We have SO MUCH to ban and you made a champion able to be banned multiple time?

Ahristocats·May 19, 2017·143 votes·6,614 views

let me give you an entire list of worthy bans in high elo

so why did you transform this amazing feature of 10 bans into one of the worst fcking idea ever?

was it too hard to make one team baning 5 champions, and then the other team baning 5 champions?

i'm legit trying to contain myself right now, because in master tier+ you didn't give us 10 bans

you legit gave us 8 bans as will take 4 slots already in 100% of our games

171 Comments

UnboundHadesMay 19, 201736 votes

meanwhile in low elo Yasuo Fizz will be perma banned for a long time

meowwow7May 19, 201726 votes

fizz is just hated in all elos

AhristocatsMay 19, 201727 votes

can confirm, but he got a harsh nerf in last patch so i hesitated to put him

IPromiseTomorrowMay 20, 20172 votes

That wasn't a nerf that was more of a buff

Added ratios on 3 things idk the specifics but I know 3 things got 7% increased ap ratios (from 33% to 40)

And a 5-10-15-20-25 damage nerf. How is 5 to 25 damage nerf to E outweigh his crazy buffs?

junglerboy16May 20, 20176 votes

Actually, this is how the whole thing works:

The W bleed effect is what lost 5/10/15/20/25 damage (over its 3 second duration) and got buffed by 7% AP ratio. The Active on W for the triple damage proc lost 15/30/45/60/75 damage and gained 20% AP ratio.

That means his full damage combo lost 20/40/60/80/100 base damage and gained 27% AP ratio. That's only a buff if he builds between 74 and 370 AP depending on rank, after which point it's a buff. The main point of that being to nerf his tank build substantially without really touching his AP build much.

ChaddyFantomeMay 19, 201720 votes

The point of bans isn't to ban "broken champions", it is to ban things you don't wanna go up against.

AnagsMay 19, 201782 votes

Pretty sure that is the same thing.

ModAcademy KaynMay 19, 20172 votes

Technically yeah, but with more bans you can afford to ban people who counter/do well against your pick, than right now which is ban the strongest.

Flawless FetusMay 19, 20172 votes

Nr. Yas winrate is under 50%. The team that picks yas is more likely to lose. That's not broken. That's weak. However, he gets banned all the time.

AhristocatsMay 19, 20173 votes

his win rate increased to 53% tho, that's why he's being nerfed

but he's still not banned in high elo Yasuo loses to all meta toplaners past lvl 2

kled fiora rumble renekton even a lot of other toplaners rekt him like darius irelia riven (i heard it's skill match up tho)

he can only win at lvl 1 or 2 because he's ressourceless and has 2 powerfull basic ability while most toplaners needs all 3 of their spells

IcyPepperMay 20, 201711 votes

To a point, but sometimes it's worth banning something that counters your team's strategy (if you have an actual team comp) instead of something that is "broken" but typically manageable against your team comp.

Trias000May 20, 20175 votes

{quoted}

Pretty sure that is the same thing.

No, because you might want to play one of those broken champions.

hotarseMay 20, 20172 votes

{quoted}

The point of bans isn't to ban "broken champions", it is to ban things you don't wanna go up against.

This is hilarious. So you want to go up against broken champs? I don't know anyone that does. LMAO

Spicy RiceMay 20, 20172 votes

Notice how broken champs are in quotes.

Who is TaliyahMay 19, 201718 votes

In worst case it will happen that we ban even less champion than currently. If both teams ban the same 5 champion.. I know that will rarely happen, but it WILL happen is the problem.

Mira Arya EntheMay 20, 20175 votes

Except that is never going to happen. The statistical odds, even if we only consider the top 20 ban champions, that both teams pick the exact same 5, is so ridiculous it will just never happen. But then when you consider that not everyone just bans the top 20 champions. We gained 2 bans per team, nothing was lost, the enemy bans are irrelevant to your team as that means they weren't going to pick that champion anyway. At worst, even in Bronze I see people getting 6+ true bans per game with a duplicate or two. But more commonly I see no more than 1 duplicate per game.

LankPantsMay 20, 20177 votes

https://na.op.gg/statistics/champion/

The top 5 champs are all banned at least within 1% of 1/3rd of the time. If we multiply each of these percentages together twice we get

(.4924)^2x(0.4456)^2x(0.4361)^2x(0.4304)^2x(0.3255)^2=1.8x10^-4 or 1 in 5568 games with this exact configuration not even accounting for other champions. That may sound like a lot, but it will certainly happen. That's really not that many games on a grand scale.

It also doesn't account for champs outside of the top 10 bans getting banned twice, which means it overestimates the number of games this would need to occur on average.

If you think in in 5568 is bad you should see Korea, with their more homogenised P/B statistics they'd ban only the top 5 champs in one in 2185 games. That's actually pretty damn often, certainly not a statistical impossibility.

AMYS GRAVEMay 20, 20179 votes

so why did you transform this amazing feature of 10 bans into one of the worst fcking idea ever?

Drop the sensationalism and circlejerking please.

Even if Lulu and Ivern take up 4 of 10 slots that's still 2 more than before (6 left +2 that got banned) and it actually gives everyone a voice in the matter.

AhristocatsMay 20, 20176 votes

{quoted}

Drop the sensationalism and circlejerking please.

Hm, no? if i want to point out the fact that 10 champs won't be ban i will do it

{quoted}

Even if Lulu and Ivern take up 4 of 10 slots that's still 2 more than before (6 left +2 that got banned) and it actually gives everyone a voice in the matter.

i already knew that, but since those 2 champs will be banned non-stop (unless heavy balance changes happen) that's virtually 6 bans kind of when kassadin was permabanned, you only had 5 bans

Raiku KawisaMay 20, 20177 votes

Yes, but if those two champions were always banned, then before you only have 4 bans, so 6 is still an improvement.

AFilthyCaitMainMay 19, 20178 votes

Caitlyn Should be perfectly balanced after this planned nerf. Her weaknesses will be highlighted better. Although it is a pretty harsh nerf, well see how it goes. Xayah 's E needs a bit of tuning. item 3153 nerf should kill Lucian

undesirable teamMay 19, 20174 votes

{quoted}

Should be perfectly balanced after this planned nerf. Her weaknesses will be highlighted better. Although it is a pretty harsh nerf, well see how it goes.

not really her laning phase would still be super cancerous and lack of counterplay

ChaddyFantomeMay 19, 20174 votes

{quoted}

Should be perfectly balanced after this planned nerf.

They are finally nerfing her? :DDDD What are they changing?

AFilthyCaitMainMay 19, 20179 votes

She cant stack headshot multiple times with runaans. Making her teamfighting worse.

SkorchMay 20, 20178 votes

"so why did you transform this amazing feature of 10 bans into one of the worst fcking idea ever?"

Even with duplicates, if this is the worst idea ever, would that mean you would rather have 6 bans? Because that is what this implies

AhristocatsMay 20, 20179 votes

it's one of the worst idea ever when it comes to increasing bans

i think it's better than 6 bans, but it's worse than 8 bans, worse than 10 bans, because we're going to get so much double bans in high elo it's going to be madness

SEKAIMay 20, 20173 votes

{quoted}

"so why did you transform this amazing feature of 10 bans into one of the worst fcking idea ever?"

Even with duplicates, if this is the worst idea ever, would that mean you would rather have 6 bans? Because that is what this implies

"**One of **the worst". They never said it's THE worst, which would imply that the original 6 ban is better, which is the thing you're trying to chew on even though it really doesn't exist. 6-bans could very well be within those collectively referred to as "the worst", and according to OP's clarification, it is, and worse than the new model in their opinion, so this argument is completely null.

Even without clarification, just because one might think the new suggestion is one of the worst ever conceived, it doesn't suddenly mean they like it back at the original idea. Logic doesn't work that way. Sure, that sentiment CAN imply that going back is maybe a good idea, but you treating it as how it must've absolutely been the case is just rationally false.

Seriously, don't nitpick for the sake of nitpicking in order to try to "prove OP wrong" this way. It's dirty, and not that much different from questioning other people's stance by attacking their grammar.

OwynMay 20, 20177 votes

so why did you transform this amazing feature of 10 bans into one of the worst fcking idea ever?

from their news page actual quote:

This also reduces the chance of certain meta champions being banned across every game. Y’all know who we mean.

so exactly so you don't actually have 10 bans - is the reason.

[zombie-brand-clap]

LyingOnLineMay 19, 20176 votes

It's not even hard to implement a way to use the time-reducing format they came up with and avoid most duplicate bans.

Implement forced lock-ins.
Bans which have been locked in are locked out for the other team.

et voila! Ten bans, extra quick!

AhristocatsMay 19, 201711 votes

give 15 sec to one team to ban 5 champions at the same time

give 15 sec then to the other team to ban 5 champions

i don't get why it can't be done

LyingOnLineMay 19, 20178 votes

Probably because that would be pretty unbalanced? After all, once you've seen the enemy's bans, you can plan your team comp around that and your own bans.

AhristocatsMay 19, 20179 votes

i can assure you that in solo queue no one plans team comp ESPECIALLY if you give them like 5 or 10 or 15 seconds to ban a champ but alright what you say makes sense

i didn't understand your solution tho

LyingOnLineMay 19, 20172 votes

It's pretty basic. Take the format Riot has already proposed for simultaneous bans, force lock-ins like the current ban system instead of "lol i hovered my ban its not my problem you did the same thing and we wasted bans dude", and have locked-in bans from one team lock out the option to ban that champ from the other team.

ModAcademy KaynMay 19, 20176 votes

The point of ten bans isn't to "deal with strong picks". It's to give more agency to each player in the game, to what they want to deal with. If two people don't want to deal with Lulu, they both get their wish. It helps those who want to use their ban on what irks them more, as there is now 4 other people who don't want to deal with XX Champion.

Synnx7May 20, 20175 votes

Its riot. The incompetent company Cant get anything right. And you were expecting them to do anything that makes sense?

PinkajMay 20, 20175 votes

Lol damn, it's true. They buffed Lux when she was already OP enough. This giant beam gets a huge cdr whe she kills someone with it. I understand this game is hard to balance.

LeetriMay 20, 20174 votes

I mean, they managed to make and sustain the most popular game in the world as a small indie company with barely any previous experience, so they must be doing something right.

GULAG 4 UMay 20, 20173 votes

But hey riot did 1 mistake, they must be f*Ckin' team 5~~~!!!11

VekknaMay 20, 20173 votes

If you have 10 bans and two champs are banned twice, that's not 6 bans. It's 6 + 2. It's not like the double ban cancels out the ban and unbans the banned champ. LOL.

TL;DR: 6 + 2 = 8

ninjaroxasMay 20, 20172 votes

I dont know how the ten bans work really but from my understanding you can ban a single champion twice. Once on each team. Meaning if 2 people on each team banned say lulu and ivern then thats 4 bans used

TormentulaMay 20, 20177 votes

That's not the concern. What people are worried about is identical bans on both teams.

For example: Both teams ban Fizz Yasuo Ivern Lulu LeeSin

That means only 5 champions got banned. Which is less than our current system where 6 unique bans are guaranteed.

VekknaMay 20, 20173 votes

Nobody is banning the same 5 champs. The odds are unbelievably slim.

6SfoolMay 20, 20173 votes

How do you propose it work? Do you want it to keep you from banning enemy's locked bans? Means that you can test for the enemy's bans before they are revealed. If you had a second phase to allow extra bans for each duplicate, who does it go to? I can't think of any blind system that would not create some horrible trend of dodges, missed ban windows, or exploitation.

I think it should not be a blind system, but display enemy bans once they are locked in (but not hovered) and stagger the window about 10 seconds per player so that the first players on each team have to lock in earlier instead of everyone waiting until the last second.

General Esdeath May 20, 20174 votes

Or it can work like the current ban system

6SfoolMay 20, 20175 votes

That already takes too long. Current system with 10 bans could take up to 5 minutes. Simultaneous bans sounds like the way to go, but they have to figure out how to make it both fair and efficient.

Spacesuit SpiffMay 20, 20172 votes

OR hear me out, you can just let the enemy team ban lulu or whatever always gets banned. On the rare occasion this fails and they get lulu, you can always dodge.

As a minor fix, i think if theres more than 1 double-ban, each team should get another ban for every 2 double bans, in a second round of banning.

2Charmnot2CharmMay 20, 20174 votes

in a second round of banning.

And increase the time we have to spend in champ select? No.

Why can't we just pick whatever doesn't get banned to deny it from the enemy? If it's meta i'm sure anyone that's in high elo can play it.

Spacesuit SpiffMay 20, 20173 votes

I mean I'm with you, I've never really seen the need for more than 6 bans anyway. But this is a thread where people are losing their fool minds about sometimes not getting 10 bans, so logically a system that ensures at least 9 bans while only going in two rounds sometimes (which is still shorter than current banning) is a fix for that.