: Simple reason, imagine if we had like 10 gamemodes perma. Besides the tryhards playing ranked to rank up and people playing norms for easier S ranks for the level 7 system. You would be dividing the playerbase of all servers by those 10 gamemodes, which means that some might not be playable because of little players, queue times would be longer than a diamond player in ranked, not to mention that if there's a troll in the audience ready to dodge, that's another long ass waiting time to get in the game. Basicaly, even if we're lots of people playing the game, depending on timezones and such, could STILL not be enough to have them all spread out enough just to never play a game again.
Fair enough. But not all 10 modes should be kept. They should permanently remove the others that are not popular simply because they aren't good enough. I would bet that if all modes were up, URF would have a decent Q time and other modes like Poro King would die. But that's survival of the fittest! Riot should push to make better game modes rather than trying to keep unpopular ones alive.
: Some game modes are always going to be more popular than others. For example 99% might dislike nexus siege, while having a 1% loyal following to the game mode. But there won't be enough players online at every time to make a full game. The result will be 1 game mode being played (urf?) while the others are abandonned. Thus only people that play urf get to play their game mode, if they switch the mup, everybody gets to play the different game modes because people will be forced to pick between a normal 5v5 or this game mode. This happened with dominion, there simply weren't enough players dedicated to this game mode, sometimes queue times would be 2+ hours without a game.
Shouldn't Riot then come up with another game that is as good as URF? And if the vast majority of us like URF then isn't it worse to only let us play it 4 times a year? I mean, we can't make everyone happy. Some game modes just can't survive and that's OK because that should push Riot to do better next time, you know what I mean?
: There'd be so many queues going on at once that a lot would be abandoned. I may've loved Dominion, but that alone was abandoned.
Not so sure why there would be more abandonment. Explain?
: By making some features limited in time, they can make sure all players queue up at once and thus faster queue times. kinda like the set times for ranked 5s
Fair enough. But many of us are willing to wait longer Q times to play the mode we want when we feel like it.
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
: I think using overwatch idea of voting for good players after the match is a sweet idea. However I think IP gains is a more suitable reward rather than LP. IP doesn't affect rankings and LP gains can be abused, plus it won't be fair for ranked integrity. IP gains for a single player per game, that's cool though. Also players aren't forced to vote. So if you don't wanna vote for anyone you don't have to. Interesting idea not sure id it will ever be implemented though.
Thanks for the feedback! I never even thought of using IP instead. Sounds pretty interesting for normal games. I'm just not sure if players in ranked will care if they lose IP. Can you explain how the LP gains could be abused and how ranked integrity would be affected? I'd really like to understand those points.
: [suggestion] surrender vote should disappear after 2 people vote no
It's a wonder that it hasn't been changed already. I know this is kinda tacky but can you guys check my suggestion out? I want more people to see it so I can get more feedback (positive or negative). http://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/8EomMvVx-proposal-lp-gained-for-mvp-and-lost-for-lvp-after-game
cupcaker (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Mdluli,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=OTFAAgxN,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2016-07-16T14:20:20.624+0000) > > Hang in there brother/sister. Most people I know got placed about a Tier lower than where they finished last season, regardless of their games. ive never ranked before. but i figure since i pull nothing but high gold to diamonds in normals, and high gold-low plat in my provisionals id at least place gold with a 60% winrate
That's a pretty raw deal then...
ViiLLAiN (NA)
: you play in EUW not NA thats the difference right there
xD I've often heard that EUW is the worst, but I guess everyone feels that way about their their own server. Grass is greener on the other side kinda thing...
Mdluli (EUW)
: [Proposal] LP gained for MVP and lost for LVP after game!
I see what you guys are getting at, but remember that pre-mades can only give 2 votes max. Also, you vote for the **enemy **team MVP and LVP; not your own. So you don't need to worry about your toxic teammates or trolls voting you LVP.
ViiLLAiN (NA)
: u must not play much league then im always stuck with trios and duos or quads who always ban together whether it be feeding together trolling together or in the one instance when the league gods decide to bless me they carry together.... but the gods are not in my favor most of the time...
I've played for around 8 hours a day for the past week. Otherwise I usually play just one game per day. Sorry that you are so often caught up with people who have it in for you. Fortunately, most games are with players who are not pre-made at all or who only have a premade of 2. I'm assuming that you confirm that they are pre-made by using something like OPGG or LolKing or whatever instead of simply assuming that they are. I mean, I've been accused of being pre-made with someone who was being flamed just because I stood up for them [my pre-made was actually flaming xD]
: > [{quoted}](name=ViiLLAiN,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=8EomMvVx,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2016-07-16T14:06:02.503+0000) > > YEAH sounds great until trolls come around and vote u LVP because they didnt like something u did or said to them i need to agree with this... while i do like the IDEA, it can too easily be abused
How so? I'd like to hear how this could go wrong because I'd like to refine it. Bear in mind though that the current system isn't perfect either and is also abused :/
ViiLLAiN (NA)
: YEAH sounds great until trolls come around and vote u LVP because they didnt like something u did or said to them
I see what you mean, but in my experience, troll games are fairly rare. Even among those troll games; it's usually only one player who trolls. Three trolls would be required to vote you LVP. The system I proposed is meant to cater for more average games; not rare games. Thanks for your feedback though!
cupcaker (NA)
: pretty disappointed
Hang in there brother/sister. Most people I know got placed about a Tier lower than where they finished last season, regardless of their games.
Ba22crow (NA)
: It's a complicated situation. If they switch it to require 100% participation how long until we get video of a ranked match where the winning team Is ahead 70-3 and is refusing to finish to pad their KDA's and the losing team can't forfeit because of one player trying to punish the others for his perception that they lost him the game? That would cause far more bad publicity than 1 angry player now and then because the rest of the team gives up as easily as a one legged dog trying to chase a car. That's not to say I'm happy about it. I've won the majority of games my team tried to give up on and me and a friend forced them to stick it out. But Iv'e lost enough ranked games where we surrendered just a few kills behind because people have no desire to earn their victory, they just want to stomp, that I think something does need to be done about it. But requiring a 5 man vote is too much, maybe introducing some other parameters, like requiring one team have at least 20 kills and twice as many kills as the other team to allow a 4 man surrender also after the 20 minute mark.
> It's a complicated situation. If they switch it to require 100% participation how long until we get video of a ranked match where the winning team Is ahead 70-3 and is refusing to finish to pad their KDA's and the losing team can't forfeit because of one player trying to punish the others for his perception that they lost him the game? This is probably not going to be a likely outcome. Especially considering that the enemy team will probably be reported for something like Unsportsmanlike Conduct. > maybe introducing some other parameters, like requiring one team have at least 20 kills and twice as many kills as the other team to allow a 4 man surrender also after the 20 minute mark. This is actually a pretty good compromise! 20 minutes is definitely not a sufficient stand-alone parameter.
: > [{quoted}](name=7025863629,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9a63A2rV,comment-id=,timestamp=2016-07-16T13:03:30.236+0000) > > PLEASE FIX THE FORFEIT BUTTON. IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE THAT PEOPLE CAN CHOOSE TO GIVE UP FROM A GAME BECAUSE THEY THINK IT IS TO HARD OR UNWINNABLE. Why not? It requires a 4/5 majority. If you never want to surrender, that means a surrender vote can't pass unless literally every one of your teammates wants to surrender. In my experience as someone who almost never surrenders in Ranked (2 games out of maybe 400), this happens very, very infrequently. >How many times have people clicked that quit button, failed to get all players to quit and come back and win the game? It happens a lot. But in those games, the losing team didn't surrender. 2+ people thought the game was winnable, and it was. Working as intended. >As you know LOL, from your code, Negative attitudes effect players, let alone effect them greater then a positive attitude. Do you know how many games must have been forfeited that the losing team may have come back from and won... A LOT! This would actually be really interesting to see. You could look at games with a surrender vote that passes and measure how far behind the losing team was at that point. Then compare that to games where the losing team is the same amount behind and didn't surrender, and see how often the losing team makes a comeback. >It is not fair to have people quit games because it isnt easy, going their way, or it gets difficult because they are behind. It may be necessary for a forfeit button, I grant you that, BUT AT LEAST ALLOW EVERY PLAYER TO MAKE THE DECISION TO QUIT. IT SHOULD BE A 100% VOTE. As long as one player believes the team should win. They should not get a loss due to a forfeit. Please change this! Maybe it's not fair to the one player, but what about the other 4 players? Would it be fair to them to force them to play through a game where they are getting stomped, that seems unwinnable, just because one player is too blind to see or too stubborn to admit that the game is over?
> Why not? It requires a 4/5 majority. If you never want to surrender, that means a surrender vote can't pass unless literally every one of your teammates wants to surrender. In my experience as someone who almost never surrenders in Ranked (2 games out of maybe 400), this happens very, very infrequently. Well, if you've committed to playing the match, knowing full well that not all games are easily won; that teams sometimes [or often] throw; that whatever the situation is on the map, once you hit the 45 minute mark, the game could honestly go either way due to long death timers and the losing team having caught up in items; then I think you should see the match through to the end. > But in those games, the losing team didn't surrender. 2+ people thought the game was winnable, and it was. Working as intended. Well, the whole point is that they **didn't** surrender, which gave them a chance to win. 100% of those "comeback" teams would have **lost** if they did surrender. > This would actually be really interesting to see. You could look at games with a surrender vote that passes and measure how far behind the losing team was at that point. Then compare that to games where the losing team is the same amount behind and didn't surrender, and see how often the losing team makes a comeback. Yeah, that would be interesting. Hopefully those stats will be made available on OPGG or something. > Maybe it's not fair to the one player, but what about the other 4 players? Would it be fair to them to force them to play through a game where they are getting stomped, that seems unwinnable, just because one player is too blind to see or too stubborn to admit that the game is over? Firstly, the game is only over once a nexus explodes; otherwise comebacks wouldn't exist. Secondly, a lot of games that are surrendered are not ones where teams are stomped or that seem unwinnable. A lot of people want to give up after 10 minutes or even First Blood. Thirdly, as seen in comeback games; it is often the players who didn't vote to surrender who are not blind because they won the game. Lastly, considering my first point, does it seem fair to you to deny a player the chance to win when there is still a chance? Should the other 4 players really have the right to give up and take another player down with them? This is emphasised even more so in ranked, where players are playing to compete rather than for casual fun.
: FORFEIT, QUITTING, LOSING GAMES
You're absolutely right! At the very least, they should do this for ranked games because people play ranked more to compete than for casual fun.
Rioter Comments

Mdluli

Level 30 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion