Boards›Player Behavior

i got a question about surrender

xDogMeatx·11/26/2018, 6:41:41 AM·3 votes·1,895 views

why is the odd player who said no forced to ride the surrender train if his/her team ffs why not just instantly dissconnect them (no penalty) and give that player all their gold to 1v5 and TRY to win, if they wish at least it would be a nicer option than just u know "oops durp durp my team surrendered i guess i have to follow them and blow up my nexus too even though im really far ahead" there should be something to prevent team trolling that single carry person from actually doing their thing. its upsetting to see a winnable games ffed im like to myself "GIVE ME ALL UR GOLD AND U LEAVE I CAN WIN by myself if i have too" there needs to distinguish a skilled play player who wants to stay and maybe lose harsh yet bravely like the Spartans of 300. hell even grant that one player some lone wolf booster to offset some disadvantage of chain ccs and resists. Edit: btw the lone wolf booster varies between champs each champ has a different effect on them if they are 1v5ing.

10 Comments

mlm olo mlm11/26/2018, 6:45:26 AM1 votes

I'd rather see A.I. replacements instead of trying to make a 1v5 feasible.

DM For Rat Facts11/26/2018, 7:54:40 AM1 votes

dota did it years ago and it's an effective system where the team without a player is disadvantaged but still has a chance to use leads to snowball with the extra afk income yeah I mean that would be an interesting mechanic to add that would spice up solo queue. Definitely penalize them though.

Umbral Regent11/26/2018, 2:51:19 PM1 votes

Frankly, I can't see this as not being some "Give a mouse a cookie" scenario. It's one of those things where you just have to accept the Surrender and move on to the next game.

'Cause, look at it like this; let's say Riot does implement something that causes the Surrendering players to leave the match, but keeps the player who voted "no" in, giving them all their gold and some extraneous buff to try and make a 1v5 remotely feasible.

The immediate next thing that would happen is people calling for Riot to punish players for Surrendering because "that leaves me disadvantaged to fight a 1v5".

Beyond that, though, the idea of offering sizeable buffs to make a 1v5 possible (alongside a colossal gold lead) just doesn't sound like something that'd be fun to deal with, especially on the enemy side.

'Cause, what are people supposed to do when that Ekko that's been barely held back from taking a lead suddenly starts ripping through your team without even burning Chronobreak, because he just scored 10k gold from his team surrendering? Or worse, a tanky teamfight machine like Ornn suddenly becoming a supermassive brick wall?

That takes what was initially supposed to be a win for one team into a long, dragged-out stalemate, which nobody likes.

All said, I don't see much any value in trying to offer concessions - particularly like this one - to those who don't like Surrendering.

Oleandervine11/26/2018, 5:38:13 PM1 votes

The game is to the point where very rarely can a single person carry anymore, so the excuse that one person who's doing well can suddenly win the game for everyone is a severe misconception, especially if that person has all the kills and all the items and whatnot. If one person is loaded up, the minute they die, the rest of the team collapses in on itself, because they're most likely starving for gold. Those scenarios are EASY for an enemy team to exploit. Simply kill the guy with all the kills, then wipe the floor with everyone else.

I get that you may think you're doing well, but if your game is to the point where you opponents have a better gold balance (example, 3 people with 7 kills each instead of one person with 21 kills) and more kills than your team, and your team wants to surrender, you gotta give in and just move the fuck on. This is a game, it requires free time to play. People don't want to waste their free time not having fun while getting their asses handed to them by enemy players, so they want to move on. Look at it like this. A game lasts about 30 minutes. For every game where your team tries to surrender once and fails, that's at least 5 extra minutes. If this happens 6 games, that's an extra game's worth of time you've wasted by saying "No" to a surrender vote where everyone could be trying something else. So every minute matters, and if you seriously don't value your time enough to say yes, you need to rethink things.