I know this has been discussed a few times in some other threads already, but most of them are simply threads which state this needs to be done.
Unlike these previous threads, I intend to go into some depth as to how I think a system like this could be implemented while also keeping an eye out for possible toxic uses.
Basically the thought goes that you start up a ranked game, and you get an AFK'er, troll, or whatever else in champion select. Your options are now 1) to play out the game and probably lose ELO, then further hope the Tribunal pays them back later, or 2) dodge and wait out a 30+ minute penalty.
The goal, then, is to add an option 3) which allows the game to be disbanded in one way or another from within champion select.
There are a few ways this could be done, but I'm just going to offer what I see as the best solution.
A bit of thought is required as to what the ramifications of such a system are just as a general whole:
- Reduces the penalties assigned to legitimate players avoiding toxic behavior.
- Helps legitimate players avoid losing ELO without being penalized for doing so.
- Penalizes toxic players and helps pull them out of the queue pool.
- Will generally clean up the atmosphere, so to speak, because even trolls want to play the game.
- Will make it tougher to actually get into a ranked game because more games will be disbanded.
- May unfairly penalize legitimate players if the system is abused, particularly if abused by trolls.
- Doesn't reward sticking through to the end of a match and rewards pickiness in champion select, further increasing the rate at which games are disbanded.
So clearly some thought needs to be done here, because the mere use of the system will inherently cause issues.
This solution isn't the basic one people have suggested before. A surrender-style dialog is subject to all of the pros and cons listed before, and vote-to-kick is worse.
Before getting into this, please note that all numbers are just hypothetical, and a real system would need a lot of adjustments from this rough idea.
That said, my idea is to instead use the reporting feature as a measure by which you can punish players for toxic behavior. A more immediate version than the Tribunal, and one which legitimately makes reporting feel like it has power, not only to those who report, but also to those who get reported.
Basically, at the end of a match, a tally would be kept of the total reports and honors against all players.
1 report, you get a warning (or for repeated single reports, maybe 15 minutes).
2 reports, 30 minutes (standard ranked queue dodge penalty).
...and so on up to 9 reports, where you could get, say, a 24-hr. ban.
However, any honors given would counteract reports on a 1:1 ratio, so if most of your team likes you, you don't have to worry about being reported.
Secondly, if you lose the game, the ELO loss penalty for you and your team could be reduced. This would occur based on the number of reports the enemy team members make of any single (or possibly multiple) people on your team. (Only enemy reports! We don't want allied scapegoats saving ELO for their hateful 4-man pre-mades.)
For example, if one person on your team receives 3 reports from your enemies, the ELO loss for you would be reduced 60% (20% per report against a single person). This might also help mitigate that idea of "ELO hell." Furthermore, games in which this reduction occurs will not influence the matchmaker's confidence in your ELO rating.
Meanwhile, any reported players still take the full ELO penalty and sink lower into the depths.
However, if you win the game after all, the opposite could be true. For each report an ally makes of another victorious ally, their ELO gain can be reduced by 25%. Again, this penalty would be directly countered by honors received. (Note here that in the case of victory, only allied reports count toward the penalty. Don't want any butthurt pre-mades denying ELO to deserving victors.)
Thirdly, because this is making use of the Tribunal and the reporting system, the Tribunal will need to be granted a method by which it can penalize false reports (and due to inconvenience to legitimate players who are reported, the penalties should be harsher than those administered in error).
So, let's talk some pros and cons of this:
- Penalizes toxic game behavior in equal measure to its toxicity.
- Still penalizes queue dodging, so pickiness in champion select will not be much worse than at present.
- May help clean up the behavior of many toxic players who think reporting does nothing to them.
- Will help put toxic players into lower ELO brackets where they should've been all along.
- Doesn't fix the fact that you still have to play out the game with these people.
- Will likely result in a number of undeserving ELO penalties until the Tribunal is able to address the specific case.
- People with friends or pre-made teammates could counteract any penalties applied by this system with enough honor given. (Perhaps honor decay, as it is implemented currently, could counteract this problem.)
Constructive and thoughtful criticism is very welcome.