Should Riot REMOVE Surrender?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 січ 2023
- Surrendering is a Staple of League of Legends - But what if it was Removed?
Would there be benefits? Drawbacks?
DISCLAIMER This is a Discussion video - I am not campaigning for it to be removed, just thought it was an interesting Topic to Discuss
My Main Channel - / happychimenoises
Off Meta Discord- Join the Off Meta Community! - / discord
Edited by: / santoryolol
Twitter - / happychimenoise
Twitch - / happychimenoises
#leagueoflegends #surrender #riotgames - Ігри
*DISCLAIMER* This is a Discussion Video, I am not campaigning for it to be removed, just thought it was an interesting Topic to Discuss
Also - I talked to a Rioter about it for fun - they Suggested that Surrendering helps avoid people 'Playing with their Food' in a game that is Won.
I wonder if making it a 25 minute FF or something similar would be a good compromise - Less games ending in 15 minutes, but still let FF do it's intended Job of giving you an Escape Button?
Who's this guy lipsyncing your voice, chime?
@@lakkhos i love this idea! making it lead based with less of an emphasis on time really helps. often times ppl will focus more on waiting for the next ff vote than focusing on what they can do to come back (even i do this too sometimes). i do definitely think it should def still be an option when there's a leaver.
Or maybe the "playing with their food" thing could be reframed as a reportable offence. If someone is choosing not to attack nexus just to get more kills, then that's clearly toxic behavior.
if its a discussion change the title to "Should Riot remove Surrender?"
chime...what the **** you drank before doing this video
why i have to be forced to play a game when enemy mid laner has 10 kills or smth while it's 17 minutes
bro not my fault you got hostage in a ranked game and decided riot should remove ff so everyone gets hostage like how you got
I really like your pitch. Its true, if I couldnt surrender anymore, I would try harded to get a comeback, and I wouldnt be the only one. Its an intersting concept to say the least. But I feel like the league community wouldnt easely accept such a fundamental change.
at the same time when you're stuck on a game for far longer than you should even if you can make a comeback at 50 minutes it's not worth it at all, mental health should be the priority.
the fix imo should be showing a number instead of a tier for your mmr and gain more while loosing less in the first gamesof the day, it would let smurfers leave the "newbies" alone, it would make bad games impact the mental of players less meanwhile gaining more should encourage tryharding more.
Trust me. It's not good for a game like this to lack a surrender option. The reason I don't play Dota 2 more is because the game lacks a surrender option. People "give up" all of the time. Not having a surrender makes people "quiet quit" on you, and they just wait until the match is over.
@@nothingreallyrhymeswithora9377 this is what i do in league when we are like 3vs30 and 2 people vote no to surrend
Its an interesting idea.
I feel like it wouldn't change players mindsets which would just piss them off and make them int and be toxic basically holding the rest of the team hostage.
But it seems like it could be really good if they bite down on toxicity and inting properly. Otherwise it just wouldn't work.
Yeah the main counterpoint to this is: But everyone will still be toxic anyway. That doesnt take away anything from my point that Removing Surrendering might help LoL game quality - all it does is show that players are sick of toxicty and want riot to step up to finally fix it after all these years.
Someone running it down mid or inting to lose faster isnt a Surrender Problem - it is a 'Not enjoying league enough, so will be toxic and ruin games knowing they wont get caught' problem. Which riot should be fixing for us, not just sitting back making money from skins.
@@HappyChimeNoises2 I love your positive attitude when asking for changes, setting a good reputation for people in the community even some UA-camrs will act like children when sharing their ideas. Its such a easy change for them maybe riot hear you out… I think if they remove forfeiting they would have to adjust game time to be shorter which in my opinion just makes everyone happy. Early game champs are truly early game and late game champs wont have to wait 25 to 30 minutes to play the game anymore and maybe coming online around mid game instead?
@@HappyChimeNoises2 I recently started playing csgo again and I have enjoyed it alot more since they added short matches. It feels so horrible playing valorant compared to csgo like I played two games with some friends and we played over 60 ROUNDS compared to csgo where the max rounds of two games would have been only 30.
make it so that /fullmute all command, also mutes surrender notifications. I want the choice to opt out of any negative interaction with my teammates, and I don't ever want to my soloq teammates to be able to send push notifications to me about how they feel bad about the way the game is going. In fact, I think it's distracted me a few times to the point where we lost only because I saw the surrender button at the exact moment I was about to turn the game around.
Maybe play a none-team based game? xD
I like the idea but think it should be a seperate option. Not everyone who doesn't want to see chat also wants to stay in games they think are lost.
One of the best statements I have seen in a while in this game . Riot actually believes than every single player is actually trying to win. Half them are kids who either dont have the winner's mentality not to get mad after losing the first blood or they are just playing to have a perfect game and if it gets a bit messed up in the beginning they give up. I have lost couple of games which were actually tough but winnable because they suddenly decided it's not worth it trying.
Also apart from that there are players who play because they really enjoy the game and dont have the time during the day to play 5-6+ games. So most of the players are going through the boring laning phase stage to enjoy the nice power spikes in the late game but some people decide that there is no need to get to the late game. No one has the time to spend another 5mins queue, 5 mins lobby, 2mins loading screen and 15mins of laning phase to get to the point he was before.
In the end the graph and the numbers dont lie. Korea and challengers meaning that the best server and the best rank in the world proceed to surrender more cause they know that the better the players are the harder it is for them to throw a free lead. But come on, on gold of euw everything is possible
DOTA 2 lets you leave with no AFK penalty if someone on your team AFKs
even if you removed the surrender button entirely, people would just soft int while spamming "open mid" until the game is over
Yes if someone leaves you should also be allowed to FF
This is covered in the video
Very true
just report those people and they get banned lol, eventually people will realize they actually have to play the game they queued up for
this will happen even if there was no surrender
If im not mistaken they tried that and saw people getting bullied to leave first só the pissed people could leave without being punished
The thing is that if the "easy out" of playing a video game is so enticing then I thin there's probably an issue with how awful is feels to be losing in League. I think that rather than making it easier/harder to give up a game in League I think the healthier option would be to try and rework some of the systems so that being on the losing team doesn't feel like 30 minutes of wasted time.
There are games I've won but since I lost lane so hard I couldn't enjoy the game at all because I couldn't do anything at all other than eating enemy cooldowns so my team can carry me while also flaming me. There were also unwinnable games I've lost that I didn't want to give up because I was having a good time. I think the main issue lies there; having fun in League of Legends is reliant on how well you're doing (or on whether you're a troll or not) and so people simply don't want to play a 30 minute game that they know won't have any fun in.
Agreed
It's surprising that riot only think winning can be fun. I guess that shows how much the game has changed from when it started
@@HappyChimeNoises2 they want to make they game incredible for streaming, and that means high damage. In normal games, it means you disappear before you can do anything once you are losing
removing FF in ranked sounds like a good idea to me +1
one of the problems i always face is my team FF'ing before i hit my huge power spike, and its frustrating
Replace the "ask for surrender" button with a toggle "I'm willing to surrender" (invisible to others)
If 4 or more players are simultaneously willing to surrender, the game ends automatically.
Bonus point : ban the words "surrend", "open" (if sent alone), "ff" etc in chat...
huh, i kinda like this one, with some tweaks it would be very doable, nice idea
the only problem with this idea is that its not in the game
I feel like just banning the words could actually do wonders for the toxicity
People just bypass chat filters for banned words
@@batcrow6224 lol, people will just bypass the filters. And it won't detoxify the toxic person
For ranked I think this is a fantastic idea because people really need to take ranked more seriously, draft its a great gamemode if you are actually trying to have fun, but ranked should be for the sweaty tryhards (not saying you cant be sweaty without meta picks). I also think vc should be added, it sucks how they can't add even the option of voice chat. I wholeheartedly believe that people will less toxic with vc in the game, besides the tactical improvements, most people don't have the balls to be toxic in vc and even if they do, you can just mute them lol. League is a game that invites toxicity because of how its designed where snowballing is insane, but we can't let that stop us from experiencing a true team experience in league.
Agreed
To quantify, if you want to see what League would be like without being able to surrender, play a few games of Dota 2. Personally, I don't play League, but I am always for the good will development of games and its community.
In dota 2, there is no surrender feature except in Pro-League Games, and in games where you have a 5-Stack Party playing together.
In dota 2, I am currently sitting at the Ancient 4-5 (sitting on the cusp of Divine) in translation to League, that's around Plat 1 to Diamond 4 in terms of rank comparison. At those level of games, it is common place to 'fountain farm' because unlike League, Dota 2 has hero mechanics that legitimately cancel out the power of the fountain, and only recently has there been quality of life changes to stop this from happening. In the case of dota 2, when a hero spawns, until a player issues a command (aka a move/spell/attack/etc) they are immune to damage- can't be stunned, targetted, nothing. But that was only recently added to the game.
I feel if League implemented a similar function, it could be beneficial. I would however never remove the ability to surrender. Yes it is annoying when you have players even at high ranks who have temper tantrums, who give up at the slightest inconvenience, but it is better to have the ability to 'gg' out of a lost game, than to have to wait for the opposing team to end it. Because in Dota 2, a team could be losing immensely, but because the enemy team stops pushing the lanes, both sides are forced to wait out time as the enemy 'plays with their food' in a game that is already effectively won, but this time, unlike League, there is no way to leave or surrender. You are forced to sit and wait for the game to end on the enemies terms.
It is far better to have the option, than to have to wait out a game 10-20min longer because the enemy team wanted to prolong their victory, and your suffering. I suggest implementing a system to make champions immune when they spawn in, until a player issues a command (moving, spells, attacks, really any mouse or keyboard click beyond chatting).
For me personaly whenever I see the forfeit window popup I know that the game is going down the drain, even if it is a 1v4 vote. Having one guy on the team that wants an easy out is equal or even worse than one quitter/leaver who sits in fountain.
But also on the inverse, having a 4v1 vote before the unison threshold break keeping you trapped because there is the mechanical promise of the forfeit function feels horrible too.
My main discussion point would be if we delete FFs, how much would the dodge rate rise in response, if the game looks bad in championselect how many people will FF in there?
I think instead of completely ridding of the surrender option, maybe make it available way later, so the winning team can feel powerful, but not letting the winning team hostage and stall out the game. But I still like getting rid of the surrender feature just enemy hostage will happen a lot more often.
Ye agree
Really solid argument, I always felt I was punished as the player who never gave up and tried my best and never AFK'd/left my games. I think this idea has merit just for the fact that inters and AFKers would be caught more frequently (and removed) thereby raising the competitive integrity of the game. I do think surrendering should still be allowed in normals and other for fun modes though, no reason to waste people's time if there's nothing at stake.
This is the biggest issue I have with the surrender option, in normal matches, fine. But I don't want to get half of my Ranked matches constantly surrendered, in that sense, Dota 2 definitely is the superior game IMO. Riot should learn a thing or two, after all, Ranked exists for people that want to really try and win...
I like your take on this situation, and I fully agree with it. It would greatly increase the encouragement to turn the game around, because people would be like "well I can't just back out now, I gotta do something or else I'd get banned for AFK or purposeful inting"
Bro you haven't played league enough. Lots of ways to AFK while not actually going AFK. I see it all the time when people are held hostage.
There are tons of ways to fake gameplay.
@@Jimmothyhalpert that'd be easier to detect as well if Riot improved their punishment system.
And yes, I have played League enough to see it myself. Thank you very much.
@@full-timepog6844 that'd be easier to detect as well if Riot improved their punishment system.
@@Ivoireee no it wouldn't lol. the only way to tell the bad players from the inting players is to watch every replay from front to back and make an informed decision on whether or not they're soft inting (eg never grouping with team, dying in permanent splitpushes etc). this is simply impossible to do; people would be punished for having a bad game and the community would be rightly pissed off.
How about an option to automatically ignore and vote no to all surrender votes? If the option is enabled you won't be able to reenable it in game. You'll never see a surrender vote or any message related to surrendering unless the surrender vote actually goes through with your no vote. I would, however, still like to have the option to surrender/remake in the case of an afk/disconnected teammate.
you know what, I like this idea. I probably press ff too often once the round stops being fun because we've lost too much territory early or their split pusher is super fed and so on.
Kind of just seems like you made so really good observations of issues riot needs to prioritize and address. If they had a better grasp on those problems, I wonder what the surrender vote would be used for?
Very fair point. I think it would be used mostly to give up on winnable games - as imo even master+ players dont know 100% if a game is winnable - so Silver players have no idea at all.
In the case of it being removed, yeah, if inters inted, they would be easier to find, however, that would lead the entire community to a DARK AF age of like 3 or more months until everyone with that kind of actitude would get a ban. And nothing tells you that they wont do it again. And nothing tells you that people that simply lost hard wouldnt be punished too. Basically, they have big big problems with the ban system. Again your point with not being related to surrender, but affects the game quite hardcore.
Very possible yeah
There is nothing more frustrating that your team surrendering a game that is 100% winnable
This mode already exists in Flex. Players type less and keep playing to win in Flex than SoloQ when they have a bad early game. The reason is group queuing with friends discourages forfeit mentality. Being in vc or disc also makes the game more fun and more competitive.
think its an idea worth exploring and testing out. my first thought was that people would just run it down instead, but i actually dont think that will be the case, since in 99% of games that arent ffd, people still try until they can ff or they lose. they rarely run it down to lose faster, and again, thats a problem with the punishment and banning system. nice vid
In a really bad game, I like to encourage a fight over an objective even though our chances of winning the fight are extremely low. That way we can just be done with the game, because the enemy team aces us and gets baron or whatever, or if the fight somehow goes well we win back something and have a chance.
If they actually run it down entirely or afk then it would honestly be better since 4 remain member get more resources to win the game. Having a quitter who kept taking resources and soft int makes the game much harder.
I was intrigued by the title but the arguments are quiet strong you changed my mind HappyChimeNoises
love these discussion/"what if" styled videos.
Might be a bit harsh to remove it complitely but maby there´s a middle ground, like a longer time before the option to ff (say 20 min), and then maby a bit of time where 4 or maby even 5 yes votes is nessesary (say until the 30 min mark).
Really think u have the right idea with the correlation between the option to surrender and trying ur best thou so might be fun to see what would happen if they implemented some version of this.
2 things.
1 the reason for ff in low and in high elo are completly different. high elo players know then a round is lost early, low elo ff, is because you have trolling mates, bc you can flip nearly any low elo match with the right champ (not every champ can, but a lot can)
2 if you realy want to improve the game, improve the way you climb, win and los is stupid, bc most people talking about the matter have no idea of mathematic statistics, you need play hours daily for the arguements about "if youre better you will win more games and climb" become relevant, other random factors are somuch more relavant when you have less then 1000 games per season (about 3 games each day) and even then its effect is not as great as for example playing a champ, which is strong atm.
you could for example make a voting system, you vote every mate, default is neutral, and you can vote good or bad, and for every x votes they get +1 or -1 lp, talking about, every 10 or somehting, so if every mates calles you good every single match, you will get some, but not many lp or mmr (imagine, 5 games, you get 4 good votes every match and still just made 2 lp more, so its realy not much). it would A give good feedback if you mates liked your playstyle, B punish trolling mates and C can be used to show players performance, which riot did a lot (mastery points, s ranks leading to lvl 6 and 7 etc. the honor system etc.), so for example if someone has a very very high vote in one favor hes probably in the wrong elo, either because hes to good or too bad/trolls to often. this would be a huge improvement to the quality of life for the game.
if you need another example for my reasoning with the math in the beginn, i just ranked up, bc i had multiple matches in a row, where enemys went afk, how is that good game, if i rank up, bc my enenmys leave the game, i also lost a rank recently, bc i made the mistake of playing at night and having drunk mates, which where throwing (-up) and i lost 4 games in a row, my mmr hasnt recovered from that yet, even thou, my play in these games, where not different, but i had multiple rounds with people who where talking in chat about how wasted they were, tell me its my fault to loose games with 2 stoned and 1 drunk mate, when just by chance the enemys dont have multiple trolls.
ideas about chance only work in big numbers, not in small ones, and 4 ba games in a row can very much happen, and it fucks up your mmr so hard, i was getting 16 lp for win and lost 14 for loose after that night 13 for win and 16 for loose. just bc of ONE 5 or 6 loose streak in a weird night
I wouldn't mind this too much if Riot did fix all the other problems, but sometimes every lane just gets absolutely demolished (without even intentionally trolling) and EVERYONE wants to go next. I think before removing /ff entirely, changing it to ALWAYS require 100% of the active players to vote yes would be a better start.
I've watched friends in DOTA2 games that were absolutely doomed and the other team was just farming their heroes at spawn and am blown away that you're basically forced to stay in a game like that.
But the problem is there ARE a lot of unpunished offenders still inside of League; trolls/players that run it down or semi-afk after losing lane/worst of all Bots in ranked; those are huge huge problems that really need addressed, and until they are- it really sucks to be stuck in a game where Janna-bot afks at towers when you're making a gank all game. I don't know if making surrendering impossible would make Riot get their act together enough to actually remove the problematic accounts actively enough, even if it makes them slightly more obvious.
This is mostly a stream of consciousness post, and I can see the merits of removing surrendering, but I've also had so many absolutely doomed games where a much easier answer would just be to go-next instead of arguing with 3-players and a cpu about why the team is 4-27 and down 3 dragons.
If they remove surrender, I uninstall league.
That’s another good reason to remove it.
Love the idea, and it can definitely work, unfortunately there would be another problem of people leaving games, so riot would have to worsen the penalty for that now.
I recently started playing league as a dota player. Having an option to surrender early looks odd to me. Had so many games lost due to 4 dudes who decided it's over instead of trying to make a good play and potentially win because of that
I really understand you, it's a terrible feeling, I deleted the game because of surrender function
My opinion on this is that with an ff option, people are way less inclined to learn how to recover from being on the backfoot/fighting an uphill battle and way more likely to just not learn how to flip a situation and just ff instead
Surrender is a necessary evil for such a game. Think about this for a second. It takes a lot of effort to win a game usually. It takes even more effort to pull off a (serious) comeback. When your team is in a horrible game state, getting them to rally and play from behind is inherently difficult. Heck, just look up data for when the other team has a significant advantage over the other team. For example, acquiring Soul has a 90 percent win rate, but people want to argue about the paltry 10 percent loss rate that could happen. Miracle comebacks do happen, but they are few and far between - and it's not even worth bringing them up unless they were extremely significant and consistent. You can rest on your laurels that one time you won a match down all three inhibitors/rax but you wouldn't be able to replicate it in 10 games back to back, let alone a larger amount of matches. The matches you were going to lose will be lost normally in many cases.
Yeah, remove ff is fine but a lot other things (or everythings?) Need to be fixed first.
The problem is that, people who say "ff 15" have mentally given up on the game and no are longer making an effort to win, turning the game into a 4v5. This causes you to lose anyway, and then they say "see, I was right, game wasn't winnable, just ff next time," even though there was a chance to win.
People need to remember that besides challenger players, people arent robots, and constantly make gameplay mistakes; meaning the game is always winnable.
And also, the difference between high and low level players is the ability to reconsie win conditions even in the worst possible game state. When the ff vote is an option, they no longer try to problem solve to figure out a win condition; which ultimately means you as the player are no longer actively trying to improve your game knowledge. And yet people complaining when they aren't climbing the ranked ladder.
I don't know if i want it to be removed, but is sad that most of my games turn out to be my team surrendering, a thing that i personally never do. It's frustrating to go trough a lane phase, get items, to FF
I feel that if it were to be implemented it would be incredible in the long run but for the initial stages I could imagine people being more toxic out of spite and a lot people complaining when it’s first released. Potentially long enough for riot to change it back. Overall though I believe it would be an improvement to the current system.
I hate to rain down on this, but the moment the option is gone it isn't going to fix the issue. If people want out, they will either try and make you lose faster or just leave. Your trading one issue for arguably a worse one. The last thing I need is more people sabotaging games because they got pissy about something. I've legit seen mids get bad that they died trying to collapse badly on the enemy in their own jungle and then purposely feed and int and greif as hard as possible. The people doing that will likely increase because now they don't have an out when the game is clearly lost AND they aren't having fun anymore.
The biggest thing people tend to discount in this argument is fun. It's a game, the moment you can't play and you're just sitting there for 30 minutes because you can't FF and people refuse to give up, why would anyone want to play anymore. I'll proudly say I've left games for that very reason. 30 minutes is a long time to be forced to sit there and hate being forced to play a game. As it stands right now if 2 people want out but are forced to stay I imagine that like maybe 5% of those games end in a win and a lot of times people that sit through those aren't even happy about the win after. Like those people are just going to go to their next game tilted out of their mind and ruin more games. Games are at about 30 minutes average and then theres the whole finding a match and champ select that eats up time. Getting out of a lost game or 2 is usually the difference between having time to get in another game or not. And koreans got the right idea with fast games, they play the system, ya know the match making system that is rigged as hell. More games means more lp. So faster games is better.
I do think there should be circumstantial FF though. Like if a certain amount of gold lead and objectives are met then FF is available and depending on how much maybe reduce the needed number down to FF. Or if you have an afk. Speaking of, if the game is so outta countrol at 10 minutes and it's clear to all 10 players. I'd like to see a FF option there too because to hell with being in a game for 40 minutes that was lost at 10. I'd also like to see Riot do something about how horribly they've handled the lp loss from inters and greifers. I'm sick of losing lp 3 games in a row because someone got mad and lost the game on purpose. Why should people in the wrong get the power to punish me in the game? How has this honestly not been adressed? These are all issues that tie in together. They have the data and means to implement plans for this stuff, they just don't though. 13 seasons and they can't even acknowledge it.
at least they will learn that what they did is the way to win a game and they start learning
You made some good points but lost all credit when you said you have left games in the past. Also, when playing ranked FUN comes second. Winning comes first. I'd prefer having better quality matches where half my team doesn't give up and int because they have an out. And if they do it anyway, they should be punished, which , if done correctly, rids the game of these bad apples.
im conflicted, on the one hand ive had adc games where i get my ie and start to get some kills only for the 4 other guys to say i dont get to play. On the other hand ive had the jg games where im on a ganking pic like xin or j4 and a game doesnt go so hot. After 25 mins youre sitting there practically afk since everyone else will farm your camps if theyre smart and you cant kill the supers that are coming. Youre left as the smite summoner spell and possibly a hail mary play which feels terrible also
I think an alternative is to add restrictions to surrenders like you can only surrender if the kill difference is more than 10 or 12.
Welp in Dota 2 i remember suffering another extra 35 mins of assbeating because of no surrender. The "game is safe to leave" thing does not exist in ranked game which is absolutely agonizing
I like that you come at this idea with the belief that League of Legends can be changed to be better, more fun, and less toxic. It's very disheartening to see riot continuously act like they have no power to change the toxicity that runs rampant in the game, and it's refreshing to see this perspective and be reminded that these issues could be solved.
YES I totally agree, I would argue with people before that if the enemy team is already snowballing last the point of no return they’re already going to win quick, which the data supports I guess. I see so many player get in the trap of “let’s ff” and when they don’t get their way they go feed or farm a side lane. Then, 50 minutes has passed and you’re still going even though you have a person who never tried because they wanted to be super defeatist. I definitely feel like the absence of a surrender would help that. Also people aren’t robots, reliably the longer you play the more chances the enemy has to misplay. If people would apply and believe in themselves a little more they’d be surprised.
a surrendering system is a good idea but for league its done immeasurable damage to the mindset of all players. them enhancing the usability of /ff has only made this worse and worse over time. it might be painful, but they need to dial it back and add more things that teach their players about the game so that they can enforce a healthier less misinformed environment. after that, you could once again just reintroduce surrendering in a similar state.
i agree with this, i hate people just giving up
man when you are 2 15 in 10 min, you lost
This is one of those changes that would probably work but only in conjunction with other changes to the game
The issue is that the biggest player base is not euw and instead the places with early ff stats and the reason they have those stats is because it is so much more competitive there and getting into a new game to learn more is more important to them so time is precious and so they want short games. Being part of the player base that isn't competitive and enjoys just playing I love the idea but I don't think riot will implement when their biggest market/player base wants to be able to go next as soon as possible
KR is not a very good example as they often play in pc bangs and this pay per hour. Their stats are heavily influenced by that and so is the giving up culture.
Maybe this means ff can never be removed, but it is not due to skill - it is just culture
On top of this I like the idea because one of the biggest issues in the game is that people find it difficult to play from behind and you can even see this in pro play once a team is down a certain amount of gold 5k for example, they are expected to lose and I am sure stats probably show that at a certain gold difference the chances of winning decrease significantly, so playing more games where you have to navigate how to comeback might improve not only casual play but competitive as well
@@HappyChimeNoises2 Yes completely agree it is not a skill issue but as you have said it's hard to change the culture but I would love to see the idea put into practise
As someone that played paladins, i think that in the actual way that the game is, you never surrender at 15 min. As a person that is very easy tilting, i lovo being able to escape a lost game and moving to another one, or not having a 5 min ban or something
This is exactly what i am thinking already for such a long time, but i even dont see a single good point on the option of surrendering. But there would be tons of benefits if its removed.
Apart from Challenger Players most people are not robots and make mistakes even if they totally destroyed the early game, they might get overconfident, u maybe score 3 kills take baron and the whole game is turned upside down. But i think the biggest benefit is that it would be much easier to find the bad eggs if surrender is removed, which would also result in a much better game. The game is done when the nexus is falling.
2 days ago i was in a game i was 15 2, i was totally 1v9 opponents were winning other lanes but dragon was 1 each and no inhib taken... my team surrendered at 20 min 4 to 1.
or what about another game where i was 8 0 top, and botlane premade decided the game was not worth and after the fail ff15 they just went afk
People would give up as often or more because the guy spamming FF is now disco running it down or afk'ing. This happens a LOT in Korea, and nobody gets banned for it.
better idea is here:
u intoduce swtiches that basically allow u to ff at any given point in game.
3 switches are needed to ff. there is no notification if a switch is changed or pulled. it requires you to press ESC and switch it.
there is no timerestrictoion how often a switch can be pushed.
As an ARAM player (yes, I exist), I agree.
ARAM is more volatile in nature, surrendering early make the game less fun, heck even voting affect the moral and you can see it reflecting on the plays.
the afk bug cost me some lp
they thought i was dc while i was in restroom
Id be open to this as someone who really does not see early deaths or unadventaveous lane matups as "ff15 go next game over we lost!" I have had games where my teammates would die to a lvl 1 all in, fail, then afk. Meanwhile, I would die three times bot lane but because I focused on scaling as a pick like Veigar carry by farming I would be able to make those death's irrelevant no problem.
It really doesn't matter a lot of times if people vote unanimously or not, it's just another 5 minutes wasted. Fact of the matter is, most games are decided when some egomaniac decides to coinflip their lane and lose, then mental boom and blame jg. Once that happens, the enemy team has to be incredibly stupid to not push their lead with what is essentially a 4v5
Pretty interesting topic, also the Twitter thread and people telling you to go commit sudoku was just sad
Some players: Let's FF, it's unwinnable anyway.
Me: GUYS FF NOW WE HAVE DOUBLE NEXUS EXPLOSION!!!!!
I had the most fun when avarage games were 20 to 25 mins
Now with durability and tank meta it so often ends with 35 minute coinflips which are decided in 1 fight and the other minutes don't even matter
the one who initiates surrender and who follows it should bear all the negetive lp of all 5 teams...there has been new troll or game trap trend going in ranked queue where 4 of them queues and starts to surrender leaving the one person victim of their trap.
Someone was suffer form NOT(Can't) surrender for nearly 5 hours
If there are no champion like 20 dash, infinite true damage, 20 paragraph long passive, have everything in their kits, unkillable 1v9 that unfun to play against, I would agree with you.
Its also interesting to note that Dota 2 does not have an surrender either and to me when I'm playing it I witness more comebacks and less giving up more
i had a team which spammed surrender at 15 minutes and laning phase was not ended yet. me and my duo hostaged it and won 2v8. clearly people do not understand what a WINNABLE game means, especially when they have nasus, veigar, senna and spam surrend. so yeah. people do not understand.
I feel like this is worth trying at the very least......sure people will be mad about it...but people were mad about the tp changes.....and also people were skeptical about chemtec drake and stuff like that....at the end of the day its worked out.....and if it somehow doesnt work out, just removing it and acting like it never happened is also fine lol.
But riot aint gonna give two shit about this idea tho....i hope they do but i doubt🥲
Yeah can always undo it. Would be fun to try at start of season when everyone is trying hard
Here's my take, I believe unless a game has an inter or afk you should always be looking for a win condition or way to slow the game down. So surrendering should work like csgo imo. Now onto inters or afks, see us losing lp for having toxic teammates I think is a negative feeling for most of us so why do people get punished for having them? Why should I lose lp at all in a game I had zero control over? Also if I'm performing consistently well or even standout in games wouldn't it be nice to be rewarded with lp instead of losing lp for win/loss an be based on performance? Would make people to play games out if win/loss didnt contribute to lp losses and surrendering can be removed.
forgot to adress the people who take nexus towers, decline a 5v2, back, and then contest next obj for that one last hit of the power high
Eh... DotA 2 works more without a surrender option, because you can pause the game if need be OUTSIDE OF CUSTOMS, there are harder leaverbuster punishments, there is less smurfing, and there are way more comeback mechanics like buyback and skills that can always turn the game's tide no matter the state to a higher degree than in LoL.
I agree, Dota has a lot of stuff that would make LoL better
I've mostly moved to just playing ARAM, and while it's definitely getting more hostile there somehow, surrender seems to come up like 1 time every 10 games and it's always an immediate no anyway.
Than make something like if you surrender, you can choose to make all teams equal.
Like every team = gold, xp, …
So that it keeps fun
I think the 5 man FF should open at 10 minutes, but the 4 man shouldn't open until 30 or so. Time's are flexible but this sounds nice to me.
When you get held hostage in a game it is not an increase of 2 minutes. It is 15-20 minutes. Sometimes even more. The length of another game. So instead of me being able to win another game in the same amount of time to get my LP back I am now just losing more time and overall games I could have played.
i think this is a interesting and good idea id like to see it at least tested
as someone who DOES NOT SURRENDER in ranked, i love this idea, i hate it when a team full of late game scalers, gets clapped on early, then just quits before they even start to scale, and the people waiting in fountain for 15 wont be a thing anymore
i do not give a fuck about "holding hostage".... are you really a hostage for YOU QUEING up to a GAME, THAT YOU THROW( die 3+times before 10 min) its not my problem that you want to leave and restart. i personally love bringing games back from a hard loss, in my elo (silver/gold) people throw ALL THE TIME so to surrender at 15 is moronic, even if we are getting stomped, theres always a chance, and if not, you can always use it as practice to not feed more than you already have, theres always things to learn and potential to be had , even in a hard lost game. the more people cry about being a hostage, the more i want to hit that big no button
League should be more like DOTA imo. It
1 - Shouldn't have an FF option, the fact that this option exists makes peoples mental break instantly when they know they can quit within just 15 minutes of playing if their team allows it.
2 - Allow people to leave with 0 repercussions if someone else "abandons" the game for longer than 5 minutes.
3 - Please just remove the client already, and just make the game a single window. It would be 100x better than buggy shithole we have right now, I honestly doubt anyone would be mad if riot just spent an entire patch doing bugfixes maybe even two.
If the FF option originally wasn't a part of the game then maybe what you're saying would have some merit, but since it is players have gotten used to it. Taking it away will not change how those weak-mental players will react to wanting to surrender. In fact I'll bet my bottom dollar it will make the problem worse when they find new ways or double down on old ones to make the game end faster. Soft inting, full inting, afking, or just straight up leaving.
Trust me. I have played League and Dota off and on over the years. Dota's lack of a surrender option HURTS the game more than anything else. People in Dota argue the lack of a surrender option compels people to try and play out the game/win. Hardly the case. The people who give up will already give up. The carries who need to farm stop trying to farm as hard. The supports who don't want to play anymore stop supporting as well.
A lack of a surrender option doesn't make people play harder. It just traps the ones who do legit want to surrender a "lost" game.
i mean it has gotten better but euw (ans korea to my knowledge) always had a big inter/running it down scene, specially in the early seasons, the longer the unwinnable games go the more inters you will get... and usually a inter even in a lost game ruins players mental for the whole day...
forcing most games to 25-30 mins isnt a solution
personally I dont feel like it would make me want to try harder it would just make me more pissed that i have to stay and make me play worse
I dont like this idea because whenever i play, i have to do something, or i have to go somewhere, or i have to get off and i dont want to be pentalized for something out of my control
That's your fault, don't queue up if you don't have the time.
the surrender time saved is a lot more as a lot of the time people surrender right before the game was going to end anyways
The only reason I quit Dota for lol was to be able to surrender, take it away and I'd never play ranked again. You don't know misery until you've played a 90 minute ranked loss where going afk at any point gets you punished.
I think that removing ff is a very very very good idea cus when I play ranked I lose 49% and when report players who were inting or toxic I just get report feedback few days later
whenever i want to FF i dont get too. only 1-2 games over 10 years i've wanted to carry on and its ff'd early.
being held captive is common, its not that EUW ff's less than korea, its that there are more trolls on EUW.
i would appreciate having a once per day token where i can ragequit a match.
this one per day would be to avoid toxic games.
Stupid idea tbh, flex 5v5 hostage holding the enemy team for 8 hours.
Easily fixed by having ff available in Flex queue.
Silly to think that you have found a huge problem and not try to even think about it for 5 more seconds to immediatly fix it yourself.
@@HappyChimeNoises2 Wont fix it, still possible in Sq... soo it would force Dc the enemys. also i dont think they would remove the ff or change it with to many rules, that it could only work with that.
I always press no unless it's a remake
New feature game mode test trial.
When i play ranked game or normal game whatever it's a winable game or not me and my duo never surrender
Some may think that we just drag on to torment my team
They are right about drag on part
The thing is if you are not gonna play and struggle untill the end then where is the satisfaction for losing or enemy surrender where is satisfaction for winning
If you think it's a waste of time than why would you desire to play game that take 15 to 50 min in the first page
And this is more the case for normal game but in some cases it's understandable
like you play adc and then go bam 0/11 cs 40 in 25 min game
you just have the very bad game in you life you can't even appear outside the fog of war in order to not get smack by Yuucarim 20/0 12k speed insta kill you
at this point the game is not fun anyway so you want to surrender
But you still need to respect your team if they want to try
Or your team want to surrender because they think you are unrecoverable but you still want to go on and give it a try they still need to respect that it's one vote to not surrender
in rank some(most) people didn't play for fun they just play for egos for LP
It's toxic but still understandable
I think 15 min surrender is to early i think 20 to 25 is appropriate
I don't think vote 4 out of 5 get to surrender is good but it can get pretty bad when that 1 vote is not player who try to struggle but AFK try to not let the game end
So 20 min 4 out of 5 to surrender is the most appropriate if there is a need to have surrender
Well in the end i don't like surrender it's bad for the game more then good especially in rank if there is surrender and they didn't get it. It increase the probability of tilted
So no surrender in rank
20+ min for normal with 4/5 vote is good
best idea ever - you lose when nexus is down .. end of the story
Imagine thinking that "including surrenders" == "just surrenders games"
Bad idea.I would just open then.
Ive played dota for years both in warcraft 3 (Dota 1) and Dota 2, saying that Dota players are "Happy to continue playing" is wrong. We also cannot discard opinion if the opinion of someone that the game is lost anyway is part of the reason why the game is lost. Surrendering as an option is a morale dump it both makes it harder to get people motivated to try and win and also lets people vent out their opinion in a place that isnt the chat. I also dont think the toxic playerbase is 1-5% only both from having viewed a diamond friends games and playing myself and having friends who i am not happy with how toxic they are in League. As you go higher in rank people also have vendettas against you and used to ban out your picks or otherwise grief you.
We need statistics on who the peolpe are not giving up a game to make this call, and how likely they are to try and turn the game around. "Hostaging" a game only happens when either the player isnt trying to win anymore or when they cant make a sizeable difference anymore. In lower ranks the difference 1 person can make still trying can still win the game and as you move up ranks people will try alot harder to not put the other team ahead if they had bad early games.
This is also inadvertendly a buff for many scaling champions and tanks as they will get to experience their point in the game where they can do more, which begs the question if you could tactially not surrender anyway so stastics on the winrate of champions with vs without surrender would be important. It would also affect how people play and feel about champions over a long period of time, aggresive early gamers like Darius, draven and kallista might not be a good call as they could put the game in jeoprady even though nothing changed about these champions.
A good case study for this is when in wolfenstein the sound of the machineguns had to be adjusted for balancing reasons because the german gun gave players more confidence and resulted in more kills on average despite them being literally the same in every other way.
I cant fit my list of pros vs these cons in this comment im sorry.
I don't think players in Dota or CS:GO can snowball out of control as hard as league if they get early lead
having or not the surrender will not change the core problem with it is the player base.
I only support removing ff if Riot starts banning people for trolling and inting, but that's practically impossible if someone is subtle enough. If someone thinks the game is lost instead of ff they'll just soft int and the end result is the same.
Play HotS for a week, and I promise you, by the end of that week you'll be begging for that vote
I don’t think „people know“ what winnable games are. they just stop trying if things go their way at minute 15. some even want to surrender even if their team is winning but they themselves are behind
In cs:go enemy is not 3items & 5levels ahead, so yeah! if it's a fair fight we won't ff
BTW Valorant also has a Surrender system, so this point is kind of useless as Riot are addicted to using it and dont even consider not having it in their games.
----------------------
I agree that surrendering is required sometimes due to the current state of LoL.
I think that this state can be improved a lot and make it a more fun + competitive 5v5 game.
Right now most games end in 10 minutes then people are forced to lose for 10 more. This is due to Riots game design, not due to something LoL has to be.
It can always be changed and thus surrender is something Riot rely on instead of fixing other problems
They should also add voice chat but non of that will ever happen.
Adding afk surrender would be induced demand for afkers. You'd need to pair that with much stricter afk penalties which would catch people who crash and whose internet goes out in the crossfire.
Sucks but don't play if you have an unstable connection.
they just need to put it back to what it was prior which was 20 minute surrendering. That allowed the game to extend long enough for late game champions to have a chance to shine before people FF vote. League was much healthier when it was 20 minutes. The quality of the game and peoples mentals went down when ff 15 became a thing.
If Riot were a company that understood their own game, or one that gave a toss about their player base enough to fix the myriad issues that League has, then I think removing/altering the surrender mechanic would make sense.
However, that's a fantasy. So there needs to be some kind of get-out clause and surrendering is it. Riot are more bothered about people saying naughty words and selling 150 skins a year than actually addressing major problems with their game. Weren't we promised a new client last year....?
you cant interpret the gamelength statistics the way you did tho
there's tons of games where you lose the last teamfight and people know its lost, therefor they just surrender right away instead of watching the enemy team finish
this drags the surrender gamelength average way longer than what it actually is
You're right. It is slightly wrong, but overall still shows that adding surrenders into the stats - the games are not that much longer in general.
I think people assume that either you play for 30 minutes or you surrender in 15.
But in reality - people deny surrender votes a lot anyway - even if their teammates are giving up. SO games often last 20+ minutes even with surrender votes
@@HappyChimeNoises2 How can you say it's "slightly wrong" when we have no frame of reference for how much that impacts the statistic? It's completely unusable
The league Graphs data is useless because people do surrender longer even games after losing a fight and knowing they cant defend in time. So surrender probably saves time in both scenarios. I do think however that this could be a change that makes the game more healthy but i think they would have to somehow increase death timers. Maybe when you ACE it increases death timer by 10 second for the whole team.
Removing it is too much, I would just always make it an unanimous vote (or maybe shift the 4 out 5 vote to 30 mins), unless you have afks in team
If you totally remove it, the enemy team can take you hostage
But I still find ridiculous that riot is seriously telling players "yeah you can totally tell at 15 min if the game is lost or not"; games are not supposed to be this short, and unless you play at 1% elo the game is not decided *just when plates fall FFS*