What if the option to surrender is unlocked when....

Saixos · 2015-12-02T18:49:53.921Z

The game reaches past 20 minutes. The enemy team has destroyed an inhibitor of yours. The enemy team has destroyed 5 of your towers.

Saixos·Dec 2, 2015·104 votes·4,538 views

The game reaches past 20 minutes.
The enemy team has destroyed an inhibitor of yours.
The enemy team has destroyed 5 of your towers.

53 Comments

shaiithDec 2, 201581 votes

There are 2 AFK players for more than 5 minutes.

No GanksDec 3, 20152 votes

Try 15 minutes?

shaiithDec 3, 20151 votes

Numbers can be adjusted according to circumstances.

Can U AD See MeDec 3, 20152 votes

1 Afk for 5 mins, 2 is a bit too much and almost never happens Also, this is an or statement not an and statement

shaiithDec 3, 20152 votes

Numbers can be crunched until everyone is satisfied. They're all options put for discussion. It doesn't matter if it's an 'or', an 'and' or neither as long as a consensus is reached.

TimewinderDec 4, 20151 votes

JUST this one.

Pasta Help DeskDec 2, 201523 votes

Or what if we leave surrender exactly how it is in normal games and completely remove it from ranked games?

Clockwork MouseDec 2, 201512 votes

Amen to that

IsmokeOreganoDec 2, 20157 votes

[deleted]

HabitzDec 3, 20154 votes

Lay down the oregano. He said leave it in normals (so fun-loving normal players can surrender), take it out of ranked so people don't feel like just giving up is a viable option.

TimewinderDec 4, 20151 votes

i feel like this might increase open mids which are even worse

PennsDec 2, 201520 votes

If you remove number 1, that would be a great idea.

SaixosDec 3, 20159 votes

"I know we've still got a chance guys but MY WIFE IS HAVING HER BABY so can we please surrender? I'll gift you all skins after!"

Surrender option past 20 minutes is just for those odd scenarios.

DrCyanideDec 3, 20151 votes

Actually, that happened with one of my friends. We queued up and as soon as we were in the loading screen they had to run to the hospital to deliver the baby. As soon as the game loaded he typed out what happened in chat and then left.

I tell you, that was the best 4v5 win I've had :)

SociopathFriendDec 3, 20157 votes

I'd think a 5K gold lead would be a good option- when the difference between your gold and their gold becomes too great- allow the lower team to surrender. Not only does this help stomps, but it can be used by teams to realize it's time to buckle down and play safe until you're closer.

AliExpressDec 3, 20152 votes

This^ i just said the same thing and noticed your comment :)

HabitzDec 3, 20151 votes

Guys they only need $500 more gold!!

junglerboy16Dec 3, 20153 votes

5 towers is too early imo, since that doesn't even require getting all the inner turrets.

If it were "The enemy team has 5 more towers than you" then that could work.

There should also be things for gold lead margins (say 4000 gold difference pre 20), kill difference (if they are up say 10 kills before 20), or like someone else mentioned, there are x number of AFK players for Y amount of total time (basically, if you have 1 AFK, it takes something like 15 minutes, if you have 2, it takes 10, and if you have 3, it takes 5 and gives loss prevented to the remaining two players, that way you don't get everyone ditching the game since you want to be one of the ones who only gets loss prevented instead of a defeat).

SolusInCadereDec 3, 20151 votes

5 towers is all the way to an inhib and then to an inhib tower. More likely thou its top outer/inner, mid outer, and bot outer. But if that's the case, your team will have a very hard time taking dragon and baron, therefore solidifying the enemy's lead.

Lex DominoDec 3, 20153 votes

The most fun games I've ever had are when all the turrets and inhibs are down and my lil underdog team comes back for the win. Some of you are really ruining the game with the constant whining for surrender supposedly so you can get IP and if you still need IP for anything other than the newest champs then you're a newbie with no place in the discussion over when to surrender.

It's bad enough Riot already catered to people who wanted the matches sped up to the point where they only take 20 minutes. Now having so many of you spam surrender every 20 minutes over losing an inner turret or spamming "GG" in chat when you fed your lane instead of asking for assistance is just infuriating.

Learn to play the game. The game isn't about surrendering the fastest so you can "grind IP". Learn the champs, there are a lot of them. If you're losing then learn from the loss. Let the full game play out.

Riot should really take surrender out all together. Most of you surrender spammers are just raging and literally trying to force a rage quit. You're so afraid of seeing the base destroyed that your turn your brains off and stop learning from what is happening. Then you turn around and repeat all the same mistakes over and over again. It's why so many of us hate ranked. Every time ranked resets you guys come in and pull the same garbage and force a good portion of the community to have to struggle to rise instead of having even matches with people who are trying to win on both sides.

The vast majority of the people who want to be able to surrender sooner don't build health, armor, or magic resist of any kind. It's all damage items so you can attempt to get the most kills and then you get mad at everyone else on your team when the enemy tank destroys you solo. Lately I don't even see people building armor or magic pen anymore either. But we need long discussions about how we should be able to surrender faster only to repeat everything done wrong in the very next match ruining it for those who actually are trying to learn.

I'm far from a pro gamer, not even trying to be one. But I do try to learn to get better and be better at the game. I don't surrender unless my team is really toxic and not going to try to do anything but spam surrender for the next 20-30 minutes or sit at the fountain in protest.

PDE5 InhibitorsDec 3, 20152 votes

Or if you have a business major on your team.

ShaftyMegeeDec 3, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=PDE5 Inhibitors,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=tFb5TgA6,comment-id=000b,timestamp=2015-12-03T01:40:05.185+0000)

Or if you have a business major on your team.

This

HabitzDec 3, 20152 votes

Ok guys we only have to lose one more tower!

IpressbuttonDec 3, 20152 votes

What if they removed the surrender option, that way we can actually have competitive games in the spirit of competition instead of "gg surrender at 20 top fed"

KGBcommunistDec 4, 20151 votes

thank you someone gets it. someone finally gets it. I hate the surrender button. Removing it might even make people think before they want to dive a tower and throw lane advantage. Itll stop the feeders from aimlessly feeding. Well not all of course(trolls will troll) but it will help.

EcchiOtakuTMDec 2, 20151 votes

http://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/yYBm9rXq-i-honestly-love-the-changes-placed-in-however-i-as-well-as-many-have-a-few-suggestions

warpenguin555Dec 2, 20151 votes

Can it also lock if your team is winning?

Daedalus871Dec 3, 20151 votes

How do you define winning though?

There have been games where my team has had a good laning phase, but I could tell that we were still going to lose because of the various dipshits.

iainB85Dec 3, 20151 votes

Riot has neglected a ton of things in their game, but this one baffles me the most.

WHY after so many years do you force players to play a game they don't want to anymore.

SpårrowDec 3, 20152 votes

When you decide to play a game of LoL you agree to uphold the summoner's code. The first promise of the code is to support your team. If you decide you don't want to play anymore but the rest of your team still wants to win, you cannot give up and stop playing without failing to support your team. It's selfish and inconsiderate to give up when others depend on you for their own efforts to be successful.

iainB85Dec 3, 20151 votes

You are COMPLETELY missing the point. The issue is that even if the MAJORITY or even the ENTIRE team doesn't want to play anymore, they have to remain in the game until the 20 minute mark or be punished. This makes absolutely no sense what so ever. The topic is about when a team can collectively decide to surrender a game and move on to the next one, not when one person on the team doesn't want to play anymore.

Angry MonsterDec 3, 20151 votes

not for the last one ( towers). Maybe if they were 5 towers up, but a game could really random and each side split pushing and not reacting correctly.

SaixosDec 3, 20151 votes

95% of games 5 towers will fall only after 20 minutes have passed. If 5 towers have fallen, that means that you either have an exposed inhibitor (in which case it's likely to be destroyed soon) or 2/3 of your inner turrets have fallen. The end result means that every single one of your lanes has lost, or 2 have lost hard enough that the 1 that didn't lose can't hold their tower. If 5 turrets have fallen before 20 minutes then the chances of the enemy team winning is pretty high.

AliExpressDec 3, 20151 votes

I dont agree with 2 or 3. Many times Ive played poke/wave-clear comps (think xerath/lux/ziggs) where we;ve had to turtle in our base with just nexus turrets and have managed to prolong the game long enough to win.

Instead, how about you have the option to surrender if the Gold lead of the enemy team is above lets say 5000. This number is open to discussion.

SaixosDec 3, 20154 votes

Sure you can turtle, but I've always viewed the point of surrendering as something else - If you're no longer enjoying the current game, or believe it's a better use of your time to be doing something else. You can turtle in your base from 15 minutes onwards if you want, being allowed to start surrender votes at that point doesn't change a thing. But if the rest of your team does not want to get bored to death and frustrated and can't be bothered to wait 20 minutes for you to have a fighting chance, then there's no harm in allowing them to surrender if a majority agrees as is currently in the game.

HabitzDec 3, 20152 votes

Why even play ranked if you have something better to do with your time. I'm not saying you did or did not mean for your comment to apply to ranked, however, if you just want to play for fun and only have fun in games where you get easy wins then way not just do normals? Ranked games are not about easy wins and when you start a vote to surrender you kind of suck the energy out of the game. It's not cool if for 4 people to just take away your lp because they're not having fun anymore. That said, maybe the new ranked system where you can invite more than one person will help as I can now play with people I know aren't quitters.

FistOfSharkieshaDec 3, 20151 votes

This should at the very least be implemented in normals. I can see some potentially won games getting the surrender vote (maybe this happens like 1 in a thousand games) but I'd honestly still support it being in ranked. But I think putting it in normals is a good first step and there's no reason not to.

HeedprimeDec 3, 20151 votes

The game reaches past 20 minutes.
The enemy team has destroyed an inhibitor at least 2 times.
Your team has been aced 2+ times.
The enemy has a 5,000+ gold lead.

also if it is ranked, anyone who votes 'No' for a surrender vote gets loss forgiven if the vote succeeds without 2 or more of the above being true.

Meep ManDec 3, 20151 votes

When the enemy team has at least 25-30% more total gold than your team

RISE Shlack123Dec 3, 20151 votes

We definitely need a new surrender system if the pace of games continues as is. Currently, a game can very reasonably be decided by 14-15 minutes, and yet you have to play out the last 5-6 minutes of a lost match. The only best bet right now is "opening mid" but enemy teams don't always respect you and will just monkey around tower diving and such.

Upvoted for relevance to the current meta.

pastagayDec 3, 20151 votes

I don't see why people are complaining about short games. I've played two games since 5.22 came out, both of them have been over 30 minutes. I know it's a low sample size, but with the amount of complaining, I would've figured at least one of them would've been short.

http://matchhistory.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/#match-details/NA1/2026074252/220759365?tab=overview

http://matchhistory.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/#match-details/NA1/2026735762/220759365?tab=overview

Ins3rtOsuDec 3, 20151 votes

I think unlocking the option to surrender further discourages it, where it should be encouraged in the first place. Many games should end much, much earlier. Although I'm just a level 9 scrub and I shouldn't even have the audacity to voice out my more-than-likely illogical opinion in the first place :/

HandsomeDonDec 3, 20151 votes

[deleted]

SaixosDec 3, 20151 votes

This is not the place to advertise.

Hyrum GraffDec 3, 20151 votes

I dunno about option 3, but if the enemy gets an inhib before 20 minutes, it's almost certainly gg, totally agreed.

SpårrowDec 3, 20151 votes

I think the current surrender system is toxic to gameplay. The pop-up box can be extremely distracting in a game when every fraction of a second and every ounce of brain processing power counts. To allow players to repeatedly start surrender votes every several minutes has no utility other than allowing players to slowly drag down the morale of their more resilient teammates.

A better system would be to allow players to toggle their surrender vote at their own discretion (instead of only at the time of the vote). Allow people to change their vote at any point. When the number of votes to surrender hits 4 (or less if there are AFKs or fewer players), the surrender goes through.

What advantage is there to having the surrender vote be episodic? Why not just allow it to be an ongoing thing? The pop-up box has no positive effects. All it does is harm the morale of the team. As someone who tends to be the last person to change their vote to "yes," I would appreciate not having to see the morale-draining surrender vote every few minutes when I'm trying to focus on my gameplay.

Mech2000Dec 3, 20151 votes

How about we just have the option to surrender at 15 minutes? Snowball games are more frequent nowadays. I mean, why not? You already need 4 out of 5 players to surrender anyways, 3 out of 4 when you've had an afk all game and know you're going to lose eventually.

Not saying that every 4v5 game is automatically a loss, but when it's apparent to you and the entire rest of your team that you're going to lose (either from a losing score, significantly less towers, etc.) and your team is having no fun - where staying in the game is just going to put you more on tilt and possibly affecting your NEXT game - why would you have players stay in the game?

15 minutes into a game where the score is 2 kills to 19 kills, let me be the first to tell you that those last 5 minutes you're forced to stay in the game with other players that want out, that's a breeding ground for toxicity.

Nunya BezwacksDec 3, 20151 votes

if that was the case it still wouldnt matter because there are to many retarded white knight Rambo wannabes who think the game is winnable or fun when your team is down 9 towers, 40 kills, and having their faces rubbed in the dirt while the enemy goes to town on you