Mercy Rule

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

just Duck 01

Junior Member

02-05-2012

Maybe this is just me, but it seems like every dang time I have a good game, the other team surrenders at 20, It's almost like clockwork, and it is always unanimous. Good on them for having some sense, but ****.

But if I have a ****ty team that *****es at each other, or someone leaves, or someone feeds, my team ALWAYS drags it out to the VERY END. They never want to surrender no matter how inevitable defeat is.

I hate wasting my time like this, and I am sure others do as well. You are forced to either keep playing a pointless battle, wasting your time, or quit and get reported. It is extremely frustrating especially as there is no guarantee how long the game will go. You could waste 10 extra unnecessary minutes to 40 or more. Often times the enemy team will purposefully toy with you just to farm kills and extend the game even longer.

Riot, please implement some sort of mercy rule, where if the enemy team is X number of kills above your team you can leave the game without penalty, or something. It's ridiculous when you are forced to waste your time for a loss anyway. Thanks.

inb4 "you elo is XX lol"
inb4 "im so pro I never lose/surrender"
inb4 "aliens, therefore your argument is invalid"


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

gavinD

Junior Member

02-05-2012

Well sometimes even if you're 30 kills behind and it's late game one ace can change the tide of the game completley. Late game is a whole nother game


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

iCoffee

Senior Member

02-05-2012

I've turned around games with 3 inhibitors down and the other team killing baron. One ace turned into three, and that's enough time to win late-game.

I've also had games where we were behind 10-20 kills and still steamrolled the other team, because the game is about buildings.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Denebious

Member

02-05-2012

Yeah, those one in a thousand games sometimes happen. But they're just that, one in a thousand. Meanwhile, in the other 999, someone is vigorously smashing their head against a keyboard because they are trapped in a game nobody will let them leave. Some people enjoy playing losing games just as much as winning ones. Others don't. People who don't like to play losing games shouldn't have to sit and wait because someone else is having a good time, because said person will have a good time regardless of their situation. It's like inviting a lactose-intolerant person over for dinner, and only serving pizza. It's not very considerate.... +1 to the mercy rule.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

just Duck 01

Junior Member

02-08-2012

Bump.

I understand there are those rare games where you have a decent team, are down some kills (or even many) and a simple well played strategy or tactful encounter can turn the tide. If I have a decent team that is giving it an honest effort and trying to work together, I will GLADLY play the game out to the end. I am not talking about those.

I am talking about when you have one person trolling/feeding on purpose, or an AFK/DCer, or a team that WILL NOT COOPERATE no matter what, or what have you...

The key part of this is that most of the time that you want to surrender, you do not have a DECENT team.

You know those games where before champion select is even over, or before minions have spawned, you already have 2 or more people on YOU OWN team *****ing at each other over some stupid ****. You already know, before the game has even started, that you have wasted at least 20 minutes.

Then you have the games where if people WOULD work together, you might actually have the chance of winning, because everyone on your team is a decent enough player. But no one on your team wants to work together. Everyone wants to go off and do their own thing and be Rambo, meanwhile the enemy team just picks you/them off one by one and gets more fed, making your defeat more and more inevitable.

In those situations and other similar situations, you are not just going to magically turn into a great team 20 or 30 minutes into the game. Those 2 players that were *****ing at each other in champion select are not all-of-a-sudden going to turn into best friends.

And the **** of it is, it's those kinds of people that will vote "No" on surrender just as a "**** you" to their own team. It's usually a 3/2 vote, too. That is a big part of the problem. MOST of the team wants to surrender, but those few player/troll will vote "No" just to screw with the team.

Heck, just changing the rule so 3/5 of the team agreeing to surrender might be sufficient. After all, right now it only takes two *******s to ruin your ability to concede.

And as Denebious pointed out, 999 times out of 1,000, the case is these ****ty situations when you want to surrender. That one time out of a thousand is when you actually have a decent team and can pull together to make a comeback and win it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ADGarner

Senior Member

02-08-2012

The irony here is that for the people who committed to playing a full game win or lose are considered selfish. Whereas some how the guy who committed via the very same queue is some how above playing his match.

If I went to my local Hockey game and the home team is losing and half our team just skated off the ice I'd be pretty disappointed and no I wouldn't think that the guys who stuck it out were being selfish for choosing to finish the match.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Denebious

Member

02-08-2012

If myself and four of my friends were playing a casual game of basketball outside with a few other people, and all of them shackle me to the ground if I get bored and want to leave, I would be pretty disappointed too.

I feel I wasn't clear enough in my last post. Allow me to elaborate...

For the purposes of this discussion, we'll consider players to fall into two groups. While I know that many other factors come into account in determining if a game is fun or not (I have had some losing games that were way too fun to quit, and I know other people might occasionally feel the same way), I'm just talking about the general trend of enjoyment of the gamers in question, based upon match outcome. Groups are as follows:
Group 1: Players that enjoy playing winning games more than they play losing games,
and
Group 2: Players that enjoy playing winning games and losing games equally.
( There is no group 3 considered here, because people that enjoy losing games more than winning probably shouldn't be playing LoL anyway...)

Now, in any stalemate game, or in any game where the players of groups 1 and 2 are on the same team and winning, Groups 1 and 2 are both usually having fun. That's great, and that's to be expected. But when the side in question starts losing, that's when the discrepancy begins. When it seems obvious that the side in question is going to lose, but the surrender vote is refused, group 2 is still having a merry time, while group 1 is left banging their heads on their keyboards, because they are now trapped in a game they won't have nearly as much fun in. It seems, then, that the optimal case for enjoyment is that Group 1 spends more time playing games in which they are not losing (because it makes both groups happy). Note that I didn't say anything about the number of wins, just the amount of time spent playing. Anyway, because of this, it doesn't make sense that, in games where the opposing team has a pronounced advantage, two people would refuse to surrender and keep the game in motion. Of course, those two people are still enjoying themselves and that's just fine. But what isn't fine is that the other three people on the team, who DO want to surrender, are of group 1, and are thus not enjoying the experience. As I have said before, that's like insisting a group of people have only cheese pizza for dinner when half of the group is lactose intolerant. It isn't very considerate to group 1 players...


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

7thcloud

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

Senior Member

02-08-2012

if that is the case, try to experiment with builds if you are sure you will lose anyway.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Denebious

Member

02-08-2012

Having particularly outlandish builds while losing a game and having a horrible K/D can get you reported for feeding, and many Tribunal-goers might actually hit punish on those grounds. Experimenting with builds is for Bot games. Besides, if you're losing, you probably won't have enough gold to complete a build or, if you do, won't be able to tell the difference anyway while the enemy is steamrolling you.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ADGarner

Senior Member

02-08-2012

Denebious

This Lactose intolerant argument is really just hyperbole. It's a poor analogy. It does not reflect the experience at hand.

First, eating dinner with your friends is not a competition with the family next door and usually is not a competition at all. League of Legends is a game.

Second, all players knew ahead of time that they might have to play through a game that they might lose. League of Legends has an option to end games early. It is not the only way or even the intended way that games end.

Third, your utility maximizing argument about the two groups of players is leaving out a crucial element. Having your matches end prematurely is going to be a loss for players in group 2. Players in group 2 want to play the game that they are in. They are probably playing champions that do much better in the late game.

If a mercy rule was added to the game that was based on kills the whole notion of coming back with creep score or carrying back a loss would be moot. Assassins and great ganks that are excellent in the early and mid games would dominate the scene. It wouldn't just be a mercy rule. It would fundamentally shift the objectives of the game.

Let's go back to your ludicrous basketball example. Obviously your friends are not going to chain you to the ground. They don't even do this in League of Legends. A more proper example would be this.

Denebious is a poor sport. He is losing the game and wants to leave. He has decided to leave his team mates behind despite their willingness to finish the game. Denebious does leave. Later his friends decide that they don't want to play basketball with him because he will just quit. Denebious and his friends do some thing else from now on because his friends have identified him as a "quitter".

League of Legends uses the same idea. If you just AFK out. You might get reported. If you get reported you can't play with the team any more if you get banned. It's the same principle. No one is making you do any thing. You signed up to play a match. Everyone does this. When you try to take the ball and leave the court some people are upset and rightfully so.

Also 7thcloud's advice is really good.