If I queue for top, but I instead just counter jungle the enemy jungler, should I be banned?

Ralanr·Feb 28, 2017·16 votes·2,513 views

Sure I'm leaving my enemy laner free farm, but their jungler will be behind.

What if I queue mid and just decide to make bot lane a three person lane? Or decide to stay in top after picking jungle so my top laner has a buddy?

What's the harm? Beyond soaking exp and gold from these laners and giving someone on the enemy team a free win? I mean, it's not like I'm basically giving a free lane to the class that scales with money so they can get their items quickly and make my money scaling character completely redundant, potentially turning the game into a 4v5 or a 4v4 where they have a fed carry and we don't.

There can't be any harm if I built a sightstone right? Right?

It's not as if the basic meta evolved into these groupings for a reason and every attempt to break it has been unsuccessful (hello bruiser bot lane, so nice to see you outside of my dream-And I was hallucinating, great. Time to body block the Jhin that got caught). I mean, we can totally change the metagame just by doing whatever the fuck we nobodies want right? We aren't goddamn meta sheep that just copy whatever the pros or Korea does because they're better. No, we totally didn't have a bunch of MF SUPPORT games after that one Worlds match last year because it was played there, it was a coincidence.

Note: Kinda rambled. My argument was that this is all very dumb. People are arguing positions without seeming to understand why those positions are as they are in the first place.

69 Comments

DezellFeb 28, 20178 votes

Very small but, I think, important distinction.

Queueing Top is queueing a lane. Support isn't a lane. Your comparison would be more appropriate if you went Support and decided you wanted to 2v1 top and leave your ADC to 1v2 bottom.

RamboDash15Feb 28, 20174 votes

https://media.giphy.com/media/5xtDarmwsuR9sDRObyU/giphy.gif

RalanrFeb 28, 20174 votes

Fair point.

AhristocatsFeb 28, 20175 votes

where is the harm in not building sightstone? because if colazor made it to master without building one on Sona i don't think there is a harm

Second, by hearing you the support nunu dude did a strat that was completly unviable, except that this strat carried him a lot

RalanrFeb 28, 20172 votes

Ever heard, "Exceptions do not make a rule?"

Probably not given that in the medical field I'm sure exceptions are not tolerated.

Anyway, I do not consider what he did to be a viable strategy even if it carried him to master. I consider something a viable strategy when multiple people are doing it and it works. An example of this is Sion support, where it started as this weird thing but then people tried it and now it's suddenly the best form of support.

1 person does not make something viable as a whole in this game. Unless that person is a pro player (yeah yeah, I know this contradicts my exception point, but regretfully pro players are seen as having more influence individually then other players. Hence why the meta is usually formed around proplay (or Korea)).

And sightstone doesn't really matter if you know how to cycle trinkets and the ADC remembers that they have one.

AhristocatsFeb 28, 20174 votes

{quoted}

Ever heard, "Exceptions do not make a rule?"

until you explain to me why it's an exception and why the nunu support thing isn't an exception

{quoted} Probably not given that in the medical field I'm sure exceptions are not tolerated.

no idea what are you talking about

{quoted} Anyway, I do not consider what he did to be a viable strategy even if it carried him to master. I consider something a viable strategy when multiple people are doing it and it works. An example of this is Sion support, where it started as this weird thing but then people tried it and now it's suddenly the best form of support.

you need MORE PEOPLE TO DO IT TO KNOW, something that can't happen if we ban those players

{quoted}

1 person does not make something viable as a whole in this game. Unless that person is a pro player (yeah yeah, I know this contradicts my exception point, but regretfully pro players are seen as having more influence individually then other players. Hence why the meta is usually formed around proplay (or Korea)).

see above

{quoted}

And sightstone doesn't really matter if you know how to cycle trinkets and the ADC remembers that they have one.

actually sightstone matters, but not if you skip it to get quickly agressive items like sheen and then snowball the game

RalanrFeb 28, 20171 votes

How many other people actually play Darius ADC?

AhristocatsFeb 28, 20173 votes

how can you let people play darius adc if i get banned potentially for playing it? how comes i need to post this reply

RalanrFeb 28, 20172 votes

You didn't get banned for playing Darius ADC because you were playing the role (even with an unorthodox champion). It's the same reason why Malz support became meta instead of having been a bannable offense. They played the role.

Why I asked about your Darius ADC is because if not many people are actually playing that kind of strategy, then it's more of a cheese strategy.

AhristocatsFeb 28, 20174 votes

{quoted}

You didn't get banned for playing Darius ADC because you were playing the role (even with an unorthodox champion). It's the same reason why Malz support became meta instead of having been a bannable offense. They played the role.

Because i played it 26 times, how many time did this guy played support nunu with smite? and i played it 26 times in a long duration, which means if i ate reports it didn't do anything, this dude was playing everyday while streaming

{quoted}

Why I asked about your Darius ADC is because if not many people are actually playing that kind of strategy, then it's more of a cheese strategy.

first nothing wrong with a cheese strategy second i don't think it's cheesy when i did a complete guide on it third , it's totally unreliated to the discussion, how is it relevant that it's a cheese strategy? wasn't this nunu strat cheesy too? forth, like i said i can't spread it to the meta and let people play adc darius if i don't have the chance to play it because of BAN

RalanrFeb 28, 20172 votes

Except you aren't eligible to be banned for Darius ADC because you're still relatively functioning like an adc. It's not like you're abandoning someone alone in a 2v1 when they aren't at all capable or prepared to deal with it.

AhristocatsFeb 28, 20173 votes

{quoted}

It's not like you're abandoning someone alone in a 2v1 when they aren't at all capable or prepared to deal with it.

the thing is that what the nunu did, i consider it supporting his team and you can't tell me that i'm wrong because you need a support in league, and if he didn't pick a sup he couldn't win, but the dude made it to d1

RalanrFeb 28, 20171 votes

Though another point I'd like to make is that because of how important the ADC is, the best way to support your team early is to make sure the adc doesn't fall behind.

Which is honestly really dumb.

AhristocatsFeb 28, 20173 votes

he wouldn't win if it was that important

RalanrFeb 28, 20171 votes

Considering how marksmen are fairing in the meta right now, I can see why.

NoobTangerangFeb 28, 20172 votes

{quoted}

Anyway, I do not consider what he did to be a viable strategy even if it carried him to master. I consider something a viable strategy when multiple people are doing it and it works.

Are you playing nunu support smite? Just so you know, viable means capable of working successfully; feasible. It works for him? So it's viable for him in this game.

Warlord ScrapFeb 28, 20173 votes

At the same point if its stupid and it works it aint stupid both cases had an above 50% winratebso the bans are unjustified

KaiokoFeb 28, 20175 votes

{quoted}

At the same point if its stupid and it works it aint stupid both cases had an above 50% winratebso the bans are unjustified

Winning at the cost of everyone's else's enjoyment is not justifiable.

Warlord ScrapFeb 28, 20173 votes

so then anyone who plays teemo should be banned because hes not a team champ and people hate him. anyone who plays malz supp should be banned.

RalanrFeb 28, 20175 votes

Nah man. If Darius ADC works then Teemo top works. It's not like you're just abandoning your lane with no intention of ever actually doing the role you signed on for.

Warlord ScrapFeb 28, 20173 votes

but thats the think no were does it say support is bot lane. lets look at the role top, jg, mid, bottom (not adc but bottom) and support. no were does its say bottom has to be a marksman adc and no were does it say support is the bottom lane. this is a dangerous precident riot is setting for the future.

RalanrFeb 28, 20174 votes

Do you know why the ADC has a support?

Warlord ScrapFeb 28, 20173 votes

but there is no adc role

SkorchFeb 28, 20171 votes

AH sir you are wrong, the lane is indeed called bot, however Marksman (ADC) are balanced around being in a duo lane. That is why this is painful to an ADC. People say that ADC mains are little bitches, cant handle meta-changes, or can't 1v2. But their champs are BALANCED around having another person protect them till they get strong.

PB4UAMEMar 1, 20171 votes

Explain Graves, Jhin, Quinn, Vayne, Varus, Kog, Corki and Cait, then, who have all been viable top lane or mid lane, and still currently are, with some of those still having higher pick and winrates in solo lanes than bot?

If you are to make the argument that ADCs need to be balanced bot and that ADCs are balanced solely around being babysat. . . why is that this simply isn't the case in actual practice?

SkorchMar 1, 20172 votes

not all marksman are designed this way, but a high majority are weak early strong late, with little mobility, and high single target damage. There are exceptions. Graves has high jg clear. Jhin, Varus, and Cait have so much range they are really safe, although if they get ganked they are in trouble. ADC rely heavily on team tactics.

DynikusFeb 28, 20173 votes

playing a champion in a role they're not intended isn't the problem. Not playing the role and making the game unenjoyable for everyone else is the problem. If your team is on board, do whatever the hell you want. You can 5 man mid if you want so long as your team is behind it.

This would be like playing a pickup baseball game and having 2 first baseman and leaving 2nd open. Or playing soccer and having no goalie.

Warlord ScrapFeb 28, 20173 votes

thats the whole point though support is not confined to bottom. this makes it a preciddent that riot can ban anyone for playing a champ in a role not as intended

Lord MalpercioFeb 28, 20172 votes

{quoted}

Winning at the cost of everyone's else's enjoyment is not justifiable.

I mean, well, it's Singed we are talking about.

That's kinda just what he does. Allies and enemies both hate him, and he can go like 0/15 and still end up winning some fucking way. Hell, I've done it before. He's a dumb champion in desperate need of a rework. There's nothing okay about Singed's playstyle.

MorticianjohnMar 1, 20173 votes

If you don't care about winning play norms. Winning is all that matters in ranked.

I don't like playing with no sightstone support. I'll just report every support that I play with who doesn't buy sightstone. (someone told me that they do this).

Do those players deserve to be banned?

I think the below quote is relevant just in that if we don't stick up for this player then just about anything in the game could be considered ban worthy. They are literally making up rules in order to ban this guy who hasn't broken any rules. No where does it say that everyone else's enjoyment of the game should be taken into consideration when choosing a champion. No where does it say that you can't go smite support. The rules they quoted were invalid and they banned him anyway. With behavior moderation they should just follow their own rules and give someone a valid reason for a ban instead of making something up.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

RalanrFeb 28, 20175 votes

I'd consider it working if it was successful on more than one person.

But hey, feel free to have a midlaner that soaks the exp and gold of your adc and support as they come down to harass the enemy. If it works then it's totally fine.

nice tableFeb 28, 20172 votes

if someone has a positive win ratio doing this at a high elo then yeah let em do it, obviously they have thought it through and it works so why not?

RalanrFeb 28, 20172 votes

Ok, guess I'll just have an open mid.

nice tableMar 1, 20171 votes

you would have to have a massive impact for you to maintain a positive win ratio with this in high elo, i guess if you could actually do that everyone would applaud you.

QuephaFeb 28, 20172 votes

{quoted}

At the same point if its stupid and it works it aint stupid both cases had an above 50% winratebso the bans are unjustified

It's not about whether or not it works, it's about fulfilling the basic expectations of your assigned role when you enter the game. You can try to play something weird if your team is willing to try it but basically destroying their game experience when they don't want you to is toxic behavior.

Warlord ScrapFeb 28, 20173 votes

Rule number 3 on the riot support page on reporting says do not report for tactical disagreement. And the example even says irionically riot go bot i wanted you to support. This whole argument was invalidated by riot.

QuephaFeb 28, 20172 votes

I think that page is dramatically out of date, many of those examples communicate almost nothing about what is and isn't acceptable behavior and generally lack context.

101100111000Feb 28, 20172 votes

This is the problem with the way Riot set-up its role system, because they're not roles, they're lane assignments.

That's all you're doing, you're queuing up for lane assignments. Nowhere in any of Riot's rules does it state a marksman has to be in bot lane, or assassins have to go mid. This has pretty much been questioned and successfully broken on several occasions.

What dictates the roles for lane assignments is the meta the playerbase self-defines and perpetuates. It's not necessarily because it's the best way, but simply because it's the most convenient.

This is where your situational argument differs from the actual situation described in the Nunu support issue.

In queuing for support, you aren't necessarily queuing for a lane, you're specifically queuing for a role in your team. Riot visualizes the support in bot lane only because we put them there all the time. If instead the team puts their support in top lane to snowball their Renekton faster, then its perfectly viable, because the support is specifically there to help everyone else. This is why roaming supports is a concept and a champion archetype ( Bard ).

Second, a support roaming does not leave a lane assignment open. Your team still has a player in every lane assignment. Arguing that a support not being in bot lane is equivocal to a top laner leaving top is absurd. When a support leaves a lane, they don't leave their lane assignment. They technically never have one besides what the team identifies as such before hand. A person who queues for top lane and abandons it, regardless of their champion choices, is essentially giving a free win.

Etc., meta-breaking provokes sheep following. MF support was meta-breaking in that it broke MFs defined meta role of carry and gave her a niche counterpick identity that proved competitively viable. This same can be said for bot lane carry Ziggs. Meta breaks and shifts happen constantly despite the intentions of both players and the game designers/balance team, and it is completely unreasonable to simply ban players for not conforming to meta standards, especially if Nunu Smite Support proves to be a viable niche counter in experienced hands. It's already evident that one player has considerable success with it at relatively high levels of play (compared to the average League player). If more players pick this up and find it to be situationally effective, then what will you do? We banned a guy for doing something that turned out to be good? Whoops huh?

You can't just sit here and pretend like every case of people getting banned for trying to meta-break is the same. In some cases the ban is actually unjustified, especially if the reason they give is total bullshit.

RalanrFeb 28, 20172 votes

This is the problem with the way Riot set-up its role system, because they're not roles, they're lane assignments.

What dictates the roles for lane assignments is the meta the playerbase self-defines and perpetuates. It's not necessarily because it's the best way, but simply because it's the most convenient.

#THANK YOU.

Are roles are effectively just lane assignments! Usually because certain classes literally cannot lane against each other without some BS mechanic. Marksmen get a clear advantage over melee characters unless the melee has a good gapcloser, which is then countered by the self peel of the adc.

Imo the problem with league is that is that there is no real diversity. We can't support a duo bruiser bot (but we can support a ranged top laner. Several in fact).

So a meta is formed around the best way to utilize resources for the most important characters. Which, low and behold, is mainly the whole goddamn adc class because apparently Riot thinks that having a full damage class is fine when we all know it's the reason why melee carries have to be dumb as fuck (there is a reason utility marksmen reign supreme when marksmen are bad, utility is always useful). So we get this meta where we want to empower this one role, so we give them someone to help. Suddenly that person stops helping, and you have a much bigger risk of losing.

There is a reason for lane assignments and it's honestly what is killing this game. We shouldn't have entire classes with the same effective power curve, but specific champions. We should have marksmen that fall off and melee carries that can fulfill the same job.

NoobTangerangFeb 28, 20172 votes

{quoted}

Imo the problem with league is that is that there is no real diversity. We can't support a duo bruiser bot (but we can support a ranged top laner. Several in fact).

So why are you against support nunu with smite?

RalanrFeb 28, 20171 votes

I'm against people who are ignoring why he was banned. This is support Singed all over again.

NoobTangerangFeb 28, 20172 votes

{quoted}

I'm against people who are ignoring why he was banned. This is support Singed all over again.

You never answered my question? I literally countered your points. It was never about why he was banned. Just questioning your points.

RalanrMar 1, 20171 votes

My apologies, allow me to be clear.

I'm basically being spiteful to the boards that this is still a topic.

101100111000Mar 1, 20171 votes

The biggest issue I find is that people think the ban is unjustified because the perception is he was banned for playing a role.

The ban was for lack of effective communication, which entails that other players understand and accept his tactical/strategic decisions overall and play with them. If enough people reported him to the point where he gets suspended/banned, then that is indicative that he in fact did not have the actual consensus of his allies in such a decision.

His success rate with the champion is completely irrelevant in this scenario, rather it's that he attempted to explain his rationale, then forced the pick down his team's throat anyway. In this case, he wasn't necessarily punished by Riot, but by the community (as an extension, he probably would've been punished in a player Tribunal given the evidence).

Wookiee explained this fairly well in the original thread (I'd say), but he got downvoted to oblivion because they didn't like the explanation.

If you want to find fault, it's the fault of the players on both sides of the issue:

The meta-breaker who does not effectively persuade his teammates that they will win with his strategies/tactics
The teammates (and the playerbase as a whole) for outright condemning and punishing people who successfully play off-meta and meta-breaking strategies

Royal BardMar 1, 20172 votes

{quoted}

The biggest issue I find is that people think the ban is unjustified because the perception is he was banned for playing a role.

The ban was for lack of effective communication, which entails that other players understand and accept his tactical/strategic decisions overall and play with them. If enough people reported him to the point where he gets suspended/banned, then that is indicative that he in fact did not have the actual consensus of his allies in such a decision.

His success rate with the champion is completely irrelevant in this scenario, rather it's that he attempted to explain his rationale, then forced the pick down his team's throat anyway. In this case, he wasn't necessarily punished by Riot, but by the community (as an extension, he probably would've been punished in a player Tribunal given the evidence).

Wookiee explained this fairly well in the original thread (I'd say), but he got downvoted to oblivion because they didn't like the explanation.

If you want to find fault, it's the fault of the players on both sides of the issue:

The meta-breaker who does not effectively persuade his teammates that they will win with his strategies/tactics

The teammates (and the playerbase as a whole) for outright condemning and punishing people who successfully play off-meta and meta-breaking strategies

i don't understand what more is expected from him after saying i am going nunu with smite and counterjungling 24/7 while our jungler ganks. I mean it not only is clear but it is his fucking right to play whatever the hell he wants. You know about it and can adapt or you can feed and cry over your deserved loss.

101100111000Mar 1, 20171 votes

No, it's not just his right to play whatever the hell he wants. This is why a meta exists.

A meta is essentially an ordained way of playing the game. It is assumed that every player either explicitly or implicitly accepts meta standards, and those who don't are seen as playing inefficiently, or "playing to lose".

Remember, four other people ride on this decision to meta-break, and if they don't like it, then you shouldn't be playing it. You're not just playing to win, your entire team is, and if four other people think your decision is going to cost them the game, than that's that.

You complain about people being forced to confirm to meta roles, but at the same time, you demand that 4 other people every game be forced to bend to the whims of a single individual just to fulfill his meta-break fantasy. Remember that meta-break concepts are not guaranteed, but meta is generally proven to be effective in most capacities and reliable.

I'm sorry, but when it's 4 against you, you either persuade the majority to let you make your plays and strategies, or you conform. Welcome to rule of the majority.

PB4UAMEMar 1, 20171 votes

RIOT has gone on record multiple times claiming to not enforce a meta, arguing from a meta standpoint and saying the meta is right and RIOT can ban you for not following the meta isn't just pure bullshit, it doesn't even make sense as the meta isn't a stable thing in any way, shape or form; its in a state of constant dynamacism-- most people, apparently including you, just brutally misuses and misunderstand the term.

Meta, which is just the Most Effective Tactic Available, at the absolute strictest definition is a single team comp and lane assignment for that particular team. Do note, it is the most effective tactic, not the most effective tactics. If you really want RIOT to ban people for not picking the best top laner, the best midlaner, etc don't argue that RIOT should ban by playing off meta.

Additionally, it is something that literally changes multiple times per patch despite what people who have no clue about what the term actually refers to and blatantly misuses it might tell you. In fact, the true meta would be 1 team comp, but then an optimal counter to that team comp would arise, and due to the presence of the prior meta you could bet most teams would play something at least similar to the meta (Well, in your world they'd all be banned anyway if they didn't, so there's that too) so now, the counter to the meta is actually the new meta. Then perhaps another to counter that, and so on and so forth. Even if you were to expand meta to be the most effect tactics availible it would likely be mostly the same champions (due to how RIOT balances) with a few switched out here and there to counter others. Hmm, sounds a lot like what we see at the LCS level where they generally have a pool of sub 20 champions. As new counters are found the meta shifts, whenever new balance changes are made, the meta shifts, as people pick new things, guess what? The meta shifts. It is not this constant that can be enforced. What if a report was from a week ago when that pick was actually meta, but on this patch it isn't? Does that pick suddenly become banworth?

101100111000Mar 1, 20171 votes

You're arguing a completely irrelevant point and completely missed my original point. This isn't about Riot enforcing the meta, it's about a guy shoving his meta-breaking down his team's throat when they don't want it.

I'll copy-paste it for you so you can read it again.

"His success rate with the champion is completely irrelevant in this scenario, rather it's that he attempted to explain his rationale, then forced the pick down his team's throat anyway. In this case, he wasn't necessarily punished by Riot, but by the community (as an extension, he probably would've been punished in a player Tribunal given the evidence).

Wookiee explained this fairly well in the original thread (I'd say), but he got downvoted to oblivion because they didn't like the explanation.

If you want to find fault, it's the fault of the players on both sides of the issue:

The meta-breaker who does not effectively persuade his teammates that they will win with his strategies/tactics
The teammates (and the playerbase as a whole) for outright condemning and punishing people who successfully play off-meta and meta-breaking strategies"

The Nunu smite support guy got banned not because he was meta-breaking, but because he was flagrantly picking the nunu smite support despite the fact that his team didn't want him to play that, and wanted him to play conventional champion picks. He was not persuading people that it was viable and better than the conventional picks, he was simply telling them that he was going to do it and they either had it his way or the hard way.

I reiterate:

If you want to find fault, it's the fault of the players on both sides of the issue:

1. The meta-breaker who does not effectively persuade his teammates that they will win with his strategies/tactics 2. The teammates (and the playerbase as a whole) for outright condemning and punishing people who successfully play off-meta and meta-breaking strategies

ParoeMar 1, 20173 votes

{quoted}

You're arguing a completely irrelevant point and completely missed my original point. This isn't about Riot enforcing the meta, it's about a guy shoving his meta-breaking down his team's throat when they don't want it.

I'll copy-paste it for you so you can read it again.

"His success rate with the champion is completely irrelevant in this scenario, rather it's that he attempted to explain his rationale, then forced the pick down his team's throat anyway. In this case, he wasn't necessarily punished by Riot, but by the community (as an extension, he probably would've been punished in a player Tribunal given the evidence).

Wookiee explained this fairly well in the original thread (I'd say), but he got downvoted to oblivion because they didn't like the explanation.

If you want to find fault, it's the fault of the players on both sides of the issue:

The meta-breaker who does not effectively persuade his teammates that they will win with his strategies/tactics

The teammates (and the playerbase as a whole) for outright condemning and punishing people who successfully play off-meta and meta-breaking strategies"

The Nunu smite support guy got banned not because he was meta-breaking, but because he was flagrantly picking the nunu smite support despite the fact that his team didn't want him to play that, and wanted him to play conventional champion picks. He was not persuading people that it was viable and better than the conventional picks, he was simply telling them that he was going to do it and they either had it his way or the hard way.

I reiterate:

If you want to find fault, it's the fault of the players on both sides of the issue:

1. The meta-breaker who does not effectively persuade his teammates that they will win with his strategies/tactics 2. The teammates (and the playerbase as a whole) for outright condemning and punishing people who successfully play off-meta and meta-breaking strategies

So what youre saying... Is that simple to get banned for not playing to the meta.

In a game like this, a SOLO GAME with FORCED TEAM PLAY, you should be able to play whatever you want, so long as it works. There is no rhetoric you can use that excuses the mob mentality youre promoting. The burden of proof is in the accuser, not the one being accused. If YOU make it work, you make it work and the people who report you for being off meta are the ones who are at fault.

Again, it is not the burden of the one being accused to prove the pick or playstyle works, it is the burden of the accuser to prove that it does not work. If you maintain a 50%+ winrate but are banned because meta sheep reflex or salt report, YOU are not at fault and should not be punished. The ones who reported you, abused the system, are the ones who should be.

People getting banned for non-meta with no proof of recurring high toxicity is like men getting prison sentances for false rape accusations.

101100111000Mar 1, 20171 votes

I'm not promoting mob mentality at all; The game is already flooded with mob mentality. I'm simply pointing that the support Nunu's ban was because he pissed off enough of the majority of players that would prefer to conform to the point that the system flagged him for communication issues and the evidence was deemed appropriate.

And you have that backwards. The meta and conventional picks are what is proven to work. If the burden of evidence lies in the accuser, then it is the meta breaker that is accusing the playerbase of ignoring a viable pick/strategy, and it is thus the meta breaker's burden to prove AND PERSUADE his teammates that he's right. He obviously chose to simply ignore the necessity of persuasion.

Also, being a one-trick does not necessarily confirm competitive viability.

For example, you can be a Masters tier one-trick support Teemo player. Everyone generally agrees that he's heavily sub-par and detrimental compared to the plethora of other supports that could be made. He's even see as a troll pick in certain instances, and rarely sees play, even in top lane.

BUT, you think you found a viable strategy as a support that only he can fulfill, a niche that has a necessary demand or provides a necessary advantage. In some cases, it might even be better than conventional support picks!

Now just convince your team in Ranked that support Teemo is both appropriate and competitively viable in the solo/flex environment.

9 times out of 10, you won't be able to, because Teemo's role as X champion that does Y thing is fairly solidified, and the strategy you propose does not necessarily correlate with the demands your team is making of you as a support.

Do you pick Teemo support and ignore your team, piss them off, and likely get reported? Or do you pick a conventional support, not piss them off, and not get reported?

Or, to put this in a different perspective, imagine you queued up for ranked in bot lane and your support wants to play roaming Riven support. He says he has a 56% winrate with it, and this is your promos. Do you just automatically trust the guy with a seemingly ridiculous pick, or do you tell him to play a conventional support?

It's very easy to be indignant about meta-breakers getting banned because these aren't your games that are being played. If your team lets the guy meta-break because he has an evidenced 55% winrate, and he doesn't perform well, then what then? Does the strategy not actually work? Did he just have a bad game? Is it situational? Is it your fault for letting him make a shitty pick?

This is the problem with trying to break the meta, especially in Ranked. The variables in which an off-meta pick work are not generally solid, and more often than not, off-meta picks can be a liability if not handled extremely well. Changing the meta or breaking it desires hard data about in-game performances or true fundamental knowledge and expertise, not winrates. Anybody with enough work can get a 50% winrate on any champion in a variety of given roles, but that doesn't automatically make them viable off-meta picks worthy of competitive Ranked play.

In an ideal world where the meta means little to the playerbase, "playing what you want as long as it works" is fine. But that is simply not true. The playerbase cares very much about the meta, and unless you're some pro player, you're very unlikely to affect it as an individual.