should surrender voting be disabled ? "at the very least for ranked"

scazzman·11/27/2016, 4:19:04 AM·3 votes·542 views

PROS

Surrender votes are demoralizing. and rarely pass in ranked games anyway even if they should.
it eliminates the ability for 4 man premades to surrender troll
failed surrenders can instigate toxicity between yes and no voters. and cause accusations of trolling between teams
people constantly argue over whether a surrender should pass or not
It forces people to actually try. rather then afk farm/protect kda until minute 20
people will climb faster because they will no longer be losing winnable games due to surrenders

CONS

more people might afk/feed if they can't surrender
hostage trolling might get worse
not everyone takes ranked seriously
games will take longer

9 Comments

AeroWaffle11/27/2016, 4:23:48 AM2 votes

I doubt removing the surrender vote would force people to try. Many people give up in some way, shape, or form when the surrender vote fails. If 4/5 people believes the game is hopeless, they shouldn't be held hostage.

SNSD Sunnny11/27/2016, 4:45:10 AM2 votes

i think surrender vote should be enabled from the minute the game starts

DemainaNyx11/27/2016, 4:36:22 AM1 votes

I would like certain criteria to be available besides times. Maybe the enemy has to be up 10 kills before you can surrender or they have to have X more gold than you or something.

I've had so many games where some friend of a friend invites me into a 5 man game, and I'm the only one doing decently so my team decides to surrender even though the only fed one on their team is the ADC and I can easily kill them in one combo.

MUSHROOM MIDGET11/27/2016, 4:33:14 PM1 votes

'force people to try' lol. when people are ready to give up, they give up whether the surrender vote passes or not. if the surrender vote fails and i have given up in my heart i dont just go back to trying 100%. i will afk farm and avoid all fights until the game ends or i will try to bait my team into bad teamfights to get them aced so the game can end sooner. but no one can make me try my hardest when i think the game is lost.

you should think about saving some time and agreeing to some surrenders. because unless that surrender vote is 1-4 then there is a real good chance you are going to be fighting with some teammates who are no longer trying to win.

Dominick Destine11/27/2016, 7:24:45 PM1 votes

Actually the reverse should be done; Players should be able to surrender whenever they believe the match to be over. The difference should be that from 0-20, it should require a 5-0 vote. From 20-40 it should be a 4-1 vote to pass. From 40 and above it should require a 3-2 vote to pass.

That would be a lot better. In chess, a player is able to tip over their king whenever they believe victory to be unattainable.

RogueWill11/27/2016, 4:38:42 AM1 votes

It would change nothing. I mean people already do open mid games when they want to surrender before 20. It only take a couple to force an open mid since is practically impossible to win a 3v5

DavetheNave11/27/2016, 4:31:42 AM1 votes

I agree with the point of how failed surrender votes can cause toxicity for both sides of the debate. I've been the one wanting to surrender and the one wanting to keep playing and its annoying either way. Sadly there's no quick fix to it I think.