3/2 surrender votes should be surrenders. The majority of the team said yes, and your newfound focus on punishing leavers means those two people are now trapping the other 3 in a game that the majority of the team does not want to be in anymore. Your system is causing more toxicity and unneeded stress when 3 players get trapped because a duo doesn't care what anyone wants.
BigIdea8 votesmany of my comeback wins wouldn't have happened if the 3/2 surrender was implemented. too many people give up too easily.
Junkο4 votesMaybe because when an enemy team has a 20/1 Akali the game is over and there is no chance of winning, no reason to play for another 20 minutes because the enemy team wants free kills to boost their ego and the premades don't want their win streak to end
SexyTaylorSwift4 votesFalse. CC her, kill her, and chances are the rest of the team has very low kills. L2P.
InsaneSamurai2 votesAnd someone actually upvotes this guy. Nice community.
You can't win every game, if you think you can I dunno what else to tell ya.
SexyTaylorSwift4 votesSomeone probably upvoted me because it is the truth. "1 person on their team is fed....better /ff" Uhm, no?
Why should my game be intentionally lost because someone else feeds and doesn't think we can come back? You are intentionally losing the game the same as an intentional feeder would.
InsaneSamurai1 votesBecause you are not the entire team.
SexyTaylorSwift2 votesOk, so you get a 3 man premade and intentionally troll the other 2 players. Why is that not ok? The majority of the team wants to troll?
InsaneSamurai1 votesBecause trolling is against the rules and surrendering isn't?
SexyTaylorSwift3 votesUhm, they are both intentionally losing?
Also, I'm not sure that "trolling" is mentioned anywhere in the Summoner's code. I also don't think that things like Leona ADC, Taric Jungle, and Tank Cait are against the rules, yet you would probably not be happy if I did those things in your match and played terribly with them.
SexyTaylorSwift4 votesAlso, you CAN win every game. You are probably not going to, but every game is possible to win until the nexus says defeat. I just played a 5s ranked match. We were all high silver-low gold players against 3 Plats, a Diamond, and a high Gold (rito matchmaking OP) and were down 2 inhibs and about 15 kills + 2 drags and a nexus tower. They pushed into our base, I ulted as Fiddles, taking out their ADC that overextended, and my team followed up beautifully for the ACE and win.
You CAN win every game, it is just whether you are able to get it done or not.
Eleshakai2 votesAnd someone actually upvotes this guy. Nice community.
You can't win every game, if you think you can I dunno what else to tell ya.
It's not about winning every game, it's about PLAYING every game. The more losses you play, the better player you become... the more losses you surrender, the more you stagnate. When you're losing is the best time to work on improving the stuff you can ONLY practice when things aren't going well.
InsaneSamurai3 votesDoesn't change the fact that the majority of the team wants to end it. Why are the 2 people who say no suddenly more important than the other 3?
BigIdea3 votesDoesn't change the fact that the majority of the team wants to end it. Why are the 2 people who say no suddenly more important than the other 3?
should be clear that 3 to 2 isn't a convincing majority. there's a good chance the 2 know better than the 3. 4 to 1 is as fair as it will get.
asktiks1 votesshould be clear that 3 to 2 isn't a convincing majority. there's a good chance the 2 know better than the 3. 4 to 1 is as fair as it will get.
wich is hogwash and you know it 3 people want to forfeit, and theres a reason for that
whatever, tryhards waste my time ninety percent of it, if we are losing , most of the time its impossible to come back with all the snowball assassin spam on the Qs lately, its just not possible when the enemy team will not let you leave our base undefended and you are already various levels below the enemy team, please do tell me what I s the chance of comeback from that? I hate when people don't realize this, I am not going to "get better" defending our inhibs for ten more minutes so they can split push it with baron buff anyways the second half our team is dead
im sorry if winning is so important to this people that they don't see it as wasting other peoples times but hey ill keep voting to surrender and go farm crap in the forest if they vote no, you are not obligated to surrender , im not obligated to defend base either, ill go push lanes and hide till they push our base, now im not really afk am I ? see we can both use technicalities in our favor...
BigIdea2 voteswich is hogwash and you know it 3 people want to forfeit, and theres a reason for that
whatever, tryhards waste my time ninety percent of it, if we are losing , most of the time its impossible to come back with all the snowball assassin spam on the Qs lately, its just not possible when the enemy team will not let you leave our base undefended and you are already various levels below the enemy team, please do tell me what I s the chance of comeback from that? I hate when people don't realize this, I am not going to "get better" defending our inhibs for ten more minutes so they can split push it with baron buff anyways the second half our team is dead
im sorry if winning is so important to this people that they don't see it as wasting other peoples times but hey ill keep voting to surrender and go farm crap in the forest if they vote no, you are not obligated to surrender , im not obligated to defend base either, ill go push lanes and hide till they push our base, now im not really afk am I ? see we can both use technicalities in our favor...
that makes no sense. if i knew what i said was wrong, i wouldn't have said it.. ... ..
point of a game is to win. if you dont want to put the effort into coming back in games in which you're behind, you'll never climb the ranks and deserve whatever rating you get
The Fat Punisher1 votesthat makes no sense. if i knew what i said was wrong, i wouldn't have said it.. ... ..
point of a game is to win. if you dont want to put the effort into coming back in games in which you're behind, you'll never climb the ranks and deserve whatever rating you get
or. or. the extra 20 minutes you spend in a game just to lose ANYWAY (come back are comp reliant, most of the time they simply won't happen)
surrendering could possibly save you 8 hours of time for every 100 games. 8 hours you can spend winning a different game.
Nicktoons7 votesActually no, because I've been in matches where I was extremely fed, and people would surrender 3/2. If that was able to go through then I wouldn't have been able to win those matches.
What riot should do is If a player has died 10times and has not helped the team in anyway the game should just end instantly and be a loss forgiven for the whole losing team, except for the player at hand.
I'm really tired of seeing people die 20times, The game should just end.
SexyTaylorSwift3 votesBut what about singed???
SexyTaylorSwift4 votesJudging by this thread, and the overall push for a change, I would say that the majority is fine with the current 4-1 system. Checkmate.
InsaneSamurai1 votesThe random downvoters and arguers that happen in every thread also being in this one represents everyone?
I'm pretty sure at this point you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, so I'm not going to waste any more time giving you what you want.
SexyTaylorSwift3 votesThe "random" downvoters are what you call everyone that has commented with a disagreeing opinion lol. Or I suppose there are just random people upvoting every comment that isn't you saying stupid shit like 2 people waste the time of 3 lol.
In any regards, if the majority didn't want it, I think there would probably be more threads against it. As it stands, it is a few random people that feed in matches and then expect the whole team to quit because they want to. Sorry, rito won't change this just because you want it...majority rules.
Stephenizgod3 votesI use to think that too but after awhile my opinion changed. There are dozens of times where i wanted to surrender but 2 people didn't and it drove me crazy. There are also dozens of time where i wanted to surrender, but 2 people didn't and then they led us to victory.
Here is the other part of it, the enemy team may not want to stop playing. If they are having fun and the 2 people on your team are having fun then that's 7 people having fun and 3 not, majority of the people are having a good time. Maybe there should me a mercy vote with a 3/2 split (or a 2/2 in the case of an afk i guess) where the other team gets to decide whether to give mercy or keep playing. Personally though i think there should be at least 2-3 failed votes before the other team gets to mercy vote.
InsaneSamurai2 votesNone of this changes the fact that the majority of your team wants to call it a game. Building a system where two people can cage the other 3 in a game as long as they can drag it on(stay and put up with it or face Riot punishments), is not good for anyone. People will argue, people will try to convince each other to surrender/not surrender and start arguments off that. The game is over, people are just fighting and clicking no to spite each other at that point and it needs to stop.
Stephenizgod3 votesWhen the game is obviously over yea those 2 are caging the other 3 and in this case i feel the other team should get to decide whether to give mercy or not. When the game isnt decided yet but you guys just want to quit instead of trying and i think we can win if we just started to cooperate better then im not caging you, you are caging me. 3 to 2 isnt a good advantage anyways, specially when the game can be won or lost by one person. Besides like i said its possible that its 7 to 3 in wanting to keep playing, so why should 3 people decide the game for the other 7? Your own logic used against you except with a better majority.
I will agree that the Surrender system has its flaws but not for the same reasons.
InsaneSamurai3 votesMany of the times that this becomes a serious problem, it is because the enemy team is just milking the game and not finishing. In these cases they would never allow a surrender, because their goal is to stay fed and winning as long as possible at the expense of the other team.
The other team is not included because it's a surrender vote. The deciding factors are the people on the team that is losing, determining if they have lost enough to not drag on the game. In a world where most people didn't care more about themselves than anyone else, sure, allow the enemy team into the vote. In this world, 9 out of 10 times they're not going to help you out just to be honorable. They're going to do the same exact thing, trap you in the game cause they have 20 kills and they wanna keep instakilling people who have no chance at all of putting up a fight. If you want to play this game to get fed and just faceroll the enemy team over and over again without taking objectives, you're not doing it right, and Riot's systems should not cater to that in any way at all.
Stephenizgod3 votesAgreed there are a lot of poor sports out there but i feel 4/1 is the most fair for deciding whether to surrender or not. In your example it is a pain in the ass to deal with that, but its just something you need to accept as part of the community. Even though they are being poor winners their opinion still matters and they are having fun, unfortunately at the expense of others. If you want to have a fair system you need to take both sides into account, thats just how 'fair' works, and a 4/1 vote is the most fair with only 1 team voting.
InsaneSamurai1 votes4 to 1 is not even remotely fair. All the one guy needs is a friend or someone he can easily sway, and he traps the rest of the game.
It's rarely even worth trying at that point anyway. The vote comes up, and 2 say no when the other 3 believe there is absolutely no reason to continue. So you stay and argue about surrendering and whose fault it is and who should have picked what champ for a few minutes, the vote comes back, you click no, and proceed to continue arguing. How is this better than ending the game and playing a new one with a new team?
Stephenizgod2 votesWell actually 4 to 1 is very fair, if 4 people want to surrender and 1 doesn't then it should be a surrender.
It seems me and you have different experiences which is effecting our opinions on this subject so there is no point in continuing, neither of us are going to change. You have bad experiences with surrender-system and i actually tend to win most of the game that we fail to surrender.
There are two sides to this and both are correct in their own ways.
SexyTaylorSwift3 votesSurrender should be 5-0. You are voting to intentionally lose the game. I don't want my game intentionally lost because you all decided to feed and now don't want to play anymore.
InsaneSamurai2 votesAnd that's you. One member of a five man team. If you want a game where your opinion matters more than everyone else, there are tons and tons of great solo games out there.
SexyTaylorSwift3 votesYou want 3 members of a game to control the other 7 members fun.
InsaneSamurai1 votesIf your entire game is ruined because the enemy team surrendered, I dunno what to tell ya.
SexyTaylorSwift3 votesIt can be. I could be having a great time against them, and they surrender so my fun is done. After all, league is played for fun and not wins, right? So the entire game could be ruined because the fun is over. Winning makes no difference.
In any regards, it is still 3 people controlling 7 people, which you say is unfair because it is not the majority. I am not following your point? You want it to be the majority, but 3 is not anyway?
asktiks1 votesIt can be. I could be having a great time against them, and they surrender so my fun is done.
and that right there is whats wrong, YOU were having a great time, the people on the losing end aren't , why should we continue to play just so you can have your fun if we aren't? I got as much right to have fun as you do, and if im not having fun ill look to end the game, that is not " ruining YOUR fun" you selfish...thing... I shouldn't have to be your Eporn for twenty more minutes just because " you were having a great time"
you say were selfish for wanting to end a game that's not fun anymore for us, but you are being just as selfish by pretending we stay in it for YOUR fun...
hypocrite
SexyTaylorSwift3 votesUhm, chances are the other 4 on the winning team are having fun, plus the 2 that voted not to surrender. So, 7 is much more than 3. Why are you so selfish that you are going to end the fun of 7 players?
Your argument makes no sense.
asktiks1 votesYou want 3 members of a game to control the other 7 members fun.
the other team is already had their fun, they won the game isn't that what they Qd up for?
that is unless they are just farming you and treating this like call of duty , then they wanna just milk the snowballed dominance as long as they can while fapping to it
this argument is being repeated ad nauseaum because someone in the thread mentioned it and now its being thrown around like gospel
its bs, 3 people cant control the fun of seven members because the other 5 of the enemy team already had their fun and the objective of them Qing up in the first place, they win a game, so please tell me, how am I "ruining the fun" to the other 5 players of the team by forfeiting what I consider to be a lost match? please explain this
if anything im MAYBE affecting my teammates , but using the enemy team members to support this argument is downright insultingly stupid to anyone reading it
asktiks1 votesSurrender should be 5-0. You are voting to intentionally lose the game. I don't want my game intentionally lost because you all decided to feed and now don't want to play anymore.
but what if YOU fed the game? had a bad day? bad connection? and you decide that its lost? how would you feel if I just dragged the game for twenty more minutes, with you 4 levels below lowest enemy team member, cant farm cuz you get instagibbed and they are on our side of the map already...
then I vote no just because and let enemy team farm us near our inhibs for all that time....
I ddont want my time wasted before you decided to feed and now just wanna play at base....
see what I did there?
Eleshakai3 votes3/2 surrender votes should be surrenders. The majority of the team said yes, and your newfound focus on punishing leavers means those two people are now trapping the other 3 in a game that the majority of the team does not want to be in anymore. Your system is causing more toxicity and unneeded stress when 3 players get trapped because a duo doesn't care what anyone wants.
My personal stance is that it should require a unanimous decision, but be available from the 10 minute mark.
I'd rather 'punish' 3 people by making them play the game(which is not a punishment since that's what you queued up to do in the first place) than ACTUALLY punish 2 people with a loss because 3 of their players didn't recognize that the game was far from over.
InsaneSamurai3 votesWhen the enemy mid, jungler, adc, and top laner all can kill 4 out of the 5 people on your team in roughly 1 second, but they won't actually take the base because they're having fun. That's when it's a punishment to be forced to abide by a duo who's raging at the team and wants to troll them, or one guy who has a good score convincing someone that there's a reason to continue only to finally lose to the enemy team dancing and laughing around the nexus 50 minutes in.
Eleshakai1 votesWhen the enemy mid, jungler, adc, and top laner all can kill 4 out of the 5 people on your team in roughly 1 second, but they won't actually take the base because they're having fun. That's when it's a punishment to be forced to abide by a duo who's raging at the team and wants to troll them, or one guy who has a good score convincing someone that there's a reason to continue only to finally lose to the enemy team dancing and laughing around the nexus 50 minutes in.
Games get to that point once in a million games. Literally. There's no point in instituting something that applies to every game for the ultimate rare extreme.
As to your kat point... there are other aspects you can practice. Maintaining defensive vision so she can't jump on you, hold turrets against fed teams, etc.
Those extremes simply aren't common enough to justify a change in rules. Most games that fail to a 3/2 surrender are 'oh we can't win a teamfight 'cause they're stronger than us' not 'everyone on their team one-shots us'. Games rarely reach that point. So can we please talk about the NORMAL cases, not the absurd extremes?
asktiks3 votesGames get to that point once in a million games. Literally. There's no point in instituting something that applies to every game for the ultimate rare extreme.
As to your kat point... there are other aspects you can practice. Maintaining defensive vision so she can't jump on you, hold turrets against fed teams, etc.
Those extremes simply aren't common enough to justify a change in rules. Most games that fail to a 3/2 surrender are 'oh we can't win a teamfight 'cause they're stronger than us' not 'everyone on their team one-shots us'. Games rarely reach that point. So can we please talk about the NORMAL cases, not the absurd extremes?
maybe in YOUR mmr it happens once in a blue moon....
come down to bronze brah, enjoy it every 2 games like we do then come back here and tell us how pleaseant it is being forced to suck twenty more minutes of being enemy teams Eporn with no chance of winning because the very same person voting no is a 0/12/1 yi that keeps saying " just need feed guys I will win this"
seriously , I haaaaatte people like you , blinders on and treats lol like it was his friggin second job
Eleshakai1 votesmaybe in YOUR mmr it happens once in a blue moon....
come down to bronze brah, enjoy it every 2 games like we do then come back here and tell us how pleaseant it is being forced to suck twenty more minutes of being enemy teams Eporn with no chance of winning because the very same person voting no is a 0/12/1 yi that keeps saying " just need feed guys I will win this"
seriously , I haaaaatte people like you , blinders on and treats lol like it was his friggin second job
I was silver for over a year... including a long time spent at low silver. They still weren't that common there.
Also, I haven't played LoL in like.. a month. "treats lol like it was his friggin' second job"... ya...
Bandaged Bandit1 votesits more like 1 game in 10. ive run into it quite often - in fact just yesterday my team is behind 60-12 and wont surrender. there is no way to farm for a comeback because they are just letting all the lanes push and waiting in the jungle for anyone who dares venture out so they can continue the slaughter.
im with you though eleshakai. lets disable surrenders completely. from now on whenever im winning im going to try to convince my team to drag it out for another 10 mins so we can toy with the other players a bit. the only thing better than winning is causing maximum suffering while winning.
Eleshakai1 votes[{quoted}](name=Bandaged Bandit,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=Nd5wTlJ9,comment-id=000a00000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-01-06T10:05:23.485+0000)
its more like 1 game in 10. ive run into it quite often - in fact just yesterday my team is behind 60-12 and wont surrender. there is no way to farm for a comeback because they are just letting all the lanes push and waiting in the jungle for anyone who dares venture out so they can continue the slaughter.
im with you though eleshakai. lets disable surrenders completely. from now on whenever im winning im going to try to convince my team to drag it out for another 10 mins so we can toy with the other players a bit. the only thing better than winning is causing maximum suffering while winning.
I never said disable surrenders, I said it should require a unanimous decision. In order to take a game from 'low chance to win' to 'no chance to win' - which is what surrendering does - it should take the entire team making the decision.
I also never said that games where you get slaughtered are one in a million, I specifically said that games where 4 out of 5 players on the other team can kill you in ~1 second are one in a million.
However, if they're 'just waiting in the jungle for you' then they're not making money, so you should gradually narrow the gap by farming lanes if they do it for long enough. And if they're farming the jungle, then they can't all be watching all entrances at the same time and you should be able to get vision of a few spots to try to make something happen when they're not all there. Take a bit back here and there. It's not LIKELY, but it's not impossible. If a team's goal isn't to win the game, then you can win it by out-thinking them no matter how far ahead they are. How far they are ahead just determines how badly you have to out-think them and how long it will take.
InsaneSamurai2 votesLiterally? Literally once in a million games? I've seen this more times than I can count and I've played far, far less than a million games.
Eleshakai1 votesLiterally? Literally once in a million games? I've seen this more times than I can count and I've played far, far less than a million games.
You've seen it where ALL FOUR PLAYERS other than the support on the other team can kill you in LESS THAN ONE SECOND more times than you can count? Really? REALLY? You're sure about that? LESS THAN A SECOND?
I've literally NEVER seen it. So ya, I'd say it's a 'literally once in a million' thing. A case where the enemy team has a carry toplaner, hypercarry adc, assassin jungle, assassin mid, and they're ALL fed enough to do the 'sub-1 second kill' thing. That's CRAZY rare.
InsaneSamurai2 votesSeriously? You have never been fighting a team with one tank and 4 fed damage dealers? Just about any fed (played)assassin kills a squishy in 2 hits, and those 2 hits aren't going to take much more than a second(if they even do). If the jungler isn't tanky or has been getting counterjungled(which dominating teams tend to do), he's going to be pretty squishy as well. A feeding top laner is squishy pretty much no matter what champ he's playing. Things like a fed Nidalee kill any squishy that gets hit by any cc because her spears take 70-80% of their life. Akali. etc. etc.
When it's just one guy killing your team that fast, there's often still a decent chance. When it's 3 or 4 of them, you really shouldn't be wasting more time just letting them stat pad or whatever on you since they could obviously win at any point and are simply choosing not to.
Eleshakai1 votesSeriously? You have never been fighting a team with one tank and 4 fed damage dealers? Just about any fed (played)assassin kills a squishy in 2 hits, and those 2 hits aren't going to take much more than a second(if they even do). If the jungler isn't tanky or has been getting counterjungled(which dominating teams tend to do), he's going to be pretty squishy as well. A feeding top laner is squishy pretty much no matter what champ he's playing. Things like a fed Nidalee kill any squishy that gets hit by any cc because her spears take 70-80% of their life. Akali. etc. etc.
When it's just one guy killing your team that fast, there's often still a decent chance. When it's 3 or 4 of them, you really shouldn't be wasting more time just letting them stat pad or whatever on you since they could obviously win at any point and are simply choosing not to.
I have NEVER seen a game where 4 of the 5 enemy teams can kill 4 of your team mates in ONE SECOND(unless you're talking perfectly timed wombo combos but that's another story and doesn't even require them to be fed). It takes an absurd level of feeding for anyone short of a hypercarry or an assassin to kill in ONE SECOND. Even more adcs outside of hypercarries of graves can't kill in one second. It takes at least 3-4 hits(which takes usually at least 2 seconds) for even a fed normal adc to kill you.
And for a toplaner or a jungler who isn't an assassin to do it in one... that requires crazy levels of strength. You're talking a full build toplaner vs a 1-item squishy to get 'one second'. Like 5-6 levels difference.
That doesn't happen often.
Ratbert1 votesWouldn't the better idea be to remove duos? I assume this is rankeds because you only talk about duos.