Give players a surrender rating...

At the end of the day "as per the law of averages", there r always going to be good and bad performances in a game. The spirit of the game is to play and try to defeat the opponent until its game over, if so happens tat ur team does so badly tat u all 5 or majority think u not gonna win then whole team should take responsibility not 1 or 2 players. In totality, surrender points would encourage team responsibilities and spirit of the game.

yes your idea and it would be a pure increase in toxicity. why would seeing how many time's some one surrenderd be important?

like i said there are TWO groups not one, i think you are missing that. i think you get a lot of games where people surrender without it being neccesary. OTHER peole get games where people do not surrender in a completely lost match. there is a line where there could be a comback and where you are getting farmed for kills and worshippers by the enemy players. when that line is crossed there is no reason not to surrender yet people still go like "dond wurry gy's wi gad dis hueheuehue" also known as pure idiot syndrome.

with your sugestion you do something that does not benefit you that much but you greatly disbenefit the other group by putting more toxicity in the game esspecially for the second group.

i seriously doubt that you thought this trough as far as how it would affect other players and the mood of the game.

Surrender points can work like the 'Goodwill'. It will show how much u got involved in surrenders for tat matter conceding losses and this in turn will arguably comment on ur toxicity as a player or unwillingness to carry on in a team setup.

These "surrender points", as you put it, has a very negative connotation to the surrender option. Surrendering is not always a bad thing. Sure, you'll get a game where someone wants to surrender when you lose one tower or some teammates die a few times, but the surrender option is there for a legitimate reason, and that reason is so people can vote/decide if they want to admit defeat if there is almost no chance to winning so that they can move on to the next match instead of wasting more time in a futile effort to win such a match. Sure, the surrender option isn't used in that way all the time, but, in my experience, my team or the enemy team uses it in pretty much the correct way almost all the time.



This idea also puts a negative connotation to surrendering and ropes people who use the system legality with those who abuse it. I mean hell, in the small chance you get in a match with a troll/feeder, you'd reward him with a "+1" because he votes against the rest of the team that wants to surrender just to further troll? And that last part is calling for an even harsher punishment than we even have for leavers right now. Seems pretty backwards to me.

Agree with ur last point tat the feeder must not be rewarded positive points to vote against the team. The scoring issue can be chosen appropriately not this -5 or +1.

Few added arguments wy I hate surrender votes:

- In conquest in almost every win I had, there was a surrender vote atleast once in the game, initiated either by the feeder or the best high on level player. Its frustrating and spoils the game at tat moment. It must not be a tool to play with but make it like emergency brakes in a train. Use it very carefully not whenever u feel like.

- If surrender vote has penalties everybody will try to help each other out from the outset bcz they know surrender is a tough option only a last resort in special cases.

- How many games just end in a surrender vote for no hard reason after 15-20min..its a pity. Unless all players reach level 20 or 30 minutes r over in a conquest, teams must not think of surrender vote unless smbdy is AFK or disconnected.

- Every game is gonna result in either victory or defeat. So a game will be good for some players and bad for some but giving an option of surrender so early in a game spoils the spirit of the game to me.

Personally, I really like the surrender system Dawngate has.

Quick question.

What's wrong with the system we have now?

I'm very, very opposed to the idea to have your player card, for example, show your surrender stats.

It works toxcicity and poorly based prejudice in hand. Something that's already very present only based on casual ELO (position on the god select screen). This would make it exceedingly worse as it gives a very warped picture of someone.

I also don't see what's wrong with current surrender system. If 4 out of 5 players rather opt out then the game is either no longer win-able. (e.g: 10k down within 10 minutes - happens often). Or, in a rare situation, your team might just give up prematurely - but I have personally rarely seen this happen, it's seemingly too rare to make a problem out of.

If 4 out of 5 players agree you have the majority accepting that the game can no longer be won - sure, with a stretch of luck it might be possible to turn it. But you don't want to base hard work on this. Adding to the fact games are played for fun - and if 4 out of 5 players no longer enjoy themself, it's rather egoitisc to desire otherways.

The only thing I could see changed is a 20 minute-minimum surrender. 10 minutes is very often not enough to establish a clear loss. Things might look really sour - but due to some gods performing better late game, it's really too early to decide. Within 20 minutes the minotaur can be dead - all tours can be lost and the game is usually lost or balanced.

I agree with no having the card show your 'surrender points'. I meant more like the stats you go look up on someone. I really don't see how this is any more 'toxic' than a kill to death ratio.

And more so, I would be interested in being paired with players who don't F6 at 10 minutes because they died 2 times and feel its hopeless.

From a stat displaying standpoint, theres no point in displaying it in game on a card because your team is already chosen. But there would be benefit on displaying it via stats along side kills and deaths as it provides another means to see what kind of a player someone is.

Well, I almost NEVER see weird surrenders. If you want out and another 3 want out too, I don't know why the **** should I keep playing because one douche thinks we can win. Even if we can win.

And no. That "surrender points thingy" is just dumb. Surrendering is not a bad thing to do. Mostly every single succesful surrender I've seen had a good reason behind it, and if there's no reason to surrender, at least two guys will see through it and the match will keep going.

I don't get why people should get pointed at because of that.