So if you are the only one who hits "No" on a surrender you should lose less points. I know at a high level this may be used to not demote friends and stuff but in solo que if feels unfair your allies just surrender cuz they are mad or something. Even though you have inhibs still and theres a chance of coming back. It should be like 1/2 penalty for the lonely ranger who hits no. What does the community think?
Jo0o3 votesSeems tricky. It would discourage surrendering as a whole, which isn't a bad thing, except that inevitably some games that SHOULD be surrendered WONT be due to multiple people trying to get that leniency. I could even see this devolving into a subgame where nobody clicks 'yes' or 'no' until the last second, so as to prevent their teammates from knowing the stakes and trying to secure the LP.
I think it's a fairly uncommon occurrence that four out of five people on a team agree that it's hopeless and it, in fact, is not. Sure, it happens, but most of the time when a single dissenter votes 'no' and then rages that we've surrendered, I'm quite sure that they're wrong.
Mysticman891 votesI feel like the vast majority of games that 'should' be surrendered are the ones that'll be over in a couple minutes anyway.
If they're not over in a couple minutes, then the surrender was probably premature and there is hope of stalling out the game to full build (rendering the massive lead the opposing team may have had moot), then winning a single team fight and pushing to nexus.
I'm more inclined to have either no surrender vote at all, or to limit each player to initiating a surrender vote once. People will need to be somewhat more realistic about when they try to surrender that way, instead of one salty person spamming surrender every few minutes past 20 min until eventually they get a 4/5 vote.
WarlockLaw1 votesI think the surrender vote shouldn't be available until an inhib is killed. I've both won and lost games that had massive leads, but couldn't take an inhib and eventually had comebacks because of it. If one team is just going for kills, and doing nothing with the kills, they don't deserve to win even if the game is 30-10
BLACK REALM GOD2 votespersonally i think that the surrender vote should only show how many people have voted not how many people have voted what. you lose a lot of motivation when you see three x's pop up on screen.
DrCyanide2 votesBy not agreeing to surrender yourself you already tip the LP in your favor in the long run.
You've lost 50 games this season via surrender, but you've won 73 games where the other team surrendered. That's 23 extra wins. If you assume 18 LP per win, that means you've won 414LP that you otherwise wouldn't have.
JRobin311 votesLP penalties and rewards are a tricky thing because in theory LP should be about your skill as a player. There is LP loss for dodging games and in theory if you choose to dodge then you are conceding that you lack the skill to carry that game. It seems surrender are a close relative to queue dodging except that you are ending the game prematurely, so you no longer have the opportunity to cut your losses and lose less LP. You raise a good point about LP for players that want to play. They choose not to dodge and not to surrender but they are penalized as much as the players that surrender. So an LP penalty or loss is something to consider here.
1/2 LP loss is way too much. Considering that dodging costs 3 LP I think the largest change in LP would be +-1. The abuse cases have to be addressed also. I think maybe giving an additional 1 point of LP loss to the player that starts the surrender vote (provided the surrender vote passed) would be your best case scenario because only the player who starts the surrender vote can have a firm commitment to surrender.
Maximum Morde1 votesIf anything, the no voter should get a 14 day ban.
JRobin312 votesDifferent players have different ideas about what is best. Subjectively some players want to penalize those who surrender and other players want to penalize those who don't surrender. That comes down to what side of the camp you are on so to speak. Each side finds that the other is wasting their time and space and this is why each side feels justified in advocating a penalty for the other side. If you vote NO it means you are wasting the time of players that want to surrender because those players would rather start a new game or do something else than fight what they perceive to be a lost cause. But on the other side of it, if you start a surrender vote, then you are wasting the time of players that want to continue to play the game, because they will have to go through queue again just to find another game to play. Either way there is a waste of time.
There is another metric: RIOT favors the players that want to continue to play the game, not the ones that want to leave the game. This is why there is a minimum time before surrender votes start. RIOT doesn't want players queuing up for games if those players aren't actually interested in playing.
For example, if a player is saying, "I'm bored, I don't want to play anymore" but turns around and queues for another game after surrender vote goes through. It means there is a mismatch between the player's intention to play the game and his commitment to playing a game. In general, that's not an attitude RIOT wants to reward.
The same goes for dodging queue. Players that want to queue for games but not commit to playing them after they reach champion select are punished. Players that pick off-meta don't lose LP because another player dodges their game. Some players don't like off-meta picks, but it isn't about subjective player evaluations. It's about what's best for the game from a larger perspective. And what's best for the game from a larger perspective is rewarding players with an interest in playing.
Maximum Morde1 votesToo long only read first few lines. Gtfo of here with that logical reasoning. This is Gameplay boards son.
