Punishment for leaving a match and never returning should be harsh and automatic

Troxic·Dec 13, 2017·7 votes·651 views

Why should I lose LP when a player afks 10 minutes into the match and never returns? At the very least, the team shouldnt lose LP for losing. Don't tell me it will be abused, that is fucking nonsense.

Who is going to make an account just to bail on matches for the sake of 4 random people, and then get their own account suspended?

I shouldn't lose LP, no one should, when a teammate leaves the match and never returns.

22 Comments

KarunamonDec 13, 201710 votes

I agree with you on principle, but it can and will be abused if modified the way you describe.

Here's what's gonna happen - teams will have a sacrificial leaver. They'll give up a kill, the usual push to FF all the things starts, and one guy quits. The entire team dodges a deserved loss. (And this is sorta what happens with remake - you can't do it after there's been a death)

Matchmaking is already a bit ridiculous, but this would lead to insane rank inflation.

(crazy idea reposted to its own thread: https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/Hm8JQt0E-what-if-you-werent-up-a-creek-when-someone-left-your-ranked-match)

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 vote "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, 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 recognized that winning or losing a game when the teams are imbalanced should be recognized?

In short - you win and lose (team imbalance * 20%) more or less.

If one person leaves:

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?

They lose LP as they normally would for a loss.
Their MMR is not impacted. Again, deciding you don't want to play a game when you're short a person at a bad time should not be held against your skill rating. The loss of LP (and the threat of demotion) is the incentive to not bail out of games frivolously or have sacrificial leavers, and the result shouldn't be held against your skill. Bailing out when you're down a guy means that your next game should be of equal difficulty, because in a way, you got screwed.

ChermorgDec 13, 20172 votes

Please go put this in a thread so I can upvote it even more.

Only change I'd make is 3 mins is a little short for me to end a game early on. I'd say maybe 5, or some number based on the average load time from client -> being able to move/act in game.

HalcyonDwellerDec 13, 20171 votes

I concur! this idea kicks ass :D

KarunamonDec 13, 20171 votes

Done! Thread posted. Would love more feedback on this :D

HalcyonDwellerDec 13, 20171 votes

Looks like they posted it :D

https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/Hm8JQt0E-what-if-you-werent-up-a-creek-when-someone-left-your-ranked-match

ISOzHellDec 13, 20171 votes

{quoted}

I agree with you on principle, but it can and will be abused if modified the way you describe.

Here's what's gonna happen - teams will have a sacrificial leaver. They'll give up a kill, the usual push to FF all the things starts, and one guy quits. The entire team dodges a deserved loss. (And this is sorta what happens with remake - you can't do it after there's been a death)

Matchmaking is already a bit ridiculous, but this would lead to insane rank inflation.

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 vote "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, 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 recognized that winning or losing a game when the teams are imbalanced should be recognized?

In short - you win and lose (team imbalance * 20%) more or less.

If one person leaves:

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?

They lose LP as they normally would for a loss.

Their MMR is not impacted. Again, deciding you don't want to play a game when you're short a person at a bad time should not be held against your skill rating. The loss of LP (and the threat of demotion) is the incentive to not bail out of games frivolously or have sacrificial leavers, and the result shouldn't be held against your skill. Bailing out when you're down a guy means that your next game should be of equal difficulty, because in a way, you got screwed.

Yes please make a thread for this. I like this idea.

HalcyonDwellerDec 13, 20172 votes

Looks like they posted it :D

https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/Hm8JQt0E-what-if-you-werent-up-a-creek-when-someone-left-your-ranked-match

ValyrianBladeDec 13, 20173 votes

{quoted}

I agree with you on principle, but it can and will be abused if modified the way you describe.

Here's what's gonna happen - teams will have a sacrificial leaver. They'll give up a kill, the usual push to FF all the things starts, and one guy quits. The entire team dodges a deserved loss. (And this is sorta what happens with remake - you can't do it after there's been a death)

Matchmaking is already a bit ridiculous, but this would lead to insane rank inflation.

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 vote "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, 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 recognized that winning or losing a game when the teams are imbalanced should be recognized?

In short - you win and lose (team imbalance * 20%) more or less.

If one person leaves:

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?

They lose LP as they normally would for a loss.

Their MMR is not impacted. Again, deciding you don't want to play a game when you're short a person at a bad time should not be held against your skill rating. The loss of LP (and the threat of demotion) is the incentive to not bail out of games frivolously or have sacrificial leavers, and the result shouldn't be held against your skill. Bailing out when you're down a guy means that your next game should be of equal difficulty, because in a way, you got screwed.

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?

Imperial PandaaDec 13, 20171 votes

I agree with this one. While I like the general idea proposed, there are more factors to consider.

How would they determine a rage quit from an extreme circumstance d/c?

What about that person he disconnects right before the end of the game?

It is a solid idea, but I agree there is more to figure out.

HalcyonDwellerDec 13, 20171 votes

Should edit your original comment to include the link to the post for it, people keep asking for you to post it XD

TroxicDec 14, 20171 votes

Um, so why would someone want to be the sacrificial leaver? WHAT benefit is there for him? I addressed this in my post. It defies reason that for the good for 4 random people, someone will decide to leave the game to prevent the rest of them from losing LP, even though him AFKing will result in a lose of LP and possibly bans.

Duchess KatarinaDec 13, 20173 votes

The reason why there is a bit more leniency for leaving is that sometimes things happen during a game that are out of a player's control. Like real life emergencies or the internet going out.

People who consistently leave games are punished though.

Jo0oDec 13, 20172 votes

And welcome to the hell of having four people try to bully you into AFKing every time you give up first blood.

Look, I sympathize. We've all had AFKers ruin games for us. But in practice, how can you differentiate between a rage-quit or a troll vs. somebody with an unforeseeable internet problem or an emergency? The leaverbuster system punishes folks who make a habit of leaving games already. I'm sure Riot's working to improve the system, but I don't think a sweeping shift in priorities for it accomplishes what you want it to accomplish.

ChermorgDec 13, 20172 votes

So who will lose the LP that you would've lost? Are you recommending that one player be penalized an entire division simply because they had to leave because of some emergency?

You can't honestly say you've never left or AFKed a game. Nobody can.

wei270Dec 14, 20171 votes

{quoted}

So who will lose the LP that you would've lost? Are you recommending that one player be penalized an entire division simply because they had to leave because of some emergency?

You can't honestly say you've never left or AFKed a game. Nobody can.

you know just taking 10% reduction in lp or more importantly mmr lost of everyone on the team and put it on the afker would help ALOT

RookPusherDec 13, 20171 votes

Really? I'd rather they never come back than that gem of an Olaf I had last night who got caught by leave buster (after feeding) but somehow managed to still btich about me in the post-game lobby.

Edit: I once went to grab a drink before a dungeon in WoW (BFD) and stepped on a pair of scissors. Went right through my foot. Parents dragged me to the ER and when I got back on people were like "Well well well"

It's not always possible to be there.

Dokueki KenshinDec 13, 20171 votes

I do agree that if a teammate DCs, the team they were on should be shielded from LP loss.

As a side note, if a person who has been playing well/not trying DCs, don’t crucify them without evidence. As an example, I was trying to get into a bot game yesterday, but when my client bugged out and I tried to reload, it apparently conflicted with my Windows Updates running in the background and forced a hard shutdown. I then sat there for 15 minutes waiting for Windows Update to get its crap together when I powered it back up.

Most people deserve the report, but it’s just a thought.

ISOzHellDec 13, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Why should I lose LP when a player afks 10 minutes into the match and never returns? At the very least, the team shouldnt lose LP for losing. Don't tell me it will be abused, that is fucking nonsense.

Who is going to make an account just to bail on matches for the sake of 4 random people, and then get their own account suspended?

I shouldn't lose LP, no one should, when a teammate leaves the match and never returns.

Should be a perma ban.

xPhantomDancerXDec 14, 20171 votes

Why does everyone quote a 50 page essay?

KVbqbFsC8eDec 14, 20171 votes

Why should people lose LP when their botlane goes 0/20? Teammates feeding causes you to unfairly lose LP just as AFKing teammates do. Riot should never implement LP loss prevention for one if they won't with the other.