Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a tonne of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out Boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

GO TO BOARDS


AFK players ruin the game!

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Adrenalotr

Senior Member

02-07-2015

Quote:
iupli:
You didn't answer or comment on this:

Wether it is my fault or not, a game with a troll in it is just as unconfortable (unfair, not nice, not fun, or however you want to call it) as an unfair time-out from abusing this in-game tribunal i propose. How high do you think the abuse rate will be in the in-game tribunal? 5%? 10%? Do you agree with me that it will be less than half the % of games you have with a troll in them? If yes, it means that implementing this is taking the comunity in the right direction. It would not be a perfect solution in the long run, but it is an excelent cleansing instrument, improving the behavior of many members of the comunity.

Do you agree?


Our posts are getting so long that it's difficult to comment on everything.

Games with trolls are not fun. But abuse numbers in the double digits would not be acceptable. That would mean that at least one in ten such votes would be inappropriate.

The problem I have with this is that I rarely see trolling and other such behavior that didn't start in champ select, so I think efforts should be focused there. If something was done about the problems there, there would be a significant reduction in games with trolls and other similarly problematic players, thus leaving this system to be abused more than it would be used correctly. Some players don't want to play from behind, because they either don't know how, or they don't trust their team's ability to do so, so they would try to surrender early. Now that leaving is detected and swiftly punished, they can't just leave, so they'd be looking for other ways to get out of a game they've lost faith in. Some of their teammates would want to leave too. As some of their enemies would want to win faster.

If nothing is done in champ select and this thing implemented, you'd still see disruptive votes. I don't know how often it would be abused, that's something Riot would have to test for, but I suspect it would be too much.

So no, I don't agree that letting players end >50% of sabotaged games early is an improvement, because I expect players to use this for the wrong reason. Players use reports incorrectly too, and (when it was available) spammed Punish in the Tribunal. But Riot had lots of data on the accuracy of individual players' reports and Tribunal-voting players so they could counter that by reducing the value of those players' reports (and possible the same in the Tribunal, idk). If a player was abusing your system, he would disrupt a lot of games before Riot could identify the abuse and restrict him from starting those votes. If 1% of players would abuse it, and it would take 5 votes to determine if a player is abusing it, that means there would be 50 000 games with abuse just in EUNE's ranked. And that's assuming the detector identifies all abusing players, assuming just 1% of abusers.

Few systems are impossible to abuse, but this seems like it would do more harm than good. The current version of it, anyway. If you can figure out a way to reduce the abuse potential, and prevent it from disrupting regular games where a lane is just losing normally, then it might work.