Boards›Gameplay

Please Require ALL FIVE Players To Agree For A Surrender

Best Ekko NA··12 votes·923 views

I can't even begin to explain how pissed I feel when I'm carrying and doing well in a game, just for my feeding teammates to surrender the game. They shouldn't have the right to lose the game for someone else.

ALL FIVE PLAYERS LOSE LP WHEN THEY SURRENDER.

Please don't give me this majority rules bullshit. If majority rules, split my LP loss among the other 4 players because I still thought the game was winnable and they deserve to lose extra LP for giving up. I don't deserve to lose LP when I don't think the game is over and it ends prematurely because some sore losers on my team want to give up before the other team has won.

I'm beyond tired of this, so fucking tired of it. So many times I'm fed and doing well but my whole team is feeding. The game is far from over, but they aren't carrying so they don't want to play anymore. That's not how shit works and it's not fair that someone else is affected because of it.

Please, change the after 20 minute surrender to match the before 20 minute surrender. All 5 players lose LP when a team surrenders, not just 4 players. No player's LP should be at another player's mercy, all player's opinion should matter before a surrender is issued. If one player thinks the game can be won, then none should be allowed to lose that game for them by surrendering.

Also, yes I understand that some games can't be won.. that's not what I am talking about here. Literally every single time this happens to me, the game is entirely winnable. My teammates are unsportsmanlike and don't respect the fact that someone else is carrying the game. This is one of the most tilting things in the world, having a game you're doing extremely well in ended because 4 of your teammates are feeding and gave up.

23 Comments

Akali is SO HOT10 votes

Then one troll can hold a game hostage

SwiftKitten881 votes

[{quoted}](name=Akali is SO HOT,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=EVy660uh,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2018-02-23T19:10:04.269+0000)

Then one troll can hold a game hostage

^

the only time it should REQUIRE five votes to surrender is in bots... (id say remove it altogether but the game could become bugged or some shit)

because to this day im still erked about that one intermediate bot loss my account have because they fucking surrender...

redniwediS4 votes

If you want to play with like minded individuals play Flex. If you want to play with randoms that may have a different idea of what is important (the game at hand vs the averaged games played that day) play solo.

Best Ekko NA2 votes

{quoted}

If you want to play with like minded individuals play Flex. If you want to play with randoms that may have a different idea of what is important (the game at hand vs the averaged games played that day) play solo.

Shouldn't be forced to change game modes just to get around a problem in the game. If 5 players lose LP when forfeiting a game, 5 players "approval" should be required before the game can be forfeited. If someone's opinion isn't important, they shouldn't lose LP when the game is forfeited. They didn't even have a say in it.

redniwediS3 votes

The problem here is the players disagreeing with one another as to what is important.

Some people care only about the game currently being played. They want to win that game, and surrendering is a way to lose it.

Other people care about their average more than any individual game. They play out the games they can win, and attempt to cut their losses early with a surrender vote so they can move on to a more favorable game.

These are both legitimate ways to view ranked play, and non-Flex throws the two groups together. Unless you want Riot to split ranked further by adding new queues for each of these mindsets your only course of action is playing Flex or putting up with it in solo.

Phieldworker1 votes

{quoted}

The problem here is the players disagreeing with one another as to what is important.

Some people care only about the game currently being played. They want to win that game, and surrendering is a way to lose it.

Other people care about their average more than any individual game. They play out the games they can win, and attempt to cut their losses early with a surrender vote so they can move on to a more favorable game.

These are both legitimate ways to view ranked play, and non-Flex throws the two groups together. Unless you want Riot to split ranked further by adding new queues for each of these mindsets your only course of action is playing Flex or putting up with it in solo.

I agree 100%. Sometimes mentally a game is very taxing for people amd instead of enduring 50 pliant minutes of tilting and possibly losing still they decide to move on. Sometimes games really can be won and you just need people to hang in a few more minutes to scale up. And this is coming from someone who specializes in not giving up and come backs. That tilt can bleed from game to game if not patched up and sometimes patching it io means stepping away from the issue earlier than pride would allow.

Anastaecia3 votes

Every game is "winnable". It's not like football where there's a time limit or bowling with a finite number of frames.

But lots of the time when that 1 person who is usually only semi-carrying (don't fool yourself) wants to keep going, the winnability is like .5%. Why should the other 4 people waste time on 1 person's whim that a win MIGHT come around in another 40m? You are lucky you even get a min of 70% for a FF...where I come from 51% is the majority.

Late For Tea3 votes

No thanks, I don't want to be held hostage by a player who fed his ass off and then refuses to surrender.

Anastaecia2 votes

[{quoted}](name=Captain Tea,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=EVy660uh,comment-id=0007,timestamp=2018-02-23T19:34:02.495+0000)

No thanks, I don't want to be hold hostage by a player who fed his ass off and then refuses to surrender.

This brings up another problem with 5s. What if the 1 person is NOT the person carrying and it's a troll/feeder. Unless you are premade, or everyone is honest, you don't know who voted yes and no.

Who Fed Ru2 votes

no

HalcyonDweller2 votes

There are problems with forcing surrenders to take all 5 players, but I can absolutely get behind making people who give up lose more LP than the people who play it out. This would reward players for sticking through a game.

Archlord Pie2 votes

{quoted}

There are problems with forcing surrenders to take all 5 players, but I can absolutely get behind making people who give up lose more LP than the people who play it out. This would reward players for sticking through a game.

It would also cause people who would otherwise surrender to vote no even if they think the game should be surrendered.

HalcyonDweller2 votes

I'm less concerned about that, because I've played games where I thought it was best to surrender, my team did not agree to surrender, and then we won later in the game.

Late For Tea1 votes

{quoted}

I'm less concerned about that, because I've played games where I thought it was best to surrender, my team did not agree to surrender, and then we won later in the game.

I have played those games too! Unfortunately they are vastly outnumbered by the games in which 2 feeding players refuse to surrender, and we still end up losing the game. It's not worth it.

HalcyonDweller1 votes

Alright well I guess we can agree to disagree. I'm still confident that it would be a good way to implement surrenders.

Crede7772 votes

Riot should definitely split up Normal and Ranked surrender requirements. For Ranked, have 4 or 5 / 5 required to surrender. For Normals, it should only be a 3/5 majority because "getting out of this game and into a new one" is a much stronger argument in Normals than in Ranked.

Anastaecia2 votes

{quoted}

Riot should definitely split up Normal and Ranked surrender requirements. For Ranked, have 4 or 5 / 5 required to surrender. For Normals, it should only be a 3/5 majority because "getting out of this game and into a new one" is a much stronger argument in Normals than in Ranked.

I'd go for this....5 for ranked, 3 for norms.

Azadethe2 votes

Agreed. If you're destined to lose, you'll lose quickly. It's not like a team shouldnt try to win.

Archlord Pie2 votes

Last I checked, the original purpose of the surrender vote was to prevent people from being held hostage in the event that the enemy team is extremely far ahead and refusing to end the game. It lets players who are already going to lose the game end the game early instead of having to wait for 50+ minutes of passive gold income to catch up and maybe win, or wait for the enemy team to get bored and just end it. The 4-vote requirement is there to prevent a troll on the surrendering team from holding the other four hostage.

Nowadays, people tend to use it to give up on games early. Part of this is because games legitimately snowball very hard nowadays and "unwinnable scenarios" do occur frequently by the 15- or 20-minute mark. Part of this is because player perception is skewed to the point of your average bronzie believing "they got first blood game is thrown", even though the snowballing is not quite that bad (yet).

The issue is that different players view the game state differently. Some people are laser-focused on "this all evens out at 55 minutes" and will never surrender no matter how bad the early game goes. Other players are laser-focused on "I have 90 minutes to play League today and want to cram as many games in as possible, win or lose" and want their games to end as quickly as possible so they can play more games and level up faster. Still others are bad and overplaced and want to FF because they know their deaths threw the game and they want to get out of the game, whereas others are good and climbing and don't want to FF because they won lane and are in a good spot for teamfights.

Who's right? Whose opinion matters the most?

According to Riot, one player desiring to play the game out matters from 15 minutes to 20 minutes. After that, more than one player must desire to play the game out for the game to keep going. In the event that you win lane and everyone else feeds really hard, yes it kind of sucks that you play well and lose anyway, but you have to keep in mind that if you did solo carry the game, not only would you be tilting most of the other team (who all also won lane and managed to lose the game regardless), you'd also be giving a win to four players who don't deserve that win.

Like, half the reason League is such a toxic game is because it's a team game. You win or lose as a team and everyone on your team has the right to lose the game for you, just as you have the right to lose the game for them. The other half of the reason League is such a toxic game is because you're stuck with your team for the whole game, no matter how long that game is. Baddies don't want to be stuck in a game after dying 3 times in 5 minutes and decent players who didn't feed don't want to be stuck in that game either, but they're both stuck dealing with an overpowered enemy until 15 minutes at the very least.

I think OP should find a game where individual performance matters more instead of complaining that his team surrendered an obviously lost game. Why should his desire to play out a loss supersede the desire of four other players to move on with their lives?

HM Rookie2 votes

I agree with this totally, let those that select to surrender take a LP hit, those that don't...receive no hit or less of one. Bullshit quitters with no heart!! I never surrender in ranked.

FullmuteAll play1 votes

Ikr, it is so annoying to lose by ffing just because you have tilting 0 knowledge players. Especially when your whole team tilts just because of fucking temporary snowball.

gabetheguy1 votes

2/0 doesn't count as fed.

also quit holding games hostage. you aren't carrying, you're wasting everybody's time.

thonorio1 votes

If 4 out of 5 people agree on the surrender probably is because thr game is lost, having that in concideration, i thinck that a 5 man needed for surrender should be implemented in ranked, since if the game is going that bad, worst case scenario will take you 1 or 2 more minutes to lose, best case scenario you will comeback. That would decrease the amounth of people that spam surrender for toxic purposes, would improve the overall mood of the game, and make the game way less toxick.

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

More by Best Ekko NA

Remove Grievous Wounds From Morellonomicon and Make A New AP Item With It
Gameplay110 comments
164
votes
If You Are A Bronze, Silver, or Gold Jungle Player...
Gameplay152 comments
109
votes
"KYS" And Similar Remarks NEED To Be Picked Up By The System Better.
Player Behavior148 comments
101
votes
This Is Literally An Unbearable.
Gameplay135 comments
78
votes
Legit Starting To Actually Hate This Game
Gameplay111 comments
78
votes
Why do Keystones & Runes Need Damage? PLEASE EXPLAIN FOR ALL OF US. @Meddler @Riot Balance Team
Gameplay83 comments
68
votes