Boards›Gameplay

Alright, let's get this shit sorted out. The new 10 ban system is NOT as bad as you say it is.

Melledoneus··34 votes·1,403 views

First, let's get my personal vendettas out of the way: I regrettably will not be able to have sandwich/water/restroom breaks in champ select. I'm fine with that, since I would only do that since it took so damn long before. Also I think duplicated bans is kind of a flawed idea but that's about it, it's an easily fixed issue and it's not particularly game-breaking.

Now, onto the real issue.

I see people complaining about the bans system like there's no tomorrow, and it's not even live yet! Good god, these people complain about things that haven't been tried and true yet. And I'm legit so fed up, I'm calling them out right here and right now. And you better put on your brave face, because I'm going in dry deep strong f*ck it there's no word that doesn't sound dirty.

{quoted}

There is absolutely no reason as to why we shouldn't see the other bans the enemy team has selected. When a ban from the enemy team is locked in, we should be able to see the champion who was banned immediately. This is ridiculous and will only cause problems. We wanted 10 bans FOR A REASON.

Well, Mr. 'xWaters,' let me explain something to you. The way the current bans system works is that you can't see the enemy bans. The strategic value in this new banning system is to ban a set of problematic champions to your team and its members, not to go back and forth to ban the FotM champions. There are several reasons why you are not allowed to see the enemy's bans:

  1. It would encourage you to use the precious 35 seconds of banning time to look at what the enemy bans, shifting your focus from what YOUR team finds problematic to you trying to be a strategic little dinker and getting nothing done.
  2. Your enemy's bans would influence what you pick, which would have a negative impact on people who are already quite indecisive or insecure about ranked. It would create a massive disadvantage for those people and thus result in either more dodges or more "no bans."

For a guy with 'water' in his name, your argument didn't hold much.

[{quoted}](name=Janna X RubicK,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=2yxfIxx5,comment-id=,timestamp=2017-05-19T20:54:31.777+0000)

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 6 bans as Lulu Ivern will take 4 slots already in 100% of our games

Alright, Janna X RubicK, our good master tier friend. You're wondering why the system isn't "one team bans 5, the other team bans 5 champs." Well, let me tell you something that might put you at ease: #THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE 10 BAN PHASE SYSTEM IS, EXCEPT THEY BAN AT THE SAME TIME.

Riot gave you 10 bans, not 6. 2 champions don't take up 4 slots, because clearly 10-2= 8. Additionally, your problem champions, including Ivern, Lulu, Yasuo, Graves, Lucian, and BoRK itself have or are getting nerfs, so your ban slots are going to most likely get freed up. So stop complaining about non-existent problems.

If you can't read something as short as how the ban phase works, I don't recommend playing Yasuo or Jhin, seeing as how their passive tooltips are pretty long and might lose your interest.

{quoted}

With the new system, however, it is highly unlikely that all 10 must ban champions will get banned every game. There is no reason to change the way that bans work, just let both teams ban 1 champion at a time and decrease time per ban.

Alright, magewick, my friend, I've already explained this but allow me to go over it one more time. To reduce the whole "permaban" problem, Riot has nerfed some of the most powerful champions in the game to reduce that as much as possible. Also, I like the new collective ban system because it allows you to ban and get it out of the way. Usually teams already have a ban in mind and don't really communicate it much with one another unless they are duo. This allows ban phase to finish up quickly so your team can pick, because before it was a sluggish process that took for-f*cking-ever.

Well, that pretty much wraps up my gripes. I know I'll get some flak for this, but whatever. I'm tired of trash like this littering the front boards when half the crap is incorrect or just plain misleading uninformed garbage. Downvote me if you wish, but this needs to stop.

46 Comments

ChargeItDownMid10 votes

[deleted]

Saianna2 votes

From the looks of it most of people already forgot whole season of dynamic queue.

That's the golden fish momeory for ya. Very common occurance in politics...

Melledoneus1 votes

Here's the question though: have you forgotten about Skarner? When Riot changes stuff prior to release because people complained and clamored for changes? Yeah, we got Skarner with that huge 60-something win rate upon his re-release.

I don't mean to be a mean old grandpa here, but you all are being so childish, impatient, and fussy over a system you haven't even changed yet. Hell, they nerfed pretty much every permaban candidate on the roster so what you said would not be an issue.

Illâoi Evê Siôn1 votes

{quoted}

actually, it really is as bad as people make it out to be. League's balance team is simply not good enough to balance 130+ champions and as a result, there are at least 10 champions on any given patch which requires bans.

It's more like 3 champions who are too strong at the moment and 7 champions who are just so freaking annoying no matter how weak they are that you just want them gone.

Fondling Gems6 votes

While overall I agree with you I think you missed Janna X RubicK's point. If you knew you had to remove two champs because they were really good (In the example Ivern and Lulu, but that would change over time) then each team would have to ban them since they don't want to other team to get them. As such each team would have to burn 2 bans on them, which drops the remaining bans down to 6.

However technically you are both wrong. You are wrong because 4 bans do have to be burned on them, RubicK is wrong because 2 bans are already required for those champions regardless of the ban system. Thus only 2 bans are overdone (since the other team has to ban them too) meaning that you still get the value of 8 bans, not 6.

2Charmnot2Charm1 votes

If you knew you had to remove two champs because they were really good (In the example Ivern and Lulu, but that would change over time) then each team would have to ban them since they don't want to other team to get them.

Or you could leave it up as blue side and first pick it? Banning is just half of the champ select, people need to stop forgetting they can just first pick the op themselves on blue side (or 2 for red side if they decide to leave 3 of them up)

Fondling Gems2 votes

Well that's the thing, what if I don't play Ivern? It is good to know a large pool of champions of course, but what if he isn't part of that pool? Suddenly I DO have to ban him, and if I am red side I don't have a choice because the enemy could very well play Ivern. That means that 50% of the time if something is pick or ban you have to ban it, and the other 50% of the time matters if a) you play it, and b) you are either first pick or the first pick person is willing to trade.

Giving up one in return for two is also heavily flawed for a couple reasons. First of all lets assume that we have 3 people who are willing to play and competent at those 3 champs. Now we can leave them up. However if the enemy team bans two of them then suddenly they get one OP champ and we get none.

Reminder that I personally am not affected by these things and am neutral on the matter. I am simply pointing out faulty logic and helping to solve other's misunderstandings.

Rock MD6 votes

{quoted}

Well, Mr. 'xWaters,' let me explain something to you. The way the current bans system works is that you can't see the enemy bans. The strategic value in this new banning system is to ban a set of problematic champions to your team and its members, not to go back and forth to ban the FotM champions. There are several reasons why you are not allowed to see the enemy's bans:

  1. It would encourage you to use the precious 35 seconds of banning time to look at what the enemy bans, shifting your focus from what YOUR team finds problematic to you trying to be a strategic little dinker and getting nothing done.
  2. Your enemy's bans would influence what you pick, which would have a negative impact on people who are already quite indecisive or insecure about ranked. It would create a massive disadvantage for those people and thus result in either more dodges or more "no bans."

For a guy with 'water' in his name, your argument didn't hold much.

Alright, Janna X RubicK, our good master tier friend. You're wondering why the system isn't "one team bans 5, the other team bans 5 champs." Well, let me tell you something that might put you at ease: #THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE 10 BAN PHASE SYSTEM IS, EXCEPT THEY BAN AT THE SAME TIME.

Riot gave you 10 bans, not 6. 2 champions don't take up 4 slots, because clearly 10-2= 8. Additionally, your problem champions, including Ivern, Lulu, Yasuo, Graves, Lucian, and BoRK itself have or are getting nerfs, so your ban slots are going to most likely get freed up. So stop complaining about non-existent problems.

If you can't read something as short as how the ban phase works, I don't recommend playing Yasuo or Jhin, seeing as how their passive tooltips are pretty long and might lose your interest.

Alright, magewick, my friend, I've already explained this but allow me to go over it one more time. To reduce the whole "permaban" problem, Riot has nerfed some of the most powerful champions in the game to reduce that as much as possible. Also, I like the new collective ban system because it allows you to ban and get it out of the way. Usually teams already have a ban in mind and don't really communicate it much with one another unless they are duo. This allows ban phase to finish up quickly so your team can pick, because before it was a sluggish process that took for-f*cking-ever.

  1. I love how people justify the pick/ban phase as, "You need to get rid of stuff problematic to your comp." No. That type of gameplay only exists in competitive 5s. The only thing that's ever problematic in solo queue is a really good player on a really strong champion. The only time you ever need to ban a champion that isn't really strong is when that champion is a personal weakness of a player being inflexible.

  2. In high elo unless you have an Ivern player on your team, you ban him. Same with Lulu. If you don't you're putting the comp at a huge risk because those champions are just so fucking good. This change by Riot has effectively, in most scenarios, given high elo less bans in the case there are more than 1 very high priority bans (because you'll likely see at least 2-3 overlaps).

  3. Yeah Riot nerfs champions that are permaban. It doesn't mean they don't show up from time to time. Back in patch 4.20 they preemptively nerfed Warwick because they figured he'd do well in the new jungle. He pulled a 60% winrate and in normals over a 100% pickrate (like 1/10 to 1/5 games he was being picked twice). Couple that with another strong, annoying champion people on both sides hate (Lee Sin, anyone?) and you have enough champs that if both teams (rightfully) ban them they're now effectively back to 6 bans.

The formatting sucks.

Melledoneus5 votes

{quoted}

  1. I love how people justify the pick/ban phase as, "You need to get rid of stuff problematic to your comp." No. That type of gameplay only exists in competitive 5s. The only thing that's ever problematic in solo queue is a really good player on a really strong champion. The only time you ever need to ban a champion that isn't really strong is when that champion is a personal weakness of a player being inflexible.

If not your team, then you as an individual. Regardless, it still benefits the team. If I pick Orianna and ban Zed, then I've helped our comp in general because I am a vulnerable control mage and not having to go against one of the slipperiest AD assassins certainly takes a load off the team.

  1. In high elo unless you have an Ivern player on your team, you ban him. Same with Lulu. If you don't you're putting the comp at a huge risk because those champions are just so fucking good. This change by Riot has effectively, in most scenarios, given high elo less bans in the case there are more than 1 very high priority bans.

And you, like the majority of the Boards, have completely ignored the fact that Riot has nerfed Ivern heavily this patch, making counter-jungling an actual risk and making him invade-able.

  1. Yeah Riot nerfs champions that are permaban. It doesn't mean they don't show up from time to time. Back in patch 4.20 they preemptively nerfed Warwick because they figured he'd do well in the new jungle. He pulled a 60% winrate and in normals over a 100% pickrate (like 1/10 to 1/5 games he was being picked twice). Couple that with another strong, annoying champion people on both sides hate (Lee Sin, anyone?) and you have enough champs that if both teams (rightfully) ban them they're now effectively back to 6 bans.

Lee had a high ban rate. Nerfed. Yasuo had a high ban rate. Nerfed. Ivern had a high ban rate. Nerfed. Graves had a decently high ban rate. Nerfed. Lucian had a high ban rate. Nerfed. Pretty much every champion who is sporting a higher than average ban rate is getting nerfed. And not lightly, either.

The formatting sucks.

Yes, it does. Must take after your reading comprehension skills.

GayFluffyUnicorn1 votes

Yes graves got nerfed and is still as strong as ever. Lee still gets picked frequently, let's see how those nerfs go. Where is lucian nerfed? I don't see any. If you haven't noticed riot is already two patches over the deadline to nerf someoone like lucian. Same with ivern. Graves. Kassa is still must ban as is xayah. Lulu idk how her nerfs impacted her since she is still pretty much permaban. You are acting as if now all problems are solved and we don't need to ban anyone anymore because riot after 3 patches finally nerfs a champ who is long overdue. I mean come on, while nerfing someone riot balance team took way too many mushrooms and buffed kassa out of the blue creating the next must-ban.

Big Lincoln5 votes

when i start playing this shit game again im gonna ban shen just 2 spite u

Melledoneus1 votes

My daddy works at Riot he'll make Shen unbannable.

nice table5 votes

am i the only one that has noticed that there are no medium / high elo players advocating for the way 10 bans were implemented? probably because its terrible for high elo and doesn't matter for low elo.

Melledoneus1 votes

As far as I'm concerned high elo players are not immune to bias that leads to wrongful speculation.

That's why the majority of them are on the fence about it. There's a loud minority, though.

Saianna2 votes

As far as I'm concerned high elo players are not immune to bias that leads to wrongful speculation.

Noone is. Neither are you.

You decided to stand on Riots side with this one. But that's just as biased as everyones else decision of either accepting or opposing.

So I could go and throw the mudball-level-of-lame-argument you made:

That's why the majority of them are on the fence about it. There's a loud minority, though.

and use it against you. Fun isn't it?

Melledoneus1 votes

{quoted}

Noone is. Neither are you.

You decided to stand on Riots side with this one. But that's just as biased as everyones else decision of either accepting or opposing.

Hey, I have my own problems with how it works, alright? But I'm not going to be up in arms about it until I actually try it. I recommend you do the same, because as it turns out it might not be as bad as you act like it is. My main issue is nobody is even considering TRYING the damn system before crying about it.

So I could go and throw the mudball-level-of-lame-argument you made:

and use it against you. Fun isn't it?

Not relevant. It's clear when one side is drowning out the other by how loud they cry. People who would be ok with the system are much less likely to post about it, because hey, why not? I also don't see any Challenger streamers talking about why this is going to be bad and bringing up valid reasons other than "I believe."

Your pesky mind games won't work on me, because the truth is air-tight.

Saianna2 votes

My main issue is nobody is even considering TRYING the damn system before crying about it.

You know why, but seriously, do you really, really, REALLY know why?

Because when we asked for 10 bans (EDIT: like since few years ago) we didn't ask for retarded gimmick that could be translated to:

We know that you want 10 bans and it is somehow reasonable, but we won't make it because it'd feel like we are listening and agreeing with you. So we'll act like spoiled assholes and throw last word in this setup just to show how independed we are. Sincerely(not) Riot. P.S Fuck you and buy more skins

And just for that whoever came up with that dull idea should get his ass fired from Riot... But It won't happen because if Rioters had at least some decency in their actions they wouldn't have pulled asshole moves suchas DQ or this ban system in the first place.

This part is only my point of view of your whole thread. Might be different for anyone. Just so you know.

It's clear when one side is drowning out the other by how loud they cry.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaa.. When I was a kid on my playground we had a "game" that noone liked but everyone participated to some degree.

There was always that one moment who said "whoever walks on earth is gay" so everyone like monkeys started climbing a tree. then there was "whoever says a word is X/Y/Z"..

And you did exactly the same bullshit. Your argument was "whoever is disagreeing is X/Y/Z".

I also don't see any Challenger streamers talking about why this is going to be bad and bringing up valid reasons other than "I believe."

News of new bans doesn't even have a whole day yet and you already expect everyone to state their opinion on the fact. Unlike us they earn money via playing. They have to take it slower. BUT I can bet you'll see them taking action sooner or later. Just like they did with DQ.

Your pesky mind games won't work on me, because the truth is air-tight.

Ain't mind game, but logic game. And you lost, boy.

nice table2 votes

My main issue is nobody is even considering TRYING the damn system before crying about it.

my main issue with your main issue is that when riot actually implements something to the live servers they will let it sit there for at least half a year before changing it so basically the only way for us to prevent that is to complain before it goes live.

Melledoneus1 votes

If it sucks as much as you say it does, hell I'll lead the charge against it.

TEA Nietzsche 1 votes

Eh? As a medium elo player I love it. The best things are still that everyone has a say, it takes less time and we have more ways to ensure people aren't trolling and leaving Ivern/Lulu open (or whoever fills their place). The other banworthy champions that Rubick listed could be expanded so it's unrealistic to ban all of them anyways. You just have to deal with some of them so having some varying bans is fine.

nice table1 votes

im sure you prefer it over the actual 10 bans as your main would probably be perma banned in d5 if there actually were 10 bans.

TEA Nietzsche 1 votes

As you too are d5 I kind of wonder why you'd think that. It's been quite a while since I've seen a Riven ban.

nice table1 votes

probably because you had to ban ivern, lulu, graves, kassadin, sejuani and xayah every game so there was no room for riven bans, also honorable mention to fiora who should also be banned every game.

TEA Nietzsche 1 votes

Oh and what about Fizz, Cait, Ahri? And once they are banned you have to ban Talon, Kled, Leblanc, Syndra, Renekton..

The problem with bans is that there never enough of them, so the new system is just enough to do the job. But I seriously doubt that Riven would come anywhere next as long as Kled, Jayce, Fiora, Shen, Renekton and Kennen are up.

I am Pacman4 votes

um, ivern and lulu ARE 4 bans. Apparently someone forgot there were 2 teams and 2+2=4

So he is correct and it will only be 3 bans per team or 6 bans.

Leetri1 votes

That still leaves you with 6 bans instead of the 4 you'd have today, if both teams somehow managed to ban both Ivern and Lulu every single game (which isn't the case since neither have an even remotely close to 100% ban rate).

3TWarrior1 votes

lulu has a 75% ban rate in challenger or 3/4 people will ban her

if you take that into account, it means that only one person is free to not ban her

Leetri1 votes

Why are you talking about Challenger when 99,5% of the playerbase never even see that rank in their games? All in all, she's banned every 4th game, in Plat+ about every other. She's banned a lot, but I never said anything about that. I just said she's not banned every single game, so Lulu will most of the time (unless you're exceptionally high ranked which the vast majority of the players aren't) not be double banned. It will happen more often than Urgot is double banned, but still not in every game like some people believe. And even if she's double banned, you're still getting more bans than you had before.

Rewt3 votes

I dont like the fact that there can be duplicate bans but I cant think of a better way to do it. Simple fact here is that I spent 10min trying to find a better way to do it but in the end i cant.

Your bans are essentially Reverse blind pick. And then Draft starts. I think this is fine. Sure we will probably see 2 yasuo bans every game but it isnt really a problem.

Melledoneus5 votes

Yasuo's nerfs might be enough to get him off the permaban list.

Rewt7 votes

You would think that. but lets be real here. you would be wrong in Bronze - G5

Flawless Fetus3 votes

True he was under 50% winrate for a very long time. The team that picked yas was likely to lose, and he was still a popular ban. Makes no sense. Lol.

Rewt5 votes

Because he is aids. Is he good? meh. Is he annoying as fuck? yes.

3TWarrior3 votes

you forget one thing...Riot almost never changes something until it has been live for at least a month, even if the result on the test servers EXACTLY mimics the result on live

players predicted sated devourer problems

players predicted mordekaiser problems

riot promised to sort out marksment in the marksmen update...they made them even more a core focus of the game and some are even ban-worthy

my point is, Riot doesn't have a good track history when it comes to repeating mistakes they have made before

this comes from the company now having over 10,000 employees managing it instead of the original 10 developers

BakedLotion2 votes

Because it'd just end up as 5 bans. Everyone banning the same fotm picks

TyrekGoldenspear1 votes

Dang. Shenpai going in for them flash plays.

Good write up Melle. Can you do it in E Minor?

Melledoneus2 votes

I'll give you a C flat and any more will cost you.

TyrekGoldenspear1 votes

I have twenty thousand Republic dataries.

Melledoneus1 votes

Republic credits? Republic credits are useless out here. I need something more real.

TyrekGoldenspear1 votes

I don't have anything else, but credits will do fine.

Melledoneus1 votes

No, they won't. And stop waving your hand around like there's a fly bothering you.

3TWarrior1 votes

if one jedi can't, then what about two?

you will accept credits! you will accept credits!

TheHappyReaperz1 votes

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/871/793/c2a.gif

Rebonack1 votes

Provided Riot is proactive about stomping the shit out of flagrantly over-tuned champions, I don't see any problem here. Ideally you should be banning champions that are your most feared counter-picks.

Y'know.

The thing the ban system was supposed to be used for from the start?

reaperteaser1 votes

its realy not that bad, but if the boards bitch enough rito will eventually change it

Breaku1 votes

I don't see a world in which MY TEAM banning 5 champions is worse than both teams combined banning 6.

In the unlikely event that the enemy team bans the exact same 5 champions as mine, only one fewer champion gets through and at the very least, all 5 bans are still good for my team to have banned since we picked to ban them.

More from Gameplay

3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay764 comments
7,167
votes
3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay156 comments
3,510
votes
UPVOTE FOR URF
Gameplay606 comments
2,440
votes
Yes plz.
Gameplay456 comments
1,721
votes
3 Refunds per season, up vote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay114 comments
1,716
votes
When is ANYONE at riot going to address the awful new player experience?
Gameplay634 comments
1,383
votes

More by Melledoneus

The Boards need to read this article by Riot's Tryndamere.
Gameplay332 comments
350
votes
League of Legends no longer feels like our game anymore.
Gameplay230 comments
289
votes
Riot, for all of the Shen players out there, make this one change for us...
Gameplay124 comments
253
votes
Since resistances have replaced health, can we reduce the armor pen on Yasuo's ult now?
Gameplay218 comments
242
votes
I have now discovered the scandalous secrets of some of the Rioters in Riot Games...
Memes & Games87 comments
235
votes
I'm growing tired of entertaining your whims, Riot.
Gameplay310 comments
222
votes