Is it bad to have a rule stating teams can't play something that was picked in the previous match?

I'm of the opinion that it hurts competitive integrity in exchange for entertainment value, and when we're talking about people's careers and paychecks being on the line, I find it pretty unfair for us to be telling pros how to play. I mean, thinking about traditional sports, it's the same story every game there too, but people don't ask the pros to use different shaped balls and such to spice things up. I understand it's boring after awhile, but if you watch a handful of games rather than an entire days worth, then it becomes more enjoyable imo (especially if you start understanding the "why" behind some decisions pros make).

Tired of seeing Varus botlane already? Wow.

I'm still waiting for the Kalista + Galio/Blitzcrank to come out. Come on pros! Show me the plays!

[slayer-pantheon-popcorn]

Keep in mind that there are 134 champions in the game.

Granted, not all of them are viable in each role, but that is still a lot of champions that these players would be expected to have MASTERED. Especially when you consider that there are nearly always balance changes every other week.

They would have to be good with every champion in their role, and be good at playing them in combination with every other champion played in every other role by their teammates.

I think it would be awesome for a specific tournament with some rules that encouraged this level of mastery.

However, as Wh1teWu1f said, the results of these tournaments are ultimately the livelihood of these players.

Maybe something like this could be done for the Post-season All Stars event

Why the fuck would pro's play anything but the best all that matter's on stage is winning period. Diversity is Riot's fault and theirs to fix

Is seeing the same champs all the time first game, then seeing the same champs all the time second game (but different from game one) and then seeing the same champs all the time in the third game (but different from games 1-2 really that much better?

I really don't see teams diving all that deep into the champion pool even with your proposed rule do you?

The fact is, once you are over about 20 champions it becomes impossible to completely balance them all such that they're all equal unless you make them all exactly the same. And the pros will always test and have a list of what champion is best at what. And it's not like even the Unicorns just picked Lulu out of the blue. They totally baited the other team into a Rengar Malz and had lu lu practiced, and ready. Pros play at such a high level that they really don't have time to get 100 champs ready to go in the first place. Yes, they could probably within a week get any champ in the game ready. But having the potential to get each and every one of them ready to go in a week doesn't mean they can get all of them ready in a week. Nor would they want to because they don't need to. There will always be some that are better at the exact thing that they want than others.

It would be I think mostly because it would essentially be 20 bans during the second game and 30 bans in the third game. While there are over 100 champions (actually approaching 150) there really aren't all that many that are top tier. Basically the bans and picks in lcs are the very top tier, and then there are I would say just enough that are quite at that tier that can let you fill out your team comp. Other than that the vast majority of champions are really not all that great in comparison. At least that's the way I think about it.

Weird idea, hear me out and give thoughts. What if instead of proposing to disallow champs each game, Riot did this instead: First, for pro-play, need to scale back to 6 bans again, then... At the start of the season, there is a LOL Draft, each team picks 10 champions, those champions are ONLY playable by their team, so each team has 10 "unique" champs, which burns through 100 champs, the remaining 34 are "pool" champs that any team can play. That'd make it so that teams can focus on 44 "core" champs and (theoretically) get really good at them, and you'd see a MUCH wider range of champs in play (including at least a few "low tier" champs. Just as in other pro sports, teams can "trade" during the season, but trades stick for at least a week (so both teams will need to play with traded champs) and if it seems "abused" then just make the "must hold" period longer. There's also a "trade deadline" so for the later part of the season you go with who you have. If anything, it should give Riot a big shove to better balance their game.