Boards›Player Behavior

Idea: Feeders lose more LP in ranked mode

Scratch1Tango·3/31/2019, 2:26:38 AM·4 votes·2,070 views

I was thinking about how much it sucks when you have a hard feeder on your team, and how hard the games can be to win as a result. Here's my idea: What if feeding caused you to lose more LP than you otherwise would in a loss with reasonable kda ratio? Let's define unreasonable as being 4x more deaths than kills + assists, with a minimum of 10 deaths. Lets say that all players who meet the "feeder" criteria lose double LP as compared to the other non-feeders on the team. My assumption is that would-be feeders would be incentivized to adjust their play if they start to rack up deaths, and that the other players on the team who are not feeding are, over time, distanced from the feeders in terms of matchmaking.

I'm a support main and obviously support role does get less kills, and often have to sacrifice themselves for the team, resulting in more deaths. It seems like if assists are factored into the equation, that supports would not be hit harder than other roles in this proposed scenario.

What do you guys think?

8 Comments

Jo0o3/31/2019, 2:40:07 AM7 votes

Encourages selfish play to guard one's KDA. Also encourages identifying a weak link on the enemy team and camping them into oblivion to destroy their LP. Also encourages AFKing as a preferable alternative to getting killed more.

As Gatekeeper said below, the punishment for hard feeding (not inting) a game is losing LP and rank. It may not be solace enough for the teammate who suffers the presence of an unskilled player, but such is life. You'll get an equal number of games gifted to you by having bad players on the opposing side.

Umbral Regent3/31/2019, 2:36:16 AM4 votes

The biggest issue I see is that there are certain people who would be classified as "feeders" who were actually playing to their best ability. I've seen people come up with low kill/assist counts and high death counts due to having low early game presence, fights dragging on longer than their influence allows, Assist timers wearing off, etc.

Additionally, legitimate intentional feeders would likely not care at all about losing more LP than others - and this is assuming it can reasonably be deduced that they were feeding, at which point, they'd have another punishment entirely to worry about: A 14-day ban, or worse, permaban.

GatekeeperTDS3/31/2019, 2:37:23 AM4 votes

The punishment for doing poorly is losing LP and decreasing in rank. KDA does not mean you're better or worse at the game. Any time you choose to base gains on winning a team game on personal statistics, you throw the idea of a team game right into the shitter and everyone starts playing selfishly.

Sukishoo3/31/2019, 2:46:16 AM3 votes

Yeah no. It's actually hard to truly define FEEDING. In general it's meant to be when someone just basically either stands there or just runs down a lane and dies over and over. However, there are games where people have scores that are pretty terrible and people will call it feeding but indeed aren't. I've had games that I WON where I was 3/13 and was indeed trying hard to win but was constantly getting killed in the process.

So you cannot base Feeding on the actual KDA alone either.

PrismalDawn3/31/2019, 2:59:52 AM1 votes

Very good, I like this, there is no reason as to why I should lose the same amount of LP every game if I had someone on my team dead for half the game making it essentially a 4v5.

On the case that it would "encourage selfish play," this is a really stupid idea and I would HIGHLY welcome the fact that people would consider DYING LESS considering I am a jungle main.

In that case too, typically any lane that I play, general rule of thumb, if you die once, maybe twice, it's probably a good idea to stop trying to trade and play more safely. So if you find yourself dying 10+ times in a game, you deserve to lose more LP loss while your team loses less.

Scratch1Tango4/1/2019, 4:00:56 AM1 votes

I've summarized the points made in the comments so far, and what I think about each of them.

It's hard to define feeding. Disagree. I've proposed a criteria in OP for what feeding is; it can definitely be defined. The intangible component is whether intent is involved.
You cannot base feeding on the actual KDA alone. Disagree. KDA is the **only **metric by which feeding can be defined. If you are referring to whether the feeding is intentional, see #1.
Encourages selfish play to guard one's KDA. Selfish play is not in scope of this idea submission. In my proposed model, assists would factor into the equation, and one would not be at greater risk of meeting the feeder criteria for participating in team fights that could result in their own death. Regardless, the game is already heavily biased towards selfish play, as having a good KDA gives you tremendous individual advantage through better items as a result of gold earned.
Encourages identifying a weak link on the enemy team and camping them to destroy their LP.
This is an extremely fringe scenario, in terms of deliberately targeting someone for the sole purpose of causing them to lose LP. Regardless, players are already incentivized to target the weakest link on the enemy team. Moot point
Encourages AFKing Most would argue that 4v5 is a preferable scenario to 5v5 with a hard feeder.
You get equal number of feeders on your team and the enemy team. Moot point; has nothing to do with a matchmaking model wherein feeders lose more LP than non-feeders. The point of this idea is to distance good players from feeders over time.
You have a better chance of the enemy team having a feeder. Doesn't make any sense at a glance, and also has nothing to do with the point of the proposed idea. See #6
Anyone is capable of getting outmatched and feeding. If someone is outmatched to the extent that they meet the very generous feeder criteria I have proposed, then i'd argue they deserve to lose extra LP. Feeding is feeding.
Some people who would meet the criteria of a feeder are playing their best. See #8 - feeding is feeding.
Intentional feeders don't care about their LP. Cool, so let's put a protocol in place to even further distance these individuals from those who do care about their LP.
Any time you choose to base gains on winning a team game on personal statistics, you throw the idea of a team game right into the shitter and everyone starts playing selfishly. The scope of this idea is to punish individual players who meet an excessive death criteria with extra LP loss. How much LP the winning team gains is not in scope. Regardless, this game is already oriented in such a way that individual performance (statistics) cause your character to gain advantages in-game. If this were not true, then all gold for all kills would be equally split amongst the entire team regardless of participation in the earning event. Discarding the idea because "team game" is lazy, because it's just as much an individual game as it is a team game. The overwhelming likelihood of a team losing when they have a feeder on it is proof of individual impact.
I've had games that I WON where I was 3/13 and was indeed trying hard to win but was constantly getting killed in the process. In this proposed model, you would not lose double LP if you won the game having met the feeder criteria. Somebody on your team had to have made up for your deficit, unless you had a bunch of assists beyond that 3/13 score.

--

The point of this idea is to insulate good players that care about their LP from players who ruin games with their poor play, either intentional or not. The criteria for feeding has been proposed at a generous level to only impact excessively poor players, intentional or otherwise. I'm open to being convinced why feeders should lose the same LP as good players, but I haven't heard an an argument that makes sense yet.