorted and gives it to the other team and then on top of that, rewards the shorted team and punishes the other team for no real reason.

The reason is that the game is no longer even and has no reason to be treated as if it is. Matchmaking, MMR calculation, everything as it exists today, is calibrated around the idea of 5v5 teams. When it's not 5v5 teams anymore, that calibration is no longer accurate. (This is the same reason that Solo and Flex are two different queues - different conditions of play, different levels of teamwork expected)

There are two hard and fast facts in play here that can't really be argued with:

  • If you lose a 5v4 (with you on the 5 side), you were outskilled harder than if you lost a 5v5.
  • If you win a 4v5 (with you on the 4 side), you outskilled them harder than if you won a 5v5.

We could just as easily flip the script here and say that it's unfair that someone wins full points and rank from a team that's short a guy. Look at the reality of the situation.

Well I Say I Win4 votes

No. Suck it up and play the game. Make up your mind about whether you care more about your time or your LP.

EL HAMSTERO4 votes

they wont do it.

with your idea people will have a reason to try to get people to leave the game. so they can lose less lp.

cant you hear them now? 'leave the game teemo or we are all going to report you. you are 0-4 and you are the reason we are losing'

and some nice people would feel bad about having a bad game and actually do it.

Karunamon1 votes

How is this different than the trolling that graces the player behavior board every single day?

Leetri2 votes

It's different in that now you'd actually have a real in-game reason to do it instead of just being scum.

EL HAMSTERO1 votes

exactly right.

it wouldnt only be the scum either. "im going to demote if we lose this one. can someone please leave the game so ill lose less LP? ill mystery gift you if it stops me from demoting"

HalcyonDweller1 votes

It would be simple enough to punish players who attempt to cheat the system. Anyone offering bribes to allies in order to make them leave can be detected in chat and can be made to lose just as much LP.

HalcyonDweller1 votes

Anyone who tries to force another player to leave the game will be subject to every rule in the book regarding harassment.

I doubt this will be a problem. The scum who would engage in such manipulations will get themselves banned within the first month of the feature coming out.

Unker1392 votes

If someone leaves your team while you are dominating, then you can get a quick MMR and LP boost. Good in theory but can be abused. In either case. Adusting the MMR for on team means adjusting for both...so one person leaving your team penalizes the other team no matter what.

Karunamon1 votes

If you're dominating, the hypothetical abuser would have a window to leave - after a significant lead is established, but before a specific time has passed or before popping a base inhibitor or turret. This was an attempt to deal with the situation you describe, and I think the cutoff/objective thing could be adjusted to deal with this.

There's also no reason that leaverbuster-esque prohibitions couldn't be applied to this.

We're also talking about solo queue here, so the chances of abuse are much lower than a group that regularly plays together. Who's going to decide in chat who's going to be the sacrificial lamb, when that information can be dug up in chat later? Why would the other two players decide to go with this plan?

Luxana Crowngard1 votes

Why not. sounds nice to me

HalcyonDweller1 votes

This is really well thought out, and it prevents a number of abuse cases that are the usual roadblocks to mercy systems that people usually recommend for teammates of leavers.

Good idea! 10/10

Anastaecia1 votes

upvote for nice formatting..not sure on the concept, but something needs to be done.

AdeBug1 votes

been discussed before and the downside of this was that it could be abused. someone can sacrifice themselves if game not going too well. now imagine a trio, same way they take turns in dodging, they can take turns in afk'ing.

something needs to be done, just not this, as you can't distinguish a real afk from a forced one.

(my suggestion was to make a list of ongoing games, just like the custom games list but with a lot more details about the state of the game, and an 11th player can be a replacement)

scazzman2 votes

{quoted}

been discussed before and the downside of this was that it could be abused. someone can sacrifice themselves if game not going too well. now imagine a trio, same way they take turns in dodging, they can take turns in afk'ing.

something needs to be done, just not this, as you can't distinguish a real afk from a forced one.

(my suggestion was to make a list of ongoing games, just like the custom games list but with a lot more details about the state of the game, and an 11th player can be a replacement)

easy solution. disable it for premades. or make it so anyone in a premade is punished the same as the afk

AdeBug1 votes

nop say u have someone doing bad and visibly dragging the team down. everyone else cries 'report or afk', what do you think will happen?

ISOzHell1 votes

Excellent, support this 100%

Also I am seeing a new exploit, where they Q in, pick champ enter game, than go afk. And just before the remake timer log back in, then leave again.. So could this be an exploit used via coding, or just friends helping each other climb. Or have some people made a program allowing them to enter a troll on the opposite side of the team. It is not impossible with a a good coder. Also I I know 100% there is a program out there that allows the other side to see what champs you pick.

They play this account from time to time, make it seen legit but mainly use it for gains on other accounts they are serious about??

Iffy Jarl1 votes

I could see this working for leavers with mal intent, but I don't know if this will work for the same reason that we don't get remakes for leavers in the middle of the game and that's a perfectly non toxic well behaved player offering to dc because they lost lane for their team in order to pay reperations for what they did.

MorgManBasher1 votes

Will be abused by duo partners and griefers who try to force teamates to lose. Personally am fine with how ranked works currently.

Bob the Toastr1 votes

Interesting idea. I feel that it might be better if the lp loss was transferred to the d/c or afk, so if each player on the 4 team lost 4 less lp, then the afk should lose 16 extra lp, to really punish them. Also, 3 minutes really isn't that long, I feel it should be at least 5.

Ex. (the team chose to play out the 4v5) P1: -16 lp P2: -16 lp P3: -16 lp P4: -16 lp P5 (afk): -36 lp

Karunamon2 votes

I like this - added it to the main post. This could be an alternative and a strong incentive to not ragequit. Teams would be unlikely to have sacrificial lambs if the sacrifice-er lost basically another entire game's worth of LP.

ValyrianBlade1 votes

{quoted}

Reposted by request. In another thread was the common complaint that you're screwed with no recourse if someone leaves in the middle of your ranked game (or god forbid, in your promo series).

Here's a better idea. What if we had a vote when someone disappears and isn't coming back?

Someone leaves and gets 3 minutes to reconnect.

If they fail to do so, everyone on the shorted team gets a popup (kinda like the surrender window). They're voting on staying or leaving.

  • If majority votes to stay, they're locked into the game and proceed as usual. Someone who doesn't vote is considered to have voted "stay", a tie vote is resolved "stay".
  • if majority votes to go, their nexus pops and they lose instantly.

This puts some control back in the hands of the shorted team and lets them make a tactical decision. They can't be held hostage by a leaver, and they can't really abuse this all that much.

So far, all I've described is an automatic surrender vote

Now here's where the magic happens:

What if we factored LP/MMR calculation into this as well? What if we recognize that measuring skill is a bit different when teams are imbalanced?

In short, everyone in the game wins and loses (abs(player difference) * .20) more or less LP/MMR depending on the details.

If they vote to stay, and the shorted team wins:

  • They gain 20% (or one-fifth) more LP and MMR than usual.
  • Carrying a team down a person is not a small achievement, and this serves as a small incentive to play the game out.
  • The losing team loses 20% more LP and MMR than usual.
  • Losing against a team you're up a man on should also be reflected.

If they vote to stay, and the shorted team loses:

  • They lose 20% less LP and MMR than usual.
  • Being down a guy statistically ruins games and means the match result isn't as much a reflection of skill as it should be.
  • The winning team gets 20% less LP and MMR than usual.
  • Winning against a team down a guy requires less skill.

Now, what happens if they vote to go?

  • LP is calculated normally for both winning and losing teams
  • If a player on a leaving team is in a promo series, the loss is not counted against the series. They get another try.
  • The player on the winning team still gets the win in their series.
  • In the case of both teams, Their MMR is not impacted.

The general goal here is realizing that the game is already blown, and trying to minimize the impact of the errant game, while also minimizing possibility for abuse.

The loss of LP (and the threat of demotion) is the incentive to not bail out of games frivolously or have sacrificial leavers, but the result shouldn't be held against your skill so we leave MMR alone. Bailing out when you're down a guy means that your next game should be of equal difficulty because, in a way, you were deprived of a real test of your skill.

Possible modifications of the basic idea:

  • Apply small leaverbuster penalties to those who vote to bail out of a game. More incentive to play it out, a token inconvenience for not doing so.

  • All of this adjustment goes out the window either past some time after midgame, or after an event like an inner turret/inhibitor going down. This protects against abuse of the leniency by a losing team in the late-game taking steps to minimize the loss to their stats. At that point, the normal surrender system should be sufficient.

  • Timers and percentages are best effort and pulled completely out my ass and could be moved either way.

And I'll repost my response which also got upvotes and people largely agreed with (you've addressed a couple of the comments, but still not the major one):

The problem I have with this is that you're adjusting the winning team's award/penalty. That's not right.

If I crush my lane opponent and get off to a 4/0/0 start and he ragequits, I EARNED that win. I don't care if it was easier to win a 5v4 than if he had stayed - I'm the reason he quit! Don't drop my reward because I played too good.

Likewise, I may get an opponent that ragequits because I crushed him 3/0/0. Then somehow the enemy team wins a 4v5. Does that mean they would have won 5v5? Maybe, maybe not. Presumably I could have gotten fed even more off the guy that quit. Maybe if I got to 6/0/0 I could have hard carried. Why should I be punished more again because my opponent quit because I beat him too hard?

The point I'm making is that while this is great for a random DC, it's really unfair for a rage quit. That guy could have kept playing and feeding, he quit - so what? Or a DC when you're already way ahead? So your team wins off it's lead and the enemy gets extra punished because someone dc'd at 20min when the team was up 15 kills to 2?

There are just too many side cases that make this seem unfair to me. It isn't often that a game isn't a remake, and isn't a case of someone rage quitting. So 90% of the games receiving this adjustment, it doesn't seem warranted for. You don't get extra rewards for carrying a feeding ally, why get them for carrying an ally that stops feeding by dc'ing?

Karunamon1 votes

Thanks, I was hoping you'd repost this here :D

If I crush my lane opponent and get off to a 4/0/0 start and he ragequits, I EARNED that win. I don't care if it was easier to win a 5v4 than if he had stayed - I'm the reason he quit! Don't drop my reward because I played too good.

If you get off to a 4/0/0 start and someone ragequits, you still won a 4v5 and do not deserve the same rewards as if you beat an entire team. And I'm not talking a kneecapping here either, it seems like the median LP gain is between 15 and 30 points, so we're talking a difference of maybe 4ish LP for a 1 man difference. I can't speak to MMR since Riot goes out of their way to hide that, but it would be an equally small change.

My goal here is to get the matchmaking system to reflect reality, and in reality, if the other team is down people and you win, there is no logical or mathematical reason that your MMR should go up as if you won a 5v5. You still win, you still get your rewards, you still get a W in your promos, but that reward is proportional to reality.

Likewise, I may get an opponent that ragequits because I crushed him 3/0/0. Then somehow the enemy team wins a 4v5. Does that mean they would have won 5v5? Maybe, maybe not.

Statistically, yes. The whole point of an ELO-like system is to assign arbitrary numeric values to your skill and then adjust that value in response to various events, with the adjustment having a logical connection to the thing its measuring.

Or a DC when you're already way ahead?

I tried to address that - this adjustment formula goes away based on time, objectives, or a certain level of ahead-ness, precisely to avoid this kind of abuse.

ValyrianBlade1 votes

{quoted}

Thanks, I was hoping you'd repost this here :D

If you get off to a 4/0/0 start and someone ragequits, you still won a 4v5 and do not deserve the same rewards as if you beat an entire team. And I'm not talking a kneecapping here either, it seems like the median LP gain is between 15 and 30 points, so we're talking a difference of maybe 4ish LP for a 1 man difference. I can't speak to MMR since Riot goes out of their way to hide that, but it would be an equally small change.

No, this thought I can't agree with or even see how someone thinks this way.

He quit BECAUSE I beat him badly. That's not my problem. It wasn't a 4v5, it was a 5v5 where I literally made one of my enemies useless. Let's also include the fact that, if I'm getting fed off of someone they're going to be blamed and harassed a ton so their allies can convince them to AFK and lower their penalty and my reward.

Again, there's no acceptable train of thought as to why I would get less rewards because I played TOO GOOD and made someone so far behind he'd rather not play. Simply nothing to justify that. I earned that win just like any other 5v5 win. His team lost because they failed to help him before he raged out. It's still 5v5.

Karunamon1 votes

He quit BECAUSE I beat him badly.

You don't know why he left unless he told you in /all.

Let's also include the fact that, if I'm getting fed off of someone they're going to be blamed and harassed a ton so their allies can convince them to AFK and lower their penalty and my reward.

I added a number of countermeasures against this. Bob the Toastr suggested this one, specifically, the guy who AFKs loses the exact amount of the LP difference. If the 4 players on the losing team avoided losing 5lp because of this system, an extra 20lp (5lp x 4 players) is deducted from the player who AFKed, in addition to whatever for the game loss.

This would be a very strong incentive to not ragequit or AFK, even in duos. Nobody is willing to lose 2 games or more worth of ladder climb just so they can ragequit in one game. If they are, they deserve the low rank they get.

Again, there's no acceptable train of thought as to why I would get less rewards because I played TOO GOOD and made someone so far behind he'd rather not play.

If he'd "rather not play", he's not there to influence the game anymore. It's quite simple.

Funkin Dunkin1 votes

Just bring back leaver protection. Losing full LP is not a viable option.

maliohammad1 votes

Your idea can never work and would be simply abused. You mentioned that the system should reflect reality, but the real world isn't a fairy tale with a happy ending you know that, right? Here is a couple of examples :

a foot ball team losing the game because one of their players had a problem in his life (e.g.one of the people he cares about died , he broke up ....etc) then this affect his play, now he lost, should they make his lose less painful? No.

a war between 2 countries ends by one of them wining because the other had many people get ill for what ever reason, so they end up as a lower count and lose.

In both examples, lets say the opposed happens, would they get extra rewarded for their achievement? No.

Karunamon1 votes

he real world isn't a fairy tale with a happy ending you know that, right?

This is a video game, not the real world, and the system can be changed in whichever way is more optimal. You know that, right?

More from Player Behavior

More by Karunamon