Riot has never once made a sensible post about leaver protection.

First Riot Post
123456 ... 11
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Gonsea

Senior Member

01-29-2014

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
We know that if we reduce or remove the penalties for all teams if a person leaves the game, that a few things happen:

1) Leaving/AFK actually goes up
2) The number of games that actually completes goes significantly down

The problem with the above is that although players feel better when they get a leaver in their game and can leave without penalty, they get frustrated over time by the sheer number of games that will never finish because people are just leaving and quitting en masse in games. This 'hidden pain' is difficult to explain, but is very easy to see in the data.
This is a game, people should feel "good" while playing it.
If we have a AFK forgiven function:
- The team having afk feel conpensated
- The opposing team doesn't care.

Currently, without AFK forgiven:
- Lost time playing to be mad.
- We still doesn't care, the same.

AFK forgiven should be must have for normal queue, and disable for Ranked game.
And about premade who have 1 guy take the bullet: "AFK forgiven is disable for premade team that have afk player"
In the end, what to be decide is how the AFK detection system work and how much compensating is enough, not " does this AFK forgiven should be exist". It's does.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

NeroUS

Senior Member

01-29-2014

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
I'm not opposed to taking a second look at LeaverBuster or Leaver systems in general; however, it's all about prioritization on what problems we work on because we simply cannot work on every system at all times.

If every player in this thread looked at their match histories, on average, they'd see very few leaves. We know that a percentage of leaves/afks are due to ISPs and connection issues or hardware, and there's nothing we can design to fix those problems. After you account for those 'organic' leaves/afks that we can't influence, you have what we call the potential space where we can improve leaving/afk.

We know that if we reduce or remove the penalties for all teams if a person leaves the game, that a few things happen:

1) Leaving/AFK actually goes up
2) The number of games that actually completes goes significantly down

The problem with the above is that although players feel better when they get a leaver in their game and can leave without penalty, they get frustrated over time by the sheer number of games that will never finish because people are just leaving and quitting en masse in games. This 'hidden pain' is difficult to explain, but is very easy to see in the data.

I'm open to thinking of solutions for the specific problem of a person not connecting to a game because I think that's a miserable experience that is completely not the fault of anyone in the game; for example, maybe restarting a match if a person never connected in the first 2 minutes.
I think that you guys have done a good job of handling leaver problems. Really, if you create leaver protection, people might not feel that leaving is so much of an issue and, therefore, they might feel less pressure to stay in each game.

If you "restart the game" or what not then it will harm the team that gets an advantage in that first two minutes, which might also be unfair.

The only change that I might be interested in seeing is allowing the other players to switch for the dcer's character. This is because its really bad if a support goes 2-2-24, only to watch the adc or top dc in lategame. The support just can't carry and got cheated out of a significant portion of their contribution to the game.

Although I realise this might create pressure for people to quit so that another player could manage their character, it seems to me that it is the most reasonable thing that you could do to alleviate some of the role generated unfairness in which some roles just have more 4v5 power than others (I'm looking at you support!) that can surround dcers.

Leaver Rate Frequency by Division:

14% of Games Unranked
12% of Games Bronze
7% of Games Silver
....

You say the leaver rate is minimal Lyte but according to elophant, the average unranked player is expected to meet a leaver once every 7 games, which seems high.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Zedilurk

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

01-29-2014

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
I'm not opposed to taking a second look at LeaverBuster or Leaver systems in general; however, it's all about prioritization on what problems we work on because we simply cannot work on every system at all times.

If every player in this thread looked at their match histories, on average, they'd see very few leaves. We know that a percentage of leaves/afks are due to ISPs and connection issues or hardware, and there's nothing we can design to fix those problems. After you account for those 'organic' leaves/afks that we can't influence, you have what we call the potential space where we can improve leaving/afk.

We know that if we reduce or remove the penalties for all teams if a person leaves the game, that a few things happen:

1) Leaving/AFK actually goes up
2) The number of games that actually completes goes significantly down

The problem with the above is that although players feel better when they get a leaver in their game and can leave without penalty, they get frustrated over time by the sheer number of games that will never finish because people are just leaving and quitting en masse in games. This 'hidden pain' is difficult to explain, but is very easy to see in the data.

I'm open to thinking of solutions for the specific problem of a person not connecting to a game because I think that's a miserable experience that is completely not the fault of anyone in the game; for example, maybe restarting a match if a person never connected in the first 2 minutes.
Just tossing out ideas, but would it be possible to save the player's IP, and if they leave, ping it periodically (for the duration of the match perhaps, send maybe a ping or two a minute?). This allows you to test if the player is actually disconnected and unable to return, or has simply given up.

With this it could be possible to implement other fixes. For example, someone who has disconnected and pings have not reached them for x minutes would apply a "Loss Forgiven" status to the losing team and enable the ability to leave the game.

If someone has raged and a ping to the player is successful, meaning they are connected to the internet, send a series of pings over the next couple minutes to ensure they are still able to connect, and begin a timer. If they fail to reconnect in x minutes, then they have chosen by their own free will to no longer play that game, will get penalized. Ie, a leave, maybe a mark that could lead to temp bans, etc.

Additionally, if someone has left intentionally, and a ping is successful as seen above, bar that player from that instance of the game, and spread their team gold equally across the remaining team players (just one solution I've heard from players on the forums) or whatever other fixes seem in order. Loss Forgiven's can be distributed if that seems appropriate as well.

Obviously more brains are better than one, and I think this could be a place to start from.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

LegatusUrsus

Senior Member

01-29-2014

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
maybe restarting a match if a person never connected in the first 2 minutes.
I would be all for this on a game mode like Dominion, since those first two minutes of not having that fifth player usually ends up destroying the game for that team. What makes it worse is that the team that ends up winning will end up winning too fast, and there will be no IP gains on either side.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Fisherman Fizz

Senior Member

01-29-2014

If someone just never connects in the first place, the game shouldn't start at all and whoever didn't connect should get whatever dodge penalty corresponds with the queue type they were in.

Also if there's an AFK/leaver problem very early into the game before any of the players fully get invested into the game then I'd rather be allowed to leave than start playing a game that's going to be unfair the entire time. I wouldn't exactly be happy that I have to leave the game but it beats staying in the game and having to finish it. Even when winning it feels bad because it's not fair to the other team.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Lyte

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Lead Social Systems Designer

Follow RiotLyte on Twitter

01-29-2014
2 of 4 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfxworks View Post
My last 4 placements have had leaves, as well as many of my previous games. I've even had days where it's happened almost every game.
Mathematically, I meant that the vast majority of players would have a low number of leaves. A few players are going to have 10/10 games with leavers, but it might be 1 in 5 million players.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Lyte

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Lead Social Systems Designer

Follow RiotLyte on Twitter

01-29-2014
3 of 4 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by THTSUBWAYGUY View Post
For people that don't connect in say the first 2-4 minutes(usually the time a game can start to see the outmatch) why not give a loss prevented to the team that had the disconnected person? You can still give a win to the opposite team, and if need be, for the ranking system, subtract LP from the person that didn't connect, because after all, that person is the person to blame for not leaving his team with much of a fighting chance to win, even if it was connection issues with the game.

To make it so it can't be exploited, make it so it ONLY applies to games that someone didn't connect in, to be sure someone can't "ragequit" the game for giving a team first blood and giving his team a free loss prevented. This would also work with people that duo with their friends so that they don't have the mindset of "we are losing, someone leave so we don't get a loss" as it would only work in the games where someone doesn't connect.
Yep, we're thinking along these lines too. For this particular case, it's no one's fault, and we really shouldn't penalize players for being in a game where someone just happens to not be able to connect into the game.

What is more complicated is the "no penalty when someone leaves at the 40 minute mark" scenario.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Gonsea

Senior Member

01-29-2014

Match History does not mean much. It doesn't a accurate data source to begin with.
A player afk in 3', 2' or just about 30" at a middle of a combat, or dragon/baron will still matter if that team lose, and we count that "1 afk game" because player will feel being lose by just that Afk. But that kind of Afk will never be recorded in match history

Are you even serious?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Nine Ravens

Senior Member

01-29-2014

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
We know that if we reduce or remove the penalties for all teams if a person leaves the game, that a few things happen:

1) Leaving/AFK actually goes up
2) The number of games that actually completes goes significantly down

The problem with the above is that although players feel better when they get a leaver in their game and can leave without penalty, they get frustrated over time by the sheer number of games that will never finish because people are just leaving and quitting en masse in games. This 'hidden pain' is difficult to explain, but is very easy to see in the data.
By this, do you mean that the total number of players that leave games increases, as once one player leaves the game other players are more likely to? Or do you mean that games are more likely to have a first leaver? I think this is an important distinction because in many situations I think players would not care about finishing 4v5s, and would rather in fact end them and move on to another game where everyone is actually playing.

To me, only the first leaver matters, as additional leavers just tilt the already-skewed game even further. The only caveat here is that if someone unintentionally disconnects and will be back shortly, other players might abandon ship too early. That could be fixed by making a reasonable grace period for a disconnected player to reconnect.

On the other hand, if you're saying the instances of having a first leaver rise then that's an issue. I would definitely not want to increase the number of games with leavers, even if each individual game was less painful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
I'm open to thinking of solutions for the specific problem of a person not connecting to a game because I think that's a miserable experience that is completely not the fault of anyone in the game; for example, maybe restarting a match if a person never connected in the first 2 minutes.
While not many games seem to start with a player disconnected, making sure that games do not start without all players connected on each side would be helpful. I don't see this being abusable, just return the connected players to matchmaking and apply the appropriate dodge penalty to the players that didn't connect.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Lyte

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Lead Social Systems Designer

Follow RiotLyte on Twitter

01-29-2014
4 of 4 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeroUS View Post
I think that you guys have done a good job of handling leaver problems. Really, if you create leaver protection, people might not feel that leaving is so much of an issue and, therefore, they might feel less pressure to stay in each game.

If you "restart the game" or what not then it will harm the team that gets an advantage in that first two minutes, which might also be unfair.

The only change that I might be interested in seeing is allowing the other players to switch for the dcer's character. This is because its really bad if a support goes 2-2-24, only to watch the adc or top dc in lategame. The support just can't carry and got cheated out of a significant portion of their contribution to the game.

Although I realise this might create pressure for people to quit so that another player could manage their character, it seems to me that it is the most reasonable thing that you could do to alleviate some of the role generated unfairness in which some roles just have more 4v5 power than others (I'm looking at you support!) that can surround dcers.

Leaver Rate Frequency by Division:

14% of Games Unranked
12% of Games Bronze
7% of Games Silver
....

You say the leaver rate is minimal Lyte but according to elophant, the average unranked player is expected to meet a leaver once every 7 games, which seems high.
But remember, what % of that is an organic leave such as an ISP issue or hardware issue? No matter what we do design-wise, we can't fix those types of issues.

Taking the unranked number, if 10% of games have an organic leave, then really anything we implement can solve a piece of the 4% remaining. This isn't to say that we shouldn't work on improving leavers by 4%, but I think it's also safe to say that working on Team Builder first is probably more valuable and has a larger chance at improving the player experience overall.


123456 ... 11