Mercy Rule

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Denebious

Member

02-08-2012

Calling my example ludicrous, calling me a bad sport in your example... That's not nice. You don't see me doing that to you...

I find that my culinary analogy does illustrate the situation at hand insofar as it accurately illustrates how some people may enjoy different game situations, while others aren't able to.

Eating dinner with friends may not be a competition, but it does require a group of people to commit time to do a single thing. And in this case, it requires people to commit to a single thing that some of them may not enjoy. In that sense, it isn't much different from the last ten minutes of a League game.

I am aware that League is a "win some, lose some" system. I don't intend for this to be used to end every game. I don't intend for this to even end most games. I have no problem losing the game when we actually stand some sort of chance. I'm not talking about those games that go 40/50, or that go 20/30, or that even go 10/20. I'm talking about the games you know you will lose. I'm talking about games that go 10/50. I'm talking about games in which a loss is obvious, but the other team insists on dragging it out for that extra IP. I'm talking about games where that one person in 3v3, or those two people in 5v5, adamantly proclaim that they "never give up" as a matter of principle. I'm talking about games that have such a low chance of turning around I would bet $100 dollars on it.

Your point about my point is interesting, but moot because of the low frequency in which the games end by the mercy rule. Many games stay competitive and ambiguous right to the end. Some games lean more to one side than the other, but still have a strong chance of comebacks. I'm not talking about those games. I'm talking about the games where the enemy Vayne has gone 37/2, and can solo your entire team at a whim. I'm talking about the games where the enemy Veigar can solo baron when your entire team can barely manage to drop it. I'm talking about the games where you're positive there is no chance of victory, where you feel like you're just a plaything for the enemy team, and have to sit there and wait for them to eventually decide that they've given you the run around for long enough.

The mercy rule would have reasonable bounds, to prevent the meta-shift you describe. Being able to leave just because the enemy team is up 3 kills is absurd, but if they are up 39, it becomes much more reasonable. The gameplay wouldn't really change, because being up that many kills would mean you had enough experience and gear to just waltz up and crush their nexus anyway. (As of now, some more sadistic enemy teams will draw the game out to get all the extra IP they can, ending it just before you get such an absurdly high amount of CS that you can almost take them.)

They do "chain you down" in League in a sense, because leaving the game at that point can have serious consequences. In order to avoid said consequences, I have to keep playing. But you're right, my basketball example didn't quite illustrate my point as well as it could have. In most cases, it's not the entire team that wants to keep playing, it's one or two people.

Allow me to make another.
Let's say I go fishing with two of my friends on a Saturday night. Let's say we don't catch anything for the first six hours, and it is now one in the morning. Now, let's say that both myself and one of my friends want to leave because the fish aren't biting, and we're sleepy. But one friend is adamant to stay, because he wants "the entire fishing experience." Now let's say he wants to stay for the next five hours. He also owns the truck we came in. I can't walk home, and I can't convince him to leave. I'm stuck. Do you see the problem? The majority wants to stop, but that one person (or those two people in 5v5) won't let us.

It's not that I'm a quitter, it's that sometimes I'm stuck with one or two people who simply won't accept defeat.

League of Legends included the surrender system to end games that have an extremely small chance of defeat, and tweaked the conditions it takes to surrender to keep troll premades of two (on TT) or three (on SR) from ending the game at twenty because they think it's funny. While it's necessary for Riot to include such a condition to avoid abuse, I think it'd be nice to see some other mechanism implemented so players aren't trapped by either the troll premades the system was originally trying to negate, or the one or two players who keep the game going against the popular vote due to some personal rule.

I support the mercy rule because I feel it is a step in the right direction. I originally started a thread here:
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/...dly+suggestion
about my ideas on the issue, but sadly it sank into the shifting sea of threads. I admit that neither my solution or Ducks would be perfect, but I believe that something must be done about the current state of these "zombie matches."

7thcloud's advice is well meaning, and if used correctly, can be of marginal benifit. But you can't deny it poses a threat. As I said before, having a crazy build and a bad K/D in a losing match can get you into some serious trouble. Regardless of the state of the match, trying to build an AP Vayne will usually result in some sort of repercussion...

I've seen other threads about players who drag matches out against the will of the majority, so I know I'm not alone in recognizing this as a problem. Since you seem to be so averse to a mercy rule (or just averse to me in general, in which I suggest you resolve your conflict in some other way. A 1v1 perhaps?), do you have any suggestions for changes that could help us?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

longobongo

Senior Member

02-09-2012

The cheese pizza, lactose intolerant example does not make any sense. When you queue up in a game, you fully acknowledge that it is very possible you will lose. You queue up anyways.

If before you went to a friends' house for dinner he says, "It is a 50/50 chance that I will be serving cheese pizza tonight, if you choose not to show, I will understand" and you decide to go anyways, he is not inconsiderate for serving cheese pizza, you were warned. In a lol game you are warned that you /could/ lose. It is not inconsiderate to play the game until its end, because you knew this was a possibility. It's extremely important to learn how to play mid and late game. It's extremely important to learn how to play defensively, and when you are losing. Late game comebacks are not rare, and they're very easy to pull off if you have a coordinated team that communicates.

You're right when you say trolls/AFKers make defeat sometimes inevitable, but this is not always the case. I find in cases where "trolls" make you lose the game, what actually made you lose was the fact that instead of focusing and keeping the team's morale up, the rest of the team fights about this one troll.


tldr; Nothing wrong with the surrendering system.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Denebious

Member

02-09-2012

Longobongo, would you kindly re-read my post? Specifically this part?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denebious View Post
I am aware that League is a "win some, lose some" system. I don't intend for this to be used to end every game. I don't intend for this to even end most games. I have no problem losing the game when we actually stand some sort of chance. I'm not talking about those games that go 40/50, or that go 20/30, or that even go 10/20. I'm talking about the games you know you will lose. I'm talking about games that go 10/50. I'm talking about games in which a loss is obvious, but the other team insists on dragging it out for that extra IP. I'm talking about games where that one person in 3v3, or those two people in 5v5, adamantly proclaim that they "never give up" as a matter of principle. I'm talking about games that have such a low chance of turning around I would bet $100 dollars on it.
The cheese in my example isn't losing a game, it's playing a game in which defeat is known to be almost completely unavoidable, and having two people prolong the gameplay by hitting No every vote, causing surrender votes to go 3/2. I don't have any qualms with losing. It's playing a game I know I'll lose, and being unable to escape it for forty minutes. I know late-game comebacks happen. I've had late-game comebacks at 40/60. But I've never had a comeback at 10/50. And why is that? Because it's extremely improbable. I challenge you to link me ten videos where a team has come back from such an insane score.

I agree that it's not inconsiderate to play the game until its end if the majority of the team agrees. When the majority of the team wants to quit, however, I believe that the remaining two players are being inconsiderate by prolonging gameplay. It means the majority of the players on that team aren't having fun anymore, and the other two are denying them an opportunity to find a better match.

I find in cases where "trolls" make you lose the game, what actually made you lose the game was some guy buying boots of mobility and running into the enemy turret thirty seven consecutive times.

I find that such situations where the minority keeps the game in motion tend to arise because the remaining two players are enjoying themselves, albeit at someone's expense (the other three people on the team). I find that to contradict the title of rule IV of the Summoners Code:
IV. Enjoy Yourself, but not at Anyone Else’s Expense


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

longobongo

Senior Member

02-09-2012

I don't believe that it is at your expense. You queue up knowing that it is possible that the enemy team will slaughter your team. If that happens, it's not inconsiderate to put off defeat for as long as possible, it's a part of the game. Also if defeat is inevitable, why not just wait it out until they destroy your nexus? You get more IP that way.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

cdnmute

Senior Member

02-09-2012

i feel like certain conditions should "buff" surrender votes

someone afk/dc for more than 10 minutes? if someone calls a surrender vote then there is already 2 for yes meaning only 2 ppl need to agree in order for the game to end.

if your team is -20 kills same thing

-9 towers

-3 inhibs

I just think at these points in the game (im flexible on the numbers obviously) odds are some people aren't having fun. so if half the team wants to throw in the towel i think it should be acceptable at this point.

also I feel if you have an afker/dc from within the first 5 minutes surrender time should be dropped to 15 mins with the 2 vote buff applied aswell.

another thing they need to add is, if a person does *nothing* during champ select the game shouldn't start and give the offending afker a dodge penalty.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Biopanda

Recruiter

02-09-2012

You have to keep trying and giving it your all, even if you're behind 20 kills or something, because like others say, they can be stupid and kill Baron while you're all alive and you Attack Speed is OP to kill the turrets, etc.

Farming is also a brilliant idea if you have AOE abilities to kill out clumpy minion waves. I don't recommend jungling though, which doesn't give as much EXP and you may lose it anyway in team fights.

Try defending, not attacking, if you can't do sneaky, quick attacks on the different lanes. Also, tell you're team some tips.
And finally, use smart champion picks with your teammates and LEAVE the queue if they are AFK, can't/don't communicate, or they are just stupid.

FRIEND ME! Lvl 20 about to be 21!


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ADGarner

Senior Member

02-09-2012

Denebious,

I'm sorry if I came off too aggressive. The examples could have been better and you really took the extra step with your fishing example which I think more accurately describes your feelings and the real situation.

Here's the thing about a mercy rule that I don't like. Technically the game already includes some sort of mercy through the surrender system. Many physical sports (namely baseball) do use mercy rules as a way to prevent endless game play. League of Legends in theory can be played endlessly but fortunately there is a means to quit a game.

However I do remember Warsong Gulch (you know what I'm talking about) before they instituted the 30 minute rule... oh man those games would go on hours. Even though it's never personally happened to me in League of Legends I know that I would not want to play in a two hour game. So that being said I can see some possibility for a mercy rule.

Where you and I are specifically at an impasse is the reason and full intent of implementing a mercy rule. I don't actually like the idea of some sort of speculative retreat feature solely aimed at protecting players from games that are going poorly. In your original arguments if you remember you made the utility maximization argument. It was from there that I knew that I would not like the idea of the mercy rule.

To provide some more useful feedback to be in all fairness I think a mercy rule should specifically avoid these features.

a) Potential metagame shift.
b) Comparative loss mechanism encouraging quasi forced feeding. I judge a lot of tribunal cases. It's really easy to make it appear like you just played a bad game with out actually feeding.
c) Encouraging new speculation based on "nearness" to the forced mercy rule. (How many times have players said things like "Oh we're 1:8 at 14:31 gg" and then constantly badgered the players for a surrender at 20:00?)
d) Ending matches before consensual surrender is available. (Keep in mind the winners might want to at least play till 20:00. They're having a great game after all and deserve to play it until the surrender timer)

All that being said I probably wouldn't mind a forced mercy if the winning team was up by 20,000 gold. It's ludicrous to see some one get that much gold over another team even in a game that is already pretty much gg. It would never happen in the competitive scene. It would have no impact on the metagame. Players are not able to treat it like a game objective because you can not check comparative gold values mid game.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Sky Sanctum

Senior Member

02-09-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7thcloud View Post
if that is the case, try to experiment with builds if you are sure you will lose anyway.

This is actually a bad idea, seeing as how if you're losing and try a new build, someone will almost always report you for being unskilled, since you went a different build and cost 'them' the game.

I'd call it out, and make sure others agree, but even then comebacks do happen. Ranked game just today our early game was pitiful, we were losing 10 to 25 at least, their GP jungle decided to build full damage for late game, and they only had Riven to tank. We ended up getting GP when he overextended, proceeded to steamroll their team and finish their last 3 turrets + Inhib to win the game.

Comebacks aren't just for Dom, you just have to really buckle down in the last few moments and hope someone makes a mistake. If it doesn't happen, oh well, try again next game, but don't ever give up.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Armed Weasel

Senior Member

02-09-2012

If you're losing so badly that you can't possibly turn it around, then you shouldn't need to play for more than a few more minutes anyway.

Besides, sometimes the enemy team has just really perfected their early game and aren't as good in the late game, whether it's their builds or just their playstyle.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

just Duck 01

Junior Member

02-09-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Armed Weasel View Post
If you're losing so badly that you can't possibly turn it around, then you shouldn't need to play for more than a few more minutes anyway.

Besides, sometimes the enemy team has just really perfected their early game and aren't as good in the late game, whether it's their builds or just their playstyle.
I think you missed the part where we pointed out how the enemy team often will drag it out and purposefully not win the game right away in order to get more IP/farm kills.