To balance a game--------Can we vote

yorkissb·Jun 10, 2016·2 votes·560 views

I hope we can vote to kick someone out during the game if he or she is feeding At least it it 4 vs 5 not 4 vs 6

14 Comments

SarutobiJun 10, 20163 votes

How would that help in anyway? Let alone especially with how surrender votes work this would basically put people who play in groups with too much power. Then of course what's stopping people from abusing it by kicking people just for the fun of it? How does it affect rank? Does the person who got kick lose all the LP, some,same?

I personally don't see this helping!

scazzmanJun 10, 20161 votes

{quoted}

How would that help in anyway? Let alone especially with how surrender votes work this would basically put people who play in groups with too much power. Then of course what's stopping people from abusing it by kicking people just for the fun of it? How does it affect rank? Does the person who got kick lose all the LP, some,same?

I personally don't see this helping!

a way to balance this would be to make it so if a person is votekicked they get loss prevention. and to prevent abuse. allow only a certain number of games per day. and only 1 person can be kicked in a day

AeroWaffleJun 10, 20161 votes

Doesn't that balance just open up a different form of abuse? People would try to get kicked from a game they believe to be losing so that they could get loss prevention.

scazzmanJun 10, 20161 votes

{quoted}

Doesn't that balance just open up a different form of abuse? People would try to get kicked from a game they believe to be losing so that they could get loss prevention.

and then get banned for intentionally feeding

AeroWaffleJun 10, 20161 votes

The system for detecting intentional feeding has to be extremely lenient to allow all the players that just play poorly from being accidentally banned.

This means that many forms of griefing exists that can't be accurately caught by the system.

That unfortunately allows a few people to slip through the cracks so long as they actively try to avoid the system.

SmokedAlmondsJun 10, 20161 votes

Both cases the game is essentially over. So how is this better than surrendering?

ShinkoMinoriJun 10, 20161 votes

{quoted}

Both cases the game is essentially over. So how is this better than surrendering?

I was in a game we were winning but our top lane kept feeding over and over until the other team was so fed they could beat us and we ended up losing.

4v5 is winnable, 4v6 is not.

SmokedAlmondsJun 10, 20161 votes

4v5 is technically more winnable than a 4v6. What I was trying to say is both are awful situations that I imagine almost no one would want to be a part of. So if they are going to spend time giving an option why not just make those situations surrenderable rather than kick someone to make it a 4v5?

Obviously a 4v5 is a better situation than a 4v6 but wouldn't just getting out and finding a new game be even better?

scazzmanJun 10, 20161 votes

{quoted}

4v5 is technically more winnable than a 4v6. What I was trying to say is both are awful situations that I imagine almost no one would want to be a part of. So why not just make those situations surrenderable rather than kick someone to make it a 4v5?

Obviously a 4v5 is a better situation than a 4v6 but wouldn't just getting out and finding a new game be even better?

because more often than not. if a person is feeding. they are going to vote no on surrenders to hold the game hostage and theres usually at least 1 "dont surrender in ranked" person in the game. if you force them to DC. you might not only have a chance of winning. but also passing the goddamn vote

SmokedAlmondsJun 10, 20161 votes

So reduce the requirement to surrender to 3 in those situations.

I can not think of a single situation I would rather vote to make it a 4v5 than vote to surrender.

DispelleJun 10, 20161 votes

Use this in teams. Make a team. If you get a person who consistently plays how you guys don't like, discuss it and vote to not have that person playing with you guys anymore.

There ya go.