@Riot: What is the maximum deaths you can reach in 20 minutes?

ChaosReyn·Jul 13, 2019·18 votes·10,228 views

This is being posted in PB as it's a question concerning intentional feeding. You've likely tested this at some point, since you've also tested such silly things as how long it takes to move with flash only from base to base, but I'm interested in knowing how many deaths you can get from just running into towers from the start of the game to 20 minutes. No abilities, no TP/Ghost, and no player interaction, just towers and creeps. This is to determine the base minimum amount of deaths that can qualify as intentional feeding during a game. As in, someone just going full Leeroy into the lane, and dying to tower, constantly, with no care in the world. This is important data, as a proof of concept that there is a limit to what's "having a bad game" and what's truly and undoubtedly intentional feeding, and that the line separating the two is much wider than a lot of people here in PB believe it is.

69 Comments

GatekeeperTDSJul 13, 20198 votes

What makes intentional feeding is the intent to feed on purpose. On purpose = intentionally.

Do you know how many intentional deaths it takes for someone to be intentionally feeding?

ONE, if they truly, absolutely did it on purpose.

The EcdysiastJul 13, 201910 votes

{quoted}

What makes intentional feeding is the intent to feed on purpose. On purpose = intentionally.

Do you know how many intentional deaths it takes for someone to be intentionally feeding?

ONE, if they truly, absolutely did it on purpose.

Had to resond to Pika, too, but you guys both made the same mistake I almost did.

OP isn't asking what the maximum number is to be considered inting, he's literally asking what the maximum number of deaths possible within 20 minutes is, so we have a baseline to compare suspected cases of inting with

ChaosReynJul 13, 20195 votes

This is exactly what I mean. If you manage to have over x deaths in a 20 minute game, where x is this baseline number, it suggests that you're putting forth a solid amount of effort into dying so much. You may come close when you aren't trying to, but you wont surpass that number without effort.

rujitraJul 13, 20194 votes

Riot won't punish someone because of some random cutoff and risk punishing innocent players.

The EcdysiastJul 13, 20192 votes

{quoted}

Riot won't punish someone because of some random cutoff and risk punishing innocent players.

Luckily it doesn't have to be a random cutoff, because I just did all the necessary math.

So, if someone dies somewhere between 22 and 29 times within the first 20 minutes, then there is no possible explanation besides them running it down mid from spawn every single time. (it's in a comment above yours)

Granted, that only makes it totally certain in an extremely small handful of cases, but it also holds true if someone maintains that 1.1 deaths per minute ratio by deciding to int after dying legitimately a few times.

rujitraJul 13, 20192 votes

If they're midlaner, wouldn't it make sense that they run back to lane every time they die?

Besides, can you show me a player that dies over 1.1 times per minute, is reported, and didn't get instantly punished?

The EcdysiastJul 13, 20191 votes

{quoted}

If they're midlaner, wouldn't it make sense that they run back to lane every time they die?

Besides, can you show me a player that dies over 1.1 times per minute, is reported, and didn't get instantly punished?

It wouldn't make sense to run back to lane and then immediately into the enemy turret, no.

And can you show me a player who died 1.1 times per minute, was reported, and was instantly punished? Int reports always take multiple games.

rujitraJul 13, 20191 votes

Um, no they don't.

Unfortunately most players who come to the Player Behavior boards complaining about an "incorrect" inting punishment when it's that obvious delete their threads once we point out we can see match history.

It does not take multiple games to punish someone for intentionally feeding. It can take multiple games for Riot to differentiate "soft griefing" behavior from normal play (case in point - Nubrac - where they had to see a pattern over multiple games and notice the pattern of only doing it in games with streamers in them) - but things like this are punished easily after one game.

Jack EronJul 17, 20191 votes

Actually, it does take multiple games. Here is my example.

https://imgur.com/a/mh7AA1B

It happened in 2016 when you were allowed to buy as many shoes as you wanted, and you can clearly see that this guy was inting. If his items wouldn't prove anything than just take a look on his kda.

As you see he could do this 5 times in row before he took a break what was more than 14 days...i don't know if that was a 14 days ban or not, probably yes... but even if.... it took riot 5 games to react to his acts.

Yea, it was a few years ago, the system wasn't "that perfect" but man, we are talking about ranked games... the guy must get minimum 4 reports in every games but possibly more because no one tolerate this hard feeding.

I have more images about other players from nowdays as well.

For example, i had a twisted fate midlaner. Zed was the enemy midlaner's pick, so i told our tf to think about his pick. He has a chance to counterpick now, and a zed should easily beat a tf, because he has no time to stack his stuncard when zed suddenly attacks him. He ignored my warning and advice, he said it will be ok.

He died 3 times over like 6 min, bought only manaregen items, and went into 1/13/0, he was spamming, laughing and flaming, admitted multiple times that he does this on purpose.

All of us reported him, i sent a ticket to riot, and guess what? When i checked on his profile a few days later, he was STILL playing!

The system is sucks, a few days ago i reported a guy in enemy who went into 1/20/0. He didn't get ban either, while this is not even a questionable stat...

ChaosReynJul 13, 20195 votes

Random? I think you're missing my approach here.

Ecdysiast determined through a few 1v0 custom games that the max number of deaths he could attain at 20 minutes was 29. (I rounded this to 30, to make even more leeway to my upcoming point)

It's not random - that is maximum effort - run it down mid as much as possible, die as many times in an unchallenged environment as the game will physically allow.

Now, remember this was a control test: with other players, TP/Ghost, mobis, and movement speed abilities, you can certainly push it further than 30 deaths in 20 minutes. But my point overall in this callout is to determine that these extremes require effort. In short, this cutoff is not random - it's targeted effort into inting an entire 20 minute game as much as the game will allow. If someone manages 35 deaths in a 20 minute game, they are actively trying to feed, because during the control test, that's substantially past the maximum amount of deaths you can get in a controlled environment in 20 minutes.

It also had an additional purpose: highlighting that about 99% of what PB calls "inting feeders" cannot be proven to be inting off of poor KDA alone. Most times I see (or tbh, receive... xD) reports for inting, it all starts at about 10 deaths. Sure, that's a decent amount of dying for such a short period of time...but it's far from "inting as much as possible" and now everyone has a reference to see that.

rujitraJul 13, 20191 votes

When the system is very good at punishing people who do what you're suggesting already, how would a cutoff make any difference?

Players who run it down mid nonstop are punished easily after the game and very accurately so. It is the less obvious forms of intentionally feeding that are harder to punish, and a cutoff won't help with those things.

ChaosReynJul 13, 20193 votes

This is more academic than a petition to make a cutoff. Plus, as I'm sure you know, a lot of people on the PB boards need information like this as reference before they go making their posts about "REEEEE THIS 1/12 MID LANE INTED MY GAME!"

Now there's a number: It's take almost 3x as many deaths for you to definitely say through KDA on its own that the 1/12 mid laner was actually inting the whole game, instead of just getting royally fucking rekt.

Lastly, not to doubt you cause I'm sure you're right, but provide evidence of how good that system is at determining intentional feeders off just their death counts. If that's already public, I just wasted like 3 hours of everybody's time. xD

rujitraJul 13, 20192 votes

The system doesn't "just" use death counts and never will. It will evaluate all factors, including death count and locations to make a determination.

When someone is "running it down" (as the subject of this post is), it is easily punished based on the factors evaluated with the system.

Tecness0Jul 13, 20191 votes

{quoted}

The system doesn't "just" use death counts and never will. It will evaluate all factors, including death count and locations to make a determination.

When someone is "running it down" (as the subject of this post is), it is easily punished based on the factors evaluated with the system.

It does not. You're putting far too much stock in riot. If it did, the next part of your post would be true; it would be 'easily punished'. Which riot has said, many many many many times over many years now, almost a fucking decade, that it's not easy to punish anyone who is clearly inting, unless they specifically say they are inting in the chat.

Now to the OP, the answer is; it depends. Pre 15 minutes, death times are entirely based on level. Level 1 - 6 seconds, 2 - 8 seconds, 3- 10 seconds, etc. It also depends on the champion, different movement speeds, and the runes they are running. However, to put it all into perspective, at 15 minutes with Master Yi, with Celerity & boots start(So 386 MS), & Upgrading boots to CDR boots (407 MS) You can get 21 deaths if you get some form of luck and don't level past 4. As of 20 minutes, 27 deaths easy.

rujitraJul 13, 20191 votes

{quoted}

It does not. You're putting far too much stock in riot. If it did, the next part of your post would be true; it would be 'easily punished'. Which riot has said, many many many many times over many years now, almost a fucking decade, that it's not easy to punish anyone who is clearly inting, unless they specifically say they are inting in the chat.

Why don't you show me a post where they say clearly inting is hard to punish? They have repeatedly said "many many times" that it's hard to punish griefing because it's hard to distinguish griefing from legitimate play. But for obvious things like running down deaths, AFKjungling, 1v5ing repeatedly while your team is across map, and things like that, the automated system is pretty good at punishing those players.

ChaosReynJul 13, 20192 votes

That is true.

The point of this is to determine the extremes. In short, to determine exactly how extreme a person's death count has to be to be considered an active effort into feeding.

Or to put it better, If I were to hold a game hostage for 20 minutes (until the 4/1 surrender vote passes at 20m) with 35 deaths, but don't give my intentions away in chat, can you prove I'm inting just from that number alone?

Because THAT is the extreme that it would have to be at for Riot to definitively say from nothing but the number of deaths "that must be intentional." That's what I was asking, not "how do you determine intent?"

boss2131Jul 15, 20191 votes

By this logic someone who intentionally died to a tower to stop an enemy from killing him would be feeding because like you said they Intended to die.

GatekeeperTDSJul 15, 20191 votes

No...that would be an exception, because their intention is to deny gold to the enemy.

The EcdysiastJul 13, 20197 votes

So, here's an answer for you.

First, I wanted to get the fewest number of deaths possible while still running it directly down mid, so after checking up on base stats I settled on Tahm Kench, who has the highest possible survival time under turret level 1 if you use your E, buy a ruby crystal, and bring both armor Shards. With that:

It takes him 34s to get into turret range, It takes the 9s for the turret to kill him, And it takes 6s to respawn. However, for our purposes I'm going to use 10s because you'll be gaining at least a little experience from walking by the minions while they fight and there's no way to test exactly what level you'd get to without doing this with another person.

That's a total of 53 seconds between deaths. Over 20 minutes (1200s), that comes to 22 deaths (since we can't round up, we can only round down).

So, the minimum number of deaths you can get while running it down for twenty minutes is 22, with Tahm Kench "trying" to live.

Then, I found out the maximum number of deaths while running it down. Checking stats again, Elise was the fastest+weakest possible choice, and unlike Tahm I made no attempt to keep her alive, made sure NOT to bring the health or armor Shards, brought Celerity and bought boots at the start. With that:

It takes her only 27s to get into turret range, It takes only 4s for the turret to kill her And the same 10s for median respawn time.

That's a total of 41 seconds between deaths. Over 20 minutes, that comes to 29 deaths.

So, the maximum number of deaths you can get while running it down for twenty minutes is 29, with Elise making no attempt to survive.

Conclusion: The maximum number of deaths you can get within 20 minutes while running it down mid is somewhere between 22 and 29, depending on your champion.

ChaosReynJul 13, 20191 votes

I'll round that to 30, even though I shouldn't round it up, because I want to give everything a little more gap while I even it all off. I thank you for your science, sir.

Meaning, if you've died more than 30 times in 20 minutes, you are more than likely running it down. Its not definitive proof, but considering in a game with no resistance, the maximum amount of deaths you can reach is about 30, then in a game where you've died 35 times in 20 minutes, you've been putting effort into dying often. Add in that this is pretty much only achievable with TP/Ghost/Movespeed abilities and active enemy champions that are hitting you along the route...I think you see the point. :P

Considering most people are saying "if you die more than 15 times in 20 minutes, you're inting" I'd have to use these numbers to disagree. 15 is still well within the range of "fuck me I'm bad" instead of "fuck you all, I'm running it down." This was pretty much the true goal of my question - if someone is hard inting from the very start of the game, then these numbers are what it looks like. Not "my mid laner's 1/12 report for int"

Sure, if he was inting that's fine...but the numbers you helped provide are the extremities Riot will need to see to definitively say from KDA alone "yep, that guy was hard inting for 20 minutes" and that settles that.

The EcdysiastJul 13, 20191 votes

Well, you can't use 30 because 29 is literally the worst case scenario, with the fastest champion doing everything in her power to die as quickly as possible. Every single other champion will fall somewhere between 22 and 29.

And that's only running it down mid. It takes a little longer to get to top or bot's outer turret. So I'd say a safe bet would be 19 deaths. Even on Tahm in the best-case running it down scenario, that'd be only 3.2 minutes spent not either dying or getting in position to die. On anyone else, it's even less time.

ChaosReynJul 13, 20192 votes

Fair point. For the sake of the control test, 29 is a good worst case. But that's pretty much what I want: a worst case control test that says "there's no possible way you can die more than this, even in a game without these controls, without a solid amount of effort" which is why I felt more comfortable giving it a +1 than finding an average. PvP games with an intentional feeder who was planning it from the start will push past that worst case number by using TP/Ghost, Mobi Boots, and anything in their power to get there and feed harder. I needed something to balance that most extreme scenario against, as proof of concept, and proof of the amount of effort it would take.

Telephone BoothJul 22, 20191 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Ecdysiast,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=lnEuvOGE,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2019-07-13T17:58:20.741+0000)

So, here's an answer for you.

First, I wanted to get the fewest number of deaths possible while still running it directly down mid, so after checking up on base stats I settled on Tahm Kench, who has the highest possible survival time under turret level 1 if you use your E, buy a ruby crystal, and bring both armor Shards. With that:

It takes him 34s to get into turret range, It takes the 9s for the turret to kill him, And it takes 6s to respawn. However, for our purposes I'm going to use 10s because you'll be gaining at least a little experience from walking by the minions while they fight and there's no way to test exactly what level you'd get to without doing this with another person.

That's a total of 53 seconds between deaths. Over 20 minutes (1200s), that comes to 22 deaths (since we can't round up, we can only round down).

So, the minimum number of deaths you can get while running it down for twenty minutes is 22, with Tahm Kench "trying" to live.

Then, I found out the maximum number of deaths while running it down. Checking stats again, Elise was the fastest+weakest possible choice, and unlike Tahm I made no attempt to keep her alive, made sure NOT to bring the health or armor Shards, brought Celerity and bought boots at the start. With that:

It takes her only 27s to get into turret range, It takes only 4s for the turret to kill her And the same 10s for median respawn time.

That's a total of 41 seconds between deaths. Over 20 minutes, that comes to 29 deaths.

So, the maximum number of deaths you can get while running it down for twenty minutes is 29, with Elise making no attempt to survive.

Conclusion: The maximum number of deaths you can get within 20 minutes while running it down mid is somewhere between 22 and 29, depending on your champion.

Glad you did that, but shouldnt you keep using longer respawn times as the game goes on?

The EcdysiastJul 31, 20191 votes

The issue I ran into is that it isn't based on time, it's based on champion level. And without doing a bunch of live games running it down, I have no way of calculating how much passive experience you'd actually gain simply by being in proximity of dying minions. so I went with the median between levels 1 and 6.

Telephone BoothJul 31, 20191 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Ecdysiast,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=lnEuvOGE,comment-id=000500010000,timestamp=2019-07-31T23:16:50.870+0000)

The issue I ran into is that it isn't based on time, it's based on champion level. And without doing a bunch of live games running it down, I have no way of calculating how much passive experience you'd actually gain simply by being in proximity of dying minions. so I went with the median between levels 1 and 6.

Oh its based on champion level? Damn, i had no idea lol. Thanks for the info.

The EcdysiastJul 13, 20196 votes

So, I started writing a long comment about how the punishment system works in regard to inting and bad games, but then I realized what you're actually asking. And it's a little fucked up that people are downvoting you based on the same misunderstanding I just had.

I'll actually go into practice tool right now and try to find out what the maximum number of deaths from turrets is for you. Hope others realize that's what you're actually asking and undo their votes.

Imperial PandaaJul 13, 20191 votes

Take Nunu and Willamp. I think their W gives the most speed up. Tbh could be wrong and could be Hecarim E or Rammus Q.

Pika FoxJul 13, 20195 votes

There is no "min/max number of deaths". The question is whether or not someone is intentionally feeding, not whether or not they hit some arbitrary death threshold.

The EcdysiastJul 13, 20195 votes

[{quoted}](name=Pika Fox,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=lnEuvOGE,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-07-13T16:25:27.454+0000)

There is no "min/max number of deaths". The question is whether or not someone is intentionally feeding, not whether or not they hit some arbitrary death threshold.

No, no, no you actually misunderstood. I did, too, so don't worry.

But OP isn't saying there should be, he's literally asking what the maximum number of times you can die within 20 minutes is, so that we have a number to compare in suspected cases of inting.

GatekeeperTDSJul 13, 20194 votes

People are downvoting it because it's a poorly-worded rant where we can't easily discern what information he's after or what point he's trying to make. Sometimes less is more.

The EcdysiastJul 13, 20192 votes

{quoted}

People are downvoting it because it's a poorly-worded rant where we can't easily discern what information he's after or what point he's trying to make. Sometimes less is more.

It's pretty easy once you re-read it though.

Pika FoxJul 13, 20194 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Ecdysiast,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=lnEuvOGE,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-07-13T16:42:18.699+0000)

No, no, no you actually misunderstood. I did, too, so don't worry.

But OP isn't saying there should be, he's literally asking what the maximum number of times you can die within 20 minutes is, so that we have a number to compare in suspected cases of inting.

No, i understood. The point is its entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

If the max is X deaths, and you have someone who has died X deaths in the time limit, it does nothing to answer the question of "is this person inting?" Because inting has nothing to do with deaths over time.

The EcdysiastJul 13, 20194 votes

[{quoted}](name=Pika Fox,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=lnEuvOGE,comment-id=000100000001,timestamp=2019-07-13T16:49:45.798+0000)

No, i understood. The point is its entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

If the max is X deaths, and you have someone who has died X deaths in the time limit, it does nothing to answer the question of "is this person inting?" Because inting has nothing to do with deaths over time.

If it were really down to intent, then that'd be true. But that's not how the system works. Otherwise you could only for certain say someone's inting if they said it in chat.

Unfortunately, KDA is the best thing we have to go on. Of course, the MMR of the match, champion matchup, and other such factors are also important to adjust for. But barring having people go through and watch the replays, making a judgment based on their KDA for that matchup and skill level is the only option.

Pika FoxJul 13, 20193 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Ecdysiast,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=lnEuvOGE,comment-id=0001000000010000,timestamp=2019-07-13T17:04:48.723+0000)

If it were really down to intent, then that'd be true. But that's not how the system works. Otherwise you could only for certain say someone's inting if they said it in chat.

Unfortunately, KDA is the best thing we have to go on. Of course, the MMR of the match, champion matchup, and other such factors are also important to adjust for. But barring having people go through and watch the replays, making a judgment based on their KDA for that matchup and skill level is the only option.

KDA literally cannot be an option, only intent can be. Its INTENTIONALLY feeding, not dying a bunch. If you cannot prove intent, then you cannot ban. Simple as that.

The EcdysiastJul 13, 20192 votes

That's not how it works. That would be the ideal scenario, but it's not the case.

It's impossible to prove intent here. You can even say someone running it down simply didn't know that that would kill them. They would have the same outcome as someone who know it, but with none of the intent.

Pika FoxJul 13, 20193 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Ecdysiast,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=lnEuvOGE,comment-id=000100000001000000000000,timestamp=2019-07-13T18:01:05.086+0000)

That's not how it works. That would be the ideal scenario, but it's not the case.

It's impossible to prove intent here. You can even say someone running it down simply didn't know that that would kill them. They would have the same outcome as someone who know it, but with none of the intent.

Then, again, you cannot punish for it. Dying 50 times in a game is not against ToS. Dying is a natural part of the game, and so is being bad.

Riot is a company that makes money selling a product. Arbitrarily banning players would be illegal, not to mention business suicide.

The EcdysiastJul 13, 20193 votes

They can, they do, and they should.

If your score is indistinguishable from someone who's running it down, then you don't belong in the game.

Pika FoxJul 13, 20191 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Ecdysiast,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=lnEuvOGE,comment-id=00010000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-07-13T18:33:14.664+0000)

They can, they do, and they should.

If your score is indistinguishable from someone who's running it down, then you don't belong in the game.

They cant, they dont, and they should not.

An attempt to ban someone off of kda alone would end in immediate lawsuits and them failing as a business.

Youre going to ban me when i actively pay to keep the servers up and running and purchase mulriple products, all because i dared to play the game as it was meant to be played and had an off game? Or, heaven forbid, a new player dare play the game.

Yeah, not gunna go over well in court. Unless you have a clear, objective reason, youre not getting anywhere.

skyzer13Jul 14, 20194 votes

Read the ToS. In it you agree that Riot can ban or suspend your account fot ANY OR NO REASON and that any electronic products bought online are forfeited and no refunds are owed.

YOU don't uphold the servers. They do, and they can ban you for any or no reason and your best legal recourse is claiming you didn't violate the same ToS that allows them to ban you. The case would be dropped in a second, your internet law degree would be laughed at by Riot's team of lawyers.

Had to log in just to set the law straight, this kinda crap is cringe as hell. I agree it would be buisness suicide, but you completely discredited yourself by claiming an understanding of law through citing a ToS you havent even read.

Pika FoxJul 14, 20191 votes

{quoted}

Read the ToS. In it you agree that Riot can ban or suspend your account fot ANY OR NO REASON and that any electronic products bought online are forfeited and no refunds are owed.

YOU don't uphold the servers. They do, and they can ban you for any or no reason and your best legal recourse is claiming you didn't violate the same ToS that allows them to ban you. The case would be dropped in a second, your internet law degree would be laughed at by Riot's team of lawyers.

Had to log in just to set the law straight, this kinda crap is cringe as hell. I agree it would be buisness suicide, but you completely discredited yourself by claiming an understanding of law through citing a ToS you havent even read.

I hate to break it to you, but you cannot have your account terminated for no reason. Just because the ToS says it doesnt make it true.

If i write up a contract and accept money to repair someones steps, but the contract says i can rip it up and not do it no refunds whenever i want just cuz, that line isnt going to hold up in court.

MentalPopcornJul 14, 20191 votes

Laws apply different on the internet. They are not governed by a specific nations laws in most cases except with copyright and a couple other small areas. Most games that require you to accept a TOS state they reserve the right to ban you for any reason, and also reserve the right to not tell you why you were banned.

Essentially making it pretty hard to even start a lawsuit when you have no information on the ban in the first place. If you think you have protections on the internet you're sorely mistaken.

Even if you take a "no reason ban" to court, I'm sure just about everyone that's played this game has broken the TOS at least once in one game. Not even the nicest person ever could play league and not once break the rules. The ban times they also have like a 5 game chat ban for being toxic is at riots discretion as well. Meaning your first ban for being mildly toxic could be a perma ban if riot felt like it. Often you can't do anything about this. I've seen people have problems in smaller MMO's with petty GM's that hold grudges. The GM always won that fight. Don't act like you know your protections if you don't, you'll end up doing something stupid and getting yourself banned. I'm not saying this is what most companies would do or that it would help their business. But they can do it.

Pika FoxJul 14, 20191 votes

{quoted}

Laws apply different on the internet. They are not governed by a specific nations laws in most cases except with copyright and a couple other small areas. Most games that require you to accept a TOS state they reserve the right to ban you for any reason, and also reserve the right to not tell you why you were banned.

Essentially making it pretty hard to even start a lawsuit when you have no information on the ban in the first place. If you think you have protections on the internet you're sorely mistaken.

Even if you take a "no reason ban" to court, I'm sure just about everyone that's played this game has broken the TOS at least once in one game. Not even the nicest person ever could play league and not once break the rules. The ban times they also have like a 5 game chat ban for being toxic is at riots discretion as well. Meaning your first ban for being mildly toxic could be a perma ban if riot felt like it. Often you can't do anything about this. I've seen people have problems in smaller MMO's with petty GM's that hold grudges. The GM always won that fight. Don't act like you know your protections if you don't, you'll end up doing something stupid and getting yourself banned. I'm not saying this is what most companies would do or that it would help their business. But they can do it.

Riot operates in the UN, and UN laws require you to give a reason, and you can sue them for said reason (and has been done before). Even if you were banned for unauthorized 3rd party programs, they legally MUST tell you what program was detected, unless they can prove to the court they have reason to believe doing so would be harmful.

cranefishyJul 15, 20191 votes

Could you include both the binding resolution(s) the UN has passed regarding bans from online services as well as the supposed cases in which someone actually took a company to the ICJ over getting banned from an online service?

Pika FoxJul 15, 20191 votes

{quoted}

Could you include both the binding resolution(s) the UN has passed regarding bans from online services as well as the supposed cases in which someone actually took a company to the ICJ over getting banned from an online service?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/aktctr/more_information_on_arenanets_mistake_in_april/

Due to GDPR guidelines in the UN, a company must give you ALL data they have on you upon request. Its why riot had that automated support page that listed a bunch of data (that they removed for whatever reason and went back to doing so upon support ticket request).

This includes all information, including ban reason and exactly what was detected and how. And companies MUST comply.

As for getting banned for no reason, there hasnt been a case afaik, usually the lawsuit going forward with evidence against them and public knowledge of it tends to reverse decisions before an actual lawsuit breaks out. It would be a pretty easy loss for them anyway; you cant charge for a service then randomly revoke it. Companies put illegal shit in their ToS all the time; a ToS is just to discourage lawsuits.

MentalPopcornJul 14, 20192 votes

Kda absolutely has something to do with inting. If you die 30+ times in a 20 minute game, you would've had to be trying to int. You cant accidentally do that. It is LITERALLY impossible. You said it needs to be proved that their behavior was intentional. I'd say it being impossible to do it by accident or just being bad is proof enough

Pika FoxJul 14, 20191 votes

{quoted}

Kda absolutely has something to do with inting. If you die 30+ times in a 20 minute game, you would've had to be trying to int. You cant accidentally do that. It is LITERALLY impossible. You said it needs to be proved that their behavior was intentional. I'd say it being impossible to do it by accident or just being bad is proof enough

The only thing KDA has to do with inting is if you have not died its physically impossible for you to have inted.

You can die 30 times and not int, you can die once and int. KDA has nothing to do with it.

I have seen players die 40 times in 30 mins and not be inting, literally trying. Shit happens.

ChaosReynJul 14, 20192 votes

Honestly, I find that quite improbably hard to believe.

For someone to have died 40 times in 30 minutes, they would literally have been running immediately from base to their death faster than the 1.1 deaths per minute that this control test showed. Mind you, the control test again is showing a person putting active effort into feeding.

At about 1.3 deaths per minute, this person is by the numbers putting actual effort into dying at that point.

Maybe they weren't broadcasting that they were inting in a fit of spite and rage at their team, but if that isn't inting with those numbers, and simply trying to play the part that they're "just that bad" to get away with it, then I will gift this apparently-non-fictional person you're speaking of a legendary skin.

This is mathematics. Not rocket science. Not programming. Fuck, it's not even algebra. at this point, Ecdysiast did the algebra part for everyone. It's just basic division: number of deaths divided by game length in minutes = deaths per minute. 1.1 is the magic number of someone putting in effort to feed, without the use of items and summoners to supplement their efforts.

People below this number positively cannot be proven by the math as intentionally feeding, as they're mathematically proven to not be putting forth effort to feed. This doesn't mean they aren't inting, it means that mathematical equations and death counts are not enough evidence to conclusively prove that they're inting, and other factors are the only possible method to find conclusive evidence.

By that same token, people who run significantly over that number are using in-game factors to further supplement their feed, and are mathematically proven to be putting forth abnormal amounts of effort into feeding, because the only way to breach those numbers is with a conscious effort to raise your death count. The math Ecdysiast has given us is proving that there is in fact a death-to-time average in which someone must be feeding intentionally. Not even new players are capable of breaking 1.1 deaths/m without active effort.

Pika FoxJul 14, 20191 votes

{quoted}

Honestly, I find that quite improbably hard to believe.

For someone to have died 40 times in 30 minutes, they would literally have been running immediately from base to their death faster than the 1.1 deaths per minute that this control test showed. Mind you, the control test again is showing a person putting active effort into feeding.

At about 1.3 deaths per minute, this person is by the numbers putting actual effort into dying at that point.

Maybe they weren't broadcasting that they were inting in a fit of spite and rage at their team, but if that isn't inting with those numbers, and simply trying to play the part that they're "just that bad" to get away with it, then I will gift this apparently-non-fictional person you're speaking of a legendary skin.

This is mathematics. Not rocket science. Not programming. Fuck, it's not even algebra. at this point, Ecdysiast did the algebra part for everyone. It's just basic division: number of deaths divided by game length in minutes = deaths per minute. 1.1 is the magic number of someone putting in effort to feed, without the use of items and summoners to supplement their efforts.

People below this number positively cannot be proven by the math as intentionally feeding, as they're mathematically proven to not be putting forth effort to feed. This doesn't mean they aren't inting, it means that mathematical equations and death counts are not enough evidence to conclusively prove that they're inting, and other factors are the only possible method to find conclusive evidence.

By that same token, people who run significantly over that number are using in-game factors to further supplement their feed, and are mathematically proven to be putting forth abnormal amounts of effort into feeding, because the only way to breach those numbers is with a conscious effort to raise your death count. The math Ecdysiast has given us is proving that there is in fact a death-to-time average in which someone must be feeding intentionally. Not even new players are capable of breaking 1.1 deaths/m without active effort.

Put a new player in a game against a skilled player who has played for years, see what happens.

Place someone in bronze in a normal match against a diamond player. Or in ranked against a smurf. See how fast they get stomped.

Unless you literally AFK, youre literally just walking back to lane to die.

ChaosReynJul 14, 20192 votes

Challenge Accepted: Oh wait...challenge has been done. By many youtubers.

And still, not one of the bronzies had a KDA greater than these extreme levels. To be specific, I think about the only thing not done in recent seasons is 5 high levels vs 5 low levels. And for that, I'd need to get my computer working again, and actually set stuff up. I'm moving soon, so that's gonna be a minute. xD

zPOOPzJul 13, 20193 votes

That really depends on if we are allowed to camp the enemy base outside their fountain. I once played a CO-OP vs AI game where the 5 of us camped the bot base as soon as the game began and kill them as soon as they left the fountain for 15-20 minutes (not proud of it, we were all.... let's say not have full control of our faculties). I can't remember the number because it was long ago, but it's pretty high....