Surrendering - No negatives to a deplorable act?

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Pieceofcandy

Senior Member

03-25-2010

Not surrendering is only a good idea when you know you and your teammates are competent. If you don't have good synergy with them then the odds of turning the game around is zero.

If your teammate has zero map awareness or doesn't know when it's a good idea or bad idea engage/pull back then you're only dragging out the inevitable.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kaedan

Senior Member

03-25-2010

I think the surrender mechanics work fine as is.

I mean, not even a majority (3 of 5) results in surrender... you need 4 out of 5. And as people have said, as you play more, you'll be better able to judge when there's just no chance of winning the match.

Someone mentioned lowering the surrender time to 10 min... that's a little too much I think. I think it should be lowered to 20 min. By 20 min in, you have a fair idea of how your team will do. But 25 min is fine by me as well. Usually if I know we're gonna lose, it's between 20 and 25 min anyway.

As people have said, there's no sense in fighting a pointless battle. All you have to do is look to history for proof... look at Napoleon and Hitler.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Rampart

Member

03-25-2010

The bad logic with you that say you vote no every time, is that you are generally just wasting your teammates time, who all want to surrender. I could almost call that griefing to some extent. Your 4 teammates don't want to play the match anymore. From that information, what makes you think you can turn the loss around? Personally, when 1 person votes no on my team, and the outcome is pretty freaking obvious (think 2 team fights just occurred and 3 people were left standing on the other team or even simply horrible team comp which happens often when you solo queue), then I either /dance in base, continually type /taunt, or I just go slam my head against the other team continually to speed up the loss.

Basically, we've already had this discussion before, and surrendering is here to stay. Tough luck. Don't like it? Then MOBA's are not for you. Nor are a lot of games/sports.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

HawksGoCAW

Senior Member

03-25-2010

I HATE when my teammates keep dying, won't push, do dumb things like farm random minions and get ganked, and then won't surrender. The only thing that makes it worse is when the other team is like, "wtf. Noob team. Might as well boost my KDR lolololollolololol!!!" and it turns into 50 minutes of hearing some annoying, non-chalant announcer lady saying, "An ally has been slain," or "An enemy is GOD like!" It's horrible. And it's literally painful.

On the other hand, I hate when one guy is feeding but the rest of the team does well and he gives up, starts complaining about it, feeds harder, and brings up the surrender vote every 5 minutes.

But by far, the first scenario is the worst. experience. ever.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

JohnFreeman

Junior Member

03-25-2010

People have a tendency to give up way before the match is decided. I've seen someone give up and afk in the fountain 10 minutes into the game before now. That game we came back and won 4v5. Dying a few times does not decide the game.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ConeEtho

Senior Member

03-25-2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhitemageofDOOM View Post

In like every competitive community with a slippery slope ever, yes.
Chess, SC, Go, all end in surrender.

It's admitting your opponent is better than you instead of wasting his time out of spite.

That is stupidity in its best. There is a reason why surrendering only exists in solo sports, like Chess and Starcraft 1v1 games. Because you can surrender without screwing those that still have the will to fight.

That said, there is no surrendering even in most 1v1 sports, because it is a bad atitude. Admiting defeat creates self imposed barriers and limitations. Sport is about overcoming limits, you can't really do that if you surrender when things aren't going well for you.

Because of that, generally surrendering is considered by large bad sportmanship, albeit accepted in a few, very few, sportive environments for a number of specific reasons.

In chess, for example, it is accepted because you can predict the outcome with 100% of certainty at some points, and that is the point people usually surrender. You rarely see people surrendering with half the board full, as would happen if you putted these community ADD kids playing chess.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

XartaX

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

Senior Member

03-25-2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhitemageofDOOM View Post
Know when to hold em, know when to fold em.



In like every competitive community with a slippery slope ever, yes.
Chess, SC, Go, all end in surrender.

It's admitting your opponent is better than you instead of wasting his time out of spite.
Actually, in Chess surrendering too early is super offensive.

In Go, though, knowing when you've lost and surrendering is the sign of a pro.


On topic. Yes, I too feel that people surrender too early sometimes. It's really annoying because I've seen a worse situation with worse people turn it around. Sometimes, though, I too wish you could surrender earlier. Like when an enemy goes godlike 10 minutes in.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ZGBaddy

Senior Member

03-25-2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceindahole View Post
Remember: the Samurai would rather die than surrender in battle. Shouldn't the player feel the same way, and be rewarded for it?
General: Mobilize the troops
Soldier: Sir, they are getting slaughtered
General: Look son, I can't go back with half of my troops alive, it would be dishonorable
Soldier: They have families!
General: I don't care, it's either all or nothing!

Change troops with players
Change families with valuable time

Bingo!

Fighting a losing battle is stupid, why waste the rest of your resources?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

StarRhythm

Junior Member

03-26-2010

It's a voting system... working the way voting systems were intended. Majority rules. Make friends who think like you, then you won't have to worry about it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ConeEtho

Senior Member

03-26-2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZGBaddy View Post
General: Mobilize the troops
Soldier: Sir, they are getting slaughtered
General: Look son, I can't go back with half of my troops alive, it would be dishonorable
Soldier: They have families!
General: I don't care, it's either all or nothing!

Change troops with players
Change families with valuable time

Bingo!

Fighting a losing battle is stupid, why waste the rest of your resources?
Soldier: Sir, we are getting slaughtered
General: It is ok son, we will just all commit suicide now.
Soldier: What?!

Surrendering doesn't save anything in this game. It just accelerates the outcome of a single match.

Contrary to the popular belief you are wasting your time from the start when you decide to play a game. You won't waste it more or less by playing a game to the end instead of giving up in the first signs of difficulty to play another match of the same game.

Actually it could be argued that you will be wasting your time a lot more by playing 2 half matches instead of a full one, regardless of the results.