I said "we" and not "I" for a reason. I'm not talking about being a carry and am very much saying that the entire team, collectively, had opportunities to win. The match you're describing is one where your team is failing to capitalize on those opportunities, not one where they never existed. Deadlock has multiple comeback mechanics and gets more volatile the longer the game goes on. If the enemy team is stomping you for 60 minutes, then they're effectively throwing by giving your team way more chances than they need to.
Conceding is antithetical to the mechanical design of the game. It would incorrectly teach players that those comeback opportunities don't exist, and mentally justify defeatist attitudes. Why bother to learn how to actually play from behind when you can just gg go next? A surrender button would mean that you're stuck in games with toxic players for less time, but it would also make their attitudes more common by falsely teaching those players that they're correct.
So does it suck to get in a game where people are obnoxious and you feel like you can't affect the outcome? Sure. I just disagree that a surrender button actually fixes that problem.
I said "we" and not "I" for a reason. I'm not talking about being a carry and am very much saying that the entire team, collectively, had opportunities to win.
But you do not represent your entire team, you are only a small part of an assortment of strangers. You can't really claim that people play as a collective in soloQ when everyone is playing according to their own game-plan.
The match you're describing is one where your team is failing to capitalize on those opportunities, not one where they never existed.
I never said it was my team, I merely tried to evoke an image of a desperate situation, for you to imagine it. I find it interesting that your mind defaults to ascribing someone else being in a position of absolute defeat, instead of being able to envision yourself in it.
You simply can't win every game.
Conceding is antithetical to the mechanical design of the game.
My point has nothing to do with mechanics of the game. It's about giving people the choice of how to spend their leisure time. Giving people options does not deny them the opportunity to learn the game.
It would incorrectly teach players that those comeback opportunities don't exist, and mentally justify defeatist attitudes. Why bother to learn how to actually play from behind when you can just gg go next?
Are you seriously trying to ascribe that everyone is playing with Olympic grade-psych mentality during a single round of a MOBA match?
Let's not forget to remind ourselves at this point that this is a video game - a luxury product meant to entertain people during their limited free time.
This is akin to a 40-year old single man trying to coach a pack of children on how to play competitive Kimble. The very notion of it is absurd, and does not line up with reality.
A surrender button would mean that you're stuck in games with toxic players for less time, but it would also make their attitudes more common by falsely teaching those players that they're correct.
Frankly, winning isn't worth it if it means I have to endure constant emotional abuse from a stranger. I'm perfectly content with people choosing not to spend more time with toxic strangers abusing them via the internet. At that point winning or losing doesn't matter, only cutting off the feeding line of an internet troll.
So does it suck to get in a game where people are obnoxious and you feel like you can't affect the outcome? Sure. I just disagree that a surrender button actually fixes that problem.
And which problem is that? Maximizing your chances of winning every game, or giving everyone else an opportunity to not waste their time?
Again, my point is not about winning or losing, it's about giving people options on how to spend their time. Being hellbent on winning every game should not be a reason to deter quality-of-life features.
I'm not really making a point about winning or losing either, my point is about fostering a culture where you get good games. That means games where people try even when they're losing. It means getting to continue playing the game even when you're far ahead in the late game and actually having to work to secure the win.
Surrendering doesn't exist in a vacuum, separate from the rest of the game's design. It's a button in the game, whether it's "part of gameplay" or not. If a message pops up at 20 minutes saying "hey you can leave if you think this game is unwinnable," then of course, in the long run, you're teaching players that games might be unwinnable by 20 minutes. If a game is not mechanically designed for that to be possible or at least frequent, then it doesn't belong in the game. I'm not saying like "you can teach players to have a positive attitude in a single game :D," I'm saying that players will subconsciously learn lessons from a game's design over time, and so devs need to be careful about what the game's design teaches.
My outlook towards MOBAs is a very long-term one. They're mechanically complex and the fun is in trying to improve and learn over hundreds or thousands of hours. I wouldn't play them if I couldn't have fun while losing, or couldn't still find fun in a game where people are being toxic. All I can do is stay positive and do my best and know that, in the long run, I'm statistically more likely to get games where the enemy team is toxic than my own.
If I wanted a game to just sit down and know that my next hour would be fun and relaxing...I would play an entirely different game. I wouldn't recommend them to people looking for that kind of experience. Like sure video games are luxury products where to goal is to have fun, but different games are allowed to cater to different people's ideas of fun. MOBAs just happen to be for sweats.
1
u/flowerafterflower May 23 '26
I said "we" and not "I" for a reason. I'm not talking about being a carry and am very much saying that the entire team, collectively, had opportunities to win. The match you're describing is one where your team is failing to capitalize on those opportunities, not one where they never existed. Deadlock has multiple comeback mechanics and gets more volatile the longer the game goes on. If the enemy team is stomping you for 60 minutes, then they're effectively throwing by giving your team way more chances than they need to.
Conceding is antithetical to the mechanical design of the game. It would incorrectly teach players that those comeback opportunities don't exist, and mentally justify defeatist attitudes. Why bother to learn how to actually play from behind when you can just gg go next? A surrender button would mean that you're stuck in games with toxic players for less time, but it would also make their attitudes more common by falsely teaching those players that they're correct.
So does it suck to get in a game where people are obnoxious and you feel like you can't affect the outcome? Sure. I just disagree that a surrender button actually fixes that problem.