Ok, so I get that LeaverBuster is a thing and you'll get penalized if you leave a game, but if two people leave (one ints then leaves, the other leaving after us not FFing because we have late-game scaling), turning what is a fair fight into a disaster for us, how are we to get penalized for losing a 3v5? I just needs some clarity on how this is as satisfactory as this system gets?
The common defense I've seen is sample size argument. Over an infinite amounts of games, the AFK would not have a meaningful impact on your rank.
The problem is, some people don't play an infinite amount of games. The less games you play, the more your rank is influenced by AFK.
Because in the end, one game that has this many things goes wrong is not going to affect your LP in the long run. Your climb is not determined by one shit game because two idiots left, it's determined how you play over the long run.
The clarity is that when this happens to your team, you will lose LP. When this happens to the other team, you will gain LP.
Ok, so I get that LeaverBuster is a thing and you'll get penalized if you leave a game, but if two people leave (one ints then leaves, the other leaving after us not FFing because we have late-game scaling), turning what is a fair fight into a disaster for us, how are we to get penalized for losing a 3v5? I just needs some clarity on how this is as satisfactory as this system gets?
What you speak of is the most toxic things in online gaming and yet it is punished with slaps on the wrist because of some bullshit, "In the long run" numbers that make no sense to anyone but the people imposing the punishments. When a person makes a 4th trip to the LPQ the account should be banned, PERIOD. The fact that this doesn't happen tells me that RIOT is not concerned at all with the health of the game but with the fact that if they didn't have these people playing on shit systems they wouldn't make as much money. So they let them stand in the corner for 20 minutes and allow them to come back and fuck up more games.
