The amount of bans are either not up to the amount of champs we have available. Has been 3 each for a long time.
Or maybe, we just suck it up, and take away the bans all together..
Either need more to level out the massive field, ( there is room for about 2 more on each side), or just drop them n deal with it since it makes no difference anymore,
67chrome4 votesThe pick/ban phase is pretty important for games, and it allows some decent strategizing to take place - so it should be kept.
As for increasing the number of bans - you run the risk of being able to completely ban out a certain player. Obviously there's people out there that have mastered 15+ champions, but even in every pro team there's usually 1 guy that's only got a pool of 3~4 champions to choose from, and the potential to ban someone out completely is easier and easier the more bans are available.
Also - with more bans you increase the wait time until the game actually starts, and waiting is not something a lot of players are thrilled to do.
Earl Eulrich3 votesIf he calls himself a "pro" he should be able to perform on at least 20+ champions.
And as lobby is really a good amount too hectic/silent atm i think prolonging the process and allowing for teams to talk more about their gameplan can only help with toxicity issues and such.
12tales2 votesIf he calls himself a "pro" he should be able to perform on at least 20+ champions.
There literally are not roles with 20+ competitively viable champions to perform on. You're expecting every pro in the world to outperform Faker, completely ignoring the simple reality of competitive balance right now. It doesn't matter if you can perform on the 20th worst ADC, because the 20th worse ADC is a trash champion.
Flemman1 votesthe thing is, if they ban only on one player, their team to have no much option left when it's time to pick that role (as they usually all mastered the same champ pool)
12tales2 votesThat only works if your player and the enemy's player have literally identical champion pools, which isn't generally the case.
Flemman1 votesLet's look at LCS (because, even if it's a few player, we all know that they won't gonna change the ban system if it's bad for the "pro" team :s)
what I want to say is that, actually, if you want to counter the top, you ban maokai lulu and nidalee/alistar. All top laner can play them, so wathever who you ban, there will still be one left the ennemy can play.
Jungle, it's the same, nunu lee sin elise and eve are the common pick, if you target a under use pick someone master well, at least 1 of the 4 top pick will be left open and they all can play them.
Mid is the same, orianna syndra ziggs and xerath rules them all
Even in support role they are 4/5 good pick that all of them master.
With the current 3 ban, targeting someone is impossible, and that leads to this feeling of seeing the same match again and again and again.....
With more ban, maybe something new will pop out
12tales2 votesIWD doesn't play Lee Sin. Dexter doesn't play Nunu. Dade doesn't play Syndra. Lustboy doesn't play champions that aren't called Nami :p
Every meta champion one of your players isn't comfortable on is another ban that blue side can force out of you. Where the goal is champion diversity, a system that encourages having an identical champion pool to your counterpart is destructive.
Flemman1 voteson the other hand, if you don't want to be force to lose 1 of your 3 ban on a champ you are not comfortable with, that force you to master it during training game too (and that too lower the champion pool diversity >-<)
Well, in the end, if we want more diversity in lcs, only an max pick/split of a champ for each team will work :p
For all other game, I thing the best is to give one ban to each player as we all have our nightmare champ and it's not necessary the same than the first pick of your team
Earl Eulrich3 votescompletely agree, picks&bans is in dire need of changing. It´s about the only thing Dota does way better than LoL currently. 3bans straight might have been sufficient in S1 and 2, but now it just doesn´t add enough depth to competitive 5v5...it´s pretty forseeable and teams don´t have to show their mastery in adapting to getting specific comps banned out - so most teams relay on 1-2 strategies and that´s it.
MrBuffington3 votesOut of curiosity, how does dota do bans differently? I've never played...
Earl Eulrich3 votesevery Team gets 2 bans first, than picks 2champs each, then another 2 bans, then another 2 pick than 1 ban and 1 pick each.
Or as a diagramm:
Ban/Ban/Ban/Ban -> Pick/Pick/Pick/Pick -> Ban/Ban/Ban/Ban -> Pick/Pick/Pick/Pick -> Ban/Ban -> Pick/Pick
So you can adjust to the picks with banning out synergies later on you don´t want to see, making picks&bans a lot more strategic and deep.
MrBuffington3 votesSo each team gets five bans total? That's pretty interesting; seems to force more depth of champion pool since it'll be harder to design a certain comp that you want. Honestly I think this format would be pretty interesting in competitive play, but seems pretty harsh at lower elo, where players may not have a very large champion pool.
Earl Eulrich1 votesYea, maybe they could use it for 5v5 premade only and leave SoloQ as it is.
Sluiceway2 votesIf this is a poll, my vote is for dropping bans entirely, especially in the LCS. You can only get better by finding a way to win a difficult match. As for the idea of hard counters, a champion is, for the most part, only as good as the player controlling him or her.
12tales2 votesBecause who wouldn't have fun watching 4.6 Kassadin or 4.11 Maokai stomp kids every game? Lot of strategy and deep thinking involved in getting blue side on a poorly balanced patch.
Earl Eulrich4 votesNo bans only help 1-trick-pony-teams and would make the games very stall and boring. We really need more bans to make sure there´s a broader variety of picks&strategies.
Sluiceway1 votesI disagree that removing bans would encourage a one trick pony play style. Granted, the current LCS champ pool is very limited, and unnecessarily, I think. As you pointed out, being good at the game should also mean having a diverse champ pool, since only a very few are objectively in need of qol buffs or reworks. Maybe 20+ is a steep number, but the principle behind the number is sound.
Getting back to the one trick pony problem, a similar thing already occurred during last summer season when C9 ran an Ashe/Zyra bot lane in a majority of their games. Bans did nothing to change this, as C9, being good players, simply adapted and found other champs to fill a similar role. Eventually, however, their opponents found a way to counter the Ashe/Zyra bot lane, which (along with changing patches) forced C9 to plan new strategies to compensate and maintain first place in the NA LCS, because they are better players.
Returning one more time to last summer, Velocity was very much a one trick pony team, winning their way into the LCS with their Ezreal jungle/Janna mid comp. Even without bans, Velocity would still have performed poorly in the summer split, as teams would have found a way to shut down this comp, and Velocity clearly lacked the ability to adapt that made C9 a constant success. My point, then, is that the one trick pony teams have lost and will lose in the long term, regardless of if the ban phase exists or not.
Earl Eulrich2 votesWhile it may be true that in the long run thoe teams won´t see that much success...important tournaments and qualifiers are just not long enough to make sure the best teams pull through in such a mode, and way to important to ignore here. In a best of 5 without bans it´s very likely for a team to pull through with just one tactic (e.g. stall out for lategame or sth. similar) if you cannot ban it out properly.
So no, I really won´t favour getting rid of bans, they´re an important strategic element and adds quite a lot to a teams skill. But the current model is outdated and should be modernized.
ProfDrDeath1 votesWe don't only need more bans, but also a different banning pattern, too - with another banning phase in the middle of the picks, you could enable reactive bans targeting the assumed enemy composition.
Full AP Venusaur1 votesDropping bans is a terrible idea, they do make a difference. Even though there are not enough bans to cover all the "OP" champions or hard to deal with champions, bans can still be used to get rid of hard counters to the early pick's best champions.
The Red Warden1 votesWe should have it be 4 or 5 bans per team
Khodexus1 votesI think with 120 champs that 1-2 more bans per team could definitely be in order.
What I'd do, if I were Riot (which obviously I'm not) is introduce different 'levels' of draft pick mode, including one with no bans, one with the traditional 6, and a new one with 10 bans.
buneter1 votesI agree not banning any lets you have any champion and only banning 6 champions doesn't help at all there are 120 champions with that big of a pool and five postion theres atleast 16 if not more god tier champions at any given champion not saying we need 16 bans but we shouldn't be able to go through our bans and still have both teams have all god-tier champs
Flemman1 votesjust give 1 ban to each player
Jinxed Amulet1 votesRiot should test out increasing the bans on PBE and see how things go. Or just changing the way ranked works in general 'cause it needs a rehaul after four seasons.
zzman730511 votesbans are a pretty necessary thing, not necessarily for day to day league players, but for the LSC you need to be able to ban champs that completely dominated in the last game so that they are forced to play a different champ, resulting in now game play, team mechanics, and most importantly, skill! not only that, but if bans didnt exist in LCS everyone would know who was going to pick what champ, and it would completely take out the thrill of watching all these different forced team comps.
