DOTA2

[eldaec]

(You know what would be great, also, would be if my invite to this game would ever actually freaking happen so I can talk about the actual mechanical parts instead of just generic competitive gameplay theory stuff.)

Have you bought anything on steam lately? That's what triggered it for me.

[Malakili]

I dunno. When you're playing a game competitively, and there's an opportunity to improve your play skill by playing the whole thing out, you take it. I've maybe conceded one game of Blood Bowl ever*; there's always something to learn in a losing effort, in most games. Some don't lend themselves to it mechanically, like a chess match where you're in one of those '3 moves to checkmate' locks, but I don't think this is the case in MOBAs. There's always some aspect you can be working on improving, and if you add to it the obligation to teammates, I just can't see doing it. Hell just seeing how the winning team is winning is useful. I never want to be that 'just let them win' guy in Alterac Valley, and that's what a surrender button means to me. Maybe they should just disable it in ranked play or something, that might be a decent compromise.

I don't know, maybe my approach to this kind of thing is more unusual than I think. I piss people off in MTGO when I won't take prize splits for the same reason; I'm there to play the game and improve, getting to the last round and then not playing seems silly.

*There's a strategic reason to do it if you're trying to protect important players, etc., in some circumstances. Concede simply because I can't win? Not a chance.

(You know what would be great, also, would be if my invite to this game would ever actually freaking happen so I can talk about the actual mechanical parts instead of just generic competitive gameplay theory stuff.)

Depending how into it you are you can buy in for 30 bucks and get a bunch of cosmetic items.

Ninja Edit: http://www.dota2.com/store/itemdetails/57939587?appid=570

[Ingmar]

(You know what would be great, also, would be if my invite to this game would ever actually freaking happen so I can talk about the actual mechanical parts instead of just generic competitive gameplay theory stuff.)

Have you bought anything on steam lately? That's what triggered it for me.

Piles and piles of stuff, yeah.

[Rasix]

The point is, you have to let the players in the actual game evaluate these things. You can't decide for them that they should never, ever give up, and then stigmatize anyone who does as a leaver, because you are creating a completely retarded community environment. 

This is where I disagree entirely. Players IN the game are TERRIBLE judges of how the game is actually going. They only get half the information at best and it's almost entirely biased to fit their current mood or amount of momentum they feel they have/don't have. 

Dota, SC2, fucking Arathi Basin, name it, people are completely wrong about how a game will play out ALL the time.

I can usually predict how my games are going to go during the first 10 minutes.  It's not very difficult.  Most of these types of games tend to just snowball and even the best match making can end up with pretty poorly balanced teams (we're not pros). 

No one stigmatizes SC2 players for surrendering, which is what likely 95% of them end in (number yanked purely from ass, but I can remember most pro games that I've seen go down to the last unit/structure).   You know when it's over.  You can claw tooth and nail and hope for the miracle, but I'd rather get a few more games in.

Note: this isn't just for losing.  Winning a long, drawn out stomp isn't very thrilling.

[Fordel]

Players get shit for GGing to early all the time in SC2. Some of them are infamous for doing it and actually giving away games they actually won.

MOST infamous is easily Idra. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0nDsBOzeA4 

[Ice Cream Emperor]

Your tennis example is a one on one game. The situation changes in a game like DOTA because you have some level of obligation to the other 4 people on your team.

Did you just not read the last paragraph of my post? I am talking about the team deciding to concede, not individual players unilaterally quitting -- that's the whole point, right now the only way a game ends early is if somebody unilaterally quits, which as you point out is not something to be encouraged. Right now there is no game- or community-approved way for a game to end early, even when there clearly should be one.

Obviously that it has to be a team decision makes it a more complicated thing... to implement. But it doesn't make it remotely less of a good idea -- just harder to do right. In my opinion, however, it's really not all that hard -- LoL's approach is perfectly fine, though it could I am sure be improved upon as well.

[Ice Cream Emperor]

The point is, you have to let the players in the actual game evaluate these things. You can't decide for them that they should never, ever give up, and then stigmatize anyone who does as a leaver, because you are creating a completely retarded community environment.  

This is where I disagree entirely. Players IN the game are TERRIBLE judges of how the game is actually going. They only get half the information at best and it's almost entirely biased to fit their current mood or amount of momentum they feel they have/don't have.  

But THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO LOSE ANYTHING IF THEY CHOOSE WRONG. Holy shit this is mind-blowing. You are actually arguing in favour of forcing a group of people to keep playing a game when they no longer feel like playing a game. It's just like... what.

[Malakili]

Players get shit for GGing to early all the time in SC2. Some of them are infamous for doing it and actually giving away games they actually won.

MOST infamous is easily Idra. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0nDsBOzeA4 

In the thousands of competitive SC2 matches that have happened, a handful at best have been really obviously wrong ggs, and the majority of them have been by Idra because he is a headcase.  This is not an argument in your favor.  Nearly every single game ends in a proper gg, and even if the occcasional one might not be 100% over, they are almost never ever questionable.

[Thrawn]

MOST infamous is easily Idra. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0nDsBOzeA4  

This is amazing, couldn't happen to a better person...if I'm thinking of the right guy.

I wonder how many pages we are going to debate the surrender option back and forth, both sides using the same points over and over, no one ever shifting or being convinced they are wrong.  I've read every post, I still don't want surrender added into DotA.

[Malakili]

Can we add a super newbie crappy player mode for people who want surrender?  You can even label it as such so I have to feel shamed for playing it.

[Fordel]

But THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO LOSE ANYTHING IF THEY CHOOSE WRONG. Holy shit this is mind-blowing. You are actually arguing in favour of forcing a group of people to keep playing a game when they no longer feel like playing a game. It's just like... what.

Except for the guys who think the team is doing fine and don't want to stop playing, but are getting pressured by the rest of their team because they have the nerve to actually play the game through.

If the game is so far gone you can not possibly win, it will be over in 5 minutes anyways. Probably less.




Malakili , you are severely underestimating the number of premature GGs. Many times people have GG'd while still having an army left, or both sides losing their armies but one side deciding they might not rebuild fast enough. Idra is just the most extreme example of it.  

This isn't even touching the non-pro scene, where you can make half your opponents rage quit out of a game just by having the nerve to attack them before the 5-10 minute mark. Fuck I've won games where all I had was 3 DTs a pylon and a probe and my opponent who had 90 supply of workers and army decided he wouldn't have enough time to make one detector before 3 DT's somehow chewed through everything.

Then you have situation in SC2 where the other side just expects you to GG out, because shit man, your slightly behind, time for you to go! They'll actively harass you to leave because "your wasting their time!" but then 10 mins later you walk away with the win.


A Proper GG in SC2 is when you don't have an army and/or the ability to rebuild it, then it would just be 15 minutes of your opponent going building to building to clear the map. In Dota you don't have to clear out the entire map, just the big building in the corner. If you've totally lost with no hope, then that building is going down really fast anyways.



-edit-

Thrawn , yea it probably is who your thinking of. Idra is a notoriously bad mannered player that chokes and rages constantly when push comes to shove.

[Thrawn]

You are actually arguing in favour of forcing a group of people to keep playing a game when they no longer feel like playing a game. It's just like... what.

I missed the part where someone comes and breaks your legs if you just leave the game I guess.

[Ice Cream Emperor]

But THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO LOSE ANYTHING IF THEY CHOOSE WRONG. Holy shit this is mind-blowing. You are actually arguing in favour of forcing a group of people to keep playing a game when they no longer feel like playing a game. It's just like... what.

Except for the guys who think the team is doing fine and don't want to stop playing, but are getting pressured by the rest of their team because they have the nerve to actually play the game through.

If the game is so far gone you can not possibly win, it will be over in 5 minutes anyways. Probably less.

There is just no way you actually play public games of DOTA 2? I know this is a shitty argument to start with, rhetorically, but it's like you're talking about a different universe. I have played so many games of DOTA (and a similar percentage of DOTA 2) that stretched on endlessly past the point of no return because the team with the overwhelming advantage preferred to sit on their hands, farm the neutrals, gank feeders, do Roshan, etc. With like maybe one or two people actually pushing (and then maybe getting killed, slowing down future pushes, etc.) All this while still offering zero chance for the other team to recover, for reasons already covered exhaustively above. Games routinely take ten to twenty minutes longer than they should to end, and I am always the person on my team saying 'let's just push and end it' out of consideration for the other team. And I am not talking about situations where the game is still in the balance, and a few successful defenses will turn things around, I am talking about, like, we are playing chess and all you have left are four pawns a horse and a king, and I am moving my shit around while they are pinned in the corner trying to make the most aesthetically-pleasing patterns out of my four up-jumped pawn-queens.

Like it's great to hear all these stories about how people prematurely 'gg' in SC2 or whatever, but like again -- the risk here is so small compared to the overwhelming reward to the community at large and the vast majority of players involved. We're talking about enormous quantities of personal time, traded up against -- what, some people not learning to be good at the game as fast as they might otherwise?

I'd love to hear people expand more on this idea of inter-team squabbles over people not surrendering -- it's a legitimate argument for sure, but it just seems to me so totally overwhelmed by the benefit in all the other cases. It's not that I don't hear this argument, I just don't understand how it trumps what I perceive as the vast majority of the cases, where everyone involved could have moved on to the next more challenging game 10 or 15 minutes earlier than otherwise.

[Ice Cream Emperor]

You are actually arguing in favour of forcing a group of people to keep playing a game when they no longer feel like playing a game. It's just like... what.

I missed the part where someone comes and breaks your legs if you just leave the game I guess.

An argument of genius, there. Just because there are merely social repercussions, they must therefore be inconsequential? I'm talking about what builds sportsmanlike, competitive community. Real competitive games allow one side to decide to concede rather than play out a pointless endgame -- especially when that endgame could be as long as the game up to that point, with no chance of recovery. They don't tell people to man up and unilaterally quit, circumventing the actual rules of the game?


Edit: I mean, you guys do realise that in actual competitive DOTA 2 play, most games end by one team conceding, right? They call 'gg'. They say 'go next'. These are the best players in the world at this game. This is how it should work.

[Thrawn]

In actual competitive DOTA 2 play teams also surrender late into the game when the other team is in the base killing everything.  Not 15 minutes in because early game didn't go how they wanted.  (Yes, exceptions exist of course.)  I fail to see how letting people give up and leave as soon as they feel something isn't going how they want it builds a sportsmanlike, competitive community.

[Thrawn]

I think I'm to a point where I'm ready to start doing random when I play all pick games, except I'm still scared I'll end up with Invoker who I still haven't tried. 

[Fordel]

The last tourney I watched used time rankings to break up any tie-breakers in the group stages so teams played to the actual destruction of the ancient.

I have played so many games of DOTA (and a similar percentage of DOTA 2) that stretched on endlessly past the point of no return because the team with the overwhelming advantage preferred to sit on their hands, farm the neutrals, gank feeders, do Roshan, etc. With like maybe one or two people actually pushing (and then maybe getting killed, slowing down future pushes, etc.)

How is that a hopeless game though? There giving you time to farm and gank and maybe counter push something. They can't seal the deal and finish the game yet (and this IS part of the game being able to actually finish it after building an advantage). Are you still at a disadvantage? Probably. There's still plenty of game left there to be decided though. Unless your being team wiped and raxed, it ain't over (and if you are, its going to be over very soon anyways).

Why is :

(Or maybe they are pushing, but the losing team has super-strong turtling capability so they can hold out for like 20 minutes even though they will never actually turn that shit around.)

that bad? If that's what their team comp gave them and it's their only way of staying in the game, why shouldn't they do it? Why can't they turn it around, is the other team incapable of making mistakes?



How do you define the point of 'no return'? How does that effect your outlook on the game and your level of effort/play? What happens when you and I disagree on what a 'lost' game is? Why are we trying to figure out when we have 'lost' during an active game anyways, how is that helping the current game we are in at all? Why are we trying to create a self fulfilling prophecy?



Or better yet, do you prefer two 30 minute losses, or one 60 minute win? What about a 60 min loss that could of been a win?

[Llyse]

The last tourney I watched used time rankings to break up any tie-breakers in the group stages so teams played to the actual destruction of the ancient.

How do you define the point of 'no return'? How does that effect your outlook on the game and your level of effort/play? What happens when you and I disagree on what a 'lost' game is? Why are we trying to figure out when we have 'lost' during an active game anyways, how is that helping the current game we are in at all? Why are we trying to create a self fulfilling prophecy?


Or better yet, do you prefer two 30 minute losses, or one 60 minute win? What about a 60 min loss that could of been a win?

Pretty much this, I've played enough games with my idiot average wanna be pro friends *Megrim/Finlky* to lose games when we're up 10/15 kills because we don't push hard to win before their hard carries are farmed up to counter.

On the other hand we have won games were we win 2/3 team fights after being down 10 kills or so and get some good rhythm and some tower pushes down.

Worse case is if the game is that sh1t what happens if you just leave? You get a disconnect but save time to start again that you so dearly wanted.

[Fordel]

I think I'm to a point where I'm ready to start doing random when I play all pick games, except I'm still scared I'll end up with Invoker who I still haven't tried. 

I've still only played Treant Protector all of 1 game so far. My first non-tree game, I went Windrunner. I had played like two dozen bot games as windrunner, making sure I had a semi-decent grasp on that whole shackling thing and when to run away and stuff.


My Windrunner game, I face up against a Riki and a Bloodseeker that decided I was the meat in their pain sandwhich. Not fun  Every team fight I got to choose between the Riki fucking me in the ass, or Rupture fucking me in the ass as I ran away. I don't know what I needed to do there exactly, maybe a ghost scepter or a yuuls? Better positioning?

[Llyse]

I've still only played Treant Protector all of 1 game so far. My first non-tree game, I went Windrunner. I had played like two dozen bot games as windrunner, making sure I had a semi-decent grasp on that whole shackling thing and when to run away and stuff.


My Windrunner game, I face up against a Riki and a Bloodseeker that decided I was the meat in their pain sandwhich. Not fun  Every team fight I got to choose between the Riki fucking me in the ass, or Rupture fucking me in the ass as I ran away. I don't know what I needed to do there exactly, maybe a ghost scepter or a yuuls? Better positioning?

Better teammates? Did you have wards (possibly both) on river/neutrals?

That's a pretty gank heavy combo so that's pretty tough to survive as a WR without a teammate on you deter the farkers. Sentry wards to provide sight on Riki when he stealths in is key as well. At low levels Rikis tend to be overconfident and don't realise that people buy wards to get vision and will tail the entire opposing team when suddenly down comes a ward and 50 nukes.

I'm not familiar with WR but as Crystal Maiden I would be warding river your neutrals and generally not be solo unless I saw Riki farming a lane far from me.

[Ingmar]

  Megrim

[Megrim]

The biggest counter to both SA and BH are town portal scrolls.

 * Edit; no problem. I still have a couple spare if people are interested.

[Fordel]

I had some sentries for Riki, but I could've done a better job with observers probably. If I am doing wards I usually just drop them near the runes, I don't know the best spots for every situation yet.

[lamaros]

What a how many professional real world sports are there where teams habitually surrender?

I'm struggling to think of many...

[Trippy]

Badminton?

(Yes I know they weren't "surrendering")

[Rasix]

What a how many professional real world sports are there where teams habitually surrender?

I'm struggling to think of many...

And in the professional setting for LoL, you don't see a lot of surrenders (especially in LANs).  Their teammates also probably aren't calling them a faggot for missing a skill shot and haven't sold their entire inventory so they could draw a penis with wards.

You're not picking your team here most of the time and LoL has hit WoW like numbers so there are WoW like assholes every where.  Maybe DOTA2 will stay small enough to not hit such a critical mass of wretchedness with the community.

edit: Perhaps with DOTA2 linked to Steam accounts, people will be less likely to indulge in ban-worthy behavior.

[Malakili]

 Maybe DOTA2 will stay small enough to not hit such a critical mass of wretchedness with the community.

I'm already running into loads of people who are utter dickheads for no reason.  Its like - every single one of us at this level is utter trash at the game, how can you possibly be trash talking?  I'm consistently amazed at how much people over rate themselves.

[Ice Cream Emperor]

What a how many professional real world sports are there where teams habitually surrender?

I'm struggling to think of many...

How many professional real world sports give one side a structural advantage when they win the early game? Oh right none, because that's not how sports work. Meanwhile the only example of a major (western) competitive game where this is so -- chess -- has an entire history built around concession, offering of draws, etc.

And meanwhile many, many little league baseball games have ended due to the mercy rule. (Six runs in an inning, etc. it seems to vary considerably in implementation.) Because we aren't talking about professional level play, because that's not the play they need to design their pick-up matchmaking system for. Professional level DOTA play has already been covered -- teams can and do concede, regularly, it's considered totally normal. Yes, as pointed out, they mostly concede once they've lost at least one base tower, but sometimes they decide to concede earlier as well. Because those teams understand how the game works, they understand what a deficit means in the game, and they respect the ability of their opponents to follow through.

This whole 'wouldn't you rather play a 60 minute game because you might totally win because you were totally able to stop them from pushing for 10 minutes' line of reasoning... this argument is so disingenuous. Regardless of my personal answer to that question, the point is that I should be able to answer that question and have my answer mean something -- right now I am not even allowed to decide I'd rather not play the game, I just have to. Maybe some times I will feel like playing a game out, maybe other times I will be like 'fuck it, I want to concede' -- the point is that I am the one playing the game, me and the other players on my team are the ones who should get to decide. It's like, a basic recognition of our ability to decide what to do with our time?

The only counter-argument I am even seeing here is that like, having a concession ability will cause people to immediately give up because of one or two problems early on -- but my experience in LoL is that this sort of thing does not actually happen that often? Because most players want to try and win? And obviously it is pretty trivial to follow LoL's example and not allow surrendering until the 20 or 25 minute mark, anyways, which pretty much makes it explicit that giving up at 5 minutes is simply not kosher. To be honest I think you get fewer people DC-quitting at 10 minutes if they realize that they can play out the next 10-15 minutes and call a surrender vote, because you offer them a socially legitimate way to get out of an unsatisfying game. Obviously some people will just ragequit and that's that (and DOTA deals with ragequitting very well, IMO) but the sort of surrender-based griefing that is being brought up seems like this tiny fraction of games compared to how many games legitimately end early because one team reasonably and correctly decides to /surrender because the game is lost.

I don't have any stats but I feel like when I played LoL at least half of my games ended through surrender -- not usually instant-surrender, but at some point teams decided it was over and not to bother playing out the final base-destruction. Do other people really have dramatically different experiences of LoL on this one? Because if you add up all that saved time from 50% of LoL games (most ending only 2-10 minutes early at most, some more like 10-15) it is a whole fucking lot of saved time for the players involved. It just seems like a huge net benefit to me, versus the risk of... what I don't know. I don't think the presence of a concession option somehow enables the sort of griefing and 'we've lost just give up, gg losers' behaviour that people are hinting at -- I think that happens anyways, already, and while it's possible that the surrender option's very existence would aggravate it, that seems like a fine tradeoff to me.

[tazelbain]

A good mercy rule is about the only thing that could get me to comeback to MOBA.  I just value my time and sanity too much to sit through the non-competive games.

[lamaros]

I was mostly being facetious... 

[Rendakor]

Regarding the surrender thing, I agree with Ingmar's points from a page or so ago and think that adding it is a bad idea. If you and your team want to give up, just tell the other team that you're quitting and sit in your base while they come kill you.

Also, I realized I never actually applied to join this. I'm attempting to do so now, but it's asking all kinds of weird shit about the original DotA that I don't remember at all so I just made some shit up. Anyone have an invite?

[Llyse]

Megrim

I poked Megrim! Where's my kudos! 

Yeah, if the issue is it's your personal time and that you should dictate it then just leave. You're already valuing your time other random pubbies so loss of rep with random pubbies shouldn't matter to you.

It's not like you're not allowed to requeue straightaway, although I've no idea what the queueing algorithm is like and what queueing times are for solo queuers.

[Megrim]

What a how many professional real world sports are there where teams habitually surrender?

I'm struggling to think of many...

How many professional real world sports give one side a structural advantage when they win the early game? Oh right none, because that's not how sports work. Meanwhile the only example of a major (western) competitive game where this is so -- chess -- has an entire history built around concession, offering of draws, etc.

And meanwhile many, many little league baseball games have ended due to the mercy rule. (Six runs in an inning, etc. it seems to vary considerably in implementation.) Because we aren't talking about professional level play, because that's not the play they need to design their pick-up matchmaking system for. Professional level DOTA play has already been covered -- teams can and do concede, regularly, it's considered totally normal. Yes, as pointed out, they mostly concede once they've lost at least one base tower, but sometimes they decide to concede earlier as well. Because those teams understand how the game works, they understand what a deficit means in the game, and they respect the ability of their opponents to follow through.

This whole 'wouldn't you rather play a 60 minute game because you might totally win because you were totally able to stop them from pushing for 10 minutes' line of reasoning... this argument is so disingenuous. Regardless of my personal answer to that question, the point is that I should be able to answer that question and have my answer mean something -- right now I am not even allowed to decide I'd rather not play the game, I just have to. Maybe some times I will feel like playing a game out, maybe other times I will be like 'fuck it, I want to concede' -- the point is that I am the one playing the game, me and the other players on my team are the ones who should get to decide. It's like, a basic recognition of our ability to decide what to do with our time?

The only counter-argument I am even seeing here is that like, having a concession ability will cause people to immediately give up because of one or two problems early on -- but my experience in LoL is that this sort of thing does not actually happen that often? Because most players want to try and win? And obviously it is pretty trivial to follow LoL's example and not allow surrendering until the 20 or 25 minute mark, anyways, which pretty much makes it explicit that giving up at 5 minutes is simply not kosher. To be honest I think you get fewer people DC-quitting at 10 minutes if they realize that they can play out the next 10-15 minutes and call a surrender vote, because you offer them a socially legitimate way to get out of an unsatisfying game. Obviously some people will just ragequit and that's that (and DOTA deals with ragequitting very well, IMO) but the sort of surrender-based griefing that is being brought up seems like this tiny fraction of games compared to how many games legitimately end early because one team reasonably and correctly decides to /surrender because the game is lost.

I don't have any stats but I feel like when I played LoL at least half of my games ended through surrender -- not usually instant-surrender, but at some point teams decided it was over and not to bother playing out the final base-destruction. Do other people really have dramatically different experiences of LoL on this one? Because if you add up all that saved time from 50% of LoL games (most ending only 2-10 minutes early at most, some more like 10-15) it is a whole fucking lot of saved time for the players involved. It just seems like a huge net benefit to me, versus the risk of... what I don't know. I don't think the presence of a concession option somehow enables the sort of griefing and 'we've lost just give up, gg losers' behaviour that people are hinting at -- I think that happens anyways, already, and while it's possible that the surrender option's very existence would aggravate it, that seems like a fine tradeoff to me.

Ironically, one of the reasons I was drawn to League initially was the surrender function. After playing it for a year and over a thousand games later, it was one of reasons I quit. Not the main one mind you, but one of the several compounding issues. The fact that it happens to be abusable is just an added bonus. Or, more correctly, I should say that its not so much abusable (not really much to abuse there) but that it creates a culture of 'win trading' for a lack of a better expression. The game turns away from being a contest where two teams contest victory, and instead becomes a game of who gets matched with less passive-aggressive teammates. You are playing some kind of aborted, truncated version of the game.

You said it yourself - half, half your games end in surrender. Fifty percent of the time, you do not actually get to finish a game, because one of the teams walks off the pitch! Apart from the sheer lack of sportsmanship this demonstrates, how do you even expect to learn to play a game into the lategame? What about champions that scale well into the lategame? Admittedly this is a loaded question, since in League most of the champs are functionally identical anyway, but in Dota2 this makes a huge difference. What about developing an understanding of map control over time, the importance of money management in farming versus saving to timely re-buys, or the difference in team compositions to favour various periods of time in the game.

As an example, there are limits on Observer Ward restocking in Dota2, as well as a limit on Smoke of Deceit. This seems like a small thing, but in fact is hugely important because a crucial skill in using these relatively minor items revolves around being able to maximise their efficacy over time. What use would any of this be if people just surrendered 25 minutes in, half of the time? How do you deal with set-backs, failed pushes and being outmanoeuvred as you try to wrap the game up? Hell, a whole sub-set of game strategy, "Chinese Dota" exists that specifically relies on super-lategame carries and tenacious defensive play.

In so far as little league goes, I've been playing sports for, er, what twenty years now? Since I was about ten I think, and not once in my memory have I ever been on a team or in a solo game, where surrender has taken place. Literally, not once has a team walked off the field, or I or my opponent have conceded. I did have a player refuse to play a tennis match against me once, but I think that had more to do with my penchant for playing at the net and aiming all my smashes at the opposing player. So, uh, cultural differences I guess? (You weak girly-man you).

And the 60-minute game argument is not disingenuous. It comes down to making a commitment to nine other people, to sit down and play a game. Saying, as you have "sometimes - fuck it, I just want to surrender" comes exactly down to what the problem is. I'd presented a hypothetical example once before already: lets say that you feel this way. You start a surrender vote, and it gets turned down 3 to 2. Now what? Are you prepared to change your mind and support your teammates in trying to win the game? You know as well as I do that the answer is no. You just want out, and couldn't give a stuff about what the rest of your team thinks. So you can quit, freely in fact - but you have to deal with the consequence of ditching your team, and your opponents.

[Malakili]

It just seems to me fundamentally at odds with the possibility of enjoying the game in "solo queue" if there is no way to end a game early.  Over the long haul, no, I'm really not going to literally roll the digital dice on hoping the RNG pairs me up with 9 people who are worth spending an hour of my life with with no way out, and I'm not a big enough asshole to leave a game either.

[HaemishM]

Agreeing to a surrender is not always lack of sportsmanship and it's disingenuous to say that it is. Sometimes you are just beaten and you know it. The lack of sportsmanship comes when people can't admit they've been outplayed and outmatched.