Boards›Gameplay

Can we please have earlier surrender timers?

1 Wing··2 votes·778 views

Since the game was established, the average length of time for a match has gone down, but the minimum surrender time remains the same.

I just had a game, where my team started 4v5, then, about 6 minutes in, the fifth player reconnected, and at the same time another player disconnected, so it's still a 4v5, and one of our players is at a 5 level disadvantage. The other player never returned. Our ADC was crushingly bad. Also, our mid laner--who originally did not connect--was counter-picked. Even in a 5v5, it would have been a rough time.

It would be nice to be able to choose to discontinue such a bad match. Instead, I'm sitting here at 14 minutes, and I'm expected to slog through this garbage for another six minutes! That's more than an extra 30% of the elapsed game time, for a game that my team is not going to win. I'm not sitting around for that! I left the game. I don't care! I get banned, or whatever: I'm not sitting through such a bad game, and it's the wrong idea to force players to do so.

We need the surrender option at 15minutes, to cover for games where players do not connect / bad-stuff-happens.

8 Comments

Hoi Im Temmo2 votes

The times I feel should be:

Summoners Rift: 15 Minutes. Twisted Treeline: 10 Minutes Crystal Scar: 10 Minutes ARAM: 10 Minutes

Jennibelle2 votes

No. Try harder to win.

1 Wing1 votes

. . but we always refer to "try hard" in a negative way. Like "this bunch of try hards."

Phoenix Kotori 1 votes

Zileas explained before why we don't have it shorter:

Sorry to hear you encountered so many leavers and ragers today.

The reason we go to 20 minutes is to ensure that people have complete games most of the time, and get to enjoy the various stages of the game, including the feeling of winning. At lower surrender times, we were concerned that people would throw in the towel for stuff like giving up first blood, losing first tower, etc. There are certainly situations where you can lose by 10 minutes, but they are fairly rare if you aren't at the pro level. So, we think 20 mins is a good balance.

  • Zileas
1 Wing2 votes

I think, this is wrong: scenarios where you can win quickly exist at the pro level, and these scenarios do not often occure at the lower tiers. However, lower tiers have their own scenarios, that do not occure at pro level: specifically, leavers and connection issues. I propose that the same amount of "quick game" scenarios exist at all tiers of the game; but that they are different, in different tiers.

Most importantly, the scenarios that exist in lower tiers are extremely frustrating to play under: players not showing up to the game. By forcing players to slog through these games, it encourages players to simply leave games. And by promoting that behaviour, players may choose to start leaving games simply for losing first blood, or first tower.

I'm suggesting a reasonable surrender time. Well after first blood is established, and the first tower goes down. When both teams have had opportunities to make plays. A time that players feel okay playing until if it's a 3v5 scenario. A 3v5, sucks, and also: a 5v3, sucks to play against, too. No one wants to play in games where players are missing, and it does not feel good to win those games.

By not giving players the choice to end the game, players will force that choice, without discussion or agreement from their team.

Pulsarion1 votes

I agree wholly I've resorted to just afk'ing because of other afk'ers and trolls of all sorts. This game is undermined by its toxic players. And this is excruciatingly frustrating to play with. Especially when the brunt of players at low elo disregard their team mates entirely, completely ignoring except to flame. As a game based on team cooperation, its painful to sit through games where your whole to is overreaching, troll feeding, insulting team mates who then leave, steal buffs they cannot use, and arguing to the point of afk'ing. This toxicity is lessening your profits by lessening its reputation. Probably not killing business, but it'd be beneficial to both riot and customers to figure something out, as I am sure you are working on. Have great day rito, and pls help a brotha' out.

Blade of Justic1 votes

I don't get Zileas' logic behind that post.

If 4 out of 5 people believe that the game is already a loss, then why should the 1 person have all the fun when 4 of his team members are miserable?

1 Wing1 votes

I think Zileas' meaning is that the enemy team has fun, so we shouldn't reduce the amount of fun by letting the game end early.

My opinion--from mucho play testing--is that it is not fun to win a 3v5. What's fun, is fighting a full team, of comparable skill. When I have to fight that team, I want them to surrender as early as possible so I can get on to a good game; if you're not in a premade, then it can be difficult to rally your forces and end the game before 25 minutes, even if winning is inevitable.

More from Gameplay

3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay764 comments
7,167
votes
3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay156 comments
3,510
votes
UPVOTE FOR URF
Gameplay606 comments
2,440
votes
Yes plz.
Gameplay456 comments
1,721
votes
3 Refunds per season, up vote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay114 comments
1,716
votes
When is ANYONE at riot going to address the awful new player experience?
Gameplay634 comments
1,383
votes

More by 1 Wing

Why does no one in game talk about a plan anymore?
Gameplay98 comments
33
votes
Add "Remaining Tick" Counter to Ignite
Gameplay10 comments
27
votes
Smurfing: WTF??!
Gameplay60 comments
25
votes
I think there is something wrong with matchmaking
Gameplay35 comments
24
votes
Can we do something to remove smurfing?
Gameplay33 comments
23
votes
Thresh: Should not stick onto a spell shield
Gameplay15 comments
20
votes