The first 3 picks are at a disadvantage, and they should get to ban.

TheThundersRoar·Mar 29, 2016·408 votes·11,208 views

With old champion select, thanks to pick order, they got to choose their roles, so they were at an advantage. But with new champion select, everyone already has an assigned role, one of their best roles, and pick order doesn't matter anymore.

Now, the first picks are prone to getting counter-picked, and the fact that they cannot ban anyone (like hard counters) in response makes that so much worse for them.

The only scenario where being last pick sucks is when you plan on playing the most popular champion in your role, which might get stolen. Otherwise, I love being red team 5th pick.

IMO the first 3 picks should have the ability to ban, as opposed to the last 3.

173 Comments

OwlytheMar 29, 201682 votes

Someone finally said it. Maybe in the old champ select the bans would be better this way, but the way champ select is now, the first three picks sorta deserve the bans tbh.

DeathBot666Mar 30, 20166 votes

I actually disagree. In the old champ select, the last 3 could ban hard counters, but then because of pick order someone steals your role, and now your still out of luck. I do agree that first 3 need bans though.

flibitydooMar 30, 201611 votes

in the old champ select, the last 3 didn't have access to bans, first pick would ban 3 champions, then everyone would pick their champions (starting from first pick).

MalhammersMar 29, 201658 votes

I absolutely agree and have always thought this. Being the very last pick is BY FAR the best spot to be in champ select. You got a ban + you get to counter pick. Huge advantage.

King MarioMar 30, 20164 votes

{quoted}

I absolutely agree and have always thought this. Being the very last pick is BY FAR the best spot to be in champ select. You got a ban + you get to counter pick. Huge advantage.

I believe what Riot tried to accomplish is the fact that before, ALL POWER was given to the first 3 players in the match. First pick got the role he wanted, and was given the power to ban who ever he/she saw fit.

This could easily lead to a troll to ban out somebody's main champion if somebody is in a "only this champ" account or risk having somebody troll ban teemo, yorick, and galio.

I hope you understand, the power of first pick is that if first pick is MID or TOP, they can pick a champion and the rest of the team can pick according to the level of synergy their picks have with yours.

It's also important to communicate with your team, on what the game plan is.

Are you going for a poke heavy comp? Why not have the last 3 ban out people like Amumu, Gankplank, or Rengar? Then have mid lane/top try to secure champs like Mundo/Lux.

Mourn AmarithMar 30, 20164 votes

What the OP is saying is... with the new champ select they've reversed that and nearly ALL the power is in the last few picks. I would agree for the most part. Unless you're trying to ride the current "OP" picks that everyone is spamming in every game, there is NO downside to being last pick. You get a ban, you get to avoid being countered... or counter the enemy yourself if you like.

I have massive issues with new champ select in general, and this is just one of the (smaller) issues.

woobatMar 29, 201656 votes

i dont know. in my opinion i feel like everyone should get a ban. i dont think 5 bans per team is too outrageous anyway. I did think it was kinda strange that they made the new system this way. and like, i know a lot of people who think 6 bans per game is way too low with such a large champion pool nowaday. It would make a lot more sense for everyone to get one ban but thats just me

Vistha KaiMar 29, 201619 votes

If I recall correctly, the game started with 40 champion and 2 bans for each side.

Bans were increased by 1 after about 30 (don't quote me on this, it's hard to find a specific number without classic counting) champions (on Fizz's release). When draft was a thing for the first time, you could literally ban 10% of champions in the game.

Now, 5 years later, the champion pool is over twice as huge. Even with 6 bans per side we wouldn't get close to those days.

Increasing it to 5 per side would be an insignificant QoL change if anything.

Mourn AmarithMar 30, 201612 votes

[{quoted}](name=Vistha Kai,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=IY9cVMik,comment-id=00020001,timestamp=2016-03-29T23:12:12.271+0000)

Bans were increased by 1 after about 30 (don't quote me on this, it's hard to find a specific number without classic counting) champions (on Fizz's release).

Riot realized the fresh hell they had unleashed upon the game and graced us all with a free ban to rid ourselves of it. This third ban or "Fizz ban" as it was called then could technically be used to ban anyone, but at great cost. It was not uncommon to see Fizz banned twice a game back then, with BOTH teams using their Fizz ban to make sure the obnoxious little bastard didn't show up and ruin everyone's day.

History is strange, isn't it?

Vistha KaiMar 30, 20163 votes

So bans only worked on the enemy team or what?

AjabikiFTWMar 29, 201614 votes

The reason picks and bans are the way they are is to make every member of the team feel valuable during champion select. Though the first three picks cannot ban, they have the power to pick high priority champions which weren't banned such as Udyr, shyvanna, yi, etc. The bottom picks get to ban because they are unlikely to get such high priority champs. If we go back to the way things were before the new champ select then the first picks will have a majority of the power during champ select.

TL;DR the new champ select makes the last pick feel as valuable as the first and in my opinion is better.

thumbnail9Mar 30, 201613 votes

Maybe if the bans were actually ever used to stop counter picking.

However, using them for that just means actual OP champs get through.

Viperjcs1985Mar 29, 201611 votes

Nothing makes me saltier than having to first pick top 3+ games in a row.

Even worse: When no one banned Fiora / Naut and I play neither.

M0RDEKA1SERMar 29, 201610 votes

Orrrrrr, everyone could get one ban. I like that idea.

ModKnightsKemplarMar 29, 20168 votes

10 BAN HYPE

DatalessMar 29, 20168 votes

Even though I'm a support player, I hate being first pick. It invariably feels as though the enemy team picks their entire comp to counter my champion, and in games where I am first pick I feel as though I contribute less to the game overall due to being invalidated in champ select.

Thresh Outta FuxMar 29, 20166 votes

Upvoting all of these.

However, @Woobat has the best idea. We need 5 bans if there are over 120 characters to choose from.

ZeeWolfZMar 30, 20165 votes

Absolutely Agree. You have no idea how much it sucks to be First Pick Top/Mid/ADC, you will get countered hard.

ZeranaMar 30, 20164 votes

Still would be better if EVERYONE got to ban.

PokladnicaZlaMar 30, 20164 votes

Why don't all 10 players get to ban?

TreyenMar 30, 20164 votes

we should just all get 1 ban, so 10 total..theres plenty of champions now and if something gets perma banned because of it...maybe theres a reason and rito should attempt to actually balance something

SoMNiaMar 29, 20163 votes

First pick also has the option of taking a high-priority pick with less risk of the enemy taking it. If you're last pick, and you want one of these, you'd better hope you can trade with first pick, or you don't have much of a chance. That's why the last 3 picks get the bans. Putting pick priority and bans in the hands of the same players wouldn't be fair.

Everyone saying more bans are needed: no, that's still a bad idea. More champions means more options, but the fact that they exist doesn't mean players have experience with all of them. So more champions don't automatically make bans less valuable. More bans, though, mean players are required to play a greater number of champions. Or rather, they'd be required to know how to play a greater number of champions, even though they often wouldn't get the chance to actually do so. That's not fun. It's tedious.

LightSwordMar 29, 20162 votes

I see what you're saying against 5-bans, but I have a couple counter points, but I am more than willing to accept being wrong.

First, with everyone knowing what role they're going to play, it is not likely you would have to deepen your champion pool by much. This is because each person is generally going to ban a counter to the champ they want to play, or a popular/strong pick. This means that instead of deepening your champion pool significantly, you would just have to make sure that you are comfortable on one or more champions that aren't high meta.

Second, there is something to be said for each person getting to counter a champ they really do not want to see, potentially allowing for a more diverse meta (maybe even removing multiple champions for the sake of one person to use something underused).

SoMNiaMar 30, 20162 votes

That theory works when people auto-ban FotM champions (which apparently happens a lot, unfortunately), but not when people use bans correctly, either to protect their comp from counterpicks or to target ban a player's strongest champion. Even if you have an off-meta pocket pick, if you're forced onto it too often, people will see that and ban it. So you're still dividing your attention between a larger number of champions, and still not able to play them consistently.

As for the second point, that's really not what bans are for, and I'm not inclined to promote people removing things from the game just because they don't like them. I've seen people claim they have a short list of champions they always ban, no matter what, and I think that's bad for the game.

invisiblecat1Mar 30, 20163 votes

The first picks job is to pick champions for their team that are good, not to pick champions for themselves

CavemanteroMar 30, 20167 votes

This is a failure to recognize that solo/duo queue champion select is not equal to LCS champion select. When playing with random strangers you don't select for them even if they say to. I've seen it several times where a champion not requested was picked for the first on the team select that they didn't want to play, but because the guy who picked at their spot wanted to be coach for the team and did it anyways. It should always be pick champions for yourself in random queues.

A LiberalMar 30, 20162 votes

STORY TIME!

One time, back when devourer was SUPER broken and yi was in every game, someone didn't ban yi. My jungler told me to pick Yi for him, and I told him to pick my midlaner. When it gets to my junglers turn, he grabs udyr and I'm like "woah, wtf." His response, to directly-paraphrase, was: "Just play yi mid he's broken you'll win"

Oh, and can I mention that he flamed me for feeding?

.______.

Supreme Senpai69Mar 30, 20163 votes

Lol. They asked me to pick Jhin for them. I was support, they were ADC. I asked for Veigar. He didn't like that and chose Braum.

Guess who had to play as ADC Braum?

Mourn AmarithMar 30, 20164 votes

ADC Braum sounds fun. He could stand behind himself.

EeyoreMar 30, 20163 votes

In a solo queue-ish environment, it definitely makes more sense for the players who will get counterpicked to get the ban priority.

Full AP VenusaurMar 30, 20163 votes

Just give everyone a ban, there are way too many champs for 6 to be sufficient

HeIen KeIIerMar 30, 20162 votes

{quoted}

Just give everyone a ban, there are way too many champs for 6 to be sufficient

can i upvote this more

NightOfLightMar 30, 20162 votes

I play Garen usually in ranked and people still think Teemo counters him.

The Bíg TicketMar 30, 20163 votes

He does if you are playing at a decent elo.

MyozthirirnMar 30, 20164 votes

More like: it does if you aren't playing at a decent elo

CoolMike127Mar 30, 20162 votes

Though I do agree with you are saying, the first 3 picks don't get to ban because they are able to secure the first few champions for each role for their team, either for themselves or for their teammates. The last 3 to pick get to ban and get the chance to counter pick, but they aren't able to secure a champion for themselves and/or their team...

56552559_DELMar 30, 20162 votes

I dont like the old system. Because with the old system everyone had to fight for their role and last pick was almost guaranteed to be support and they always went by pick order so you didnt really get to play the role you wanted.

The new system is stupid because i always get first pick and am always countered because of it. If by chance i actually get last pick now, someone inevitably dodges and when we get into the next lobby, guess what? Yup, i am right back at first pick.

I actually sent a support ticket to ask whether or not this was supposed to happen where i get first pick more than 90% of the time (and no that is NOT an exaggeration.) but of course they couldnt give me an answer so im pretty much screwed.

ApollogyMar 30, 20162 votes

Thank you... not many people realize this, but you don't get to counter pick when you pick first, and so you're left at a huge disadvantage.

Even last pickers can trade for a contested pick. If first pick grabs your champion and then you trade, then everyone's happy. But, the first few picks are just left with guessing. The most they can do is pick to compliment the pick intent team comp of your team, and even then, those pick intents change often.

PhDs NutsMar 30, 20162 votes

I like the idea of 5 bans per team. Just shave off like 5-10 seconds per ban so it doesn't slow down champ select quite as much.

MivichiMar 30, 20162 votes

We need 5 bans*

AnomanderMar 30, 20162 votes

.#everyoneneedsaban With all the champions in game is it really that hard to give 1 ban person?

Dechozen101Mar 30, 20162 votes

Why can't everybody in the team get the ban. Everybody deserves to be at fair game...-ish. I know the first few picks are at disadvantage, but equality to all, please.

TheOvermindMar 31, 20162 votes

or u know everyone gets to ban ? cuz why not?

ParcevalMar 30, 20161 votes

Yeah, it's true.

For some reason it's assumed that being first pick is GOOD. I don't find that to be the case.

DIRTY ASSHOLEMar 30, 20164 votes

It is good. You've never been in a "Don't ban __________" situation, have you?

You get to ban 3 OP champions, and then pick the 4th.

Oh, they left Jax open? Pick him for me.

Boom, instant advantage.

ImmortalBloodCYMar 30, 20161 votes

I never felt this counter pick you talking about.

Must be because i am always supporting in ranked.

Well.. as for the 3 bans.... I never really cared personally because i always asked the team what bans they want.

PokkuMar 30, 20161 votes

Maybe you don't care about counter-picking and banning, but most people do. As a support myself, I think counter-picking is very useful; for example you can easily counter Leona with Poppy or Janna .