Opinion: New champs should have a week of ranked ban

GripaAviara·Mar 7, 2018·53 votes·2,146 views

So people can get accustomed to play with and against them.

Each time there's a new release, there's a week of chaos

88 Comments

Copy MirrorMar 7, 201811 votes

Just don't play ranked if you don't like it let others enjoy the game how they want to

VolphiMar 7, 201816 votes

[deleted]

ScuttleMar 7, 201817 votes

Yeah I never get people defending those who play a champ in ranked when it's first released. Yeah MAYBE you played it on PBE but the vast majority didn't. Ranked is the competitive mode and playing a champ you've barely/never played isn't competitive. It's just stupid.

PokladnicaZlaMar 7, 20187 votes

2 - 3 weeks

Ranked should be en evironment where people play competitively to win,not just to have fun.

GhaelWindsMar 7, 20187 votes

Tbh there's no point in banning them for a week. It just delays the same week of chaos. A lot of people in ranked only play ranked (like myself) And don't see it as worth it to go to normals to play as or against the new champ. So when they get unbanned it's the same thing.

Also I feel like that week of chaos can be negated by just... reading the kit. Tbh you don't have to have play experience against someone to know ways to counter them.

GripaAviaraMar 7, 20181 votes

It doesn't solve the issue, but it doesn't convey the same results.

I don't have a PBE account. I don't know what that champ is capable. And there's a majority of people like me. I want to be able to get accustomed to her first, and that's without getting out of ranked. I can play 1 normal and 1 ranked.

It Hertz When IPMar 7, 20186 votes

I'd be a bigger fan of requiring X games with new champions (read: <1 month old) before taking them into ranked. That way You could potentially still be able to take a new champion into ranked, but you'd be forced to have some experience on them first.

MalrothDragoniaMar 7, 20182 votes

I do kind of like how Heroes of the Storm does it where you can't play ranked with a character until you have lvl 5. Something like a Master 2/3 requirement to play in ranked would probably solve a lot, while not being oppressively restricting

FullmuteAll playMar 7, 20185 votes

Doesn't it just make sense not to play a week of ranked to avoid this issue ?

GripaAviaraMar 7, 201810 votes

No it doesnt. Also i can just permaban the champ, but that's not they point

Recon1212Mar 7, 20187 votes

the problem with permabanning the champ is that when your team wants to play her then they get mad you banned her so they int.

UnboundHadesMar 7, 20182 votes

and your down a ban in ranked just too avoid seeing the new one

cheerfothebeerMar 7, 20184 votes

{quoted}

So people can get accustomed to play with and against them.

Each time there's a new release, there's a week of chaos

We all know this to be true. Riot doesn't care.

Mig89Mar 7, 20184 votes

This argument comes up everytime a new champ is released. Just stop with the boards posts about it.

GripaAviaraMar 8, 20181 votes

If it comes every time it means there's a problem. Whether this or other is the solution is another thing.

Mig89Mar 8, 20181 votes

You're beating a dead horse is all I mean. Riot's stance isnt changing with the boards posts and its clear because this has been a thing since the second champ was released after beta. They have no interest in doing it.

Quiet DudeMar 7, 20183 votes

I don’t think it’ll make a difference. You can keep people from playing that champ already by banning them.

“But we shouldn’t have to waste a ban because-“ - asking for a new champ ban in ranked isn’t doing anyone a favor but yourself. Ranked is already a magical place where wonderful choices like Kindred support, Jungle Janna, and ADC Leona exist.

You can ask for Riot to give you a reprieve from people trying to polish a turd in your ranked game, but you so easily forget how many people play with polished turds already.

NO BUENO

HalcyonDwellerMar 7, 20182 votes

[{quoted}](name=Quiet Dude,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=M5AAilB3,comment-id=000d,timestamp=2018-03-07T18:29:37.941+0000)

Ranked is already a magical place where wonderful choices like Kindred support, Jungle Janna, and ADC Leona exist.

This isn't a good comparison to make, such choices are much less common and very unlikely compared to the hype people will feel over wanting to play a new champion. Whenever a new champion is released there is much more pressure both for and against playing it. Riot could do a lot of good by removing it from Ranked Queues for a period of time.

For starters if she cannot be picked then you circumvent the problem of teammates being toxic to one another over picking or banning her. All the people who want to try her will go and play blind queue, and all of the people who don't want feeders on their team won't have to deal with it either.

Quiet DudeMar 7, 20182 votes

I don’t think it’s a good idea to restrict players champion choices in any qeue, ranked, blind, or hell, even ARAM.

If you don’t want to play with Kai’Sa, use a ban. That’s what they are there for. If you don’t mind playing with one, don’t ban her. Want to ban a new champion for a week? Then go ahead and use your ban for the whole week and you’ll have that.

It comes down to maturity, folks. Wanting to put a restriction on a new champion for one whole week is only saving you the grief you may be too immature to handle. But if you feel strongly enough, you can still use your ban without asking Riot to enforce your desired restriction on the rest of us.

I don’t mind playing with a bad Kai’Sa in ranked. I’m old enough to handle disappointment. Question is though- why can’t you?

HalcyonDwellerMar 7, 20181 votes

What you're suggesting is entirely unrealistic. I don't care about me in ranked, I don't even play ranked. It's not about me. It's about what is practically guaranteed to happen every time a new champion or rework is released.

I'm talking about human nature and league's community's already pervasive tendency towards toxicity. New releases only exacerbate the problems. And it would be really simple to protect the competitive queues from all that bullshit. People who care about a competitive environment should be protected from the instability and insanity that ensues whenever there is a new release or rework.

There's basically 2 highly likely outcomes that we see play out every time a new champion or rework is released:

People are going to pick her, they are going to suck with her, and the pressure people feel about winning in ranked is going to lead to lots of flaming between teammates. OR
People are going to ban her, their teammates who wanted to play her are going to troll for revenge, and the match will devolve into lots of flaming between teammates.

People are going to dodge ranked queue a shit-ton for a multitude of reasons related to the champion, and people are more likely to troll or int when they don't get what they want. It's a lose-lose.

People could have every opportunity to try her in the non-competitive game-modes, they shouldn't need to ruin ranked matches just because they want to try the new champion.

kurnubegoMar 7, 20182 votes

"passive tendency towards toxicity" lol.

The game is designed for even rather calm people to go mad. Because you are forced to accommodate people in your play time which otherwise you would refuse to play with, given relatively small number of teams (not exceeding 7, human attention cannot individually track more than 6-7 people, and keep a history record of each independently) this point alone, makes it impossible to hope for calm and warm community no matter what kind of people you have. As it violates core dynamics of games, social interaction which depends on reciprocity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UfO7qOHx5M

While not from academical point of view, this just nails it. You can find relevant psychological literature. And it's pretty clear, there isn't much debate. Most of the work was spearheaded by Jean Piaget who studied emergent morality in child play. The patterns ripple through all human social interactions.

Being able to socially ostracize and exclude people is most common and most effective way to maintain healthy social interaction. Not by applying it, but by the threat of it, which is often implicitly known by both parties, who help each other to behave properly by exchanging feedback in form of social clues. You better behave, or you'll have to play alone. And no-one wants to be alone. Even in jail were the company is hellish, being sent into a cellar alone is considered to be something very undesirable.

However, this dynamic is somewhat absent, or at least not swiftly applied in episodes of 30~ LoL matches. Replacement of tribunal by automatic system made it better ofc, but given hat you're still trapped in episode of half an hour makes it difficult on our nerves, likewise for people who do miss-behave not having this threat being obvious does not help them to navigate back into acceptable behavior during the match. It's no wonder, all our other social interactions are governed by different rules entirely, except here.

HalcyonDwellerMar 7, 20181 votes

Saw the video, that's a great point. Being helpless to other people ruining your experience is exactly why things get so toxic in this game. That said I'm not really sure how to fix it. It's a complicated issue, and sort of bound to happen with an anonymous online system throwing people together.

I've been against prisoner's island, but maybe instead of prisoner's island there should be a system that temp-bans people for 24 hours without actually applying any penalties or punishments to their account. It would be a fast way to get rid of people who ruin games at least in the short term.

kurnubegoMar 7, 20181 votes

Sort of, but until community would adjust it would be quite a stir up. As there are people who feel frustrated when their frustration isn't really justified (happens to even the relatively reserved people too), so it would take time until forces would balance out. I'm not sure anyone would be willing to take such step. There is also a danger of mob mentality, which is difficult to predict and we might as well just end up with more problems than initially started with.

HalcyonDwellerMar 7, 20181 votes

Indeed, it would have the capability of upsetting people terribly. Maybe it would be good to implement in pieces, perhaps incorporating it into the punishment system as an intermediary step between 25-game chat restrictions and 14-day bans. Or perhaps it could be saved for the most obvious and clear cases of intentional ruining of matches.

kurnubegoMar 7, 20181 votes

Well, it's not obvious if all you have is just people voting for something. And given that people will ascribe inting for just being beaten in lane horribly, sometimes due to poor circumstance or opponent being damn good. I'm afraid that we would end up with 'grief' votes rather than something which can be reliably trusted. And perhaps in lower elos, this would add unnecessary additional layer of stress to the person who's just being beaten and having a bad time, as it alone isn't enough.

Now I speculate, that current ban system keeps track of players behavior for a while before player goes beyond the tipping point and sanction is issued. Perhaps a warning before that initial step is being taken could have a beneficial effect (dunno, maybe it's already in place?).

I believe that sense of eminent and unavoidable sanction is more motivating than the harshness of 'potential' sanction which may never happen, provided the sanction is not laughably mild. And I do think that for a lot of people this idea that they can get sanctioned never even appear in their though process.

After all, it seems that people who get sanctioned at least once start behaving a bit better. Not all of them, but some do. Perhaps we can have that result before the sanctions are even issued. Preferably the notification would appear before game starts and not after it ends to keep that though relevant during the match.

HalcyonDwellerMar 7, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Well, it's not obvious if all you have is just people voting for something. And given that people will ascribe inting for just being beaten in lane horribly, sometimes due to poor circumstance or opponent being damn good. I'm afraid that we would end up with 'grief' votes rather than something which can be reliably trusted. And perhaps in lower elos, this would add unnecessary additional layer of stress to the person who's just being beaten and having a bad time, as it alone isn't enough.

Indeed, I've put some thought into this already. if a 24-hour ban system were implemented, it should be based on comparing the player's performance to their past games. If they suddenly dip in performance, it may be an indicator that something could be wrong and other factors should be checked to see if a temp-ban would be warranted.

Now I speculate, that current ban system keeps track of players behavior for a while before player goes beyond the tipping point and sanction is issued. Perhaps a warning before that initial step is being taken could have a beneficial effect (dunno, maybe it's already in place?).

You're right, that may already be in place.

I believe that sense of eminent and unavoidable sanction is more motivating than the harshness of 'potential' sanction which may never happen, provided the sanction is not laughably mild. And I do think that for a lot of people this idea that they can get sanctioned never even appear in their though process.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here, can you please clarify for me?

After all, it seems that people who get sanctioned at least once start behaving a bit better. Not all of them, but some do. Perhaps we can have that result before the sanctions are even issued. Preferably the notification would appear before game starts and not after it ends to keep that though relevant during the match.

That's a good idea too!

kurnubegoMar 7, 20181 votes

On the part you've lost track of my though train.

I do believe that sanctions which are small, but unavoidable have higher impact than a lot harsher sanctions which seem to be or are sometimes avoidable. Say, for example, a pedestrian can be fined for crossing the road under red traffic light for 100$. Can be fined, but usually isn't because pedestrian can somewhat get away with it. Do it few times, and the though of potential fine does not even enter one's consideration process. Pedestrian knows what one is doing is wrong, but the consequences isn't really all that real. I mean, unless someone actually fines one, which doesn't happen a lot.

However, if you would implement a system where.. each time pedestrian gets fined 0.50$ for each time one crosses the road under red traffic light, no matter what, I do believe this would have higher impact in said hypothetical pedestrian's behavior.

I mean, what I was trying to offer is ... somewhat and attempt to introduce this into LoL. Like those messages before the game which remind the player that the consequences are real. So the player would have that consideration in his mind before he acts out the way one intends.

Now it may sound a bit totalitarian. :D ... when talking about traffic, but thing is in social interactions what we have is other people constantly reminding us of our behavior. And that's not necessarily a bad thing as they inform us how to approach them and we do that to them too. Which, well, by definition, makes us civilized people.

This feedback loop is cut short in a video game, where consequences and other people behind the screen seem somewhat detached from one's perception of reality.

HalcyonDwellerMar 7, 20181 votes

Okay, I think I might understand now. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're suggesting that a lower-severity but more pervasive punishment could be used to affect more people without offending them as much?

If so I agree. Making it less severe allows it to be done to more people without being as objectionable, morally speaking.

HalcyonDwellerMar 7, 20183 votes

I agree, if people cannot pick her in the first place, nobody will get pissed at their teammates for banning her when they wanted to play her. This has the propensity to circumvent a lot of toxicity related to new champions in ranked.

GeneraI HuxMar 8, 20183 votes

I just ban the new champ. [sg-lulu]

HalcyonDwellerMar 8, 20182 votes

People shouldn't have to. And if they do, chances are that one of their teammates will become toxic in revenge because they wanted to play the new champ.

It's not a good solution.

GripaAviaraMar 8, 20181 votes

Happened to me twice already. The funny thing is when you look at match history and realise that was a lose-lose situation.

HalcyonDwellerMar 8, 20181 votes

Yep. It sucks. Riot should really do something to protect us from that bullshit.

CochoMar 7, 20182 votes

in an ask riot, they said they dont really want to do that because some people only really like to play ranked. Those people who do that and dont have a lot of time would just want to play that champ in ranked lol.

isolate plzMar 7, 20182 votes

i think in paladins they have that there disabled and no1 can play them in ranked only in normals idk if its still there anymore i dont play anymore

Maligaro SpikeMar 7, 20181 votes

i think OW does that too

flibitydooMar 8, 20182 votes

The problem is that relying on the other non-casual game modes doesn't give you a competitive sense for the new champion which means no one will actually understand the limits of the new champion. Barring the new champ from competitive play only means no one will know how to really play them to their fullest since they'll never be stress tested by the best there is because casual game modes aren't taken seriously.

This disparity is especially apparent in super high elo. Like if you ask a master+ streamer to play blind pick or draft pick normals instead of ranked, they'll tell you it's a completely different game mode and then when they play, their playstyle will be a lot more casual and they will still absolutely crush and smash everything in those games. Because the difference in game mode actually means the enemy won't be playing their very best. There's a fair chance the other players are experimenting or trying some meme build that they would never do in ranked either.

And having that initial test is actually super important for the balance team since they need to measure statistics to see where the champion sits from a health/balance perspective (and also to test for bugs at a massive level too). There's a ton of testing that gets done by the devs but that's easily dwarfed by a single day (the release day) of a new champion. In fact I'm pretty certain a Rioter reported on the forum at one point (don't have the source unfortunately) but the amount of data they get from a single day is well over a years worth of testing that they could internally.

Besides all of that, a skill a player is supposed to have in ranked is adaptability. How good are you at reacting to change? And a new champion is quite the change. Not every game is going to be the same. In fact, that's kind of the point in league of legends and Mobas in general, the diversity of characters ensure you're never given the same tools to win once you've loaded in. It's what makes the game fresh and exciting every time and why everyone wants diversity and viability across all strategies and all champions.

If it really does bother you on a personal level, then you can go out and ban the new champ yourself but the rest of the community who wants to see the new champ and wants to try and push the limits to the game are going to continue doing what they have been doing.

GripaAviaraMar 8, 20181 votes

It's not about the limits. Nobody asks you to be expert, but dude at least be decent.

I'm banning kai'sa so I don't know much, but I can tell you about Swain episode. I started to take this decision of banning the "new guy" because of that. People would play Swain and get 0-5 in 10 min, to a point i legitly thought Swain was trash. That cost me a lot of game=time. Only to realise after a while he's pretty decent just badly played.

Atm we are talking about ADC in an ADC centered meta. If the ADC is weak, the game is 75% lost, and that 25% boils down to how good the enemy bot brothers are.

JorenciceMar 8, 20181 votes

You can say that about litwrally anything.

Every leblanc ive seen has done terrible same with singed, ashe, talon and darius.

Should i ban them every game because i "value my time"?

GripaAviaraMar 8, 20181 votes

It's not the same idea. I don't know why you try to bend the meaning

A new champion means a big influx of these cases, not only that but majority of the people know how to play vs a leblanc or with a bad leblanc in team for example (aka: you look at her items and you know aprox. in a 2v2 TF if you should join your LB or run away and ping in hope she listens)

lolipopevelynnMar 7, 20181 votes

{quoted}

So people can get accustomed to play with and against them.

Each time there's a new release, there's a week of chaos

Wont solve the issue of ppl trying new shit in rank in general. All this will do is push back new champ release for rank by a week, but 1 week later ull still have fools first timing in rank. Like me

Srsly tho, blind pick norms is cancer

GripaAviaraMar 8, 20181 votes

Wont solve the issue of ppl trying new shit in rank in general

I totally agree. But it will solve the issue for me to familiarise with that champ in team and playing against

LordKentravyonMar 7, 20181 votes

For the firtst patch they should be unplayable in ranked so that ranked is not effected bt balance issues / people not knowing anything about the new champ

However it should also be unbannable in normals so that people acrually have an opportubity to learn to play as / with / against said new champ

Not Fade AwayMar 8, 20181 votes

So by that logic all players should be banned from playing in ranked for the first week after a patch is released, since players will not yet understand champion/item strengths and weaknesses given the changes...

HalcyonDwellerMar 8, 20181 votes

That isn't by that logic at all, you completely went off the rails from it.

M Dragon14Mar 8, 20181 votes

You really think people are going to practice her in norms before ranked? I'd wager most people who would pick her up for the first time would wait till she was available in ranked anyway. I know I would.

GripaAviaraMar 8, 20181 votes

Not really, but at least I can practice playing with one in team and vs her. In the end at least i'll be ready to predict what my kai'sa teammate will do wrong/right and move around it.

For example, atm I don't know how a good kai'sa should look like. As a jungler do I prioritize bot and feed a kai'sa that can't carry and will feed eventually or I prioritise other lanes?

Titanium70Mar 8, 20181 votes

But they won't.

Alot of people only play Ranked. So when banning new chams for a weak this is what happens:

A) People with 0 Games still play them and meet people who can counter them. RIP B) People with 0 Games against meet people with 50 games+. RIP!

I hate that! When Kayn was released I didnt see one in like two weeks, and than got destroyed by one since I had no clue about his timings or gank routes while he knew everything he needed! STOP THAT!

Horrible Idea. Noone should EVER ban a new Champion! Not in Ranked, not in Normal. Yes it adds a random faktor to the game... but honestly compared to the random factor called botlane this pales blank. x'D