League of Legends: Wild Rift Dev Tracker

Correct, for most of us plebs outside of very high MMR we will rarely really see the same player again on our team outside of happening to re-queue at the same time after a game. So we build the avoid list to maximize impact in this case (I can guarantee I won't see someone problematic in the near future, especially the next game) and the weekly reset reduces the possibility of edge cases causing serious matchmaking problems. The abuse possibilities and queue time impacts are unfortunately why we can't enable this at higher ranks.

We're gonna look at adjusting fortitude. We were conservative out of the gate because we were afraid of abuse cases, but the system seems like it's not causing problems with that so we're looking at what we can do to dial up compensation.

We'll have more stuff for you in the detailed patch notes, not going to solve all problems, but we hope it will make some meaningful differences for players.

please take my updoots for the useful post.

Yes, in fact, much worse than quadrupled. If you do a quick simulation on paper you'll see that if, for example, there's only 1 JG for every 10 players, wait time lengths go like this:

2x 3x 4x 5x 6x ... 100000000x infinite

Basically, without autofill, or at least some similar way of players choosing to not play their preferred role, getting games at all grinds to a complete halt and no one gets to play.

It's an unfortunate part of having pre-chosen preferences that aren't equal.

The unfortunate problem is the potential for gaming the system if we did that. Losing a game? Make someone AFK or intentional feed so the rest of the team doesn't pay. So we need to penalize that player enough to disincentivize gaming the system and not make compensation too big. Example: the obvious bad idea is if someone intentionally feeds all the other players in the game get a win on both teams. That's pretty ripe for abuse. We could give a loss shield as suggested, and we'd need to penalize the offending player more to compensate which might be too overboard. So we've been conservative on the compensation we provide out of the gate. It's something we can look at changing in the future now that the system has been active and not causing problems.

Hmmmm if you're at the same rank, it should give you the same compensation... Although it is a good point to consider that we could penalize intentional losing more seriously and give y'all more points.

Naw, I was confused by this too and I work on the game

They're not worse, AFKs were just the quickest one to add loss compensation to because they are evaluated in real-time. Intentional feeding takes longer to determine so we have do build different delayed messaging and can't tell you right as the game ends as we do with AFK. We're actively working on it.

Could be crows, could be ravens. I didn't really get a good look, I was generally afraid to get close, but when I was drawn in they would fly away.

I'm getting mixed emotions seeing "story" in quotes...

Oh is that who I met on my journey? I need to be better at asking for names.

If that's the case they should be getting a double loss and your team would get a chunk of ranked fortitude as compensation. I know it's not as good as a remake, but we also penalize the AFK player much harder.

Not sure why downvotes, it is supposed to work even if someone dies. The exception is if the death happens before (or very soon after) someone starts to AFK. If a death happens well after someone AFKs it should not prevent a remake.

Definitely, the system was setup this way to guard against people trying to game the system if they had a bad invade, surprise bad matchup, etc. Similarly at high skill levels we give your premade a loss as well, because coordinated abuse is more likely at that level. The vote requirement is really to give people a choice if they know the person is coming back, especially if you're in a premade and talking to the person who disconnected. I think one area we could improve is to just make the vote come up automatically, right now we think a lot of times people could just be missing the message saying that remake is available. So far all the games people have sent us show that a remake was available, but a vote did not succeed (or was not invoked).

Possibly, but the system should be setup so that only a death very close to when someone starts going AFK prevents a remake. This is so that you can't just AFK after a bad first blood to trigger a remake.

We're looking to make the gold gain for ADCs from Relic Shield more obvious in a future patch, which will hopefully help make this clearer.

We are actively trying to find out what's going on here. This happened to me the other day. Not sure what's going on, it could be that we're missing the remake notification.

Can you dm me information about your game? Your playername#tag, region, time of game, what champ were you playing, what player/champ was AFK.

Did you know when you get your 5th position, you already get protection on the next game?

Other games have done this (Overwatch) and it created serious issues a higher skill levels and was too abusable. We've also considered it, but it would need to be a time limited block that didn't apply at higher skill tiers. Something like that might work and solves the most common case of seeing someone you just played with in your next game because you both queue up at the same time. Past the same day it's much less likely you'll ever see the same person again unless you're highly ranked because so many people are playing.

This is also not an accident, the game designers working on the support items also did a lot of math (and playtesting) to balance the two items against each other. It's really awesome when players check our work and come to similar conclusions!