Boards›Player Behavior

Ranked AFKs Need to Be Punished Faster and More Severely, plus other thoughts

Dweeebles·8/10/2018, 7:45:15 PM·5 votes·3,033 views

I don't get to play that often and maybe I just have really bad luck, but it is impossible to climb in ranked when 4 out of 9 matches there is either someone who DCs or AFKs. How are there so many people doing this in ranked? This needs to be punished harshly and swiftly so people stop doing it. Here is what happened last night:

GAME 1 - REMAKE Support DC GAME 2 - LOSS AFK ADC after going 0-8, also 3-12 top lane GAME 3 - LOSS Tilted and Played bad GAME 4 - WIN Took a break and played better GAME 5 - LOSS Jungle feeds (1-8) and goes AFK, entire team 4-29 @ 22 min, I was winning lane until their entire fed team came to kill me GAME 6 - LOSS Played bad, acceptable loss GAME 7 - LOSS MID AFK, we were winning pretty easily would have won, player just couldn't handle that he was dying GAME 8 - WIN took a break, Team was pretty good GAME 9 - WIN Yay win streak, almost back where I started in LP.

Basically this means I have to win 100% of my games where it is not a 4 v 5 scenario... That is impossible... Maybe my sample size is too small and I just don't have enough time to play through my bad luck...

Also some other suggestions to make solo/duo ranked better:

  • You need at least 5 games with a champ to play them in ranked. This includes full reworked champs.
  • The above rule would mean that you need at least 1 champ with 5 games on them from each roll to play ranked
  • You shouldn't play with or against anyone more than +/- 2 tier above or below your current ranked level. So if someone is S3, they only play with players that are in S5 through S1.
  • You can't duo with anyone more than 2 tiers away from you
  • Lane MMRs should be matched not just game MMR, so if I am S2 top lane, I should be matched as close as possible to S2 top lane +/- 2 tiers
  • you have to be 16 years old to play ranked
  • banning just from ranked is fine, you don't have to ban their entire account, people can still play normals. Ranked needs to feel like a legitimate competitive space.

5 Comments

Jo0o8/11/2018, 12:39:36 AM2 votes

5 games per champ seems more reasonable than some of the folks demanding rank 5. Still shits on champ trading, though.

Tightening the matchmaking rank differences looks great on paper, but I wonder what the tradeoff would be in terms of finding matches? And losing the ability to duo with your friend because they had a winning streak and got promoted without you would suck.

I'm all for raising the age of the game, but in practice I don't know how it would be enforced or how effective it would even be.

Trundamere8/11/2018, 3:24:27 AM1 votes

Your sample size is not large enough. Win streaks, lose streaks, troll streaks, AFK streaks, and so on. can be an illusion. I would suggest learning a little bit about the law of large numbers which will show why trying to use a small sample size can lead to confirmation bias.

The fact of the matter is. The chance of you getting an AFK is just as likely as the other team getting an AFK. And via the law of large numbers after awhile it should even out. Which is why I find it just a tiny bit amusing when people complain about an AFK that results in loss of LP, but they never seem to complain about an AFK on the other team that results in a gain of LP.

As for your suggestions, most of them seem reasonable. But I disagree with

"The above rule would mean that you need at least 1 champ with 5 games on them from each roll to play ranked"

I for the most part only play 3 champs, Trundle and Tryndamere are my core champs, Nasus is my back up champ and I have a few champs of last resort in the event something unfortunate happens and I can not play the 3 champs I have the most time into.

Because of this, I can and WILL play my core champs, into any lane. Yes I Will play Tryndamere support, cause for me the odds of me at least doing 1/2 OK is a hell of alot higher then me playing a champ that i don't want to play and am not used to playing.

Your suggestion kind of is Anti-OTP, in my case I am a 2 trick, It also suggests a forced meta, as riot allows you to play any champ in to any role as long as you are trying to win the game. therefore trying to make a rule where someone needs to not only have 5 games on 5 different champs and on top of it all each champ haves to be from a certain role is invalid since riot doesn't seem to hard define that. I don't remember riot ever saying for example that Bard is only a support champ.

Also It would also make the entry into rank more annoying. you need to own 20 champs to play draft games. I can tell you right now If the requirement also changed to where I need 5 games on all 20 champs. I would no longer be allowed to play ranked and I would be more then a little annoyed to try to do so. My full champ pool contains 6 champs in total. 2 Core, 1 Backup, 3 Last Resort. So for me that is 70 games I would need to play on champs that I care absolutely nothing about, and have no intention on ever playing again other then to fulfill an annoying requirement. I have played around 2200 games in total, most of them normals but that dosen't matter for this example, less then 10 times have I ever been forced to play a champ of last resort and I never had my full champ pool of 6 become banned/picked

Lastly I also disagree with

"you have to be 16 years old to play ranked"

One it is impossible to enforce, and two, well, ill let this link explain the reason, doesn't matter if its referring to a different game, even if it is 1v1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_prodigy