Why does it say SURRENDER when we REMAKE?
Its not suppose to say SURRENDER when we vote for REMAKE
Its not suppose to say SURRENDER when we vote for REMAKE
Why does it matter?
Its clear from context what happened.
Systemic feedback of a piece of software, doesn't have to care about your precious ego.
Actually, it does make a difference because people's "egos" influence the decisions they make, and in this case, it makes it more likely that anyone who doesn't understand the system will vote "No" because they don't want to take a loss, when in reality the outcome is very different.
Even for people who understand the system, it can subconsciously influence them to vote no when there is no real reason to do so.
Also, CLARITY!
Actually, it does make a difference because people's "egos" influence the decisions they make, and in this case, it makes it more likely that anyone who doesn't understand the system will vote "No" because they don't want to take a loss, when in reality the outcome is very different.
As a programmer, I let you in on a little secret. One of the core views of programmers (real programmers, not the guys who design overblown GUIs that require 150MB RAM baseline, and do the same in 10 mouseclicks you could do with a single line shell-command) is:
"It is not the softwares purpose to make up for the incompetence of the user."
In other words, users can be expected to have a minimum ability for things like logical inference. If they don't, well, Darwinism.
I agree, and that's a fair argument, but I'm pointing out that it is inconsistent with Riot's design philosophy. Since it can and in some rare cases will negatively effect the experience of other, competent users, it is in the majority's interest to add clarity, even if you would like to assume a base-line of competency.
I'm not a programmer, I'm a designer, and that's where our ideologies diverge, because you are thinking in terms of maximum efficiency, while I am thinking about ease of use and accessibility to any and all users (competent or not)
because you are thinking in terms of maximum efficiency
To be fair, I am not saying that the message should stay as-is, because it is technically an output bug, re-using the code-snipped generating it out of convenience but out of the original context.
And when I say context I mean the context it was put into the code originally. I don't give two cents about the out-of-context interpretation incompetent users might make (as stated above), but re-using code and preformed output out of context comes with its own share of technical problems. It may seem a small issue in this case, but such small hiccups have a tendency to add up in large projects, and bippedybappedyboo, you get what's known so infamously as "Spaghetti Code".
If it was up to me, I would replace the line with "Enemy team voted to end the game (x of y players)." thereby eliminating any emotional context altogether, and retaining the ability to use the same message on either action.
accessibility to any and all users (competent or not)
While there is nothing wrong with this mindset per-se, overdoing it leads to disaster.
Because convenience, and accessibility come at a price tag, which may not be immediately visible to the designer, and completely unknown to the user, but very visible to the engineers and programmers. I will provide just 2 examples here, where designers choices in the name of accessibility, prettyness and catering-to-the-lowest-end made biological waste hit the fan:
Batttery-Life of modern smartphones. Designers decided it was a good idea to make them ever thinner and larger at the same time. Therefore we have ever more energy consuming larger screens, and ever thinner batterys. Meaning, they have to go through more recharge-cycles, more often and instead of batteries that are good for the products lifetime, we get smartphones where batteries are dead after 4 months use. And in the worst case scenario, this leads to smartphones turning into molotov cocktails.
"Next-Gen-GUI" windows applications. "Why is my computer sooooo slow?" .... well, its because this cool new application you just installed is showing a super easy to understand GUI with lots of sounds, animations, 3D effects, transparencies, and other knickknacks, and was not coded by a programmer, but built by an "App Designer", using some pre-formed "App Kits" which were designed for easy use with zero regards given to efficiency. The result is a text-editor with the functionality of Windows-Notepad (a 230KB software that has existed since the Dark Ages), but requiring 380MB RAM and half the cycles of your GPU.
Yeah, overdoing accessibility leads to every product you create being a kiddie toy—Super easy to use and understand, nowhere near the quality or sophistication that could be possible. There is always a time and place for simplicity as well as sophistication.
My point isn't to dumb everything down (I'm not that kind of "App designer" type, I work everything from scratch based on the problem at hand and drawing on previous designs for insight), my point is that there should be a balance between form and function, between use ability and aesthetics and sophistication of design, always with a goal of maximizing both efficiency and ease of use.
Side note on smartphones; I've never been a fan of the bigger fablet styles, small+compact, durable, yet sleek and powerful are my go-to elements when looking at a phone.
I really appreciate the points you're bringing up though, it's providing a lot of insight for me (especially since I still am and always will be learning how to better my trade). I oversimplified my argument and think you're spot on with the counterpoints.
I've gotta agree with ya. This has always been a little offputting to me.
They probably latched remake onto the existing code base for surrendering. It is a way to get the code to live very quickly. If they had to implement it from scratch, it would have taken longer to get to live and you risk new bugs. The surrender system has already been proven so it was easier simply to make some minor additions and use that for remaking games.
If they had to implement it from scratch, it would have taken longer to get to live and you risk new bugs.
So instead lets risk even more serious-, and way harder to track bugs by re-using a code snippet, or refering to a function, out of its original context?
So instead lets risk even more serious-, and way harder to track bugs by re-using a code snippet, or refering to a function, out of its original context?
You are 100% backwards. An existing function that has been extremely stable over the years and does almost exactly what you want is much less likely to be buggy than an entirely new block of code. The entire point of a function is that you can re-use it down the road with only slight tweaks. The only differences between the two are the time at which they are available, the number of votes needed to confirm, and how it is counted for LP and MMR.
You are 100% backwards.
You are 100% wrong. Compared to that, I prefer "backwards".
An existing function that has been extremely stable over the years and does almost exactly what you want is much less likely to be buggy than an entirely new block of code.
There already is an entirely new block of code: The one you use the function in out of context. This code is gonna give args to the function and receive return values from it. Functions do not exist in a vacuum, friend, unless you talk about software on the complexity level of a "Hello World".
In the example of the message, the consequences are probably minimum, quite right.
Re-Using code is great. Ignoring the context of code isn't.
Because your surrendering lol. Yea its not a 20 min+ mercy surrender, but your throwing in the towel so to speak and surrendering the game. You have the option not to surrender (remake) so it makes sense to call it as such. I am not sure if it counts against your w/l ratio but even if it does, we should be thankful to riot for making it a no fault as far as LP is concern. Before the remake, you would of had like a 95% chance of getting an L, losing LP, surrendering anyways at 20, and wasting 20 mins of your life.
It's because its the same system? They didn't change anything, just allowed for the surrender to happen earlier and the game to not count. It's just how the game is programmed, they don't need to change the wording. We all know what is happening when Remake is enabled.
The fuck is wrong with surrendering? If you're one of those "no ff" retards, I suggest you get back on track with your medication before posting anything else on here.
Who cares?
You are choosing to surrender. Period. Previously you were not allowed to surrender so early and be able to get away with calling it a "remake" which is bullshit.
You are choosing to surrender. Period. Previously you were not allowed to surrender so early and be able to get away with calling it a "remake" which is bullshit.
No. I am not choosing to surrender. I am choosing to remake 4v5 game. Ain't fair to play with 1 player less on a team
You surrender when you gave up and everyone is playing the game