Proposed change to surrender.

Knight Devout·Nov 26, 2014·3 votes·981 views

I agree that surrendering shouldn't require only 3 votes out of 5, because sometimes it might be a rushed decision due to a sour teamfight or internal conflict.

however, I think that in democracy the majority should decide, and while "the show must go on" without everyone agreeing to surrender, I think the game shouldn't continue where 3 people are willing to quit just because of the stubborness of 2 people.

Because of that , I suggest the introdution of a new mechanic to the surrender vote.

#After a surrender vote fails with 3 people voting yes, the threshold for the next surrender vote to pass is lowered to 3.

16 Comments

Volt CruelerzNov 26, 20143 votes

So basically if you get three, the game gets put on "probation" and those two that think you can still win have a few minutes to prove that? Interesting...

Knight DevoutNov 26, 20141 votes

Umh, yeah, you can put it that way. Basically when 3 people vote yes the game is already downhill, either for the score, or because people refuse to co-operate.

"It ain't over 'till it's over" is epic and all, but when three people are already lowering their weapons, it's a sign that you aren't probably going to put that one in the bag.

But what happens when the game goes on? When the 3/2 vote repeats itself at 23:00 minutes, and 26:00 minutes, what's the experience for those three players? There have been times when the game was clearly lost, and the following 10 minutes were utterly miserable for me. And, considering that the other 2 people who voted yes were still voting yes at each subsequent vote, it was clear that the sentiment was shared.

So, basically, you can still prolong the game when the surrender vote is cast 3/2 But, for the three next minutes, have at least to show that the game experience, even if not the results, can be salvaged. Because, even when you have to lose, there are games where you want to keep trying and lose with grace. Otherwise, when the enemy Yi is so fed that with a Thornmail/Randuin Braum I still get erased under my turrets, i just want to quit. And if the feeling is shared, either the other 2 people convince me otherwise (not that the game can be won, but that we can at least have fun) or the game ends there.

Lumus AvatarNov 26, 20143 votes

I propose a change to the Surrender mechanic:

Remove the surrender option.

JuanCrazyDec 2, 20143 votes

They would loose 25% of their players that fast. put in two option games - one no surrender let you play that, and one that has a teired surrender and count after a month how many are playing which game.

LordKentravyonNov 26, 20143 votes

No too many people are "GG I died once in lane jgl didn't gank were done gunna spam FF FROM 20 ONWARDS" "Doesn't matter if were 3 dragons up and our adc is 5/1/3 WERE DONE"

Like I understand the ok your locked in base, nobody can farm, there all fed were loosing every team fight etc.. lets surrender guys its done GG

But people are way to quick to jump the gun and then bringing down 1-2 other people fairly easily with their constant moral bashing. In games that are still fairly even.

Knight DevoutNov 26, 20141 votes

Would you vote no in a 2/20 game with inhibitors down where the only reason your nexus is up is because the enemy team wants to see how shiny 5 dragon stacks+ baron is?

LordKentravyonApr 22, 20151 votes

late response and all (was looking at everything I've' missed but no if you read my comment I would FF a game with that kind of scenario)

I litteraly said

I understand the ok your locked in base, nobody can farm, there all fed were loosing every team fight etc.. lets surrender guys its done GG

However my comment was in regards to the whole

"GG I died once in lane jgl didn't gank were done gunna spam FF FROM 20 ONWARDS" "Doesn't matter if were 3 dragons up and our adc is 5/1/3 WERE DONE"

the problem is people give up long before it reaches that doomed point and often condem an otherwise solid game to a massive loss because they just give up and stop trying the first time something goes in favor of the enemy team "Jax I don't care if your 2 kills behind your laner, your a jax you will catch up and our trist is 4 kills up on their Cait We are still in this bud, we are fine, there is no reason to give up"

JuanCrazyDec 2, 20142 votes

non surrender, blocking 3 people by 2 puts game into a poison state, where you have people not playing feeding or bitching. Ultimately - it is a team game and ya, one person can carry but the team can see that. after 2nd failed vote , then you start to see bitching bad language, with 1 or two people just saying ok take tower we will sit in base... is that better

Typically two saying no are friends, and they are messing with everyone and donèt care - put in a game mode that is ie no surrender and another with one that has a 3 surrender diminishing to 2 by points behind.

MagnusMentulaNov 26, 20142 votes

This would stop duo trolls, so yes.

JuanCrazyDec 2, 20142 votes

Stupid, why waste time if game is over- if you have a bot adc that gives up 18 deaths, and has 0 kills and their adc is so far ahead... as is their entire team. If you are down 5 towers - and have 2 idiots not surrendering.

I think we need enhance surrender, allow it with 2 vote surrender if down by X points - to stop nobs that just play to end and waste everyone's time. Or remove penalties for any afk or leaves if team is down by X points and surrenders have been declined at least twice.... do something to help those of us that hate playing with feeders. Note - as elo goes up - this issue decreases. people higher realize advantages that nobs do not.

Knight DevoutDec 2, 20141 votes

I play between 22:00 and 24:00, local time gmt+1.

The common excuse I commonly hear when people don't want to surrender is "It's late and I won't start another game, so I might as well play this one until they take nexus" Which is by far the best excuse they came up with, but it still doesn't justify keeping other 3 people on "hostage" with a ban threat to their accounts if they leave.

Either they stop the game after the second surrender vote that ends with 3/2, or they let people leave with no penalty.

I'll tell you another nice tale. Yesterday I played 2 games with my friends. Got 1 loss and 1 victory. The game I lost, i actually was 2-0-2, but I voted yes over friendship to a friends of mine who was stomped so hard in lane that his game experience was miserable (ganked him twice, he still was too far behind).

The other game, we had a huge lead, something like 18-0, and, fun fact, the enemy team surrender at 20 minutes and 15 seconds in. There is a certain threshold of beating you can take while still having fun.

Most of my games ended with close score were fun. Games with huge gaps are not.

JefftiffyDec 2, 20142 votes

Okay, my input on this.

There is the need for a surrender button and that is for the games where there is 0 chance of coming back. But the thing is as done as your team is if 2 people think they can win it they can.

You know how often I press "No". 95% of the time. Why? Because IDC if the kill gap is 15. I have come back from worse and if I am playing the role I want and my team listens to me it is still entirely possible. The mentality of they're fed gg is not healthy. If they continue to be toxic about it they have the right to be banned. You are telling me toxic players deserve more rights than the players who are remaining positive. Heh no.

I have even won games where the final kill count was 10+ kills in the enemy teams favor because we played defensive. And unfortunately in solo queue people don't know how to do this and don't realize how easily you can close the gap. If you give up without even trying you lose experience, no not in game, but actual LoL experience. You have to learn to play while at odds.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but you learn more from being behind than being fed. I may go 15/0 in lane Akali vs. Yasuo, but how much did I actually learn? Akali is naturally countered by Yasuo and I steam rolled him, what does that say about his skill?

The surrender button is there for 5v5s so the teams can say gg and be done when they know they hit their limit. In solo queue removing it removes a major source of toxic player bans out of the game.

In my opinion, if the enemy team has more than 10k gold on yours its pretty much GG. How big is that gap, huge. IDC if they have 10 kills. That is worth a max of 3k gold which is a single item (on average). 3 full items on you is pretty much where it is over. 2 you can cope with you just can't engage you have to turtle at this point. Add in diminishing kill values and 10k = about 20-25 kills with a decent CS advantage.

TL DR; Gold gap has to be huge to be worth surrendering. Surrender button weeds out toxic players. You learn more from playing against the odds. Surrender button was meant as an option when the entire team figured the other team earned the win and that they have not even the slightest chance at winning. It was meant purely for respect not for convenience of the losing team.

Knight DevoutDec 2, 20141 votes

But what for toxic players that abuse the surrender option to stay in a game they are losing? Just in spite of the players who wants to leave?

IMHO in this case democracy should win. If three people want to win and you stubbornly ask "no, stay, no , stay, no, stay" they are going to play even worse just because they start to spite you.

One thing is when 3people want to play, and 2 want to surrend. What you said applies perfectly to that case. That doesn't apply, however, to the situation where 3 players are already giving up, and only 2 players are willing to go on. I'm fine with the game continuing. I'm not fine with those 2 players forcing the people to stay.

Let's go back to the example you made: what can I learn from being against the odds, if I have no chance to impact the game? NOTHING! What you can learn is "how to win IF, and ONLY IF, the enemy team throws", which is not really common.

Don't push that bias onto other people. Don't force your fallacy logic to other people. That's almost a kidnap. "Hey, I'm the minority, I saw from the previous surrender vote that you guys don't wanna play,but keep playing or I report you". And that's supposed to be the "mature" , and surely not toxic attitude? Please.

When you start reasoning like that , you and I disagree. I gave you 20 minutes of my life, I'll give you three more, but after 2 surrender vote passes I want the right to leave the game without getting banned by leaverbuster. You wanna stay? Go on, just don't expect me to keep fighting against a 12/2 master Yi with a low cc team.

Out of respect, I can play 3 more minutes, but don't force a 30-40 minutes game where the enemy team stalls just to get dragon stacks only because you think that maybe they will throw the game. They won't.