Ragers, Quitters, Plug Pullers, and Pros

I agree with everything except #5. Here's why:

I create a custom game. My friend joins said game. We start. I leave. He is dropped and receives 250 favor. He creates a custom game. I join. He starts. He leaves. I receive 250 favor.

Rinse and repeat.

I don't think there's any way to legitimately save a game with these wacky solutions.  If anything the following should happen:

1. Leaver demigod is removed, NO AI.

2. Leaver's gold is distributed evenly among remaining people.

3. Leaver's items are sold at half value and money again evenly distributed.

4. Optional - Death penalty for team is reduced by proportion of leavers lost (1 leaver in 3v3 = Death Penalty -33%).  Or the death penalty for the other team is increased by the same amount (33% in example).  This may make up the hero difference.

It's really the gold that kills your chances of a comeback.

Points one and two of the OP, I figure, should be a given.  I'm still surprised that those even need to be discussed.

I'm not a big fan of the random dropping of a player from the other team, though.  Yes, it evens things up but I don't see the merit in punishing someone from the team who decided to stick it out.  If there's a statistical way to balance the scales as IV suggests, I'd much prefer that.

That's for custom games, though.  In a truly competitive setting, I wouldn't advocate any special boons.  If someone on the team bails, that's it.  No added bonus - you fight with what you have or concede the win (without forcing the winning team to sit through a boring AI match). 

I don't think custom game favor is supposed to be given like that.

Infinite, you agreed with this in another thread before. What changed your mind?

Yeah I know, but they get a free win and favor + the remaining players still get to not have a wasted game on their hands. in a 5v5 that would be 8 players benefiting. You'd never be less than a 50% favorite to benefit from it and you'd often be more.

That's really dumb. I shouldn't be able to make an enemy quit by quitting myself.

This is a better solution. And #4 isn't necessary. The gold would offer the team a chance to come back from an uneven match, and honestly noone wants AI they just suicide.

What do you mean?  I've forever supported the solutions I posted.  Coincidentally - they're the same things that happen in Dota (in Dota you could take the leaver items, but I think you should just get the gold here)

I know it works because I've won games of Dota even with people having left on my own team.

Yet, right now you can effectively make ALL enemies quit by quitting yourself. gg,

Now now, is it really necessary to be so immature? What happens right now? You effectively force ALL players to quit. Getting your panties in a wad over forcing one player to quit just proves how much better it could be if it were ONLY one person and that person actually got something to show for it. Right now, the game turns lopsided and 90% of the time in my games the team with less players all leave. Might as well be playing single player.

No. Given even skill levels, omnipresence (or this solution) is the only thing that would make it even.

Yes yes, I said retarded. Is it really necessary to call people immature over using a widely used slang for 'your idea is dumb and by extension I will call you dumb as well. Congratulations'. Ps. Your idea was really dumb. 

There is a substantial difference between someone leaving and (lets call the effect worsening the game), where you can decide between continuing the fight (this happens quite alot. especially in 4v4 and more), leaving yourself, or deciding to remake the game or join a new one vs. being forcefully booted out into the lobby, feeling like you got screwed out a game you wanted to be in. Maybe your friends are still in the game and you have to wait for them to finish, or have them leave and get a loss. In this case I consider letting one side have the number advantage to be a better solution.

That's not to say that if the current trend of ragequitting causing an unravelling of the game isn't equally bad design (I'll call it design even though it was obviously unintended), but your point 4 is like giving a car with quadratic wheels triangular wheels and pretending it's fixed.

Inf, I confused you with Vyper.

I don't think splitting the meager gold of someone who ran out and got killed by towers twice in the first 5-10 minutes is really gonna sway a game much.

However, I do think that someone doing something like farming half of some big artifact cost and then leaving it to their teammate (who has saved the other half) would be a pretty awesome tactic. Mageslayer at level 5, anyone?

Also split the continuous gold they would have been getting among the other people.

That's a lot of gold.

Rhym, are you familiar with the term ad hominem? You have given an almost impeccable example.

Right now, I can definitely see your point that your friends in particular may just let you be dropped instead of all agreeing to concede the game and start a new one with you, I know that would be my choice from what I've seen from you so far.

However, nothing I have said discounted the possibility that they may do so in spite of your attitude. As a matter of fact, I pretty much explicitly stated otherwise.

Don't you think at some point that tips the scale the other way? Wouldn't it make you disadvantaged if a teammate did not leave? I mean everyone wants more gold. I know I want more gold. I just don't think that really addresses the problem, particularly in a 2v1 situation.

Sure, it would help. But it isn't going to make up for the fact that you can't be two places at once and flag control is important in this. DotA's only similarity would be barracks. 2v1 imba is effectively like losing a barracks automatically.

How about: AI replacement gives no XP/Gold to other team when killed. . .

No?  Each team would get X gold/second, regardless of the number of players.  No imbalance there.  The hero kills from being down a man will probably make the difference, but each hero on the leaver side would have better items thanks to the gold redistribution and such they might have a chance.

I will never understand why people keep using this line of reasoning. It's absolutely ludicrous to imply that because someone is a bad sport it is the fault of the game.

This one is not bad. It is not as good... but it is not bad.

You can approximately test this by having a 3v3 where one person on your team sits at spawn and buys items for you whenever you want them. You'll lose against equally skilled opposiiton.

You have too much time on your hands. Public ladders mean nothing and have meant nothing for every RTS ever made. Private ladders are the only things that show true ranking because the community is the only entity that cares about the success of a game after initial sales. GPG doesn't make money off people playing their game once they've already bought it so why spend money making the ladder system actually matter?

In house, private league, private ladder, and tournaments are the way to go if you want to avoid all the annoying things that make the game difficult to enjoy.

They can't show anything if people can't see them.

You know, because they're private.

Aye. This (or a variation such as giving only 10% of the gold) is suggested in about every thread like this, but still most people seem to insist that kicking the DG wholly out is a better choice. They never explain their reasoning behind it, though.

Fail.

I don't know... Despite being easier to kill than most people, the AI still gains gold, experience, and puts up a decent fight. 

It's hard to say what would really make for a 'balanced' match between the arbitrary mechanics being described in this thread but I don't like the thought of adding a DG to the mix that runs around with little to no cost in dropping dead.