Ideas for Worlds

GrimmPreacher·Nov 2, 2016·1 votes·763 views

I'm new to LoL, and even newer to watching Worlds. It was the first time I had ever watched any live games on a competitive level. For the most part I enjoyed every second, and learned a lot about the game and community through it.

Yet, on that last night, my friends and I were gathered at my house for drinks, pizza, and worlds. We were enjoying the games, but all had the same complaint... We were bored of seeing the same champions again and again. So, here I am. I have an idea for tournaments that may be stupid, but I believe it may make competitive play very interesting.

Considering a best of 5 format, I would like to see players have to play different champions every game. Once a champion is picked by any player they can't be used for the rest of the best of 5. Bans would remain the same except for in the last game where there would be no banning phase, any remaining champions could be used. Banning a champion only disables their use for that game, except again when there are no bans in the fifth game.

While this type of format may bring problems with it, I believe that it caters very well to viewers and requires an even higher level of expertise from players. It would, in my opinion, add to the dynamics of the game and give the community a chance for their main to be featured on LoL's biggest stage.

Sorry for any ignorance I may have about the history of this or if anything like it has been attempted. I would love to hear other's thoughts on this idea, both positive and negative, or about any ideas like this that you may have.

DeerWhistles

6 Comments

ModWulf HelhammerNov 2, 20161 votes

That would ruin competitive esports. They don't play for your entertainment; they play to win, and as such, they will use the best tactic available

GrimmPreacherNov 2, 20161 votes

Could you support why this would ruin competitive esports?

I understand that they play to win, and want to use the best tactics possible. Yet, I believe that requiring at least 30 different champions to appear in each best of 5 game would actually make these tournaments more dynamic. Ultimately, players would become of a higher caliber and tactics would be forced to become more diverse. I think that we would see unique strategies develop as well.

With this, the more people that want to watch, the better. I would guess that the prize pool wouldn't have been near as big this year for worlds if people weren't watching/supporting. If people don't want to watch there is far less money involved. The more people that watch, the more money there is to be made by both the competitors and RIOT. Which we, as average players, inevitably benefit from. Just some thoughts and thanks for your response.

ShadowatomNov 2, 20161 votes

Funnily enough, your idea of no bans on the fifth game actually was used in Korea for a few seasons until this one I think. I don't recall why they removed it, but I doubt they'd re-implement it, at least not without extremely good reason to.

As far as your idea for more champion diversity goes, it's been suggested many times, each time the community has shot it down. I think one of the main reasons is because while champion diversity is stale, forcing players onto champions just for our personal enjoyment simply feels like a compromise of competitive integrity. I think we should wait for the implementation of the 10 ban system (which I think is coming, not entirely sure though) before we talk about champion diversity anymore, since that should serve a fairly large tool in possibly shaking at least 4-5 more picks out of players.

GrimmPreacherNov 3, 20161 votes

Interesting. I wasn't aware of the no ban fifth game in Korea. Also interesting that they removed it. I would like to know why if anyone out there has the info.

I also get the point about forcing champs onto players for our enjoyment. I don't think that our enjoyment should be the main focus of promoting champion diversity. Instead, champion diversity should focus on the summoners and making their play/tactics more dynamic. I still believe that this would create a new level of professional player and diversify tactics within each season. Yet, our enjoyment of esports is critical. If we don't enjoy it we don't watch it. If we don't watch, esports don't exist.

Thank you for bringing up the 10 ban system as well. I had no clue of that either. I could see this causing players to play a wider variety of champs as well. This would be a different approach to what I had thought but could be effective.

As for competitive integrity we must be aware of our own presuppositions. From what you said, I assume that the community believes what they do based on the commonly held view of the best player/tactics should always be available and implemented. My own opinion causes us to adjust that view as one might adjust a world view. Those best players and tactics are available, yet players have to look at how and when they choose those players/tactics with more discrepancy. The "best" may become predicable and countered within the pick phase. The "best" team comp may be one that you pay for later... It's the difference between a battle and a war. Again, the best of five become a dynamic whole instead of five separate games. With fear of becoming redundant, what I am saying is that we should look at the best of 5 as a whole rather than 5 separate games. Instead of 5 small battles, I want to see one big war.

Thanks for responding!

hotarseNov 3, 20161 votes

Korea didn't only remove bans for games 5s in seasons past, they made the game blind pick so neither team knew what each other was picking. I'm all for creative ideas to increase the number of champions we see in play, but I see other problems with your suggestion.

First let me being by saying I think entertainment is the main goal of esports. If we aren't entertained, then what's the point. But entertainment is different for each person. Some people might not enjoy the uneven series created by your suggestion.

For me I think first and foremost Riot needs to create sand box tools to allow players to facilitate matchup practice. Scrims aren't efficient when trying out new comps and counters. With sandbox tools teams could more efficiently increase their champion pools and at the same time could practice secret strategies. Scrims removes secrecy. One of the best things Taipei Assassins had going for them in season 2 was that they scrimmed few regions. We saw the same thing with Albus Nox this year, where teams didn't quite figure them out until after group stage after they started scrimming other teams.

Secondly, I do believe the ban phase needs tweaking. I think we need to move to 10 bans, but to also have an option for 2 mutual bans pre ban phase (2 champs both teams can agree on mutually banning if they so choose) and having the 4th ban giving the option of unbanning a champion.

Thirdly, I think riot needs to do a better job with balancing and should not do major balance changes prior to major tournaments such as worlds. Some might think this would make it so the meta last longer, thus becoming stale, but I don't think that Riot really gives enough time for true metas to take shape. i think players will eventually figure out ways to break it themselves, given decent champion balancing.

At world's this year, i could point out Nidalee as one of the problem champs. She clears the jungle way too fast given her mobility and kill potential. Overall, while mobility is more entertaining, seeing champs with lots of mobility winning too often because of it feels unfair. Riot needs to make sure mobility champs have enough couterplay.

GrimmPreacherNov 4, 20162 votes

If I understand you correctly what you are saying is that by restricting the playing of a champion to only once pr best of 5 that the series would become unbalanced or uneven. I guess I never thought of that possibility. There may be the potential of it becoming very one sided. Yet, I would stay grounded on the fact that switching to this sort of format would create a new type of player. It would take some time and there would be some blowouts, but players/teams would eventually adapt. Ultimately I think it works very well and holds players to a higher standard.

Your idea for sandbox tools is also intriguing. I agree that scrims remove the secrecy. I know that I wouldn't want to be practicing against my competition and giving things away. Yet, I'm sure many of the teams study video of others in order to grasp their tendencies before they even scrim.

Someone else brought up the ban phase. I do like making adjustments there as well. Yet, 10 bans is not going to be "entertaining" for most. 10 bans could take a long time and slow the start of the game way down. If we are talking overall experience and entertainment, most viewer wanted explosive action and dynamic gameplay. On the other hand a 10 ban system appeals to the strategists.

I appreciate your input and enjoy theorizing about this. There is still something in me that wants to see what I have suggested put into place. Maybe it could be tried on a smaller stage?

Thanks again!