There should really be 10 bans (One ban per person)

ReDesign·Jun 26, 2016·8 votes·841 views

Look at all the new champs we've been getting

...will also make banning all the annoying assasins /blitz/vlad much easier hehe

11 Comments

disregardableJun 26, 20164 votes

Personally, I just don't want champ select to get any longer than it currently is. It takes a stupidly long amount of time to get into a game.

ReDesignJun 26, 20161 votes

if its going to be long anyways, just a bit longer so its more likely you dont vs champs you dont want to wuld be worth imo

ReconnectedJun 27, 20161 votes

{quoted}

Personally, I just don't want champ select to get any longer than it currently is. It takes a stupidly long amount of time to get into a game.

they could solve that with blind pick style bans, let everyone ban at once. If someone banned the champ you were going to then just pick something else. After 25 seconds if you have not banned something you get a dodge. boom Riot hire me.

disregardableJun 27, 20161 votes

Disable it in Diamond+ and it'd probably be fine. Reactive banning isn't important below then.

67chromeJun 26, 20164 votes

There should really be 10 bans (One ban per person)

Adding more bans has a lot of associated cons though.

Certain champions could become nearly impossible to play. With 10 bans it's possible the community could align around a few champions and leave them in a perma-ban state. Which wouldn't be an issue if the community was full of intelligent people that base their decisions off of logic and sound reasoning. Play any game and it tends to show the inverse, which could lead to certain champions being unplayable on a whim.
The potential to be banned out. With 3 bans it's still possible to target-ban a lot of professional players, people who have a ton of experience and often respectable champion pools. Offer more bans and it's possible to target-ban specific people with greater ease. While the roster has expanded, it's difficult for a lot of players to keep up with a proportional amount of picks. More bans also increases the likelihood any particular person would get randomly banned out.
Barrier to ranked. Players need enough champions to survive getting target-banned and every pick denied by other players. While ranked should require some solid level of understanding, it's not like Bronze V is some super-elite highly knowledgeable ranking. Ranked ranks players based on their skill 9/10 times after all.
Longer pick/ban phase. As-is the picks/bans phase can take up to 8 minutes, with 30 seconds per ban and per pick, with 16 total increments. 4 more bans is up to 2 more minutes: which doesn't sound like a lot, but making any change that adds just 2 more minutes because it isn't a lot is how a game can wind up with 20 minute load times. Small increments of time can also add up over the course of several games and add up especially fast when queue dodges happen, which could lead to 20 more minutes spent in the picks/bans phase for serious players on the grind per-day. This would also extend the pick/ban phase for spectators watching live broadcasts of pro League play, resulting in more time spent getting into the game and less footage of a game itself.
More emphasis on picks/bans to win games. With picks/bans hitting a larger portion of the roster, having more weight with removing the rock from rock/paper/scissors dynamics, and with the capacity to target-ban players: more games will be won or lost in the picks/ban phase of a game then the game phase of the game, which is really awful for a ~33 minute long game. Exciting games to play and watch often aren't decided until the last minute, leaving everyone on the edge of their seat.
More bans wouldn't help balance. Champions relate to one-another power wise as though they were on a slope / and not a plateau _ Banning the top ~10 champions wouldn't result in a magical world where all remaining champions are equally balanced. More bans from the top of a / doesn't change the shape of a / to anything. It still remains a /. Except there's more room to exploit gaps in champion power by playing chicken with a champion at the top of the power-curve and denying all their counters, allowing bans to make balance even worse. There's always a group of good champions and bad champions, even with 50 bans per team.

More bans aren't without some benefits, but there are a lot of downsides to having a lot of bans.

More cons than pros from what I can tell, and judging by 3 bans per-team being a thing for the vast majority of LoL's lifespan, Riot likely feels the same way.

ReDesignJun 27, 20162 votes

did you really take all that time for such a quality comment? or is it a copy paste from somewhere? either way It deserves to be its own post imo :^) share your opinion

CerealBoxOfDoomJun 26, 20162 votes

why 1 ban per person?

Titanium70Jun 27, 20161 votes

Well the only problem I'm seeing here is the fact the one person could easily eliminate exactly one Champ from all of their games.

Actually I'd be satisfied with 4 Bans - 1 for each person besides the firstpick in team blue and lastpick in team red, because those already have tons of power in Champselect.

5 might be a little harsh - not because we have too few champs, but because going from 6 to 10 is huge especially in Compeditive Play. =P

Lestat S46Jun 27, 20161 votes

Best ban post ive seen so far asked for 10 BLIND bans. As soon as it begins everyone bans 1 person, no talking. If the same champ got banned multiple times then those wer just wasted bans. Your options are ban the champs who are the most op that need to be banned and risk someone else banning them too or ban people you think need to be banned who arent the current same six that we see every game.

Means instead of 6 champs being banned every game you could potentialy see 10 champs banned but could also see only 1. Obviously more likey to end up with between 4-8 bans

OneMustFallJun 27, 20161 votes

I mean at some point that's not a horrible idea. When the champ pool is so large that there's a ton of tough counters to your comp you want to get rid of, then increasing the amount of bans seems to be in order. I don't think we're at that level yet though.