Would a leave vote of 3\2 be bad? would it break the game? Is it ok in normals?

Occams Raiser·May 13, 2015·1 votes·840 views

Is it trolling to hold 2 people captive to a game they don't want to play. After you lose the hearts of two of your teammates aren't you really just waiting for the end. Some say practice some aspect of the game till it is over, but couldn't you do that in the next game? Weren't you already practicing? Isn't a custom game better to practice your last hitting than a real game? Some say it is always winnable. It's not really but I understand the sentiment. I suppose its possible that their whole team could experience a server problem but that's not really a win. If you were that hard up for a win you should probably play AI games.

3 vs 2 is also a majority. I'll meet you half way then. @20 4\1, past 30 and if it is the second vote 3\2. I gave you 10 minutes after I want to quit to pull a turn around. Now let me go. Pretty please.

40 Comments

GroundRuleDoubleMay 13, 20157 votes

Where's the "Never in a million years allowed" option?

Occams RaiserMay 13, 20151 votes

Never would it be allowed or never would You personally allow it?

DrCyanideMay 13, 20152 votes

I'd never allow it personally. I run into far more pessimists that want to throw in the towel way to early than I run into trolls that want to keep people in a game to torment their team.

GroundRuleDoubleMay 13, 20153 votes

Agreed. This should never be allowed period. I think the 4 votes needed is perfect.

Occams RaiserMay 13, 20151 votes

yeesh. Has it ever been that way? I didn't start playing till season 3

GroundRuleDoubleMay 13, 20152 votes

I played before season 1 into season one. Then, stopped, and came back at the end of season 4. As far as I remember, it has always needed the 4 votes.

Occams RaiserMay 13, 20151 votes

Damn shame.

Occams RaiserMay 13, 20151 votes

You are presenting two different sides of an argument? I know what you will say before I ask but I will anyway. How many of the pessimistic games do you think you come back to win? What the those trolls?

DrCyanideMay 13, 20151 votes

What two sides did I present? To the best of my knowledge, I only had one side, the side that this 3 votes to surrender idea is bad.

Of those pessimistic games, more than half came back to win or at least be extremely close, such that victory was in reach. Probably 60-70% of those situations are salvageable.

Of the "troll" games where someone refuses to surrender, I'm not sure how many I've run into, but it's extremely uncommon. Maybe 1-2% of my games.

Occams RaiserMay 13, 20151 votes

"I run into far more pessimists that want to throw in the towel" VS "I run into trolls that want to keep people in a game to torment their team." This is the reason we should get a 3\2 instead of a 4/1. It only takes an idiot and a troll to hold you in a waste of time.

GundayMondayMay 13, 20157 votes

I'm pretty sure 60% of my ranked wins would be losses if this was allowed. In Diamond solo queue. A million times no.

Occams RaiserMay 13, 20151 votes

But you would win 60% more to balance it. So it wouldn't matter statistically. Trump. What about in normals?

GundayMondayMay 13, 20153 votes

No, I would lose 60% more. Exactly like what I said. Same story in normals, only people are friendlier and less toxic so it would probably only happen 40% of the time.

A million and one times no.

Occams RaiserMay 13, 20151 votes

Why isn't there someone like you on the other team saying the same thing you are?

GundayMondayMay 13, 20151 votes

I would bet money that more often than not, 3-5 members of the enemy team are spamming surrender when they play against me.

A million and two times no.

Occams RaiserMay 13, 20151 votes

What an odd brag. It counters your argument.

Deep Terror NamiMay 13, 20156 votes

3/2 votes happen a lot. Like, a lot a lot. And very very often the game continues far past that because they really weren't that far behind.

Laughing FishMay 13, 20155 votes

Late game teams would never win. Ever. People always try to surrender when Vayne doesn't win lane, even though she will win late. People try to surrender even though their Nasus has 900 stacks, because he lost a couple towers. Anytime you make a lategame team, people will try to surrender at 20, and quite often they get it to a 3/2 vote.

Occams RaiserMay 13, 20151 votes

It would either make a new meta or people would get used to late game champs cleaning up. There is something to be said about holding even till late game then breaking the game wide open. Why are late game champs always behind in these argument scenarios. Never do the break a deadlock. I doubt Nasus or Vayne will pull you out of the fire the majority of the time. And I really only want it in normals. I understand never say die in Ranked.

Laughing FishMay 13, 20153 votes

It would either make a new meta or people would get used to late game champs cleaning up.

So we need to change the meta just because you don't enjoy the game? There are easier games. League of Legends is a highly competitive game, and as such will always have winners and losers. 50% of all players who enter a match will lose. Deal with it. If you cannot handle a defeat, this is not the game for you.

Occams RaiserMay 13, 20151 votes

You were so interested in belittling me you failed to see the illogical nature of your words. You think someone that can't deal with defeat would propose a system to give up quicker, while those that can handle defeat refuse to surrender? Nice one, chief. Get it together.

KazaashiMay 13, 20154 votes

It is just as unfair for 2 people to force 3 others to stay in a game as it is to force a loss on 2 players because 3 don't wanna try.

You are not a special snowflake.

Occams RaiserMay 13, 20151 votes

Are you the same guy that keeps talking about snowflakes? People reference this more than Fight Club quotes. Was this shit in a teen pop movie that flew under my radar? I have never heard something so trite in my life.

On an unrelated note. 3 over 2 is a majority so it isn't the same by definition.

KazaashiMay 13, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Occams Raiser,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=WHEuAdvR,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2015-05-13T18:31:02.574+0000)

Are you the same guy that keeps talking about snowflakes? People reference this more than Fight Club quotes. Was this shit in a teen pop movie that flew under my radar? I have never heard something so trite in my life.

On an unrelated note. 3 over 2 is a majority so it isn't the same by definition.

It's from Fight Club. lol

Just because you have a majority, doesn't mean you are right.

Occams RaiserMay 13, 20151 votes

Did you just watch it? I haven't seen it in 8 years.

KazaashiMay 13, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Occams Raiser,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=WHEuAdvR,comment-id=0004000000000000,timestamp=2015-05-13T21:15:40.372+0000)

Did you just watch it? I haven't seen it in 8 years.

No, I just have a good memory and it was a central theme to the movie.

Occams RaiserMay 13, 20151 votes

Yeah.... but stop it. You say it even when it doesn't pertain to anything. Its losing it's effect.

KazaashiMay 13, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Occams Raiser,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=WHEuAdvR,comment-id=000400000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-05-13T21:27:54.816+0000)

Yeah.... but stop it. You say it even when it doesn't pertain to anything. Its losing it's effect.

It's actually not me. I don't use that quote very much, for the aboe reason.

Occams RaiserMay 13, 20151 votes

Ok. I have heard it 3 times in the past 2 weeks.

TmooseMay 13, 20153 votes

Why isnt there a button for simply no?

Occams RaiserMay 13, 20151 votes

seemed to simple.

IcyPepperMay 13, 20151 votes

Isn't a tad ironic that you're not giving us an option to say "no" when we're talking about a voting system?

Like, you have great ideas sometimes, but you're not allowing a vote for people to flat-out disagree. Not only is that polarizing, but comes across as you not accepting any opinions that want to keep the 4+ vote requirement at all phases of the game.

But, I did vote for 30-40 minutes tho. I wouldn't do 30 minutes to give late-game teams a shot, but 40 minutes might be okay if your team can only stall the inevitable.

Occams RaiserMay 13, 20151 votes

Game breaking = no. I see I should have just done no. But I thought people would be so adamantly opposed that a simple "no" wouldn't have sufficed. Who knew the forum would be visited by the cool and measured.

Laughing FishMay 13, 20152 votes

Is it trolling to hold 2 people captive to a game they don't want to play.

But it is fair to stop 2 people from playing the game simply because you want to quit? You chose to start a game. Nobody forced you. You chose to start a game be supposedly you wanted to play. It is not someone elses fault that you changed your mind. If you don't enjoy playing (and playing involves losing. Every single game 1 of the teams will lose), than don't play. Don't try to ruin it for someone else.

Occams RaiserMay 13, 20151 votes

I will copy paste something from earlier.

Do you know how constitutional amendments work? They're made by those that think something is wrong with the current system. Don't be one of those "Merica, like it or leave it" guys. We were never those kind of people. Stop trying to cut into people. It's telling of something troubling inside you. I was asking a question? How old are you? The older you are the worse you sound.

WickedfatesMay 13, 20151 votes

on one hand i think before you started playing the game you made a commitment to have this go for as long as 45mins...maybe an hr... on the other i understand not everyone agrees with the no surrender motto... and so until a new option which grps people based off of that choice comes into being, its a nice idea you have here....

but not in ranked, maybe in normals

Occams RaiserMay 13, 20151 votes

Thanks. That is really all I want. If someone wants to try something new, I would be more prone to experimentation if it wouldn't lock me into a 50 minutes. No one ever thinks about that when they are down voting questions like this.

DrCyanideMay 13, 20152 votes

If your game is lasting 50 minutes, then it sounds like a great game! Why are you complaining about having a great game?

Occams RaiserMay 13, 20151 votes

Time does equate to quality. I have been in games I was winning that went on so long I just wanted out. My team refuse to close out. I start to feel trolled around the 60 minute mark when the score is 60 to 15 and we still have people jungling and hunting for kills.

Occams RaiserMay 13, 20151 votes

I will never under stand the down voting of a question. I understand not up voting it but to be so opposed you don't want the question raised. I bet the people that do that turn around and call others cynical assholes.

You realize that this is one of issues that creates trolls right? I'm only asking if there is a remedy.