Why can't we surrender before the 20 minute mark?
There's been plenty of games where it's completely one sided even by 10 minutes. I'd love the option to surrender at 10 minutes.
28 Comments
There are a lot of elements to the game that can make the difference for a comeback. Finished items, hypercarries, etc etc. Granted these are not guaranteed to turn your fight.
In other words, for the majority of games only until 20 minutes is it truly clear whether your game is lost. Until then it may be a bad start but you can turn it around. (again, for most games).
personally I'd rather keep it at 20, to prevent people from spamming /ff at 10 just because they lost lane, while everyone else is doing fine.
Besides the "you can turn it around" stance (which I fully agree with), a case could be made against lowering the surrender count because it would be easier to abuse for IP grinding.
Honestly, anyone who wants to surrender at 10 has a lot to learn about the game. Maybe the extra 10 minutes they have to wait will be instructive to them.
If you only enjoy playing when you're ahead, you shouldn't even play games.
i recently saw a friend win a game not even 3 minutes after their team failed a 3/2 surrender vote. sometimes, it's worth it to just keep playing. a lot of the time, it isn't. it's really hard to get a general idea of when a reasonable time to surrender is because random factors can change the outcome in a matter of minutes.
To encourage small mistakes made pre 20 are surmountable (because they are.)
Don't be a coward.
The general justification given is that anytime prior to 20 minutes things are so variable that it's not possible to tell who will win. In reality, the victory of a given game is related to gold save for extreme cases; time has little to do with it.
While I can see this being more the case with Rift games, other modes, such as ARAMs should have significantly smaller surrender timers, as who wins there can often be determine from the loading screen. More to the point, the game modes aren't meant to be balanced, they are meant for fun. Being down two towers, an inhib, and 20 kills by 15 minutes simply due to their team comp in relation to the map layout, with everyone spamming /ff until that 20 minute mark; people probably are not having fun.
I see where you're coming from, but it's not justified. 20 minutes is enough time to determine a match, unfortunately. I don't say unfortunately as in "I wish it were shorter", but as in I wish there wasn't a need to surrender.
This is a gripe that I've had with league to begin with. Champs should not be able to get as strong as they are allowed to now. It's so frustrating to have your opponent a kill or two ahead of you, and now you die if they spare a passing glance at you. And if they can kill you, it's not unlikely that they'll kill the other members of your team. Now you have a super fed monster who can carry a game on his own. Even if you shut him down, he can take down 2 or 3 with him, giving him more income.
Concepts like 100% crit chance, invulnerability, 600+ ability power are simply too much. Same with 50% Spell Vamp and Lifesteal. Comebacks are very difficult to pull off, un forgivingly hard to pull off. If the fed enemy in competent, nearly impossible to come back without a fed champ of your own.
Being fed just feels...toxic and not powerful. I have a lead, and now my opponent can't easily take it back. I don't want comebacks to be easy, but easier to actually pull off.
Maybe: Extend the "shut down" gold cap to 700 or leave it at 500, and give global gold to your team when the enemy is shut down (along with assist gold). 50-80. This will make fed players extra scared of dying, and give your team incentives to kill a fed player instead of working around him.
Reduce the burst damage that can be pulled off by many champs. It's not fair to have a champ's attacks cut someone down to half HP with 2 shots or one ability. I've realized no reasonable amount of armor or magic resistance can keep you safe. It'll just be penetrated or just burst through before you can react.
Just not fun. Players shouldn't want to surrender, but they really have to sometimes
But surrender @ 20 sounds so much better than surrender @ 10.
I'd be fine with a shorter surrender timer in some circumstances. Like if you've been 4v5 for 10 minutes, or they can detect that someone is intentionally feeding over and over. (Not just being 0/6/2 in lane, like "0/10 with 0CS and died to a tower 10 times" intentional feeding.)
In a full-strength SR match, 20 minutes is fine the vast majority of the time. It would be very hard to define truly unwinnable situations that could occur before 20 minutes very often.
Honestly i wish the surrender button is removed.
Just because our jungler afked and our bot lane fed 10/0 with 3 towers down doesnt mean we lost when i have 2 towers top lane and taking on 2v1
Ill win the game
Why do you think dota doesn't even have a surrender button? They know that adding it gives players a cause to just give up or stop trying at a certain point. It's a negative power to give to players overall.
Sometimes I would want some variant of this to be there. and by some times I mean those games where we are over 20 kills behind before the 20 minute mark.
Edit and I do not mean a Lee Sin jungler got really fed. I mean most the enemy team won lane big time.
Typical low elo complaint smh