Boards›Player Behavior

Surrender Votes vs. Deciding a Game is Over: A Suggestion

Beitoka·8/19/2016, 1:43:55 AM·4 votes·616 views

This seems to be an inconsistency inside the League's design. Why does it take four people on a team coming together and agreeing to surrender for a game to actually be over before the nexus falls when it only takes one person giving up and trolling to create a scenario where the expected result is a loss? The depressing situation comes up often after one player has died a few times, and either they or a teammate gives up which is then followed by a stream of name calling from both parties. They waste their time and energy calling each other trolls and toxic when they should still be playing. A 4v5 is still a winnable scenario, but the odds of success are made that much lower when the person who stopped participating in the game continues to participate in the chat. Maybe the people who think playing a losing game is a waste of time should go find a game to play that they enjoy even if they don't win, or maybe League could evolve to accommodate those people. (And, in doing so, also help those who would be hurt by them.)

I propose that surrender votes should require only three votes to pass in general, but also that, in accordance with the understanding that individuals who have lost the will to win can just as easily all-but guarantee a loss anyway, a game should still be able to be ended with less than three votes just with an additional penalty shared with the players who voted yes. This could work like the Queue Dodge penalty, and whatever the penalty is for being a lone surrender voter could be reduced for the duos.

The implementation to this could be such that the penalty isn't considered so much a punishment as a cost for the surrendering player(s) to weigh against the costs of continuing the game. The people who declare in-game that continuing to play is a waste of time could have this option and would make use of it if they internally measured the costs to be less than the benefits of no longer having to play/waste their time. Not to suggest that every use of this function would be ideal, just that having this choice available would overall increase the fun-times/bad-times-spent-playing ratio for both the people who decide they don't want to keep trying in a game and the people who do want to keep trying that fall victim to those that give up.

8 Comments

LXII8/19/2016, 1:47:44 AM3 votes

" a game should still be able to be ended with less than three votes just with an additional penalty shared with the players who voted yes. "

They have that, it's called leaving. No, surrendering does not need to be easier or more accessible. It already infuriates me enough when I can definitely carry a game yet everybody else just decides to surrender because they got aced once. The last thing we need is for 3 people to be able to call off any game they want, especially with Dynamic being a thing.

Dynikus8/19/2016, 1:48:20 AM3 votes

I've had plenty of games with 3 surrender votes that ended with us winning.

Telephone Booth8/19/2016, 4:53:08 AM1 votes

Meh I think the whole basis of your argument is flawed. Your reasoning is that 1 person can decide that you won't win anyways. But that's actually against the rules. That person who decides to afk or troll, if reported, gets punished for that. It's not the intention of riot to let one person decide a game. It's their intention to play a game out till the end, even if only 2 people on your team want to and the rest want to give up. When you start a match you are obligated to play it through unless 4 people, 20 minutes in, decide that it's over.

Ada Wong8/19/2016, 4:58:25 AM1 votes

I agree and disagree sometimes people surrender way to early sure most of the time its lost especially when you put up with 5 frigging troll games in a row where 3 of which your jungler intentionally throws it in favor of the enemy team very early to give enemy team an advantage, then argues in chat and makes you mute everyone to avoid hearing the toxic garbage.

1 out of 5 of those games everyone spammed surrender but it was barely a win if I think there is even a slight chance to win I don't surrender the games, and obviously if it was LCS or high elo I wouldn't surrender anyways.

Although a lot of times people are too negative with the surrender votes and spam it thats annoying as well.

Unstoppable Monk8/19/2016, 5:06:38 AM1 votes

"Winnable" doesn't mean pleasant.

Believe me when I say that 50 min losses of being toyed with while my allies insist that ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE EVEN COMEBACK FROM 56-11 NEVER SURRENDER IN RANKED, just gets old after the 500th time.

TrulyBland8/19/2016, 6:01:47 AM1 votes

Requiring only a simple majority for surrendering isn't fair, because surrendering is final, whereas a surrender vote can be repeated if people vote no.

I also completely dislike the idea of being able to surrender with less than three people. You are right that these people could secure the loss either way, but in ways that are punishable already. Making this ability to ensure a loss a feature essentially just legitimizes that kind of behaviour.

Depending on the exact way it's implemented, I could see it as a viable solution for the predicament of the typical 3/2 vote, though, since I do understand that requiring 80% for a surrender vote is a bit high, even if it's the logical conclusion from requiring a supermajority.