FORFEIT, QUITTING, LOSING GAMES

7025863629·Jul 16, 2016·2 votes·2,215 views

PLEASE FIX THE FORFEIT BUTTON. IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE THAT PEOPLE CAN CHOOSE TO GIVE UP FROM A GAME BECAUSE THEY THINK IT IS TO HARD OR UNWINNABLE. How many times have people clicked that quit button, failed to get all players to quit and come back and win the game? It happens a lot. As you know LOL, from your code, Negative attitudes effect players, let alone effect them greater then a positive attitude. Do you know how many games must have been forfeited that the losing team may have come back from and won... A LOT! It is not fair to have people quit games because it isnt easy, going their way, or it gets difficult because they are behind. It may be necessary for a forfeit button, I grant you that, BUT AT LEAST ALLOW EVERY PLAYER TO MAKE THE DECISION TO QUIT. IT SHOULD BE A 100% VOTE. As long as one player believes the team should win. They should not get a loss due to a forfeit. Please change this!

9 Comments

Ba22crowJul 16, 20162 votes

It's a complicated situation. If they switch it to require 100% participation how long until we get video of a ranked match where the winning team Is ahead 70-3 and is refusing to finish to pad their KDA's and the losing team can't forfeit because of one player trying to punish the others for his perception that they lost him the game?

That would cause far more bad publicity than 1 angry player now and then because the rest of the team gives up as easily as a one legged dog trying to chase a car.

That's not to say I'm happy about it. I've won the majority of games my team tried to give up on and me and a friend forced them to stick it out. But Iv'e lost enough ranked games where we surrendered just a few kills behind because people have no desire to earn their victory, they just want to stomp, that I think something does need to be done about it. But requiring a 5 man vote is too much, maybe introducing some other parameters, like requiring one team have at least 20 kills and twice as many kills as the other team to allow a 4 man surrender also after the 20 minute mark.

MdluliJul 16, 20161 votes

It's a complicated situation. If they switch it to require 100% participation how long until we get video of a ranked match where the winning team Is ahead 70-3 and is refusing to finish to pad their KDA's and the losing team can't forfeit because of one player trying to punish the others for his perception that they lost him the game?

This is probably not going to be a likely outcome. Especially considering that the enemy team will probably be reported for something like Unsportsmanlike Conduct.

maybe introducing some other parameters, like requiring one team have at least 20 kills and twice as many kills as the other team to allow a 4 man surrender also after the 20 minute mark.

This is actually a pretty good compromise! 20 minutes is definitely not a sufficient stand-alone parameter.

Warlord ZudaneJul 16, 20162 votes

It's an exaggeration by far, although there is a several hour game that already happened similar to this thanks to 2 people on each time if I remember right.

But it's hard to say when we should be able to surrender. After 20 minutes we can, but if people are losing faith then take charge of your team! Ping, communicate tell people where to go and how to help and do the same thing yourself. Once you can build that teamwork then they won't surrender. Otherwise you can't really force someone to choose whether or not to continue the game.

Hyrum GraffJul 16, 20161 votes

{quoted}

PLEASE FIX THE FORFEIT BUTTON. IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE THAT PEOPLE CAN CHOOSE TO GIVE UP FROM A GAME BECAUSE THEY THINK IT IS TO HARD OR UNWINNABLE.

Why not? It requires a 4/5 majority. If you never want to surrender, that means a surrender vote can't pass unless literally every one of your teammates wants to surrender. In my experience as someone who almost never surrenders in Ranked (2 games out of maybe 400), this happens very, very infrequently.

How many times have people clicked that quit button, failed to get all players to quit and come back and win the game? It happens a lot.

But in those games, the losing team didn't surrender. 2+ people thought the game was winnable, and it was. Working as intended.

As you know LOL, from your code, Negative attitudes effect players, let alone effect them greater then a positive attitude. Do you know how many games must have been forfeited that the losing team may have come back from and won... A LOT!

This would actually be really interesting to see. You could look at games with a surrender vote that passes and measure how far behind the losing team was at that point. Then compare that to games where the losing team is the same amount behind and didn't surrender, and see how often the losing team makes a comeback.

It is not fair to have people quit games because it isnt easy, going their way, or it gets difficult because they are behind. It may be necessary for a forfeit button, I grant you that, BUT AT LEAST ALLOW EVERY PLAYER TO MAKE THE DECISION TO QUIT. IT SHOULD BE A 100% VOTE. As long as one player believes the team should win. They should not get a loss due to a forfeit. Please change this!

Maybe it's not fair to the one player, but what about the other 4 players? Would it be fair to them to force them to play through a game where they are getting stomped, that seems unwinnable, just because one player is too blind to see or too stubborn to admit that the game is over?

MdluliJul 16, 20161 votes

Why not? It requires a 4/5 majority. If you never want to surrender, that means a surrender vote can't pass unless literally every one of your teammates wants to surrender. In my experience as someone who almost never surrenders in Ranked (2 games out of maybe 400), this happens very, very infrequently.

Well, if you've committed to playing the match, knowing full well that not all games are easily won; that teams sometimes [or often] throw; that whatever the situation is on the map, once you hit the 45 minute mark, the game could honestly go either way due to long death timers and the losing team having caught up in items; then I think you should see the match through to the end.

But in those games, the losing team didn't surrender. 2+ people thought the game was winnable, and it was. Working as intended.

Well, the whole point is that they didn't surrender, which gave them a chance to win. 100% of those "comeback" teams would have lost if they did surrender.

This would actually be really interesting to see. You could look at games with a surrender vote that passes and measure how far behind the losing team was at that point. Then compare that to games where the losing team is the same amount behind and didn't surrender, and see how often the losing team makes a comeback.

Yeah, that would be interesting. Hopefully those stats will be made available on OPGG or something.

Maybe it's not fair to the one player, but what about the other 4 players? Would it be fair to them to force them to play through a game where they are getting stomped, that seems unwinnable, just because one player is too blind to see or too stubborn to admit that the game is over?

Firstly, the game is only over once a nexus explodes; otherwise comebacks wouldn't exist. Secondly, a lot of games that are surrendered are not ones where teams are stomped or that seem unwinnable. A lot of people want to give up after 10 minutes or even First Blood. Thirdly, as seen in comeback games; it is often the players who didn't vote to surrender who are not blind because they won the game. Lastly, considering my first point, does it seem fair to you to deny a player the chance to win when there is still a chance? Should the other 4 players really have the right to give up and take another player down with them? This is emphasised even more so in ranked, where players are playing to compete rather than for casual fun.

Hyrum GraffJul 16, 20161 votes

{quoted}

Lastly, considering my first point, does it seem fair to you to deny a player the chance to win when there is still a chance? Should the other 4 players really have the right to give up and take another player down with them? This is emphasised even more so in ranked, where players are playing to compete rather than for casual fun.

I do not think it is fair to deny that player (player A) a chance to win. I also do not think it is fair to force a player (player B) to sit through a game that is almost certainly unwinnable.

The problem is, you can't give player B the ability to end the game without taking away player A's ability to continue it. (Technically you could allow player B to leave and be replaced by another player, but that has all kinds of other issues). So we have to make a compromise.

The question is, where do we draw the line?

Well, if you've committed to playing the match, knowing full well that not all games are easily won; that teams sometimes [or often] throw; that whatever the situation is on the map, once you hit the 45 minute mark, the game could honestly go either way due to long death timers and the losing team having caught up in items; then I think you should see the match through to the end.

For this reason, I think denying player A the chance to win is more unfair, so clearly a single surrender vote should not trigger a surrender. It's also why you can't surrender in the first 20 minutes.

Is it 1.5 times less fair (3 vs 2)? I think so. Therefore, a 3-2 surrender vote should fail.

Is it 4 times less fair? I don't think so. So I think 4 votes to surrender is a reasonable compromise to make.

Well, the whole point is that they didn't surrender, which gave them a chance to win. 100% of those "comeback" teams would have lost if they did surrender.

I prefer to look at it the other way around. They had a chance to win all along. By surrendering, you're giving up that chance. So the question is, how big of a chance are you giving up?

If it's a 30% chance, it seems like a huge waste to surrender. If it's a 1% chance, do you really begrudge the teammates who'd rather lose that 1% chance than spend another 10 minutes slowly losing? That's like saying "You shouldn't be able to surrender, even when the enemy team is hitting your nexus, because that guy who's about to respawn might be able to magically 1v5 even though he's 2-9-3."

A different way of phrasing this is: You might look at that game and say "They won because they didn't surrender." Or you could look at it and say, "They didn't surrender because they still had a chance to win."

Yeah, that would be interesting. Hopefully those stats will be made available on OPGG or something.

Firstly, the game is only over once a nexus explodes; otherwise comebacks wouldn't exist. Secondly, a lot of games that are surrendered are not ones where teams are stomped or that seem unwinnable. A lot of people want to give up after 10 minutes or even First Blood. Thirdly, as seen in comeback games; it is often the players who didn't vote to surrender who are not blind because they won the game.

I have no idea what the numbers are, so I'm not going to try to guess about them. My point is this:

There is some point (ex, a 1% chance of winning) when it is definitely acceptable to screw one player out of their (1%) chance of winning for the sake of the other 4 players on the team. There is also a point where it is not acceptable. Where do we draw that line? I think 20 minutes, an 80% majority, and 3 minutes in between votes is a reasonable line.

MdluliJul 16, 20161 votes

You're absolutely right! At the very least, they should do this for ranked games because people play ranked more to compete than for casual fun.

6969699669Sep 13, 20181 votes

I have once again posted another suggestion 2 years later to remove the quit button in ranked matches but still no action has been taken.

In response to Mdluli who made a valid point that players would not end the game to work on their KDA. You better hope they don't take baron because the minions could win the game then. In addition the losing team could become rich and level 18 and the game would even out. Even

Let's not forget a little something that makes the best players in the world the best players in the world... SKILL! It takes skill also to win and play the game. Even if you are behind you can come back. Skillful players can defeat players with better items, a higher level and more kills.

Clicking the quit button ruins the game. It seems that there are a lot of players that agree. We have all been there, 2 minutes in and everyone is already quitting.

Let me remind everyone what happened to Warcraft III Frozen throne. Coming from someone that was a top 2 player in North America East Coast. The game ended up defeating itself. The game died after players realized they can disconnect there computers when they were losing. Activision Blizzard, just Blizzard back then didn't manage it and the fun and thrill of the game was gone. Manage your game! Get rid of that button.