For the love of god, LOSS FORGIVEN WHEN SOMEONE DC'S FOR 10 MINS+?

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

11-05-2012

Wolvenlight, your most recent post literally added nothing to the conversation.

LeaverBuster is an automated system that automatically deals with Leavers/AFK/Idle/DC.

Riot specifically made this an automated system not handled by the Tribunal because Riot knows that's absolutely impossible to determine what's behind the reason the player left. What is there for the Tribunal to judge?

If you want to say "Oh, well if he's only leaving every so often, then he doesn't go to the tribunal," well, LeaveBuster already does this. It only issues warnings/punishments if the player has a certain leave rate.

And if the player is leaving often enough to show up in the Tribunal, what's wrong with LeaveBuster just handling it the way it already handles it? You'd rather send it to the Tribunal and give players a chance to grant that player some leniency? Why? Because some players somehow determined he had good cause for leaving?

Well I've got news for you, if you've left 100% of your games, I don't care WHAT your excuse is, you need to be punished and dealt with.

And LeaveBuster ALREADY HANDLES THIS.

For this discussion to be advanced, you've got to explain to me how the Tribunal handling the issue rather than LeaveBuster would make the situation any better.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

11-05-2012

Oh, and to your point 2, there's really no point in furthering the debate about the harassment issue I've pointed out. I've not pointed this issue out because I thought it up. It's something that Riot has cited numerous times as for the reason they haven't done something about leavers.

Whether it's replacing the player with a bot, or a loss forgiven, RIOT has said that these are unacceptable solutions because it gives teammates an incentive to harass whoever they perceive to be a bad player.

And it's not about whether or not the harassment would make them leave. It's about the fact that the remaining players are rewarded for that player leaving, so it would cause HARASSMENT. The Tribunal exists in order to punish harassment, so there's no way Riot would go back and implement some other feature that encourages more harassment.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

11-05-2012

To your alternative solutions:

1b) I have ZERO problem with allowing teams with a leaver to have an early surrender vote. I think the minimum surrender time should be reduced by 5 minutes per leaver (so you can surrender at 15 if you have one disconnect, 10 if you have 2, etc).

3) Riot won't implement this. I know, because they have the 30 minute dodge penalty for a reason. They don't want matches being disbanded just because people don't like the team compositions. Riot wants the winner/loser to be played out on the fields of justice. It's not a rock-paper-scissors game where the winner is determined at champ select. You suggestion here gives players to disband a game because they didn't get the supposed better team comp.



1a & 2) The problem with this is that you're still rewarding the enemy team with Elo gain when they win a match just because the enemy team has an AFK. If I'm allowed to gain Elo when an enemy disconnects, I should be punished with negative Elo if a teammate disconnects, espcially when you consider an enemy player will disconnect about 20% more often then a teammate if I never disconnect from my games.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Joe Krake

Senior Member

11-05-2012

Dota has had this for a while and there has never been a problem with it.

If someone on my team quits for whatever reason and we're in an unfair advantage why on earth should I have to endure a 20+ minute match that we're more than likely going to lose (though thats not always the case)

I really wish ELo would disappear. People just want to see their numbers go up and because of these we're arguing about implementing an easy to use and work system.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Wolvenlight

Member

11-06-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by PogoPogoPogoPogo View Post
Wolvenlight, your most recent post literally added nothing to the conversation.

LeaverBuster is an automated system that automatically deals with Leavers/AFK/Idle/DC.

Riot specifically made this an automated system not handled by the Tribunal because Riot knows that's absolutely impossible to determine what's behind the reason the player left. What is there for the Tribunal to judge?

If you want to say "Oh, well if he's only leaving every so often, then he doesn't go to the tribunal," well, LeaveBuster already does this. It only issues warnings/punishments if the player has a certain leave rate.

And if the player is leaving often enough to show up in the Tribunal, what's wrong with LeaveBuster just handling it the way it already handles it? You'd rather send it to the Tribunal and give players a chance to grant that player some leniency? Why? Because some players somehow determined he had good cause for leaving?

Well I've got news for you, if you've left 100% of your games, I don't care WHAT your excuse is, you need to be punished and dealt with.

And LeaveBuster ALREADY HANDLES THIS.

For this discussion to be advanced, you've got to explain to me how the Tribunal handling the issue rather than LeaveBuster would make the situation any better.
Again, the issue isn't punishment, it's NOT punishing those left behind in a losing 20 minute long game.

For me to explain why this proposed system is any different, as you claim it is not, involves in depth analysis into numbers, in game trends and keywords within the chat system, when punishments take place for leaves, when and where to incorporate loss forgiveness, and pointing out that any system CAN NEVER be perfect, but reform is necessary because Leavebuster doesn't handle a specific problem, and therefore needs addressing. (Not to mention that a harsher system without a leaver/DC discrepancy was shot down for being too harsh in the first place.)

And from what I can remember, these claims that Riot can't change the system without harassment being a consequence are well founded, but brought up before the in game ignore system was tightened up into something more easily workable for players. Work with it even more and it'll become less of a problem. Not to mention other games have systems like this proposed one (in particular DOTA, according to a post in this topic,) and harassment hasn't been a noticeable issue.

It really all depends on what you're willing to sacrifice and for who. Who's skin is thicker, if you will.

BUT, since I've said even I don't think this system is the best, gave my opinion of what system would be better, and just plain for the sake of moving on, (The U.S. elections have me rather mentally exhausted when it comes to debate,) let me address 1a.)

We could do a number of things about ELO gain, (which I've already stated is an inevitability that already occurs within the current game system anyway.) One thing is just don't give the "winning" side ELO for a -5 minute game. If you think that's unfair, lower the time to -2 minutes, before minions spawn. Another is just give them less, a token amount if you will. The last is do away with this part of the system entirely and go with 1b, maybe adding in the time per leaver idea you suggested because it seems like a decent one.

And if you believe people will make mistakes/troll, die, and DC before the time limit, make so if there IS a death, -5 minute marker doesn't count and people can still surrender but lose and gain ELO respectively.

Hell, if you want to combat ELO inflation, have a leaver lose twice/thrice the ELO for dying and leaving, and the rest lose the normal amount in the event of an early surrender.

(Note, I didn't actually think on that last part that much, and think it's rather contrite. I'm just moving on to a different forum for now.)


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Wolvenlight

Member

11-06-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Krake View Post
Dota has had this for a while and there has never been a problem with it.

If someone on my team quits for whatever reason and we're in an unfair advantage why on earth should I have to endure a 20+ minute match that we're more than likely going to lose (though thats not always the case)

I really wish ELo would disappear. People just want to see their numbers go up and because of these we're arguing about implementing an easy to use and work system.
Real quickly, on your last sentence.

I kind of agree. Sure, there are people who want to see where they lie in a Ranked setting, but in my opinion, ELO shouldn't be the number people are concerned about. Win loss ratio/Win over loss should be that number. ELO should just be meant as a matchmaking tool.

And players in higher ELO generally don't leave games anyway, and when they do it's not that big of a deal because they tend to have really good reasons for it.

In a perfect system, ELO would be determined by a number of in game circumstances, and not strictly by who the winners and losers were, but that's overly complicated discussion and any workable system is something I'm not going into it right now.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

11-07-2012

The problem with awarding the winning team Elo in a game in which you're exempting the losing team from the Elo loss isn't that in the long run EVERYONE has higher Elo resulting in Elo inflation. No, the problem is that YOU, on an individualistic level, have increased Elo directly proportional to the number of leavers you've seen.

If you and I are identical skill levels, but I've seen afk/dc/idle/etc in 1% of my game, and you've seen it in 10% of your games, you have higher Elo than me. Whether the extra 9% translates into games you would've lost but didn't lose Elo for, or games where an opponent afk/dc/idle from but still gained Elo for anyway.

Now, the problem is, when I talk about Elo hell or AFKs, and I say "the enemy team is 20% more likely to have one of these players," this assumes two things. First, you're not one of these players, and second, nothing about your behavior makes these types of players more likely to exist.

But in a system that exempts players from Elo loss in cases of a disconnect, you're encourage to behave in a way that would force one of your teammates to quit out if you feel the game is lost.

Riot has said far more recently than the most recent change to the mute/ignore system that they are not going to implement a feature that encourages harassment.

Additionally, Riot has said that the mute/ignore system does not suddenly make harassment okay. It's still against the summoner's code, it's still reportable, and it's still punishable by the Tribunal.

First and foremost, Riot wants players to have fun. Establishing a mechanic that encourages harassment takes them farther from this goal.



I'm not okay with leavers being punished with extra Elo loss. For one, there already is a punishment system in place that deals with leavers perfectly well, and it's called LeaverBuster. For two, this is punishing players who leave for legitimate, unpredicted reasons (either real world emergency or an internet connections failure).

Now, the problem here is that if I'm losing extra Elo, I have to play two, three, five, or however many you want to punish me with, and win them all, just to make up the one game I played where I may have even won, but I had to rush somewhere because of some sort of emergency.

Now, if I make a habit out of leaving games, LeaverBuster will handle me and issue a warning/ban. Even if all of my leaves are for legitimate reasons, if LeaverBuster is handling me, I'm having legitimate reasons too often to play League.

There's no real way to tell the difference between a legitimate leave and a rage quit. Unless I personally, explicitly said in the game chat log that I'm going to AFK and this is my reason why, then to assume my quit was a rage quit assumes way too much. Personally, I don't leave games for being raged at. I don't leave games when my team refuses to surrender obviously lost games.

BUT... if I were in the scenario where a normal person might rage quit and then the power at my house went off or something, your system would have me punished because it'd look at the chat logs and scoreboards and assume that my perfectly unintentional leave was a rage quit, so I get extra punishment.




EDIT: PLEASE for the sake of this thread, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE understand that the argument about encouraging harassment is RIOT'S point. No matter what point you make on the issue, the counter point is and always will be "Riot doesn't want a mechanic that encourages harassment." It doesn't matter if you think it's worked elsewhere, it doesn't matter what you say. It's not me saying "Well, that will encourage harassment" then you get the opportunity to prove to me that it won't encourage harassment. That it will encourage harassment is what Riot has given for the explicit reason why they won't issue things like this to deal with AFK/leave/dc/etc.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Wolvenlight

Member

11-07-2012

Okay, but with the current system, if I've seen 1% leavers in my games and you've seen 10% in yours, chances are my ELO will be much higher than yours. That is not an accurate depiction of skill, nor is it fair to players stuck in these games for half an hour, nor is it fun, and that is the underlying point to all of this.

Pogo, I like how you're passionate about this topic, and you debate well and are respectful here. However, it's gotten to the point where I think our points are being lost on each other, in part maybe because I've proposed multiple systems. I've stated and given alternatives, additions, and changes to a mediocre system that may deal with harassment, (Another one for the road: Let people who duck out of games make reports [while still being forced to rejoin the game and nothing else,] so if it's because of harassment, they can report harassment against the offenders,) elo inflation, loss forgiveness, building up on current ignore/mute/Tribunal systems, (of course it's not okay to harass even with the ignore system, which is why it's still reportable,) and other such things.

(No offense) I feel like all I'm getting in return is the same argument that doesn't take a lot of what I've said into consideration. The point about the winning team not getting ELO for short games, for example, which combats ELO inflation with other points I've made (Another one for the road; Early surrender system addition: Surrender any time in the case of a leaver, and it will still give ELO loss/gain for everyone, but at a very decreased but even ratio, which will punish players less and award players less for this circumstance. Include this on top of the earlier addition for leavers being able to report harassment if it occurs.) And the point about how the system as it is now already isn't perfect because it punishes players who already don't deserve punishment.

Don't get me wrong, I like that you're bring up points against these systems, for it allows me to think on their negative points and make changes accordingly. I'm just saying this topic has gone on for so long and so many different things have been brought up that we're both beginning to miss each others arguments. Or rather, which gear goes with which system.

And while I don't want to see harassment increase either; I hate to say it, (because I love them,) but Riot isn't right all the time. And part of me thinks they know that. They can come up with a system that works for everyone. Whether it builds on something suggested here or not is up for them to determine.

P.S. I was slightly offended by you telling me it doesn't matter what I say. If Riot thought like that towards their players and fans, they wouldn't have the success they do. I know (hope) you didn't mean it that way, but it's how I took it for half a minute.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

11-07-2012

1. Sometimes it may seem like I'm ignoring some of your points because with each successive post, we have more counterpoints made toward the other. I try to simplify the argument by focusing in on one point. Once we feel we've fully fleshed that argument out, we can move on to a new point. I'm going to try to focus first one the points that I think are pretty much done (specifically, points that you're still addressing without adding anything to the argument).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolvenlight View Post
P.S. I was slightly offended by you telling me it doesn't matter what I say. If Riot thought like that towards their players and fans, they wouldn't have the success they do. I know (hope) you didn't mean it that way, but it's how I took it for half a minute.
2. You're right, I didn't mean it that way. More how I meant it is that it's really pointless for you and I to have that debate. Riot has stated their opinion explicitly on this particular point. There's no use in debating me because it's just one player's opinion versus anothers. Now, the player base may convince Riot to change their policy on this matter, but there's no Red posting in this thread, and since we're already on page 3, I doubt they're going to read through every single point that's been made. So if a Red comes a posting here, you can have that debate with him. I'm just pointing out it's pretty futile for you and I to have the debate, and as I said in my first point in this thread, I'm trying to simplify/focus the debate, which means getting as many finished issues out of the way as possible.


3. I'm all for early surrendering and 0 Elo across the board for everyone. But I think Riot should be careful in implementing this strategy. For one, the AFK/DCed/whatevered player has to have taken 0 actions. They can be connected, but if they've moved, shopped, chatted, anything, there's no option. This needs to be reserved for cases where someone just flat doesn't connect.

As I've said before, the system can't distinguish between intentional and unintentional disconnects (I can go unplug my router to make my disconnect look unintentional, or just unplug my ethernet cord). And if we don't make the early surrender / 0 Elo option strict, it will be abused when someone feeds a few early kills.

So this option, in my opinion, should be reserved for cases where the AFK/DC player is gone from 00:00 to 05:00 at least, and then at that point, the team with that AFK player can surrender from 05:00 until 10:00 for no Elo gain/loss for anyone. They can surrender at any point after that for normal Elo. The reason I want to close them in to such a short time window is I don't want them to have an extended amount of time to try going for a free win, basically. If they can surrender from 05:00 to 20:00 for no Elo loss, that's a BIG window to see if they can get someone on their team super fed where the AFK doesn't even matter (4v5 is winnable). It's harder to tell if they're fed enough at 10:00.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

AnarchyVo

Member

11-08-2012

Better them be d/c'd then feeding the enemy team.