Why can't we surrender a 3v5 when it's 2:1?

The Deckowner·Nov 5, 2016·48 votes·1,876 views

I was playing some normals with my friends, we were winning but then one of my friend's internet went out and dc'ed. He is the adc but we also had a graves top and varus support so it would have been fine with our big lead. But then for whatever reason Graves rage quit and it became a 3v5. My Varus support friend my I both wanna get out of this fiesta, but our mid for whatever reason thinks we can win a 3v5. And we edned up extending this stupid 3v5 game from ff@20 to losing at 46:45.

WHY? Why is this zilean allowed to hold us in a 3v5? Why is the surrender vote so stupid?We are obviously the majority here!

23 Comments

hhaavviikkNov 5, 201612 votes

I'm more confused why we can't surrender 3-0 because 2 players are afk...

Awesomedude8888Nov 5, 20162 votes

Now that is a next-level bug that Rito needs to fix.

hhaavviikkNov 5, 20162 votes

it's been there since release, for some reason not voting automatically counts as a ''no'' vote when the time expires meaning if ya got 2 afkers the 3-0 vote fails because not voting = vote no for some stupid reason

Awesomedude8888Nov 5, 20161 votes

That is true, but I'm pretty sure that the surrender voting system takes into account the AFKs and calls for 70% of all non-AFK players to vote yes. So if there are 2 AFKs and the surrender vote goes 3-0 then that's a 100% "yes" vote rate, and the surrender should go through.

ProzzakNov 5, 20161 votes

It should be this way (the not voting part) because if you are like me I immediately toss that vote to the upper right corner so I can't see it upon seeing first vote come up (because 99% of the time first vote is put up too early). After that I usually don't even notice a vote has started.

They need to make it detect afk better but not sure how, some people move around on purpose to stop the afk thing from occurring.

420 gramsNov 5, 20164 votes

Surrender is the cowards way out.

And yeah, odds were that you wouldn't win. But you made a 3 v 5 last 46 mins, which is good since people lose 5 v 5 matches in under 30 mins. All though it probably sucked, it probably made you learn a lot and play better, even if you don't realize it.

The DeckownerNov 5, 20163 votes

When we can drag a 3v5 to 46 minute, we are obviously just flat out BETTER than the enemy team, we were matched together because some of us in the team play ranked majority of the time and our normal mmr is low. You don't learn or gain anything from olaying against enemy way below your skill level. You might think I am being very cocky, but it is the truth.

420 gramsNov 5, 20162 votes

I wouldn't say better if you still lost. Try playing 1 v 5 intermediate bots and start either top or bot lane. This will help you learn what it takes to end a game while at a number disadvantage

The DeckownerNov 5, 20162 votes

skill really doesn't matter anymore when your team has no dps, tank+support mage+poke ad caster is not nearly enough damage to win the game.

R FLASH XDNov 5, 20164 votes

{quoted}

Surrender is the cowards way out.

And yeah, odds were that you wouldn't win. But you made a 3 v 5 last 46 mins, which is good since people lose 5 v 5 matches in under 30 mins. All though it probably sucked, it probably made you learn a lot and play better, even if you don't realize it.

And not surrendering a clear loss is the weak man's way to try and look cool

XeruonNov 6, 20161 votes

Surrender is the cowards way out.

Stopped reading right there.

League isn't a game about honor. It's a game where you, in most cases, try to crush your enemy and win the game, no matter the cost. Be it by exploiting their salt, using current strong champions/items, or simply giving them no chance to come back. Saying that there is a cowards' way out makes no sense.

Awesomedude8888Nov 5, 20164 votes

It's always been that way, where you need 70% of all non-AFK players to vote yes on the surrender.

President Swa1nNov 5, 20164 votes

OH.

100(2/3) = 66.66...%

So RIP, you need 100% of the vote.

AeszarckNov 5, 20162 votes

{quoted}

OH.

100(2/3) = 66.66...%

So RIP, you need 100% of the vote.

Thank you! I needed that spelled out for me too.

President Swa1nNov 5, 20161 votes

[slayer-jinx-wink]

Ha1manNov 5, 20163 votes

This is BS. One player should never, under any circumstances, deny a surrender vote unless it's 1v5.

If it's 2v5 and the other player chooses to surrender, the game is kaput.

Nobody should be forced to play toxic BS which is a 3v5 game. At least implement the Dota2 policy that you can leave without a leaver penalty (the loss still applies) once such a situation occurs.

chubb100Nov 5, 20162 votes

you should have just faked a dc'd and quit

CrazyBear1987Nov 5, 20162 votes

maybe ONLY if it was 2:1 they would ask the enemy team "Your opponents voted 2:1 to surrender, do you accept?" they would then also vote and majority votes add towards yours. (no votes would be a"no" of course) Which means if they were kind and respectful they would allow you and your team to surrender, regardless of the one vote to not. BUT if they said no, and wanted to continue playing, then you have no choice since 2:6 vote said continue.

but there wont be any changes to the old client, but maybe implemented in the new one.

The DeckownerNov 5, 20163 votes

why would you need your opponent's mercy to surrender a game....

CrazyBear1987Nov 7, 20161 votes

Its not just that, right now people are blaming the One vote for not being able to surrender.

If 6 out 8 remaining players say play on and finish it, then its a majority vote.

Looks less like a vote denial.

its not like Riot is going to implement this, but it would put alot less hate on that one vote to not give up.

It still sucks to play like a 50min losing game 3v5 or whichever combination, but the idea would be if you still lose the majority vote you have to accept it and play on.

still sucks tho XD