Boards›Player Behavior

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

HongChongDong··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 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.

NinjaGuy693 votes

Your post essentially boils down to "deal with it because that's just the way it is" while ignoring the point that OP is trying to make. Something does need to be done about the way that the Surrender option currently works. The concept of a supermajority being required for a surrender is unfair and favors premades/unskilled players who don't understand how a gold lead works while being detrimental to lone wolf players. This is especially true in ranked. And though I will cede that not surrendering can sometimes lead to a victory if you can hold out long enough to equalize the gold values, waiting rarely yields a victory because you would essentially need to do one of the following:

  1. Outscale the enemy team (if you team comp allows for it).
  2. Drag the game out to 50 minutes or so in order to equalize the gold values via ambient gold generation.
  3. Capitalize on a large mistake/mistakes that the enemy team made.

Now let's be realistic here: this is solo queue. That shit rarely ever happens (especially in low elo solo queue). I've been playing this game for almost 4 years now and I've played thousands of games. It's a great honor. Can you believe that, folks? Incredible. Absolutely incredible. I can tell you from experience - valuable experience, by the way - that refusing to surrender rarely ever works in your favor. Believe me. It's yuge. It's fake news when you try to say that people are trying to impose their views on others. Make League of Legends Great Again. (You forced me to do this because you chose to be difficult). Seriously though, OP is right. The Surrender option needs to be changed.

Chermorg4 votes

I will say this as others have already but hopefully this time in a way that makes sense:

When you queue up for a game, you are agreeing that you will fight until the nexus falls. There doesn't even have to be a surrender option. Just as you can't flame others or intentionally feed, you can't give up early unless the vast majority of the team wants to. What right do 3 people have to ruin 2 peoples' game by forcing them to quit?

You signed up for the game. You don't get to quit just because you don't like how it's going. Play it until the end unless the team (4 of them) agree to surrender.

NinjaGuy691 votes

I understand that. Believe me, I do (but you're wrong). Unfortunately, you totally disregarded the point I was trying to make and dropped the spindle on that broken record you've got. Again. I agree with you that no one has the right to ruin another person's game. It's just frustrating when more skilled individuals (especially lone wolves) are forced to endure a losing game and waste more time because of unskilled teammates who don't realize that they're losing badly (mostly because we can't see the total gold per team as a stat in game). This wouldn't be an issue if the MMR system was actually working as intended....but it isn't. You know it's true when Riot even references that shit in Akali's taunt.

Now if I was a shitter, I wouldn't have a right to complain. I would be the reason why those surrender votes get started. But I'm not a shitter and I'm rarely the cause of my team's losses. This kind of stuff creates a frustrating experience for players like me when I have to constantly throw up the surrender vote in a considerable portion of my games due to unskilled teammates just to have the vote fail due to two randoms. Furthermore, we can do better than the "well that's just the way it is" mentality that you're so preciously attached to. If this was a relatively obscure grievance then people would probably be okay with Riot ignoring it. But it's not. I've seen this same type of thread several times and I'm sure you have too. You may not want to admit that it's a problem, but it is and it needs to be addressed. It's a cliche but what the hell: the first step to solving a problem is admitting that you have one.

Chermorg4 votes

How does the game decide, in the middle of the game, which people should be considered "shitters"?

Further, why does someone's skill level mean anything? Their votes count as much as yours do, and that's a whole other theme. You do not get to boss your team around and your opinion is not worth more or less because of your skill level.

Hence why it's an anonymous vote. You don't know who's voting unless they say it in chat, and even then they may be lying.

NinjaGuy691 votes

How does the game decide, in the middle of the game, which people should be considered "shitters"?

Seriously? It's pretty obvious who is and who isn't performing well during a game when a surrender vote goes up regardless of whether or not a game has been settled. This isn't something that I should have to explain. Furthermore, it's irrelevant because this isn't the topic at hand.

Further, why does someone's skill level mean anything? Their votes count as much as yours do, and that's a whole other theme. You do not get to boss your team around and your opinion is not worth more or less because of your skill level.

I never said that my teammates' skill levels matters nor did I say (or even imply) that my vote should be worth more if I'm a higher elo or if I'm performing better. I'm simply talking about the increased level of frustration when having to play with unskilled teammates (or teammates who are underperforming) in games that don't have a clear win condition. You're implying way too much here to the point that you're just putting words in my mouth.

My main point is that the Surrender option is designed to help mitigate some of these problems by giving players a way out of unfavorable games, but the way it works now makes it difficult for players to make use of it in certain situations. Something needs to change to help reduce the frustration that comes from stubborn teammates who just won't surrender.

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oriOgGsFmFALWPixi/giphy.gif

Jorencice1 votes

{quoted}

I understand that. Believe me, I do (but you're wrong). Unfortunately, you totally disregarded the point I was trying to make and dropped the spindle on that broken record you've got. Again. I agree with you that no one has the right to ruin another person's game. It's just frustrating when more skilled individuals (especially lone wolves) are forced to endure a losing game and waste more time because of unskilled teammates who don't realize that they're losing badly (mostly because we can't see the total gold per team as a stat in game). This wouldn't be an issue if the MMR system was actually working as intended....but it isn't. You know it's true when Riot even references that shit in Akali's taunt.

Now if I was a shitter, I wouldn't have a right to complain. I would be the reason why those surrender votes get started. But I'm not a shitter and I'm rarely the cause of my team's losses. This kind of stuff creates a frustrating experience for players like me when I have to constantly throw up the surrender vote in a considerable portion of my games due to unskilled teammates just to have the vote fail due to two randoms. Furthermore, we can do better than the "well that's just the way it is" mentality that you're so preciously attached to. If this was a relatively obscure grievance then people would probably be okay with Riot ignoring it. But it's not. I've seen this same type of thread several times and I'm sure you have too. You may not want to admit that it's a problem, but it is and it needs to be addressed. It's a cliche but what the hell: the first step to solving a problem is admitting that you have one.

Kek

Im the best.

But i still surrender cuz muh teams bad.

Hahhhahahaha.

Thanks for the laugh bro.

NinjaGuy691 votes

Kek

Im the best.

But i still surrender cuz muh teams bad.

Hahhhahahaha.

Thanks for the laugh bro.

Uh....okay.

https://i.imgur.com/QAKFpPF.gif

HongChongDong1 votes

{quoted}

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.

Just as you do not get to impose your views on 3 other people. This is about 2 no voters VS 3 yes voters. Everything you're saying indicates that you only care about the minority in cases like this. It's not ok to ruin the game of the 2 people who want to continue playing, but to hell with the other 3 right? Their experience doesn't matter. This is what you have said.

There is no contract, there is no EULA, there is no little Riot tool tip, there is NOTHING that states that I'm obligated to see a game to the end.

When I click the queue button I'm coming to play the game and while 1 of my main goals is winning, I take not coming to hate the game and the people in it over winning. If you think this is wrong then you're only showing that Riot is hypocritical. Their whole skit they've been harking on for over a year now is "player experience" and making the game more fun for people. Now you're telling me suddenly that's a side priority? My experience and the experience of others who want out don't matter?

And you guys shouldn't even be in charge of punishing or judging your own community if THIS is what you believe. This is the type of stuff in game that causes toxicity in the first place. You can talk about your ideal dream of what the community should be all you want, but you know that players will never work like that. You yourselves are to blame for a majority of the communities infamous behavior because you've designed the game from the ground up to piss people off, then YOU get mad when it works.

Not even you guys uphold your own Utopian views. Do you know how much video evidence and player recounts exist of Riot employee's presenting toxic behavior? Mind you they RARELY go off the handle, but that's only because if they're caught then the punishment is extremely high, potentially even involving losing their job. However they're not above it as long as it doesn't involve inting or full on flaming, basically anything that can be used to undoubtedly incriminate them.

Chermorg3 votes

xii. Logging out or exiting the Game during live game-play. Riot Games’ automated Leaverbuster® system tracks this data over time and issues a temporary ban when a user is determine to have left mid-game too many times. The length of the temporary ban will increase over time if a particular account continues to leave live game play; or

Yeah, the ToS actually does prohibit that.

Before I start, "you" here is a general statement not necessarily directed at anyone in particular.

On that note, players are the priority at Riot. The priority is the players having a fun game - not you getting to own the game. You queue to play a game to the finish - not to win. Riot's priority is the normal player's experience, and normal players have overwhelmingly told Riot through surveys, forum posts, Tribunal, and other methods that leaving games/giving up is behavior that is not acceptable. Players have also said that they would like the ability to give up in an obviously lost game (3 inhibs down, cases like that), and so Riot even added an early surrender option for games that are lost at 15 minutes in.

You say that "you guys" shouldn't be in charge of judging the community if this is what you believe.. I'm presuming you're referring to Riot? The toxicity in the game is not Riot's fault. You cannot blame the police or the victim for a crime happening, even if they could have prevented it. It is virtually always the fault of the aggressor that a crime/malfeasance has taken place. That is no different here. If the game pisses you off, it is not Riot's fault, but an attitude problem with you. It is not Riot's fault that you are experiencing anger over a videogame that you're electing to play for fun. If you are not having fun, there is absolutely no reason for you to be playing League.

You can't say Riot doesn't care about the players - simply because they don't cater to your every desire and demand. If your priorities do not coincide with Riot's, that is not a problem with their systems but a problem with your attitude. If you are not willing to help your team win, don't play the game.

HongChongDong1 votes

{quoted}

Yeah, the ToS actually does prohibit that.

Before I start, "you" here is a general statement not necessarily directed at anyone in particular.

On that note, players are the priority at Riot. The priority is the players having a fun game - not you getting to own the game. You queue to play a game to the finish - not to win. Riot's priority is the normal player's experience, and normal players have overwhelmingly told Riot through surveys, forum posts, Tribunal, and other methods that leaving games/giving up is behavior that is not acceptable. Players have also said that they would like the ability to give up in an obviously lost game (3 inhibs down, cases like that), and so Riot even added an early surrender option for games that are lost at 15 minutes in.

You say that "you guys" shouldn't be in charge of judging the community if this is what you believe.. I'm presuming you're referring to Riot? The toxicity in the game is not Riot's fault. You cannot blame the police or the victim for a crime happening, even if they could have prevented it. It is virtually always the fault of the aggressor that a crime/malfeasance has taken place. That is no different here. If the game pisses you off, it is not Riot's fault, but an attitude problem with you. It is not Riot's fault that you are experiencing anger over a videogame that you're electing to play for fun. If you are not having fun, there is absolutely no reason for you to be playing League.

You can't say Riot doesn't care about the players - simply because they don't cater to your every desire and demand. If your priorities do not coincide with Riot's, that is not a problem with their systems but a problem with your attitude. If you are not willing to help your team win, don't play the game.

TOS Says nothing about surrendering. Yes leaving is bad and it is a punishable offense, but I'm purely referring to surrendering and while I can see the side of the players who do leave games I do not condone it.

Once again you're completely ignoring the whole point of 3 VS 2. I'm not trying to own anyone, you're simply giving the ability to the minority in the surrender vote to own people. If I'm the only one who wants to surrender then so be it, I'll deal with the match. But if there's 3 or more people who don't want to continue the match then that's clearly grounds for their decision to take priority.

Finally your entire logic is flawed. Riot has designed the game, they've created every single mechanic from their own ideas and thus everything works EXACTLY how they want it. So if those systems clearly have flaws that lead to the negative experience of players then yes it is Riot's fault. Again, you're trying to spin the conversation into making it seem like I'm a lone player who's the only one who has a problem, where as in the case of toxicity the entire community is toxic in some shape or form. You're free to deny it as a riot employee, but that doesn't change hard facts that any player will tell you.

Your logic thus far is literally "Riot's design and logic is objectively correct and thus if you find fault with it then it's a personal problem."

I'd also be more open to discussion on "Priorities" if riot make a clear set of guidelines and followed them. They're constantly changing design "philosophies" and even when they do change they're always hypocritical. Riot's been focused on designing the game around "player experience" for about a year and a half now, yet they still continue to do things to cause outrage in the community. You yourself are contradicting player experience because you're saying that players are inherently unequal. In a vote of majority when more players want to end a match than those that want to continue playing you're very clearly advocating that the minority should hold priority and control over the game.

Are they special in some way? Are you playing favorites? Are you giving the minority votes more control simply because in Riot's ideal view of league no one surrenders so f*** anyone who does?

Jo0o8 votes

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

Magical Player4 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

Skullgetti

Yes i would love to have the game end every single time i cough in the enemy direction and we get ahead by just a little. If you press the "play" button, you have to expect a 40 minute game, if it drags on for so long after you """"lost"""" then it means it wasn't worth surrendering in the first place

Magical Player1 votes

{quoted}

Yes i would love to have the game end every single time i cough in the enemy direction and we get ahead by just a little. If you press the "play" button, you have to expect a 40 minute game, if it drags on for so long after you """"lost"""" then it means it wasn't worth surrendering in the first place

Ohh sorry, Friend I'm quoting the OP of the thread Never surrender, never give up

Skullgetti1 votes

My bad,my apologies.

IcyPepper2 votes

A simple solution is to finish the game.

HongChongDong1 votes

{quoted}

A simple solution is to finish the game.

Which is the point of my post, to finish the game by surrendering. People keep coming back with the same damn responses as if they read nothing of the post itself.

3 or 4 people want out of the game, but 2 people or even 1 single person does not want to surrender and thus is holding everyone else on the team hostage and forcing them to play a game they don't want to play. Just like the minority should not be capable of controlling the majority in this situation, just because you believe people should finish the game does not mean the rest of the community has to agree with you.

IcyPepper2 votes

3 or 4 people want out of the game, but 2 people or even 1 single person does not want to surrender

Pretty sure four people is a majority vote and will end the game

[sg-lux-2]

HongChongDong1 votes

{quoted}

Pretty sure four people is a majority vote and will end the game

[sg-lux-2]

Not in an early surrender vote, though I guess that's a bad example from my part.

Imperial Pandaa1 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.

JINKY4491 votes

ULSTER SAYS NO!!!

Lugg1 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.

Drugoth1 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.

HongChongDong1 votes

{quoted}

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.

I covered this in the OP. You're talking about a CHANCE for a miracle happening in exchange of ruining everyone elses experience.

GodKing Thumper1 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~ ^_^

HongChongDong1 votes

{quoted}

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~ ^_^

Never said anything about if I want to surrender. This entire topic is under the pretense of 3-4 people wanting to surrender but the rest holding the game with a no vote. I'd NEVER have an issue with it if it's majority vote, but the case that I'm making is not about that.

Also I don't condone flaming players for no reason. If people don't want to surrender that's fine, I've never flamed anyone for it. I've definitely gone on my own rants about precisely why the game is over and is unlikely to turn around, but never made any statements directly meant to belittle or insult players about the game.

Mindspeaker1 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.

HongChongDong1 votes

{quoted}

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.

No I never said winning mattered. This is an issue of enjoying the game, and if the game is a one sided stomp then no one is having fun.

And using your own logic: It's YOUR opinion that there's fun to be had in a miserable losing match. See? At the end off the day everything is based on opinions, though I think the vast majority of average league players would agree with mine.

If 3-4 people want out and 1-2 people say no, then the majority should win. Simple concept.

Mindspeaker1 votes

Unless I am mistaken it is only 5/5 votes on the "early surrender" I believe you only need 4/5 after 20 min.

which I personally think is fair.

"then no one is having fun" there is no way that you can state that for a fact. Some just may think of that as good way to improve their game .

The only way you can truly test your self if by is by fighting better opponents .

Not to mention that if the vote doesn't go though ...some people must still be having fun.

HongChongDong1 votes

{quoted}

Unless I am mistaken it is only 5/5 votes on the "early surrender" I believe you only need 4/5 after 20 min.

which I personally think is fair.

"then no one is having fun" there is no way that you can state that for a fact. Some just may think of that as good way to improve their game .

The only way you can truly test your self if by is by fighting better opponents .

Not to mention that if the vote doesn't go though ...some people must still be having fun.

That's your opinion as to what way people should be having fun or "testing" themselves. And once again, if 2 people are still "having fun" that still means there are 3 whole people who are clearly not having fun and want out of the game. Are you saying the 2 people that are left should hold priority over the other 3? Do they automatically get special privileges? THIS is the point I'm trying to make.

Mindspeaker1 votes

3 whole people LOL are you saying partial people don't have a vote.???

In this case since yes . This is still just a video game not an important matter of state.

There is more to the game than just the outcome sorry you cant see that. If you cant enjoy a non winning game maybe you should look at your attitude and try to improve that .

Instead of blaming two or three other people for your " miserable time"

HongChongDong1 votes

{quoted}

3 whole people LOL are you saying partial people don't have a vote.???

In this case since yes . This is still just a video game not an important matter of state.

There is more to the game than just the outcome sorry you cant see that. If you cant enjoy a non winning game maybe you should look at your attitude and try to improve that .

Instead of blaming two or three other people for your " miserable time"

Why do I have to "improve my attitude"? Why don't you change yours? There's nothing objectively saying that your point of view is correct or wrong, same with mine. And a majority of the community would also agree that a 1 sided stomped, every lane is lost, and it's just a kill fest is not fun.

And I'm not blaming anyone for the state of the game, only that they're keeping players in it despite how horrible it is.

Also the partial thing is just splitting hairs on a poorly phrased comment I made, pointless.

TrulyBland1 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.

HongChongDong1 votes

{quoted}

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.

Being able to repeat the vote is pointless when the 2 players refuse to budge. This is still about player experience here, yes the change is Irreversible but that doesn't mean that you're actually changing anything in the first place. If 3 people agree the game is over, then it's likely over. Even if there are chances to come back 3 people who are already at the point of wanting to surrender and leave aren't going to be in a state of mind to actually contribute.

Finally, that's redundant. The only people who care about getting kicked in the balls are people who get kicked in the balls. The only people who care about dying are the people that don't want to die.

Also no, I'm don't agree to anything. There is NOTHING anywhere that tells me how I have to play the game or that my goal should be to win the game, or even that I have to give it my all to win and never surrender.

So yes it is imposing their decision on us. The majority of the group wants to surrender, 2 people don't and thus the game can't be surrendered, so they're forcing players to work with their decision.

More from Player Behavior

The indefinite banning of Tyler1
Player Behavior4,799 comments
2,942
votes
14 day ban because playing Nunu Support with Smite is "stealing other people's roles"...?
Player Behavior1,525 comments
1,086
votes
Riot should add monthly status cards
Player Behavior241 comments
843
votes
Reminder that we haven't gotten our Summoner report cards yet :/
Player Behavior145 comments
619
votes
I'm not "triggered" by you throwing insults.
Player Behavior361 comments
548
votes
Black Alistar, King Rammus!!!!
Player Behavior462 comments
503
votes

More by HongChongDong

Zoe is a champion that rewards bad gameplay.
Gameplay274 comments
144
votes
Am I the only one that's never felt like Kindred is 2 separate beings?
Gameplay62 comments
77
votes
And just like that, Riot attacks.
Gameplay49 comments
68
votes
PSA: Full support items are getting removed.
Gameplay115 comments
60
votes
2 tips about Kled Q.
Gameplay37 comments
54
votes
Pretty sure assassins are weak.
Gameplay55 comments
46
votes