If only to stop duo queues from terrorizing the game. If not, last time I checked 3/5 is still a majority decision. I don't see why 2 people should be able to force 3 other people to do something against their will (since if you leave, you get leaver buster)
aaronautumn7 votesi've had so many games where the surrender vote was 3/5 and we ended up winning. i'd really hate to see something like this happen.
Bears Dont Care3 votesi've had so many games where the surrender vote was 3/5 and we ended up winning. i'd really hate to see something like this happen.
Anecdotal evidence is sumb. fact of the matter is you should not be able to force people to stay.
Hobbsgoblin4 votes[{quoted}](name=Bears Dont Care,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=PUxjp4cT,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2015-06-28T20:10:15.922+0000)
Anecdotal evidence is sumb. fact of the matter is you should not be able to force people to stay.
If people don't want to see a game to the end they shouldn't play ranked.
Livin the dream1 votesIf people don't want to see a game to the end they shouldn't play ranked.
Then you're against the surrender vote in general. I say if we're gonna have a surrender vote, make it a majority decision or not have it at all. Right now having it 4/5 makes no sense
RogueWill5 votesActually you need 2/3 of the votes since is calculated is super majority and not a simple majority. 3 out of 5 equals 60% so you are still missing 6.66% to be able to surrender.
Hobbsgoblin1 votesThen you're against the surrender vote in general. I say if we're gonna have a surrender vote, make it a majority decision or not have it at all. Right now having it 4/5 makes no sense
I'm not against the surrender vote in general, just in ranked solo/duo. If you're a full 5 ranked team and you can agree not to continue the game thats fine. Solo/Duo though if bottom lane feeds to all hell and the jungler is ineffective but the mid and top did well enough to have carry potential I don't see why they should be forced to lose LP when they have a chance.
Livin the dream3 votesi've had so many games where the surrender vote was 3/5 and we ended up winning. i'd really hate to see something like this happen.
That is irrelevant. Even a 4/5 surrender vote could have been a won game, as well as a 5/5. It doesn't matter. The fact is, the minority shouldn't be able to force the majority to keep playing.
Also, winning isn't everything. I've had games where I won and didn't feel like a win at all, because the game was dragged out by bad team mates and full of toxicity. Sometimes starting a new game is better than winning a 50 minute one. It's not a job after all, it's a game. It is meant to be fun
Deep Terror Nami5 votesWhy should 3 people get to force the other 2 to automatically lose? Just because there's one more of them? You are making a case against "terrorizing" other players, but are suggesting to make it easier for less people to "terrorize" the other 2.
Take the hypocrisy out of your idea then come back with a better solution.
Livin the dream3 votes[{quoted}](name=Valkyrie Witch,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=PUxjp4cT,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2015-06-28T21:24:02.032+0000)
Why should 3 people get to force the other 2 to automatically lose? Just because there's one more of them? You are making a case against "terrorizing" other players, but are suggesting to make it easier for less people to "terrorize" the other 2.
Take the hypocrisy out of your idea then come back with a better solution.
What hypocrisy? Are you seriously telling me it is more fair to have 2 people tell 3 what to do rather than 3 people tell 2? And think about the consequences in each case: If the 3 people get what they want, the game simply ends. If the 2 people get what they want, the other 3 are forced to continue a game they do not want, otherwise risking the fear of a ban. That is the whole point of "terror"- you are making a person do what you want with fear
Deep Terror Nami4 votes2 people tell 3 what to do? Hey guess what? All 5 people chose to start a match and play, not just those 2.
Livin the dream1 votes[{quoted}](name=Valkyrie Witch,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=PUxjp4cT,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2015-06-28T23:51:22.471+0000)
2 people tell 3 what to do? Hey guess what? All 5 people chose to start a match and play, not just those 2.
All 5 people chose to start a match with the intention of having fun. If the game is no longer fun, people should be able to quit it earlier. That is the whole point of the surrender vote. You're missing the point of the post
Sp33d Zer04 votesLast time I checked, majority decision is eithher 50% + 1 or 66%. In both cases 3/5 is not 50%+ 1, and 3/5 was 60%
Livin the dream2 votes[{quoted}](name=Sp33d Zer0,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=PUxjp4cT,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2015-06-28T21:33:24.050+0000)
Last time I checked, majority decision is eithher 50% + 1 or 66%. In both cases 3/5 is not 50%+ 1, and 3/5 was 60%
... 3 out of 5 is more than 2 out of 5, so, majority. Are you trolling with this post?
Deep Terror Nami2 votesThat's an example of voting theory is all. Majority votes are not all done the same way.
Sp33d Zer01 votes2/5 is not 50% however, so thus the 50% + 1 voting rule is not properly in effect.
DrDubb2 votesAre you crazy? I just lost a game WE SHOULD HAVE WON because Master Yi cleaned up one teamfight. We were ahead gold, towers (we still had all 2nd tier towers), and still one kill after it. And everyone surrendered. I'm sill livid about it. That is a habit that'll never allow you to move up in rank, surrendering prematurely. IMO surrender should be 5/5 in ranked. That's twice today this BS has happened to me today, where it was a perfectly close game and one wrong play and 4/5 people surrendered before a single inhibi tower was lost.
Sukishoo1 votesI'd personally LOVE it if it were just switched to a majority rules, then it'd be much more fair. Like when you play 3s and are losing it takes ALL 3 votes to surrender which is stupid if there's two that say yes and one that says no... it's just wasting time.
Livin the dream1 votesI'd personally LOVE it if it were just switched to a majority rules, then it'd be much more fair. Like when you play 3s and are losing it takes ALL 3 votes to surrender which is stupid if there's two that say yes and one that says no... it's just wasting time.
Thats another great example of a minority having power over the majority, it makes no sense for 1 person to be able to troll the other 2
