Idea to make LCS more diversified.

LatetotheRace·Aug 30, 2016·18 votes·942 views

Add 2 random joker bans in the game. Full random so literally no one knows what's coming. It could end up banning Yorick or Xin zhao. OR it could ban Ashe and Gragas. Just an interesting little Idea I had.

23 Comments

Irelia BotAug 30, 201612 votes

Or make it so that a team can not pick the same champ more then once in a best of 3 and more then twice in a best of 5.

Force them to play other things.

LankPantsAug 30, 20163 votes

I don't see what the point of this is. You'd just end up developing a tier system where rank S champs are picked game one, rank A champs game 2 and so on.

You'd create a system where pick/bans are incredibly predictable as well, because if you're Red and you ban a champ out game 1 it becomes imperative that that champ stays banned every game. If you ever let let that ban slip then you have to try to fight a god-like champion with a far lower tier champ.

Of course you'd have no reason to let bans slip as Red side at least. There's no need for reactive bans. If the enemy team pulls out their secret Heimerdinger jungle (yes this happened) that you have no idea how to counter you don't have to worry about banning it. There are no reactive bans and with that a large amount of pick/ban strategy is lost. You lose value on unknown pocket picks because the enemy team doesn't have to ban them out or risk losing to a pick they can't play against. Sure it wins you a game, but currently unknown pocket picks can win you a series by forcing the enemy team to ban your random arse champ and play the rest of the series with a 1 ban disadvantage.

Additionally you are giving blue team a huge advantage in game 2. Let's say in game 1 RekSai Gragas Gnar Gangplank Ashe and Elise were banned out. These champs are valid picks in game 2. This means you create a scenario where blue team always wins the pick/ban phase.

Blue always gets to chose from what ever left over S tiers there are. For example

Blue bans Elise Red bans RekSai Blue bans Gangplank Red bans Gragas Blue bans JarvanIV (let's say) Red is now forced to ban a lower tier champ, we'll say Jayce for argument. Blue now gets to chose between Ashe and Gnar

And if Red bans Ashe or Gnar then Blue gets the other uncontested. If this sounds familiar that's because it's the scenario Mordekaiser and Darius were in during S5 worlds. Red lost bans because of their existence and as such were at an extreme disadvantage. This creates an extreme sum of pressure on Red side in the exact same way.

This creates polarised games which are decided on a single pick. You end up with a game of 'who carries harder, the Ashe who slipped or the Gnar who slipped' while the other 8 champions are relegated to supporting their vastly superior ally.

This also means that in round robin group stages where teams play best of ones their champ pools are entirely different to the best of fives in the bracket stage. You can a theoretical team who is the absolute best a tier A,B,C and D champs but worse at tier S champs than the rest of their group. This team could be the best in the world in games 2-5, that doesn't matter however because they aren't the best at game 1, and the round robin is simply 'play game one 6 times in a row'.

This also changes the dynamics of regions who play Bo2 vs Bo3 in groups. Regions who play Bo3 have to know how to play tier S,A and B champs in groups while Bo2 regions only need tier S and A.

Basically this sounds like a good, if somewhat cheesy idea until you actually think about the more in-depth ramifications this system would have on the game. Once you think about these effects it's one of the worst things you could do to pro play.

Irelia BotAug 31, 20162 votes

And this is bad how?

You have the top tier champs and then the nost as top tier champs being played.

If 10 champs are banned for each team an a game three that make it more diveris in whathas to be played then the same 4 junglers 4 ADC 5 mids and the like.

LatetotheRaceAug 31, 20161 votes

"I don't see what the point of this is. You'd just end up developing a tier system where rank S champs are picked game one, rank A champs game 2 and so on." Oh boy, we get to see more than 15 champions. Bare in mind the champion pool is 123 so 15 is insanely limited.

SherogarthAug 30, 20168 votes

Better idea: add 2 joker bans voted by community for all games that day.

You hit two birds with one stone this way:

Matches are more diversified.
Community can take much more meaningful and funny part in pro play.

DoktorKaiserAug 30, 20161 votes

While I like the idea, I would imagine that would ruin the weaker, less popular teams. I bet that TSM fanboys in NA would vote to ban the main champions of enemy team every single time, thus ruining the whole point of it.

VerdadeAug 30, 20161 votes

Champions used are permanently banned in any subsequent matches. So in 5 games of best of 5 you would see 50 unique champions... that would be fun, wouldn't it?

LatetotheRaceAug 31, 20161 votes

I feel like this is a pretty decent idea.

ElikainAug 30, 20163 votes

Those 2 random joker bans are a bad idea. If i understood correctly, they pick and ban what they want and then 1 team also gets one more random champion banned.

That could potentially mean in rare instances that one team gets a very good 4th ban and one other team a useless one. That's something i personally think Riot would never implement as his random element outside of the game in-game environment can't be fair for both teams.

Just imagine the same thing added to randomizing rune and mastery pages. One lucky/unlucky player from both teams gets hit with a joker and voala. Your marksmen now has a tank mastery page and a support rune page. Fun gameplay, am i right?

LatetotheRaceAug 31, 20161 votes

Equal randomness is equal fairness. Both teams have to deal with 2 randoms bans and adjust their team accordingly.

"That could potentially mean in rare instances that one team gets a very good 4th ban and one other team a useless one. " Except they're independent bans so neither team gets to take ownership or whatever you're implying. It would be as if the game itself banned them.

"Just imagine the same thing added to randomizing rune and mastery pages" This just doesn't even make a decent argument. It's comparing two very different concepts as if they were the same.

To clear this up if you didn't get it... Imagine if you will, that these two randomly banned champions didn't even exist. It would effect both teams evenly and be 100% balanced and fair. No team would receive any actual advantage. (Don't argue the concept of player mains, or viability. They could just as easily be banned by the players instead of the game itself.)

DemoGuideAug 30, 20161 votes

You can't really diversify picks as long as there is only one optimal strategy everyone is playing. And all the picks are forced to fit the strategy the best. Freaking pros dont even wat to discover different ways of winning. Laneswap everygame was just proving this. It's like we dont really want to play anything else, lets all agree for a laneswap for bonus gold towers doesn't matter shit anyways.

I have to admit, as much as i hate DotA because of so many freaking stupid mechanics like minion stacking in the jungle, watching pro games in DotA is much more fun than watching LoL pro games.

MarshbouyAug 30, 20161 votes

Yeah no. lets say they want to pick a yasuo comp. they bring rek sai, yasuo, alistar, ashe, and ryze.' yasuo gets banned by the joker ban.

this would not work. This would never work .

GULAG 4 UAug 30, 20163 votes

Bans before champ select?

LatetotheRaceAug 31, 20161 votes

Well yeah. Not sure what that guy thinks though, he's clearly confused.

GULAG 4 UAug 31, 20161 votes

I guess yeah.

balbraakselAug 30, 20161 votes

Anything that randomizes anything can create unfairness (randomness) in matches so it's a bad idea unless it's not completely random. I think that from previous match the played champions some of it should be autobanned for 1 role. Like when support is randomly chosen and the teams previously had Janna support and Bard support, it's autobanned so they're forced to pick the next best thing.

LatetotheRaceAug 31, 20161 votes

Randomness =/= Unfairness. It would be completely random, and it would effect both teams equally so it would be fair.

Akali is SO HOTAug 30, 20161 votes

Riot would just rig it so only the champions that can't make lcs big plays are in the joker pool

LatetotheRaceAug 31, 20161 votes

As likely as that may be, I think people would catch on VERY quickly.

TattersallAug 30, 20161 votes

They should just implement the plan to create the Bronze LCS, where all teams are from the Bronze elo. It would be… Glorious

LankPantsAug 30, 20161 votes

This is a terrible idea. It removes a lot of the potential strategy from the ban phase. There's often scenarios where teams 3 champs up after the last ban who are high priority picks and put the enemy team into a 'you get one we get two' scenario. If your joker ban landed on any of the 3 champs you'd be screwing over the red team for outpicking blue team.

VerdadeAug 30, 20161 votes

Best of three/2 games: Banning works as usual, but champions used or banned in previous games are banned in subsequent games. Best of five: There are no bans, but champions used are banned in subsequent games.

So in BO3 and 2game matches we would get AT LEAST 20 unique picks with at least 12 champions outright banned. In Bo5 we would get 50 unique picks, but without banning pros would need to adapt/counter OP champions, use run suboptimal comps to deny champions etc. it would be much better strategically, not just "BAN OP, PICK WHAT YOU CAN'T BAN"