Distrubute the bans so that every team mate has one ban. This way everyone can ban for their lane and not have to rely on their teammates to ban who they think is OP or needing bans. If you think this is too much, then maybe eight bans, so that every lane gets a ban, and the support just misses out. This would also encourage people to think, do I want to ban a powerful ADC? or a powerful Support?
Pentarina Only5 votes"Get gud." -- Riot
PlatypusSurprise4 votesBecause it would increases the number of champions someone would need to have to play draft or ranked from 16 to 20 which creates a really big barrier of entry for new players that want to get out of blind pick.
Hay5eed1 votesI've never heard of that before. Can you give me the math on that? I'm very tired
stealthfox942 votesIf what you suggested happens 10 champs are banned every game and 10 are picked. IF someone only owns 19 or fewer champions there's a chance they might not have anyone to play if they are last picked.
Titanium702 votesAs Fox said correctly, because one player could end in an impossible situation ^^ But actually I dont think that is that much of an issue - is it? (We have a ton of super cheap Champs)
Why do you think its 16 right now? (3Bans+3Bans+10Picks) ;D
Keevalroy2 votesGood?
There are a TON of champions in the game right now, with more on the way. The barrier for entry should be higher for those who want to start ranked for the first time. This gives them more time accumulating IP for champions to buy while constantly being introduced to new picks and learning what each of them do beyond "X ability does Y." You can remember something, but to learn it is something that requires repetition. With so many champions, would you rather someone have that much more experience playing with and against these picks, or lack it and have the possibility of not understanding what their champions or opponents are capable of?
PlatypusSurprise1 votesYeah but the issue is they will know ahead of time that then need the 20 or so champions and what would end up happening is them buying the cheapest champions and never playing half of them then jumping into ranked and useless if they don't get one of their few played champions...
Also to get the extra champions you know what people tend to leave for later? Runes. There are already people that go into Ranked with some T2 runes because they want to test themselves right away, if they find out they need an extra 6 champions I would not doubt people would dive in with only T2 and no T3 rune because a quint costs more than some of the cheapest champions.
EzraTwitch1 votesBecause it would increases the number of champions someone would need to have to play draft or ranked from 16 to 20 which creates a really big barrier of entry for new players that want to get out of blind pick.
Increase the Free Champion Rotation to 14? Not really a big issue.
PhantomGG3 votesIt would work for solo que but not for lcs, I don't disagree with your suggestion, but I only see it working if they made special ban rules for LCS players
For example a really dirty stratagy you could do if five bans became a thing is to target ban a persons ENTIRE champion pool. For the average player can only play good on 5 champions per lane. Like shit, like me personally my main five are
Ahri Leblanc Zed lu lu Oriana
Ban those five from me and you just took away all carry potential I have for my team and now im forced to go for lesser picks that I know.
So yeah Good for casual play, bad for pro play.
Hay5eed5 votesWell this would result in people just having to increase their champ base to 7, instead of 5. I don't think that it would be that much of a difference. Also note that you are commiting your entire ban list into trying to shut down one player, meaning that the other 4 players get to pick what they want without any hindrence. This could lead to some very powerful picks being taken by the enemy team. And that guy you "shut down"? all he has to really do is pick an easier to play champ and just not feed.
Just seems like a bad tactic to me.
Titanium703 votesIt's no as easy as this. Sure increasing the pool will counter Targetbanning to some degree... but first of all you wont be able to play 7 champs on the same level you can play 3 to 5 champs.
AND (more importantly) There are not that many Champions for different situation... Lets say you build a comp which get screwd by a pokemage. Than you will ban every poke heavy champion from pool of your opponent laner. Mid for example. With Mid forced into a non poke Pick - the opposing team just can go for a poke comp, because it would be a fail comp.
It's just not easy... ^^'
PhantomGG2 votesIt's no as easy as this. Sure increasing the pool will counter Targetbanning to some degree... but first of all you wont be able to play 7 champs on the same level you can play 3 to 5 champs.
AND (more importantly) There are not that many Champions for different situation... Lets say you build a comp which get screwd by a pokemage. Than you will ban every poke heavy champion from pool of your opponent laner. Mid for example. With Mid forced into a non poke Pick - the opposing team just can go for a poke comp, because it would be a fail comp.
It's just not easy... ^^'
Hell it happens even with 3 bans per lane
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A58evYmeRzI
Dyrus was target banned in game 1, so they baite dyrus into choseing what was at the time one of the best top laners, gnar, but fnatic prepped a counter strat for gnar which was cassiopia top, and as a result, dyrus gets completely destroyed for he was hard core counter picked.
If it happens this harshly in just 3 bans, 5 bans would completely destroy players if they got singled out
Utility Veigar2 votesIf a pro players champion pool is that low, then there's a problem. You can ban all of Fakers champs and he will still pick up anything because his champion is large. This will encourage more more variety and force people to learn more champs.
PhantomGG2 votesFaker is someone you should never compare to anyone. if Dade is a 10 out of 10 then faker is a 100 out of 10
He is a prodigy, never compare people to prodigies
EzraTwitch1 votesIt's no as easy as this. Sure increasing the pool will counter Targetbanning to some degree... but first of all you wont be able to play 7 champs on the same level you can play 3 to 5 champs.
AND (more importantly) There are not that many Champions for different situation... Lets say you build a comp which get screwd by a pokemage. Than you will ban every poke heavy champion from pool of your opponent laner. Mid for example. With Mid forced into a non poke Pick - the opposing team just can go for a poke comp, because it would be a fail comp.
It's just not easy... ^^'
That is actually a good thing that leads to much more diverse team compositions and game strategy's (i. e. DoTa). For example if they are building for a poke comp, the other team could counter by either going for hard engage comp, or a really bad ass split push combo, or you could counter by going something like Morg bottom (sustain + Wave Clear, utility so can deal with not getting much farm), and a top and mid picked for wave clear and double jungle with junglers who can farm their asses off and split push hard.
Hay5eed1 votesLet me try to say one thing though. Everyone is addressing how good you can be with a champ as if it has an infinite capacity. As if, just by playing a champ for 10 years, that you will be better then a person playing a champ for 5 years. I don't find this to be true. Each champ has only 4 abilities and a passive and there is only so much you can do with those abilities. There is no real finesse to making Twisted Fate's gold card stun longer...it stuns for 2 sec's at max rank, that's it. Once you learn how to play that champion to a certain degree (a degree that pros should have reached) then there really isn't a much higher degree you can obtain. I do not think that forcing a player to add 2 more champions to their champion pool is going to affect how well they play with other champions
Spoofghoul1 votesAnd this is why riot wont up the amount of bans.
but i think 4 bans is reasonable i mean come on these guys get paid to play they are professional players they should be able to handle more then 3 champions . . .
in any case i would be fine with different ban rules for lcs/yoloq
EzraTwitch1 votesIt would work for solo que but not for lcs, I don't disagree with your suggestion, but I only see it working if they made special ban rules for LCS players
For example a really dirty stratagy you could do if five bans became a thing is to target ban a persons ENTIRE champion pool. For the average player can only play good on 5 champions per lane. Like shit, like me personally my main five are
Ahri Leblanc Zed lu lu Oriana
Ban those five from me and you just took away all carry potential I have for my team and now im forced to go for lesser picks that I know.
So yeah Good for casual play, bad for pro play.
I think thats okay personally, I think depth of champion pull should definitely be a skill reflected in pro-play. Additionally to do that you have to give the four people on the team their power picks, so its really a high risk strategy. I think having the ability to be banned out if you have a small champion pool would lead pro-players to diversify more and we would see more interesting games and comps at high level play.
Slamurai Jack2 votesYou guys already waste bans on balanced champions when we have only 6 of them. We aren't getting more.
Hay5eed6 votesslow clap. This post wouldn't be complete without someone putting in a quick, short, pointless, "argument".
Slamurai Jack2 votesslow clap. This post wouldn't be complete without someone putting in a quick, short, pointless, "argument".
It's not a pointless argument at all. You guys constantly ask for more bans with the pretense that there's simply too many OP champions for 6 bans to be enough and yet you guys constantly waste many of your precious few bans on balanced champions you simply dislike. You ban balanced champions? You won't get more bans. Why? Because what exactly is Riot supposed to do about a balanced champion with a high banrate? Nerf them into an underpowered state to appease the whiners?
Hay5eed3 votesTo me, yes, it is a pointless arguement. Because I did not say anything about OP champions and how they are not enough bans. I instead just talked about fairness and consistency. Right now the last three that load in get bans and that could be ANY lane. If top, mid, and jung have bans then it is more likely that a top, mid, and jung will be banned, because those players don't want to deal with those kind of champs. Why do we ban balanced champions that we simply dislike? Maybe because, in our elo, or in our mind, they are powerful picks, maybe because we don't exactly know how to deal with them. That is what bans are for. If there is an extremely overpowered champion available, then it shouldn't be up to us to just ban them every game, its up to Riot to fix the champ so that we don't have to ban them. Bans are all about personal preference. You want to play Riven? You are probably going to ban a counter pick to try to get a lead. Why not five everyone on your team this advantage?
ChaoticPinecone5 votesits actually a good argument.
is banned 85% of the time according to champion.gg, but has a 55% winrate whenever he gets through top and 54% when he is jungle. Thats a pretty solid ban. 
has a 10% ban rate, but has the 1st, 2nd, and 4th highest winrates (top, adc, and jungle respectively). Another solid ban.
has a 23% banrate, but even when left through has a 46% winrate. This champion, who has the 116th highest winrate out of 128 champions, is banned twice as often as the highest winrate champion.
If people are banning Illaoi en mass, well, the argument that people are banning "powerful" champions goes out the window. People arent thinking with the 3 bans they have now.
Hay5eed3 votesThen why give us bans period? If we are only supposed to ban the absolute most powerful champs no matter what then why doesn't Riot save us some time and just remove them until they can fix them? Note, I did not mention anything about banning powerful champions. So why are people bringing this up?
Bans are there to let players control who does and does not get played in the game. Players can choose to ban the most powerful champs, or they can choose to ban the champs that they themselves struggle with the most. Not to mention that maybe the reason why Graves isn't banned that often is because both teams want to play him.
I'm sorry, its NOT a good argument. This would be a good argument against bans in general, but simply extending a privilege to your whole team that, currently, only 60% of your team gets to use, that just seems like bad design
Slamurai Jack2 votesI agree. Let's get rid of bans altogether. That would save so much time and actually force people to learn to deal with strong champions instead of always banning them.
ChaoticPinecone1 votesYour original position was:
Distrubute the bans so that every team mate has one ban. This way everyone can ban for their lane and not have to rely on their teammates to ban who they think is OP or needing bans. If you think this is too much, then maybe eight bans, so that every lane gets a ban, and the support just misses out. This would also encourage people to think, do I want to ban a powerful ADC? or a powerful Support?
When youre confronted with data saying that people dont actually the powerful or OP champions, your position changes. Now its
Note, I did not mention anything about banning powerful champions. So why are people bringing this up?
You made one reference to "OP", one reference to "needing bans" and 2 references to "powerful" in your threadstarter.
So im inclined to think you have no counterarguments when people prove you wrong. Your only argument is saying "your argument sucks".
Hay5eed1 votesOk, I see where you can say that now. What I mean is that everyone's bans is based on their OPINIONS. THEY get to choose who to ban.
Also, you can't just count the number of times I use a word, and then insist that my writing is about that word. That's not how this works
ChaoticPinecone1 votesWhat do you mean, "Thats not how this works"? Thats EXACTLY how it works. In your argument to have 10 bans, you stated "powerful ADC" and "powerful support". Are those not referring to "powerful champions" you wish to ban? Just admit it - you arent making any sense in your argument. You just flip-flop your position whenever youre wrong, and instead of fixing your position, you just say things like "This post wouldn't be complete without someone putting in a quick, short, pointless, "argument"" or "That's not how this works".
At the moment, people arent banning the champions that help you win the game. Thats a fact. If people arent using bans on champions that help you win, and instead are banning champions that you have a better chance of winning if they pick, whats the point in increasing bans? Isnt the whole point of bans to improve your chances of winning?
Also one thing you didnt address - why the hell should the support get shafted if there are only 8 bans? Can you give me a rational reason for that? Or is it just a kneejerk reaction that has no basis.
Hay5eed1 votesWhy don't you ACTUALLY read my post? Will you? I'll wait here. I am NOT talking about winrates. I am NOT talking about how there are too many OP champions in the game. I am INSTEAD saying that I feel that it is unfair that three people in your team get to ban who THEY think is OP or unfair and yet the other 3 don't. I am NOT flip flopping my argument and if you actually ever do get a "gotcha" moment I'll take it into account and change my argument to fit it or concede the point (i'm a debate champion, and a philosopher).
As far as saying "that's not how this works" I am referring to YOUR argument that just because I use certain words in my post, that my post MUST be regarding those words...and that is simply false....I'm sorry that you feel the need to take such an offense to this.
And while I can't argue with ban-rate statistics and say that the truly powerful champs are getting banned I do not think that this is a valid argument to restrict the banning phase ( a very important phase) to just 60% of the team. Also, please take into account this scenario. You load into the game first, so you are first pick. Your team is banning champs and you notice that no one on your team wants to play Graves. You immediately call out "Please ban Graves". Illaoi gets banned. "Ban Graves this time" Thresh gets banned "PLEASE PICK GRAVES, BAN HIM" and Nasus is banned instead. The enemy team picks Graves and he carries the game. Now in this instance what screwed your team over was that you knew something that they didn't, that Graves was one of the most powerful champions right now (you tried to tell them, but they still didn't KNOW that he was strong). Why should you suffer even though you did good in your lane strictly because your teammates didn't ban the right champs? With 5 bans distributed amongst the team you can just say "Graves is strong" and use YOUR ban to make sure he stays out of the game. Now, before the game even starts, you are able to contribute to your team more then you could before.
Now let me demonstrate my "kneejerk" reaction that "has no basis".
My original idea was for 10 bans, but I've seen posts for 10 bans per game before and I already know that they are wrought with strife. As an alternative to 10 bans, I suggested an 8 ban idea that perhaps would not be met with as much hate. However this would mean that since there were only 4 bans per team that one player would have to miss out on the banning process. Since my original idea was for each player to ban specifically for their lane, and since supports don't usually get banned in the 3 ban system (correct me if I'm wrong) it just made sense to me to exclude the support from the ban phase. It would also be likely for the support, if given a ban, to just ban another ADC or jungle, instead of a support. That was my line of thinking.
Youre just an arguer who tries to use language instead of logic. If you truly were a philosopher, who since the days of Aristotle uses logic to argue a point, you wouldnt be using terms like "Will you? I'll wait here."
As far as saying "that's not how this works" I am referring to YOUR argument that just because I use certain words in my post, that my post MUST be regarding those words...and that is simply false....I'm sorry that you feel the need to take such an offense to this.
Correct me if im wrong. You said the choice to ban a "powerful ADC" or "powerful support". Are those not the part of the group of "powerful champions" you claimed to never have mentioned? And you cant seem to admit that youre wrong.
It would also be likely for the support, if given a ban, to just ban another ADC or jungle, instead of a support. That was my line of thinking.
I say "kneejerk" and "has no basis" because you just say what sounds good to you, whether or not they are true. Here - http://champion.gg/statistics/#?sortBy=general.banRate&order=descend
Tahm Kench - played support a little less than half the time. 73% ban rate. Soraka - only played support. 29% ban rate. Brand - played support more than mid. 14% ban rate. Poppy - played support more than jungle or top. 14% ban rate. Trundle - played support about 1/3 of the time. 7.5% ban rate.
So in the top 20 most banned champions, 5 are played as support. There are 5 mids as well (Zed, GP, Brand, Fizz, Yasuo). If you look at ADCs, there are 3 - Graves who is played ADC 1/3 of the time, Vayne, and MF. (Kindred is played jungle).
So again, youre wrong.
And look closely at my posts. Nowhere did i say that 10 bans isnt a good thing, or that I dont agree with you that each individual should get one ban in terms of fairness. I am saying that the point the opposition makes - that people dont always ban powerful champions, and therefore 5 bans isnt necessary - is a good one. In your example, if someone didnt ban that Illaoi with a horrible winrate and in terms of statistics, a waste of a ban, then they could easily ban that Graves.
You claim to be a debate champion. Heres a lesson - a good debater should know which valid points to concede. You dont need to be 100% indisputably right on all points to win a debate. You just need to be more right than your opposition.
Hay5eed1 votesSigh. Let me try to re-iterate everything I've been saying.
Yes, I am a debate champion, I am also a full-time smartass. If this were an actual debate, I would be a lot more formal, as well as more researched in the topic.
Next. Yes, I say the phrases "powerful ADC" and "powerful support" in my post. However, my post is NOT about how their are too many powerful champions, which is what some people are assuming that it is about. I am merely saying that I would not want to address the topic of "omg too many op champs". Once again, just because I use a certain word, or phrase, in my post, does NOT mean that my post is about that specific word or phrase. You counted the times I used "powerful champ" in my post, and claimed that because I said it several times, that my post was about powerful champs. I am merely saying that this is incorrect. I do NOT concede this point.
As I stated before, I choose the support to lose a ban, because I simply thought that this would be the most fair, because I did not realize that supports are banned that often (at my elo, thresh is like, the only supp banned lol). As far as banrates go I'm not exactly sure where to find accurate and up to date information, so thank you for providing that. As you point out, supports are often banned just as much as any other role. I concede this point. But I must offer this as a counter argument. In an 8 bans per game world, who should miss out?
I HAVE looked closely at your post, and you never straight up say that 10 bans were a bad idea. However, I never claimed that you said that 10 bans where a bad idea...so I'm not exactly sure why you brought this up.
Yes, if the teammate had not wasted a ban on Illaoi, they could have banned Graves...but that is precisely my point. Who is playable in your lane is a very vital factor in how you play that lane. If you are a top-laner and can't ban, and your team doesn't ban any top laners, then your game is likely to be different then if your team banned 3 top-laners instead. As this factor is important to your lane, why don't you have control over it? Why don't your teammates pick your champ for you too? or your summoner spells? (I know I know, it's called hyperbole for a reason).
ChaoticPinecone1 votesYou mentioned being a debate champion and philosopher for a reason. I think it was to throw your "weight" around. If you arent going to adhere to the rules of a debate, then why mention it? Again - you arent debating anything. Youre arguing by mentioning irrelevent things.
And what does the word, "mention" mean to you? You said "I did not mention anything about...". I proved you wrong by showing that you mentioned it. Theres a reason why people are saying that you kept talking about powerful champions in your original post (its because your original post was poorly thought out and didnt convey the message youre sending now). Now youre changing your stance - "Oh, i didnt mean powerful champions to say they are too many powerful champions". Did you specify that you didnt mention anything about the quantity of powerful champions? No - you didnt. You said that you didnt mention, when you quite obviopusly did.
Your argument speaks louder than your statements. I didnt say 10 bans were a bad idea, and you never explicity stated that I claimed I did. But you started bringing up other reasons why 10 bans were necessary (like only allowing 60% of the team to control the ban phase) for a reason - and the only reason i can think of is that youre trying convince me by other methods. Im saying that bringing up these opinions are outside what im saying here. We are strictly talking about poorly thought out bans, and whether or not they are a valid concern in limiting the number of bnas.
And im not the one arguing for 8 bans. If you want to change the status quo, you should be the one giving valid reasons why the one member should miss out. Youre asking for 8 rather than 6 (and 10 rather than 8). You should be the one giving reasons why 8 is better than 6. Right now, its actually fair - its random. And i think shfiting the bans to those with a lower draft pick is an amazing idea, because it gives each individual an advantage. The bottom 3 get to choose the bans. The top 2 get an earlier pick to lock their champion of choice.
Your hyperbole actually helps the opposition. You dont ever get 100% control over your lane. You cant control what your enemy laner plays, their summoner spells, or their skills. You cant choose what the enemy will ban. If you dont have control over those things, why do you feel entitled to control over the bans of your lane? Do you also feel that nobody else can ban top laners except those going to top lane? And nobody can gank top lane? Because all those things effect the playstyle of your lane MORE than bans.
Hay5eed1 votesI mentioned debate champion and philosopher just to explain that I am subject to reason. Proper reason.
Let us refocus on why we are REALLY arguing.
Someone claimed that no one is using bans correctly, that they aren't really banning powerful champs. I made a snide comment, because I believe that this comment did not contribute to the post at all and does not directly relate to my post.
Someone else replied and brought good statistics to the idea that the original comment was, in fact, relative to my post.
I reply saying that my post was NOT about banning powerful champions, or banning OP champions, that it is about banning....PERIOD. I say that I did not mention banning powerful champions. I feel that I am still correct because while I do use the phrases "powerful champ" and "Op" and "powerful ADCs", I am simply talking about player's OPINIONS on who is powerful/needs a ban and how YOU have to rely on SOMEONE ELSE to HOPEFULLY ban the champ you want banned. How are we still arguing on this? Everyone has an opinion on champions that are more powerful then others (no one thinks that EVERY champ is EQUALLY powerful to each-other right?). I am saying that my post is about players opinions and how those opinions affect the game, and how YOUR opinion should matter too, no matter what.
THEN you come along and basically say "You flip-flop your position (not true). You said powerful adc twice and OP once, you ARE talking about powerful champs. You have no real counter argument so you're only response is you suck"
You then just try to essentially just destruct every aspect of my logic and reasoning, fighting me tooth and nail every bit. When I explain my reasoning, instead of just accepting that that's my reasoning you fight even more.
Why make the support miss out? Why not just do random? Because in new champ select, when you pick your lanes, you KNOW what comes with those lanes. You have a generic idea of 1.) What champions you are going to play 2.) What champions you are going to come up against. In a post where bans are spread out across the team to promote fairness, but only 4 can ban, it felt unfair to let someone randomly lose out on the banning process. Instead, it felt better to allow a person to click "support" and KNOW that they are not going to get a ban, and to allow another person to click "top" and KNOW that they ARE going to get a ban.
Also, you claim that you are not arguing with me, that you are not opposing my idea, but WHO THE F%*K GOES THROUGH THIS ENDURING PROCESS OF CONSTANTLY PLACING MY IDEA UNDER DURESS WHEN YOU DON'T EVEN GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE IDEA ITSELF?! Seriously, wtf?
ChaoticPinecone1 votesAlso, you claim that you are not arguing with me, that you are not opposing my idea, but WHO THE F%*K GOES THROUGH THIS ENDURING PROCESS OF CONSTANTLY PLACING MY IDEA UNDER DURESS WHEN YOU DON'T EVEN GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE IDEA ITSELF?! Seriously, wtf?
When youre wrong, you should be called out on it. Whether or not your conclusion is right or not, if your reasoning is incorrect you should amend your reasoning so when someone else (who DOESNT agree with you) brings this up, you can respond with sound logic. Because when someone who has the power to change the number of bans is looking at all the reasons for and agasint the change, they will think about all the arguments presented - if the arguments that you bring forth are bad, youre tainting the good arguments. Sometimes at the expense of good arguments.
Why make the support miss out? Why not just do random? Because in new champ select, when you pick your lanes, you KNOW what comes with those lanes. You have a generic idea of 1.) What champions you are going to play 2.) What champions you are going to come up against. In a post where bans are spread out across the team to promote fairness, but only 4 can ban, it felt unfair to let someone randomly lose out on the banning process. Instead, it felt better to allow a person to click "support" and KNOW that they are not going to get a ban, and to allow another person to click "top" and KNOW that they ARE going to get a ban.
I find it more unfair that the support gets left out of the banning process solely because of their position. Why should supports suffer? According to your logic (and by that, i mean that certain positions know beforehand whether or not they will get a ban) and since ADCs have the least amount of bans to their role, they should miss out, right? So youd be fine with ADCs entering into champ select knowing that they arent going to get a ban, and supports are entering into champ selecting know they will.
You then just try to essentially just destruct every aspect of my logic and reasoning, fighting me tooth and nail every bit. When I explain my reasoning, instead of just accepting that that's my reasoning you fight even more.
I guess my attempt at letting you reach the proper answer isnt working. So ill just give you my reasoning:
When you say "powerful champion", its an accepted rule of language that you mean one thing. If in one sentence you mean "powerful champion" as subjectively powerful, and if another you mean "overtunred/overpowered" and in another you mean "best chance at winning" youre confusing the reader and your point fails to convince anybody of the conclusion you want them to accept. If you mean subjectively powerful when you say "powerful ADC", then can you really blame the reader when they read it to be OP ADCs? Then you respond with "I did not mention anything about banning powerful champions".
You mention using bans agasint powerful ADCs or Supports in your original thread, then you claim to never mention powerful champions. Its very obviously wrong, you come off as argumentative. Cause what happens if Riot does implement 10 bans, and some horrible unforseen consequence happens? They will say "The community was adamant at wanting 10 bans". They dont want people to say "No it wasnt. We never said that."
No - what you meant to say is that you didnt say anything about OP champions, and that your original post was geared more toward subjective bans based on who the player doesnt want to play against. In that case, dont use the word "powerful" in both cases to describe two very different things. Instead respond by saying, "Youre talking about OP champions in terms of numbers or damage. My example was more about counters to your main, champions you hate fighting, or champions you just dont know how to play agasint".
Hay5eed1 votesAlright at least you have finally revealed your point. Props to you. Anyways even now I can't agree with your assessment. In order for you to understand what I mean by my post, please go back, read it, and then remove any instance of "powerful" or "OP" okay? By the phrase "powerful champs" I didn't really mean anything, other then to further describe the type of champs people ban (while someone else has mentioned that people don't ban the strongest champs, I doubt anyone could argue that people intentionally ban weak champs).
What annoys me the most is that so much focus, energy, and attention to detail has been put into a hidden meaning or message or misinterpretation of my post, which is clearly not what I intended.
My post- Hamburger style
Thesis: Everyone on the team should get one ban
Reason: Bans are extremely important part of the game, and the entire team should be able to participate
Conclusion: Give 5 bans per team, or if 10 bans a game is deemed too much, give only 4 bans to a team and have the support miss a ban
As far as making it so that the ADC misses the ban instead? Hell, why not?
SoMNia2 votesHow many champions are you good with in your preferred role? I mean, really comfortable, to the point where you feel like you can play at your best with them. Have you mastered at least 6 or 7? If teams have 5 bans, then anyone who performs at their best with fewer than 6 champions can effectively be banned out of the game by the opposing team. With 6, they can force that team to play around that player's one remaining pick and easily counter that comp.
So, why not 5 bans per team? Because it places an undue burden on individual players to have huge champion pools, and makes everyone much less likely to do what they enjoy. It would make the game less fun, and be highly disruptive in competitive games (especially at the high end, where everyone knows their opponents; e.g. Thresh gets banned every time against Renegades because of Remi).
Hay5eed3 votesbut by making the champion pool that you have to master larger, you are increasing the diversity of League in general, which everybody seems to be in favor of
5050BS1 votesNo just 4 per side
Titanium701 votesI guess because 1 of 10 players hates Lee, and where do we end if they'd actually have to rework him because of 100% Ban Rate!?! x'D
ATTENTION INTERNET #IRONY!!!
(No for real - things like this are affecting Riots decision, I'm sure. But they have alot of things to calculate. Especially Pro-Play does affect the Bans. Without the pro scene we would have 5 Bans right now - but some pros would struggle horribly if their pool gets melted and a struggling pro is just no fun to watch. Ofc we could argue, 'just learn more Champions' But lets be honest, how many champions do we have for one role, and how many of them can fullfill multiple task. For real if someone would use 3 Bans against me I would have a huge problem - 5 and I would pick random lend back farming and hoping my team does not screw up! xD)
High51 votesWe don't need more bans. We need better players.
More bans won't improve the game. More bans would only benefit the lazy players.
Derfel1 votesCause then Zed and Fiora would be banned every game and Riot can't have that.
BlackxHokage1 votesI completly agree i was playing ranked and the last guy banned illaoi instead of tahm because be said and i quote "shes to strong to be left open" Needless to say the enemy tahm carried that game...
Kholdstare131 votesWe've been doing 5 per team since season 2. It's called chat bans. Tournaments use them.
But yes it should just be built into draft.
FuntaC1 votesI have thought the same in the past. It didn't seem right that the first person in the queue should get three bans, while the rest have none. It seemed right that, if bans were to be spread across players, each player should have one ban. However, after considering what I would rather see happen in pro games, I think it would be best to do away with bans altogether. A pro should be able to play with or against any champion, and I want to see them play their absolute best.
The argument against this is a what-if for a truly overpowered champion that wins the game for whichever teams gets it first, but the balancing team has proven that it can and will make, at least, one overpowered champion that exceeds the maximum ban limit. Additionally, it encourages the balancing team to create champions for the sole purpose of banning, and it lets them off the hook for mistakes.
Subject 51 votesDude calm down, the meta can only handle like 15 champions being viable at one time.
People need to relax and lower their standards, sheesh. What do you think the balancing team is actually good at their job? The nerve I'll tell you h-what.
ChaddyFantome1 votesIf you think this is too much, then maybe eight bans, so that every lane gets a ban, and the support just misses out.
OR, let first pick keep their advantage of being first pick instead of discriminating against positions?
Lugg1 votesThe problem with that is there are too many idiots that get first pick and cost you the game then and there.
Lugg1 votesThis so needs to be done since Riot can't seem to ever balance the game sufficiently.
Muted Summoner1 votesDistrubute the bans so that every team mate has one ban. This way everyone can ban for their lane and not have to rely on their teammates to ban who they think is OP or needing bans. If you think this is too much, then maybe eight bans, so that every lane gets a ban, and the support just misses out. This would also encourage people to think, do I want to ban a powerful ADC? or a powerful Support?
Imagine if both teams banned every adc. or every viable laner in one role. This game could go wild.