If someone doesn't vote during a surrender, please default it to "Yes".

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Baishuu

Senior Member

10-20-2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogmarz View Post
Umm, no. Sometimes there's a legitimate reason to wait on the Surrender option, considering it has a timer. Defaulting to Yes is a poor decision and makes little logical sense.
Logical Sense: Someone who hasn't voted usually is AFK. AFK has ruined the game; game is over if a surrender vote happened. AFK further screws team over by voting No while being AFK.

Logical Sense: If someone AFK's without leaving, they shouldn't further inhibit the gameplay experience of their team by being counted as a No vote.

One of the above is the most correct.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

edgtrv

Senior Member

10-20-2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogmarz View Post
Umm, no. Sometimes there's a legitimate reason to wait on the Surrender option, considering it has a timer. Defaulting to Yes is a poor decision and makes little logical sense.
Obviously you aren't getting what I said. If the person doesn't vote, at all, and the vote times out, then default it to yes. I think the surrender has like a 20 sec or so timer before it times out. So, if they wait 19 seconds and vote No, then fine. Moving on.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Rogmarz

Member

10-20-2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uccisore View Post
Why is defaulting to 'No' more logical? I mean, it has to be one or the other.
Various reasons. It takes an active surrender to end the game early, as opposed to continuing one. When you default, you want a result that's inconsequential. From a design point of view it's better that a game continues than ends early, especially when not everyone agrees with the latter.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Belphoebe

Senior Member

10-20-2010

What happens:

Some dudes die
Dude types /surrender
Some more dudes die
I am still alive, fighting, and don't really want to click around in menus.
*Your team has surrendered with 4 votes to 0 fsssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhPOW


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Rogmarz

Member

10-20-2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baishuu View Post
Logical Sense: Someone who hasn't voted usually is AFK. AFK has ruined the game; game is over if a surrender vote happened. AFK further screws team over by voting No while being AFK.

Logical Sense: If someone AFK's without leaving, they shouldn't further inhibit the gameplay experience of their team by being counted as a No vote.

One of the above is the most correct.
Logical in the sense of programming and user choice. It's never a good option to have a proactive result stem from a non-action. And you keep saying "usually". There are times when you're in a battle and mousing over No could cause you to lose the game. It's poor game design to force the user to hurry over the No option just to prevent an unwilling surrender.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Baishuu

Senior Member

10-20-2010

Pretty sure a 4:1 vote still surrenders...


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Rogmarz

Member

10-20-2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by edgtrv View Post
Obviously you aren't getting what I said. If the person doesn't vote, at all, and the vote times out, then default it to yes. I think the surrender has like a 20 sec or so timer before it times out. So, if they wait 19 seconds and vote No, then fine. Moving on.
I did get what you said. I don't agree with it. I know people who don't vote because they are preoccupied with the game. Are you saying they should get a forfeited game because of idiot teammates and design that didn't work in their favor?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Zeryth

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

10-20-2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baishuu View Post
Logical Sense: Someone who hasn't voted usually is AFK. AFK has ruined the game; game is over if a surrender vote happened. AFK further screws team over by voting No while being AFK.

Logical Sense: If someone AFK's without leaving, they shouldn't further inhibit the gameplay experience of their team by being counted as a No vote.

One of the above is the most correct.
Yes, but sometimes people like me wait for a time because we can probably ace the enemy team. It's also if 2 members of my team are fighting and one of them decides to surrender. I then think, should I satisfy that guy or not?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Baishuu

Senior Member

10-20-2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogmarz View Post
Logical in the sense of programming and user choice. It's never a good option to have a proactive result stem from a non-action. And you keep saying "usually". There are times when you're in a battle and mousing over No could cause you to lose the game. It's poor game design to force the user to hurry over the No option just to prevent an unwilling surrender.
It's a huge time limit in in game time, I don't really see anyone taking that long to hit No. There really is no hurry involved... even in a battle/chase situation, I've never had so much free time that I've timed out.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Rogmarz

Member

10-20-2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baishuu View Post
It's a huge time limit in in game time, I don't really see anyone taking that long to hit No. There really is no hurry involved... even in a battle/chase situation, I've never had so much free time that I've timed out.
That's not necessarily true, and your experience doesn't apply to the entirety of the population. It's bad from a design point of view. I'll admit it's probably better for non-AFKers than it is bad, but it doesn't mean it should be implemented. It's better that people play for an extra 10min, than a few getting an auto-forfeit because they didn't rush to hit No.

Default choice should never be a Yes on Surrender.