An option for "Late Surrender" only (an argument against Early Surrender apathy)

Zaneshion·4/18/2018, 1:26:20 AM·2 votes·2,036 views

This may accidentally be a double post. Sorry if so.

An attempt to be brief is below. The tl:dr is: "it would be nice to have an option, for those that opt into it voluntarily, for not surrendering early"

--

Now, I understand and accept the mentality behind wanting an early surrender option, or even ff@20.

Regardless of the reason as to why, some players want to leave early.

However, the want to surrender if things go even slightly not their way is all too common.

It's now to the point that many players will not try, as once they've made the decision to 'give up' and surrender early, they dive bomb their own attempts to give their best efforts for mid and late game. Some champs don't even begin to shine until mid and late game! Many simply don't care once this attitude kicks in, and many players have this mentality by default, and show up at the beginning ready to call it quits from the first death.

And once this begins, the behaviors often snowball into worse and worse situations.

If someone else is not wanting to surrender, they may have to face other players behaviors becoming truly awful.

In addition to the horrifying things people will type/say, they may also AFK or troll or feed or otherwise intentionally poor sport the rest of the match, making come backs or any other type of enjoyment very difficult for those that want to still play.

--

With that said, there are people who play this game for the enjoyment of it, even if that means a tough loss.

A lot of the threads I read about Early Surrender on here using the Search feature have a theme of 'being held hostage' by players that don't want to quit when two or three others do.

Fair enough, I can see that.

But, what about those that want to play when they can and have time to? Or want to try to win even if the odds are slim, especially in ranked?

To those reading this, how many long odds comeback wins do you remember versus quick victories? Even a tough loss is often more valuable, enjoyable and memorable than quick victories spamming emotes at the enemy fountain.

--

Thus, I'd like to hear thoughts about a possible option allowing to Flag your account (check mark a box) on game selection that Disables not only Early Surrender, but ff@20, perhaps not allowing surrender until 25 or better, 30 minutes into the match. Perhaps even 35min, until the first Elder?

Since that is a significant amount of time dedication, checking that box should by default come with a Confirmation dialogue pop-up, clearly stating you accept you are playing for the Long Game, you mean business, and those same type of behaviors in Early Surrender games are not as tolerated.

When selected, you would only be queued with players that have also selected this option. Understandably, this may lead to longer wait times, but may also put people that want to really play the long game and go for end game come backs with those of like mind, most importantly for ranked matches.

This is not to try and divide the player base further, but with that in mind, that division already exists.

Those that do want to play into the match and see what they can pull off, and those that want to move on are both present. Both seem relevant, and a simple option, chosen at our own individual discretion, would be a compromise between the two groups.

Many issues could arise from this of course.

One complication would be someone goes AFK (Internet cuts out for example) at 23 minutes or something, and being unable to Surrender until 35min could be a bummer. But again, the others may want to really switch up their strategy and go for a 'try hard' 4v5 win. Those do happen.

Another possible complication includes joining with friends/grouping and not everyone having this option selected. An unobtrusive pop-up stating "Not everyone in No Early Surrender" or something similar would be ideal then, and should simply default to normal, existing Surrender rules, and the default of Not Selected should take precedence. So yes, one person without the 'Flag' for No early Surrender would render the other four to default rules. Or some other balancing mechanic.

The point is, it's frustrating to see the infectious mentality of 'gg ff@15' on the screen from the first death or two from your team mates and then the all too common 'on purpose' tanking of the rest of the match so they can move on. I know disasters happen, but the game is designed for a turn-around as much as a shut-down.

It would be fair and worth it for many to be able to join up with other players you know have opted into going all out, even if it means 30+ minute matches.

--

I do realize I am in the minority when it comes to this desire to want to really try that hard, even into the late game, but I am sure I'm not alone. Thoughts?

3 Comments

zPOOPz4/18/2018, 2:01:45 AM3 votes

There is little to zero chance that Rito will split up the current queue to isolate "players that have also selected this option" in a separate queue. This will increase queue time for all player base and frankly it's not even for something important. Rito is not in favor of any idea that will split the queues and increase queue time unless it is to fix some very major issue.

Venompaw4/18/2018, 1:45:46 AM2 votes

JUST VOTE NO. Is that too hard?

I despise people that force me to play TOTALLY lose causes.