Why is there no surrender option?

Comebacks are always possible. But aside from that, this is Valve's take on it:

If you are surrendering, the majority of your team isn't having fun. But what about the 5 on the enemy team? You are also wasting their time and cutting their fun short by surrendering. The game was designed with fun in mind, not winning or losing then moving on to the next game as fast as you can.

Well, if by "fun" means fountain camping the opponent after pubstomping them...
I've always said that it's bad habit to chase to fountain, that we can rax instead, but noo, everyone's like "it's no fun". Because they'd rather spend 10 minutes beating a dead horse than end it right there, and use the 10 minutes to search for a good match.

Sometimes i wonder if i'm the only pub player with pro mindset.

If all 5 unanimously want to give up, just buy quelling blade, smoke up, and hide in top left or bottom right forest. Game ends in max 5min unless you're up against the douchiest 5 stack.

Fountain camping you? TP outside, smoke, and go hide.

I think the comeback argument (which is true) has been hit pretty hard, so I want to address a different point.



I liked this part the best from Sulaxrox.


It's a given fact that a person is more psychologically prone to "opt out" of a troubling situation if there is little or no penalty received. And though this may be able to alleviate the problem in the short term, the person ultimately will not learn from the mistakes he (or she) has made. The same idea carries over to DoTA. Given the option, many players would opt out of a game where their side is failing. However, doing this one neglects the impact of lessons which are critical to success.

Simply put: There. is. no. free. lunch.

Work hard and your efforts will eventually pay off. This is why I believe Valve doesn't support the surrender option, and also why I can respect their decision.

All this being said I don't necessarily object to the idea of a surrender option. There are those cases where even hardcore veteran players would like to admit defeat from a team and move on gracefully. However, I feel if the option was implemented into the game, the function would be abused to the point that cost would substantially outweigh the benefits. This is why I am satisfied with the current system.

1. To the above poster: it's not "opting out" because you still lose the game. A surrender would count as a loss on your record.

2. People keep saying that quitting the game acts as a surrender option. This isn't really a solution because of the abandon penalty on the first leaver's record. Having a surrender would actually reduce the amount of leavers/rage-quitters.

3. A surrender option would not spoil the "comeback effect" because a surrender would only happen if every member on the team votes to surrender (unanimously). If one person on the team feels their ult has the possibility of changing the game, they don't have to vote. If one person believes they can turn things around, they don't have to vote. Simple as that. There will still be plenty of comebacks, surrender option or not. Surrendering happens when the entire team unanimously agrees that all is lost.

4. I do like the suggestion from Sulaxrox to make the time limit closer to 30:00. (I originally suggested 10:00.)

5. What if surrendering was an "opt in" feature? A player would have to go into settings and check "enable surrender option." That way surrendering would only be an option in games where everyone had enabled this feature, and not an option in all other instances.

And a quick question: I didn't watch a lot of the TI3, but I think I remember teams surrendering by all leaving. I assume they had something setup so they didn't take abandons for doing this. Doesn't this demonstrate the utility of a surrender option?

I always go back and forth on the issue of surrender buttons.

On one hand I have played in some amazing comebacks and those games are ones that truly standout in my memory.

But there are those games. We all have them, I had one last night, people are *****ing about lag and feeding and it gets to a point where you think "well okay I might just take an abandon here not to waste my time."

My experience with games with an experience button (my brief stint playing HoN) I found that people abused that button and then if they were voted against and the game continued they just sat in the fountain. Not saying that doesn't happen in dota but I dont feel it is as common.

To answer your question: TI3 was in lobbies so so they didn't have abandons but could still call GG.

Anyone who has played HoN knows this to be true. 4 people surrendering, one guy trying to play on, turns into fountain-resting and a flamefest for wasting their time. The idea that 5 players will play on when 4 have given up is naive at best.

I doubt anyone will find a solution to this problem any time soon sadly.

It's simple, have all 5 players disconnect from a game, but do not press "Leave", after a minute the game will count it as a surrender

IIRC they play in Lobby, and there IS a surrender option there by typing "gg" in all chat. Then there will be a big box with "You surrender, you lose the game in 10 seconds" or something like that and a "cancel" button.

Source: tried it myself