LoL and the surrender button.

[Imat]

I've been opposed to the surrender button since its inception. It promotes a wrong way of thinking. "Oh, I'm losing. Well, I don't want to waste any of my precious, precious time, so I'll cut this game early by giving up. Now this is only a 25 minutes game!" "Oh, now I'm winning, awesome! Even though this game has gone on for 3 hours now, I'm fine continuing because, and this is important, I'm WINNING this game." The surrender button encourages the 'No fun if you don't win' mentality, which is fundamentally wrong.

The only time I support surrender is when the winning team intentionally delays the victory when the losing team has no chance of coming back.

To be honest, though, I've basically given up on pvp in LoL. The community just can't act with any measure of maturity/sportsmanship. And the surrender button does not help matters.

 

[BartyMae]

I support surrendering in any game, both from the loser's and the winner's perspective...as long as the as it's clear the game is over. I don't really have fun unceremoniously crushing the enemy - I get self-conscious, I suppose, of how they're probably feeling, or, alternatively, how I'd feel in their shoes - and nor do I like being forced to play out a game that's clearly doomed from my point of view.

 

[Kyr Knightbane]

Honestly, i support it to a point. I don't want surrender to be the go-to reflex after the opposing team takes Baron, or any of the lanes start losing towers. A buddy of mine and myself actually won a game for our team by ignoring the stupid Baron Team Fight, and taking 2 towers, an inhib and just beasting the nexus turrets. By the time the other team disengaged the Baron Fight and had come back to base, they couldn't recover, their nexus had 100 Hp, and all it took was my Wukong Q to GG the game. (Granted, that was back during my 1-16 gameplay days where i didn't know how to lane properly and admittedly looking back at it, i was terrible during my laning phase. I lost my lane pretty bad. But pulling a wildcard move like that, despite our team calling us n00bs and berating us for it, afterwards they were all pretty agreeable. If i'm losing, i just do my best, try not to feed and Jungle if i can. Most times I lose is because my lane partner over-extends, despite me pinging and saying "Dude, their Jungler is right fucking there. DONT DO IT" Then our lane gets camped and I might be able to pull off a few kills or some insane saves but if my Lane Partner thinks Draven is invincible, then I can't help him.

So OT:

Sure, surrender buttons are useful, but they shouldn't be handicaps. They should be something that is used when the enemy team is dragging the game out, or if the synergy in the team is severely lacking.

 

[Vegosiux]

The surrender button encourages the 'No fun if you don't win' mentality, which is fundamentally wrong.

Exactly, what's the point in playing if you can't handle a legitimate, on-field defeat?

If a hockey team is down by 15 goals after two periods, they don't get to just concede and not play the final one.

 

[Sabitsuki]

Because brevity.

Sometimes the game is just.. over. You have two lanes down all the way to your nexus, and you've made exactly zero progress towards the enemy nexus. They are better equipped than you. They have champions that counter you. Your team is scattered and demoralized. The enemy hasn't quite collected themselves enough to finish you off for good, but it's definitely going there. Why not just save everyone a few minutes?

Continuing just for the sake of continuing is pointless. I don't need to prove anything to myself or anyone else by wasting people's time in some misguided need to delay a victory that the enemy has all but carved their name into.

That's not to say that the first reaction to being on the losing side is to immediately surrender. I have a lot of fond memories of getting unexpected aces that completely turned a bleak match around. However, you can generally tell when you reach a point of having no meaningful chance. Some people do abuse the surrender, however I'd much rather have the option to legitimately end a game quickly, rather than linger on a team with people who are no longer willing to make the effort to win.

 

[Ryan Minns]

I despise the damn thing. Sure I've hit yes once or twice in my time but I can honestly say with a straight face 7 out of 10 surrendered games were done prematurely with no real evidence to support them. I've literally just enjoyed a penta kill to receive a defeat notice immediately afterwards because mid had apparently fed Vlad... HE WAS ON 4 KILLS 0 Assists... This is FAR too often the moronic logic used by people and it annoys the living fuck out of me to no end.

One time though it was HILARIOUS. I was in a 4 man pre made so we had one random who lost his lane and continuously called for a surrender which we all ignored. He even went afk for 15 minutes after calling us all noobs and saying it was over. 5 minutes before the game ended he got back and started declaring how badly the other team sucked because his absence allowed us to turn it around and just as we were destroying their nexus I called a surrender vote and my mates all accepted as a giant fuck you to the idiot on our team

 

[Childe]

I'm not sure if this topic have already been discussed to oblivion (I did not search all the topic).
I played a lot of online games, FPS, RTS etc.. The one thing I learnt from those no matter how bad it is even you are going to lose make the living hell out of the enemy before dying (at least that's what I did). Learn from the mistakes examine the style of play and adapt new strategy to win next round. Then I started playing LoL with my friends.
At first the enemy surrendering seems fine at least I won. Then when the tables turn towards us I felt that surrendering seems a good choice and we surrender most of the time if the first few rumbles between heroes goes bad. One of my friends when commented things like "This is a stupid match lets just surrender", "There is not hope" etc etc. Sometimes my teammates even feed the enemy just to keep them from surrendering.
Then one day after a few match where even low level players surrender and one particular where my friend went on a pissing contest with me and then surrendered. I felt something wrong. Whats the point of playing if you can't handle the humiliation of getting your arse kicked, you are not suppose give up just because of that. Get pissed, find ways to attack back the enemy not coward away to the surrender button just because its bad. The button is like Cartman's way of saying "Screw you guys I'm going home."
The concept of the surrender button now feels wrong to me, its giving players an easy way out while not learning anything when a match goes bad.
Thats my though of the surrender button in LoL. What you guys think? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (will be, I played a lot of games but not all).

I think there is both a good an bad aspect to it. On one side there are some matches where there is really no hope of winning and in those cases the surrender button is nice because it allows everyone to go onto another game without dragging on an obviously lost match. On the other hand people tend to give up sooner if they think there is no hope of winning even though there might actually be a chance to win. People don't like to play when they feel they are going to lose and the surrender button gives them a chance to end the match early. So in the end my thought are ehh. I somethimes wish that i have it when i play dota2 and sometimes i wish it wasn't there when i play lol.

 

[LostCrusader]

I'm pretty guilty of calling for surrenders early, but I base those on having someone quit/drop or the team having an awful composition. I have been amazed at how many games this season have involved teams that think no tanks are needed and everyone can be an assassin.

But as was said earlier in the thread, crazy come backs can make for great stories.

 

[sagitel]

The surrender button encourages the 'No fun if you don't win' mentality, which is fundamentally wrong.

Exactly, what's the point in playing if you can't handle a legitimate, on-field defeat?

If a hockey team is down by 15 goals after two periods, they don't get to just concede and not play the final one.

its not like hockey at all. in hockey you have an audience that expects you to play. in hockey you have a time limit to do whatever you want in that time. in hockey if they have more goals than you they wont get better at scoring goals. its just not like that.

about surrendering. a legitimate on-field defeat? i have had games where 3-4 of our team left. and while the other team was too stupid to get me it was a dragging stalemate. i was hugging the inhib turrets. they couldn't do anything, i couldn't do anything. so the surrender IS a good thing at thise times.

 

[Vegosiux]

about surrendering. a legitimate on-field defeat? i have had games where 3-4 of our team left. and while the other team was too stupid to get me it was a dragging stalemate. i was hugging the inhib turrets. they couldn't do anything, i couldn't do anything. so the surrender IS a good thing at thise times.

Actually, a draw would be a good thing at those times. I mean, you haven't even lost, but they failed to win too.

 

[oliver.begg]

about surrendering. a legitimate on-field defeat? i have had games where 3-4 of our team left. and while the other team was too stupid to get me it was a dragging stalemate. i was hugging the inhib turrets. they couldn't do anything, i couldn't do anything. so the surrender IS a good thing at thise times.

Actually, a draw would be a good thing at those times. I mean, you haven't even lost, but they failed to win too.

except in a feild sport the teams are still even, their is no increasing snowball effect.

if a team in DOTA manages to feed 20 kills the other side is completly fucked. some heroes may be so much weaker that the entire team can be cleaned by one enemy hero.

thats the reason you need the surrender button so people don't waste the time just padding time played.

the game inherently makes the teams imbalanced as time progresses if one side starts winning

 

[kingthrall]

Surrendering is always an option, for LOL it really matters since the game is generic and stale and has to do with experience and no luck.

I myself refuse to surrender in any game, it makes it more challenging trying to do twice the amount of work in combat ect ect than it is tail-coating in a group. This is how good players are made and separates the men from the boys.

 

[Vegosiux]

except in a feild sport the teams are still even, their is no increasing snowball effect.

if a team in DOTA manages to feed 20 kills the other side is completly fucked. some heroes may be so much weaker that the entire team can be cleaned by one enemy hero.

thats the reason you need the surrender button so people don't waste the time just padding time played.

the game inherently makes the teams imbalanced as time progresses if one side starts winning

As I said; if the opponent team fails to convert a significant advantage into a victory, how in blue blazes can they feel entitled to me conceding the game for their benefit?

If I'm looking at a loss the next time they launch a group assault on my base, sure, a surrender is viable, but that only saves what, 5 minutes? But if they're struggling to actually win, and if my team can keep the five of them at the inhibitor turret with 3 people, I'm not surrendering, even if they're 20 kills ahead, I'll direct the remaining 2 people to cause some mayhem towards their base.

 

[AuronFtw]

You're right, you don't just quit a sport because sports generally have audiences with expectations.

Bingo.

Unless the match is being spectated, surrender/forfeit is a part of sports. It's understood that (non-spectated) sports take secondary precedence to work or everyday emergencies.

I'd say computer games should be even more so. So I'm all for the "surrender" option. It's better that then having to make people manually unplug their computers to quit the game. Sure there are people who will abuse it, but the benefits outweigh the downsides.

I disagree wholeheartedly, actually. Take, for example, SC and SC2; leaving aside the arguments of skill req being higher than most mobas, the highest-level tournaments almost always end with a GG and the losing player quitting out when he feels the match is totally unwinnable. When he's down 80 supply, 25 drones, and is running on 2 bases with only 1 mining, he's "lost the game." Nothing he can do will make a difference; he can't expand, he can't build another base. He has already lost, but the video game's "rules" for losing require that every building and building-producing-unit be destroyed.

Is that... really what you want to see? When I watch sports (esports included), I watch to be intrigued. It has to be exciting. When both players are still in the match, doing drops into each other's bases, expanding if possible, queuing upgrades and hiding buildings and hoping they don't get scouted/scanned too early, and marching huge armies out leading to nail-biting confrontations, the match is still great fun. When it's 40 minutes in, and one guy has 2 bases left and his army has been decimated, do we really need to watch the last 10 minutes while the obvious winner amasses a force for the inevitable a-move to wipe out every last building? Is that really "exciting" gameplay? No, it's fucking boring. The match is over. The guy has no chance. So he says gg and leaves the match, officially giving the other guy a win (because, in reality, he had already won minus 10 minutes of boring base clearing).

Almost the only time you'll see a pro-game SC match go *all the way* to base clearing is when the loser is in a rut and wants time to clear his head; he'll often take off his headset and take his hands off his keyboard and just ponder for several minutes. But even this is rare. It's considered bad manners to force your opponent to clear every building you have when the match has effectively ended 10 minutes ago; it's needless busywork, not fun for either the players or the observers.

The same is true of league and dota. There comes a time when a match *is* simply unwinnable, and forcing the players to play that last 15-30 minutes and forcing the observers to watch an uninteresting floor-sweep while one team pushes forward, takes out towers one by one with no real resistance, re-killing any enemy as soon as they spawn, etc is just nuts. It's boring.

Some players are cowards and give up too early. Some players are dipshits and don't give up at all, either for retarded misguided notions of honor or simply out of spite (there's no difference in reality, it's just a needless wait for everyone involved). But it doesn't matter; some people being stupid doesn't lessen the necessity or the utility of a forfeit button.

A PvP game without the ability for the losing team to lose gracefully and admit defeat without boring the audience for 30 minutes of one-sided play is a PvP game lacking in core functionality.

 

[Ascend]

Lets say:

Each game of League takes 45 minutes approx. and your team has one third of the enemies kills and you tried taking baron but they warded and stole it after stomping on your team while 3 of the members on your team are pushing blame around and none of the champions on your team are named Fizz ,Vayne or Teemo. Would you seriously want the game to drag on to the 45 minute stomping or just end it at 25 minute humiliation? Not much you can learn from 3 assholes pushing the blame around and getting instagibbed while wasting your time.

While I can recognize the ability to turn around games in DotA 2 ,there are just some games that when I was losing (because I'm bad at DotA 2) that made me want to just leave because of how I was unable to surrender.Sure, in DotA 2 you can learn item builds and tactics while you are losing but those are a dime a dozen on the internet and getting instagibbed to do so seems like a needlessly painful task.

 

[skywolfblue]

You're right, you don't just quit a sport because sports generally have audiences with expectations.

Bingo.

Unless the match is being spectated, surrender/forfeit is a part of sports. It's understood that (non-spectated) sports take secondary precedence to work or everyday emergencies.

I'd say computer games should be even more so. So I'm all for the "surrender" option. It's better that then having to make people manually unplug their computers to quit the game. Sure there are people who will abuse it, but the benefits outweigh the downsides.

I disagree wholeheartedly, actually. Take, for example, SC and SC2; leaving aside the arguments of skill req being higher than most mobas, the highest-level tournaments almost always end with a GG and the losing player quitting out when he feels the match is totally unwinnable. When he's down 80 supply, 25 drones, and is running on 2 bases with only 1 mining, he's "lost the game." Nothing he can do will make a difference; he can't expand, he can't build another base. He has already lost, but the video game's "rules" for losing require that every building and building-producing-unit be destroyed.

Is that... really what you want to see? When I watch sports (esports included), I watch to be intrigued. It has to be exciting. When both players are still in the match, doing drops into each other's bases, expanding if possible, queuing upgrades and hiding buildings and hoping they don't get scouted/scanned too early, and marching huge armies out leading to nail-biting confrontations, the match is still great fun. When it's 40 minutes in, and one guy has 2 bases left and his army has been decimated, do we really need to watch the last 10 minutes while the obvious winner amasses a force for the inevitable a-move to wipe out every last building? Is that really "exciting" gameplay? No, it's fucking boring. The match is over. The guy has no chance. So he says gg and leaves the match, officially giving the other guy a win (because, in reality, he had already won minus 10 minutes of boring base clearing).

Almost the only time you'll see a pro-game SC match go *all the way* to base clearing is when the loser is in a rut and wants time to clear his head; he'll often take off his headset and take his hands off his keyboard and just ponder for several minutes. But even this is rare. It's considered bad manners to force your opponent to clear every building you have when the match has effectively ended 10 minutes ago; it's needless busywork, not fun for either the players or the observers.

The same is true of league and dota. There comes a time when a match *is* simply unwinnable, and forcing the players to play that last 15-30 minutes and forcing the observers to watch an uninteresting floor-sweep while one team pushes forward, takes out towers one by one with no real resistance, re-killing any enemy as soon as they spawn, etc is just nuts. It's boring.

Some players are cowards and give up too early. Some players are dipshits and don't give up at all, either for retarded misguided notions of honor or simply out of spite (there's no difference in reality, it's just a needless wait for everyone involved). But it doesn't matter; some people being stupid doesn't lessen the necessity or the utility of a forfeit button.

A PvP game without the ability for the losing team to lose gracefully and admit defeat without boring the audience for 30 minutes of one-sided play is a PvP game lacking in core functionality.

Well, I was speaking more to why conventional sports don't have surrender, rather then trying to say that all spectated e-sports shouldn't have surrender.

So I'd actually agree with you.

Mainly because, the ability to psych another player into surrendering early when they could have won is a glorious thing. Like the famous match where IdrA rage quits due to HuK making a bunch of hallucinated void rays, hilarious and priceless!

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

As much as we'd all love to go super saiyan and spirit bomb the enemy, 99/100 that just doesn't happen.

But that 1/100 game is the one you'll remember most fondly forever.

Worth 99 defeats for the joy of a glorious comeback.

I don't agree even slightly. The logic that I ought to spend unnecessary time suffering and not having fun just because, some tiny percent of the time, it pays off is foolish.

I've seen some amazing comebacks but there simply comes a time in a game like LoL where victory is effectively impossible. If you're 20 or 30 minutes in, the other team has take a few towers and the dragon a few times, and they're up by 20 kills you simply can't salvage that game. The advantage they have built is so significant that it would take a long series of boneheaded moves just to be outright competitive.

Sure, with certain team compositions and the right circumstances you might pull it out of the fire. Sometimes you simply have a composition well suited to team fights but is fairly weak in the laning phase - if the other team dumped everything into the hopes of crushing you in 20 minutes it might be worth hanging around for that first team fight just to see if you have a shot at winning.

I'm not the sort of player who assumes that because my lane went poorly that we should just call the game quits. Hell, most of the time when the surrender option comes up I decline just because I can still envision an scenario where we can win. But that doesn't mean I'll willingly stick around in a game that was decided long before it ends.

 

[DazZ.]

As much as we'd all love to go super saiyan and spirit bomb the enemy, 99/100 that just doesn't happen.

But that 1/100 game is the one you'll remember most fondly forever.

Worth 99 defeats for the joy of a glorious comeback.

I don't agree even slightly.

If it's going that badly, it'll be over quickly anyway, and at least the other team will have fun. It's also unsatisfying when the enemy surrenders just before you storm the base to victory.

 

[sagitel]

about surrendering. a legitimate on-field defeat? i have had games where 3-4 of our team left. and while the other team was too stupid to get me it was a dragging stalemate. i was hugging the inhib turrets. they couldn't do anything, i couldn't do anything. so the surrender IS a good thing at these times.

Actually, a draw would be a good thing at those times. I mean, you haven't even lost, but they failed to win too.

well actually i have been at the other side. and i can tell you when this happens the enemy team wont push to win. they just go and mess around. killing dragon and baron. killing anyone coming out of the turret's line of safety. and they wont come to finish the game. in this time a draw is stupid because the other team wont accept and if the surrender option is not there the game might go for another 15 minutes. and i tell you its not fun to be under the turret killing minions for 15 minutes