make it so premades count as a single vote, before a game starts a premade queue would nominate a "queue leader" who when in games, would be in charge of voting yes or no, that way, at the very least a duo queue can't trap people in the game simply by being a duo queue
AeroWaffle9 votesNo matter how you slice it, you still have X amount of people who either want the game to be over or the game to continue. A pre-made is still made up of individuals who each get their own vote. Them having the same opinion is no different than two strangers having the same opinion on a vote, it's just more likely to happen when it's two friends.
Using your proposed rule, consider the hypothetical situation;
A pre-made of four believe the game is over, the game has gone horribly. Because all of them count as a single vote, the 5th player has the ability to hold the game hostage for all four of the other players. That's pretty unfair.
scazzman1 votesin that situation, the larger premade would take priority, or better yet, make it apply specifically to duo queues
AeroWaffle5 votesStill the same problem. It's still two people, and although they're much more likely to have the same opinion on whether or not to surrender, is no different than two strangers having the same opinion on the surrender vote.
scazzman1 votesStill the same problem. It's still two people, and although they're much more likely to have the same opinion on whether or not to surrender, is no different than two strangers having the same opinion on the surrender vote.
but at least a duo queue would no longer be able to hold a team hostage
TrulyBland7 votesTwo people not wanting to surrender? That's fine. Two people from a duo not wanting to surrender? Ermagerd, they're holding our team hostage!
Two people get two votes. It's not a complicated concept.
scazzman1 votesTwo people not wanting to surrender? That's fine. Two people from a duo not wanting to surrender? Ermagerd, they're holding our team hostage!
Two people get two votes. It's not a complicated concept.
ok, make it fair then, just make it require a majority not a super majority
TrulyBland1 votesok, make it fair then, allow people to vote again a few minutes after surrender has been accepted, overriding the previous vote.
I mean, I'm pretty sure that is literally impossible to implement, but if you really want to create a perfectly fair vote, you first need to make it so the outcomes are actually comparable.
Magical Player1 votesok, make it fair then, just make it require a majority not a super majority
.... then trios would games hostage then quads would hold hames hostage the vote requires 66% or greater to pass 2/3 of the team has to say yes not 60%
ModUlanopo4 votesThere is no such thing as "nonsurrender trolling," as there are absolutely no rules or guidelines for what constitutes a valid vote either way. You may disagree with someone's vote, but that's nothing more than your opinion.
scazzman1 votesThere is no such thing as "nonsurrender trolling," as there are absolutely no rules or guidelines for what constitutes a valid vote either way. You may disagree with someone's vote, but that's nothing more than your opinion.
actually, denying votes just to prolong a losing game preventing people from leaving is a VERY common trolling tactic.
scazzman1 votesalso, the person initiating the vote should have the same anonymity as the other people voting, i've often seen how who starts it determines how people vote, based on score/whether or not they like the person ect.
FunkyDan1 votesTo my knowledge atleast there is no simple solution to this that isn't a full overhaul of the way surrender votes are counted, I may not be that high ELO but i felt like tossing my hat into the ring.
Mizuki Zahra1 votesI think its unfair no mater what since we were winning and the enemy nexus was at half health and my team surrendered because they thought it was funny
scazzman1 votesthe other option, is make "delay of game" a reportable offense because being trapped in a losing game, often with one or more trolls, is one of most toxic experiences in all of league
Magical Player1 votesthe other option, is make "delay of game" a reportable offense because being trapped in a losing game, often with one or more trolls, is one of most toxic experiences in all of league
Negative attitude, which is a punishable. So we already have the option be sure to type why you reported for negative attitude in the report submission
scazzman1 votes[{quoted}](name=Magical Player,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=aWzH4HXt,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2017-02-06T18:29:16.290+0000)
Delay of game, results in toxic environment
Negative attitude, which is a punishable. So we already have the option be sure to type why you reported for negative attitude in the report submission
riot has already stated that it isnt reportable, otherwise i'd throw a neg att at them every time, also negative attitude is a "weak" report compared to the other categories
Magical Player1 votesriot has already stated that it isnt reportable, otherwise i'd throw a neg att at them every time, also negative attitude is a "weak" report compared to the other categories
Source where they stated that?
scazzman1 votes[{quoted}](name=Magical Player,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=aWzH4HXt,comment-id=0004000000000000,timestamp=2017-02-06T20:45:18.781+0000)
Source where they stated that?
there is a quote from tantram that voting yes or no on a surrender isnt punishable regardless of the reason, with the one exception of a 4 man premade surrendering right before a win
Magical Player1 votesthere is a quote from tantram that voting yes or no on a surrender isnt punishable regardless of the reason, with the one exception of a 4 man premade surrendering right before a win
Okay, but what about not voting????? Thats the whole discussion here