Boards›Gameplay

Can we address that LOL needs to change some core things?

Pyrotorch69··6 votes·675 views

First of all, I've been playing since season 1, I still recall MonkeyKing and Skarner getting released and I think Leona was shortly before that. I know how limited the champion pool used to be, but there are well over 100 champions now. So why not add some bans? A number of people I've asked agree that everyone deserves a ban. Why shouldn't we have them? I mean 10/128 seems quite alright for a ban pool and nobody can complain their "ONE ban" didn't get banned. It's only 4 more. It's not like were jumping to 10 from 0. I think this can only increase positive play. It's not like first pick is awesome so they shouldn't get a ban. I mean honestly, a lot of people can't stand first pick. That's 5 people that can counter pick you now. I feel like 10 bans would expand the diversity in the game some more since usually I see the same champs banned all the time.

The second thing is widely argued upon and I get that and the mindset from both sides. But honestly Riot, why can't there be a 10 minute surrender with conditions or something along those lines? I understand that it's important to not make it to easy to give up. But if you've had a DC since game start and nobody wants to even be in the game or already left then why make people miserable? Honestly how many people do you think go back into another game completely tilted for being forced into a game like that? It's a ton and I don't wanna hear " well the enemy team can just push mid if you're not playing." People in the LOL community are assholes. They will purposely prolong it. It DOES happen. I get that not everyone does but it's not fair to be forced into such a toxic situation. There is a lot involving the current surrender conditions that don't make sense when you want a more positive community. First of all 3/5 is the majority in the team. The current need of 4 may not be bad but what does one person do when your forced to play a game that 50-5 because the duo que thinks any game is winnable? Again, something that DOES happen. How does forcing 3 people that have completely given up and are likely to not even perform to any reasonable degree in a game, enforce positive play? I get a lot of people that just don't give a $^&% anymore, so they will leave anyways. Why should anyone get a game leave or any kind of backlash for removing themselves from a toxic situation where other people clearly ruined your experience? Don't some other regions have a lower then 20 minute surrender time? I see why some people don't want to see a change. Nobody wants to go do good in lane and then have bot lane give up before 10 minutes because they can surrender at 10 and gave first blood and a second kill to the other teams ADC, or a jungle that basically is afk farming till surrender vote because his buffs got stolen and hes behind and can't manage anything in a lane. At the same time though, why make us stay in the game if it's clearly over? If they have 1st dragon, 3 turrets, and a 5/0/X ADC, APC, Assassin, and Juggernaut, why do we need to wait till 20 to give up? Making anyone sit there for 20 minutes long is going to only tilt everyone and make them feel like crap. Likewise, if 3/5 people want to give up and the games that bad why make the 3 people stay in the game? What are the chances of 3 people that no longer give a crap doing anything worthwhile to win that game. A lot of people would rather drop the loss and get into a new game. Makes sense that someone would rather get into a new game that they can hopefully enjoy instead of even attempting to win that game. More importantly, nothings going to change those peoples mindset. So why try to force such a bad situation by forcing them to play a game they don't want to? Personally I'd rather not even be in a game with people that don't want to even try anymore when it's clearly not in our favor. It's a team game, if were not a team anymore why force us to stay in the game? As for conditions, how about some kind of ridiculous gold lead that determines if you can or not or how about if you were down a man for over 10 minutes. I don't think there's a "right" answer, but I do think there's a lot that are a hell of a lot better and make more sense then the current state of it. As it stands, a 3/5 vote in a game your unlikely to win, results in in-fighting and toxic behavior and more over they will only keep trying till it succeeds. I feel like there would be so much less stress and hate if the game was just ended with 3/5 vote when they have like 20k gold over you and you have nearly no chance to win because morale has a lot do with your odds of winning. Spending a ton of time in that game will only increase stress and hate, whereas ending it will remove all chance of more building from that game so someone can go into the next game with a much clearer mind.

There's more recent things too, like taking to much time to get into a game, or blue trinket OP, or the direction these new champs and reworks are taking the game or needing to lock in at champ select and so on. But I really wanted to address something that seemed more core to me.

11 Comments

Itadaki Seieki4 votes

Okay one; The bans are fine the way they are. They get the job done as far as " OP " is concerned.

Two; Surrender is fine at 20 minutes. If you lose the early game as a late game comp oh well, it's intended. Why surrender if you KNOW your team is going to scale harder than the enemy.

4/5 is fine as well. I'd rather not have a trio troll my games because " lul we lost bot and top so gg two randos "

Any game is winnable. I'm not even joking when I say this.

YOU CAN WIN ANY GAME IN LEAGUE OF LEGENDS.

How? Vision control your jungle when they're off being stupid. Get picks if they get greedy. If they start to back off for objectives then pick off stragglers. I've won 4v5s, I've won 3v5s, I've won badly losing games, bleeding Nexus towers. Why? Because I know I can make plays as the champion I play in that game.

Pyrotorch692 votes

It's not about banning OP champs. It's about everyone getting a say in the bans and with such an expanded roster I can't see why not. It couldn't hurt.

If you both have late game comps but they got so far ahead they're already at their late game, then what? Same goes for 2 early game comps. However it goes beyond just losing early. You clearly ignored all the other reason it should be altered. Like DCs. Troll feeders to force a surrender. And so much more

"Every game is winnable" is an objective opinion based on how you view how the future can unfold. Honestly that thought goes about as far ANYTHING can happen. You could inherit a country tomorrow. Reason says it's unlikely though. It's an unreasonable thought. Means it's unreasonable to think any game is winnable.

edited for spelling

Zero Skill Tank1 votes

Reason says it's unlikely though. It's an unreasonable thought. means it's unreasonable to think any game is winnable.

At least in lower elos you have very relevant chance of winning even if one of your teammates connects after 20 minutes of afking, and even complete 4v5s have 10% chance of winning for team in disadvantage. Not nearly as unreasonable as inheriting a country.

For VAST majority of games surrendering earlier than 20 minutes mark most of the time means leaving perfectly winnable game. Still, nothing would really change for worse if we could forfeit earlier, apart from players being able to convince their teams into never surrendering having heavily biased ELO.

Pyrotorch691 votes

I understand my example was kind of extreme. But I figured the general point would get across. For the most part I personally agree with what you said. My biggest problem is morale, if 3 people aren't going to even accomplish anything shouldn't it be up to the players whether or not the games worth staying in, instead of a pre-set timer. Hell, if people that convince their team to never give up rise higher and faster then good for them, they will end up where they belong. There's also the fact that a lot of people would agree that a game that went on forever wasn't even worth the effort despite winning and would have rather just started a fresh game. If it ends in a loss that's a huge tilt factor they need to carry then.

Sona Cant Say No4 votes

I don't agree with your sentiment. Not ALL games are winnable. Sometimes games are just so out of control that there's nothing to be done, and people just want to get it over with. Say your team is behind 30 plus kills, and your bot lane is a duo who thinks as you do. The other 3 want to surrender but can't because of them. You then have a potentially toxic situation that can easily snowball out of control. The two groups start arguing, mean words are thrown back and fourth, reports are sent when they eventually lose because they spend more time arguing then playing. What has been accomplished in this situation? That all could have been avoided with some sort of alternative to surrender conditions like OP said.

ZephyrDrake3 votes

i would only ever agree to having a less than 20 min surrender if and only if there was a DC right from the start of the match and he never got in the game in those 10 mins.

league doesn't use the traditional majority rule it uses supermajority which requires more than 50% of the votes. People surrender way to easily as it is. I have seen people spamming "gg surrender at 20" just because the game is 0-5. If the game is clearly over then let them push and win, if they prolong the game simply report them for being unsportsmanlike at the end of the game. Most people will actually gladly go and finish the game early since it's just free LP they can get into another game faster. All your logic is stupid, since the same can be said about anything "why should I have to keep playing just because these 4 other assholes don't want to surrender?" "why should I get punished when the game is over but no one wants to admit it and surrender?" 3 people wanting to surrender is not enough. Simple as that, they are not the supermajority which is what Riot uses and even if they didn't 5/2 = 2.5 = 3 when rounded there is no way for you to get a perfect 50% with an odd number of people so if anything 4 is the true majority not 3

Pyrotorch691 votes

I agree that people can give up way to easily, but i don't think that's a reason to ignore the other problems. As for reporting them for such a thing, there's not much in place to do a whole lot about that. And the Lp argument only applies to ranked and yes the other game modes matter plenty. As for "My" logic, I'd say you twisted my examples there quite a bit. From an outsiders perspective, why make everyone sit through a game where the majority of the team gave up already, I'd bet most people couldn't defend it properly. And also it was meant to address the issue of morale and stress brought on from it. "why should I get punished when the game is over but no one wants to admit it and surrender?" I never said 1 person should get to decide and the punishing thing was more of about being forced to stay in a game with some pre-made of trolls because if you just leave you get backlash for it. The entire point is to do something about the negativity that gets carried into the next games. I can't find any pros to the way things are set up at the moment that make it worth staying the way it is over changing. On a side note, Majority is defined as the greater part, or more than half, of the total. Technically 3/5 is still majority because 3 is the next full number that isn't under half. But I'm not arguing about what the majority in LOL should be.

ZephyrDrake2 votes

{quoted}

I agree that people can give up way to easily, but i don't think that's a reason to ignore the other problems. As for reporting them for such a thing, there's not much in place to do a whole lot about that. And the Lp argument only applies to ranked and yes the other game modes matter plenty. As for "My" logic, I'd say you twisted my examples there quite a bit. From an outsiders perspective, why make everyone sit through a game where the majority of the team gave up already, I'd bet most people couldn't defend it properly. And also it was meant to address the issue of morale and stress brought on from it. "why should I get punished when the game is over but no one wants to admit it and surrender?" I never said 1 person should get to decide and the punishing thing was more of about being forced to stay in a game with some pre-made of trolls because if you just leave you get backlash for it. The entire point is to do something about the negativity that gets carried into the next games. I can't find any pros to the way things are set up at the moment that make it worth staying the way it is over changing. On a side note, Majority is defined as the greater part, or more than half, of the total. Technically 3/5 is still majority because 3 is the next full number that isn't under half. But I'm not arguing about what the majority in LOL should be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority

Pyrotorch691 votes

Thanks for going out of your way to even do that but I'm aware of "supermajority" and what it is. Still worth learning about for anyone that has no idea though.

ZephyrDrake2 votes

{quoted}

Thanks for going out of your way to even do that but I'm aware of "supermajority" and what it is. Still worth learning about for anyone that has no idea though.

you clearly don't since you kept mentioning "majority" when i said to you that what Riot uses is supermajority

Pyrotorch691 votes

"when rounded there is no way for you to get a perfect 50% with an odd number of people so if anything 4 is the true majority not 3"

Clearly I do, Supermajority does not necessarily = true majority. It's more of a concept of a more fair and concise majority. Or a vast majority. Anyways, semantics. This has little to nothing to do with the point of the thread.

More from Gameplay

3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay764 comments
7,167
votes
3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay156 comments
3,510
votes
UPVOTE FOR URF
Gameplay606 comments
2,440
votes
Yes plz.
Gameplay456 comments
1,721
votes
3 Refunds per season, up vote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay114 comments
1,716
votes
When is ANYONE at riot going to address the awful new player experience?
Gameplay634 comments
1,383
votes