My one change I would make for the upcoming 10 ban system

Sp33d Zer0 · 2017-05-19T18:08:27.297Z

I want to start by thanking you guys for finally announcing WHEN we were going to get the 10 ban system, as it has been the highlight of season 7 for me as a player. I like the way the system is implemented, but there is one change I would make that I think would make it a more smooth experience without making the player feel bad if they picked the same ban as the enemy team. Instead of setting up like this : https://youtu.be/lWwgydsCIFo?t=36 and then having to wait to see the enemy teams bans, I would like to see something like this: http://imgur.com/a/4KxFK A system where both teams ARE still banning simultaneously, but instead of waiting until the final reveal to show what was banned, the bans come through as they are picked. In my example, summoner 1 and 4 on blue team haven't yet locked in their bans, and 2 and 4 on red team haven't locked in their bans. This still allows both teams to see both teams bans, but also makes it so you don't both accidentally ban Darius, or both teams don't accidentally ban Jayce, and still allows you to feel like you have some choice in what is getting banned instead of hoping that someone else bans the second champ you dislike playing against. I feel this also does a better job of promoting the TEN ban system, and not the "Anywhere between five and ten ban system". I would also make it so that if you DIDN'T ban during the new 10 ban phase, you weren't punished; as most people who would afk and miss a ban on the current system did so because they were somewhere around the 4th or 5th ban and would tab away, while the current system would allow them to ban much more quickly. I hope this idea at least hit the table at the Riot, and was declined for a good technical reason; but I truly think that this would be the ultimate way to set up the ban system for solo queue. Edit: Please ignore my bad MS Paint photoshop.

Sp33d Zer0May 19, 20171 votes

I suppose I imagine a world where even if someone is trying to play chicken with a ban, they still wind up banning the champion there were playing chicken with, which still has the same net result. Even with the current ban system, it's still a game of chicken where you have to guess if your ban pick is the same as your opponents and is worth it.

RiotI Am The IRSMay 19, 20178 votes

I agree that duplicate bans feel bad but our goal isn't to always have 10 bans it's to make every player feel like they have agency. So if 2 people don't want to play vs Blitzcrank even if it is a duplicate ban they both still get there wish.

PhDs NutsMay 19, 20179 votes

[{quoted}](name=I Am The IRS,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=OWmmb7dU,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2017-05-19T21:17:44.803+0000)

I agree that duplicate bans feel bad but our goal isn't to always have 10 bans it's to make every player feel like they have agency. So if 2 people don't want to play vs Blitzcrank even if it is a duplicate ban they both still get there wish.

And if one of them didn't want to play vs Blitzcrank or Lulu, but didn't know the enemy banned Blitzcrank, how is that a good design? It's turning ban phase into a lottery. People go into champ select with more than one ban in mind.

If the goal wasn't to have 10 bans, it might not have been a good idea to call it "10 bans", because 10 bans is what it seemed like the players wanted.

RiotI Am The IRSMay 19, 20175 votes

10 bans was probably a suboptimal name for what this is.

LankPantsMay 20, 20172 votes

There's just far better ways to execute this semantics aside.

For example, a 2-3-3-2 system where 2 players on the same team ban simultaneously, then three on the other team, three on the first team and finally 2 on the second team. This is a faster way than is currently in the game of implementing a 10 ban system that's far better than what you have come up with.

And what if a champ gets permabanned? Then you need to work out why they're getting permabanned, are they OP, nerf them, are they too frustrating, work out ways to make them less frustrating. God forbid you would implement a system that forced you to follow up on what players actually want though.

GixiaMay 19, 20171 votes

{quoted}

And if one of them didn't want to play vs Blitzcrank or Lulu, but didn't know the enemy banned Blitzcrank, how is that a good design? It's turning ban phase into a lottery. People go into champ select with more than one ban in mind.

Can't see enemy team's bans: Player 1 doesn't want to play against Blitzcrank or Lulu. Player 2 doesn't want to play against Blitzcrank or Yasuo. Player 1 and 2 both ban Blitzcrank. Each player only got to ban 1 of the 2 things they wanted.

In a world where you can see the enemy's bans: Player 1 doesn't want to play against Blitzcrank or Lulu. Player 2 doesn't want to play against Blitzcrank or Yasuo. Player 1 bans Blitzcrank. Player 2 sees Blitzcrank is banned, and so then bans Yasuo. Player 1 gets only one thing he wants banned, player 2 gets both things he wants banned.

How is the second scenario better designed?

And let's be honest, people go into champ select with dozens of champions to ban in mind. If everyone got their way, the only things to go through would be the one they want to play and all the ones that champ can beat easily, and the rest would always be banned, but that would be absurd and everyone (hopefully) knows it.

You get one ban, guaranteed to remove a champ that you do not want to play against. If there are more champs you don't want to see, well, good news, your team as a whole has 5, and maybe you can convince one of your allies to ban another one you don't like. The enemy team though are not your allies, they are not working together with you, they are trying to beat you, and there's no good reason for you to benefit from their bans. In fact, let's be real here. If the enemy team bans the same champ that you ban, it means that team probably was never going to pick that champ in the first place, since you typically don't ban your teammate's pick intent (unless you're being an asshole). This means if both teams ban the same champ, it's the exact same thing as if you banned a champ that was never going to get picked anyways, and vice versa for the enemy team.

Pippen The ShortMay 19, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Can't see enemy team's bans: Player 1 doesn't want to play against Blitzcrank or Lulu. Player 2 doesn't want to play against Blitzcrank or Yasuo. Player 1 and 2 both ban Blitzcrank. Each player only got to ban 1 of the 2 things they wanted.

In a world where you can see the enemy's bans: Player 1 doesn't want to play against Blitzcrank or Lulu. Player 2 doesn't want to play against Blitzcrank or Yasuo. Player 1 bans Blitzcrank. Player 2 sees Blitzcrank is banned, and so then bans Yasuo. Player 1 gets only one thing he wants banned, player 2 gets both things he wants banned.

How is the second scenario better designed?

And let's be honest, people go into champ select with dozens of champions to ban in mind. If everyone got their way, the only things to go through would be the one they want to play and all the ones that champ can beat easily, and the rest would always be banned, but that would be absurd and everyone (hopefully) knows it.

You get one ban, guaranteed to remove a champ that you do not want to play against. If there are more champs you don't want to see, well, good news, your team as a whole has 5, and maybe you can convince one of your allies to ban another one you don't like. The enemy team though are not your allies, they are not working together with you, they are trying to beat you, and there's no good reason for you to benefit from their bans. In fact, let's be real here. If the enemy team bans the same champ that you ban, it means that team probably was never going to pick that champ in the first place, since you typically don't ban your teammate's pick intent (unless you're being an asshole). This means if both teams ban the same champ, it's the exact same thing as if you banned a champ that was never going to get picked anyways, and vice versa for the enemy team.

Everyone would benefit from the second system on occasion and gets some "agency". Whereas in the first system, 2 people feel slightly cheated because almost everyone has a second preferred ban.

GixiaMay 19, 20171 votes

You do still have some agency. You don't know what the enemy team is gonna ban. Maybe they'll ban the same thing as you, but maybe they won't. You are picking one champ that, guaranteed, no matter who does what, that champ is banned. Maybe someone else had the same idea as you, maybe they didn't, doesn't matter. You declared 'I don't want to see this asshole in my game', and so they will not be in it.

Yes, most people have a second 2nd ban, and a 3rd, and a 4th, and a 12th. But you don't get 20 bans, you get one. Everybody gets one. Which means you can guarantee your number 1 most hated champ is gone, but no more than that unless your team, the people who are your allies and not your enemies, work together with you to remove more.

TheGoomyGamerMay 20, 20171 votes

You can take a calculated risk. Also, if you look at it the glass-half-full way: You got the ban you wanted and got the enemy team to waste a ban

DarkRitualMay 19, 20171 votes

They do feel kinda bad. But it feels bad equally on both sides. I don't think it will end up a significant problem for there to be a duplicate ban or two.

"Yay we both hate Lee Sin... f*$@ that guy."

ModAcademy KaynMay 19, 20171 votes

I'm just gonna keep banning Counters to my AP Bard mid.

Spice POWAHMay 20, 20171 votes

Will you guys still be able to tell how many times a champion has been banned by both teams, so you can use this data?

Like, if someone gets banned by both teams fairly often would that put them more "on the radar" for lack of a better term?

Douglas FunnieMay 21, 20171 votes

Players can opt out of banning by choosing the "no ban" option. Duplicate bans... Who the fk designed the ban system?

Riot I Am The IRS, who the fk designed the ban system?

LyingOnLineMay 19, 20171 votes

Or you could simply allow locked-in bans to lock out bans from the enemy team.

RiotI Am The IRSMay 19, 20173 votes

This would create the same problem where both teams have full knowledge of what the other team is banning but the information is harder to access.

PhDs NutsMay 19, 20176 votes

[{quoted}](name=I Am The IRS,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=OWmmb7dU,comment-id=000100010000,timestamp=2017-05-19T21:12:58.693+0000)

This would create the same problem where both teams have full knowledge of what the other team is banning but the information is harder to access.

What's wrong with knowing the other team's locked in bans? That's literally how it's been done for years.

RiotI Am The IRSMay 19, 20174 votes

The goal of this system isn't to have 10 bans but to allow every player to not play vs a champion of their choice. If you could see what the other team is banning and everyone is banning at the same time undesired patterns would likely develop. For example if everyone waited until the end to try to maximize the value of their ban it would likely lead to more dodges from people playing chicken with the timer leading to longer queue to game time.

Sp33d Zer0May 20, 20172 votes

I really feel like this idea of chicken is a bad one as most players will want to ban soon enough that they don't risk a dodge, LP loss, and a time punishment.

LyingOnLineMay 19, 20171 votes

If the information is significantly harder to access (say, by only having the lockout notification appear if an attempt to lock in a locked-out champion; Means that attempting to look at the list of champions to get that information isn't viable) then both teams do not have full knowledge and the issue is solved.

RiotI Am The IRSMay 19, 20172 votes

It would be strictly a disadvantage to ban early. People would likely wait until there are 2-3 seconds left then ban for a chance to get 2 bans for the price of 1.

SpideraxeMay 19, 20171 votes

Do you guys have any internal thoughts on how this may effect banrates for sites like Lolking or champion.gg

Sp33d Zer0May 19, 20172 votes

It won't, they are banned out in number of games, not number of bans. It's why dodged lobbies don't count

SpideraxeMay 19, 20171 votes

I see, gotcha thanks

LyingOnLineMay 19, 20171 votes

Games of Prisoner's Dilemma Chicken only turn out that way if defecting is the optimal choice at all times. If you can ban early and get your bans guaranteed, then make attempting to scout information about the enemy's bans an unacceptably risky proposition (say, by only giving information about enemy lockouts by having attempts to lock in those bans fail) then you incentivize both teams to choose bans beforehand but also have fallbacks in case the enemy has duplicated their intended bans.

RiotI Am The IRSMay 19, 20173 votes

I don't see a situation where banning early in the scenario above would be advantageous, would you mind pointing out a situation where it could be?

LyingOnLineMay 19, 20171 votes

I don't consider banning early to be advantageous. The idea is merely that attempting to scout what the enemy is banning is rendered both ineffectual and risky by having it only communicated by lockouts on attempts at locking in.

This means that attempting to scout what the enemy is banning is risky because it requires potentially locking in a champ you did not mean to ban, allowing both teams to simply focus on their own bans without potential duplication of bans.

RiotI Am The IRSMay 19, 20173 votes

I don't think people would scout on champions they aren't fine banning. I'm imagining a world where they have 2-3 bans they know they want to do and quickly try all of them in the last few seconds. If the champion isn't banned they banned a champion they wanted to ban and if it is banned they get a free ban because they have information the other team didn't have.

NuclearTaco94May 19, 20173 votes

But 10 bans is unrealistic,at most it would be 8 considering some champs would be definitely banned from both sides.Is this a way to delay working on fixing problematic champions that would reach 3 digit ban % if there were no duplicate bans?I understand a need to allow Lee Sin,Yasuo,Darius and Khazix mains/one tricks to eventually play them once they slip past the ban phase,but still it removes agency if your ban is "Wasted" by being a duplicate,you would want to strategise "Hmm they already banned Lee Sin,who is next on my black book(of hyper mobile AD champions)" to ban?

RiotI Am The IRSMay 19, 20173 votes

"But 10 bans is unrealistic,at most it would be 8 considering some champs would be definitely banned from both sides"

I agree that there won't be 10 bans in most games and that's something we are ok with, we prioritize agency > 10 bans.

"it removes agency if your ban is "Wasted" by being a duplicate"

Our goal here is to give every player the option to not play against one champion of their choice and if 2 people don't want to play vs the same champion that is still the same output for each person. Even with duplicate bans the player still doesn't have to play vs the champion they chose to ban. One advantage of this system compared to the old system with 4 more bans is that it should drastically reduce the time spent in champion select even when compared to the live 6 ban version.

DrCyanideMay 19, 20172 votes

Do you know if the team that developed this tried having champions with 2+ bans get locked in as a ban, having the players that banned that champion pick another champion to ban and randomly picking one of the 2 new champions to ban? That still gives agency, it still goes fast (maximum 2 ban rotations), but it also gives the advertised 10 bans.

Shadow HazardMay 19, 20176 votes

You say this as if there is only one champ that people don't want, but it is always a tier list of champs to bans and I agree with nucleartaco that it looks like the team is trying to make sure unfun or unbalanced champs don't get instantly forced out of play.

What happens in the case where the 2 teams each end up picking the same 5. That will only feel like a waste. And not only that but even less bans then live currently. There is no way that anyone will feel good known that.

That is the same extreme as having even 2 people ending up banning the same champ. That isn't even considering the dodges that will definitely happen in response to the wasted bans.

You are trying to put a good spin on it but are frankly ignoring obvious community backlash. The way riots responses are being handled right now is exactly the same as when dque was released. Immediate community backlash + blatant disregard of the community dissatisfaction by riot.

There isn't improved agency, and ther most definitely isn't improved fun. At the way it is looking to be released it will be a gambling system tuned against the communities favor.

Kei143May 22, 20171 votes

Getting duplicate bans is certainly going to be a feels-bad moment. especially if there are more than 2 duplicates.

What do you think about having 2 simultaneous ban phases instead? 3 players on both teams get 30 secs to ban, the bans get revealed and then the to remaining players on both teams get 15 secs to ban.

TheSingularityMay 19, 20172 votes

Perhaps just alternate betweem people giving them 20 seconds to ban

I think you'd find that most bans happened within 5 seconds (because most will ban the same champ every game). I like many, would prefer a slightly longer wait if it meant a better quality game. And duplicate bans are far from a quality occurrence. I mean, I can see a game where all 10 bans are used on yasuo wasting 9 bans.

EndlessSorcererMay 19, 20171 votes

Did you consider making the ban phase function similarly to the pick phase, such as:

1x Blue Ban
2x Red Bans
2x Blue Bans
2x Red Bans
2x Blue Bans
1x Red Ban

If you had each pair of allied players ban simultaneously, he duration of ban phase would have remained almost the same as live.

Sp33d Zer0May 19, 20172 votes

I believe they didn't do that specifically to cut down on total time in lobbies

Solidair3May 19, 20172 votes

But the main bans are the same in most games. Maybe divided by elo. Me and the enemy mid both not wanting to play against Yasuo is stupid and wasteful. And now you create a situation where both of them assume the other will ban the Most Bannable Thing, thus leaving it open. And that doesn't create and "interesting" situation where the pick is left open, because it was only made available by this dumb ass ban system.

You guys fucked up with this system, there has to be a better way.

TheSingularityMay 19, 20171 votes

What if the system was as follows. Everyone bans at the same time but there isn't a fancy screen showing who has been banned (like shown in OP).

As players lock in a ban, that champion is greyd out. So enemy bans aren't given to u on a silver platter. It simply indicates to you that the champ you were perhaps about to ban is already banned. YOU CAN'T TAKE YOUR BAN BACK. It also won't be indicated who bans which champ (so that avoids that problem of using the enemies bans against them).

It is most likely that players will ban almost immediately after ban phase starts as players know exactly who they want to ban before they even get into queue

AptestMay 20, 20171 votes

unfortunately you actually are removing agency since you are removing gameplay.

but hey, feelings matter ;)

My one change I would make for the upcoming 10 ban system

62 Comments

More from Gameplay

More by Sp33d Zer0