I used to think I understood fairness in esports, until I witnessed firsthand how Riot Games handles boosting behavior in VALORANT and League of Legends. The arena is not just about beautiful highlight plays, but also about forgotten voices waiting to be heard – and this time, that voice comes from the Anti-Boost system of the publisher itself.

When I started following ranked matches in the Asian region, I noticed a paradox: the better the players, the more easily they are tempted by boosting services. Not because they lack skill, but because the pressure to climb ranks and the value of high rankings in the community have created a risky underground market. Ignorance is not scary; what is scary is when we turn it into self-complacency – and Riot is trying to teach the entire ecosystem a lesson about that.

Context: When climbing ranks becomes an underground industry

Boosting is not a new problem. Since the early days of League of Legends, players have sought to hire higher-skilled gamers to climb ranks for them. But it was not until VALORANT launched and created its own competitive ranking system that this issue truly became an organized underground industry. Boosting websites sprang up like mushrooms, advertising services ranging from a few hundred thousand to millions of VND per rank tier.

What makes this issue more serious is that it not only affects match fairness but also distorts the entire ranking data – the very data that scouts and academies use to identify young talent. A boosted account reaching Diamond or Immortal could cause a genuinely talented young player to be overlooked because they do not have a rank commensurate with their ability.

Core: Anti-Boost – A four-tier penalty system and joint liability

Based on my experience following matches and analyzing data from Riot Games' official announcements, the Anti-Boost system is designed as a structured punishment machine. The most important thing I have learned is: Riot is not simply issuing a prohibition; they are building a four-tier penalty process, from light to severe.

The first tier is canceling all ranked points and rewards obtained from cheating, returning the account to its original rank, and temporarily suspending it for a short period. This is a restorative measure – it not only punishes but also reverses what the cheater has achieved. The second tier increases the account suspension duration based on repeat offense levels, creating a cumulative deterrent. The third tier, the most severe, is a permanent ban for buying, selling, transferring accounts, or intentionally deranking.

But what really caught my attention is the fourth tier – a clause I call 'joint liability'. Riot states that they may also take action against the booster's main account and players who frequently queue with them. This is a double-edged sword: it expands the scope of punishment to prevent rule evasion, but it also creates the risk of penalizing innocent players who happen to queue with a booster without any knowledge.

The key insight I have realized is: Riot is betting on the system's ability to distinguish intent, not on an absolute ban of all alt accounts. They clearly state that creating and operating your own alt account is normal activity, and Anti-Boost only targets the intent to manipulate ranks. This is an intent-based standard, which is much harder to enforce consistently than a rigid rule.

Contrarian Angle: The commercial value of a clean ranking system

When discussing anti-boosting, most people think of protecting match fairness. But I believe the real value of Anti-Boost lies in another aspect: protecting the commercial value of the entire ecosystem. A polluted ranking system will erode player trust, leading to a decline in daily active users – the very thing the entire esports industry depends on.

The field is not just about the whistle; it also has forgotten voices waiting to be heard. In this case, that voice belongs to legitimate players who are being disadvantaged by cheaters taking their deserved positions on the leaderboard. And when a ranking system loses credibility, it does not only affect players but also sponsors, professional teams, and the entire value chain of the industry.

The figure of 296,416 accounts penalized that Riot published is a strong signal, but I want to emphasize that this is a self-reported number and has not been independently audited. What matters more is looking at the trend: Riot states they will expand the scope of Anti-Boost and add the ability to detect boosting signs at the match level in the future. This shows they are investing in a continuous improvement cycle, not just a one-time campaign.

Takeaway: An endless arms race

Five goals conceded do not define a generation, but how we look at them will. Similarly, the number of 296,416 accounts does not define the success of the anti-boosting campaign – rather, how Riot continues to develop the system and face the adaptation of cheaters is the real measure. I have learned that failure is also a language, we just need to be brave enough to translate – and in this battle, both Riot and the boosters are learning to translate each other's language.

The biggest question I leave to readers is: Can an intent-based system maintain consistency in a multicultural community with millions of players? And will 'joint liability' create a new wave of backlash when innocent players get caught in the punishment vortex? Change is happening, but it needs transparency and a clear appeals mechanism to be truly sustainable.