Boards›Player Behavior

There seriously needs to be something to deal with people refusing to surrender.

HongChongDong·10/14/2017, 11:19:10 PM·5 votes·1,192 views

So you're telling me that it's ok to drag people along for 20+ more minutes after the point where the game was lost because........ reasons. A game where it's 20 to 50 with no objectives taken by your side, no you're not coming back.

Early surrender vote requires 5 out of 5 votes, ok cool if someone doesn't want to throw in the towel then you can just wait till the 20 minute vote..... unless there's 2 people that doesn't want to surrender.

No, simple fact is that they shouldn't have the right to decide if the game continues or not. If there's 2 people against the surrender vote then that also means there's 3 people who clearly want the damn thing to end. The majority should be the deciding factor, not the minority.

By stalling a game that is clearly not winnable that's 3 people that is starting to hate this match and also beginning to hate their teammates for wasting more and more time for whatever reason the 2 voters might have. You want to know what breeds toxic behavior? This.

And of course the "toxic" players are punished with reports and punitive action when they aggressively tell their damn teammates to hit yes or perhaps just try to leave the game.

No I don't agree with morons who fed their ass off top lane and went 1/5, tilted off the face of the planet, and decided in their own mind that the game is gg. I'm referring to legitimately f***ed games, everything is completely lost and the only thing preventing the enemy from ending the game is because they want to take their sweet time of things.

In the case of ranked: Oh boo hoo the LP of those poor people who want to continue trying. If 3 people agree the game is over then it's likely that LP ain't coming back just because those 2 guys want to continue trying, so it's the LP of 2 players who THINK they can recover the game vs the time wasted of 3 people.

Again, anyone with a brain would understand the concept of Majority > Minority.

You could argue that winning LP is potentially more valuable than time, but to that I say once again there's nothing saying that LP is coming back just because 2 players want to continue playing. 3 players are already clearly done with the game mentally and aren't going to be playing for shit, and all that time all you're doing is making them more pissed off with the game and slowly letting the toxicity fester and grow.

The Utopian league of legends doesn't exist. Any normal person will become irritated in this scenario and want out with the only difference from person to person is if they're the type to let that toxicity spill out and starting doing shit like flaming people.

35 Comments

Chermorg10/14/2017, 11:26:54 PM10 votes

When you queue for a game, you agree to sit through the game until a nexus explodes. You do not get to decide to ruin 4 other peoples game, as well as make it less fun for the enemy team.

The surrender vote is a vote that everyone takes part in to determine if a "supermajority" of the team (i.e. a simple majority +1) thinks the game's unwinnable. You do not get to impose your view on two other people who do not wish to surrender.

Jo0o10/14/2017, 11:41:07 PM8 votes

If the game lasts 20 minutes past the point you were trying to surrender, then it was worth fighting for.

Magical Player10/14/2017, 11:34:50 PM4 votes

No, simple fact is that they shouldn't have the right to decide if the game continues or not. If there's 2 people against the surrender vote then that also means there's 3 people who clearly want the damn thing to end. The majority should be the deciding factor, not the minority.

Something Something Something What has history shown when we go by majority rule? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fdcIwHKd_s

IcyPepper10/15/2017, 9:28:20 PM2 votes

A simple solution is to finish the game.

Drugoth10/15/2017, 1:03:55 AM1 votes

If you surrender, you're throwing away that slim chance of a comeback. I'm sorry if I'm an optimist, but I would rather try to fight to the very bitter end for that tiny chance than surrender and admit defeat.

GodKing Thumper10/15/2017, 2:35:30 PM1 votes

Sweetheart, it's called playing the game through until it ends. If you're throwing a fit and want to surrender, but the others done, then you just need to play the game out. Whether you like it or not, you agreed to play the game with the other players when you accepted the match.

FYI, being a toxic flamer just because your team won't adhere to your demands doesn't make them want to surrender any more than they did before. I would argue that it does the opposite. Keep cool and just try to win~ ^_^

Mindspeaker10/15/2017, 9:27:14 PM1 votes

OP the problem is your attitude.

** If all that matters to you is the "outcome" that is the wrong attitude its just a video game even in ranked.**

Sometimes you win some items you loose. " winning " is just the cherry on the Sundae take a way the cherry it does not ruin the whole sundae.

Not even mentioning the chance of comebacks even if you end up being its better to compete a game than surrender.

I have had just as much fun in games i have lost as games i have won.

at the end of the day its YOUR attired that is the problem not the peole who wont surrender.

TrulyBland10/16/2017, 12:19:59 PM1 votes

The vote is inherently uneven. If a vote fails it can be repeated at a later point to essentially invalidate the earlier vote. If a vote succeeds then that's a final result.

It's pretty common to require a supermajority vote for changes that are irreversible and default to the status quo when that supermajority isn't reached.

And that's another thing: Those who are pro-surrender are the only ones to actually demand a change, while the decision to vote no is essentially a non-decision; nothing changes. So despite the fact that you act like those two people voting no are imposing their decision on others, they really don't. They "impose" the default that you implicitly agreed to when you queued up for a game.

Imperial Pandaa10/14/2017, 11:40:44 PM1 votes

Nah. If we are going to surrender I want the percentage to not be an F. 60% is just that. At least strive for the 80% C.

JINKY44910/14/2017, 11:48:06 PM1 votes

ULSTER SAYS NO!!!

Lugg10/14/2017, 11:55:55 PM1 votes

There needs to be a baseline where surrender only requires a majority vote. If you are down 15 or more kills, down 5 towers, or down 10k gold, then it should be the majority vote to surrender. The majority of the time, the people who vote no are the ones who fed or threw anyway.