Boards›Gameplay

15-minute surrender option hype - opinion on why it's silly and why Riot consider the opposite.

ProbeoftheAnus·12/2/2015, 4:21:25 PM·10 votes·1,529 views

Personally, I think it's weird, now that games tend to end quicker and more decisively, that people want an earlier surrender time; since games are "always over before 20 minutes", I feel like getting rid of surrender would be better.

Now, I'm certainly biased, because I've always hated the surrender option, but hear me out. IMO the option to concede contributes to toxicity, facilitating people to give up faster if they are losing and sometimes even if they on equal footing ("welp, I'm not 5-0 on Zed within 12 minutes, ggwp"). Yes, surrender was sometimes nice for when the game could potentially become a 50 minute slow motion free fall. However, now that 1) games are shorter and 2) Riot has been implementing some very clear comeback mechanics (Dragon alternative, minions push hard, all these new team-based champs/reworks that have the potential for sick out-plays, etc), why even have the option? Sure, right now the preseason is riddled with overtuned snowballers and weird imbalances, but once Riot figures it out and hits their stride, I feel like we will have a very rewarding gameplay experience with encouraged decisive action and expanded tactical options.

TL;DR Do we really need the surrender at all? If you're losing, comeback options exist, if it doesn't work, then oh well, the game's over quickly anyways.

27 Comments

realDRdeal12/2/2015, 4:39:42 PM4 votes

I think we still need a surrender option and here's why. There are and will always be games that are simply unwinable in 95% of cases such as having an afk or two and being a certain amount of kills/objectives behind.But rather than surrendering being time locked (i.e., 20 minutes), it should be condition locked IMO. So rather than becoming available at 20 minutes it could be something like if your team has a disconnect and is X team gold behind or X towers/dragons/objectives behind you can get the option of surrendering. This way teams couldn't bail on a game that can be won with a good teamfight and dragon/baron and would encourage players to play smarter team and objective focused (which we should all be doing anyway).

Best Valor NA12/2/2015, 5:44:00 PM3 votes

Some people don't have the will to come back, and that's totally fine (as long as its like normals), they play for fun, and if it's not fun then people can surrender. If you're not having fun then whats to stop people from AFK'ing?

What if you're playing a game and 2 of your teammates AFK, and their team is having fun so they milk it out, would you wanna stay in that game? Most likely no.Not all the games end quickly.

Surrendering is totally fine. And honestly if there's and AFK on your team you should be able to surrender at 15 minutes. Just makes things less dreadful for the team with the AFK.

Nęçrømąnçęr12/2/2015, 8:40:41 PM3 votes

In a normal game. You should be able to leave earlier imo. Instead of being forced to wait for your team to surrender or lose. There are games where you have an afk and two troll teammates who refuse to surrender even at 20. The penalty for leaving a normal game should be more like dota - very little.

Nęçrømąnçęr12/2/2015, 8:42:01 PM3 votes

Some people only have an hour to play league and it's not fair to them to spend the majority of it in a totally unenjoyable game with afkers and trolls.

Sir Yamazuki12/3/2015, 2:08:42 AM3 votes

No thanks, and don't pretend you're losing ranked games either because the surrender option exists. You think people will play out a game when they are losing if surrender isn't an option? No, they won't. They will just play worse until they finally lose. Ranked or not, I'm not interested in playing a match where most of the team has already agreed we lost. I don't care if that 1 guy thinks otherwise.

Mech200012/3/2015, 8:00:08 AM2 votes

Actually, toxicity can actually INCREASE if 4 or more players on your team do want to end the game quicker but are forced to sit in the game for another 5 or 10 minutes. Being forced to sit in a game that you do not want to be in is a breeding ground for toxicity.

You already need 4 out of the 5 people on your team to click yes to that surrender option. You need 3 out of 4 people if you've had an afk on your team for the entire game. I'm not saying comebacks are impossible with an afk, but if your team score is 3 kills to 21 kills, you're not winning that game. Sorry.

Surrender option needs to exist. It prevents an enormous amount of tilt and toxicity. When 4 of your teammates don't want to play that game, then they should be allowed to surrender.

TL;DR

Surrender option reduces toxicity rather than what you're stating.

Samus7212/2/2015, 6:50:30 PM2 votes

The surrender option, like everything else a game designer can put in to a game, is abused. In my experience, people surrender far too often for reasons that cannot be justified. Like surrendering without having lost a single turret, being killed three times and having a fit about it, etc. I've even been in situations where the other team asked why we surrendered. "We had two people AFK and you give up??" Yes, it's lame.

This is the first game I've ever played where a surrender option was available. In all the other games, you had two choices: stick it out and try for a win, or refuse to play and be hated and shunned by other players. In League of Legends, you have lazy whiners who decide before the ten minute mark that the game is over and angrily tell the rest of the team they are not trying anymore and are going to surrender.

And the developers wanted to cater to those folks by reducing the surrender timer to fifteen minutes?

Well, isn't that special?

I don't even know first hand that the developers actually considered such a move. But if they did, shame on them. Making this feature easier to abuse is crappy designing. Someone is going to lose in a competitive scenario. I do not want to live in a world, or play a game, where everyone gets a trophy and "everyone's a winner." Learn to lose gracefully. OR STOP PLAYING COMPETITIVE GAMES.

Habitz12/2/2015, 6:59:22 PM2 votes

It shouldn't be an option in ranked. In every other mode sure, it's ok to quit and queue up for another. Ranked should be about sticking it out til a nexus explodes or afking and hopefully not being able to play ranked for a while if you choose to do that.

For people that FF I feel they have set build paths and play styles and they only get victory when their tunnel vision style is actually viable against the enemy comp. They're afraid to try a new item or play safer/more aggressive and so they will FF and hope the next enemy team is such that their concrete playstyle will be good against them.

EcchiOtakuTM12/2/2015, 7:33:13 PM1 votes

http://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/yYBm9rXq-i-honestly-love-the-changes-placed-in-however-i-as-well-as-many-have-a-few-suggestions

22

Lankybird12/3/2015, 5:44:40 PM1 votes

I for one do not want to keep playing an extra 20 minutes if it is looking terrible for my team. Thats nice that you do but why make the entire team suffer? If the enemy vayne and nasus are 5-0 and we are as a team 3-25 I dont want to play, EVEN IF we end up having a comeback and win. I dont want to play out a painful 30 minutes where our win depends on other team messing up and having someone on my team go "ham". I know there are already 100s of post and youtube videos on it but a mass majority of people feel the most toxic players in the game are the ones that refuse to surrender, which normally leads to the most trollish actions as a result (team leaving, team afkers, intentional feeding, cursing each other out, all chat rage, etc.). I respectfully disagree with the idea of removing surrender, even if i am 10/0/0 and my team up 20 kills, if a surrender vote for my team comes up and its 3-1 and my vote decides it i will vote yes every time, selfish not to, honestly a 3-2 should end it. as for when the option is I do agree 15 minutes is 90% of the time to soon.

The Yetii Rider12/2/2015, 5:36:51 PM1 votes

Yeah, letting a team concede when they have an afk is important.

Krigjer12/3/2015, 8:09:20 AM1 votes

IMO the option to concede contributes to toxicity

Because forcing players to stay in a game they'd really rather not continue to play ISNT toxic.

I've been held hostage by the enemy team too many times, where they had super minions pushing and were simply farming jungle minions or picking their noses in their base while watching us struggle. I've seen the enemy team take Baron and not even use it. It's not FUN to be forced to turtle.

There's also a concept of morale. If my team is doing nothing but arguing and not cooperating, it's no longer enjoyable to play the game. You can say 'well mute them!' all you want, which I do. But I still have the knowledge that two or more people are just arguing and spending more time typing than actually playing.

Sometimes a possible victory isn't worth the frustration.

I don't have an opinion on how much the surrender option should or should not be delayed, but it should never be completely removed.