Boards›Concepts & Creations

LP Loss Due To afk, New Ranked Season Idea.

KingJayIII··3 votes·2,820 views

Zoe Hello everyone, just recently I played a ranked game that ended in a loss. This happened, because of numerous reason, me and teammates alike however, one reason that stood above all was our afk top lanner. So I thought about well dang this sucks I'm going to use Lp because of someone else negligence to want to play the game. So I thought about a simple compromise so that way others wont be as hurt when someone afks. The comprise is, how about the one person who decided to leave loose's Lp, because how is it fair to others who want to play the game with a handicap that was out of there control. I mean it can be easily applied along with the lever buster punishment, because at the end of the day the leaver buster goes directly to that one person, so why not the lose of Lp to that person as well, I'm sure it could be coded the same way. Also just like in the beginning of the game, when somone doesnt leave base after a certain time, the game goes into a remake. Why not apply that same concept, so when someone afks for a certain amount of time during game the game just ends and counts as a remake. I would think that since in the new season losses wont count against you why not make more remakes then if that even matters just an idea please get back when you can. Zoe

18 Comments

RiotBazerka4 votes

One question for you: How do you differentiate between players that were genuinely experiencing network issues (aka the AFK wasn't their fault) vs purposeful AFK's. As people we have an easier time distinguishing this, but computers aren't nearly as good at this. The leaver buster identification could work, but keep in mind Leaver Buster aggregates trends over time, which we have actually solved for (see Loss Prevention). The hard part is we don't want to punish people for problems that are out of their control, but we have no way to determine that.

Just some thoughts :). Good job on putting some critical thought in this!

Salvor Hardın2 votes

The problem of Rague-Quiters seems to me much more frequent than that of the "Trolls". It would be good if the detection system was better, for example if the system remembers if the game was closed manually or if it was playing Alt-F4, and that way punish severely. (Of course we will never tell our players that the system detects these 2 things) ;)

RiotBazerka4 votes

[{quoted}](name=Salvor Hardın,realm=NA,application-id=A8FQeEA8,discussion-id=p3gWgpZM,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2018-09-24T17:03:37.936+0000)

The problem of Rague-Quiters seems to me much more frequent than that of the "Trolls". It would be good if the detection system was better, for example if the system remembers if the game was closed manually or if it was playing Alt-F4, and that way punish severely. (Of course we will never tell our players that the system detects these 2 things) ;)

-slowly puts on tin foil hat- X)

DrCyanide1 votes

The hard part is we don't want to punish people for problems that are out of their control, but we have no way to determine that.

Could start with the obvious solution - don't punish people when they manage to fix a problem that was out of their control.

Right now there's zero reason for someone with a HDD to attempt to reconnect to a ranked game. By the time they reboot their computer and manage to reconnect they're marked as a Leaver, and will lose LP even if they help their team win. Them being gone from the game and having an up hill battle is bad enough, no need to say "Yeah, you should have just given up on that League match and gone to do something else instead of spending your time trying to win." Even if you think they don't deserve the LP gain because they might have rage quit, then give them +0 LP on a win, not -18 LP on a win.

The Iceborn1 votes

{quoted}

One question for you: How do you differentiate between players that were genuinely experiencing network issues (aka the AFK wasn't their fault) vs purposeful AFK's. As people we have an easier time distinguishing this, but computers aren't nearly as good at this. The leaver buster identification could work, but keep in mind Leaver Buster aggregates trends over time, which we have actually solved for (see Loss Prevention). The hard part is we don't want to punish people for problems that are out of their control, but we have no way to determine that.

Just some thoughts :). Good job on putting some critical thought in this!

You know Bazerka, that is not a question that you should be asking us, it is a question that you should be asking your colleagues ,,people, how do we fix this so players dont end up losing Lp because one person decided to not play".. Just saying :)

RiotBazerka4 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Iceborn,realm=EUNE,application-id=A8FQeEA8,discussion-id=p3gWgpZM,comment-id=00020002,timestamp=2018-09-24T18:01:53.528+0000)

You know Bazerka, that is not a question that you should be asking us, it is a question that you should be asking your colleagues ,,people, how do we fix this so players dont end up losing Lp because one person decided to not play".. Just saying :)

;) I'm asking rhetorically to show you the problem we face when thinking about this issue. An issue like this is rarely an "easy" solve. Thats all.

Wublerdude1 votes

{quoted}

;) I'm asking rhetorically to show you the problem we face when thinking about this issue. An issue like this is rarely an "easy" solve. Thats all.

why not give every player a once a month 5 minute pause for if they leave a game, because some people lose internet maybe once a month, and sometimes it comes back that quick, or a little longer, and most of the time, if it goes out, then comes on 5-10 minutes later, and they finish a game, they get a leaver anyway. or something to that effect

TheSingularity1 votes

Firstly: Make it so remakes require only one yes vote (there are no circumstances where one should continue past that time 4v5)

A common trend would be players who are doing well or are in a game for a prolonged period, who would likely be DC'ed

  1. Check kill feed of them (are they inting or destroying)
  2. kill feed of team mates (is someone else inting, eg did they RQ because of team mate)
  3. Check resources: drakes, turrets, gold, baron/herald. If they're drastically behind, so none vs all they may give up and leave. But in reverse there'd be no reason to leave.

To rage quit when ahead is unlikely unless the rest of their team is trying to throw. So if they randomly happen to DC, chances are they lost connection or had a real world incident that needed attention, which they generally take the time to explain. By then scanning the games chat logs as:

  1. A majority of AFK'ers announce that they're going to AFK
  2. They're generally badly behaved leading up to it
  3. Or their team harasses them until they've had enough

Could also open up a ticket appeal system, where if there's a power/internet outage and they can find record of it on company site, they can send in a ticket with said resource specifying the outage and game they dc'ed, and if it's compatible the penalty is removed and reset (so their next DC/afk doesn't punish them greater)

red panda z1 votes

Kinda on this topic, but if you think about real-world crime and crime prevention, there's no real way for us to actively prevent crime entirely. We can punish an offender and stop them from committing future crimes, but someone almost always will end up getting hurt first. It sucks to lose because of rage quitters, inters, and trolls in general because at times it can literally make you feel powerless. I don't think there's any perfect way of handling the situation, but here's an idea that admittedly has some flaws but might also proc some ideas.

I call it the "Mercy" system. When playing ranked, winning teams have the opportunity to award Mercy to individual players on the opposing team, kinda like when you could honor your opponent back in the day. If you have been offered Mercy by 3 or more opponents in the game, you're offered a loss forgiveness that you can only accept once every X amount of games (say 15-20 games?) If you've already accepted mercy in the last however amount of games, you don't get the loss prevention.

It's fairly obvious to both teams when someone's inting/trolling/or just left. Many times, people all chat to ask other players to report the inter/quitter anyway. You'd start seeing "Yas just bought all tears and is running down mid. Please report and mercy." Maybe some more conversation is added, but most people are pretty understanding anyway.

The system wants to make sure 3 people mercy you so it's not a fluke, or one person can't just go around mercying everyone left and right. The number could also go up to 4, but I think asking for 5 might be too much since some people just leave immediately and don't stay in the post game chat. The fact that you also can only get the benefits of mercy every X amount of games also is there to prevent exploitation, as you really shouldn't encounter inters/trolls/and quitters that often. It would undoubtably happen still, but that just goes back to the lack of perfect crime prevention IRL issue.

I don't think it's perfect, but it might be worth bringing up in a meeting to maybe encourage some brain storming.

Puffin Chucker1 votes

Why does it make a difference why they leave in relation to their team losing LP? I understand that if their internet cuts out and the player gets banned or punished that is a huge pain and shouldn't really happen, but that is a different topic. Regardless of the reason they left, the rest of the players on their team shouldn't be punished with an LP loss. After all it is nearly impossible to win 4v5 against a competent enemy team.

JoeAnarchy1 votes

{quoted}

One question for you: How do you differentiate between players that were genuinely experiencing network issues (aka the AFK wasn't their fault) vs purposeful AFK's. As people we have an easier time distinguishing this, but computers aren't nearly as good at this. The leaver buster identification could work, but keep in mind Leaver Buster aggregates trends over time, which we have actually solved for (see Loss Prevention). The hard part is we don't want to punish people for problems that are out of their control, but we have no way to determine that.

Just some thoughts :). Good job on putting some critical thought in this!

why not make it so noone on your team loses LP if someone AFKs, besides the person AFKing? that way people aren't punished for trolls?

Oleandervine1 votes

Because this opens the door to rank farming. Your group goes against a team you don't like? One of you AFKs, that one person takes a hit, and BOOM, the game is now irrelevant. You just rinse and repeat this until you get put against teams where you'll win, and eventually all of you will earn back any LP you might have lost AFKing.

Hethalean1 votes

{quoted}

Because this opens the door to rank farming. Your group goes against a team you don't like? One of you AFKs, that one person takes a hit, and BOOM, the game is now irrelevant. You just rinse and repeat this until you get put against teams where you'll win, and eventually all of you will earn back any LP you might have lost AFKing.

Or worse, people thinking that they can abuse/pressure people in hopes of getting them to AFK in order to have them take the hit since 'they were playing bad'.

Unker1391 votes

Would you accept being in a winning game and 20 mins in it turns into a remake and you gain no lp?

David 7771 votes

What if the LP loss was toned down based on number of AFK teammates? Also, AFK people shouldn't really receive an extra LP penality, just make Leaver Buster penalities more strict with ranked games.

An AFK would be counted if:

  1. 50% of the match duration AFK
  2. Last 25% of the match AFK

LP loss would be reduced 20% + 10% per each additional AFK (up to 50% when someone is 1v5) Also 10% + 10% per each additional AFK bonus LP earn when winning team has AFKs ** Numbers might need to be adjusted **

Pika Fox1 votes

No. All this would result in is people flaming and bashing people until they leave so they dont lose LP. Even if they get hit by other punishment systems, this would still cause a drastic increase in toxicity.

Muxxik1 votes

As others have already stated here, the potential for abuse here is too high to allow this sort of system. If the solution to leavers was "Just count the game as a remake", the solution would have been fixed long ago.

The problem is if you do this, then people who make someone rage quit through good play suffer because they gain no LP. Even if you keep the LP gain for winning a remake game, there's still the problem of one person leaving an obviously losing game to save the other four from losing LP, especially if one of the other four is their duo partner.

ERY Loken1 votes

Why not impose a system similar to Overwatch when a player leaves? … if someone on your team "leaves" despite connection problems or not, then we should be given the option to quit with no change in LP position. The offending player loses LP

The obvious counter response to this is your opponents being progressed much faster. But the matchmaking algorithm should naturally respond to the event anyways.

I understand Riot's stance of "don't want to punish people for problems that are out of their control" but you're looking at it from the point from the player whose disconnected and not the remaining team members. The stance is looking at the punishment of that disconnected player, when it should be focussed on compensating those who have suffered from the intended/unintended actions of the disconnecting players.

I don't understand why Riot says its not an easy solution - other games have made it pretty straight forward

More from Concepts & Creations

A completely serious, totally legit question for Riot.
Concepts & Creations183 comments
2,280
votes
[Champion Concept] DhaMa, The Force of Balance
Concepts & Creations931 comments
1,424
votes
Elderwood Kindred
Concepts & Creations176 comments
1,062
votes
Bring Urgot's Nipple Back!
Concepts & Creations94 comments
985
votes
Petition To Have An Old Lady Champion
Concepts & Creations481 comments
947
votes
When Tahm Kench eats Lulu, he should say that it tasted purple!
Concepts & Creations109 comments
826
votes