Game needs surrender option

That’s a relevant word there, option. In an ideal word where Hots not only had Devs, but a very large playerbase, an Option could be given to those queuing that would divide players between a “surrender” option or no option to surrender.

If we need a surrender mode in this game then report system need to be fixed first.

Trolls, afk players and feeders need to know thier behavior is not tolorated.

I meant to say opinion, sorry I didn’t catch that.

Surrendering in this game is so silly to me. It’s already been stated but the game isn’t over until the core is at 0%. I’ve had so many unlikely comebacks happen in this game, and it’s not a rare occurence to have one single team fight sway the game in the opposite direction.

Moreso, the idea that a person would want to surrender because they feel they will lose is the sign of an extremely fragile ego and that person should sersiously look into dealing with that. Here’s how this game works: 2 teams contend. 1 will win, 1 will lose. Every time, period. There will always be a losing team so learn to be okay with it.

This whole reasoning of “It’s wasting my time if I have to stay in a losing game” is hilarious to me. This is a video game. If you are participating in it, your time isn’t wildly valuable.

3 Likes

People want an enjoyable experience. Its not enjoyable when you consistently have trolls, and people who turn winnable games into crap shoot losses because they do things like afk, feed, type instead of play, sabotage teammates and things like that. Those games are the reason a surrender option is useful.

I strongly believe all games can be winnable, but with people who don’t intentionally throw or troll the team.

1 Like

I don’t mind a surrender option, which probably will never happen based on HOTS’ current state. But for me, playing a game isn’t just about winning. It is also about improving and simply fighting. I see many people start giving up and blaming others when things didn’t go their ways. But are they really playing perfectly with no room to improve? Also, why didn’t the 300 Spartans simply surrender and whine about other Greek cities knowing they wouldn’t win the battle? Sometimes, a battle is not just about the outcome.

This game is painful to play when 2 of 5 teammates leave/disconnect and you’re stuck sitting there til the match ends… It’s one of the main reasons I take such long breaks away from this game.

Remove the leave penalty after a teammate leaves, and add the option to surrender. Two simple, common sense actions that would make this game much more playable. I’m referring specifically to QM games.

2 Likes

calling something “common sense” doesn’t actually make it as such, make the demand more appealing, or magically hire devs to a game that doesn’t have anyone working on it.

“common sense” for some people come from other games that have surrender options that loop incomplete games that have people give up to “go next”.

Similarly, if something doesn’t actually fix an issue, “common sense” could decry concerns of implimentation and prefer things not be made worse for it.

“common sense” might also suggest that people not quit and fuss over just playing the game in the first place.

Lotta ways to swing it instead of repeating the same tired tripe from topic to topic

2 Likes

write as many essays as you like

i’ll forever be of the opinion that QM games need the option to surrender or allow players to leave penalty free after a teammate leaves

2 Likes

forever is a long time, and things change with time.

4 Likes

Rather rework the report system instead then adding surrender. People only keep leaving games because it takes too long to suspend/ban players that do that.

Adding surrender would just make a specific groupe of players quit faster and force his team to surrender just because he see no way to win the game and would rather surrender every game until a balanced one shows up. Thats not really how a surrender mode works or should be used.

Surrendering a game is always the last option you use if you done all and cant do more to win. It should not be the first thing you do when you see enemy team comp and then instant quits because they got 3 heroes that hard counter you.

The LOL community is very vocal about quitters in thier game aswell. They dont like those people that ruin games by going afk in base because his team wont obey his surrender.

Adding a surrender mode just because QM is unfair make no sense. If you add surrender mode then it should apply for all non-AI game modes and not just QM just because its an unfair game mode that has alot of leavers.

1 Like

Surrendering feature is the only way to fix ARAM unbalances/toxicity and it is a standard feature in other MOBA. If 3/5 people want to surrender, the game should let you vote on it every 2 minutes or so (to avoid spam). Last game 3/5 of us agreed to sit at the respawn since our teammate, the only high DPS hero we were dealt was bad, admitted it, then said some obscenities and closed game. We had three healers and 1 bot DPS, but not enough damage to get kills. Why keep playing?

Enemy team wouldn’t even DPS our core and we got threatened to be kicked for AFKing? No, we just weren’t having fun and need a surrender feature…the entire team wanted out/a new game.

1 Like

surrender doesn’t ‘fix’ the problems have with the game. That’s part of the issue for trying to advocate for it. However, people that are fixated on it are too focused on having it that they don’t consider other options and just look to scapegoat with bad reasoning.

You posted 3/5 wanted to ‘surrender’ and then claimed that is the ‘entire team’. If it were the ‘entire team’ they could all just leave and bypass the need to ‘surrender’

Similarly, you posted you had “3 healers” in a mode where the player chooses out of 3 options. Many healers have ‘damage’ options and offer additional mitigation to offset the typical damage picks people fixate on for aram. Heroes can be healed, structures cannot. Neglecting options doesn’t make ‘surrender’ more appealing, it just indicates other issues players don’t want to acknowledge.

The point of ‘playing’ a game is to actually play it instead of focusing on what you don’t have in favor of what you actually do. If having 3 OUT OF 10 people hold the game hostage is a worthwhile exchange for you, then it’s not a small wonder people feel they get more value of of ‘trolling’, continuing to be bad at a game, and refusing to learn to improve and actually enjoy what they do.

The issues indicated for that match are not going to be ‘fixed’ the next time queue comes around, which is part of why ‘surrender’ doesn’t ‘fix’ an issue of people not wanting to do an activity that requires people to actually do the activity.

People that want to ‘surrender’ don’t actually put as much effort into observing what is going on because they’re already convinced they can’t do more, so they don’t. That’s part of why some of the ‘standard features’ of games that have ‘surrender’ also end up with community topics that complain about the surrender culture: players use it as an out and don’t improve past the hurdles that cause them to surrender, so they keep doing it.

That’s part of why the games that have it has a ‘standard feature’ don’t actually ‘fix’ the problems people keep claiming that they do. However, so long as there isn’t some sort of incentive for people to improve at something, they don’t and just loop the same stuff again and again.

1 Like

Quitters wil always resort to surrender instead of just playing the game.

1 Like