"Surrender vote failed 3/0"

Tik115·May 25, 2015·52 votes·2,764 views

I don't get why this is a thing

If a person doesn't vote it should be the same as any other voting system, it exempts none voters, but instead it decides to count it as a no vote.

There isn't really any argument as to why or why not exempting them would be a thing

They might not of noticed? the vote is up for a full 60 seconds and if they aren't there to vote maybe they gave up?

Maybe they can't decide? Well don't decide for them.

Maybe they're busy? Its very VERY rare for fights to last longer then 60 seconds, even in this tank meta

It's tireing when two people on your team decide not to vote for whatever reason and the game decides "Well we'll just count them as no votes"

32 Comments

LucentileMay 25, 201516 votes

It should count them as no votes. If they wanted to surrender, they'd hit yes. They're probably holding out to see if the rest of the team wants to quit. If I'm unsure if a game is still winnable, I'll not vote until the other people decide if they want to surrender.

If two people aren't sure, better to not end the game then potentially take away their choice. It's much, much easier if you want to lose the game to just hit yes whatever you're doing.

redniwediSMay 25, 20155 votes

If they are not sure it should allow the people who are sure to decide. Your argument works both ways here; if they don't want to surrender they'd vote no.

Their choice isn't being taken away if they refuse to make a choice when it counts.

DUDE BROMay 25, 20153 votes

Unsure has nothing to do with it. I don't vote for my town mayor cus I don't give a shit who it is.

I physically started a game of LoL because I want to play it. Obviously if I don't hit surrender, my default is to keep playing.

If you go to a club, someone asks if you want to leave and you don't answer them, do they kick you out? You went to the club so by default you want to stay until you specifically decide to leave.

Edit: Sometimes I'm so in the zone that I don't even have time to click it, in the middle of long skirmishes/fights. I'd hate for the game to just end because I couldn't click in time, or didn't even realize.

redniwediSMay 25, 20153 votes

Sorry, but no. If your intent is to keep playing you vote no.

As you said, not voting is showing you don't care. It shouldn't default to a no answer simply because no is an option already.

Mister PunchesMay 25, 20151 votes

What if they afk at the base but don't dc?

T RexHasTinyArmsMay 26, 20151 votes

Um, the way you say this makes it seem like you can't decide to vote yes or no bc you want to know what your team thinks. At 3/0 then you either can just vote yes, bc you know your team (3 of them at least) wants to surrender, or you wait for your other teammate to vote, in which case yours doesn't matter. 4 votes surrenders the game so if you're waiting on a 3-0 vote bc you're wondering what the other person is going to say you could just vote no and see what they say then. I'm not saying OP is right, but no one is waiting at 3-0 bc they want to see how other people vote first. At that point it doesn't matter really.

Laughing FishMay 26, 20152 votes

If I am unsure if a game is winnable, I vote no to surrender. Losing a game (even a long one) isn't that bad, but surrendering when victory was still possible is the most annoying thing in the game.

Shadow GilgameshMay 25, 201512 votes

I agree that if people don't vote either way it should just factor in the votes it got for one simple reason

Non-DCed AFKs. While not as common an occurrence as the regular AFKs where the game realizes them as gone, it does happen and then you're just boned. I remember once my "amazing" duo bot posted at 15 minutes "shit we have to go to bed, sorry guys" and they leave, but they DON'T have the decency to DC, so when the 3 left voted to surrender at 20, as one does when your game has become a 3v5, we couldn't.

T RexHasTinyArmsMay 26, 20152 votes

This isn't a voting issue though, it's a punishment issue. People who leave and don't DC are taking things one step further than just leaving the game, they are intentionally trying to troll people by keeping them from voting, or intentionally trying to avoid punishment. If they are trolling, then changing the vote just has people sit there and vote no from now on, but if they are tying to bail and hope the team loses and they don't get popped by leaver buster, then they are being worse than trolls bc they are not only trolls they are coward trolls and should be punished double.

LuckyMay 25, 20155 votes

I dont vote instead of saying no. I dont see the problem.

kile147May 26, 20151 votes

Because those shouldn't be equivalent, if you don't want to surrender then say so. They have three options (yes, no, abstain) and they should each mean something different. Plus if you don't vote the message stays on the screen longer and is more annoying than it already is.

SukishooMay 25, 20155 votes

The surrender system is flawed anyway.. It takes 4 yes votes to surrender in 5v5s and all 3 in 3v3s. It needs to be re-balanced, if it's a 3v2 on yes/no then it should fall to the yes and surrender as it should be a majority vote.

Meanie40May 25, 20152 votes

It's 75% threshold everywhere. Riot doesn't want to make surrenders "easy", they specifically wanted a supermajority vote.

It just so happens that the only vote that meets a 75% threshold in a 3v3 is 3-0.

I personally would change the threshold to 66%, so that a 2-1 vote passes, but I see why they don't.

CampusWifiMay 25, 20153 votes

As frustrating as it is to have a 3/2 vote prevent a game from ending (and I completely understand how infuriating it can be sometimes), if they want to keep playing then they have the right to do so. If they didn't, then everyone would be complaining about people trolling and constantly ending games prematurely instead

ChaoticPineconeMay 25, 20151 votes

the situation doesnt apply to a 3/2 vote where 3 people voted yes and 2 people voted know. it would apply to a 3/0 vote where 3 people voted yes and 2 people abstained from voting.

If you want to keep playing, which you have every right to do, you have to click "No". As of now, it defaults to "No", even if you dont vote.

Togekiss24May 25, 20153 votes

Surrendering is for chumps anyway.

LuggMay 25, 20154 votes

Not when you are on a team that feeds like an all you can eat buffet. Just get it over and try with a good team.

kile147May 26, 20152 votes

It's an option for a reason, but if you really feel that way then keep clicking no

ElysMustacheMay 25, 20152 votes

{quoted}

I don't get why this is a thing

If I vote, they can try to surrender again. Then I have to click "No" again. Instead, I just slide the vote menu until it is off my screen and ignore it so I can focus on the game.

Nameless VoiceMay 25, 20151 votes

This. So much this.

If someone starts spamming surrender every 3 minutes, I drag the box off the edge of the screen and never see it again. Of course I don't want to surrender, but also don't the negativity of that box popping up constantly.

Dragged off the screen = can't reply = don't want to surrender.

kile147May 26, 20151 votes

Right now there are three options (Yes, No, Abstain) and they should mean different things. If you don't want to surrender then click no, don't leave it up longer for everyone else. If Riot wanted you to do what you're doing then they should change it to a binary system where everyone is no by default, and you click yes to change that.

Nameless VoiceMay 26, 20152 votes

I don't want that surrender box popping up in the middle of a teamfight and obstructing my view because some negative player is constantly spamming it.

If I click no the first time then it should be assumed that my vote stays no until I click yes.

Laughing FishMay 26, 20152 votes

It is very rare that I agree with something that would make it easier to surrender. Personally I think people give up way too fast as it is. But in this case, you have a very good point. Often times when the person doesn't vote, it is because they are afk but not disconnected. I have had two people just sitting in the fountain for over 5 minutes, but our team cannot surrender because neither of the afk players can vote.

T RexHasTinyArmsMay 26, 20151 votes

I feel like 90% of the time this would just result in 3-2 votes instead of 3-0 votes. Currently if someone votes surrender and I'm sure we can still win, I just focus on what I'm doing next. If 3 people on my team are trying to surrender and I'm not, then in my experience it is most likely that my team got whooped in lane and I did well enough to think that the game is still winnable when teams start to group.

Usually I don't vote bc it's an inconvenience to have to tell someone they are wrong and the game can be won. I really wish there was a stat that showed surrender votes and your y/n as it related to the actual outcome of the game. It would be interesting to be able to see how often you were wrong when the team wanted to keep playing or were wrong when you wanted to keep playing and team wanted to surrender. Might make for less common surrender votes.

chipndip1May 26, 20151 votes

I'm in favor. If you don't vote, then you aren't there. Treat it either as an auto "yes" or as an afk, and treat the rest of the voting as if there's one less person.

Example: 3 y: 1 n: 1 blank

Surrender due to 3/4 yes vote.

EternalDarknezMay 26, 20151 votes

could go to a majority..... like the reason voting was done in the first place to see which option was better for over 50% of people

3/0, or hell even 3/2 is a majority......

jDVL20eCYsMay 26, 20151 votes

maybe you should stop losing games?

EternalDarknezMay 26, 20151 votes

the point of the thread was surrendering while having an afk, not when to surrender lol

SquishyArchonMay 26, 20151 votes

People don't vote to delay the 3 minute re-vote timer from toxic teammates spamming surrender vote while the score is 12-15.

UPfreelyMay 26, 20151 votes

i leave the vote hanging to disrespect the rage quitters who started the vote.If i still have hope for the game i will not even look at those buttons, much less, click them.

Douche DravenMay 26, 20151 votes

SUPPORT!

MillForMeMay 26, 20151 votes

It's a thing because I am not voting no to prevent the game from ending. I am voting no to communicate I do not believe this game is a definitive loss. I am voting yes to communicate it is a definitive loss and ending it early is okay. Not voting is not the same as giving up and giving permission for the game to end early with a loss.

Your suggestion and implication is that my lack of a vote is the same as my agreeing with the team to end the game early, which it is not. Riot is not going to end a game early without explicit proof from the team members in the form of a yes vote (4 or more for 5, 3 or more for 4).

This is why they are considered the same for the game, but not for the players. Your viewpoint on the purpose of the surrender vote is simply incorrect or biased. It is a self destruct button that requires keys, each player holding one of those keys. Not enough keys, no self destruct.