You're all abusing the surrender feature

Zero Shingetsu·Jul 23, 2019·5 votes·2,490 views

Surrendering does not exist to quit the game because you think you're sure you'll lose. Surrendering exists to leave a game in which you have an active griefer purposely ruining your game.

Let me restate that.

Surrendering does not exist to quit the game because you think you're sure you'll lose. Surrendering exists to leave a game in which you have an active griefer purposely ruining your game.

I've kind of had it with people whining about teammates not surrendering at 20 after going 0-15 in the early game. Suck it up and play through. The surrender feature isn't there so you can give up on a game the second it starts going bad. It was never intended for that. That's why there's a minimum wait period before you can surrender. it gives you time to make sure the person is actually griefing and not just playing poorly.

If you're committed to a surrender at 20 minutes over a few team deaths, you've already given up and you're likely to fulfill your own prophecy. You're letting your team, your opponents, and yourself down by doing this, especially in ranked play. They did implement early surrender to accommodate those who use it in this way, but that's why it had to be unanimous. If EVERYONE happens to agree that their heart just isn't in this game, you can surrender early. But that doesn't change this simple fact:

Surrendering does not exist to quit the game because you think you're sure you'll lose. Surrendering exists to leave a game in which you have an active griefer purposely ruining your game.

48 Comments

DynikusJul 23, 201910 votes

you're that guy that votes no when the enemy team has baron, 4 drakes, elder, they've taken every inhib, and are just literally camping you in spawn, huh?

Zero ShingetsuJul 23, 20192 votes

{quoted}

you're that guy that votes no when the enemy team has baron, 4 drakes, elder, they've taken every inhib, and are just literally camping you in spawn, huh?

Yep. And that guy that helps win half those games.

MagicFlyingLlamaJul 23, 20194 votes

Zero ShingetsuJul 23, 20191 votes

{quoted}

K.

Well, I'm glad that's settled!

Krispy CackJul 23, 20193 votes

[{quoted}](name=Zero Shingetsu,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=XFt5AXW9,comment-id=00050000,timestamp=2019-07-23T02:21:09.606+0000)

Yep. And that guy that helps win half those games.

then you are the worst type of person in the game. worst than the one that runs down mid.

Zero ShingetsuJul 24, 20192 votes

[{quoted}](name=Krispy Cack,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=XFt5AXW9,comment-id=000500000001,timestamp=2019-07-23T23:37:02.576+0000)

then you are the worst type of person in the game. worst than the one that runs down mid.

Think for a moment about what you've said. Think in actual, literal terms. You literally just said that a guy who tries with everything he's got, regardless of how bad the game started, to win the game, is worse than someone who runs down mid.

Hyperbole has its logical limits.

PutinatorNov 2, 20191 votes

I am one of those too and I hate quitters, I tell people at the beginning of the game that I am not going to surrender during the game and plan to report everyone if they do. I would rather sit through a 45 minutes game that I am going to lose than quit. If you quit you are going to lose and I would rather make the enemy work for it. Plus If there are flamers I am punishing them. They really should have a feature at the beginning where all players can state whether or not they are going to surrender for any reason and based on how people vote and give people the option of whether to stay in the team or not. The other option would be is that if people choose to surrender then their champ is replaced by a bot so that the other players are able to continue playing. This would make everyone happy.. I bet if people have the ability to surrender in games that they do not want to be in and the other players are allowed to play on if they wish that games would be less toxic. If a team wins a game after they could automatically gain honor based on the number of players who had surrendered. This means if i decided to continue playing a game everyone else left and I and the bots were able to pull a win than I could gain 6 honor for that game. all the other players who had surrendered could also still get the win unless they had quit without surrendering properly.

KFCeytronJul 23, 20197 votes

[{quoted}](name=Zero Shingetsu,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=XFt5AXW9,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-07-23T01:36:25.757+0000)

Surrendering does not exist to quit the game because you think you're sure you'll lose. Surrendering exists to leave a game in which you have an active griefer purposely ruining your game.

######[citation needed]

Zero ShingetsuJul 23, 20191 votes

{quoted}

######[citation needed]

I've dug and can't find it as it's from way, way back when Riot had different employees and actually communicated with the community on a regular basis, but back before ff20 and early surrender, it was widely known that the mechanic existed as a counter to griefers, connection issues, that sort of thing. It was rather common back then to buy mobi boots and a ton of Zeals with respawn runes and just repeatedly charge into the enemy. The surrender function was required to counter that sort of situation.

MagicFlyingLlamaJul 23, 20195 votes

Surrender is for whatever the hell you want, which is why it requires agreement.

You do have a point, though. People are too quick to give up.

Zero ShingetsuJul 23, 20192 votes

{quoted}

Surrender is for whatever the hell you want, which is why it requires agreement.

I guess that's true in theory. That said, it was originally intended to keep griefers from wasting your time. It feels like although the intention has shifted, it was never "meant" to, which is why I bring it up.

KVbqbFsC8eJul 23, 20194 votes

Ok.

I will continue to "abuse" the surrender feature.

JackMcCarryJul 24, 20193 votes

surrender verb (ACCEPT DEFEAT) the act of stopping fighting and officially admitting defeat

Even the english dictionary is against you on this one

Zero ShingetsuJul 24, 20192 votes

{quoted}

Even the english dictionary is against you on this one

I've addressed this in another reply already. Yes, surrender leads to a defeat. But the definition does not establish the reason for surrender. "Surrender", if my English is accurate, was more commonly used in a military situation. The enemy had more troops, better fortifications, an important hostage, whatever. So you might choose to surrender rather than engage in unnecessary bloodshed.

In this case, when the battle is pitched and the enemy has an inherent unfair advantage (for example, you have an AFK or griefer aiding the enemy team), absolutely surrender. I'm talking about situations where all your team is trying, only you're off to a bad start. What I'm fairly sure has almost never happened is two roughly equal armies doing battle, and one surrendering after skirmishing unsuccessfully for a few minutes.

JackMcCarryJul 24, 20193 votes

The enemy had more troops, better fortifications, an important hostage, whatever. So you might choose to surrender rather than engage in unnecessary bloodshed

The enemy has more items (stronger enemy = more troops) better fortification (your entire base is destroyed they still have all turrets) an important objective (3 drakes and a Baron) whatever. So i might choose to surrender rather than engage in unnecessary time waste.

Zero ShingetsuJul 24, 20192 votes

{quoted}

The enemy has more items (stronger enemy = more troops) better fortification (your entire base is destroyed they still have all turrets) an important objective (3 drakes and a Baron) whatever. So i might choose to surrender rather than engage in unnecessary time waste.

Then explain to me why my teams so often surrender when we've taken four of their turrets and they've taken none of ours, but we're down by 8 kills. That aside, those situations aren't unfair advantages. They're all things that can be earned back. You can even those scales with tight, careful play and proper strategy. You have no control over whether an AFK player starts playing again, but you can control how you farm. How you steal objectives. How you push lanes. When you teamfight. You can use those tools to regain equal footing with sufficient skill, and if you surrender every time, how will you ever acquire this skill?

That doesn't account for your fortification analogy, but if your entire base is destroyed, why bother? They'll be coming for your nexus in a matter of minutes. If they deliberately stall just to annoy you, by all means, surrender at that time. But a destroyed base was not what my OP assumed. I always say, "If we're not in postgame, the game isn't over." You'll be in postgame if you have no way to defend your nexus.

JackMcCarryJul 24, 20192 votes

People are downvoting you because you generelize your point way too broadly. In 1 comment exchange you already made an exception to your "never surrender unless you have an afk" rule if the enemy team is stalling a won game.

Nobody likes people who solo spam surrender just because they lost lane while the rest of their team is winning. On the other hand nobody likes a 1/8/2 player spamming NEVER surrender when you have no inhibs, the team score is 5 to 25 and the enemy is just fucking with you.

If 4 people decided the game is over, it's enough of a reason to not hold them hostage in a lost game.

Zero ShingetsuJul 24, 20192 votes

{quoted}

People are downvoting you because you generelize your point way too broadly. In 1 comment exchange you already made an exception to your "never surrender unless you have an afk" rule if the enemy team is stalling a won game.

Do you know how large posts would be if you had to account for every single eventuality every time? I'd need to state clearly my opinion on, off the top of my head, the following:

What if the enemy has slightly more towers than you?
What if the enemy has slightly less towers than you?
What if the difference is significant in either direction?
What if the enemy has more dragons?
What if you have more dragons?
I'd have to address the ratio of dragons, as not all are equally useful to comebacks. I'd have to account for every possible combination of dragons between the two teams and state which I believe are worthy of surrender and which are not.
What if they enemy has baron?
What if you have baron?
I'd have to account for every champion I believe snowballs too hard. What if their team has one? What if yours does?
Then of course I'd have to account for combinations. What if you have two of them and they have one? What if it's the other way around? How do they compare to eachother?
Of course I'd also have to address which items are built by each champion.
For that matter, I'd have to go into specific team compositions I believe are more or less capable of a comeback, from both perspectives. Out of... how many champions does League have now?
How low is your nexus?
How pushed are your lanes?
How cooperative have your teammates proven to be?
What's the comparative skill and champion mastery levels of every player on both teams? This factors heavily in how well each can make use of late game builds. It could be that you're behind now, but you have players who will make better use of their champion come endgame than they do. If it's the opposite, perhaps a surrender is in order.

It goes on and on and my fingers are starting to hurt. I didn't address the enemy stalling before now for two reasons:

I never said or implied anything about your entire base being down to the Nexus. If this is the case, and the enemy has snowballed, your nexus probably won't last long enough to surrender anyway. Why would anyone think I'd be addressing such a situation in the first place? Therefore, why bring it up?
The amount of teams who actively stall for time just to annoy the other team, in my experience, are incredibly low. At worst, they won't attack nexus, instead dancing in front of your fountain while their minions do the job. The nexus still breaks, it just does so several seconds slower than it could. Based on the point I just made on post complexity, why would I bring it up, unless I'm also going to make my thoughts on all the other obtuse eventualities that could come into play?

Nobody likes people who solo spam surrender just because they lost lane while the rest of their team is winning. On the other hand nobody likes a 1/8/2 player spamming NEVER surrender when you have no inhibs, the team score is 5 to 25 and the enemy is just fucking with you.

If I could count the times my snowballed team lost a game because they insisted on "just fucking with" the other team... If they're screwing around, they're lowering their guard and giving you an opportunity to farm your way back into the game.

If 4 people decided the game is over, it's enough of a reason to not hold them hostage in a lost game.

And that's fine. I'm not advocating that we change the surrender system. I'm advocating that players stop giving up so quickly. I still believe it was never intended to simply give up on a game, but it's used for that, Riot hasn't changed it in light of that, so fine. They're okay with that, I'm okay with it. But I'm still not okay with people assuming that because you can surrender, you might as well. Any game can be won, literally any game, and a loss is still a worthwhile experience.

This is the sole point I'm trying to make, and I think I made it quite clearly.

ChaosReynJul 25, 20191 votes

While any game is theoretically winnable, I think the point here worth noting is what you call "assuming you can surrender just because it's an option."

I'd have to protest that claim: even though most of the surrender votes are often called hastily and with severe prejudice towards both personal scores and enemy damage advantages, these surrender votes are still not without reason. This is where my argument of effort vs payoff will teeter the line.

If I personally am 0/5 in lane, having a horrible time, not having fun at all because I'm quite simply getting bent, then I can sometimes be a bit short-sighted. I personally have lost (lane) and I feel like I'm not going to be much of anything at this point, so I may throw in the /ff. Now, my mid lane may be like 6/0 with most cs in the game, I haven't looked, and quite honestly, none of that has mattered to me at this point, I'M getting bent. I'm tilted, I want to end this game and go do something else for an hour so I can calm my shit and play a game I can win.

It's at this point your team matters more than anything:

if they're toxic and it looks like they're hitting no just to flame me more, of course I'm not going to want to keep playing.
If they're still trying, and encouraging me to keep trying, I'm going to feel a bit more apt to play it out, even if I still think it's over, because they're not being dicks about it.
If they're giving me options to try instead of actively power-feeding my fed-ass lane, even more bonus points. I may not be able to fight (for example) the fed Draven, but I should be fine farming at top against their Maokai since he can't 2-shot me. I might be able to take him down with a solid gank or two, where I'd have 0 chance fighting 7/0 Draven as a 0/5 marksman.

There's still plenty of payoff in the majority of the games people are hitting /ff on. But if it feels like these people are fighting against their teammates (and this is League of Cancer, so of course they are) then the effort won't feel worth it. Likewise, if someone is tilted to the point of no return, the effort necessary to get that person to try again may not be worth the payoff of trying to Band-Aid your teammate's mental.

"But Reyn, trying to make our teammates feel good isn't our job!"

True...but neither is being a colossal douchebag to them if they're having a bad game, and NOBODY seems to have an issue with that on the rift. >.>

Darkstar AnnieJul 24, 20193 votes

I do not enjoy being stomped. When you see your team has 3 kills to enemy 28 and 50+ farm over your team, it's time to maybe call it quits imo. If mostly everyone on your team agrees, I don't see the problem with surrendering so you can get to the next game quicker that you actually have a chance to win.

mack9112Jul 23, 20192 votes

Changing ff time to 15 from 20 was the worst decision if you ask me.

Too many defeatists.

ChaosReynJul 24, 20192 votes

It was a good choice in the sense that if the game was a total loss already (0/6 mid who ragequit, jungler running it down mid, enemy with 27 kills by 15 minutes from these two griefers) it was a quick way to end your misery.

It was bad in the sense that the people downvoting your comment have less faith in their own ability to mount a comeback than they have actual ability, and actively blame the people still trying to play the game for their loss.

FFS, it's called League of LEGENDS, not League of COP-OUTS.

III BAKURYU III Jul 23, 20192 votes

The problem is in the past you/other could be say, 0-3 at around 15 mins and there wasn't much "GG" factor when games would typically be around that 35-40+ min games. I remember I had around twelve 50+ min games within a 20 game period once and it would happen regularly.

Players knew there was a "Late Game" but in today's ~~League of~~ Mortal Kombat there really isn't a "Late Game" because of how summoner 32 it is. 0-3 at 15 mins is in all instances more than likely "GG". The League is really just 20 year long stuns, slows etc + insane burst that when your opponent has such abilities + 3 kills - assists etc it's close to impossible to actually win.

Also, It's ~~League of~~ Mortal Kombat.......when did players not spam the Surrender? This game is mostly played by 5 year old Call of Duty fanboys, E-Girls that do nothing but show their tits and streamers that when they go 0-2 on stream they rage and quit etc.

Midg3tJul 23, 20192 votes

This is why we need a report option for "holding the game hostage".

Zero ShingetsuJul 23, 20192 votes

{quoted}

This is why we need a report option for "holding the game hostage".

Or maybe you should work on taking the nexus if you want the game over.

Midg3tJul 23, 20192 votes

If we're so far behind the only nexus that will be taken down is ours. But the difference is that you want to stall that outcome, wasting every1's time in the process while me (and im assuming a lot of other players) would simply make it shorter by surrendering.

So why avoiding the inevitable when you can just accept it and move on, sparing player's time and mental energy?

Zero ShingetsuJul 24, 20192 votes

{quoted}

If we're so far behind the only nexus that will be taken down is ours. But the difference is that you want to stall that outcome, wasting every1's time in the process while me (and im assuming a lot of other players) would simply make it shorter by surrendering.

So why avoiding the inevitable when you can just accept it and move on, sparing player's time and mental energy?

I can think of two games off the top of my head in which my team took their nexus with a 35 or greater kill deficit. I can think of at least one more where the enemy team took ours under the same circumstances.

But let's assume you're right. Let's assume you'll always lose. Why avoid the inevitable?

You learn more from a loss than you do a win. This is a common statement, but it's very true. When you win, you did things right. There's not a whole lot to look at. When you lose, there's a reason. The longer you play a losing game, the more chances you have to try adapting in different ways and discover what turns it around. For instance, I didn't learn to look at my opponents' items and counter-build them until I started doing it during games in which I was getting destroyed.
It cheapens the opponent's victory to simply give up. A competitive player doesn't want to win by default.

By the logic of you and others - and I think I may write a whole separate thread on this sometime - why is taking the nexus necessary at all? Why not just play until one team has a 10-kill lead, then call them the victors and move on? If by some chance both teams stay close throughout, then the nexus can settle it. If it's going to be considered acceptable to just surrender at 15 because you're 0-6 as a team, take it out of the players' hands. End these disputes and flame-fests over voting no and just have the game outright end when a team gets behind.

Midg3tJul 24, 20192 votes

[{quoted}](name=Zero Shingetsu,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=XFt5AXW9,comment-id=0009000000000000,timestamp=2019-07-24T00:57:03.206+0000)

I can think of two games off the top of my head in which my team took their nexus with a 35 or greater kill deficit. I can think of at least one more where the enemy team took ours under the same circumstances.

Wow you can remeber 2 games...out of how many you played? I mean, I can remember those games aswell, but they're so rare I have better chances at unboxing a knife in csgo.

But let's assume you're right. Let's assume you'll always lose. Why avoid the inevitable?

I never said you will ALWAYS LOSE. But whatever, if twisting my words will fir your argument, go for it man :D

You learn more from a loss than you do a win. This is a common statement, but it's very true. When you win, you did things right. There's not a whole lot to look at. When you lose, there's a reason. The longer you play a losing game, the more chances you have to try adapting in different ways and discover what turns it around. For instance, I didn't learn to look at my opponents' items and counter-build them until I started doing it during games in which I was getting destroyed.

I can learn how to counter-build against some1 without having my ass ravaged by the enemy team.

It cheapens the opponent's victory to simply give up. A competitive player doesn't want to win by default.

If im playing ranked, im playing to get that LP. How will I get it is none of my business.

By the logic of you and others - and I think I may write a whole separate thread on this sometime - why is taking the nexus necessary at all? Why not just play until one team has a 10-kill lead, then call them the victors and move on? If by some chance both teams stay close throughout, then the nexus can settle it. If it's going to be considered acceptable to just surrender at 15 because you're 0-6 as a team, take it out of the players' hands. End these disputes and flame-fests over voting no and just have the game outright end when a team gets behind.

The game's design went in a way where once youre ahead, youre AHEAD. Just look at the runes for example. The whole domination tree revolves around killing some1= getting more stats Precision, same shit. Sorcery, runes like Aery, Comet, manaflow band revolves around hitting your opponent as much as possible. Inspiration, far more inferior compared to other rune paths. And Resolve is just some survivability but again, weaker than other rune paths.

Then gameplay bs. Plates. Champs that have the answer to EVERY SITUATION, mainly mobility Gutted vision. Enchanter weak af (except FoTM)

tl;dr the game is too snowbally so betting on a small chance that you will turn the game around is pointless.

Zero ShingetsuJul 24, 20192 votes

{quoted}

This is why we need a report option for "holding the game hostage".

I feel the fact that we don't is proof positive that Riot fully intends for us to try and come back from early struggles. Imagine if every sport was over when one team got a great start. Well, Manchester is up 3-0 in the first 18 minutes and they're controlling territory like Julius Caesar, so the referee has just called a stop to this one.

Kume has pounded on Tokudome for the whole first round. Tokudome is bleeding and now Kume has superior position. Might as well call this one over before someone gets hurt. Kume is the winner!

In any competitive situation, come-from-behind wins are more exciting and more rewarding than any other kind. Why would you deprive yourself and your team of that opportunity? Why, instead of facing the opponent proudly and digging deep within yourself to find the answer to what they're doing, would you hang your head in shame and surrender?

Midg3tJul 24, 20192 votes

[{quoted}](name=Zero Shingetsu,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=XFt5AXW9,comment-id=00090001,timestamp=2019-07-24T01:04:51.274+0000)

I feel the fact that we don't is proof positive that Riot fully intends for us to try and come back from early struggles. Imagine if every sport was over when one team got a great start.

Then why're runes encouraging getting ahead as hard as possible and they're rewarding a player for doing so by making him able to snowball? What you wrote and modern design of this game contradicts themselves buddy.

Well, Manchester is up 3-0 in the first 18 minutes and they're controlling territory like Julius Caesar, so the referee has just called a stop to this one.

Thats an IRL sport xd you cant compare a videogame with a stupid design with an actual sport.

Kume has pounded on Tokudome for the whole first round. Tokudome is bleeding and now Kume has superior position. Might as well call this one over before someone gets hurt. Kume is the winner!

[sg-lux-2]

In any competitive situation, come-from-behind wins are more exciting and more rewarding than any other kind. Why would you deprive yourself and your team of that opportunity? Why, instead of facing the opponent proudly and digging deep within yourself to find the answer to what they're doing, would you hang your head in shame and surrender?

Because those moments are rare af and not worth the hassle. And nowadays if you manage to turn the game around it's usually because the enemy team fucked up, not because we were "digging deep within ourselves to find the answer to what they're doing".

BrightWîngsJul 23, 20192 votes

I hate it when people wanna just surrender because they are behind but surrendering is also there for a game you know is lost and the majority of the team agrees its not only for greifers.

DeathBurstJul 23, 20192 votes

Well, the surrendering feature exists for whatever a team agrees to use it for. That's why it's a vote. And it does include quitting a game you're sure you'll lose. That's not the problem here.

The problem is that people are """sure""" that they will lose far too easily and give up games that are perfectly winnable. But surrendering when you are actually sure is fine.

SukishooJul 23, 20192 votes

Nope. This is not true in the slightest.

5050BSJul 23, 20192 votes

In Ranked games Im 100% with the OP

Zero ShingetsuJul 23, 20192 votes

Can I just take a moment to observe the beauty of people downvoting every single comment I make on this thread, even when it's as simple as replying to "K." with "Well, at least that's settled."? It's really intriguing, trying to figure out what on earth could be the purpose behind these downvotes. The OP, great, you disagree. But the comments, that's where it gets interesting.

AmeweJul 23, 20192 votes

I'm not going to play a game out where the score is 3:20, I don't care if you want to. Don't waste my time, go next.

preternaturalJul 24, 20192 votes

if we're 3 for 11 and i am the 3 kills for allied team, i'm ff voting. that's not a good game.

Optifreak72Jul 24, 20192 votes

I am not anti surrender even though I do hate it. It is way over used. People give up way to early and try to surrender.

If they are doing bad they try to surrender even if the team is dominating overall.

People try to surrender if the game is taking to long. That really just means it’s the rate good competitive game that I hope for win or lose.

People don’t understand early vs late game champions. So they don’t play right and give up games when behind when the tide will change.

People will surrender when down a few kills and turrets, even inhibitors when overall the game is very winnable. People forget that one ace even in a game where you have nothing left can easily walk you into victory.

People often die once and just quit. It’s sad to see how quickly people do this. How little effort anyone puts into anything. If they actually have to work for and earn something.

That said I will agree to surrenders where our odds of winning are extremely low. No split pusher that can sneak it in against a team that isn’t paying attention or too cocky. Inters/afker’s where you are just outnumbered and they are being fed. We lose every team fight badly.

I will not surrender for whiners, quitters and toxic people Why should I care about “holding them hostage”? Did they care that there negativity cost me the 20-25 minutes I spent playing that game? It’s not like Rito will suspend or ban them even when they clearly state they are inting, afking, or intentionally trying to lose. Why should I worry about a trolls feelings and time?

DaddyissuessJul 23, 20191 votes

Here are some definitions of "surrendering"

(in sport) lose (a point, game, or advantage) to an opponent.
give up or hand over (a person, right, or possession), typically on compulsion or demand

Zero ShingetsuJul 23, 20191 votes

{quoted}

Here are some definitions of "surrendering"

(in sport) lose (a point, game, or advantage) to an opponent.

I've literally never heard anyone call a defeat a "surrender" outside of warfare. A surrender leads to a defeat, yes, but the surrender is not the act of being defeated. Maybe it's language barrier though. We have an entirely different term in my language for winning thanks to a forfeit, as opposed to winning properly. Fusenshō is considered less rewarding for the victor and, depending on the sport and the circumstances, shameful for the loser. My senpai back in high school basically had a rule that if you're going to lose by fusenshō, you may as well put down your shinai and leave the entire sport.

Surrender, except in the case of injury (which in this case we could classify as a disconnection, perhaps), is a disgrace and makes it impossible to take pride in your performance, good or bad. Being defeated, on the other hand, is no less fun than winning. You learn a lesson, you develop a respect for your opponent, and you still engaged to the fullest in what you love doing.

give up or hand over (a person, right, or possession), typically on compulsion or demand

"Give up" means something different to many of us today than it means by literal definition. To "give up" a right or possession means to offer it to someone else. To "give up" in competition means abandoning hope, and doesn't fall under the category of this definition of surrender.

DaddyissuessJul 23, 20193 votes

I mean i'm team #neversurrender unless its a remake u feel me

ChaosReynJul 24, 20192 votes

Officially, a surrender is a type of defeat, generally, a defeat by admission. It's not said the other way around because as you say, the act of conceding is technically the definition of the defeat. You lose if you concede. You do not concede if you lose, as you've already lost and there's nothing to concede.

Zero ShingetsuJul 24, 20193 votes

{quoted}

Officially, a surrender is a type of defeat, generally, a defeat by admission. It's not said the other way around because as you say, the act of conceding is technically the definition of the defeat. You lose if you concede. You do not concede if you lose, as you've already lost and there's nothing to concede.

This is true, but appears as a bit of sophistry. I never argued for surrenders not counting as defeats, I argued that you shouldn't give up on a game because you had a slow start. There are very few cases in which a game should be considered "over" at 15 minutes. If you're trying at all and your entire team isn't two tiers worth of skill level below theirs, there's no way you should have lost enough infrastructure in 15 or even 20 minutes that you can't come back from it.

Then comes the argument from many, "But you never specified S@20. You said any surrender. Why should I have to waste 20-30 more minutes on a lost cause?" If it takes the opponent 20 minutes to defeat you, you have 20 minutes to even the odds. Imagine how many items you could farm in 20 minutes.

"But they'll farm too." Yes, and by 40 or 50 minutes, they've generally hit their full build. If you're careful, dutifully clearing waves and staying close to turrets, you will find yours only a few minutes after this. This game has a hard cap on both level and items, so eventually, everyone will be equal. I don't care if their Yi is 48/0. If he has the exact same level and build as your Yi, you aren't at a statistical disadvantage anymore. You have as much a chance of winning as they do.

Is this a longer method? Yes. But the longer you play, the more time you spend honing your skills. Who cares if the game runs an hour in this case? What if you win? How rewarding would that be? And if you lose, you did so knowing you gave it your all and evened the odds by the end. You can take pride in that, and more importantly, you just had fun playing a game you enjoy.

ChaosReynJul 25, 20191 votes

I wont be arguing this past the point of effort to payoff.

Or in another way of saying it: how much you can consistently lift 4 defeatist teammates before losing your own mental.

My argument is saying that not every loss should be defined by a surrender vote - technically the same argument youre making. However, I will teeter across the line of what's "over" and what's "winnable" for the simple fact that it's relative. I've carried games with defeatist teammates before, and I've been the defeatist held accountable for my lane and time sink that's been carried. The key factor imo is as simple as effort.

If you have a teammate who's trying, you let them try. But you don't stop there: if you're not trying, you're dead weight.

If you have a teammate that's dead weight, you try harder. But you can't stop there: you need to inspire them to try again.

If you can't work with your team in a team game, don't play the team game. That includes trying even if you think it's hopeless - if you think the game is over, and your team is trying to carry you anyway, then shut up, play it out, and get carried. If they can't do it, they will /ff, and you all can at least say nobody was intentionally sandbagging the game because "this guy is holding the game hostage."

MakarakarnJul 23, 20191 votes

It's kind of like how the downvote button doesn't exist to hurt posts you don't agree with, it's meant to filter out content that's trashy or in the wrong place. And yet people "abuse" it anyway.