Reduce surrender time when someone leaves

JimmyNtheKudos·Apr 21, 2015·194 votes·4,690 views

Playing a 4v5 or even a 3v5 just isn't fun. Lets reduce the time by ~5 mins per person who leaves. You can start a new game, and not feel like you wasted your time.

52 Comments

SqueekemsApr 22, 201513 votes

I have been saying this for a while: If a player is not connected for a minute or is kicked from a game for inactivity, the minimum time to surrender should be lowered by five minutes.

Rew711Apr 22, 20156 votes

lol

I made a post about this. I got like -11 in my post and it had the same thing. -5 minutes per person that leaves.

Raptors Go RawrApr 22, 20152 votes

Honestly, I think there should be an option to restart the game like in HON if someone doesn't connect. It could be easily abused though, but still.

ElisaiApr 21, 20154 votes

gr8! I r8 8/8 m8! EXCEPT ONE DETAIL! You must understand that people afk all the time. And most come back. I say that you can surrender early ONLY if they have been afk'd for 5 minutes. This goes for each person who afk's.

JimmyNtheKudosApr 21, 20155 votes

That's understandable, but I think after 15 mins that's a good enough time for that person to make it back. If they DC say 20 mins in, then what does it matter anyway? What I suggest is useful only for people who feed and leave early, or just don't make it into the game at all.

QsarioApr 22, 20152 votes

[{quoted}](name=Faal Rovaniik,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=0GvAQTE7,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2015-04-21T21:11:13.400+0000)

gr8! I r8 8/8 m8! EXCEPT ONE DETAIL! You must understand that people afk all the time. And most come back. I say that you can surrender early ONLY if they have been afk'd for 5 minutes. This goes for each person who afk's.

To be honest, when someone doesn't connect at champ select, I think it should be game over and let everyone get back in queue. There's no point in even starting the game.

During game AFKs/disconnects are another thing and it can be reasonable not to enable ff just because someone was d/c for half a second, but we should definitely have an out for longer AFK/DC.

ElisaiApr 22, 20151 votes

{quoted}

To be honest, when someone doesn't connect at champ select, I think it should be game over and let everyone get back in queue. There's no point in even starting the game.

During game AFKs/disconnects are another thing and it can be reasonable not to enable ff just because someone was d/c for half a second, but we should definitely have an out for longer AFK/DC.

Maybe in ranked. Otherwise this wouldn't matter all that much to Riot.

PalPlaysApr 22, 20151 votes

{quoted}

To be honest, when someone doesn't connect at champ select, I think it should be game over and let everyone get back in queue. There's no point in even starting the game.

During game AFKs/disconnects are another thing and it can be reasonable not to enable ff just because someone was d/c for half a second, but we should definitely have an out for longer AFK/DC.

I will actually DC on the champion loading screen intentionally. Sometimes it can speed up the loading process, I always return though, not even 15 seconds into the game.

ÅronApr 21, 20154 votes

Yes. Please.

KikirinoApr 22, 20154 votes

Only if they change it so if someone doesn't vote the ratio is read as if someone was dc.

3-1 should be a surrender. Just because someone doesn't vote doesn't change the fact that the majority voted yes.

Dunkrius2gApr 22, 20151 votes

I feel like majority should the decider. So 3-1 or 3-2. But what if you get 2-2?

T RexHasLongLegsApr 22, 20157 votes

Ugh, the thought of 3-2 winning makes me cry. My elo would take such a hit. The number of games I have won where we had 3-2 surrender votes is pretty high and over time they add up to a bunch of lp

deliosApr 22, 20151 votes

u cant have it 3-2 at all. Ur so right.

KonidiasApr 22, 20152 votes

[{quoted}](name=T RexHasLongLegs,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=0GvAQTE7,comment-id=000a00000000,timestamp=2015-04-22T11:08:38.144+0000)

Ugh, the thought of 3-2 winning makes me cry. My elo would take such a hit. The number of games I have won where we had 3-2 surrender votes is pretty high and over time they add up to a bunch of lp

I think I've had many more games where the vote was 3-2 and we ended up losing than games where the vote was 3-2 and we somehow came back to win.

In fact, the only games that come to mind are games where I'm extremely frustrated and we keep trying to surrender and 2 people are shutting it down... when we are 4 dragons and 5 towers behind and the enemy is dancing around in our base.

Usually duo queue teams that switch to troll mode when losing. I really don't think a duo queue team should have all the power in whether a match is surrendered or not.

JFatalApr 22, 20153 votes

if they switch the surrender vote to majority...i quit.

successful surrender votes should be 3-0, 3-1, 4-1, 5-0

KikirinoApr 23, 20151 votes

3-1 yes. 3-2 no. All the yes to no ratios remain the same just if you don't vote it only counts the actual votes. If you didn't want to surrender you should vote no instead of waiting out the timer.

Surrendering needs to be difficult. Only if the vast majority votes yes should it pass. If 3 people are ready to surrender and one isn't then it should pass. It is unlikely that one player can do anything to convince 3 people to really try once they are ready to give up. If 3 people want to surrender but two don't there is still a chance those two can make a play to convince the other three to keep going.

T RexHasLongLegsApr 22, 20151 votes

Don't you think that this would just result inore 3-2 votes? I mean if it is a legit cc the vote of 3-1 counts and clears (unless I'm just that tired I'm imagining that), it is only when someone isn't gonna show up as red in the post game that the 3-1 fails. Usually that means someone didn't vote bc they didn't have to click no. All that change would do is make people vote instead of just letting it time out when they want to vote no but are fighting at the time.

LowvyrApr 23, 20151 votes

But a majority vote would make it really easy to surrender. Like really easy. 5 people should require a super majority like it does.

AelvrApr 21, 20152 votes

This is much better than the "leave without penalty if s.o. else leaves first" idea that people keep wanting to steal from DotA 2. It's a nice compromise between the players who just want to move on and the players who are tenacious (however many more there are of each on the team wins).

Meanie40Apr 22, 20152 votes

Also, a surrender vote with one actual no (and any number of disconnects) should always pass.

A 2-1 vote fails in a 3v5. Why should 2 people be punished for a game that two people have disconnected in?

Blue Moon WolfApr 22, 20152 votes

I would prefer something like an AI take over of the missing player or a large buff to everyone who is still in the match, but this works too :P

SouL1essApr 21, 20151 votes

The problem is that a team of 4 and a leaver vs a team of 5 has zero compromised advantage, e.g. increased ambient gold and etc.

It doesn't solve the problem of that most non-5v5 games are a waste of time.

CNY10000Apr 22, 20151 votes

That would make intentionally leaving the game a straregy to win, which is ridiculous.

SouL1essApr 22, 20151 votes

Because getting 20 more gold per minute is going to make up for a 4v5 disadvantage.

Lol.

Please explain how missing a player on your team actually contributes to an advantage that requires zero compromise?

Sift Augment Apr 21, 20151 votes

agreed they should

kingkongfongApr 22, 20151 votes

It is still up to a vote so why would this be an issue? I say good for the game cause there is enough time waisted even with 5/5 raging little kidos playing and arguing the whole time. Good idea!

Occams RaiserApr 22, 20151 votes

Add in that the vote only has to be 2\2 to be successful. Give a five minute window for them to return. If it happens at champ select, the vote pops up when minions spawn then again when the first person hits lvl 6 or ten minutes. If you have two kills or more before lvl six against a sorry team, maybe you want to stick it out until 20.

CupkekApr 22, 20151 votes

SO MUCH YES.

unfeasableApr 22, 20151 votes

Also start doing penalties for too many declines for a match. If your not going to accept the game why even click the play button! So annoying sometimes. I think there should be a limit of like 5 declines a day or you get a 5 minute wait time, idk. Just a little problem that gets annoying sometimes. Shaco

IcyPepperApr 22, 20151 votes

Sometimes shit happens. If my cat spontaneously explodes, my first thought is going to be "Holy shit, holy shit, my cat just exploded," not "Oh shit, I should probably decline this match before I check to see if my precious life companion is still alive."

T RexHasLongLegsApr 22, 20151 votes

One, cars are evil, not life companions. Two, while I think it is a silly idea to punish repeated declines, if your hellspawn explodes and you don't accept you will decline and be tossed from que with no penalty. If you jump in que and then decline again we need to talk about your adhd because how did you forget about the cat so fast and why did you decline a second time? (I bet you remembered the cat suddenly. This is gonna be a vicious cycle isn't it?)

IcyPepperApr 22, 20151 votes

What's wrong with having evil life companions?

Cats used to be worship, do you think they've forgotten so easily?

Dunkrius2gApr 22, 20151 votes

+1. this shouldnt be too hard to implement. Rito pls

mango merchant Apr 22, 20151 votes

Been suggested before

JimmyNtheKudosApr 22, 20151 votes

I would imagine, but i doesn't hurt to mention it again!

Avid DayApr 22, 20151 votes

LP ZeroApr 22, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Playing a 4v5 or even a 3v5 just isn't fun. Lets reduce the time by ~5 mins per person who leaves. You can start a new game, and not feel like you wasted your time.

I would rather go with a full-scale reduction of the surrender unlock time. I mean, one time when I played Infinite Crisis where Batman could literally surrender to the Joker, the chance to do so was unlocked somewhere around just 2' 00" 00 into the play session.

Obviously that's just a single-case example, but even a 15' 00" 00 round on Twisted Treeline (with its 3 on 3 limitation) couldn't offer a surrender because of LoL and its stubbornly built-in, unscaling 20' 00" 00 wait time for a surrender vote request. So I agree that something's got to give on the issue - especially when your team is short two men and the competition has you drowning in a multitude of several buckets-worth of near-infinite whoopa**.

MacDthreeApr 22, 20151 votes

I've always at least wished they'd let a bot take over that person's champ when they DC or something. Would definitely be abused i'm sure. but would be better for everybody else in the game when they were trying to play i think. I dunno.

Laughing FishApr 22, 20151 votes

The bot would just feed. It would be worse than 4 vs 5

S H A Y C 0Apr 22, 20151 votes

Reduce the number of times someone leaves so we don't have to surrender

There fixed it.

Chromatic EagleApr 22, 20151 votes

I think Riot's pov is that it's either abusable or they can find a better option.

MysticFlameHazeApr 22, 20151 votes

Surrendering is a dumb thing for people to do, i never surrender because there is always a chance that your team can make great plays and comeback. there have been numerous times when i have had this happen to me. A 4v5 or 3v5 can be fun because people have the skill to cooperate with each other to make the game worth it. don't be so quick to give up. i have won many 3v5's in normals. and have won 4v5's in ranked games as well. i have even had a match where we defend base with all inhibs down and respawning at multiple times for about 15 mins enough time for my team to get back into the game and were able to come back. MANY THINGS CAN HAPPEN IN A MATCH. Don't surrender and fight till the end. Give the enemy as much hell as you can.

This is League you should probably expect an afk every now and then.

yukonlApr 22, 20151 votes

A step in the right direction. +1

A much better solution than those constant loss forgivens/losing less lp threads.

XVI Jake IVXApr 22, 20151 votes

This would be horrible in rank. Especially in Bronze. Sense people come back. And than someone would just quit to make the surrender vote come up quicker. I don't think this should happen. I've been force to surrender in bronze when the score was 15-15. 30-15. We got nexus turrets. This should only apply to normal. Yeah I know preparing to downvoted to hell.

Have a nice a day everyone

Go0bEr L1TtLeApr 22, 20151 votes

I completely agree with that idea. Why drag out a game, if you know your going to lose anyway? I mean honestly, 3v5 even 4v5 puts you at a severe disadvantage. This is unfair and unfunny for the team with reduced players. Riot please lower surrender time for 5 minutes per person who leaves

-RandomLaner Rumble

LP ZeroApr 23, 20151 votes

{quoted}

I completely agree with that idea. Why drag out a game, if you know your going to lose anyway? I mean honestly, 3v5 even 4v5 puts you at a severe disadvantage. This is unfair and unfunny for the team with reduced players. Riot please lower surrender time for 5 minutes per person who leaves

-RandomLaner

Or just make surrender available early on in the game - perhaps as early on as two minutes - especially on Crystal Scar, Twisted Treeline or Howling Abyss. A 20' 00" 00 surrender delay just ain't gonna cut it when you venture beyond the Summoner's Rift. And I don't give a flying fuck regarding the abuse of such a drastic change in surrender delay - I just want a leveled playing field no matter what map or game mode you're looking for. And if that means having the earliest possible surrender opportunity, the more likely that a hopeless situation can be avoided by tossing a white flag, beach towel, etc.... and that counts double if you're team is royally fucked, boned, chopped, screwed etc. when facing the absolute certainty of defeat.

XengreApr 23, 20151 votes

Also modify surrender time so people don't have to suffer when an event, like my earlier game, occurs where three people in a premade afk forcing two a guaranteed loss and 7 players to suffer dealing with a game they can't immediately end, even if you can push faster.

KeltariApr 23, 20151 votes

Ive left posts on this too. People just hit the - on it.

It is really stupid to HAVE to play a game when you have no turrets down, the enemy has most of yours down, and you are down a player. It is so frustrating. There are always 2 players who say, "we can win!" No. No, we cant. Then they report you for negative attitude. You play the next 15 minutes just scrambling against superminions and then they come with baron and end it. It is NOT fun and the chances of coming back are close to 0.

These people who refuse to FF are also the biggest feeders in the game. I honestly think they just want their team to suffer because they are doing poorly.