@Riot Please explain why 3/5 vote is not a majority...

Pendragøn·Jul 15, 2017·3 votes·851 views

Still after all these years I'm puzzled why we need 4/5 people to surrender...Can someone from riot explain this to me?

I feel like the only reason they have this in effect is because Riot just wants to force you to continue playing as it's good for business. Even when its bluntly obviously the majority of the team 3/5 has accepted defeat and just wants to move on...

This also causes games to be much longer than they need to be...Wastes more time when you can just take the defeat and move on to make up for it.

Don't get me started about unanimous voting....

16 Comments

Radiant WukongJul 15, 20173 votes

I've personally been 1 of the 3 people that wanted to surrender and raged at the 2 idiots who voted no, only to apologize later at the victory screen and honor then afterward.

PendragønJul 15, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=Radiant Wukong,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=lH07EXJQ,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2017-07-15T08:51:04.820+0000)

I've personally been 1 of the 3 people that wanted to surrender and raged at the 2 idiots who voted no, only to apologize later at the victory screen and honor then afterward.

Ya but that's not always the case...If you are on the losing side and you are losing pretty bad most likely than not you will lose.

Of course I can recall that ONE time we won but lets be honest how many times does that really happen? It's a gamble you take if you decide to continue to play and if you get lucky you MIGHT win.

That reliance on lucky wins isn't going to get you to higher elos. You need consistent results. So if you see a game that most likely than not will result in a loss better off just taking the loss than to gamble it away.

Xion The XIVJul 15, 20173 votes

I'm sorry but there is never a need to surrender. I just finished a game maybe 3 hours ago. We lost all 3 inhibs, both nexus towers and the Nexus was 3 hits away from dead. The enemy team decided they wanted to dance about their victory. We respawned aced them and took their inhibs. There are times when the enemy team just stomps you, but they decided to play stupid to lose the game. And the sad part is they brought our Nexus down to maybe 1 or 2 hits twice and instead of finishing it they wanted to dance.

PendragønJul 15, 20171 votes

{quoted}

I'm sorry but there is never a need to surrender. I just finished a game maybe 3 hours ago. We lost all 3 inhibs, both nexus towers and the Nexus was 3 hits away from dead. The enemy team decided they wanted to dance about their victory. We respawned aced them and took their inhibs. There are times when the enemy team just stomps you, but they decided to play stupid to lose the game. And the sad part is they brought our Nexus down to maybe 1 or 2 hits twice and instead of finishing it they wanted to dance.

That's called being lucky...It's not consistent. If you want to gamble your wins on luck be my guest but most people would rather win with consistent methods.

DrCyanideJul 16, 20171 votes

The only consistent factor in this game is that surrender = loss.

You can learn how to fight when behind, how to stall out games, and how to bait the enemy team into making stupid decisions.

PendragønJul 16, 20171 votes

{quoted}

The only consistent factor in this game is that surrender = loss.

You can learn how to fight when behind, how to stall out games, and how to bait the enemy team into making stupid decisions.

Fighting when behind doesn't guarantee you winning neither does stalling out a loss. In fact stalling a loss is EXACTLY what refusing to surrender is, when defeat is inevitable; It's just wasting more time when you know you are too far behind to win. Baiting an enemy into stupid decisions is basing your actions on the HOPE that they will make mistakes...That is just another gamble...

There is a reason why they put in a 15 minute surrender a while back. It was obvious that there were times when you were just too behind and was no point in continuing. They still need to adjust the voting system as well

GankedByWindowsJul 15, 20173 votes

They want a super-majority, not a majority. They explained some time back that it was to prevent early surrenders in close games and get people to actually play out winnable games.

PendragønJul 16, 20171 votes

{quoted}

They want a super-majority, not a majority. They explained some time back that it was to prevent early surrenders in close games and get people to actually play out winnable games.

That's for close games...But what about games where you lose by a landslide...What about those games where you are literally getting face stomped and can't leave because that one guy wants to continue playing...And lets be honest there's more landslide wins in League than there are very close similar skill matches. I've played thousands of games and most times than not the scenario is usually 1) Your team is just not as good and gets stomped or 2) they are relatively the same skill but make few crucial errors that result in the enemy team snowballing and you can't do much

Of course there is always 3) those times where you get even matches with close games but that is NOT ALWAYS the case. You can't have a voting system that only works for one fraction of the games...It doesn't work properly and needs to be addressed.

GankedByWindowsJul 16, 20171 votes

People's definitions of losing by a landslide vary a lot, and it prevents negativity and forced early surrenders in winnable games. Going down 0-4 early game to some people is game over, but it is very surmountable. Same can be said for being down 10-19 but having monster scaling champions in all lanes. If you allow 3/2 to be a surrender, many, many more games will end early, even though 40% still want to play.

PendragønJul 16, 20171 votes

{quoted}

People's definitions of losing by a landslide vary a lot, and it prevents negativity and forced early surrenders in winnable games. Going down 0-4 early game to some people is game over, but it is very surmountable. Same can be said for being down 10-19 but having monster scaling champions in all lanes. If you allow 3/2 to be a surrender, many, many more games will end early, even though 40% still want to play.

Uhh maybe your definition of losing by a landslide may vary but most people's don't. When your down 0-10 and your first and second line turrets are down with them having drag and control over your jungle it's pretty much a one sided game.

And EVEN IF people's definition VARIED it would not matter. Because the WHOLE POINT of the vote is to see what the MAJORITY of people in the game feel. If 3/5 or 60% have agreed on that they are losing by a landslide then why should the MAJORITY suffer when only the minority think they are not losing by a landslide?

GankedByWindowsJul 16, 20171 votes

No. The point of the system is to allow a supermajority of a team to end a game early.

If you've played at all you know people try to surrender when it clearly isn't a landslide, they're just tilted.

PendragønJul 17, 20171 votes

{quoted}

No. The point of the system is to allow a supermajority of a team to end a game early.

If you've played at all you know people try to surrender when it clearly isn't a landslide, they're just tilted.

Well it just so happens that a supermajority is approx 55-66% by definition; usually three fifths or 2 thirds...And 3/5 is 60%. So by your logic the team should be allowed to end the game early because it consists of the supermajority with 3/5 members in favor.

Also if one tilted player wants to ff that obviously would not be enough to end the game unless more players are in favor 3/5 players don't get tilted in a match especially if its a serious ranked game.

And even if 3 players get tilted sometimes they rather still play, maybe ONE extremely tilted player might want to surrender but most tilted players I've come across in ranked still want to play because they know it's mostly just them that are doing bad and not the overall game.

TwitchInMyPantsJul 15, 20172 votes

Well 3/5 majority gives power to 3/5 squads to badger 2 randoms into doing what they're doing or they end the game, sure its doable with 4 pemades too but it reduces the amount of games someone deals with that.

Also I red a Red post way back in the early days (S1-S3, not sure when exactly) and the reasoning was something like "If there's 2/5 teammates that want a chance and trust in their ability to win we'd rather give them that option than enable more surrenders". I imagine this also prevents situations where in a game with 5 randoms if 3/5 get stomped but the other 2 are stomping, it keeps the 2 from being punished from having an extra bad.

There's trade-offs with the decision but even if surrender fails you can try again in 5 minutes if your players aren't stubborn and if you're getting stomped its probable your opponent will finish you in the next 10 minutes, its not a long wait vs trying and having a chance to punish and comeback.

PendragønJul 15, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Well 3/5 majority gives power to 3/5 squads to badger 2 randoms into doing what they're doing or they end the game, sure its doable with 4 pemades too but it reduces the amount of games someone deals with that.

Also I red a Red post way back in the early days (S1-S3, not sure when exactly) and the reasoning was something like "If there's 2/5 teammates that want a chance and trust in their ability to win we'd rather give them that option than enable more surrenders". I imagine this also prevents situations where in a game with 5 randoms if 3/5 get stomped but the other 2 are stomping, it keeps the 2 from being punished from having an extra bad.

There's trade-offs with the decision but even if surrender fails you can try again in 5 minutes if your players aren't stubborn and if you're getting stomped its probable your opponent will finish you in the next 10 minutes, its not a long wait vs trying and having a chance to punish and comeback.

If you are a pre-made team than you should get one collective vote from the group leader...How difficult is that? If its a 3 man pre-made with 2 randoms. Then it would be 1 vote from the pre-made and 2 from the randoms coming to a grand total of /3 votes with 2/3 being majority....Sounds fair...

Obviously if 3/5 players are getting stomped then they would likely want to surrender as opposed to the other 2. That's kinda the WHOLE POINT of a voting system, MAJORITY RULE. If 3/5 or 60% of your team is losing and want to surrender then you must go with the majority, greater good for the greatest number of people. You cannot hold the majority of the players in the game hostage just so the minority can gamble your time in hopes for a slim chance of a lucky win which may not even happen because the minority think they can carry 3 people...I thought Americans were all about democracy yet an American company doesn't even know the basic fundamentals of democracy...

On that note of pre-mades:

If its a pre-made of 2 people then voting should be /4 with only 1 vote coming from pre-made and the rest from others making 3/4 the majority

If its a pre-made of 3 people then voting should be /3 with only 1 vote coming from pre-made and the rest from others making 2/3 the majority

If its a pre-made of 4 people then voting should be /2 with only 1 vote coming from pre-made and the rest from others making 2/2 the majority

If its a pre-made of 5 people then voting should be decided by the leader of the group/party.

Obviously the size of the party affects the voting powers so this above would be a fair method. Aside from the duo party which in a sense still requires 75% to win a majority; It is still better than the current system.

delivererofdeathJul 15, 20171 votes

I feel the other way about it. I always hit no to surrender (for me it's a respect thing for the game and the players involved). But I can't tell you how many extremely winnable games my team has surrendered for just because we've had a single bad fight. For instance about a week ago I was playing a ranked game, we were up in gold, up kills, up in levels, up in towers, and up in dragons. We even had a team comp that had better scaling. We had taken two of their inhibitors, but we lost one teamfight because we had been caught unaware/bad positioning, and got aced only taking about 2 of them down. They got one inhib, but we were still doing better than them in every feasible way, yet the team had psychologically thought that we couldn't win, and 4-1'd me on a surrender vote.

Imagine how much more that would happen if you only needed 3 votes to surrender. You have to look at the reasonings of why the people are playing the game. Some people like to finish games out regardless of whether it's a win or a lose, because surrendering is more shameful than putting your all into a game and being defeated. Some people would disagree, that they'd like to surrender rather than give the enemies the satisfaction of winning.

The main issue is, when you step onto the Rift, you're expected to play it out. If time's such an issue for you, then you shouldn't be playing in the first place. I can maybe understand if it's been an hour and there's no victory in sight, but most games aren't like that. But how unfair is it to those 2 people who think that they can win, vs. the 3 people who think they can't? Worst case scenario for the 3 that want to surrender is that you'll lose eventually anyways, but just imagine the frustration if you're having a good game, winning even, and because 3 people are performing poorly they decide it's time to surrender. This is the reason that they make it require 4-1, instead of a simple majority, because nobody's game should be ruined simply because the majority has decided to ruin it.