Why do three votes always get what they want? I know that they're the majority, but imo it should be a 60% chance for them to get their pick, not a guaranteed one. Same thing if four people choose a champ; it should be an 80% chance. :/
Leonerdo14 votesMaybe the one person with the unpopular vote should just be able to play his champ while the others play the guy they voted for... wait... NEW GAME MODE GUISE: Blind pick but you can be the same champ as your allies if you want.
TacoTheKitten7 votesOh god no. God please no. Riven main 1: Top! Riven main 2: Top! Riven main 1: I called it first. Riven main 2: I'm higher pick priority. both autolock riven and proceed to flame war in all chat as duo top the whole game as the adc screams about not having any ganks because the two other players locked in Leblanc mid.
Monkey D Luffy2 votes2 
one 
Prospector Pete7 votesI agree with 3/5 being 60%, but 4/5 should be majority.
Calibrate5 votesWell, it would still be unfair to that one dude :P
With 80%, the four dudes have a huge chance of getting their way, and the one dude has a small chance to get his way. That's fair!
Leon37895 votesNeeds of the many > needs of the few.
Not implying the champ you want in One for All is a "need" just an example of why it is majority. When you have 3/5 people pick a certain thing, then you make the MOST people happy by choosing that thing. Sure it sucks to be in a lobby with 3-4 premades and not have a chance at ALL for your pick, but it still comes to in the grand scheme of things it would be better to please the bigger number of people then to possibly leave 4 people just sitting though a 40 minute game having no fun while 1 person MIGHT have a great time.
ShatoSummoner2 votesWhen why does it require 4/5 to surrender instead of 3/5?
Dar Raksada1 votesWhen why does it require 4/5 to surrender instead of 3/5?
Because surrendering should not be done lightly, it has too much of an impact (paraphrasing riot)
njdunkin11 votesNeeds of the many > needs of the few.
Not implying the champ you want in One for All is a "need" just an example of why it is majority. When you have 3/5 people pick a certain thing, then you make the MOST people happy by choosing that thing. Sure it sucks to be in a lobby with 3-4 premades and not have a chance at ALL for your pick, but it still comes to in the grand scheme of things it would be better to please the bigger number of people then to possibly leave 4 people just sitting though a 40 minute game having no fun while 1 person MIGHT have a great time.
Isn't that a Socialist statement? JS, I think the OP might be onto something. If it was a permanent gamemode, then I would agree with you, but it would be fun having that small chance of playing the unpopular vote.
Leon37892 votesEven if it was, which it isn't, why would it matter? The point remains that is just makes more logical sense to cater to the larger group then the smaller. Everywhere you look this is fact. If you had 4 friends and 3 apples, and 3 of the friends wanted 1 apple each and one friend wanted all 3 apples, what would you do? I doubt you would toss a coin or roll a die to decide to make 3 people happy or just one person.
Oh and btw, A Socialist would imply equality, in this case it would be most likely neither the majority vote OR the 80% and the 20%, it would be a pure even chance no matter how many people picked a champ.
njdunkin11 votesEven if it was, which it isn't, why would it matter? The point remains that is just makes more logical sense to cater to the larger group then the smaller. Everywhere you look this is fact. If you had 4 friends and 3 apples, and 3 of the friends wanted 1 apple each and one friend wanted all 3 apples, what would you do? I doubt you would toss a coin or roll a die to decide to make 3 people happy or just one person.
Oh and btw, A Socialist would imply equality, in this case it would be most likely neither the majority vote OR the 80% and the 20%, it would be a pure even chance no matter how many people picked a champ.
That's like comparing apples to oranges, no pun intended. Basically, the OP just had a neat idea, and I find myself agreeing with him :)
Joe Dredd2 votesBut you can't ff with 3 votes, so i dont see how this keeps up with it.
Guy Fox Teemo1 votesIt's not a "Need" , you don't "Need" to play a certain champion. Should be random so people don't bitch.
Leon37891 votesI...said it wasn't a need? I used the quote as an example? And you do understand it being random would make MORE people bitch right? I promise you that if One for All was 100% random and used the OP's way of it being done then you would STILL have people complaining but saying it should be majority instead...right?
Silents4291 votesAs opposed to being unfair to the 4 people who want whatever they picked?
MyTeamIsAwsome6 votesI agree since 3 person talking on a skype call can automatically get the champion they want.
Ultra Helpful1 votesThis is exactly the problem I have. I don't know a single person except groups of premade who only play as premade who think it's a great idea. Seriously guys how many times are we going to have to play Yasuo and Darius. LETS GET SOME ORIGINALTY
Cynika1 votesLol me and my friends force raka and Leona. Good times
Diananmen Square4 votesI agree with the 60%.
I really hate when I'm trying to play some fun OFA and a premade of 2 + 1 random guy / 3+ pick whatever they please and the rest has to deal with it.
No, I don't feel like playing Heimer or Alistar.
Yuri By Mail1 votesDodge. Just dodge, we'll be glad to wait more to play the champs our premades want. You don't matter to us, your vote doesn't matter to us. You won't see us again because we'll already be playing for ~5 minutes when you can queue again.
Jari4 votesI know how much you hate it, but look at it the other way. Imagine those three know that champ like the back of their hand and really want to just stomp this game, but your pick gives them something they aren't good at. Do you think they'd be happy?
Riot is looking at it like this. Would we prefer 1-2 people being upset because of majority, or 3-4 people upset because their majority didn't have any weight to it.
Kitten of Evil3 votesI think a majority is fair. What's not fair is when there are five different choices and the game randomly picks one.
DrCyanide6 votesHow is that not fair? It's the same as rolling a dice at that point. Should it force you all to dodge since there was no consensus?
IcyPepper2 votesFour out of five people is the majority for a surrender vote. I don't understand why it's three for champion select.
The Ecdysiast1 votesBecause the surrender vote is bull.
IcyPepper3 votesAt least I had something to draw upon beyond my own opinion...
like an example of something similar.
The Ecdysiast1 votesLet's see: The fact that two base-racing allies can force a 20 minute surrender (when they've fed) into a 40 minute loss is fair to you?
And likewise, one ally picking Taric, the other picking Sivir, three picking Azir and the Taric winning, forcing 20 extra minutes of match time that people don't want to play (like in the other example) isn't fair.
Since you can't see the clear fault in 2/5 or 1/5 winning against 3/5.
WarlockLaw2 votesIt's a democracy, majority rules. Lacking a majority the game gives in to random chance
The Ecdysiast4 votesExcept in the Surrender vote, where the duo who are base-racing Rammus and Hecarim can keep the game going for 30 minutes longer.
WarlockLaw1 votesI've got nothing then
Lugg2 votesIt should be percentage every time. If the same champ is picked twice, 40%. Three times, 60%, etc.
WhiperSnapers1 votesso if 4 out of 5 people pick the same champ (one that works well in this game mode or is just fun to play) and the last guy trolls and picks a really bad champ (like nunu or taric who have 0 potential of winning without working with another champion), there is a 20% chance that the 4 non troll players are going to get screwed? Is it just me or does that percentage of trolling seem way too high?
Lugg1 votesI think an all Nunu or Taric team would be fun.
BTW, I know there is an all Nunu video that shows how OP 5 of them can be.
Kitsuki051 votesI thought it was already done this way? One game we all had to play Leona when just one guy voted for random.
LadyRenly1 votesI wouldn't mind 3/5 being a 60%, i hate having my vote be worthless against skype groupers who all dictate what we are playing and i have no say in the matter
My Waifu Vanilla2 votesYou could also get in a group and queue up. 9/10 when I premade ofa we still argued over what to play and still had to go with chance.
PIMPSMOOTH1 votesAgreed, if you roll into the lobby 4 man premade you don't deserve 100% locked pick.
The Ecdysiast1 votesYou kinda do. Why should the 1 person who voted differently get a say in it?
Xonra1 votesYou kinda do. Why should the 1 person who voted differently get a say in it?
Why should that one person get no say at all just because some buddies say what he had to play? How is that fair to the one person? It isn't as if he chose to play with those friends that were pre made. Until Riot implements a way to opt out of premades and duos, then there should be as much fair measures given to the one or two than the group, but that isn't the case currently.
I lost track how many times I'm forced into playing something when I try to practice in normals because of pre mades.
PIMPSMOOTH1 votesYou kinda do. Why should the 1 person who voted differently get a say in it?
You kinda don't. Just bc players roll into the lobby premade they don't deserve to get what they want anymore than the solo player does.
The Ecdysiast1 votesHere's where you're wrong, since you can't see it:
It's not that any ONE of those players deserves what they alone want more than the other, it's that THE FOUR other players want the same thing, which even if it's 5 random people and not a premade should result in the one person who voted differently not getting to win.
The Ecdysiast1 votesIt's to offset the fact a a majority loses in Surrender.
It'd be bullshit for the troll who picked Taric to win even when four or three people wanted Tahm Kench.
Troll for Trump1 votes3man Premade selects TK "How do you ult as TK????!?!??!?"
ugh...
JustMyBassCannon1 votesIf we need a 4-man majority for surrender votes, why not for One For All?
CrisisEchoes1 votesWhy do three votes always get what they want? I know that they're the majority, but imo it should be a 60% chance for them to get their pick, not a guaranteed one. Same thing if four people choose a champ; it should be an 80% chance. :/
Something along the lines of the 3/5ths vote deciding that one legislature
Conturbatio1 votesActually, it doesn't always choose the majority's pick. One of my last game, 3 of my team (including myself) nominated for LeBlanc, and the 2 remaining players nominated for Zilean and Bard. When the countdown finished, Zilean won the election even though he only had 1 vote, whilst LeBlanc had 3.
Dealth1 votesBecause they want the most amount of people to be happy at the same time. Obviously.
MegamanEXE791 votesWhy do three votes always get what they want?
Now if only they got to surrender...
Xonra1 votesIt's funny because I've had duos in almost everyone of my games and most of the time just 2 people seems to be enough to win. I've yet to see 2 people pick and not get the champ they want.
It is just another case in yet another mode where I should have the option to opt out of playing with duos. Duos in ranked can easily push people out of roles, when in my experience the duos are one guy who knows what he is doing and one random friend who shouldn't be playing out of co-op vs AI. Just like this where a duo can just pick the same champ and high chance of getting what they want.
Trolls and duos have far too much power in champ select, and while there is no way to opt out of trolls, there should at least be a way of opting out of duos.
PIMPSMOOTH1 votesFour people rolling together in All For One's all day don't deserve to get what they want every single game while the poor schlep who queue'd solo gets the shaft 24/7 with 0% chance of getting to play what the want. Go bully your way into something elsewhere.