New Competitive Game Mode Idea to Increase Entertainment

Power Cosmic·Apr 3, 2018·2 votes·704 views

There are currently 140 champs. In any meta far, far fewer actually get played. Maybe an ESports group like RedBull or PGL could try to do pro-level League with a mode that randomly omitted 20 champs every game? I think it would lead to some amazing entertainment and great game quality. Therefore each game, both teams would still have 110 (30 omitted bc bans) to pick from, and teams usually would have be more than good meta slaves to win. Since it would be risky, Riot could put their weight ($) behind it to make it legit for everyone's benefit.

Nice cash reward to winner to make it real af.

25 Comments

HalcyonDwellerApr 3, 20182 votes

It sounds cool in theory, I'm not usually one to watch stuff though. I'd play in it if it were a mode available to all players though!

DoubleTankApr 4, 20182 votes

The only way this could maybe work would be to add bans. Maybe have 7 bans for each team making it so people would need a larger pool. Not reducing the champs they can pick

ChompyWulfApr 4, 20182 votes

While many people have agreed that seeing the same champions over and over and over again can get stale, a very wild randomizer like this or simply adding more and more bans isn't an answer.

My idea first won't work in NA unless they drop the stupid one game format again and return to best of 3 series.

The best way to incentivize champion variety is to drop the stark W-L standings and shift to a point based system. Wins would of course gain points. Points could also be granted for major objectives like Herald, Dragons, Baron, and Inhibitors so even a losing team can walk away with a few in a game. With such a system, points could be forfeited if a team selects a champion they used in a prior game.

Say for example downing the Nexus (winning) earns 5. Let's say every other major objective (Dragons, Herald, Baron, Inhibitor) is worth one point. A winning team likely will down a couple inhibs, dragons, and probably Baron. So if the game runs smooth and quick they net another 5 for a total of 10 in their win. So, to discourage teams from only taking the same comps over and over in a series, a 3 point penalty per champ would do a lot to force teams to really think hard about cheesing the same champs every game while giving a little freedom to repeat using a comfort pick or two and have a net gain over a winning series.

Power CosmicApr 4, 20181 votes

Very creative idea :)

Power CosmicApr 4, 20181 votes

A team losing on points but winning the game might be an issue though.

DoubleTankApr 4, 20181 votes

Although this is a good idea, is the point of competitive play not to master the game? Although you may dislike seeing one or two champs per role wouldn't that be more on riot to help make champions more viable not blaming pro player for trying to play the game had the highest caliber. If you want to see more then that would require the ability for more champs playable per role.

GeminiRuneApr 3, 20181 votes

That sounds loosely All-Stars-like and hardly pro if you ask me. And even still there's a lot of factors that have to be accounted for, especially if we're applying a "per role" theme.

So you roll out 30 champs. If there's a pro setting you omit 10 of those, leaving 20 to choose from whether or not it's practiced. And it could be rigged with no marksman, classified supports, etc. That doesn't sound appetizing. While I'd get a thrill from seeing it played I wouldn't be inspired to make anything of it, even if it's an off tourney.

Power CosmicApr 3, 20181 votes

Pros have been playing for years. Practice is not an issue, the game is these dudes lives. They can first time champs at a high level bc they know where there spells fit into the game and how they should be used. To make it clear you could omit 20, so including bans 30, leaving in effect 110 champs to draft (specific amounts alterable). Since it would be random, it could not be rigged and anything could happen but with 110 champs there would be plenty of options. There are no roles in pro play, they just pick. Roles aren't really a thing, they only exist to make draft less toxic and learning game easier for new players.

To a lot of people, being good at the game, is being good at the game, and not executing a focused meta or just otp'ing.

GeminiRuneApr 3, 20182 votes

The only thing that happens is the meta curve shifts to what's omitted. And even then, how frequent does this happen? Are we talking each week of the event the champs disabled are drawn? Or each game played, the latter being very unstable.

They may be pros dedicated to the game and practice. But they practice a set amount as is. So in what world would they be in if every primary archetype gets omitted for a game or even a week?

Think like a pro. Not everyone has the ability to flex everything and only a handful of pros have had positive regards of being prominent in two roles. Can you say you can flex everything and be good at whatever wherever?

Power CosmicApr 3, 20181 votes

You are misunderstanding the mode. Every individual game there is a roll on which champs get omitted. It would be independent of other matches and random. Nothing shifts, the game stays the same. This only brings some fresh and exciting variability to pro level team play. And yes I can pretty much flex anything and be pretty good (not pro) at it, because if you are good you know what to do.

GeminiRuneApr 3, 20182 votes

I'm not misunderstanding anything. This is just one more of those posts that has a problem with competitive diversity because it's stagnant enough to be a grievance. And thus, here comes another same suggestion.

As for what you stated previously, THAT is expecting them to have to work with variety of champs whether they're comfortable with it at the point in time or not! I for one wouldn't enjoy having to prep for everything. I can't just jump from being lucky that I got Vi in the jungle then my next game I have no jungle champs I'm comfortable with and have to settle to Nautilus or Karma; and I'm an anti-meta style player - I'll make whatever work however I can. I'd only make myself a fool if I didn't have myself tuned to that following up. That's why I said think like a pro. Would you have 60/70 champs ready to roll when the dice fell onto it? Not even pros have that innate talent to play that many champs to a top mastery.

And it wouldn't be fresh at all. That'd be forced entertainment to those who want to view to imitate or just ridicule because up to 10 players will make mistakes because they can't be religiously ironed out on absolutely everything on a stage. Pros play for more than just an afro, clown nose, and some makeup as a lot of fans just want to call it. Pros don't have to play for the fans.

Power CosmicApr 3, 20181 votes

I got you, but 110 champs left is a lot for the 10 spots. Most pros would favor something like this, because they mainly play to win. On top of that, good players (and pros) do not view any type of extreme repetition as enjoyable. They pick what they have to, to win, not for fun, or our entertainment, my idea simply creates more ways to win; therefore more fun.

What you should do is watch some streams of pros, and former pros, and ask to see their mastery pages.

GeminiRuneApr 3, 20182 votes

Your idea is just like a good dozen posts that came through the Esports boards last season. And my point still stands to some degree. Most of those posts also seem to discredit that there are 13 (now 14) different leagues with varying tastes to what champs are strong or are utilized. The "one league you want to watch" shouldn't have to pay a price among its pros if the pursuit is to be considered one of the best. And you don't become one of the best with having good comps at the time get crippled by some RNG factor. Yeah I know lets use some off tournament. But what kind of traffic will that bring? There's WAY more that has to be accounted for and why would anyone put that effort into it?

As for what I should do: I'll pass on that offer. I don't care much about what's the optimal way to win for me. If I go for that pursuit, I will. In the meantime, at least I'll learn what I need to and leave it at that.

Power CosmicApr 3, 20181 votes

I didn't know that, about the ESports board last season. It is good being able to discuss with written words don't get upset :-)

EleshakaiApr 3, 20181 votes

If this were to happen, I would expect most pro players to move to a league that didn't force this on them.

Power CosmicApr 3, 20181 votes

Why would you think that? I actually think pros would prefer this over being forced to meta slave their ways to win. But tbh meta would still mostly available a lot of games.

DoubleTankApr 4, 20182 votes

{quoted}

Why would you think that? I actually think pros would prefer this over being forced to meta slave their ways to win. But tbh meta would still mostly available a lot of games.

This type of mode would be taken less serious. eSports as a whole is trying to be viewed at the level of sports. So why would you want to decrease the competitive and skill requirements for a pro scene. In the end players who are looking to be taken more serious may get viewed poorly. This is more of an all star event or April fools day.

Power CosmicApr 4, 20181 votes

It is all just a matter of opinion, because I would view adapting while still trying to win to be more difficult (and interesting) than following a script (meta).

EleshakaiApr 5, 20182 votes

For the same reason pros wouldn't want ARAM to be competitive.

Pro gameplay is built on preparation. You build a gameplan over the course of at least a week of practice, and prepare to execute it, and to bounce back if things go wrong. You prepare playstyles, pick/ban, etc. Practice. Practice. Practice.

You can't prepare for randomness in any reasonable length of time.

Power CosmicApr 5, 20181 votes

These dudes know everything in the game and have been playing 10s of thousands of games for at least half a decade. They already know. Patche updates are just being able to decipher what is strong out of what they already know. There is not a sinlge pro who doesn't have an understanding of what every single champ in the game does. And therefore how changes effect them.

EleshakaiApr 5, 20182 votes

so what you're saying is that we should never have a team for whom a patch makes them suddenly look good/bad, and that no player should ever have a pocket pick because every player knows every champ, right?

There's a difference between knowing what a champ does, and being able to play it intricately. There's a reason we compliment players like Hakuho on their Thresh play. Even though every support above plat 'knows how to play thresh', a player like Hakuho has MASTERED that champion. And what pro players strive for is MASTERY, not just 'knowing'.

Pro players may know every champ, but I guarantee you they don't know every matchup for every champ, and they don't know the intricacies of every champ.

Power CosmicApr 5, 20181 votes

Of course we have our comfort picks. But in a role, a pro knows all the relevant matchups, and if they dont can figure out how to trade very quickly. Also do not forget, both teams would be in the same boat. Pro doesn't mean perfect. If your team can only play one way, you would not be successful. In each respective role a pro player has at least a dozen mains. Like you will see Darius top one game, or Mundo once, Yas a couple times, Sion or Karthus mid and they will execute all their kits at a high level because they've played everything a lot.

For good players, learning the micro is easy because they know the game; what to look out for and what to pursue, who to target, who to avoid, when to trade, and when not to. So if they are in a Zed vs Ekko, Xerath v. Fizz, or Panth vs. Gnar the pro will know what the other champs wants to do, or excels at doing, while also knowing his own champs strength. Some players are just good, some are mostly just smart, higher lvl players are both. They would love the unexpectedness, suspense, and break from the norm, and if unlucky they also know it is just a game.

A rigid champ pool is more boring for pros than us. It makes the smaller game easier for us.

EleshakaiApr 6, 20182 votes

Oh no, I think you've got this all wrong. I'm sure most pros would love to be able to play a few more things, but I bet you wouldn't be able to get a single pro to agree to your idea here. Because your idea isn't 'balancing the game to widen the champion pool', it's 'removing random champions from play without any real chance to prepare for the game in such a state'.

Edit: You also haave to take into account the fact that pros are doing this for their LIVELIHOOD. Nobody wants their livelihood to be unstable or dictated by random chance. Imagine of you went into work and your boss said 'starting today, you have a 5% chance of having to do tasks from this list of 100 tasks. I expect you to be proficient at every single one of them, and I am not going to tell you which task you'll have to do until the day of. You'll be evaluated based off of your performance.' Most people would look for a new job, because there's no way they'll be able to do the same quality of work at every one of those tasks, especially since they don't know which one they'll be doing.

Power CosmicApr 6, 20181 votes

:-)

Neither of us are right or wrong. We both think things through and have our own opinion based on our ideas and pro streams we watch. But also remember, no one pro or group of pros is bigger than the game.

EleshakaiApr 6, 20181 votes

Under normal circumstances, I'd agree that neither of us are right or wrong since its opinion... but in this case I'm actually pretty sure your opinion has no factual guidance to support it and is inherently flawed, since you're saying that people would WANT their livelihood to be judged by random chance... which is something I've never heard of. Even gamblers strive to minimize chance by utilizing odds and bluffing and other skills.