@Riot. Real simple, what's your position on more bans?

bad manner kid·Aug 20, 2015·4 votes·392 views

Same argument over many threads, a few points:

More champions, more bans.
5(10) bans is reasonable and simple to implement.
Currently, a single player bans, what's wrong with each player having 10 seconds to ban?
LCS would be more interesting with extra bans.

I haven't read an argument that supports 3 bans, except that "muh champion pool, ranked requires 16 champs" and to that I say you shouldn't be playing ranked if you haven't played long enough to even afford 20+ champs or have diverse rune pages.

3 Comments

dannykunAug 20, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=All Chat Referee,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=E9YddjO6,comment-id=,timestamp=2015-08-20T04:19:43.616+0000)

Same argument over many threads, a few points:

More champions, more bans.

5(10) bans is reasonable and simple to implement.

Currently, a single player bans, what's wrong with each player having 10 seconds to ban?

LCS would be more interesting with extra bans.

I haven't read an argument that supports 3 bans, except that "muh champion pool, ranked requires 16 champs" and to that I say you shouldn't be playing ranked if you haven't played long enough to even afford 20+ champs or have diverse rune pages.

LCS might Suffer a lot from more bans, as players can essentially shut down a player (with more bans it could be possible to shut down two players) like what they did to dyrus in season 3 and 4 where all their bans were for him specifically.

HOWEVER for Ranked ques I have to say I agree with all of this sentiment immensely, with more champions getting cheaper and being released every month, at this point by the time you're level 30 you should be able to afford at least 12-14 champions, with someone so new to league being able to just jump into ranked may sour their view of the game too early so increasing the required champs to 20-25 might help someone get more experience before jumping headfirst into ranked matches.

bad manner kidAug 20, 20151 votes

{quoted}

LCS might Suffer a lot from more bans, as players can essentially shut down a player (with more bans it could be possible to shut down two players) like what they did to dyrus in season 3 and 4 where all their bans were for him specifically.

I'm not going to pretend to be an LCS player or challenger, but, I've always been baffled by "x player's champ pool is shut down."

You're telling me in years of playing this game, they are rendered ineffective because they can only play 3 champions in a lane? This is what I mean by making the LCS more interesting. If 5 mids get banned out, we'd actually see some picks other than the super reliable farming champions, and maybe even some niche counter picks.

dannykunAug 20, 20151 votes

Well when you're at that level of competition usually you've really learned, and I mean LEARNED, everything that is effective, ineffective and how your kit interacts with everything for about 3-4 champions. Think of it like being forced to play a role you don't normally play, You could be a spectacular top laner, but you're stuck mid, and the play style of the champions in meta at that current moment are slightly different than what you're trained in doing. Are you gonna be completely shit? by no means, but are you going to be as effective as you would have been if you were top? not in the slightest. I believe it was said that to truly learn a champion in league you have to play a 1000 games with them, LCS players usually hold close to those kinds of record with the champs they are good at, So forcing them to play with a champ they have played maybe 100 games with, the difference is more than notable at that level.