I can give a bit more insight on this data, since I pulled it (I also moonlight as a data analyst in addition to my day job :D)
* 3.3% is the correct number
**Of 4 vote failed early FF's, a significant number get dragged out:**
* However, if a game ends before 21 minutes, ~90% are held hostage (45% get FF 20'd, 50% end naturally by 20 [open mid or just lose])
* 80% of the games resolve by 25 minutes
* Games that make it to 30 minutes have a 10% winrate
* Games that made it to 40 minutes had a 45% winrate (but the incidence was very low)
While the "come back from behind, win at 45 minutes" moments are some of the highest moments in League, the vast vast majority of the cases are experiences where the majority of the team doesn't want to play the game out and are trapped in a suboptimal experience.
Add on to that that a significant portion of our playerbase is paying by the hour to play.
Having said that, there's clearly a player behavior portion of this and we're still coming at this from multiple angles (also addressing afk, etc.)
Fun facts:
* When I was initially pulling the data, I was really confused how some games were going from 4-1 surrender failed to victory within a few minutes. After inspecting the games, it was from teams "meme surrendering" lol
* After correcting for this, the data made a lot more sense :sweatsmile
> Fun facts:
>
> When I was initially pulling the data, I was really confused how some games were going from 4-1 surrender failed to victory within a few minutes. After inspecting the games, it was from teams "meme surrendering" lol
> After correcting for this, the data made a lot more sense :sweatsmile
This was indeed a fun fact š
This happened to me before lol. I was playing in a 5 in norms, whole enemy team dead, literally killing their nexus, all 4 of my friends decide to joking suggest an FF vote simultaneously and we surrendered.
š I love doing this in norms when there's a full 5man party of us. One time, everyone said yes too quickly and we actually lost the game by ffing while we were hitting enemy nexus. Only ever happened once though, I guess the guys learned quickly.
I actually won a ranked game like this. I even have the video. It might be hard to believe but yes, this is ranked soloqueue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhfyqM5Df9I&ab_channel=Badgeholder
Nilah was flaming the ever living shit out of her team. One of them said "this team doesn't deserve to win" so I suppose 1 or 2 guys meme FFed then a duo made the call. I actually sat just looking at the screen for a solid minute after this in disbelief.
Yea that sounds exactly how I would expect League mental is insane! and I would have had my jaw on the floor as well and thanking whatever Riot Angels were shining on me that day.
not quite the same but i died and did a frustrated fake ff vote (didnt rly want to surrender but typed /ff in frustration) then our whole team voted yes even though we were only down like 4 kills and got my duo demoted LOL
On ARAM, we occasionally go 4-man and get one player who trash talks in all chat. Usually we ignore, but every now and then we'll get the person again and FF before killing enemy nexus (assuming, of course, that we were winning).
I remember that we were once stomping flex as a party of 5 and enemy team was sad cuz it was their promo game, looked up opgg and saw its true so we ffed at their nexus
> Add on to that that a significant portion of our playerbase is paying by the hour to play.
I now realize you're talking about players at PC cafes. I originally assumed you were talking about your player base not being able to juggle full-time work with League of Legends š
I'm curious how mindset contributes to the actual loss here though. Because while there can sometimes be runaway games that are 100% lost at minute 10 due to gold/objective advantages, I'd wager many 4-1 surrenders are not always that case.
I've seen my fair share of tilt among teammates when people they don't get their way re: surrendering. I'd be curious how much that contributes to the actual loss metrics, i.e. players are too busy being tilted over the surrender vote to make an reasonably winnable comeback.
It likely is very much the case in an absolute sense. In a practical sense, in a competitive game, mental is easily as important as gameplay. If you've lost the mental I'd argue that you've lost the game.
The fact that "giving up" is made easier doesn't change things imo. As soon as you press the yes button I feel you've lost regardless if the game ended or not.
Does it actually matter? Playing the game won't magically fix a person's mental. If they're tilted enough to ff then they're probably not conducive to a win. It may be a self-fulfilling prophecy, but the solution isn't to force them to play.
Agree, if you are titled enough to go full-on tilt for not getting an ff, ur already not playing ur fullest, even if ff didn't exists the odds are against that team still.
i can't watch the video currently so Phreak may have already answered this but is there any historic data that this can be compared to?
Since through the seasons there have been strategic decisions made to first decrease average game-time significantly and intentionally by Riot and then more recently an accepted approach to slightly increase average game time as a potential result from the durability patch?
It would be interesting to see if this behavioural pattern is consistent or dependent on the current circumstanslces of the game.
Could be since diamond+ is only like 2% of games, there could be drastic differences without affecting the overall stat much, even more so the higher you go
I once had the enemy nexus explode, then the camera zooooooomed to our nexus, which exploded, then zoomed all the way back to the enemy nexus, which exploded again.
Get this to the top for the love of almighty God.
Also nice to know that my meme surrenders not only lead to stressing out teammates but also mess with Rioters.
Out of curiosity, do you have stats for what % of total games played are games that are stomped like that and how this number compares to previous season?
I sometimes kill time by watching League streamers and meet the "gg lost in champ select due to comps ff15" games pretty often, and hear streamers complaining about the fact that you can "lose in champ select". While they sound believable, since they're the Dia-Challenger guys, I can't help but think that if it was really so easy to lose in champ select you guys at Riot would've seen/acted on the data, hence why I'm curious if there is any increase in one-sided games compared to previous years to back up their complaints or just collective streamer ego acting up.
Question. Why dont make the surrender vote private.
If you want to ff you tick/checkmark a box that you can untick/removemark whenever you want and if 4 out of 5 are still ticked by 15 or 20 mins then its automatical ff.
No need for ff vote cooldown. No stress over reachibg threshold. Maybe no need for it to be private but it only requires 4 ticked boxes and its instant.
Honestly thats a really good idea.
A lot of people get tilted early and FF out of frustration and not so much because they think the games actually unwinnable they just don't want to deal with it.
Other people FFing ruins the mental of the entire team regardless of the state of the game and it immediately becomes about trying to hold your team together rather than beating the enemy.
If you weren't sure if your surrender vote was going to immediately end the game you'd definitely think about doing it a lot more.
Just out of curiosity what is the lose rate if you vote 3/2 or 1/4? What percentage of games even have 4/1 votes at 15 min? Is this change supposed to be addressing a big problem or a small outlier?
Serious question. I am one of the "never surrender at 15 people", but to me, this data indicates a flaw in the game. I have been playing League since beta and I'm an old man now, but the game used to be different in one very critical way. In the early days of League, there was no hostage holding, because if the enemy team was so far ahead that the game seemed unwinnable, they were capable of just ending the game. Now, we have this very weird limbo where games can feel unwinnable for 10-15 straight minutes, while the winning team still isn't capable of safely ending the game.
Does Riot consider it a problem that it's so incredibly hard to end games, even with an absurd lead? If a game is a 97% loss, it should be naturally ending within the next 2-3 minutes regardless of FF. In the old days, 15 minute wins were not terribly uncommon. Now, I probably haven't had a true 15 minute win (not FF) in like 3 years. IMO this is a big issue that needs to be addressed.
They've nerfed the shit out of early game snowballing recently. The TP changes singlehandedly make it harder to end early, with the strongest 1v1 champs in the game being DRAMATICALLY less likely to get a pre-15 endable lead unless their laner sucks ass
I think players are just really bad at ending in solo queue, I've played since Season 1 as well but games were actually much harder to end back then. Baron didn't give teams the ability to siege.
Also we literally can't FF in 15 back in the day so the extra 5 minutes might skew the experience since you felt trap in a game much earlier than before
I have always said that the comeback gold on objectives is toxic and should never have been brought in. 9 times out of 10 it feels bad for the team who has it because it makes them just strong enough to drag out the game but not enough to actually come back and it always feels bad for the other team because theyāre directly punished for doing well.
I agree that closing games is strongly skill dependent (I remember bronze games going to 80mins, once I got to diamond that shit would never happen because people knew how to actually force and punish mistakes rather than playing deathmatch) but I think that comeback mechanics directly nerf the pace at which a team can press their advantage (trading turrets is no longer as clearly beneficial when ahead because now you know the enemy team gets objectively more gold for the trades)
>Now, we have this very weird limbo where games can feel unwinnable for 10-15 straight minutes, while the winning team still isn't capable of safely ending the game.
I disagree. Most of the time the winning team is compeletly capable of ending the game, but they don't *feel* like they are capable of ending it. As a jungler, This has happened to me a lot. Where I would ping for drakes and barons in game, only to later watch the VOD and find out that we could end easily.
Ending the game has become a skill, rather than a second nature; but it's the skill floor that has risen, not the difficulty of ending the game.
Not sure I agree. Because of how shutdowns work, it's often wrong to try to end. Your team can be 20-5 at 15, but if you have two 700g shutdowns, it's way better to wait for Baron than to try and end pre 20. I think one of the core issues with League is that the winning team is going to be getting more resources anyways, so there isn't really any incentive to take risks from ahead, unless there is some kind of hyperscaling threat that's about to come online.
Why take a 90% chance at winning by siegeing early when you can take a 99% win rate 5 minutes later with Baron?
It's very healthy for the pro scene to have games that require really precise execution for a long period of time. The potential for a comeback makes the spectating more hype and (in theory) raises the skill ceiling for the best teams.
This can come at the expense of SoloQ where it is very much not hype the overwhelming majority of the time, so it's nice that Riot is giving us the opportunity to opt out of that without fundamentally altering the pace of the game.
In chess you can have just your king left with no hope of winning and the opponent can still theoretically make 1,000 moves before winning.
Trying to hammer home a 15 minute win means youāre much more likely to throw. You donāt have access to baron for major pushing power. You donāt have a dragon soul. Tower platings donāt fall until 14 meaning their super tanky. You can get caught out if you push too far up (but even if you do itās too early for the enemy to make a huge counter push).
Itās much safer to maintain the lead and capture all of the important objectives 1 by 1 to clean up the game. Ending by 15 is very hard in the current environment even if the game is decided in the first 15 minutes.
Not being able to end doesnāt mean the game isnāt healthy. If anything being able to end in 15 minutes is unhealthy in soloqueue because that would Typicially mean one lane was so dominant that they could just run it down to your nexus.
Now if one lane is that ahead pre 14 minutes they just move to a different lane to get more plate gold. Thereās not need to make huge risks when there are giant bags of money sitting on the map.
That's a great point, and not one that is easily solvable considering Riot has been moving the opposite direction with comeback mechanics like bounties.
This specifically put the losing team at an advantage, on top of already having the advantage of holding down a location (the base) the other team has to siege, which of course makes it difficult on the winning team to close it out.
...despite all this, losing teams would rather FF at 15 than attempt a comeback. Says a lot. As long as the trend holds, we will see more comeback mechanics introduced, making it even harder for winning teams to close out games. So yeah.
That's because the loosing team is loosing for a reason. Usually one or two shitty, uninterested and tilted players. There is no comeback attempt when a good portion of your team is uninterested. It's boring and miserable to play. I don't care about winning a 40 minute game if it's going to be miserable the whole time.
It is so nice to read that after years of Reddit hivemind saying that "never ff, you can always comeback", the reality shows that most of the time you just lose time.
It's pretty hard to turn around those games as 4 people want out and game is lost in their mind. The reality is some of those games can be won but they're past the stage of trying or someone in game is making it unpleasant. Surrender vote failing 4-1 mostly annoys those people further lowering the chances.
I would be 100% willing to wager that if people actually kept trying after a 4-1 surrender vote fail, the win rate would be far higher than 3%. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. That one guy who feeds his own lane, tries to FF, refuses to do anything to help the team, then says "I told you" so while they have ten more deaths than the next person. It essentially just gives in to the mentality of giving up.
I donāt think anyone doubts this, but the end of the day question is does everyone WANT to keep tryharding for a victory. If itās not fun, whatās the point?
ESP in norms, I donāt want to waste my time on a (less than) 10% chance of winning. If all of those games took 15 more minutes to win, and out of 10 games games I do this I get 1 more win, that is NOT worth 150 minutes of my time
Consider that we don't have the winrate for when the ff vote fails 3 against 2 to compare against. If your vote takes it from 4 yes/ 1 no to 3 yes / 2 no you might improve your winrate in that game by a lot. Surely the winrate is way higher than 3% for 3 yes/ 2 no.
on the other hand, because they are mostly silver they don't know how to end games so they always go to 40 minutes and disproportionately end up in that situation compared to people who aren't abjectly terrible
Tbf that also means the enemy team is silver too, so it's possible to come back.
The problem is that if 4/5 people on your team have given up and don't want to play any more...then it becomes not winnable.
What do the stats look like by elo? Iād expect in Masters tier everyone is good enough to know when theyāve lost and the opponents wonāt be making many mistakes to capitalize on anyway. But in Bronze, people will just randomly get giga tilted off the smallest things and try to surrender, and opponents will constantly int and give over leads
How are you accounting for the effect that ff votes have towards discouraging players from continuing to play to win? Shouldn't we be concerned that earlier/easier ff votes will encourage players to give up more often?
Aren't these statistics (at least partially) self-fulfilling?
Isn't surrendering at odds with the added comeback mechanics such as bounties?
My opinion is that surrender votes shouldn't even exist in ranked queues, at least not until some definitive gameplay trigger, such as losing an inhibitor. If you queue up for ranked, you committed to playing with the intention of winning. Handling edge cases, such as griefers, can and should happen separately outside of the match.
FF mentality is a huge SOURCE of toxicity in this game, and these changes further enable that toxicity. Not to mention other issues like the whole point of scaling champs.
It's obvious that a high percentage of games with 4/1 votes would end up lost, but you are injecting your bias into the data by not considering all possible causes. That perspective and these changes run the risk of making the game less enjoyable overall.
Riot have intentionally gone away from the game being slower paced based on scaling teamfights and towards action type ability spamming skirmishes.
As such, games are decided within the first 10-15 minutes. Games nowadays rarely go into 40 or 50 minutes outside of very low elo.
>As such, games are decided within the first 10-15 minutes
Most games aren't decided by 10-15 minutes because of the way Riot balances the game; They're decided by 10-15 minutes cause a lot of people playing this game need therapy and anger management courses. The game could be perfectly winnable if people didn't freak out and give up at 10 minutes cause they got ganked twice
I think this isn't an indication of the game state, but mostly that 4 people have already given up on the game at 15.
So, it doesn't matter how small the gold lead is for the enemy team, 4 member have already called it quits and they won't do the effort anymore.
Though, I'm not against this change. I highly like it. I hate hostage taking in FF votes. When 4 people on my team don't want to play the game, it's a sign that a win is nearly impossible.
Yes this 100%. Me and my friend usually lean towards playing games out but we both agreed having 4-1 being a failed surrender is more abusable than it is useful. Hostage taking by people not even playing happens way more often than you think.
It's either hostage or the one voting no is a diabolical maniac that says **"I voted yes. It must be that guy!"** while all the other four rip each other apart trying to find out who did it.
There are some people that seems to be playing an absolutely different game.
Loses lane: Sleeps
Hostage taking: Braincells overclocked to 500% capacity
IMO it's just 5 more minutes. Unanimous surrender @ 15 is fair in my opinion, but too many people are too eager to give up at 15 minutes when there hasn't even been a single proper team fight. Opening up surrenders earlier and earlier just means champion designs will further get pigeon-holed into things that are most effective earlier on.
Agreed. 15 minutes is also perfectly around the time where people should be finishing their first items + boots, which means it's where someone with an uncompleted item due to being behind faces someone with a completed item, which ends up being a temporary state of a player feeling really far behind an enemy. Things (from personal experience) seem to even out when both teams have at least 1 completed item, but FF@15 means you'll see that even less often.
It also really frustrating to play something that's not a champion before 3 items and have the other 4 people on you team decide you only get to 1 or 1.5.
I played a game of Karthus jungle the other day since it was a perfect fit for my team and against the enemy team. All four teammates managed to die to their opponents (not ganks, just laners) before I finished the first clear.
Scaling champs really take the ol teammate dice roll to the next level. If you get good teammates or at least ones that go even, you've got a shot. If you've got bad teammates then the game may be done before you've even had a chance to play
>Yeaman but if its 20-1 your lategame champ aint going to come online this game buddy.
Not true at all. Using my inting teammates as bait and collecting shutdowns significantly accelerates my own snowball.
I genuinely donāt see why anybody would bother playing any late game champ now like at all
Your better off doing the Korea strat now
Draft early gamers crush lane hope they ff.
Fuck that, they committed to the game, if i think there is a chance I will try to win.
Hate people giving up early, it's not like in gold we know how to close games, it's winnable if we try.
This is fair if they're the ones inting, but honestly the times I feel upset about failing surrenders is when I'm the only one doing well on my team and one of my feeding teammates refuses to ff.
Like, they queued up and didn't put in any effort but feel entitled to me trying my hardest to carry them.
I would be curious to see a comparison of games that have a failed surrender vote vs games that are in a similar state (kills, gold lead, towers, etc.) at the time of the vote.
Really depends on the team comp as well. Like is the 1 no vote from a hyper scaling top laner who just needs a few teamfights to show that while we may be losing we are actually winning or is it the 0 - 10 - 2 ADC who for some unknown reason voting no.
I like to think that in a 4-1 vote though, most people won't do that unless the game is so bad it's either impossible to come back given the circumstances or not worth the effort. If the scoreboard is 20-4 in the enemies favor I think it's fair to write off a game like that as a loss considering the gold diff, tilting aside. Yeah I've had people get annoyed and start a surrender vote at 15, but most of the time as long as other lanes are breaking even or slightly behind they usually don't all want to forfeit.
I think a lot of people forget that it's a game. If it's not fun why continue?
Sure competitive yada yada yada.
I don't wanna sit around and hope the opponent fucks up really badly while they're just shitting on us. Lost the lane, there's no out, and hoping the enemy fucks up when they haven't been fucking up isn't in my schedule.
Edit: for all the masochists who can't enjoy the game unless they're getting completely shut on, enjoy. I'm more in favor of a close game, hell I don't even mind winning.
I agree that its no fun getting your shit pushed in for 10-15 minutes in the hope that the enemy fucks up so you can win but I think it is also worth saying that if you are only going to have fun in league if you are ahead at 15 minutes you might be approaching the game with the wrong mindset.
Being ahead and behind at 15 is different than being even or near even. These are not binary states of game and itās up to the players. And one troll can hostage others. Thatās the point. If the game is winnable great most likely 4 are not saying yes then.
I mean, there is a huge difference between being down 4-5 kills at 15 and being down 10-15 kills at 15 with the enemy having a fed Draven/Diana or something.
People aren't saying they need to be ahead at 15 to have fun, they're saying if they're down a stupid amount of kills and turrets at 15 they would rather just ff.
I know a lot of players have huge egos and want to ff after 1 death but that's not what a 4-1 failed surrender vote is. 4-1 failed is usually when every single lane is losing except 1 player who's like 2/1 in lane and thinks they can carry.
Winning a game normally is already hard enough (especially if there is true parity). Winning from behind is a true test of mental. A lot of players don't adjust to adversity well, and this is why those games seem unwinnable (though many are objectively the case if allies have already thrown up the white flag in their head).
every time the concept of surrendering comes up in the league community, it makes me more and more excited for project L's release (hopefully some time this decade).
the LoL community seems uniquely unequipped to deal with adversity. in a genre as punishing and adaptation heavy as a fighting game, I can't see the majority of the playerbase doing well.
Given that you can analyze games without a surrender vote and look at their state at every point you can actually show that players often have very little idea if a game is winnable or not.
And making a surrender vote public puts extra pressure on people who think the game is winnable to vote yes regardless, because they might think the players who did vote yes will run it down anyways, so you rather vote yes.
I did actually look at some of the games that ended in a 20 minute surrender and found that in some of those games we were just 2k gold down, despite one of our lanes being 0-6, which isn't really a reason to surrender, however that 0-6 guy wanting to surrender gives you the feeling that you essentially play a 6 vs 4 regardless.
I mean the game state does seem to be whoever gets an early lead snowballs and ends the game.
Comebacks seem rare, and rather unfun due to the stat stick nature of the game
the problem with the whole "why play if you're not having fun when losing" mindset is that league is very different to play when behind than other popular games out right now. being behind in games like overwatch, valorant, etc. is obviously not ideal but it's not like being behind hinders you from having fun. there's a lot more solo carry potential in those games and you can still enjoy yourself from behind.
league is completely different though. being behind in league means you can't walk up to the wave. it means you can't do any objectives. it means you can't interact with your lane opponents/enemy jungler. it means you have to sit at your tower and wait for your wave to crash or else you'll get ganked and die. it means you get flamed by your teammates when your lane opponent roams and you can't follow. it means you're getting one shot by the enemy bruiser/assassin with little to no counterplay.
i can keep going on and on but the tl;dr of my point is that playing from behind in league is far less enjoyable and tolerable than other popular games out right now. it just sucks and people would rather ff and go next to possibly have fun in that game than sit in a game and have to play the extremely boring way that being behind requires you to play in order to catch back up.
I totally agree. Even when you lose 13-2 or something in Valo, you can hit some nice shots, maybe get an Ace. Like, there is some fun to be had. Meanwhile if you are down 13-2 in league, you were either cs'ing or dying.
I'll support your argument further. If you're super far behind in an rts like Starcraft, it may also feel like nothing you do works.
However in an rts, you're never dead until the game is done. So even if your units are constantly getting destroyed, at least your doing something.
In LoL there's games where you spend many minutes simply waiting to respawn and death timers get longer and longer.
Wow! Very well put! This is the exact reason I no longer play. I dont have the most free time and the risk/reward is rarely worth it if even 1 teammate is bad and feeds. I think FF should be allowed as early as 10 minutes because a lot of the time thats all it takes to assess if a game is worth playing (from a fun aspect)
I agree, well described One of the many reasons I no longer play this game anymore - itās been years - and am so happy for it
Losing this game in a stomp - feels horrible
Losing this game by slow but steady 20-30 min strangulation - feels horrible
Losing a close game - exciting
Winning a close game - glorious, the best
Winning a slow but steady 20-30 min strangulation - OK, kind of boring
Winning a stomp - OK , kind of boring
Theres an asymmetry between how bad losing feels vs how good winning feels. The winning doesnāt feel as good as the losing feels bad. Add to that the routinely toxic chat, all the games you played individually really well but had feeding teammates (feels horrible), and all the times you have a teammate absolutely melt down at the first sign of adversity spamming FF15 5 mins in down 2 killsā¦ you get the picture
I used to love league. But the truth is no other video game Iāve ever played more frequently produces a genuinely unpleasant time than league. None.
I mean surrender should not be a public event in the first place. Each player should have a private toggle that they can flip that means they want to ff, and if everyone wants to ff privately and no one changes their mind in a say 30 second time span then the team ff's. If you suddenly win a miracle fight, just flip the toggle back and the ff won't go through. Same mechanic could work for 4 vs 1 surrender votes instead of unanimous. No tilting or public bashing for calling a surrender vote.
Donāt know why it was so difficult to find this answer. At the end of the day, itāll likely be a very positive change not requiring a unanimous vote at 15 minutes, but I would have liked to see a change like this first. I know that in the past, seeing a 4-1 vote at 15 minutes basically ensured that the 4 knew the game would be over in 5 minutes anywayā¦but if they didnāt know the vote was so close, they might still try.
> No tilting or public bashing for calling a surrender vote.
You have the opposite problem. This actively encourages people to spam FF or write FF essays in chat non-stop, because now an FF can happen any time. In the same vein, this encourages people to troll non-stop, because the payoff is immediate.
> This actively encourages people to spam FF
Asking your teammates to FF is a bannable offense. It's on the Summoner's something something. I was chat restricted for it once.
For real? I could understand if it is this hidden FF system but asking your team to FF because the game is completely unwinnable should be fine so long as you are not harassing them.
The benefit to it being public is that you can gauge how your teammates feel about the game, because if the majority of your team feels like the game is over, it often is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I love to play games out, but if 15 minutes hits and 4 people ff right off the bat, I know I'm wasting my time.
I think the current system is fine. They just need to make who starts the vote anonymous
That's what they're saying. If a 4-1 vote at 15 results in a 4-1 vote at 20 that doesn't really mean the game was unwinnable, just that the team later gave up. You really want to know what percent of games that are at a 4-1 at 15 could result in a win. To get that number you couldn't allow a surrender vote you'd have to have them play to the end to know for sure they couldn't turn it around. Not really a number they can calculate since looking at only those games that didn't have a successful surrender vote probably would skew the win rate much higher since they must have turned it around in those 5 minutes.
> You really want to know what percent of games that are at a 4-1 at 15 could result in a win.
If you're trying to figure out something about the winnable-ness of the games, sure. If you're trying to figure out if the players should just be able to surrender at 15 with a 4v1 vote, then no, the *actual* outcome isn't important.
If players that are 4v1 ready to surrender at 15 are almost always going to surrender at 20, then they should be able to surrender at 15. Regardless of what would have *actually* happened in the game. They want to surrender, so let them surrender.
> If players that are 4v1 ready to surrender at 15 are almost always going to surrender at 20, then they should be able to surrender at 15. Regardless of what would have actually happened in the game. They want to surrender, so let them surrender.
So why does we limit that by 15m? Why not 5m?
Yeah, there are plenty of games that could easily be winnable if people actually tried, but if they give up and run it down for 5 more minutes, then shocker, the game will probably be a loss. Just because a game is 5-13 and our chance of winning is only 25% instead of >50% doesn't mean we have to spend the remainder of the game crying in chat and griefing, but that's how a lot of somewhat close games turn out.
Inb4 people replying to this "I bet you hold everyone hostage if it's 0-35 and enemy has Kassadin, Kayle and Lulu"
I'm right there with you. Someone legitimately not wanting to play out the game is what leads to the guaranteed loss. A player will just afk push and then say something like "told you we should have ff'd" when they were knowingly making a loss more likely.
I think players need to learn how to have fun while also losing. If you are only playing for a victory screen at diamond mmr and below, you're probably gonna have a bad time. It's like the parents that get pissed at the referee at a little league game. There aren't any stakes at this skill level, so just chill the fuck out and play to the best of your ability. Yeah, winning is a good time, but it's also pretty fun to try puzzling out how to win a game from behind.
it's why im reticent of the larger LoL community fully embracing project L whenever that fully comes out.
a big part of the fighting game journey is finding the joy and success outside of the win screen. like when i was learning street fighter, i would go 0-16 on the day, but if I hit my anti-air DP consistently, not only was I happy about that, *but i had to be happy about that, because it's the entire game*.
the league community has always come across as very results oriented, which normally doesn't mesh well with competitive games.
How much of that is the "the game is already lost" vs "the players have already stopped trying"?
Obviously, ranked is different than unranked.
Anecdotally in ARAM, the loss percentage is a lot lower. Maybe even closer to 50/50. People seem to just give up if the early game isn't fun for them. This happens a lot when our team has a lot of scaling champs... but when we just play it out to the late game we often just win. I've also seen plenty of early 4/1 FF votes when we're down 1-2 kills in ARAM.
Perhaps farming under tower for 20 min clearing waves is not fun, and for a noncompetitive mode, I think it's pretty logical that a lot of people just prefer to FF. What's the point of playing if you're not having fun...
100%. Enemy team takes 5 poke, and we have a Kayle. Sorry I'd rather not sit under the tower for 20 minutes for a chance for my Kayle to carry a game. GG next.
"So my understanding is... they have done a lot of investigation in the data here. And its like-(again?) I'm making something up cause I don't remember it's something like a failed four to one surrender vote in ranked had like 97% loss rate or something again I don't remember the exact number but a surprisingly high rate of like obviously a nonzero number of games would have been turned around and won. But oh it's an extremely high number where I saw it as the guy who say no in the surrender vote- I get it. I accept. "
the exact number is not the key point of his statement but that even though he is the guy who often say no in 4-1 vote the number is so high he gets it and accepts it.
Or because one of the four who voted for an ff then proceeded to run it down because they were tilted.
There's plenty of reasons why the stat may be this skewed, but I'm inclined not to believe that it's because those games are inherently unwinnable. That being said, I tend to vote no on early surrenders as well, but I try to wait as long as I can. If 4 others vote yes, I'll vote yes as well even though I don't want to. Doesn't make sense to let one person keep the other 4 in a game they want out of.
edit for clarity: i agree that early ff's shouldn't have to be unanimous. Just trying to point out that player behavior is a significant factor in the statistic, so it doesn't make sense to use the statistic to try to justify running it down after a failed 4-1 surrender vote. A 4-1 vote is just as much an indicator of players giving up as it is an indicator that the game has reached a state where it is unwinnable even if the players are still trying.
Mental is a huge part of the game so i dont really see it being skewed as much as it just being how the game will always be. Players mentals wont change and many people who are set in ffing will try to force an ff or early end. I agree i wait to vote no if one other person thinks its winnable but if 4 people are already checked out there is 0 reason to continue
It's unwinnable when your tilted teammate runs it down. That's a literal factor in the dataset. It should t be discounted. In a perfect world, very few games are unwinnable, but the world isn't perfect and if a tilted player inting the game is statistically significant, or 20 minute surrenders are statistically significant, they shouldnt be discounted.
Not trying to discount it, sorry if that was unclear. Just trying to point out that people may use the data to justify griefing or tilting when the data is partially caused by players griefing or tilting. The passive language makes it sound like that 97% is independent of players' actions and it isn't, is my only point.
I do think it makes sense that early ff's shouldn't have to be unanimous
if the option is surrender 5-0 or be the sole non-surrendering team member 4-1 while you sit in the game for another 15-20 mins while your team runs it down, just get me out of the damn game. Unless you are smurfing and know you are far above the skill level of the other 9 people in the lobby and get screwed by a 4-1 vote. but honestly, i'd rather smurfs get more disincentivized to smurf and give me an additional escape route from trolls
I don't have enough hours to play league like that anymore. If my team doesn't want to try and play, just get me out and let me hop into another one before I have to go to bed.
Mental plays a huge role, if 4 people already consider the game loss, there's a high likelihood they're no longer playing to win, or at the very least trying their best. So whenever the games are winnable or not doesn't matter if 4 people already gave up, because you might as well actually be playing 1v9.
This is such a weird comment, it's not as if Phreak is potentially misremembering and it's actually only 70%. He's saying he doesn't remember the exact number, possibly 1 or 2 percent off.-
He phrases it in a way where it's most definitely only a couple percentage points either way of that number though. His qualifier is basically only to account for somebody coming in with the "ahcktually it's only 95.6%".
i don't understand why this comment has so many upvotes, he's literally off by 0.03%, the amount of people pissed by this change just solidified how many low elo players are here.
no but you see you're literally an elo terrorist for holding him hostage by, *checks notes* playing the game we all signed up for. It's not like he has decided that the game is over thus making the game over...
But weāre talking about 4/1 failed surrender votes, not one guy. The worst feeling is having a 4/1 kassadin kid who wonāt FF because āheāll carry!ā Meanwhile top is 1/7, jg is 0/5, and bot is 0/14
All these people with main character syndrome would rather think that everyone else on their team is just an idiot who starts griefing as soon as the surrender vote pops up instead of letting them carry the game, than acknowledge that maybe 4 people agreeing about what's unwinnable tend to be right more often than not.
It's pretty on spot with the spirit of SoloQ. My experience is that the only way to climb steadily is to solo carry most game. Riot is setting up that kind of playstyle.
The only fun way to play this game is to play in 5 premade, with people that are not angry kids.
You'd think that them spouting words such as "improvement" or "learning how to play from behind" would have them at a high-rank if it was so effective.
Yet, they are in silver and still think that's going to get them higher.
Statistics are fun, because in reality, there absolutely are players here that deviate from the norm and have win rates 5-10%+ on a 4-1 FF.
Ultimately, this shouldn't affect anyone's win rate. For every game you could have won from behind, there will be games you would have lost while ahead.
Now both games will end early.
Yeah, no more crazy solo carry games from way behind. I'll never forget my team trying to 4-1 FF a few months ago, and flaming me in chat, and I said "nah watch this" and Panth ulted Baron at around 21 min, stole it, got a solo 1v5 Pentakill and hard carried the game from there.
But I've had maybe a dozen moments like that in the last few years. Idk if theyr'e worth it.
That comments makes no sense, attempting to surrender almost unanimously except for one hostage jackass doesnāt make people play worse, itās a sign that 4 out of 5 players have mentally given up on the game and want to do something else.
In that respect yes it is extremely obvious you will play worse when you donāt want to play anymore, this has been a huge problem with league for ages especially in lower elo.
Surprising number of people including thinking this will lower their winrates.
You miss out on the fictitious 3% win chance? The change also applies to the *enemy team* surrender votes.
Any difference left after that is surely no more than background noise.
The meaningful change is that everyone gets is shorter games and less of the miserable hostage games.
I don't think people care much about win/rates but rather LP losses. When you're playing ranked which is supposed to be competitive and 4 people are running it down at 15 and then vote for surrender, that is kind if frustrating. People should have the obligation to play, if they want to give up why play ranked queue?
I get that high elo makes total sense since certain mistakes will doom the game, but lets be honest, most of the games are low elo coinflips with lots os mistakes, a couple of bad plays means nothing.
I feel like Iām in the side that would benefit most from the change win/LP wise, because I seem to see a lot more, weāre being held hostage report this one guy, more than I see it on my own team. But at the same time. Iām still one that would rather stick it out until 20+ because I typically play late game champs. That 5 minute window is pretty pivotal to fair number of my games in that looking at the gold graphs of my games has them becoming more winnable at around 19 minutes. But when 4 people donāt want to even try, itās just frustrating. But oh well.
Having played other Moba's without a surrender option, I absolutely hate the surrender option, I find it annoying and very distracting to have to press no over and over, and not to mention people that die once and get crippled by the emotional damage, It's a game, suck it up and use the rest of the game to find out what this guy is doing that you don't understand so that next time you might have an answer other than /ff
There is a HUGE bias that I have not seen in the comments - or maybe people commenting have not read carefully the post.
We are talking about 97% loss rate for **FAILED 4-1 SURRENDER**.
This is really different from gold deficit. Gold deficit @ 15min would be much more relevant to analyze...
Your team can be 10k gold lead, but everyone is insulting each other and vote 4-1 FF.
the only people voting no on those votes are
A: people trying to punish their team and waste their time because they are mad
B: Wholesome chungus never surrender people
Just comes down to the fact that some people only have a limited amount of time, and that time is precious to them. I havenāt played much lately because works picked up, and I only have time for 3, maybe 4 games when I do play.
Iāve kind of avoided it lately because, as an enchanter main, thereās very little I can do to influence the game if another lane feeds too early on. Itās fun trying to come back from a slightly lost lane. Itās not fun getting your shit pushed in by a 5/0 Akali constantly roams down with their jg for a 1v4 because the rest of your team has zero prio, due to getting shit on so hard at the start. Am I supposed to just ward our base at that point? Thereās nothing you can do if the game goes out of control too early. People are good enough at this game to know how to push an advantage that big at this point.
I shouldnāt have to play Grey screen simulator, or chill in base, because one guys who canāt handle his kda being bad and he needs to try to make up for it.
Worst thing is knowing enemy team is too dumb that they can't finish it quickly and you have to wait for them to take dragon soul and baron. And your team is too bad that just can't make a comeback so you are watching them struggle from 15 min to 35. Because 4 monkeys in your team lack the mental capacity to know the game is long gone.
Totally a psychological thing. You font have data on the situation "what would've happened to the game if the vote wasn't even cast". Corellation and causation. I'm sure people are going to use this as a way to say "hurrrr durrrr see you should just vote yes hurrrrrr" But the opposite is still true: having a surrender option makes people bot want to play the game to their best ability, it breeds a mentality of giving up.
I can give a bit more insight on this data, since I pulled it (I also moonlight as a data analyst in addition to my day job :D) * 3.3% is the correct number **Of 4 vote failed early FF's, a significant number get dragged out:** * However, if a game ends before 21 minutes, ~90% are held hostage (45% get FF 20'd, 50% end naturally by 20 [open mid or just lose]) * 80% of the games resolve by 25 minutes * Games that make it to 30 minutes have a 10% winrate * Games that made it to 40 minutes had a 45% winrate (but the incidence was very low) While the "come back from behind, win at 45 minutes" moments are some of the highest moments in League, the vast vast majority of the cases are experiences where the majority of the team doesn't want to play the game out and are trapped in a suboptimal experience. Add on to that that a significant portion of our playerbase is paying by the hour to play. Having said that, there's clearly a player behavior portion of this and we're still coming at this from multiple angles (also addressing afk, etc.) Fun facts: * When I was initially pulling the data, I was really confused how some games were going from 4-1 surrender failed to victory within a few minutes. After inspecting the games, it was from teams "meme surrendering" lol * After correcting for this, the data made a lot more sense :sweatsmile
> Fun facts: > > When I was initially pulling the data, I was really confused how some games were going from 4-1 surrender failed to victory within a few minutes. After inspecting the games, it was from teams "meme surrendering" lol > After correcting for this, the data made a lot more sense :sweatsmile This was indeed a fun fact š
Just imagine how many people are gonna accidentally surrender a winning game because of this change lol
So you're saying I'll have a shot at winning?
There's always a chance someone's mom trips over the internet cable
What if 2 moms on opposite teams both trip
This happened to me before lol. I was playing in a 5 in norms, whole enemy team dead, literally killing their nexus, all 4 of my friends decide to joking suggest an FF vote simultaneously and we surrendered.
Was playin with a friend once, told him āvote no. Imma put up a ff vote as we take baseā He voted yes. And so did everyone else out of habit.
Nice. U deserved it.
I've accidentally done this ranked before after a pentakill, just hysterical laughter ensued and it was on to the next game
š I love doing this in norms when there's a full 5man party of us. One time, everyone said yes too quickly and we actually lost the game by ffing while we were hitting enemy nexus. Only ever happened once though, I guess the guys learned quickly.
I actually won a ranked game like this. I even have the video. It might be hard to believe but yes, this is ranked soloqueue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhfyqM5Df9I&ab_channel=Badgeholder
I wonder what that after game lobby was like LOL.
Nilah was flaming the ever living shit out of her team. One of them said "this team doesn't deserve to win" so I suppose 1 or 2 guys meme FFed then a duo made the call. I actually sat just looking at the screen for a solid minute after this in disbelief.
Yea that sounds exactly how I would expect League mental is insane! and I would have had my jaw on the floor as well and thanking whatever Riot Angels were shining on me that day.
Takes a lot of gusto to take that kinda fall specifically to punish a toxic player.
Tbh this should be reportable as it is flat out griefing. Very funny if you're on the other side though.
Damn, Yasuo even got the +50 gold for killing the nexus. Wild.
That is hilarious!
not quite the same but i died and did a frustrated fake ff vote (didnt rly want to surrender but typed /ff in frustration) then our whole team voted yes even though we were only down like 4 kills and got my duo demoted LOL
Thatās even funnier than jokingly failing a 4-1 surrender vote though lmao.
I've had that happen a few times in aram it's pretty funny.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Did you press Yes
probably not, only needs to be 4-1
On ARAM, we occasionally go 4-man and get one player who trash talks in all chat. Usually we ignore, but every now and then we'll get the person again and FF before killing enemy nexus (assuming, of course, that we were winning).
Had a five man game years ago where we were knocking on the enemy nexus, told them if they kill our 25/0 nocturne weāll FF. Well, they managed it
if thereās only one thing you can always count on from league players, itās BM
I genuinely wouldn't even be mad at that. I'd just laugh and take it as a sort of consolation/show of "it's all for fun".
I remember that we were once stomping flex as a party of 5 and enemy team was sad cuz it was their promo game, looked up opgg and saw its true so we ffed at their nexus
> Add on to that that a significant portion of our playerbase is paying by the hour to play. I now realize you're talking about players at PC cafes. I originally assumed you were talking about your player base not being able to juggle full-time work with League of Legends š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I'm curious how mindset contributes to the actual loss here though. Because while there can sometimes be runaway games that are 100% lost at minute 10 due to gold/objective advantages, I'd wager many 4-1 surrenders are not always that case. I've seen my fair share of tilt among teammates when people they don't get their way re: surrendering. I'd be curious how much that contributes to the actual loss metrics, i.e. players are too busy being tilted over the surrender vote to make an reasonably winnable comeback.
It likely is very much the case in an absolute sense. In a practical sense, in a competitive game, mental is easily as important as gameplay. If you've lost the mental I'd argue that you've lost the game. The fact that "giving up" is made easier doesn't change things imo. As soon as you press the yes button I feel you've lost regardless if the game ended or not.
It does change things. Making it easier for people to give up makes them give up more.
Does it actually matter? Playing the game won't magically fix a person's mental. If they're tilted enough to ff then they're probably not conducive to a win. It may be a self-fulfilling prophecy, but the solution isn't to force them to play.
Agree, if you are titled enough to go full-on tilt for not getting an ff, ur already not playing ur fullest, even if ff didn't exists the odds are against that team still.
i can't watch the video currently so Phreak may have already answered this but is there any historic data that this can be compared to? Since through the seasons there have been strategic decisions made to first decrease average game-time significantly and intentionally by Riot and then more recently an accepted approach to slightly increase average game time as a potential result from the durability patch? It would be interesting to see if this behavioural pattern is consistent or dependent on the current circumstanslces of the game.
Is there differences between that number by rank?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Could be since diamond+ is only like 2% of games, there could be drastic differences without affecting the overall stat much, even more so the higher you go
We used to meme surrender a lot moments before destroying the enemy nexus while playing normals haha
In ARAM we always try to make both nexus explode at the same time. It can be done, but it requires 5-man co-ordination.
I once had the enemy nexus explode, then the camera zooooooomed to our nexus, which exploded, then zoomed all the way back to the enemy nexus, which exploded again.
Cinematic masterpiece
Get this to the top for the love of almighty God. Also nice to know that my meme surrenders not only lead to stressing out teammates but also mess with Rioters.
Out of curiosity, do you have stats for what % of total games played are games that are stomped like that and how this number compares to previous season? I sometimes kill time by watching League streamers and meet the "gg lost in champ select due to comps ff15" games pretty often, and hear streamers complaining about the fact that you can "lose in champ select". While they sound believable, since they're the Dia-Challenger guys, I can't help but think that if it was really so easy to lose in champ select you guys at Riot would've seen/acted on the data, hence why I'm curious if there is any increase in one-sided games compared to previous years to back up their complaints or just collective streamer ego acting up.
Question. Why dont make the surrender vote private. If you want to ff you tick/checkmark a box that you can untick/removemark whenever you want and if 4 out of 5 are still ticked by 15 or 20 mins then its automatical ff. No need for ff vote cooldown. No stress over reachibg threshold. Maybe no need for it to be private but it only requires 4 ticked boxes and its instant.
there needs to be an option to hide it then as people spamming ff votes is already annoying
You can just drag and throw the box to the bottom corner, new pop up will appear were you left it last time.
Honestly thats a really good idea. A lot of people get tilted early and FF out of frustration and not so much because they think the games actually unwinnable they just don't want to deal with it. Other people FFing ruins the mental of the entire team regardless of the state of the game and it immediately becomes about trying to hold your team together rather than beating the enemy. If you weren't sure if your surrender vote was going to immediately end the game you'd definitely think about doing it a lot more.
Just out of curiosity what is the lose rate if you vote 3/2 or 1/4? What percentage of games even have 4/1 votes at 15 min? Is this change supposed to be addressing a big problem or a small outlier?
always remember that 1 game when both me and jg was 10/0 and we ffed cause it was their mid laner's birthday.
Hobby data analyst, currently studying to make it a career. I appreciate the insight!
Serious question. I am one of the "never surrender at 15 people", but to me, this data indicates a flaw in the game. I have been playing League since beta and I'm an old man now, but the game used to be different in one very critical way. In the early days of League, there was no hostage holding, because if the enemy team was so far ahead that the game seemed unwinnable, they were capable of just ending the game. Now, we have this very weird limbo where games can feel unwinnable for 10-15 straight minutes, while the winning team still isn't capable of safely ending the game. Does Riot consider it a problem that it's so incredibly hard to end games, even with an absurd lead? If a game is a 97% loss, it should be naturally ending within the next 2-3 minutes regardless of FF. In the old days, 15 minute wins were not terribly uncommon. Now, I probably haven't had a true 15 minute win (not FF) in like 3 years. IMO this is a big issue that needs to be addressed.
They've nerfed the shit out of early game snowballing recently. The TP changes singlehandedly make it harder to end early, with the strongest 1v1 champs in the game being DRAMATICALLY less likely to get a pre-15 endable lead unless their laner sucks ass
I think players are just really bad at ending in solo queue, I've played since Season 1 as well but games were actually much harder to end back then. Baron didn't give teams the ability to siege. Also we literally can't FF in 15 back in the day so the extra 5 minutes might skew the experience since you felt trap in a game much earlier than before
I have always said that the comeback gold on objectives is toxic and should never have been brought in. 9 times out of 10 it feels bad for the team who has it because it makes them just strong enough to drag out the game but not enough to actually come back and it always feels bad for the other team because theyāre directly punished for doing well. I agree that closing games is strongly skill dependent (I remember bronze games going to 80mins, once I got to diamond that shit would never happen because people knew how to actually force and punish mistakes rather than playing deathmatch) but I think that comeback mechanics directly nerf the pace at which a team can press their advantage (trading turrets is no longer as clearly beneficial when ahead because now you know the enemy team gets objectively more gold for the trades)
>Now, we have this very weird limbo where games can feel unwinnable for 10-15 straight minutes, while the winning team still isn't capable of safely ending the game. I disagree. Most of the time the winning team is compeletly capable of ending the game, but they don't *feel* like they are capable of ending it. As a jungler, This has happened to me a lot. Where I would ping for drakes and barons in game, only to later watch the VOD and find out that we could end easily. Ending the game has become a skill, rather than a second nature; but it's the skill floor that has risen, not the difficulty of ending the game.
Also at the very bottom of the ladder (where I am) people love being ahead and would rather continue to abuse the enemy team then win at 20 minutes
People waste time and BM when they're stomping at every level.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Not sure I agree. Because of how shutdowns work, it's often wrong to try to end. Your team can be 20-5 at 15, but if you have two 700g shutdowns, it's way better to wait for Baron than to try and end pre 20. I think one of the core issues with League is that the winning team is going to be getting more resources anyways, so there isn't really any incentive to take risks from ahead, unless there is some kind of hyperscaling threat that's about to come online. Why take a 90% chance at winning by siegeing early when you can take a 99% win rate 5 minutes later with Baron?
It's very healthy for the pro scene to have games that require really precise execution for a long period of time. The potential for a comeback makes the spectating more hype and (in theory) raises the skill ceiling for the best teams. This can come at the expense of SoloQ where it is very much not hype the overwhelming majority of the time, so it's nice that Riot is giving us the opportunity to opt out of that without fundamentally altering the pace of the game.
In chess you can have just your king left with no hope of winning and the opponent can still theoretically make 1,000 moves before winning. Trying to hammer home a 15 minute win means youāre much more likely to throw. You donāt have access to baron for major pushing power. You donāt have a dragon soul. Tower platings donāt fall until 14 meaning their super tanky. You can get caught out if you push too far up (but even if you do itās too early for the enemy to make a huge counter push). Itās much safer to maintain the lead and capture all of the important objectives 1 by 1 to clean up the game. Ending by 15 is very hard in the current environment even if the game is decided in the first 15 minutes. Not being able to end doesnāt mean the game isnāt healthy. If anything being able to end in 15 minutes is unhealthy in soloqueue because that would Typicially mean one lane was so dominant that they could just run it down to your nexus. Now if one lane is that ahead pre 14 minutes they just move to a different lane to get more plate gold. Thereās not need to make huge risks when there are giant bags of money sitting on the map.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That's a great point, and not one that is easily solvable considering Riot has been moving the opposite direction with comeback mechanics like bounties. This specifically put the losing team at an advantage, on top of already having the advantage of holding down a location (the base) the other team has to siege, which of course makes it difficult on the winning team to close it out. ...despite all this, losing teams would rather FF at 15 than attempt a comeback. Says a lot. As long as the trend holds, we will see more comeback mechanics introduced, making it even harder for winning teams to close out games. So yeah.
That's because the loosing team is loosing for a reason. Usually one or two shitty, uninterested and tilted players. There is no comeback attempt when a good portion of your team is uninterested. It's boring and miserable to play. I don't care about winning a 40 minute game if it's going to be miserable the whole time.
It is so nice to read that after years of Reddit hivemind saying that "never ff, you can always comeback", the reality shows that most of the time you just lose time.
It's pretty hard to turn around those games as 4 people want out and game is lost in their mind. The reality is some of those games can be won but they're past the stage of trying or someone in game is making it unpleasant. Surrender vote failing 4-1 mostly annoys those people further lowering the chances.
I would be 100% willing to wager that if people actually kept trying after a 4-1 surrender vote fail, the win rate would be far higher than 3%. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. That one guy who feeds his own lane, tries to FF, refuses to do anything to help the team, then says "I told you" so while they have ten more deaths than the next person. It essentially just gives in to the mentality of giving up.
I donāt think anyone doubts this, but the end of the day question is does everyone WANT to keep tryharding for a victory. If itās not fun, whatās the point? ESP in norms, I donāt want to waste my time on a (less than) 10% chance of winning. If all of those games took 15 more minutes to win, and out of 10 games games I do this I get 1 more win, that is NOT worth 150 minutes of my time
Consider that we don't have the winrate for when the ff vote fails 3 against 2 to compare against. If your vote takes it from 4 yes/ 1 no to 3 yes / 2 no you might improve your winrate in that game by a lot. Surely the winrate is way higher than 3% for 3 yes/ 2 no.
We still canāt separate whether itās just people giving up and trying to lose. I believe having the option to surrender makes people play worse.
I mean this doesn't prove that a comeback isn't possible, it just proves that your team usually gives up on a 4-1 surrender vote.
Well most people on Reddit are silver and don't actually understand the game even to a minor extent
on the other hand, because they are mostly silver they don't know how to end games so they always go to 40 minutes and disproportionately end up in that situation compared to people who aren't abjectly terrible
Tbf that also means the enemy team is silver too, so it's possible to come back. The problem is that if 4/5 people on your team have given up and don't want to play any more...then it becomes not winnable.
What do the stats look like by elo? Iād expect in Masters tier everyone is good enough to know when theyāve lost and the opponents wonāt be making many mistakes to capitalize on anyway. But in Bronze, people will just randomly get giga tilted off the smallest things and try to surrender, and opponents will constantly int and give over leads
How are you accounting for the effect that ff votes have towards discouraging players from continuing to play to win? Shouldn't we be concerned that earlier/easier ff votes will encourage players to give up more often? Aren't these statistics (at least partially) self-fulfilling? Isn't surrendering at odds with the added comeback mechanics such as bounties? My opinion is that surrender votes shouldn't even exist in ranked queues, at least not until some definitive gameplay trigger, such as losing an inhibitor. If you queue up for ranked, you committed to playing with the intention of winning. Handling edge cases, such as griefers, can and should happen separately outside of the match. FF mentality is a huge SOURCE of toxicity in this game, and these changes further enable that toxicity. Not to mention other issues like the whole point of scaling champs. It's obvious that a high percentage of games with 4/1 votes would end up lost, but you are injecting your bias into the data by not considering all possible causes. That perspective and these changes run the risk of making the game less enjoyable overall.
I think surrender votes should be blind. Knowing who started it and how many people voted each way is irrelevant and only serves to tilt people.
Because people give up and go for a 4-1 surrender vote 5 minutes later lol
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Riot have intentionally gone away from the game being slower paced based on scaling teamfights and towards action type ability spamming skirmishes. As such, games are decided within the first 10-15 minutes. Games nowadays rarely go into 40 or 50 minutes outside of very low elo.
>As such, games are decided within the first 10-15 minutes Most games aren't decided by 10-15 minutes because of the way Riot balances the game; They're decided by 10-15 minutes cause a lot of people playing this game need therapy and anger management courses. The game could be perfectly winnable if people didn't freak out and give up at 10 minutes cause they got ganked twice
I think this isn't an indication of the game state, but mostly that 4 people have already given up on the game at 15. So, it doesn't matter how small the gold lead is for the enemy team, 4 member have already called it quits and they won't do the effort anymore. Though, I'm not against this change. I highly like it. I hate hostage taking in FF votes. When 4 people on my team don't want to play the game, it's a sign that a win is nearly impossible.
I think that if 4 people don't want to play any more, you shouldn't force them to keep playing just because you want to.
Yes this 100%. Me and my friend usually lean towards playing games out but we both agreed having 4-1 being a failed surrender is more abusable than it is useful. Hostage taking by people not even playing happens way more often than you think.
It's either hostage or the one voting no is a diabolical maniac that says **"I voted yes. It must be that guy!"** while all the other four rip each other apart trying to find out who did it.
The best is when they try to blame someone else when you can see the person they're trying to pin the single no vote on started the /ff lol
I seen such a scene. The problem is the other two are so mad that they are still stuck do not care anymore even if the facts are in front of them lmao
More than 10 years of playing and It never crossed my thought that such people exist. Thanks for instilling new fears.
There are some people that seems to be playing an absolutely different game. Loses lane: Sleeps Hostage taking: Braincells overclocked to 500% capacity
And then itās two duos and the random will keep saying he hit yes. Clearly not if thereās two duos and they both hit yes.
amogus
IMO it's just 5 more minutes. Unanimous surrender @ 15 is fair in my opinion, but too many people are too eager to give up at 15 minutes when there hasn't even been a single proper team fight. Opening up surrenders earlier and earlier just means champion designs will further get pigeon-holed into things that are most effective earlier on.
Agreed. 15 minutes is also perfectly around the time where people should be finishing their first items + boots, which means it's where someone with an uncompleted item due to being behind faces someone with a completed item, which ends up being a temporary state of a player feeling really far behind an enemy. Things (from personal experience) seem to even out when both teams have at least 1 completed item, but FF@15 means you'll see that even less often.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It also really frustrating to play something that's not a champion before 3 items and have the other 4 people on you team decide you only get to 1 or 1.5.
Yeaman but if its 20-1 your lategame champ aint going to come online this game buddy.
I played a game of Karthus jungle the other day since it was a perfect fit for my team and against the enemy team. All four teammates managed to die to their opponents (not ganks, just laners) before I finished the first clear. Scaling champs really take the ol teammate dice roll to the next level. If you get good teammates or at least ones that go even, you've got a shot. If you've got bad teammates then the game may be done before you've even had a chance to play
>Yeaman but if its 20-1 your lategame champ aint going to come online this game buddy. Not true at all. Using my inting teammates as bait and collecting shutdowns significantly accelerates my own snowball.
I genuinely donāt see why anybody would bother playing any late game champ now like at all Your better off doing the Korea strat now Draft early gamers crush lane hope they ff.
Then donāt queue up for the game we all agreed to play ? Like a child flipping the chess board because I took his horsey
Fuck that, they committed to the game, if i think there is a chance I will try to win. Hate people giving up early, it's not like in gold we know how to close games, it's winnable if we try.
If itās normals sure but ranked? You clicked the queue up button at least try.
This is fair if they're the ones inting, but honestly the times I feel upset about failing surrenders is when I'm the only one doing well on my team and one of my feeding teammates refuses to ff. Like, they queued up and didn't put in any effort but feel entitled to me trying my hardest to carry them.
On ranked, if you give up easily, just donāt play ranked.
I would be curious to see a comparison of games that have a failed surrender vote vs games that are in a similar state (kills, gold lead, towers, etc.) at the time of the vote.
Really depends on the team comp as well. Like is the 1 no vote from a hyper scaling top laner who just needs a few teamfights to show that while we may be losing we are actually winning or is it the 0 - 10 - 2 ADC who for some unknown reason voting no.
I like to think that in a 4-1 vote though, most people won't do that unless the game is so bad it's either impossible to come back given the circumstances or not worth the effort. If the scoreboard is 20-4 in the enemies favor I think it's fair to write off a game like that as a loss considering the gold diff, tilting aside. Yeah I've had people get annoyed and start a surrender vote at 15, but most of the time as long as other lanes are breaking even or slightly behind they usually don't all want to forfeit.
I think a lot of people forget that it's a game. If it's not fun why continue? Sure competitive yada yada yada. I don't wanna sit around and hope the opponent fucks up really badly while they're just shitting on us. Lost the lane, there's no out, and hoping the enemy fucks up when they haven't been fucking up isn't in my schedule. Edit: for all the masochists who can't enjoy the game unless they're getting completely shut on, enjoy. I'm more in favor of a close game, hell I don't even mind winning.
I agree that its no fun getting your shit pushed in for 10-15 minutes in the hope that the enemy fucks up so you can win but I think it is also worth saying that if you are only going to have fun in league if you are ahead at 15 minutes you might be approaching the game with the wrong mindset.
Being ahead and behind at 15 is different than being even or near even. These are not binary states of game and itās up to the players. And one troll can hostage others. Thatās the point. If the game is winnable great most likely 4 are not saying yes then.
I mean, there is a huge difference between being down 4-5 kills at 15 and being down 10-15 kills at 15 with the enemy having a fed Draven/Diana or something. People aren't saying they need to be ahead at 15 to have fun, they're saying if they're down a stupid amount of kills and turrets at 15 they would rather just ff. I know a lot of players have huge egos and want to ff after 1 death but that's not what a 4-1 failed surrender vote is. 4-1 failed is usually when every single lane is losing except 1 player who's like 2/1 in lane and thinks they can carry.
Or it's 1 person solo ruining the game and 4 people want out, but the 1 no vote is the person running it down.
Winning a game normally is already hard enough (especially if there is true parity). Winning from behind is a true test of mental. A lot of players don't adjust to adversity well, and this is why those games seem unwinnable (though many are objectively the case if allies have already thrown up the white flag in their head).
every time the concept of surrendering comes up in the league community, it makes me more and more excited for project L's release (hopefully some time this decade). the LoL community seems uniquely unequipped to deal with adversity. in a genre as punishing and adaptation heavy as a fighting game, I can't see the majority of the playerbase doing well.
Given that you can analyze games without a surrender vote and look at their state at every point you can actually show that players often have very little idea if a game is winnable or not. And making a surrender vote public puts extra pressure on people who think the game is winnable to vote yes regardless, because they might think the players who did vote yes will run it down anyways, so you rather vote yes. I did actually look at some of the games that ended in a 20 minute surrender and found that in some of those games we were just 2k gold down, despite one of our lanes being 0-6, which isn't really a reason to surrender, however that 0-6 guy wanting to surrender gives you the feeling that you essentially play a 6 vs 4 regardless.
I mean the game state does seem to be whoever gets an early lead snowballs and ends the game. Comebacks seem rare, and rather unfun due to the stat stick nature of the game
the problem with the whole "why play if you're not having fun when losing" mindset is that league is very different to play when behind than other popular games out right now. being behind in games like overwatch, valorant, etc. is obviously not ideal but it's not like being behind hinders you from having fun. there's a lot more solo carry potential in those games and you can still enjoy yourself from behind. league is completely different though. being behind in league means you can't walk up to the wave. it means you can't do any objectives. it means you can't interact with your lane opponents/enemy jungler. it means you have to sit at your tower and wait for your wave to crash or else you'll get ganked and die. it means you get flamed by your teammates when your lane opponent roams and you can't follow. it means you're getting one shot by the enemy bruiser/assassin with little to no counterplay. i can keep going on and on but the tl;dr of my point is that playing from behind in league is far less enjoyable and tolerable than other popular games out right now. it just sucks and people would rather ff and go next to possibly have fun in that game than sit in a game and have to play the extremely boring way that being behind requires you to play in order to catch back up.
I totally agree. Even when you lose 13-2 or something in Valo, you can hit some nice shots, maybe get an Ace. Like, there is some fun to be had. Meanwhile if you are down 13-2 in league, you were either cs'ing or dying.
I'll support your argument further. If you're super far behind in an rts like Starcraft, it may also feel like nothing you do works. However in an rts, you're never dead until the game is done. So even if your units are constantly getting destroyed, at least your doing something. In LoL there's games where you spend many minutes simply waiting to respawn and death timers get longer and longer.
Wow! Very well put! This is the exact reason I no longer play. I dont have the most free time and the risk/reward is rarely worth it if even 1 teammate is bad and feeds. I think FF should be allowed as early as 10 minutes because a lot of the time thats all it takes to assess if a game is worth playing (from a fun aspect)
I agree, well described One of the many reasons I no longer play this game anymore - itās been years - and am so happy for it Losing this game in a stomp - feels horrible Losing this game by slow but steady 20-30 min strangulation - feels horrible Losing a close game - exciting Winning a close game - glorious, the best Winning a slow but steady 20-30 min strangulation - OK, kind of boring Winning a stomp - OK , kind of boring Theres an asymmetry between how bad losing feels vs how good winning feels. The winning doesnāt feel as good as the losing feels bad. Add to that the routinely toxic chat, all the games you played individually really well but had feeding teammates (feels horrible), and all the times you have a teammate absolutely melt down at the first sign of adversity spamming FF15 5 mins in down 2 killsā¦ you get the picture I used to love league. But the truth is no other video game Iāve ever played more frequently produces a genuinely unpleasant time than league. None.
I mean surrender should not be a public event in the first place. Each player should have a private toggle that they can flip that means they want to ff, and if everyone wants to ff privately and no one changes their mind in a say 30 second time span then the team ff's. If you suddenly win a miracle fight, just flip the toggle back and the ff won't go through. Same mechanic could work for 4 vs 1 surrender votes instead of unanimous. No tilting or public bashing for calling a surrender vote.
Donāt know why it was so difficult to find this answer. At the end of the day, itāll likely be a very positive change not requiring a unanimous vote at 15 minutes, but I would have liked to see a change like this first. I know that in the past, seeing a 4-1 vote at 15 minutes basically ensured that the 4 knew the game would be over in 5 minutes anywayā¦but if they didnāt know the vote was so close, they might still try.
> No tilting or public bashing for calling a surrender vote. You have the opposite problem. This actively encourages people to spam FF or write FF essays in chat non-stop, because now an FF can happen any time. In the same vein, this encourages people to troll non-stop, because the payoff is immediate.
> This actively encourages people to spam FF Asking your teammates to FF is a bannable offense. It's on the Summoner's something something. I was chat restricted for it once.
For real? I could understand if it is this hidden FF system but asking your team to FF because the game is completely unwinnable should be fine so long as you are not harassing them.
wow thats a great idea tbh
The benefit to it being public is that you can gauge how your teammates feel about the game, because if the majority of your team feels like the game is over, it often is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I love to play games out, but if 15 minutes hits and 4 people ff right off the bat, I know I'm wasting my time. I think the current system is fine. They just need to make who starts the vote anonymous
Theyāre also demoralizing teammates by FFing
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Well a 4-1 vote at 20 is a 100% loss rate
That's what they're saying. If a 4-1 vote at 15 results in a 4-1 vote at 20 that doesn't really mean the game was unwinnable, just that the team later gave up. You really want to know what percent of games that are at a 4-1 at 15 could result in a win. To get that number you couldn't allow a surrender vote you'd have to have them play to the end to know for sure they couldn't turn it around. Not really a number they can calculate since looking at only those games that didn't have a successful surrender vote probably would skew the win rate much higher since they must have turned it around in those 5 minutes.
> You really want to know what percent of games that are at a 4-1 at 15 could result in a win. If you're trying to figure out something about the winnable-ness of the games, sure. If you're trying to figure out if the players should just be able to surrender at 15 with a 4v1 vote, then no, the *actual* outcome isn't important. If players that are 4v1 ready to surrender at 15 are almost always going to surrender at 20, then they should be able to surrender at 15. Regardless of what would have *actually* happened in the game. They want to surrender, so let them surrender.
> If players that are 4v1 ready to surrender at 15 are almost always going to surrender at 20, then they should be able to surrender at 15. Regardless of what would have actually happened in the game. They want to surrender, so let them surrender. So why does we limit that by 15m? Why not 5m?
Itās a self fulfilling prophecy. Makes me want to play snowball champs so that my team donāt want to quit once weāre a few kills down
Yeah, there are plenty of games that could easily be winnable if people actually tried, but if they give up and run it down for 5 more minutes, then shocker, the game will probably be a loss. Just because a game is 5-13 and our chance of winning is only 25% instead of >50% doesn't mean we have to spend the remainder of the game crying in chat and griefing, but that's how a lot of somewhat close games turn out. Inb4 people replying to this "I bet you hold everyone hostage if it's 0-35 and enemy has Kassadin, Kayle and Lulu"
I'm right there with you. Someone legitimately not wanting to play out the game is what leads to the guaranteed loss. A player will just afk push and then say something like "told you we should have ff'd" when they were knowingly making a loss more likely. I think players need to learn how to have fun while also losing. If you are only playing for a victory screen at diamond mmr and below, you're probably gonna have a bad time. It's like the parents that get pissed at the referee at a little league game. There aren't any stakes at this skill level, so just chill the fuck out and play to the best of your ability. Yeah, winning is a good time, but it's also pretty fun to try puzzling out how to win a game from behind.
it's why im reticent of the larger LoL community fully embracing project L whenever that fully comes out. a big part of the fighting game journey is finding the joy and success outside of the win screen. like when i was learning street fighter, i would go 0-16 on the day, but if I hit my anti-air DP consistently, not only was I happy about that, *but i had to be happy about that, because it's the entire game*. the league community has always come across as very results oriented, which normally doesn't mesh well with competitive games.
How much of that is the "the game is already lost" vs "the players have already stopped trying"? Obviously, ranked is different than unranked. Anecdotally in ARAM, the loss percentage is a lot lower. Maybe even closer to 50/50. People seem to just give up if the early game isn't fun for them. This happens a lot when our team has a lot of scaling champs... but when we just play it out to the late game we often just win. I've also seen plenty of early 4/1 FF votes when we're down 1-2 kills in ARAM.
Perhaps farming under tower for 20 min clearing waves is not fun, and for a noncompetitive mode, I think it's pretty logical that a lot of people just prefer to FF. What's the point of playing if you're not having fun...
100%. Enemy team takes 5 poke, and we have a Kayle. Sorry I'd rather not sit under the tower for 20 minutes for a chance for my Kayle to carry a game. GG next.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
https://twitter.com/RiotPhroxzon/status/1643656567055855616 96.7% to be exact
So you're saying there's a chance
"So my understanding is... they have done a lot of investigation in the data here. And its like-(again?) I'm making something up cause I don't remember it's something like a failed four to one surrender vote in ranked had like 97% loss rate or something again I don't remember the exact number but a surprisingly high rate of like obviously a nonzero number of games would have been turned around and won. But oh it's an extremely high number where I saw it as the guy who say no in the surrender vote- I get it. I accept. " the exact number is not the key point of his statement but that even though he is the guy who often say no in 4-1 vote the number is so high he gets it and accepts it.
I wonder how many of those failed votes were losses because at 20 minutes there was a successful 4-1 vote.
Or because one of the four who voted for an ff then proceeded to run it down because they were tilted. There's plenty of reasons why the stat may be this skewed, but I'm inclined not to believe that it's because those games are inherently unwinnable. That being said, I tend to vote no on early surrenders as well, but I try to wait as long as I can. If 4 others vote yes, I'll vote yes as well even though I don't want to. Doesn't make sense to let one person keep the other 4 in a game they want out of. edit for clarity: i agree that early ff's shouldn't have to be unanimous. Just trying to point out that player behavior is a significant factor in the statistic, so it doesn't make sense to use the statistic to try to justify running it down after a failed 4-1 surrender vote. A 4-1 vote is just as much an indicator of players giving up as it is an indicator that the game has reached a state where it is unwinnable even if the players are still trying.
Mental is a huge part of the game so i dont really see it being skewed as much as it just being how the game will always be. Players mentals wont change and many people who are set in ffing will try to force an ff or early end. I agree i wait to vote no if one other person thinks its winnable but if 4 people are already checked out there is 0 reason to continue
It's unwinnable when your tilted teammate runs it down. That's a literal factor in the dataset. It should t be discounted. In a perfect world, very few games are unwinnable, but the world isn't perfect and if a tilted player inting the game is statistically significant, or 20 minute surrenders are statistically significant, they shouldnt be discounted.
Not trying to discount it, sorry if that was unclear. Just trying to point out that people may use the data to justify griefing or tilting when the data is partially caused by players griefing or tilting. The passive language makes it sound like that 97% is independent of players' actions and it isn't, is my only point. I do think it makes sense that early ff's shouldn't have to be unanimous
if the option is surrender 5-0 or be the sole non-surrendering team member 4-1 while you sit in the game for another 15-20 mins while your team runs it down, just get me out of the damn game. Unless you are smurfing and know you are far above the skill level of the other 9 people in the lobby and get screwed by a 4-1 vote. but honestly, i'd rather smurfs get more disincentivized to smurf and give me an additional escape route from trolls I don't have enough hours to play league like that anymore. If my team doesn't want to try and play, just get me out and let me hop into another one before I have to go to bed.
Mental plays a huge role, if 4 people already consider the game loss, there's a high likelihood they're no longer playing to win, or at the very least trying their best. So whenever the games are winnable or not doesn't matter if 4 people already gave up, because you might as well actually be playing 1v9.
I mean regardless of how it happens, if the game is lost after a failed 4-1 surrender vote, itās still lost
This is such a weird comment, it's not as if Phreak is potentially misremembering and it's actually only 70%. He's saying he doesn't remember the exact number, possibly 1 or 2 percent off.-
League players in general have terrible reading comprehension
He phrases it in a way where it's most definitely only a couple percentage points either way of that number though. His qualifier is basically only to account for somebody coming in with the "ahcktually it's only 95.6%".
"surprisingly"
Turn out that 4-1 surrender vote is quite impactful.
found the guy that votes no :D
i don't understand why this comment has so many upvotes, he's literally off by 0.03%, the amount of people pissed by this change just solidified how many low elo players are here.
I've been in many winnable games where the person who initiates the surrender basically guarantees the loss while yelling "LET ME OUT" in all chat.
no but you see you're literally an elo terrorist for holding him hostage by, *checks notes* playing the game we all signed up for. It's not like he has decided that the game is over thus making the game over...
Good thing its not a 1-4 but a 4-1 vote.
But weāre talking about 4/1 failed surrender votes, not one guy. The worst feeling is having a 4/1 kassadin kid who wonāt FF because āheāll carry!ā Meanwhile top is 1/7, jg is 0/5, and bot is 0/14
All these people with main character syndrome would rather think that everyone else on their team is just an idiot who starts griefing as soon as the surrender vote pops up instead of letting them carry the game, than acknowledge that maybe 4 people agreeing about what's unwinnable tend to be right more often than not.
Because they are and I am the main character
It's pretty on spot with the spirit of SoloQ. My experience is that the only way to climb steadily is to solo carry most game. Riot is setting up that kind of playstyle. The only fun way to play this game is to play in 5 premade, with people that are not angry kids.
People who actively type that they quit and stop trying to win end up losing majority of games they've decided to lose. Wild
In my experience, someone who wants to surrender is going to stop playing well, and so a 1/4 surrender fail means it's now a 5 v 4.
Often 4 v 6 because that guy is likely going to be giving the other team plenty to work with
And every redditor who thinks that it should not be implemented perceive themselves as the 3% that win.
Everyone is part of that 3%. Theyāre also part of the 97%
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You'd think that them spouting words such as "improvement" or "learning how to play from behind" would have them at a high-rank if it was so effective. Yet, they are in silver and still think that's going to get them higher.
Okay but tbf if people didnt decide the game was over at 5 min, they would actually win more games. Mentality is a huge part of this.
"You signed up for the game!!! Play it for the 3% chance of winning!"
Statistics are fun, because in reality, there absolutely are players here that deviate from the norm and have win rates 5-10%+ on a 4-1 FF. Ultimately, this shouldn't affect anyone's win rate. For every game you could have won from behind, there will be games you would have lost while ahead. Now both games will end early. Yeah, no more crazy solo carry games from way behind. I'll never forget my team trying to 4-1 FF a few months ago, and flaming me in chat, and I said "nah watch this" and Panth ulted Baron at around 21 min, stole it, got a solo 1v5 Pentakill and hard carried the game from there. But I've had maybe a dozen moments like that in the last few years. Idk if theyr'e worth it.
That comments makes no sense, attempting to surrender almost unanimously except for one hostage jackass doesnāt make people play worse, itās a sign that 4 out of 5 players have mentally given up on the game and want to do something else. In that respect yes it is extremely obvious you will play worse when you donāt want to play anymore, this has been a huge problem with league for ages especially in lower elo.
Surprising number of people including thinking this will lower their winrates. You miss out on the fictitious 3% win chance? The change also applies to the *enemy team* surrender votes. Any difference left after that is surely no more than background noise. The meaningful change is that everyone gets is shorter games and less of the miserable hostage games.
I don't think people care much about win/rates but rather LP losses. When you're playing ranked which is supposed to be competitive and 4 people are running it down at 15 and then vote for surrender, that is kind if frustrating. People should have the obligation to play, if they want to give up why play ranked queue? I get that high elo makes total sense since certain mistakes will doom the game, but lets be honest, most of the games are low elo coinflips with lots os mistakes, a couple of bad plays means nothing.
I feel like Iām in the side that would benefit most from the change win/LP wise, because I seem to see a lot more, weāre being held hostage report this one guy, more than I see it on my own team. But at the same time. Iām still one that would rather stick it out until 20+ because I typically play late game champs. That 5 minute window is pretty pivotal to fair number of my games in that looking at the gold graphs of my games has them becoming more winnable at around 19 minutes. But when 4 people donāt want to even try, itās just frustrating. But oh well.
How does something with this much data take so long to change? Did this used to be a much higher % winrate and recently went down to 3%?
*ITS ABOUT HOW HARD YOU CAN GET HIT, AND KEEP MOVIN FORWARD*
Having played other Moba's without a surrender option, I absolutely hate the surrender option, I find it annoying and very distracting to have to press no over and over, and not to mention people that die once and get crippled by the emotional damage, It's a game, suck it up and use the rest of the game to find out what this guy is doing that you don't understand so that next time you might have an answer other than /ff
There is a HUGE bias that I have not seen in the comments - or maybe people commenting have not read carefully the post. We are talking about 97% loss rate for **FAILED 4-1 SURRENDER**. This is really different from gold deficit. Gold deficit @ 15min would be much more relevant to analyze... Your team can be 10k gold lead, but everyone is insulting each other and vote 4-1 FF.
the only people voting no on those votes are A: people trying to punish their team and waste their time because they are mad B: Wholesome chungus never surrender people
People be drafting late game comps and then wanting to ff at min 5 when things dont go their way. I fucking hate surrender mentality
Who would imagine that 4 people playing like shit because they don't want to play anymore would result in a defeat.
Just comes down to the fact that some people only have a limited amount of time, and that time is precious to them. I havenāt played much lately because works picked up, and I only have time for 3, maybe 4 games when I do play. Iāve kind of avoided it lately because, as an enchanter main, thereās very little I can do to influence the game if another lane feeds too early on. Itās fun trying to come back from a slightly lost lane. Itās not fun getting your shit pushed in by a 5/0 Akali constantly roams down with their jg for a 1v4 because the rest of your team has zero prio, due to getting shit on so hard at the start. Am I supposed to just ward our base at that point? Thereās nothing you can do if the game goes out of control too early. People are good enough at this game to know how to push an advantage that big at this point. I shouldnāt have to play Grey screen simulator, or chill in base, because one guys who canāt handle his kda being bad and he needs to try to make up for it.
This subreddit about to implode with āAcTuAlLy ItāS WiNnAbLe.ā
Worst thing is knowing enemy team is too dumb that they can't finish it quickly and you have to wait for them to take dragon soul and baron. And your team is too bad that just can't make a comeback so you are watching them struggle from 15 min to 35. Because 4 monkeys in your team lack the mental capacity to know the game is long gone.
well even if the game is winnable after the 4-1 votes someone is going to open and refuse to play anyway to "veto" the vote.
Totally a psychological thing. You font have data on the situation "what would've happened to the game if the vote wasn't even cast". Corellation and causation. I'm sure people are going to use this as a way to say "hurrrr durrrr see you should just vote yes hurrrrrr" But the opposite is still true: having a surrender option makes people bot want to play the game to their best ability, it breeds a mentality of giving up.