You owe us more bans, Riot.

Only Mid Veigar·Apr 6, 2015·104 votes·4,731 views

It's been years since we last upped the number of potential bans, and we have too many champions for 6 to suffice. We need 10 bans.

Stop ignoring this, please.

88 Comments

NarasimhaApr 6, 201525 votes

The cons vastly outweigh the pros here.

Only Mid VeigarApr 6, 201517 votes

{quoted}

The cons vastly outweigh the pros here.

Uhh, opening up more playstyles and banning compositions rather than just FOTM?

Sorry I didn't know you liked stagnant play dictated by Riot and a handful of scumbags in Challenger.

NarasimhaApr 6, 201518 votes

and banning compositions

Therein lies the problem. This idea lets people ban out entire players. Not to mention that it would take new people much longer to get into ranked, since the required number of champions would have to be increased.

Also, have you watched the LCS lately? If you think its stagnant, you're either ignorant or just fishing for upvotes.

Sailor MintApr 6, 201526 votes

One thing I've learned is that people will never be happy. The novelty only exists the first time a champion is picked and 86% of the champion pool seeing play is still too low.

Even if we reached 100% picked, people would still complain that some champions get picked more than others.

OyddAWqJ5rApr 6, 20156 votes

Truth has been spoken.

AnidanApr 6, 20159 votes

Increasing the barrier of entry for new players into ranked is not a horrible idea right now anyway. Let's be 100% honest: When you just hit 30, would you, as you know now, consider yourself properly prepared for ranked? Now add about 10-50 champions to memorize in addition to when you started. 30-40 champions in my case, for example.

Now, what about other people? Ranked doesn't NEED a small barrier - it is the big show. It's the main attraction for many people, and the last thing that people need for their main draw is people that aren't near experienced enough to come into what is supposed to be the Adult Swim of the game, where only those mature enough and ready for everything should be.

10 bans total is not anywhere near unreasonable right now. If that means that new players need 20 champions or whatever instead of the previous 16 or so, then, uh... so be it. It gives them more time to prepare while they gather the necessary champions. The only people it might stymie are smurfs, and they're smurfing so they're likely to know what they're in for ahead of time and decided to do it anyway, so there's no reason to keep the barrier low on their behalf.

I'm not seeing where the cons outweigh the pros. I can see them evening out against the pros, but not outweighing them. As for stagnation: I don't play ranked myself, and from what I've seen it really isn't stagnant enough right now to give two shits about complaining about that, even in those featured games.

NarasimhaApr 6, 20151 votes

When you just hit 30, would you, as you know now, consider yourself properly prepared for ranked?

I'll be honest, I don't remember how I was at 30. It was over two seasons ago, things were a lot different then. I don't THINK it was too bad though, otherwise I'd have never really kept up with ranked. Honestly though, 30 levels is a lot of time. Unless you're dumping money into boosts, you do have to work for it. Its plenty of time to gain enough experience for, at the least, bronze or silver.

And as I mentioned, the issue isn't entirely about players getting into ranked. Its also about how the bans themselves would be used. In the LCS, it would be used to ban out entire players. Imagine if Faker couldn't play any of his mids. Does that seem like a fair match? And, yes, you could say "But he should know every champ!". Which is fair, but EVERYONE those 4-5 champs which they absolutely rock at compared to the rest.

Another con is that it would reduce diversity. Right now, there are plenty of strong champs, and not enough bans for all of them. Which is entirely the point, atleast this way all champions have a chance of making it onto the field. If there were more bans, then some champs would LITERALLY be permabanned, in which case the next best champions would be permapicked. It just creates a revolving door.

The other argument, to my recollection, is "Let people choose their own bans!". In which case, people would only ban what benefits them, not the team. Going Heim mid? Ban Syndra. Want to do Fiora top? Get rid of Jax. While this is possible in the current state of affairs, it is the HOPE that the captain has the sense to use the bans for the sake of the team, rather than himself.

It Hertz When IPApr 6, 20153 votes

Sure you could ban out a person, but doesn't that take bans from elsewhere? For a low ELO example, I'm team captain and I ban out the five most OP mid champs save our mid's favorite. I just gave the enemy team free license to take Lee Sin as jungler (just an example). Top lane is now free to take (insert OP top laner, say Nidalee). Yeah, you can stall out one player, but you leave the remaining four free to take whatever freelo champ they want.

FreljordanApr 6, 20152 votes

he's talking more about lcs where you actually know what the enemy's strengths and weaknesses are though. Some teams have 1 big star player who just carries the team as far as damage is concerned and everyone else is really just trying to protect or compliment that player (he cited faker here who is a great example, another good example would be powerofevil from uol, though not as good as faker), if this player just got completely banned out every game the team would take a big hit to their chance of success, like major, and would be a definite strategy seen in the lcs. Now other than that in a standard draft where you don't really know a whole lot about the enemy players 5 bans might be ok, I think 4 might be more conservative. Consider though, how this will affect players who want to play draft/ranked who are new. Currently to play ranked or draft you need to own at least 16 champions. boosting bans to 5 would make that 20, quite a lot to save up for for a new player. Just some food for thought

CubedJusticeApr 7, 20151 votes

Exactly. That's the reason you ban Hai's Zed, Werlyb's Jax, and Odoamne's Maokai. Because if you remove somebody's entire champion pool, they're worthless. And yes, I'm making fun of all of them, if you didn't notice.

Champion SkinApr 6, 20151 votes

Well.. if the enemy team used all their bans on Faker then they could also ban all of the champions for the opposing mid laner especially since there is probably some overlap in champions...then it would be even then wouldn't it? Both mid laners being pushed off of their "normal" mid champions and on to something weird or different

NarasimhaApr 7, 20151 votes

Then its not exactly a fair game, is it? To use a different example, imagine if in the World Cup, teams could choose to bench 3 of their opponents for the game. Sure, its still equal in that different players would be rotated in. But its not the same without your best striker or goalie on the field.

Champion SkinApr 8, 20151 votes

If they really are the best wouldn't they be able to play more then 5 champions at an acceptable level

NarasimhaApr 8, 20151 votes

Eh, not really. If you look at any pro player, they tend to focus on a very small pool of champions, and they excel at those champions. They might be better than most players with other champions, but at the level they're playing at, that simply doesn't cut it.

KeevalroyApr 6, 20153 votes

Not to mention that it would take new people much longer to get into ranked, since the required number of champions would have to be increased.

Your point?

NarasimhaApr 6, 20152 votes

The point is that it already takes people plenty of time to earn a few champions. Forcing them to earn more doesn't help anyone. Well, maybe Riot, they'd get more money from the RP purchases, but that's just a dick move.

KeevalroyApr 6, 20155 votes

So having people play more and learn about the game and the champions in it before going into games where score and wins matter is a bad thing? The more time they've spent playing, the more ready they are for ranked matches. I see no issues with this.

Champion SkinApr 6, 20153 votes

Well it doesn't really take that long though if you buy the cheap champions like Annie and Ryze and Warwick as they only cost 450 Ip which is around the cost of one cheap rune

SolaxoApr 6, 20156 votes

{quoted}

Therein lies the problem. This idea lets people ban out entire players. Not to mention that it would take new people much longer to get into ranked, since the required number of champions would have to be increased.

Also, have you watched the LCS lately? If you think its stagnant, you're either ignorant or just fishing for upvotes.

I don't give damn about LC$. I want to play a game.

Champion SkinApr 6, 20153 votes

Well new players would only need 4 more champions and... well if you get banned out.. then return the favor? Then you are pretty much even?

KeevalroyApr 6, 20159 votes

Nah, see he's kinda right. The cons carry more weight than the pros, and we all know the pros are the most important part of League. Why would we want anything to outweigh them since they would be impacted a lot by this?

Alright enough with the passive aggressiveness, I know what he means and I don't agree in the slightest bit, especially when no cons are given. What Riot ought to do is set up the idea that we've been recommending over and over - everyone gets a ban. This way, everyone can ban the one champ they don't want to see in the game, and we have our 10 total.

"Wait Keev, you aren't thinking about the players starting up ranked for the first time!"

Yes I am. If you're starting ranked with the bare minimum of champions, you have very little to counterpick with. Now factor in how little playtime you'd have to get enough IP to get the minimum. You could potentially throw the game from champ select due to the lack of picks or the lack of game experience. When you're playing longer, you're being exposed to the game more, you're seeing what the champions do and how they fair against certain picks, you're learning how to build, and are improving as you become more experienced.

Let's move away from the fresh starters, what about the rest of us? Well, what about us? People complain about the static meta every time one has appeared. With 6 bans, meta picks still get through. With 10, the pool becomes more limited, and we are in a position to alter the flow of the game right from champion select. In the next game, a different 10 could be banned, and thus different picks come out. Sounds like healthy diversity doesn't it?

"But I'm a one-trick-pony and can only fall back on 1 champion if they're banned!"

So playing 1 champion and becoming powerless after 2 button presses isn't your fault in any way? Alrighty then.

"If all of one role is being targeted in bans, we'd be forced to improvise!"

Yeah...yeah you would. Maybe you'll find something that works. Also, the odds of this happening are very slim, but would be admittedly interesting should it happen.

Why SHOULDN'T we have 10 bans? What cons can be provided that can't be argued?

Champion SkinApr 6, 20151 votes

Well... if all of one role is being target banned it would kind of be a collaboration as that would mean that both teams willingly use their bans on that role to set up that situation (though usually there are more then 10 champions in each role though not all of them are play that much now)

TotalJerkApr 6, 20153 votes

If we got more bans, people wouldn't ban champions, they would ban counters.

Imagine if Zed made it through the banning phase, and first pick specifically went after all of Zed's major counters.

Also, Challenger is not stagnant because of banning, it's stagnant because Challengers are the most risk averse players in the game. They prefer reliable safe picks over anything remotely niche, and they wont bother to learn anything new.

If we got more bans, there would just be more permabans and other champions would be FotM. You'll have more champions like Lucian topping the list, who's basically the "I wanted Graves, but he was already picked/banned" champion, right now.

Reynard the ƒoxApr 6, 201517 votes

Just eight would be fine.

BlinkApr 6, 20152 votes

Agree, there are enough champions - it'd be nice to see more bans/variety.

TotalJerkApr 6, 201516 votes

{quoted}

You owe us

Stop. That entitled attitude is exactly the kind of thing that DOESN'T get you what you want.

Only Mid VeigarApr 6, 20155 votes

{quoted}

Stop. That entitled attitude is exactly the kind of thing that DOESN'T get you what you want.

Notice how I mention what they owe, thus turning it from an entitled whine OP into an actual legitimate post. Since it's been literally years since we last had a ban increase, and we need another one.

We have 123 champions available to pick/ban, with 6 bans. ~4-5% of the roster is removed, per match.

Dota 2 currently has 110 out of the 112 Dota heroes available, with 10 bans. ~9% of the roster is removed, per match.

We need more bans. It's that simple. Riot sucks at balancing their game and we need ways to lower the overall number of FOTM picks and get us back to a better state. Ahri is a great example of Riot's incompetence to 'rework' or 'rebalance' a champion. They've been tweaking her and tweaking her and now she's got an insane movement steroid on top of her already crazy mobility and burst with a hard cc on a wide skill shot.

KeevalroyApr 6, 20153 votes

Dota 2 currently has 110 out of the 112 Dota heroes available, with 10 bans. ~9% of the roster is removed, per match.

See? They have less heroes, and they have more bans. It's only right to increase them.

Ahri is a great example of Riot's incompetence to 'rework' or 'rebalance' a champion. They've been tweaking her and tweaking her and now she's got an insane movement steroid on top of her already crazy mobility

It wasn't that crazy, she had to use her ult to have that mobility. And I just want to remind any Rioter reading through this thread that we didn't ask for this, we said we didn't want this, we gave reasons why we didn't like the changes, and just like her splash art, it was forced through anyway with ZERO Riot interaction.

I want my assassin fox back. I know Riot hates assassins except for Zed, but please give back the charm amp and remove the Q movespeed. My favorite champion doesn't feel fun to play anymore. She just feels like a mindless spammer now with super mobility tacked on for no reason.

Only Mid VeigarApr 6, 20152 votes

{quoted}

See? They have less heroes, and they have more bans. It's only right to increase them.

It wasn't that crazy, she had to use her ult to have that mobility. And I just want to remind any Rioter reading through this thread that we didn't ask for this, we said we didn't want this, we gave reasons why we didn't like the changes, and just like her splash art, it was forced through anyway with ZERO Riot interaction.

I want my assassin fox back. I know Riot hates assassins except for Zed, but please give back the charm amp and remove the Q movespeed. My favorite champion doesn't feel fun to play anymore. She just feels like a mindless spammer now with super mobility tacked on for no reason.

My comparison point about Dota 2 was the fact that they've always had 10 bans, and they way their draft system works is MUCH better for disrupting a composition rather than just 'ban whats OP'.

And Ahri was always a mindless spammer. Sorry but I have no love for Ahri players. So many of them act like they're hot because they can combo off a projectile that travels faster than Dark Binding, inflicts hard CC, and dances around with 3 flashes.

CubedJusticeApr 7, 20151 votes

Dota isn't really our baseline, though. If you like sugar in your tea, and I like honey in mine, it's not really fair for your friends to yell at you for putting sugar in your tea just because I put honey in mine.

PhrixscreothApr 6, 20152 votes

TotalJerk's point is that the mindset that we as players are owed anything is why there is a problem- mentioning what they "owe" us doesn't make the post any less problematic.

If we believe we are entitled or owed something then it's fine for us to get completly outraged it doesn't happen, exactly the way we want it to happen.

People would LIKE more bans because X reasons. Sure, valid post. But RIOT -owes- us nothing.

Champion SkinApr 6, 20152 votes

Well of course RIOT doesn't owe us anything... though if their game gets bad then there is no reason to play it or use any money on it...

CubedJusticeApr 7, 20151 votes

It's a little bit unfair to say Riot sucks at balancing their game, don't you think? Every single moba I can think of is about this balanced, if not less.

TheTyeGuyApr 6, 20151 votes

Well, according to his name, he is quite angry.

BresnApr 6, 20158 votes

Believe me I tried.

I think I got -3 on my thread asking for one ban for each teamates and one said how we need to trust our team captain to ban right.

KeevalroyApr 6, 20157 votes

one said how we need to trust our team captain to ban right.

Bard Evelynn Yorick

"Don't worry guys, I got this. Trust me, I'm your captain."

BresnApr 6, 20153 votes

Ahri - Why did you ban Bard? Draven - Bard is so fucking OP it's ult is a troll. Ahri - But Bard players suck with their ult... wtf is this Eve ban? Draven - Her passive is broken lul Riot stupid Azir - Wait but Sha- Draven - AND, NOT BUT DRAVEEEN LEAST, Yorick is a toxic champion and so ugly so I'm gonna ban him!

Voluug13Apr 6, 20157 votes

I completly agree. Of course, considering that Riot likes to cycle the FotM (but never make Zed/Lee Sin/Vi out of viability) its not a LC$ priority.

On the other hand, the amount of anti-fun and obnoxious champions is way bigger that 2 seasons ago.

Riven, Lee $in, Zed, Yasuo, Thresh the trash, Kalista, Vi...

EgyptianApr 6, 20153 votes

not to be "that guy" but other then lee the other champs you listed are all fine !

riven if she gets screwed early it's hard catching up

Zed is a joke once the enemy team have zhonyas and Qss

yasuo has been nerfed to the gutter his early game is a mess

thresh other then his flay he's fine and he's hella squishy early game

i'll let you in on a sceret if kalista is annoying ask your tank to get a righteous glory

vi is meh strong early medicore late, snowballs hard if fed

last of all banning isn't meant for op antifun champions it's meant for something that counters you or your team's comp! it's meant to be used somewhat strategically !

LeagueWraithApr 6, 20154 votes

I Agree With This Statement.

Champion Inflation Means That A Smaller Percentage Of The Champion Pool Is Ban-able Than Ever Before. It Only Makes Sense Because As You Add More Champions, The Static Number Of Six Bans Becomes An Ever Smaller Percentage Of The Available Champions. For Instance 6 Bans Represents 6 Percent Of 100 Champions, But 6 bans represents Only 5 Percent Of 120 Which Is Much Closer To The Current Champion Pool Size.

I Have No Idea How Many Champs Were Available When The Ban System Was Implemented, But Do The Calculation Yourselves And You Will See That A Slow Creep Has Occured And Now Ranked Players Have Even Less "Tools" To Combat Unbalanced Champions.

Its Only Fair

item 3070 LW

TiaxApr 7, 20152 votes

Did the math a while back on old boards for a thread, using Season 2 start as baseline we should have had 4.8 bans per team if 3 was enough (which I assume is true in the eyes of Riot since they implemented it in the first place) prolly a solid 5 now with the release of Azir Rek'Sai Kalista and Bard.

Another argument I hate is that "you could completely ban out a pro", come the fuck on they are paid to play one damn role, should be able to play 6 champs in said role. That is also why bans should be % based off of the champ pool so that one role can't be taken off the table.

KeevalroyApr 7, 20151 votes

Another argument I hate is that "you could completely ban out a pro", come the fuck on they are paid to play one damn role, should be able to play 6 champs in said role.

Thank you! However, Riot cares too much about the stability of the pro scene, and forcing someone on a champion they are visibly uncomfortable on doesn't make for an interesting show for the spectators. I'd think they'd want to have everything be fluid and enaging to watch rather than watching someone hesitate and stumble around.

If that's the case, why not keep the esports event at 6, and have everyone else's draft consist of 10 bans? There are too many problematic champions Riot either doesn't know how to balance correctly or flat out refuses to touch; if nothing is being done to them, allow us to remove them from play. It makes Riot's job a hell of a lot easier while they figure out what to do with them.

usul1202Apr 6, 20153 votes

Lets be clear here. This is a free to play game. riot does not OWE you anything. Riot has NO obligation to do as you demand. Cut your ego, and present a valid argument as to why this is a good thing.

SukishooApr 6, 20151 votes

This is a free to play game. riot does not OWE you anything.

So true.

ujf2qEqxi9Apr 6, 20152 votes

More bans means nothing for new players coming to ranked... Since none of the 450IP and 1350IP champs get banned...

It's pretty simple. Everyone on the team should get one ban.

LapisonApr 7, 20152 votes

Hm. I'm not sure what "more bans" would do, honestly. Lemme just randomly spout out a wall of text here.

What is a ban? Well, it's the idea that there are certain champs that people don't want to play against, be it because they're incredibly hard to deal with (read: Warwick back in preseason) or that people just think that they're stupidly OP (read: Blitzcrank ). Bans allow people a surefire way to counter something: the captain just make sure people can't even play the champ.

There are currently 123 champs in the game. In most ranked games, it's likely some champs aren't owned by anyone (à la Urgot back before he was cool). Why do I assume this? I think that the amount of IP it takes to buy champs is somewhat high (especially if you're going for 6300 IP champs like Ahri or something), so it'd take a hella lot of grinding to get to all 123. Most people are going to buy champs that seem like they're effective/fun, so stuff that isn't either of those probably aren't high on the priority list. (Think...maybe Quinn , who is apparently super buggy, moderately effective, and costs 6300 IP.)

So, let's say that between all ten players, they have around 80% of the champion pool. So that makes it around...what, 100 champs? So you're really not banning out much of the champ pool at all with six bans.

For most players, I honestly can't see the problem with having more bans. More bans just means that people'd have to have more champs before going into ranked, and they'd have to worry about more "meta picks" getting banned out, as well as a higher probability of getting banned off your main(s). It's pretty standard for people to get a solid roster (around 5 champs) of their role as well as a couple others to fill if need be, so I don't think people will ever get banned out in most games.

I think one-trick-pony players at high MMR will suffer if there are more bans, even with only two more. Example: Pretend I'm a high elo player (hah that's funny) and I think Annie Bot is in my game, because I know he was queueing up at around the same time as me. I know how lethal that person is on Annie, so I instaban it. Thus, he's forced to play a champ that he's not amazing at, thus giving my team a better shot at winning. More bans would make this procedure more common; you can ban out the stuff you wanted and the one-trick pony's champ.

The question is, should Riot punish people for becoming absolute masters of a single champion? My gut instinct is "yes", because to be good at the game, you should be able to master all facets of it, and that includes each role. However, there's an equally strong argument for "no"; by specializing towards one champ, you show dedication and deeper knowledge of mechanics than someone who just fills for the team. Why shouldn't you reward that dedication? This also touches upon pro players; those players have mastered a few champions to a high degree, and so allowing more bans can force play to play sub optimally on champs they don't have as much experience with. I dunno about you, but I'd rather see amazing play on a couple of champs than pretty good play on a lot. (That's my personal opinion, so feel free to disagree.)

What I don't think more bans will do will be to cause metas to move faster. There's no reason that more bans won't just expose more powerful champs; if anything, I think there'll be a brief period of quickly shifting meta as some of the bans that people wanted to ban come down, and then a rise of a new meta right in its place. Then the meta will semi-stagnate again. I think FOTM champs will see shorter lifetimes, due to the capacity of the ban phase to incorporate those champs more easily without giving up meta-strong champs, but I don't think they'll ever go away completely (because bans tend to lag the most after a champ becomes OP).

I also don't think that more bans will allow the banning out of entire compositions, unless the number of bans goes up to like...maybe 20% of the roster. I feel like the general idea of a composition will keep even with more bans; you'll just have a suboptimal champ filling in the same role. If they're someone that can make solo plays, well so's the better!

Uh, that's just my opinion. Feel free to tear into it.