Surrendering shouldn't require a waste of time

Surrendering is possible only when 20 minutes of in-game time have passed, of course rendering an earlier resignation impossible. Since the game can without doubt be decided before the 20-minute threshold, I find this restriction unnecessary, not to say obstructive and confusing. -------- **EDIT:** Summing up the discussion so far: **Arguments for the removal of the 20-minute threshold:** * wastes time when games are decided before the threshold **Arguments against the removal of the 20-minute threshold:** _None?_ **Arguments that seem out of context to me:** * games end earlier because people aren't confident or willing to try playing games that may be won Whoever brings up this argument would presumably keep playing such a game that might be won - so he can vote with "no". The change of the threshold doesn't change the opinions of the people. As long as the majority wins the vote there is no problem. > * A game that is decided so early that surrendering before minute 20 would make sense is so onesided that it doesn't last very long anyway. So it doesn't really make a big difference, you just lose a few minutes i. e. waste of time > * The 20 minute mark is not random. Riot found out that players are unable to predict the outcome of the game reliably before the 20 minute mark. Even after the 20 minute mark they are not very good at it, but before that the predictions are basically random. With other words, Riot set up a 20-minute threshold to save players from their own bad decisions. The threshold per se doesn't change anything about the perception that leads to _too_ early surrenders, though. If that was the real reason for the threshold the way to go would be to raise the awareness of the playerbase instead of activating a random threshold at twenty minutes. > * If you would allow players to surrender earlier, you would throw away a lot of the most awesome games in LoL: comebacks. > _Comebacks_ don't exist. What's referred to as a _comeback_ is either one team being down gold because the other team has it easier in the early game and getting to the part where the strength of the champions overcomes the gold difference _or_ one team having made mistakes in the early game and the other team making mistakes later so that the (dis-)advantage is evened. > Wouldn't you say that it should be the choice of every team to decide if it's worth to take their time to get their late game scaling or hope for the mistakes of their opponents instead of restricting them to play a round that they don't want to play? > Yes, sometimes a lost game can be won, but sometimes it's just what it is. If they want to play it, why not, but same goes for the other direction. * By balancing changes the speed of the game has changed dramatically, so the threshold should be lowered. * TE is a whiner who wants to surrender every game **As a sidenote:** You may say I'm quite egoistic listing all the arguments of this thread under "out of context" but it seems to me that none of them consider that surrender is still a team decision. Not surrendering an utterly lost round without any hope, is that not like hoping that your opponents get a heart attack and die in front of their screens?
Report as:
Offensive Spam Harassment Incorrect Board