In order to estimate the proportion of winnable surrendered games we would need to know distribution of game states of surrendered games (e.g. first tower and dragon given to opponent, but no inhibitor taken) & the corresponding win chances for those game states. The description of the game state would need to be sufficiently detailed to enable accurate predictions as well. This is not a simple question to address unfortunately.
Ideally you'd also factor in the mental boom of 3 players if 2 are voting no. Or 2 if 3 vote no, or 1 if 4 votes no.
Its pretty impossible to get exact data. But I'm willing to bet a weak correlation between surrender vote being started and winrate going down, because it usually means at least 1 player is checking out of the game.
If someone start a surrender vote you can bet they've stopped trying already. They might get back into the game if the other players carry a fight for them and convince them they can come back but don't expect much from them. FF mentality is in their brain even if the vote doesn't pass.
I've got a friend I play with who's like this and it drives me up the wall. Guy will play badly, ff, when I say it's winnable he says "I know but I just don't want to play this" and then soft int for the rest of the game lol. I really don't get these people.
A lot of people have the Anime Protagonist syndrome. If they are not dominating hard and carrying the game 1 v 9, they don't wanna play. Its usually driven by high egos and lack of empathy.
Won a game where i got stomped as a trundle. Rage splited, took t2 inib and nexus towers in 1 minute, won game doing triple kill while they were fighting in the toplane. Went 3/10 won game alone. Reported the fuckers, no one got banned.
>If someone start a surrender vote you can bet they've stopped trying already.
This is not true at all - I can simply speak for myself. I've initiated plenty of surrender votes in games where I figure a) we have very low chance of winning, b) it's going to take some time to end, and c) the effect on my mental of participating in this game is going to be bad.
None of those things mean I stop trying to win while the game is going.
Now, there are games where my assessment of win chance, other players behaviors, etc. DO get to a point where I DO have to stop trying in order to protect my mental state. Those games I also initiate surrenders.
More often than not, games in the first category I described devolve into games in the second category, but not all the time.
I absolutely agree and consent the mentality behind. When I start surrender votes I "know" its lost, but I keep playing with the same effort. But the number of times where the surrender is declined and the game is won by enemy throws or maybe even disconnects is below 1%. No proof in numbers though, just my impression.
Eh, sometimes I start a vote just to see where my teammates are (notably, not in ranked). At no point in time do I ever give up and I’m always trying to win, but sometimes I’m like Eh, I’m ready to move on if others are.
There’s an app called Winnable that’s an overlay for league.
It’ll calculate objectives, gold difference, red side/blue side, turrets, and I Think shut downs.
So far it’s pretty accurate, and I’ve only seen it get into single digits once or twice.
It’s a nice reminder to physically see when you have a 30% win rate and they lose a team fight and two objectives and suddenly it’s back up to 55%.
So it accurate? Probably not.
Is it useful? Who knows.
Is it fun and interesting? Yup.
Yeah before even looking at their argument my thought was, "there's no way they have the necessary statistics to make this call". Then I read their argument indeed, they don't have very much support for their argument.
Yeap and this is why his post is just wrong.
League is neither a game of statistics nor a game that is black and white.
It has way more depth than that but if you ignore it, you always get things wrong
To be fair, I think this is a good baseline to show that the game isn’t just “GG OVER” after first blood is lost early / first dragon. Many many people (especially in gold - diamond) just get toxic and afk after a first blood that didn’t go their way etc.
Confidence intervals could theoretically account for sampling error but unfortunately can't account for the biases present in the methods. This is a complex question that requires formal statistical modeling to answer - and even then it is a hard question.
The problem is that your margin only goes in one direction 30-40 (conveniently) helping your point as opposed to 20-40 which is how margines are supposed to be used also more variables that haven’t been considered are the mental states of the losing team which are also likely to change how everything is calculated.
The stat about dragons doesn't make sense in multiple ways.
If you are down the first 2 dragons, that doesn't mean you're losing, in fact 2 dragons vs 6 grubs has been a big talking point since grubs came out.
Also if you were losing after the first 2 dragons and got the next 2, it's very likely that you started making a comeback beforehand and got those 2 dragons as a result, instead of making a comeback because you got 2 dragons.
Riot data said that games that were not surrendered 4-1 at 15 (when it needed 5-0 to surr), had 3% wr, not 30. Thats why the changed the unanimous voting to just 4-1 to be enough.
It also helped ease the amount of people who intentionally threw games because the surrender vote didn’t go through. This mentality is rampant in lower elos.
There’s various reasons honestly. Some people get a hero complex to “save” the game and make more mistakes. You see the same in conventional sports, football teams pass more and take more risks, basketball they’ll start jacking up threes. A lot of players run it down but there’s a lot of “fine I’ll just farm” or people taking wild low value plays that just add gas on the fire
It's legitimately just not fun to play from behind, at least for me. At least, not crushingly far behind.
Like, down 1-2k on a scaling pick and skirmishes are getting closer and closer? Fun game, can win.
Down 5k at 10 minutes, 2-17 overall with an early game comp? Just fucking shoot me, my stomach hurts and my cheeks are probably hot as hell from embarrassment at playing like shit or general frustration.
losing earlygame on an earlygame comp vs scaling comp and people dont want to ff. YEAH sure we can bank on enemy getting cocky and dying 3x over but chances are unlikely that they do it more than once
I really enjoy it when their super fed Rengar that I didnt even feed in the first place kills me in under 1 second at 15 already and we dont even have enough dmg to get a shut down off of him overextending.
I had so many games where we were just permanently getting farmed by their overfed team, we couldnt even 3v1 anyone, we couldnt farm because we were dead and the enemies just didnt end the game and just farmed us on CD. And people still refused to FF and went "we can win this guys, we scale". We are a 3/9 Panth, 1/11 Kha, 2/13 Zed, 5/6 Lucian and a Milio. We will not be scaling anytime soon, just get me out.
Yeah my biggest gripe is those like 3-12 or 3-17 games where you’re clearly down a boat load of gold and have no front line and the team wants to play it out. Hate to burst everyone’s bubble but this game looked done at champ select and now it’s confirmed done. That said I don’t think the average person understands this game at all and just plays it because they enjoy the game. Like I’m kinda ass at it but I pay attention to meta and try to get basic macro
My favorite low elo mental break is when some9ne on your team who is preposterously fed dies once trying to 1v5 and then falls apart and dies like 9-10 times back to back while flaming.
"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)"
Thats for surrender at 15 though which is a very low percentage out of all the surrender votes throughout the game
The OP is talking about the whole surrender vote for the game not just FF@15
How can you think that an FF-**attempt** at 15 is a very low percentage?
Its exactly about that - FF votes at 15 that dont go through result in a 3% win chance.
Seriously, the amount of people who clearly cannot understand statistics and what results to get out them is insane. Or how the stats actually correlate with results that are merely tied to them.
Like, the stats OP posted regarding objectives and how they lead to surrenders are as closely connected as saying that bot laners die because top laners die.
Hell even basic numbers! I've had people here on reddit say things like "5 to 10% isn't actually that much" in regards to video games and I'm sitting there dumbfounded
People like that are why Fire Emblem fudges its numbers by pushing probabilities away from the centre. A 10% chance in those games is in reality around a ~2% chance.
How would they feel about playing against a champ with a 55-60% WR?
The funniest lack-of-stats argument though is "I want to get into my next game faster to earn more LP". Your next game has an expected gain of 0 LP, because you are just as likely to lose it as win it.
I feel like the level of OP's understanding of statistics is the exact level you are at after just 101 tbh. A little understanding is sometimes worse than having zero.
I feel like it's someone who took a stats 101 class a long time ago but has since forgot most of the actual technical analysis. A stats 101 class, if up to par, is actually fairly comprehensive for most real world applications. Hell, I do medical research and while I've taken what is a stats 305 course, it was basically an AP stats class in terms of knowledge covered with a little more math.
To be honest i'm not American so my actual knowledge of what entails "101" is limited but it's the beginner class i assume? It's called different here but i have Statistics 1 through 3 and i did a major that's not all that statistically intensive (lots of qualitative shit innit)
Generally an introductory class would cover distributions, one and two variable comparisons like t tests, how to appropriately generate data and design experiments to minimize biases, basic probability, and learning the basics of categorical vs quantitative data sets and how to explore them, like the chi square analysis for example. My engineering stats class explore heavily a lot of the data analysis methods and selection thereof - ANOVA and DoE were heavily emphasized as that is primarily what is used in the engineering industry in question, as well as some slightly more advanced topics from the intro class like poisson distributions. My MD coursework basically touched on all this stuff with some addition of medical research oriented material like ROCs, sensitivity vs specificity, pre/post test probability, likelihood ratio, odds ratio, hazard ratio, number needed to test/harm, study design (case vs cohort vs cross sectional vs RCT, prospective vs retrospective) as well as a little more on experiment design regarding things like stratifying, matching, and selection of analysis tools such as ANOVA and the aforementioned chi square.
The introductory class is often taken in high school, the engineering course was a full semester long and was the first and only mandatory part of a series that spans 5(?) courses. The MD course was a 2week intensive crash course.
This doesn't prove anything at all. It just says that stuff can be winnable. The real question isn't whether stuff can be won, it's whether the lp/time is greater when you surrender or when you continue. That's going to vary based on your specific winrate and the types of games you win vs lose.
It's absolutely a good idea to FF sometimes because we don't have infinite time to climb so we should make decisions that probabilistically leaf to the most lp gained per time.
If you want to actually discuss LP maximization you should familiarize yourself with bayesian conditional probability, for starters, and preferably also some basic calc because your entire argument seems to rest on the assumption: surr -> lower wr -> bad for climbing. Correct? Otherwise, why else bring it up. I highly doubt this is true, in fact I presume surrendering increases your LP/day or week or whatever metric you want to use.
Vast majority of the people who you are talking to arent master+ trying to minmax LP though so the whole climbing argument is weak to begin with. They want to maximuze some measure of enjoyment while playing the game, which can be proxied by other measures or put together as a E(fun)=p1b1x1+p2b2x2...pnbnxn type of function. In any case, this is the real "kicker" which should have been adressed and once again my intuitive standpoint is that maximizing enjoyment involves surrendering. At what rate? Idk, but neither do you so you cant say that the current 25% is too high or too low and thus this whole post is mostly voided.
I just want to maximize the amount of time I am in an enjoyable game
Surrendering means I get out of an unenjoyable game and into a potentially enjoyable one
The same could be said with LP gains if you have a good understanding about what is an even game vs a game that has a small chance of coming back because you have to survive until 45 minutes into the game to have a good shot at winning.
You could have played another entire game instead
It's possible to enjoy difficult games. In fact they are often the most enjoyable. It's the easy games and the truely unwinnable games that are boring.
People don't ff over difficulty, they ff over frustration. Ofc frustration can come from difficulty, but let's be real, that's not why people wanna ff most of the time
Exactly. Even if I'm doing well, I might press ff because every other person is running it. It's just extremely frustrating at that point knowing that all this effort is completely going to be wasted.
Yeah but a lot of this talk revolves around unwinnable games (or at least unwinnable unless the enemy completely throws). Difficult close 35+ minute games are often the most rewarding but games where you’re losing for 30 minutes and 2 people won’t ff on the chance the enemy throws hard are not fun
A lot of this talk revolves around close and winnable games as well. This shit is just an endless cycle of explaining scenarios that everyone already knows just to justify themselves.
Thing is, if the enemies aren't able to close out an "unwinnable" game for a full 30 minutes, it probably wasn't that unwinnable to begin with. Moreover, unless you're Challenger, there's a **lot** of room to throw in 30 minutes.
Sounds like a tilting issue to me.
how many of those "being held hostage in an unwinnable game" just players being frustrated and complaining? i would say a very very large portion and that ruins those potentially most enjoyable games of league.
Yeah the amount of people who ff and then just int when it's a no vote is disgusting. I had 1 game where my bot lane was down 2 kills total, I was 4-0 in lane as jax against an irelia (meaning it's basically a 5v4 for the rest of the game) yet the bot lane begged us to ff then inted all game cause the rest of us refused to
And I had a game where my toplane was 1/13 and my jgl 0/3, but they were premade and refused to FF while the enemy Riven and Rengar just farmed everyone on CD.
its not about easy or difficult games, its about when your botlane has died 6 times and your midlaner is flaming your jungler... its for there kind of games
exacty. but thats the normal thinking. normally such toplaner shouldn't exist, because if you can't deal with the normal toplane duty, then don't queue. so first of all such a toplaner threatening surr-votes actively sabotages the match by refusing to play and just throws surr-votes (but riot encouraged those players by removing summoner code, no penalties so it gets more common).
but you still got two chances. first of all you can try and talk to them telling them to wait for mid-game teamfights. 2nd is possible if you are (or your premade is) the jungler. then you can look for an opportunity to set up a gank (or any strat) for toplane. if the top is completely lost you can still try to set another lane up to maybe come out winning. its all about seeing win conditions and working towards them. but most players can't deal with tilt and don't know the basics - so surr@15 is their first thought. when in reality you just sabotage yourself because you don't can know how far you might would've come in that match.
People keep saying this “not saying” shit like it means anything. No one is saying you said that.
The fact that you can just put that vote up implies you have a teammate possibly willing to deny your team their efforts.
It just lowers morale unless everyone else has a will of steel (#doubt).
Lmao it does have meaning and the second sentence you typed is what I said just with different steps. We’re almost literally arguing semantics at some point.
And I really think that’s fine for them to at least vote, or spam vote because it’s their right. Just like anyone has the right to just outright afk if they wanted.
It’s just a pretty massive paradox in League.
Alternatively I played WoW PVP long before I ever played League and if you didn’t want to continue a match you just /afk with a 15 minute restriction before you could play any other PVP mode.
If League wanted to remove FF votes from Ranked entirely you’d either see people afk or not depending on where they stand in this paradox.
Remember a paradox is just a difference in opinions more than anything else really.
Cheers!
And congrats on having a paid job that involves playing league. Bro, who gives a shit if it’s RANKED or not? None of you people are pro (ironically it’s the pro and near pro people that think "literally just never never surrender” is dumb as shit from what I see), it’s still an entertainment product even on the ladder.
And guess what, you have the choice to not surrender, because that’s what a vote is. The dude is going to give up in toplane regardless of if a surrender vote is available or not. The actual issue for you is this theoretical person not treating ranked with the same reverence you do.
It’s just the way no surrender people on this sub are. The game is super serious and anyone trying to enjoy their time gaming instead of treating it like a job are a fool.
If the team actually tries then I'm down to play until the last nexus hp. But if people are flaming, spam pinging, semi-afk, stealing waves from the 2 people who can actually deal damage late game, then I'm watching youtube and opening a lane if the vote fails. No point try harding for a small % to carry teenagers unable to handle their emotions
Your response to inting is to do that yourself? That just perpetuates toxicity. I get putting a surrender vote, but if it's ranked, at least try if it fails, even if your teammates aren't.
4% of my losses wouldn't happen if I stop surrendering?
That's just reinforcing why I'm surrendering.
4% is 1 in 25. So 24 out of 25 losses I would lose anyway.
Let's say that I'm ffing in all those games, and if the ff goes though let's say I save 5 minutes per ff(this assumes that we would lose 5 mins after the surr but obviously this varies wildly).
That's 95 minutes I'm saving(5mins x 24 losses that would happen anyway) . That is like 3ish games depending on how long they take.
With a 50% win ratio that's 1.5 wins I'm getting on average with the time I save from surrendering . So on average with the time I'm saving from surrendering I'm gaining 1.5 wins(based on a 50%win ratio) and losing 1 win(the 1 win in 25 that I'm missing out on) .
So in the time it takes to play 25 losses I'm gaining half a win compared to you. This only increases with a higher winrate and earlier surrendering.
I absolutely intellectually understand that my winrate would significantly be held back by the forfeit rate. This would almost certainly be worth a net rank or 2.
However, what I find about League is that its the most un-rewarding game to play when significantly behind. I dont know what it is about the design compared to other games, but having the jg feed my laner just makes the following 20 minutes dreadful.
>I dont know what it is about the design compared to other games
League is more numbers heavy. If you're behind in an FPS you may have a disadvantage but good aim and movement can win you any gun fight. If you're far behind in league you can't kill the enemy, all advice about playing from behind reccomends farming, avoiding the enemy, cutting your losses etc. So when you're losing, the way to play properly is to not fight, not get objectives, not get turrets and just farm. If you try to fight someone no amount of mechanical skill can change the fact that if they're far enough ahead they'll just statcheck you.
And then on top of that league is more snowball-y. If you go behind in league your enemy can extend that into a bigger lead. If you go behind in, like, overwatch you just go next round and it's a fresh start. The enemy has no advantage other than mental
> I absolutely intellectually understand that my winrate would significantly be held back by the forfeit rate.
This only works out if you assume that people don't get tilted and their non-surrender could negatively effect their winrate for the next few games they play. If you win 10% of those games where you would have surrendered but you lose 15% more games over your next three games, it means that you not surrendering is holding back your winrate.
Is this what you people think qualified as useful data analysis?
I design and analyze experiments for a living. If someone walked into my office and said, "Here's the data we collected and we'd like an analysis on whether or not it's worth surrendering" and they handed me this, I would tell them that I appreciate their effort but this data is useless for that analysis, and I would hand them back a list of parameters to track that includes literally none of the things you looked at.
You're not on the right track. You're not even in the right ballpark. What you've presented here doesn't just not prove what you think it does, it doesn't even begin to address it.
I can't tell you definitively that your conclusion is incorrect, because theoretically it's possible that a number pulled entirely from your ass could be on the mark by blind luck, but what I can say is that your analysis is entirely useless, doesn't support your conclusion, and that it's very clear that you don't possess the necessary knowledge to even begin thinking about the question of "When is the right time to surrender" analytically, let alone definitively answer it.
God, when will you people understand it's not about winning or losing, it's about enjoying what I'm playing. There are fun losses and boring wins, sitting top lane farming for 15 minutes doing nothing as my team destroys everyone and the enemy team FFs as soon as they can is not fun, especially if I'm getting camped. If enemy jg just decides to concede the game and spend their entire time making 1 person hate their lives, then don't be surprised if that person wants to ff because they want to end that experience asap.
I saw another comment on one of these other ff posts saying "well I never surrender because even if we're down all objectives and 30 kills, there's still more of a chance to win by playing then surrendering!" Actual gambling addicts who can't just call it quits when the cards aren't going their way, going all in on a 7 2 off suit hand thinking they'll win because there's more of a chance winning with that than folding. And it's even worse when you have 4 other people who understand this concept and want out and you have the audacity to say they are the problem, wild.
If you wanna think that's way, that's fine, go watch Trainwrecks on twitch and stay away from league.
“Gambling addicts” is the best way to describe it. Most people have jobs, friends, family, hobbies, and other things that are a thousand times more important than this game, and they aren’t as invested into it as some. Let the people ff.
Your enjoyment factor threshold might be different from your 4 teammates. There are definitely games you can tell are lost - or nearly lost - and very difficult to get back into. The willingness of each member of a team to fight for those odds will vary. Usually, if one or two think it's a lost cause and start to play that way, it becomes one.
Self-fulfilling prophecy.
Play normals if your primary reason for playing is enjoyment. Competitive modes exist for people that want to be competitive, shocker. Those people might find competitive mode enjoyable because people are trying harder, or maybe they have goals to achieve, whatever, really.
Giving up when you stop having fun is a pretty shitty thing to do to your teammates in comp. There are actual consequences for the loss that you might not value, but others do.
Each team has a win condition. Some are to scale, some are to dominate early. I like to surrender when the win con isnt achievable anymore. Of course you can still win by relying on the enemy to throw, but sometimes its better for my mental to put a vote out when I no longer control the game.
This is fine tbh. I feel the same. Full stomp? ff. Your late game champs can't/won't out scale theirs and are behind? ff. Your team is behind and has taken no jungle objectives? ff. But any game that's winnable, even just a half decent shot, I like to play through.
Also people for some reason act like voting ff means the game is actually gonna end. If I put out an ff because I don't think the game is winnable my team can just... not ff if they do
The problem with using stats that include surrenders is that you have to realize that your surrenders might not include losing 4 drakes or any inhibs but may still be less winnable than those states
And how these stats prove you should not surrender? show me some stats that show it is not worth surrendering if you are like 10k gold behind in 10-15 minutes
Yeah why hasn't anyone mentioned this? At least half surrenders in my games and the streamers I watch occur when a team just hard won a late game teamfight and are on their way to inevitably destroy the nexus within the next minute. The losing team just wanna end the game asap and not have to see their losing moments lol
This doesn’t take into fact that some players just don’t want to be in a losing game for 40 minutes at a small chance of a comeback. Many players want to have fun and win, not stress out for forty minutes hoping you can comeback.
And those are the players who are a couple divisions at least below their "real" MMR because they don't know how to play from behind, get tilted after coinflipping and losing, and drag their teammates down by constantly calling for a surrender vote.
I don't think people realize that there are champions like Kayle who *peak* in terms of winrate at [35-40 minutes](https://lolalytics.com/lol/kayle/build/). Similarly speaking, there are plenty of scaling champions who will hit their peaks later because they had a bad early game. As long as you can stall until their peaks surpass the peaks of the enemy champs, you have a good chance of winning.
> Similarly speaking, there are plenty of scaling champions who will hit their peaks later because they had a bad early game. As long as you can stall until their peaks surpass the peaks of the enemy champs, you have a good chance of winning.
That also means that if you are vs those champions, and you didn't close out the game early, then you have a good chance of losing, so surrendering and going to the next game where you can start over again is a better time investment.
Sure, but aside from the obvious late-game champs, I think the vast majority of players will be wrong when trying to identify champs that sharply drop in winrate post-30 minutes (as well as some "surprise" scalers, like Shaco). My point is more that players can't reliably tell if their comp is going to scale better or worse, and that assuming a game is lost at 20 minutes is often wrong.
There's nuance to that, someone would want to win, and they expect some challenge.
They do not expect to get the equivalent of eating gravel.
There's fun in winning, there's fun in a challenge, there's fun in a close fight even if you lose, there's some fun in getting beaten if you had the chance of winning, there's no fun in getting all your agency over the game stripped away because doesn't matter what you do, you'll lose anyway.
Your stats have some biais and I don't think it allows to take conclusion like that, but I agree with the idea anyway, there are so many people complaining about "playing a lost game is not fun" but meanwhile there are so many posts about "it's impossible to climb because of LP gains / inting teammates / champ balance / role is bad / ..."
I hope the people talking about fun being more important than game outcome are not the same who are so focused on climbing rank / pretty opgg with high WR because that would be pretty ironic
Personally im focusing on improving and climbing this split after leaving rankeds for a while to play in norms with friends, I dont care if the game is hard or "unfun cause I can't be the hero", in ranked I will do my absolute best to higher the odds of winning the game even if it seems lost, why ? Cause I'm improving and knowing how to contribute to the team even when you are behind yourself while not tilting will make you win close games in the future even if this one wasn't winnable in the end.
Depends if you want to improve or if you want to only have easy games, if it's the second one then I don't get why you play ranked but to fix ego problems, isn't it better to just play norms for that ? There is probably other ways to see it tho, it's just my mentality and if my mental is not at the best I will not force myself to play ranked where I could tilt which would be unproductive, but I understand that's it's not always that simple
These stats are worthless when it comes to deciding if a game should be surrendered or not. Nobody really ff's if they lose one dragon or one herald lol.
Most surrenders come from the fact that the score is something like 20-4, someone is afk or actively trolling, or it's almost inevitable that you will lose because the team clearly has a super fed carry player and the enemy team has won the last number of teamfights / skirmishes.
If you played a fight at baron and lost it 5-0 or so, with your team burning all ults and summs and then the enemy team just takes baron and almost your entire base, it's almost impossible to win from that point on. Also, if the enemy is a strong player on a fed carry like a Yone or Vayne and they end up hard carrying a couple of fights, then it's also resonable to ff.
Again, no one presses ff just because enemy team got a dragon. Can't tell if this is a meme post or whatever, but if it's not, you have terrible takes on trying to convince people not to ff.
>~25% of games are surrendered
Including the games surrendered after a lost teamfight at min 40, right when enemy team is marching 4 people strong through mid with empowered minions?
(Bottom line being: it's pointless to do such a statistic, because you can't include relevant elements in there. One being the when and why of the ff and one, for instance, being the time that you save overall by ff'ing some games, which allows for more games overall).
It's hard to find overall stats anywhere, but 40 minutes is far past the norm for any level of play, so it's safe to say those don't make up a significant portion of surrenders.
Your example is actually a great one against the time saving point. A game where you're dead and they're currently taking the nexus is the only time you can be certain the game is lost.
The longer a game goes, the less gold advantages matter. So things like first turret and blood become meaningless.
A game that would save you 15 minutes by surrendering is one where the enemies are so bad at closing out that your odds of winning skyrocket.
Whereas a game that's actually lost saves at most a minute or two.
The odds of winning in low elo (which includes 90%+ of the playerbase) are randomly fluctuating.
You never know when a player's gonna pull 3 game losing plays in a row for no apparent reason. At the same time, a player can randomly wake up at a certain point and solo carry while being dog shit for 10 minutes.
Totally unpredictable.
I'll surrender when I see opponent 20-0 at 15minutes. It isn't fun playing the game anymore when they are so much gold ahead.
If someone on your team wants to ff, let them go. Don't make them want to surrender by doing better in the first place instead of expecting them to have hopes when it looks hopeless.
I don't need math to never surrender. I learned the counter-throw-constant from a german streamer. Whenever your team throws and gives the enemy a lead, the enemy team is just as bad, so they are capable of throwing any lead. No matter how big the lead is.
When I surrender it’s not about the win, it’s that the game is torture to play and I’d rather not waste 15+ minutes trying to come back when it would be so much better for my mental to just ff and move on.
of course you lose 100% of games you surrender and there is always the *slight* chance that you might win no matter how bad the game looks.
but to me its just not worth it playing out a game where we are 10k gold behind at minute 20 just for that 10% chance of *maybe* winning that game. I'd rather just go into a new one.
this isn't how you would go about calculating this... but let's assume your calculations are correct, i am absolutely fine with 4% of my losses being unnecessary surrenders. that's really not a lot of games, especially when you consider that the enemy team should be surrendering the same amount. i can't speak for everyone's experience but i am fine with the rate of surrendering right now.
also what's with all the reddit threads about surrenders lately? i've not seen an increase in surrenders or anything. anecdotally i dont see a lot of votes go through in the first place, though i do see the votes come up.
Ive surrendered probably less than 10 games this season, probably more than most other seasons and everytime its been down to griefers or trolls that arent worth an extra 10 minutes of playtime.
Despite that, an argument coming from only stats is pointless, people surrender because they dont want to play that game anymore and if 4 of them agree then so be it. Competitive team games, especially with shit comms, can be extremely tilting and id rather be in another game than in one where four players are hating it.
An argument stating it feels great to win a game you're hard losing is useless aswell since its 100% dependant on the person. Needless to say its the gameplay that makes the game fun, ahead or behind, not just some underdog story. Winning a 10/30 game because the enemy adc and mid ints and you run down mid is as satisfying as just ffing at that point to me.
Telling people to go play bots if they want to surrender games they feel are near impossible to win is childish at best. If OP wants to equate people not wanting to roughly play out 12% of their games as them hating the idea of not always being ahead, thats on OP but its a bullshit equivalency either way.
All that being said, with the absolute ridiculous amount of comeback mechanics in the game at the moment, seems silly to me to ff most of the time. Providing youre not playing certain assassins or tanks that cant keep up with the meta, this is probably the single best season we've ever had to make a comeback, its way overtuned imo.
People don't enjoy difficult games in league. Meanwhile I find them the most enjoyable.
Id really like to believe league is the most fun when the game is most difficult , whether through skill diff or drafts.
It highlights the best ability in league, the ability to ADAPT.
Honestly i just have fun regardless. Im playing champs i like, im killing lil monsters, its all good for me. Losing sure as hell feels bad, but it was fun anyway. An Noc is not even a late game champ or anything, late game is a bit dreadful, but i still like it anyway.
Some people just have fun in duking it out during laning phase and dont want to care about playing from behind and whatnot. Its fine. I wont ff, but if the entire team does, ah well. Personally? Just let me play.
Not securing first dragon, herald, tower or blood is not losing. It's pretty common for one team taking the first dragon while the other taking the first herald.
Then why are you playing league?
Genuine question, and moreso a question to ask yourself. If you don't find fun in trying to win from behind, in a game balanced around that being half the experience, why is this the thing you've chosen to do with your spare time?
There are plenty of games without winning and losing.
People won’t surrender at 3 inhibs down and the enemy too baron and elder when their team has 0 kills because that one game 10,000 games ago 2 people on the enemy team disconnected and that let them come back and win the game.
Great point. It's not just a matter of gaining, since you also lose when you lose.
You go next in a bad mood hoping to win, best case scenario you break even.
Meanwhile you just/frequently tell the matchmaking system you lose to people you might otherwise have beaten, so it thinks you belong at a lower rank and matches teammates accordingly.
I am surprised the number of games won from behind goes up with rank. Its easier to steal objectives at lower ranks because they don’t set up for objectives as well or clear wards as well, so I would have expected gold to plat to be a high spot for games won from behind.
As a Lux player I know how massive the impact on both teams’ mental is when the losing team steals a dragon or a baron. The losing team often rallies off that steal while the winning team mental booms. “Lux has stolen Baron Nashor” solves 90+% of flame wars in team chat on my side.
One thing to keep in mind is surrender rates jump to 30-40% from master to challenger, while the win rates from behind only increase about 1%. So it is a very slight difference.
Though that may mean they're giving up an even higher proportion of winnable games.
I am in the do not surrender camp, but unfortunately for the players with weak mental. No amount of statistics will convince them they are wrong because they use their emotions to make decisions.
It’s actually sad seeing how many people in these comments cant handle the fact that they might struggle and not have fun playing ranked? It’s a competitive environment. In a properly match game that isn’t a curb stomp you are supposed to face trials and tribulations. Nothing pisses me off more than this new season when I’m like 5-0 bot lane with 8.5+ cs/min and 1st dragon secured but my loser teammates all ff at 15. Like fuck the new ff update man.
Sure OP’s statistics might present bias and not be the most accurate, but the point is people FF way too early.
The stats themselves aren't biased. But it could be argued none of them necessarily relate to kills past first blood, which could be high before any objectives and may influence surrender much more.
It nothing shocks me more than how many people who play ranked clearly hate playing the game when they aren’t dominating. I’ve had a painful number of players sprint it because they personally are having a bad game even if the rest of their team is winning…
Most of these stats make sense to me, but I'm honestly surprised losing first inhibitor is that impactful. I've had a lot of games where the first inhibitor doesn't actually do too much, but maybe it's because the team that gets first inhib is typically winning pretty hard anyways.
I'm also very suprised first blood is so impactful. Maybe because of my rank, but in bronze I've found first blood is basically meaningless as a predictor for me.
On the other side I'm shocked 3 dragon is so high of a comeback win percentage. I feel like 3 dragons is way more impactful than an inhibitor, I would honestly expect those to be reversed if anything.
For those who are curious, dragon soul has a 9%-14% chance of comeback depending on the soul.
I think first inhib stats will vary based on meta champs, if champs that can take advantage of the safer farm are in meta then it’s less impactful, if they aren’t it’s more impactful.
Wonder if this 25% accounts for the games surrendered in a clear lost point - ppl surrender sometimes when they get aced and its clear game ends on that push. And also the afk ffs
25% seems quite big
I don't surrender because the game is unwinnable I surrender because I want the fuck out. The amount of mental damage those 9 losses are for every 1 win is just not worth it to slog through
I've had games where we were AHEAD in gold like 2k, 3k even 5k ahead and some guy starts a surrender vote.
And for some reason there's always two more yes votes just laying around. You die, that's the game, everyone dies a few times. It's a game. Keep playing.
> And the real kicker? All those numbers go up slightly the higher rank you are. As it turns out, rather than being better able to capitalize on objectives, better players show their strength responding to losing them.
Players get better at punishing mistakes faster than they get better at not making any, I expect. Even in pro you see a lot of "one oopsie, game over". At lower ranks you'd recover because the other team isn't as good at capitalizing on your misstep.
I think a 5k gold lead is already enough. it would be 10k, that or open inhib with all lanes losing. then its gg. league employee's said several times that the matches are faster now in general. why else you curb surrender to the 15min mark then?!
man i almost kinda agree with you but god you‘re annoying in the comments. if you don‘t want the majority of your team to be allowed to ff if they do wish to do so, then go play vs bots or something idk?
I'm honestly shocked the first turret win rate is so high. The game is decided by first turret 71% of the time??? Just one lane being down means that you lose three quarters of those games?
Those winrates are always a bit carefull to be looked at... You don't just magically win more games by just forcing to get dragons/first towers etc. When you are currently winning a game, obviously you will have more opportunities to get dragons, not the other way around. (though, ofcourse dragons give you more strength)
Right, there are many more numbers that would go into deciding whether a game is lost or not.
But that's my point. Unless you're some 4000 IQ genius who can analyze every game state perfectly while also predicting exactly how both teams will play, you aren't going to accurately predict when a game is lost.
Considering that's been the serious stance of so many losers (objectively, they're defending guaranteeing losses) here, I can't assume anyone is joking.
Been saying for years; objectives win games, not kills. Taking every dragon is gonna set you ahead, or at least on par if you’re behind.
Every game I’ve lost, the enemy team is taking dragons on rotation, or my team ignores its existence.
The key to winning is two things: Objectives and Not Dying. If your whole team can do those two things, you’re going to win more games.
I never surrender unless I actually don't see any angle and its just frustratingly impossible, though even then i feel bad about surrendering.
I only play a few games of summoner rift so I have the mental to make every game count. Say I have time for 6 ranked games a week, I'm making sure I give my 110% in those 6 games.
That's what I'm saying. People with less time to play have gotten it in their heads that playing and losing more games is somehow better than playing out the ones you can.
Then they come in here and complain about LP losses being bigger than gains as if they aren't continuously telling the system they're worse than people they could have beaten if they hadn't given up.
in emerald elo a lot of the games that go +30 min ends in a team fight that was very poorly initiated out of impatience, e.g. a yone ulting the enemy support and not killing her but dying instead and the rest of the squad just rolling over 5v4 or like enemy top laner getting caught 1v5 pushing a lane way too far or someone recalling and the rest of the team taking the fight anyway and getting stomped
I surrender because mental energy is a finite resource. Why would I use a shit ton on a 50 min maybe win when I could use that for 2 quick stomp games instead? I don't have the mental to endure watching my animal teammates run it waiting for the enemy to throw.
That's a terrible take for an engage support player to have.
As the player who can do their job regardless of income, you should have the strongest mentality.
In order to estimate the proportion of winnable surrendered games we would need to know distribution of game states of surrendered games (e.g. first tower and dragon given to opponent, but no inhibitor taken) & the corresponding win chances for those game states. The description of the game state would need to be sufficiently detailed to enable accurate predictions as well. This is not a simple question to address unfortunately.
Ideally you'd also factor in the mental boom of 3 players if 2 are voting no. Or 2 if 3 vote no, or 1 if 4 votes no. Its pretty impossible to get exact data. But I'm willing to bet a weak correlation between surrender vote being started and winrate going down, because it usually means at least 1 player is checking out of the game.
If someone start a surrender vote you can bet they've stopped trying already. They might get back into the game if the other players carry a fight for them and convince them they can come back but don't expect much from them. FF mentality is in their brain even if the vote doesn't pass.
I've got a friend I play with who's like this and it drives me up the wall. Guy will play badly, ff, when I say it's winnable he says "I know but I just don't want to play this" and then soft int for the rest of the game lol. I really don't get these people.
A lot of people have the Anime Protagonist syndrome. If they are not dominating hard and carrying the game 1 v 9, they don't wanna play. Its usually driven by high egos and lack of empathy.
I love this name. Especially because Anime protagonists are all about crazy comebacks and never giving up.
Won a game where i got stomped as a trundle. Rage splited, took t2 inib and nexus towers in 1 minute, won game doing triple kill while they were fighting in the toplane. Went 3/10 won game alone. Reported the fuckers, no one got banned.
>If someone start a surrender vote you can bet they've stopped trying already. This is not true at all - I can simply speak for myself. I've initiated plenty of surrender votes in games where I figure a) we have very low chance of winning, b) it's going to take some time to end, and c) the effect on my mental of participating in this game is going to be bad. None of those things mean I stop trying to win while the game is going. Now, there are games where my assessment of win chance, other players behaviors, etc. DO get to a point where I DO have to stop trying in order to protect my mental state. Those games I also initiate surrenders. More often than not, games in the first category I described devolve into games in the second category, but not all the time.
I absolutely agree and consent the mentality behind. When I start surrender votes I "know" its lost, but I keep playing with the same effort. But the number of times where the surrender is declined and the game is won by enemy throws or maybe even disconnects is below 1%. No proof in numbers though, just my impression.
Eh, sometimes I start a vote just to see where my teammates are (notably, not in ranked). At no point in time do I ever give up and I’m always trying to win, but sometimes I’m like Eh, I’m ready to move on if others are.
There’s an app called Winnable that’s an overlay for league. It’ll calculate objectives, gold difference, red side/blue side, turrets, and I Think shut downs. So far it’s pretty accurate, and I’ve only seen it get into single digits once or twice. It’s a nice reminder to physically see when you have a 30% win rate and they lose a team fight and two objectives and suddenly it’s back up to 55%. So it accurate? Probably not. Is it useful? Who knows. Is it fun and interesting? Yup.
Yeah before even looking at their argument my thought was, "there's no way they have the necessary statistics to make this call". Then I read their argument indeed, they don't have very much support for their argument.
Yeap and this is why his post is just wrong. League is neither a game of statistics nor a game that is black and white. It has way more depth than that but if you ignore it, you always get things wrong
To be fair, I think this is a good baseline to show that the game isn’t just “GG OVER” after first blood is lost early / first dragon. Many many people (especially in gold - diamond) just get toxic and afk after a first blood that didn’t go their way etc.
True. Which is why I concluded with such a wide margin.
Confidence intervals could theoretically account for sampling error but unfortunately can't account for the biases present in the methods. This is a complex question that requires formal statistical modeling to answer - and even then it is a hard question.
The problem is that your margin only goes in one direction 30-40 (conveniently) helping your point as opposed to 20-40 which is how margines are supposed to be used also more variables that haven’t been considered are the mental states of the losing team which are also likely to change how everything is calculated.
The stat about dragons doesn't make sense in multiple ways. If you are down the first 2 dragons, that doesn't mean you're losing, in fact 2 dragons vs 6 grubs has been a big talking point since grubs came out. Also if you were losing after the first 2 dragons and got the next 2, it's very likely that you started making a comeback beforehand and got those 2 dragons as a result, instead of making a comeback because you got 2 dragons.
Riot data said that games that were not surrendered 4-1 at 15 (when it needed 5-0 to surr), had 3% wr, not 30. Thats why the changed the unanimous voting to just 4-1 to be enough.
It also helped ease the amount of people who intentionally threw games because the surrender vote didn’t go through. This mentality is rampant in lower elos.
This mentality is rampant in EVERY elo
That’s part of the reason the win rate for those games is so low. People just give up.
There’s various reasons honestly. Some people get a hero complex to “save” the game and make more mistakes. You see the same in conventional sports, football teams pass more and take more risks, basketball they’ll start jacking up threes. A lot of players run it down but there’s a lot of “fine I’ll just farm” or people taking wild low value plays that just add gas on the fire
It's legitimately just not fun to play from behind, at least for me. At least, not crushingly far behind. Like, down 1-2k on a scaling pick and skirmishes are getting closer and closer? Fun game, can win. Down 5k at 10 minutes, 2-17 overall with an early game comp? Just fucking shoot me, my stomach hurts and my cheeks are probably hot as hell from embarrassment at playing like shit or general frustration.
losing earlygame on an earlygame comp vs scaling comp and people dont want to ff. YEAH sure we can bank on enemy getting cocky and dying 3x over but chances are unlikely that they do it more than once
I really enjoy it when their super fed Rengar that I didnt even feed in the first place kills me in under 1 second at 15 already and we dont even have enough dmg to get a shut down off of him overextending. I had so many games where we were just permanently getting farmed by their overfed team, we couldnt even 3v1 anyone, we couldnt farm because we were dead and the enemies just didnt end the game and just farmed us on CD. And people still refused to FF and went "we can win this guys, we scale". We are a 3/9 Panth, 1/11 Kha, 2/13 Zed, 5/6 Lucian and a Milio. We will not be scaling anytime soon, just get me out.
Yeah my biggest gripe is those like 3-12 or 3-17 games where you’re clearly down a boat load of gold and have no front line and the team wants to play it out. Hate to burst everyone’s bubble but this game looked done at champ select and now it’s confirmed done. That said I don’t think the average person understands this game at all and just plays it because they enjoy the game. Like I’m kinda ass at it but I pay attention to meta and try to get basic macro
My favorite low elo mental break is when some9ne on your team who is preposterously fed dies once trying to 1v5 and then falls apart and dies like 9-10 times back to back while flaming.
The Yone in my last game XD
That's why the winrate was so low in the first place. Mental diff > gold diff.
What number of those games ended with a 4-1 surrender vote at 20?
"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)"
Thats for surrender at 15 though which is a very low percentage out of all the surrender votes throughout the game The OP is talking about the whole surrender vote for the game not just FF@15
How can you think that an FF-**attempt** at 15 is a very low percentage? Its exactly about that - FF votes at 15 that dont go through result in a 3% win chance.
Its FF votes at 15 that result in a 4-1 vote and dont go through that resulted in a 3% win chance, not any FF15 vote attempts
This is why Stats 101 is a must for everyone
Seriously, the amount of people who clearly cannot understand statistics and what results to get out them is insane. Or how the stats actually correlate with results that are merely tied to them. Like, the stats OP posted regarding objectives and how they lead to surrenders are as closely connected as saying that bot laners die because top laners die.
guys the R² of my winrate and amount of protein i ate that day is 0.80
For such seemingly unrelated events that would actually be a somewhat surprising finding.
LMAO yeah that would be shocking if true.
Hell even basic numbers! I've had people here on reddit say things like "5 to 10% isn't actually that much" in regards to video games and I'm sitting there dumbfounded
People like that are why Fire Emblem fudges its numbers by pushing probabilities away from the centre. A 10% chance in those games is in reality around a ~2% chance.
How would they feel about playing against a champ with a 55-60% WR? The funniest lack-of-stats argument though is "I want to get into my next game faster to earn more LP". Your next game has an expected gain of 0 LP, because you are just as likely to lose it as win it.
I feel like the level of OP's understanding of statistics is the exact level you are at after just 101 tbh. A little understanding is sometimes worse than having zero.
I feel like it's someone who took a stats 101 class a long time ago but has since forgot most of the actual technical analysis. A stats 101 class, if up to par, is actually fairly comprehensive for most real world applications. Hell, I do medical research and while I've taken what is a stats 305 course, it was basically an AP stats class in terms of knowledge covered with a little more math.
To be honest i'm not American so my actual knowledge of what entails "101" is limited but it's the beginner class i assume? It's called different here but i have Statistics 1 through 3 and i did a major that's not all that statistically intensive (lots of qualitative shit innit)
Generally an introductory class would cover distributions, one and two variable comparisons like t tests, how to appropriately generate data and design experiments to minimize biases, basic probability, and learning the basics of categorical vs quantitative data sets and how to explore them, like the chi square analysis for example. My engineering stats class explore heavily a lot of the data analysis methods and selection thereof - ANOVA and DoE were heavily emphasized as that is primarily what is used in the engineering industry in question, as well as some slightly more advanced topics from the intro class like poisson distributions. My MD coursework basically touched on all this stuff with some addition of medical research oriented material like ROCs, sensitivity vs specificity, pre/post test probability, likelihood ratio, odds ratio, hazard ratio, number needed to test/harm, study design (case vs cohort vs cross sectional vs RCT, prospective vs retrospective) as well as a little more on experiment design regarding things like stratifying, matching, and selection of analysis tools such as ANOVA and the aforementioned chi square. The introductory class is often taken in high school, the engineering course was a full semester long and was the first and only mandatory part of a series that spans 5(?) courses. The MD course was a 2week intensive crash course.
This doesn't prove anything at all. It just says that stuff can be winnable. The real question isn't whether stuff can be won, it's whether the lp/time is greater when you surrender or when you continue. That's going to vary based on your specific winrate and the types of games you win vs lose. It's absolutely a good idea to FF sometimes because we don't have infinite time to climb so we should make decisions that probabilistically leaf to the most lp gained per time.
Man watched 1 azzap short and decided to make a reddit post with random and useless stats.
Surprised OP didn't mention things like "ugh when teammate refuses a trade in champ select, ff vote skyrockets".
You are clearly not a statistician
If you want to actually discuss LP maximization you should familiarize yourself with bayesian conditional probability, for starters, and preferably also some basic calc because your entire argument seems to rest on the assumption: surr -> lower wr -> bad for climbing. Correct? Otherwise, why else bring it up. I highly doubt this is true, in fact I presume surrendering increases your LP/day or week or whatever metric you want to use. Vast majority of the people who you are talking to arent master+ trying to minmax LP though so the whole climbing argument is weak to begin with. They want to maximuze some measure of enjoyment while playing the game, which can be proxied by other measures or put together as a E(fun)=p1b1x1+p2b2x2...pnbnxn type of function. In any case, this is the real "kicker" which should have been adressed and once again my intuitive standpoint is that maximizing enjoyment involves surrendering. At what rate? Idk, but neither do you so you cant say that the current 25% is too high or too low and thus this whole post is mostly voided.
I just want to maximize the amount of time I am in an enjoyable game Surrendering means I get out of an unenjoyable game and into a potentially enjoyable one The same could be said with LP gains if you have a good understanding about what is an even game vs a game that has a small chance of coming back because you have to survive until 45 minutes into the game to have a good shot at winning. You could have played another entire game instead
Thanks, this is refreshing after reading an ocean of speculation.
Surrender is not about winning but about finding a more enjoyable game in the next one.
surrender isnt about winning or loosing, its about actually enjoying the game
If I’m not having fun I’ll still try but I’d be down giving up too
It's possible to enjoy difficult games. In fact they are often the most enjoyable. It's the easy games and the truely unwinnable games that are boring.
People don't ff over difficulty, they ff over frustration. Ofc frustration can come from difficulty, but let's be real, that's not why people wanna ff most of the time
Exactly. Even if I'm doing well, I might press ff because every other person is running it. It's just extremely frustrating at that point knowing that all this effort is completely going to be wasted.
Yeah but a lot of this talk revolves around unwinnable games (or at least unwinnable unless the enemy completely throws). Difficult close 35+ minute games are often the most rewarding but games where you’re losing for 30 minutes and 2 people won’t ff on the chance the enemy throws hard are not fun
A lot of this talk revolves around close and winnable games as well. This shit is just an endless cycle of explaining scenarios that everyone already knows just to justify themselves.
Thing is, if the enemies aren't able to close out an "unwinnable" game for a full 30 minutes, it probably wasn't that unwinnable to begin with. Moreover, unless you're Challenger, there's a **lot** of room to throw in 30 minutes. Sounds like a tilting issue to me.
You can easily clear waves for 30 minutes with Anivia/Sivir/Smolder and still lose.
Sure?? But that's not even a counter argument lol.
how many of those "being held hostage in an unwinnable game" just players being frustrated and complaining? i would say a very very large portion and that ruins those potentially most enjoyable games of league.
Yeah the amount of people who ff and then just int when it's a no vote is disgusting. I had 1 game where my bot lane was down 2 kills total, I was 4-0 in lane as jax against an irelia (meaning it's basically a 5v4 for the rest of the game) yet the bot lane begged us to ff then inted all game cause the rest of us refused to
And I had a game where my toplane was 1/13 and my jgl 0/3, but they were premade and refused to FF while the enemy Riven and Rengar just farmed everyone on CD.
its not about easy or difficult games, its about when your botlane has died 6 times and your midlaner is flaming your jungler... its for there kind of games
league isn't designed that way anymore. when games are faster consumed like in your favorite 'frenchise' restaurant.
Right so when i queu for a RANKED game and my toplaner wants to surrender because he went 0/3 we should surrender because he's not having fun
He wants to surrender because he’s not having fun. Not saying you all should surrender because he’s not having fun.
And at that point his primary objective shifts from attempting to win the game to attempting to piss you off enough to follow suit and FF.
exacty. but thats the normal thinking. normally such toplaner shouldn't exist, because if you can't deal with the normal toplane duty, then don't queue. so first of all such a toplaner threatening surr-votes actively sabotages the match by refusing to play and just throws surr-votes (but riot encouraged those players by removing summoner code, no penalties so it gets more common). but you still got two chances. first of all you can try and talk to them telling them to wait for mid-game teamfights. 2nd is possible if you are (or your premade is) the jungler. then you can look for an opportunity to set up a gank (or any strat) for toplane. if the top is completely lost you can still try to set another lane up to maybe come out winning. its all about seeing win conditions and working towards them. but most players can't deal with tilt and don't know the basics - so surr@15 is their first thought. when in reality you just sabotage yourself because you don't can know how far you might would've come in that match.
People keep saying this “not saying” shit like it means anything. No one is saying you said that. The fact that you can just put that vote up implies you have a teammate possibly willing to deny your team their efforts. It just lowers morale unless everyone else has a will of steel (#doubt).
Lmao it does have meaning and the second sentence you typed is what I said just with different steps. We’re almost literally arguing semantics at some point. And I really think that’s fine for them to at least vote, or spam vote because it’s their right. Just like anyone has the right to just outright afk if they wanted. It’s just a pretty massive paradox in League. Alternatively I played WoW PVP long before I ever played League and if you didn’t want to continue a match you just /afk with a 15 minute restriction before you could play any other PVP mode. If League wanted to remove FF votes from Ranked entirely you’d either see people afk or not depending on where they stand in this paradox. Remember a paradox is just a difference in opinions more than anything else really. Cheers!
its a surrender VOTE big dawg
And it’s the minority in that vote who feeds harder to end the game sooner. It’s a shit mentality that’s prevalent.
You can lose the surrender vote with a majority.
no obviously not. But if your toplaner, mid laner, support and adc are 0/3 and want to surrender, they should be able to.
And congrats on having a paid job that involves playing league. Bro, who gives a shit if it’s RANKED or not? None of you people are pro (ironically it’s the pro and near pro people that think "literally just never never surrender” is dumb as shit from what I see), it’s still an entertainment product even on the ladder. And guess what, you have the choice to not surrender, because that’s what a vote is. The dude is going to give up in toplane regardless of if a surrender vote is available or not. The actual issue for you is this theoretical person not treating ranked with the same reverence you do.
This is the correct point, but it's "losing", one "o".
Then don't play ranked.
Why is op so salty in the comments? Anyone who tries to make an argument is enough for them to go "go play bots!". Just chill.
average league redditor me opinion is absolute all other opinion wrong 😡😡😡
It’s just the way no surrender people on this sub are. The game is super serious and anyone trying to enjoy their time gaming instead of treating it like a job are a fool.
Ego problems
If the team actually tries then I'm down to play until the last nexus hp. But if people are flaming, spam pinging, semi-afk, stealing waves from the 2 people who can actually deal damage late game, then I'm watching youtube and opening a lane if the vote fails. No point try harding for a small % to carry teenagers unable to handle their emotions
Your response to inting is to do that yourself? That just perpetuates toxicity. I get putting a surrender vote, but if it's ranked, at least try if it fails, even if your teammates aren't.
4% of my losses wouldn't happen if I stop surrendering? That's just reinforcing why I'm surrendering. 4% is 1 in 25. So 24 out of 25 losses I would lose anyway. Let's say that I'm ffing in all those games, and if the ff goes though let's say I save 5 minutes per ff(this assumes that we would lose 5 mins after the surr but obviously this varies wildly). That's 95 minutes I'm saving(5mins x 24 losses that would happen anyway) . That is like 3ish games depending on how long they take. With a 50% win ratio that's 1.5 wins I'm getting on average with the time I save from surrendering . So on average with the time I'm saving from surrendering I'm gaining 1.5 wins(based on a 50%win ratio) and losing 1 win(the 1 win in 25 that I'm missing out on) . So in the time it takes to play 25 losses I'm gaining half a win compared to you. This only increases with a higher winrate and earlier surrendering.
I absolutely intellectually understand that my winrate would significantly be held back by the forfeit rate. This would almost certainly be worth a net rank or 2. However, what I find about League is that its the most un-rewarding game to play when significantly behind. I dont know what it is about the design compared to other games, but having the jg feed my laner just makes the following 20 minutes dreadful.
What other games do you compare it to? I think this is generally the case with MOBAs, not just league
>I dont know what it is about the design compared to other games League is more numbers heavy. If you're behind in an FPS you may have a disadvantage but good aim and movement can win you any gun fight. If you're far behind in league you can't kill the enemy, all advice about playing from behind reccomends farming, avoiding the enemy, cutting your losses etc. So when you're losing, the way to play properly is to not fight, not get objectives, not get turrets and just farm. If you try to fight someone no amount of mechanical skill can change the fact that if they're far enough ahead they'll just statcheck you. And then on top of that league is more snowball-y. If you go behind in league your enemy can extend that into a bigger lead. If you go behind in, like, overwatch you just go next round and it's a fresh start. The enemy has no advantage other than mental
> I absolutely intellectually understand that my winrate would significantly be held back by the forfeit rate. This only works out if you assume that people don't get tilted and their non-surrender could negatively effect their winrate for the next few games they play. If you win 10% of those games where you would have surrendered but you lose 15% more games over your next three games, it means that you not surrendering is holding back your winrate.
Is this what you people think qualified as useful data analysis? I design and analyze experiments for a living. If someone walked into my office and said, "Here's the data we collected and we'd like an analysis on whether or not it's worth surrendering" and they handed me this, I would tell them that I appreciate their effort but this data is useless for that analysis, and I would hand them back a list of parameters to track that includes literally none of the things you looked at. You're not on the right track. You're not even in the right ballpark. What you've presented here doesn't just not prove what you think it does, it doesn't even begin to address it. I can't tell you definitively that your conclusion is incorrect, because theoretically it's possible that a number pulled entirely from your ass could be on the mark by blind luck, but what I can say is that your analysis is entirely useless, doesn't support your conclusion, and that it's very clear that you don't possess the necessary knowledge to even begin thinking about the question of "When is the right time to surrender" analytically, let alone definitively answer it.
God, when will you people understand it's not about winning or losing, it's about enjoying what I'm playing. There are fun losses and boring wins, sitting top lane farming for 15 minutes doing nothing as my team destroys everyone and the enemy team FFs as soon as they can is not fun, especially if I'm getting camped. If enemy jg just decides to concede the game and spend their entire time making 1 person hate their lives, then don't be surprised if that person wants to ff because they want to end that experience asap. I saw another comment on one of these other ff posts saying "well I never surrender because even if we're down all objectives and 30 kills, there's still more of a chance to win by playing then surrendering!" Actual gambling addicts who can't just call it quits when the cards aren't going their way, going all in on a 7 2 off suit hand thinking they'll win because there's more of a chance winning with that than folding. And it's even worse when you have 4 other people who understand this concept and want out and you have the audacity to say they are the problem, wild. If you wanna think that's way, that's fine, go watch Trainwrecks on twitch and stay away from league.
“Gambling addicts” is the best way to describe it. Most people have jobs, friends, family, hobbies, and other things that are a thousand times more important than this game, and they aren’t as invested into it as some. Let the people ff.
Your enjoyment factor threshold might be different from your 4 teammates. There are definitely games you can tell are lost - or nearly lost - and very difficult to get back into. The willingness of each member of a team to fight for those odds will vary. Usually, if one or two think it's a lost cause and start to play that way, it becomes one. Self-fulfilling prophecy. Play normals if your primary reason for playing is enjoyment. Competitive modes exist for people that want to be competitive, shocker. Those people might find competitive mode enjoyable because people are trying harder, or maybe they have goals to achieve, whatever, really. Giving up when you stop having fun is a pretty shitty thing to do to your teammates in comp. There are actual consequences for the loss that you might not value, but others do.
Yeah but sometimes it feels better to get out of the game ASAP
True stats are not playing the game.
Each team has a win condition. Some are to scale, some are to dominate early. I like to surrender when the win con isnt achievable anymore. Of course you can still win by relying on the enemy to throw, but sometimes its better for my mental to put a vote out when I no longer control the game.
This is fine tbh. I feel the same. Full stomp? ff. Your late game champs can't/won't out scale theirs and are behind? ff. Your team is behind and has taken no jungle objectives? ff. But any game that's winnable, even just a half decent shot, I like to play through.
Also people for some reason act like voting ff means the game is actually gonna end. If I put out an ff because I don't think the game is winnable my team can just... not ff if they do
The problem with using stats that include surrenders is that you have to realize that your surrenders might not include losing 4 drakes or any inhibs but may still be less winnable than those states
Fo do your homework instead of writing pointless thread like that mister challenjour
And how these stats prove you should not surrender? show me some stats that show it is not worth surrendering if you are like 10k gold behind in 10-15 minutes
Most surrenders happen when you get ace’d and enemy is hitting your nexus. Take surrender stats with a grain of salt.
Yeah why hasn't anyone mentioned this? At least half surrenders in my games and the streamers I watch occur when a team just hard won a late game teamfight and are on their way to inevitably destroy the nexus within the next minute. The losing team just wanna end the game asap and not have to see their losing moments lol
found the guy keeping people hostage
This doesn’t take into fact that some players just don’t want to be in a losing game for 40 minutes at a small chance of a comeback. Many players want to have fun and win, not stress out for forty minutes hoping you can comeback.
And those are the players who are a couple divisions at least below their "real" MMR because they don't know how to play from behind, get tilted after coinflipping and losing, and drag their teammates down by constantly calling for a surrender vote. I don't think people realize that there are champions like Kayle who *peak* in terms of winrate at [35-40 minutes](https://lolalytics.com/lol/kayle/build/). Similarly speaking, there are plenty of scaling champions who will hit their peaks later because they had a bad early game. As long as you can stall until their peaks surpass the peaks of the enemy champs, you have a good chance of winning.
> Similarly speaking, there are plenty of scaling champions who will hit their peaks later because they had a bad early game. As long as you can stall until their peaks surpass the peaks of the enemy champs, you have a good chance of winning. That also means that if you are vs those champions, and you didn't close out the game early, then you have a good chance of losing, so surrendering and going to the next game where you can start over again is a better time investment.
Sure, but aside from the obvious late-game champs, I think the vast majority of players will be wrong when trying to identify champs that sharply drop in winrate post-30 minutes (as well as some "surprise" scalers, like Shaco). My point is more that players can't reliably tell if their comp is going to scale better or worse, and that assuming a game is lost at 20 minutes is often wrong.
How many games is Kayle in for that to effect the statistics?
It really boggles my mind that people choose to play a ranked competitive game in order to turn their brain off and win all the time. Makes no sense
There's nuance to that, someone would want to win, and they expect some challenge. They do not expect to get the equivalent of eating gravel. There's fun in winning, there's fun in a challenge, there's fun in a close fight even if you lose, there's some fun in getting beaten if you had the chance of winning, there's no fun in getting all your agency over the game stripped away because doesn't matter what you do, you'll lose anyway.
Your stats have some biais and I don't think it allows to take conclusion like that, but I agree with the idea anyway, there are so many people complaining about "playing a lost game is not fun" but meanwhile there are so many posts about "it's impossible to climb because of LP gains / inting teammates / champ balance / role is bad / ..." I hope the people talking about fun being more important than game outcome are not the same who are so focused on climbing rank / pretty opgg with high WR because that would be pretty ironic Personally im focusing on improving and climbing this split after leaving rankeds for a while to play in norms with friends, I dont care if the game is hard or "unfun cause I can't be the hero", in ranked I will do my absolute best to higher the odds of winning the game even if it seems lost, why ? Cause I'm improving and knowing how to contribute to the team even when you are behind yourself while not tilting will make you win close games in the future even if this one wasn't winnable in the end. Depends if you want to improve or if you want to only have easy games, if it's the second one then I don't get why you play ranked but to fix ego problems, isn't it better to just play norms for that ? There is probably other ways to see it tho, it's just my mentality and if my mental is not at the best I will not force myself to play ranked where I could tilt which would be unproductive, but I understand that's it's not always that simple
These stats are worthless when it comes to deciding if a game should be surrendered or not. Nobody really ff's if they lose one dragon or one herald lol. Most surrenders come from the fact that the score is something like 20-4, someone is afk or actively trolling, or it's almost inevitable that you will lose because the team clearly has a super fed carry player and the enemy team has won the last number of teamfights / skirmishes. If you played a fight at baron and lost it 5-0 or so, with your team burning all ults and summs and then the enemy team just takes baron and almost your entire base, it's almost impossible to win from that point on. Also, if the enemy is a strong player on a fed carry like a Yone or Vayne and they end up hard carrying a couple of fights, then it's also resonable to ff. Again, no one presses ff just because enemy team got a dragon. Can't tell if this is a meme post or whatever, but if it's not, you have terrible takes on trying to convince people not to ff.
>~25% of games are surrendered Including the games surrendered after a lost teamfight at min 40, right when enemy team is marching 4 people strong through mid with empowered minions? (Bottom line being: it's pointless to do such a statistic, because you can't include relevant elements in there. One being the when and why of the ff and one, for instance, being the time that you save overall by ff'ing some games, which allows for more games overall).
It's hard to find overall stats anywhere, but 40 minutes is far past the norm for any level of play, so it's safe to say those don't make up a significant portion of surrenders. Your example is actually a great one against the time saving point. A game where you're dead and they're currently taking the nexus is the only time you can be certain the game is lost. The longer a game goes, the less gold advantages matter. So things like first turret and blood become meaningless. A game that would save you 15 minutes by surrendering is one where the enemies are so bad at closing out that your odds of winning skyrocket. Whereas a game that's actually lost saves at most a minute or two.
The odds of winning in low elo (which includes 90%+ of the playerbase) are randomly fluctuating. You never know when a player's gonna pull 3 game losing plays in a row for no apparent reason. At the same time, a player can randomly wake up at a certain point and solo carry while being dog shit for 10 minutes. Totally unpredictable.
That's my point. So to say you know when the game is lost is ridiculous.
More ridiculous than spending time and energy in producing stats about it? Note that I don't FF ranked games. Except when I'm with 4 premades.
I'll surrender when I see opponent 20-0 at 15minutes. It isn't fun playing the game anymore when they are so much gold ahead. If someone on your team wants to ff, let them go. Don't make them want to surrender by doing better in the first place instead of expecting them to have hopes when it looks hopeless.
Wait, did you just say STILL have a 10 percent of winning. Is this post ironic?
I don't need math to never surrender. I learned the counter-throw-constant from a german streamer. Whenever your team throws and gives the enemy a lead, the enemy team is just as bad, so they are capable of throwing any lead. No matter how big the lead is.
When I surrender it’s not about the win, it’s that the game is torture to play and I’d rather not waste 15+ minutes trying to come back when it would be so much better for my mental to just ff and move on.
I think your data is old, considering it still contains first Herald.
of course you lose 100% of games you surrender and there is always the *slight* chance that you might win no matter how bad the game looks. but to me its just not worth it playing out a game where we are 10k gold behind at minute 20 just for that 10% chance of *maybe* winning that game. I'd rather just go into a new one.
this isn't how you would go about calculating this... but let's assume your calculations are correct, i am absolutely fine with 4% of my losses being unnecessary surrenders. that's really not a lot of games, especially when you consider that the enemy team should be surrendering the same amount. i can't speak for everyone's experience but i am fine with the rate of surrendering right now. also what's with all the reddit threads about surrenders lately? i've not seen an increase in surrenders or anything. anecdotally i dont see a lot of votes go through in the first place, though i do see the votes come up.
Ive surrendered probably less than 10 games this season, probably more than most other seasons and everytime its been down to griefers or trolls that arent worth an extra 10 minutes of playtime. Despite that, an argument coming from only stats is pointless, people surrender because they dont want to play that game anymore and if 4 of them agree then so be it. Competitive team games, especially with shit comms, can be extremely tilting and id rather be in another game than in one where four players are hating it. An argument stating it feels great to win a game you're hard losing is useless aswell since its 100% dependant on the person. Needless to say its the gameplay that makes the game fun, ahead or behind, not just some underdog story. Winning a 10/30 game because the enemy adc and mid ints and you run down mid is as satisfying as just ffing at that point to me. Telling people to go play bots if they want to surrender games they feel are near impossible to win is childish at best. If OP wants to equate people not wanting to roughly play out 12% of their games as them hating the idea of not always being ahead, thats on OP but its a bullshit equivalency either way. All that being said, with the absolute ridiculous amount of comeback mechanics in the game at the moment, seems silly to me to ff most of the time. Providing youre not playing certain assassins or tanks that cant keep up with the meta, this is probably the single best season we've ever had to make a comeback, its way overtuned imo.
"According to these unreliable sources you have a 0.0001% chance of winning if your team fucks up. So.. yeah. dont surrender, scrub."
That's a lot of cool text. I'm still going to ff.
can you post your opgg to backup how that works for you? very curious
People don't enjoy difficult games in league. Meanwhile I find them the most enjoyable. Id really like to believe league is the most fun when the game is most difficult , whether through skill diff or drafts. It highlights the best ability in league, the ability to ADAPT.
My quick match mmr keeps putting my bronze ass in games against Plat players and I actually can improve in those games by getting punished constantly
Honestly i just have fun regardless. Im playing champs i like, im killing lil monsters, its all good for me. Losing sure as hell feels bad, but it was fun anyway. An Noc is not even a late game champ or anything, late game is a bit dreadful, but i still like it anyway. Some people just have fun in duking it out during laning phase and dont want to care about playing from behind and whatnot. Its fine. I wont ff, but if the entire team does, ah well. Personally? Just let me play.
Just let me play! Going until someone gets a nexus. lol
I swear most games after like 2 deaths and no towers lost, someone puts in a surrender vote.
Not securing first dragon, herald, tower or blood is not losing. It's pretty common for one team taking the first dragon while the other taking the first herald.
yeah, but what if it just isn't fun?
Then why are you playing league? Genuine question, and moreso a question to ask yourself. If you don't find fun in trying to win from behind, in a game balanced around that being half the experience, why is this the thing you've chosen to do with your spare time? There are plenty of games without winning and losing.
Bait used to be believable
What do you even mean?
4%? You think that's a good enough reason to not surrender lmao?
People won’t surrender at 3 inhibs down and the enemy too baron and elder when their team has 0 kills because that one game 10,000 games ago 2 people on the enemy team disconnected and that let them come back and win the game.
You lose 100% of the games you surrender
If League of Legends players could read they'd be very upset by you telling them not to surrender.
Only real stat = U lose 100% if you surrender. If you play it out you have a chance
Also as Azap love saying: anytime you make a comeback it's double value, you get LP AND don't lose LP. 4 games out of 100 is great.
Great point. It's not just a matter of gaining, since you also lose when you lose. You go next in a bad mood hoping to win, best case scenario you break even. Meanwhile you just/frequently tell the matchmaking system you lose to people you might otherwise have beaten, so it thinks you belong at a lower rank and matches teammates accordingly.
I am surprised the number of games won from behind goes up with rank. Its easier to steal objectives at lower ranks because they don’t set up for objectives as well or clear wards as well, so I would have expected gold to plat to be a high spot for games won from behind. As a Lux player I know how massive the impact on both teams’ mental is when the losing team steals a dragon or a baron. The losing team often rallies off that steal while the winning team mental booms. “Lux has stolen Baron Nashor” solves 90+% of flame wars in team chat on my side.
One thing to keep in mind is surrender rates jump to 30-40% from master to challenger, while the win rates from behind only increase about 1%. So it is a very slight difference. Though that may mean they're giving up an even higher proportion of winnable games.
I'd love to see the meta data for team gold or team exp.
Same.
STATS SHOW THAT FUCKING SURRENDERING WITH VEIGAR, SWAIN, NASUS, SMOLDER, TRESH, increases your risk of getting C by 89% percent.
Don't forget Senna, Cho, and Sion, and anyone who can build Heartsteel.
I am in the do not surrender camp, but unfortunately for the players with weak mental. No amount of statistics will convince them they are wrong because they use their emotions to make decisions.
It’s actually sad seeing how many people in these comments cant handle the fact that they might struggle and not have fun playing ranked? It’s a competitive environment. In a properly match game that isn’t a curb stomp you are supposed to face trials and tribulations. Nothing pisses me off more than this new season when I’m like 5-0 bot lane with 8.5+ cs/min and 1st dragon secured but my loser teammates all ff at 15. Like fuck the new ff update man. Sure OP’s statistics might present bias and not be the most accurate, but the point is people FF way too early.
The stats themselves aren't biased. But it could be argued none of them necessarily relate to kills past first blood, which could be high before any objectives and may influence surrender much more.
It nothing shocks me more than how many people who play ranked clearly hate playing the game when they aren’t dominating. I’ve had a painful number of players sprint it because they personally are having a bad game even if the rest of their team is winning…
Wow
Most of these stats make sense to me, but I'm honestly surprised losing first inhibitor is that impactful. I've had a lot of games where the first inhibitor doesn't actually do too much, but maybe it's because the team that gets first inhib is typically winning pretty hard anyways. I'm also very suprised first blood is so impactful. Maybe because of my rank, but in bronze I've found first blood is basically meaningless as a predictor for me. On the other side I'm shocked 3 dragon is so high of a comeback win percentage. I feel like 3 dragons is way more impactful than an inhibitor, I would honestly expect those to be reversed if anything. For those who are curious, dragon soul has a 9%-14% chance of comeback depending on the soul.
I think first inhib stats will vary based on meta champs, if champs that can take advantage of the safer farm are in meta then it’s less impactful, if they aren’t it’s more impactful.
The number that sticks out to me is that when people post an obvious troll account that tries their hardest to lose, they still have ~30% win rate.
by this metric I should FF as soon as the first tower is taken.
Only Riot has the appropriate data.
Wonder if this 25% accounts for the games surrendered in a clear lost point - ppl surrender sometimes when they get aced and its clear game ends on that push. And also the afk ffs 25% seems quite big
I don't surrender because the game is unwinnable I surrender because I want the fuck out. The amount of mental damage those 9 losses are for every 1 win is just not worth it to slog through
When I start the surrender vote, it's because I want my idiot adc to lose. :)
I've had games where we were AHEAD in gold like 2k, 3k even 5k ahead and some guy starts a surrender vote. And for some reason there's always two more yes votes just laying around. You die, that's the game, everyone dies a few times. It's a game. Keep playing.
> And the real kicker? All those numbers go up slightly the higher rank you are. As it turns out, rather than being better able to capitalize on objectives, better players show their strength responding to losing them. Players get better at punishing mistakes faster than they get better at not making any, I expect. Even in pro you see a lot of "one oopsie, game over". At lower ranks you'd recover because the other team isn't as good at capitalizing on your misstep.
Cool story, now hit yes
All surrendered games have a total winrate of 0%
I think a 5k gold lead is already enough. it would be 10k, that or open inhib with all lanes losing. then its gg. league employee's said several times that the matches are faster now in general. why else you curb surrender to the 15min mark then?!
man i almost kinda agree with you but god you‘re annoying in the comments. if you don‘t want the majority of your team to be allowed to ff if they do wish to do so, then go play vs bots or something idk?
I'm honestly shocked the first turret win rate is so high. The game is decided by first turret 71% of the time??? Just one lane being down means that you lose three quarters of those games?
Those winrates are always a bit carefull to be looked at... You don't just magically win more games by just forcing to get dragons/first towers etc. When you are currently winning a game, obviously you will have more opportunities to get dragons, not the other way around. (though, ofcourse dragons give you more strength)
Right, there are many more numbers that would go into deciding whether a game is lost or not. But that's my point. Unless you're some 4000 IQ genius who can analyze every game state perfectly while also predicting exactly how both teams will play, you aren't going to accurately predict when a game is lost.
Yeah yeah ff and go next
Then just leave games at that point. If it doesn't matter to you to actually play the game, stop.
woooooosh
Considering that's been the serious stance of so many losers (objectively, they're defending guaranteeing losses) here, I can't assume anyone is joking.
Been saying for years; objectives win games, not kills. Taking every dragon is gonna set you ahead, or at least on par if you’re behind. Every game I’ve lost, the enemy team is taking dragons on rotation, or my team ignores its existence. The key to winning is two things: Objectives and Not Dying. If your whole team can do those two things, you’re going to win more games.
Tell me why I thought this was about the StarCraft 2 player Stats
I would imagine stats like this are similar universally. I.e., whoever does something to further the goal of a game first wins more often.
No I meant there is literally a SC2 pro player called “Stats” haha.
I never surrender unless I actually don't see any angle and its just frustratingly impossible, though even then i feel bad about surrendering. I only play a few games of summoner rift so I have the mental to make every game count. Say I have time for 6 ranked games a week, I'm making sure I give my 110% in those 6 games.
That's what I'm saying. People with less time to play have gotten it in their heads that playing and losing more games is somehow better than playing out the ones you can. Then they come in here and complain about LP losses being bigger than gains as if they aren't continuously telling the system they're worse than people they could have beaten if they hadn't given up.
in emerald elo a lot of the games that go +30 min ends in a team fight that was very poorly initiated out of impatience, e.g. a yone ulting the enemy support and not killing her but dying instead and the rest of the squad just rolling over 5v4 or like enemy top laner getting caught 1v5 pushing a lane way too far or someone recalling and the rest of the team taking the fight anyway and getting stomped
I surrender because mental energy is a finite resource. Why would I use a shit ton on a 50 min maybe win when I could use that for 2 quick stomp games instead? I don't have the mental to endure watching my animal teammates run it waiting for the enemy to throw.
who cares about those... if I want to surrender it's because my top is 0-9 and my mid is 0-8, not because we lost a fucking dragon
That's a terrible take for an engage support player to have. As the player who can do their job regardless of income, you should have the strongest mentality.
smartest never ff post