Leaverbuster

KimiLowPoy·Dec 6, 2017·3 votes·492 views

Ok so when you get leaverbuster its 5 games 20 minute wait before finding match. So in case you are waiting like 19 minutes and you have minute left and something happens its can be accidental click on stop waiting or something else... You come back to play and instead of waiting 1 minutes you wait 20 minutes. I know its punishent for leaving game which is the worst of the worst, but think about it you could ran out of internet or electricity or even crash leaverbuster doesnt care. Atleast make it less punishment for those who get fu**** by internet or electricity running out. Soooo yeah...... Thanks for nerf on Malzahar ;)

28 Comments

DragfinDec 6, 20173 votes

{quoted}

Ok so when you get leaverbuster its 5 games 20 minute wait before finding match. So in case you are waiting like 19 minutes and you have minute left and something happens its can be accidental click on stop waiting or something else... You come back to play and instead of waiting 1 minutes you wait 20 minutes. I know its punishent for leaving game which is the worst of the worst, but think about it you could ran out of internet or electricity or even crash leaverbuster doesnt care. Atleast make it less punishment for those who get fu**** by internet or electricity running out. Soooo yeah...... Thanks for nerf on Malzahar ;)

Or... Or... You can stop leaving games.

The more problems you people who habitually leave games have getting into a game the more I smile when I see these posts because eventually RIOT should ban your account but won't.

HalcyonDwellerDec 6, 20171 votes

hey now, I agree that people should be punished, but I think it is a fair concern to ask for a QoL tweak to the punishment in order to not make it unfairly re-punish player who have already served 95% of their punishment.

Magical PlayerDec 6, 20171 votes

Nope if your missing the point If your punished it’s all or nothing It’s why when some one else dodges you don’t sit through the queue again But since it’s your inability to accept the queue, your still at fault

Leaverbister sucks but sucks but it works You’re annoyed by the system meaning your less likely to be a repeat offender

HalcyonDwellerDec 6, 20171 votes

Arguably if the person did serve the majority of their queue punishment and then had a power outage then it would be fair to not re-start their timer. How and whether or not it is detectable is a different question entirely, but certainly one worth exploring.

I haven't ever suffered from leaverbuster, at least not the 20-minute version. So please do not assume that I am biased about this.

Magical PlayerDec 6, 20171 votes

Replace you with anyone My bad, I’m typing from the phone Still the point stands it’s an all or nothing punishment If they’re having technical difficulties that’s on them and it should be enough of a reason to figure out their issues Playing in a lighting storm probably a bad idea if you’ve lost power twice already

HalcyonDwellerDec 6, 20171 votes

Absolutely fair points. However not all cases are as extreme as somebody who plays repeatedly in a lightning storm. I know that is an accurate and convenient example, but I believe that not everybody who gets leaverbuster is that irresponsible.

Magical PlayerDec 6, 20171 votes

If they’re having technical difficulties that’s on them not riot They need to fix their set up

HalcyonDwellerDec 6, 20171 votes

I thought that I was referring to players who are not of that group, but who were punished. Was I unclear somehow?

Magical PlayerDec 6, 20171 votes

So who are we referring to those who are afking during their punishment and forget to hit accept ?

HalcyonDwellerDec 6, 20171 votes

No I am not referring to people who forget to hit accept, doing that should still result in a penalty of some form.

I am referring to people who left or exited in the middle of their 20 minute penalty. And I'm not proposing a 1 to 1 ratio with a save point in the timer, I'm more proposing something that lets them return to the timer 5 or 10 minutes before the time that they left it at.

This makes sure that there is some form of discouragement if they try to intentionally split their penalty, but they are not forced to take the entire penalty over again if an outside factor forces them to stop and leave the queue.

Magical PlayerDec 6, 20171 votes

Why would they leave? The punishment is punishing them exactly for that reason.... Chermogs comment seems to be what your talking about I’ll refer you to his.

DragfinDec 6, 20171 votes

{quoted}

hey now, I agree that people should be punished, but I think it is a fair concern to ask for a QoL tweak to the punishment in order to not make it unfairly re-punish player who have already served 95% of their punishment.

Stop leaving games and it don't matter, it's that simple. They don't or rarely ban account for habitual AFKing so this is just icing on the cake when this happens. The person who got LPQ deserves alot more than waiting for 20 minutes.

HalcyonDwellerDec 6, 20171 votes

I am all for saying, "Shame on people for being bad they should feel bad and they deserve bad."

But there is a point where we could be over-punishing them. Cutting off a hand for shoplifting, or torturing for mis-speaking. Just some examples.

DragfinDec 6, 20171 votes

{quoted}

I am all for saying, "Shame on people for being bad they should feel bad and they deserve bad."

But there is a point where we could be over-punishing them. Cutting off a hand for shoplifting, or torturing for mis-speaking. Just some examples.

You can never over-punish someone who habitually leaves games. IMO they are the most toxic thing in league yet are slapped on the wrist time and time again. They leave their team at a severe disadvantage and you can't mute them.

HalcyonDwellerDec 6, 20171 votes

Simply being an effective deterrent is not a good enough reason to use over-punishment on lighter crimes.

If the government took away drivers' licenses for the act of not using a turn signal while turning or changing lanes, it would certainly deter people from doing it, but it is not right or just to punish it so severely, especially if lighter punishments or fines are already sufficient enough to drive the lesson home.

DragfinDec 7, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Simply being an effective deterrent is not a good enough reason to use over-punishment on lighter crimes.

If the government took away drivers' licenses for the act of not using a turn signal while turning or changing lanes, it would certainly deter people from doing it, but it is not right or just to punish it so severely, especially if lighter punishments or fines are already sufficient enough to drive the lesson home.

Please look up the word habitual. Understand what it means. Then understand that is what I am talking about. Repeated offenders need to be punished severely. No question about it. The offense can no longer be considered a lighter crime if they keep doing it.

Just an FYI but you can be ticketed for not using a turn signal. I guarantee you if you keep doing it and getting caught, the government will eventually take your license away.

HalcyonDwellerDec 7, 20171 votes

Thanks for patronizing me, now I can finally see that this discussion with you is not worth my effort or time.

DragfinDec 7, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Thanks for patronizing me, now I can finally see that this discussion with you is not worth my effort or time.

It really wasn't. People who continue to break the same rule over and over again should not continue to get a light punishment. It's mere common sense.

I could never understand why you would continue to argue about that. It's make no sense.

HalcyonDwellerDec 7, 20171 votes

If you had read my comments more carefully you might have seen that I wasn't arguing for just lightening the punishment.

I even suggested a way to make it ineffective, and punish them for attempting to split their time. So if they tried to game the system they would just have a worse situation and a longer wait, but if they genuinely have something come up where they have to leave queue it doesn't completely shit on them with a whole timer the next time they queue up.

Leaving queue before being matched with a party does nothing to impact other players. As such they aren't actually committing the same crime. I was arguing for implementing a way that does not overpunish in specific instances where players leave queue because they genuinely need to go.

Edit, here:

{quoted}

No I am not referring to people who forget to hit accept, doing that should still result in a penalty of some form.

I am referring to people who left or exited in the middle of their 20 minute penalty. And I'm not proposing a 1 to 1 ratio with a save point in the timer, I'm more proposing something that lets them return to the timer 5 or 10 minutes before the time that they left it at.

This makes sure that there is some form of discouragement if they try to intentionally split their penalty, but they are not forced to take the entire penalty over again if an outside factor forces them to stop and leave the queue.

DragfinDec 7, 20171 votes

{quoted}

If you had read my comments more carefully you might have seen that I wasn't arguing for just lightening the punishment.

I even suggested a way to make it ineffective, and punish them for attempting to split their time. So if they tried to game the system they would just have a worse situation and a longer wait, but if they genuinely have something come up where they have to leave queue it doesn't completely shit on them with a whole timer the next time they queue up.

Leaving queue before being matched with a party does nothing to impact other players. As such they aren't actually committing the same crime. I was arguing for implementing a way that does not overpunish in specific instances where players leave queue because they genuinely need to go.

Edit, here:

I think Chermog answered your question as to why so I will not continue to argue with you.

If a player gets LPQ then they deserve five 20 MINUTE QUES, not multiple timed ques. I don't care if they served 19:59 of the que. PERIOD.

They need to be banned eventually.

HalcyonDwellerDec 7, 20171 votes

Yes he did. He didn't hammer me over the head repeatedly with an argument that clearly wasn't working.

He tried to explain it in terms of why it's not practical, instead of simply stating that bad people are bad and should be punished.

Maybe next time your argument isn't working to convince somebody you should switch tactics like Chermorg did. Insisting the same thing just more emphatically doesn't really foster understanding or positive interaction.

INB4 you call me a hypocrite for that statement, look at my comments again. I switched tactics multiple times.

DragfinDec 7, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Yes he did. He didn't hammer me over the head repeatedly with an argument that clearly wasn't working.

He tried to explain it in terms of why it's not practical, instead of simply stating that bad people are bad and should be punished.

Maybe next time your argument isn't working to convince somebody you should switch tactics like Chermorg did. Insisting the same thing just more emphatically doesn't really foster understanding or positive interaction.

INB4 you call me a hypocrite for that statement, look at my comments again. I switched tactics multiple times.

I didn't either. You kept arguing a point that failed every which you way you put it. You lost the last argument we had because of that and you lost this one for the same reason. You have very thin skin and consider yourself right in every way. Hard headedness like that needs to be treated in a very hardheaded way, IMO. I am sorry I hurt your feelings again but maybe you should think twice about posting some of the things you post if you also need to pick and choose the way your ideas get criticized.

HalcyonDwellerDec 7, 20171 votes

{quoted}

I didn't either.

You did though, the only thing you ever expressed to me was that "people should be punished for doing bad things," you never recognized or understood that I was not suggesting we remove punishment for those wrongs. You simply assumed that I meant we shouldn't punish people so harshly for leaving games. You never understood or recognized that I was talking about reducing the likelihood of punishing people in instances where it might be unfair.

You kept arguing a point that failed every which you way you put it.

I explained my idea in numerous ways. It's not my fault you assumed wrong and thus failed to understand what I was actually talking about.

You lost the last argument we had because of that and you lost this one for the same reason. You have very thin skin and consider yourself right in every way.

I am not stubborn because of thinking I am right in every way. I am stubborn because I have seen nothing from you to indicate that you understand what I am talking about. Every time I try to explain it differently you ignored it in favor of repeating the claim that "bad people are bad and should be punished." You assumed wrong about what my point was and you just kept arguing against the assumed point instead of the actual one.

Hard headedness like that needs to be treated in a very hardheaded way, IMO. I am sorry I hurt your feelings again but maybe you should think twice about posting some of the things you post if you also need to pick and choose the way your ideas get criticized.

I'm not picking and choosing how my ideas are criticized. I'm pointing out that you never understood my idea in the first place. If you had understood it, your responses would not have been so redundant and dismissive.

DragfinDec 7, 20171 votes

{quoted}

You did though, the only think you ever expressed to me was that "people should be punished for doing bad things," you never recognized or understood that I was not suggesting we remove punishment for those wrongs. You simply assumed that I meant we shouldn't punish people so harshly for leaving games. You never understood or recognized that I was talking about reducing the likelihood of punishing people in instances where it might be unfair.

I explained my idea in numerous ways. It's not my fault you assumed wrong and thus failed to understand what I was actually talking about.

I am not stubborn because of thinking I am right in every way. I am stubborn because I have seen nothing from you to indicate that you understand what I am talking about. Every time I try to explain it differently you ignored it in favor of repeating the claim that "bad people are bad and should be punished." You assumed wrong about what my point was and you just kept arguing against the assumed point instead of the actual one.

I'm not picking and choosing how my ideas are criticized. I'm pointing out that you never understood my idea in the first place. If you had understood it, your responses would not have been so redundant and dismissive.

I truly feel sorry for you.

ChermorgDec 6, 20173 votes

I do not see any benefit in allowing someone to "split" their punishment up over multiple queues. The punishment is designed to be a huge stop sign in your face when you try to queue - if you do 19 minutes of it while working on an assignment, decide to cancel to keep working on it, and then you come back later ready to play and only have to serve 1 minute, then it's not as good a punishment. The point is you have to complete 5 games with a 20 minute low priority - not 100 minutes of "time".

HalcyonDwellerDec 7, 20171 votes

What would you think of it if instead of splitting their time they were given +5 or +10 minutes to their wait timer at the time they left it at. For example if somebody left at minute 19, they would have to wait 6 or 11 minutes before playing again?

They were still forced to wait instead of play the first time and if they come back to playing they are still penalized for splitting their time, but less than having to completely redo it if something truly urgent came up?

ChermorgDec 7, 20172 votes

Well, to be completely honest I doubt that urgent things are coming up more than once within 10 games - if they are, then someone's either extremely unlucky or they're having long term connection issues they should fix. I think the amount of cases where someone gets drastically unlucky and has to legitimately leave a LPQ are too few and far between to justify this type of system as it would slightly decrease the efficacy of the punishment.

I think the fact people complain about it is usually a good sign that it's having the desired affect.

HalcyonDwellerDec 7, 20171 votes

Alright, I see your points. Thank you for taking the time to post thoughtful counterarguments instead of doing what others did in this thread.

More from Player Behavior

The indefinite banning of Tyler1

Player BehaviorApr 30, 20164,799 comments

2,942

votes

14 day ban because playing Nunu Support with Smite is "stealing other people's roles"...?

Leaverbuster

28 Comments

More from Player Behavior

More by KimiLowPoy