Could we have 1 more Champion ban per side in S5 please?

GhostStalker·Oct 11, 2014·130 votes·7,656 views

There's a ton of different champions now. With 4 bans per side it would still be impossible to completely shut out a strategy. And there's just a lot of champions that quite frankly need bans. I don't think it's fair that we have to wait on Riot's live balance team to do something that we all know should be done in the first place. I'd rather just have that those extra bans to deal with stuff that is just too overpowering.

You can't just keep adding champions (and reworking) and still issue the same bans you did 3 years ago. 3.5 years ago you had like what. less than 80 champions? Now we have like 121 champions now?

Look. Something's gotta change. Either the balancing needs to be immediate and on point (which can't be done, because balancing is more than just knee-jerk reactions). Or you can give us those extra bans, which I feel is the more logical approach.

Stop being silent and stubborn and talk to us here.

80 Comments

Grand ElevenOct 12, 201417 votes

With 122 champions I don't think even upping the ban to 10 would do anything horrific for the average player. In the LCS it might force broader champion pools ... but is that really a bad thing?

Honestly I think every player should get 1 ban . Not only does it allow more bans but it speeds up the banning phase and reducing grief as everyone gets a shot to ban that one champ they hate.

67chromeOct 11, 201412 votes

And there's just a lot of champions that quite frankly need bans.

if there's considerably more than 6, no there's not. You have a wide range of solid champions to choose from that are on a pretty equal playing field.

Also - the purposes of bans isn't to remove the most OP champions. It's purpose is more strategic - such as removing an excellent counter to your strategy, or just removing a champion you don't want to play against.

A lot of champions with the highest win-rates are considered terrible by the community, and a lot of must-pick/ban champions are in the bottom 15 win-rates. There isn't exactly a valley of power between the best and worst champions in LoL.

The balance is solid enough you can take a champion like Poppy into a tournament and still have a solid shot at winning.

On that note, a lot of the picks/bans are just a list of ~6 champions everyone to lazy to care about looking into why to ban just memorizes and churns out each game.

Also - while you can't ban out most niches anymore, there's the realistic possibility of banning a player out. Obviously there's some pro players that can play a different champion every game and do well.

But there's also a lot of pro players that do really good on 12~3 champions, and just ~meh to awful on everything else. The more bans per-team, the more underwhelming performances we're likely to see in tournaments, and the less likely we're ever going to witness a game where a star player's best champion ever makes it through pick/bans. Give 5 bans per team, and you could ban out the star champion of every single player.

Finally - bans take time. Adding more bans means the game takes longer to start.

The average LoL game only lasts ~33 minutes. The longer and longer you take to get it started, the more annoying it is when things go downhill in the game. Rather than investing ~33 minutes to loose in a normal game, you can invest ~45 minutes to loose in a ranked game. Or invest ~10 minutes in picks/bans only for Scumbag Steve to leave right before the game starts.

DotA 2 actually has 5 bans per team. And an extra 1:30 of stalling time during the pick/ban phase.

Watching the first ~13 minutes of DotA 2 tournaments is painful because of that. So painful, 100% of the DotA 2 games I've watched thus far actually skipped the first ~5 minutes of picks/bans before commentary even started happening. Then I got to sit through the regular picks/bans commentary LoL games start with.

SkaarrjjOct 11, 201423 votes

Finally - bans take time. Adding more bans means the game takes longer to start.

This is def not a valid argument. I can understand the other arguments even if i dont agree with them. But this is nonsensical.

CyneticOct 11, 20147 votes

Finally - bans take time. Adding more bans means the game takes longer to start.

This is def not a valid argument. I can understand the other arguments even if i dont agree with them. But this is nonsensical.

Indeed, how can you even use that as an argument lol ?

"Oh noes mah games takez 1:30 mins more to start... I'd rather face OP champs and get buttsecksed for 20 mins+ than wait a whole 1:30 more in picks&bans !"

By that logic, we should remove bans altogether so we dont have to lose sooooo much time in game lobby...

SkaarrjjOct 11, 20147 votes

If anything, more time in the lobby is a good thing. I feel there isn't enough time.

Rock RockburghOct 12, 20143 votes

The issue is that there isn't enough time to THINK. Adding more bans with the same timer on each of them won't help; it'll just drag out the not-enough-time. I saw someone suggest a 30-45 second strategy period before P/B starts, and I'd agree that this is probably the best way to deal with it.

FantasySniperOct 12, 20144 votes

if there's considerably more than 6, no there's not. You have a wide range of solid champions to choose from that are on a pretty equal playing field.

Also - the purposes of bans isn't to remove the most OP champions. It's purpose is more strategic - such as removing an excellent counter to your strategy, or just removing a champion you don't want to play against.

But they're not on an equal playing field. There are quite a few "pick/bans" in the current spectrum of champions because there isn't enough balance (or equality) between them. If the game was perfect as is, this choice of removing counters to your strategy and not simply the strength of select champions would be the mindset of every player.

And I don't know about you, but in your average game, you don't have the option to collaborate on what to ban based on your and/or their team's strategy. If you ban only to make sure your strategy isn't countered, they could very easily preserve the opportunity to counter someone's elses or to diminish your strategy altogether through banning a key part of it.

DotA's state of being is based off of its (supposedly) awful balance and over-abundance of features. LoL is steadily heading down this route and might as well remedy it with the same.

ZaikyoOct 11, 20148 votes

See, I love threads that make good suggestions, and even bring up great points to support the suggestion. Then, for some unknown reason, you have to get Dbaggy and aggressive with the last line?

I'm speaking from the point of view of wanting the same thing you want...and I can totally see someone reading this and then being immediately turned off to the thread, just because of the last line.

GhostStalkerOct 11, 201410 votes

Calling someone Silent and Stubborn is dbaggy and aggressive?

Riot has a right to be stubborn and silent. It's their damn game. They can do as they please. But there's some things they shouldn't be silent and stubborn about, and this it one of them.

I'm blunt, but I phrased my frustrations as nicely as I could. And I feel I didn't cross any boundries. You're just too uppity and should probably sit back and take another look at it.

I could of replaced silent and stubborn with a number of adjectives that are far more explicit and "dabbgyness". But I didn't.

SkaarrjjOct 11, 20145 votes

Yeah. His response was very tame. You've got some issues if you see that as dbaggy and aggressive. Or maybe English isn't your first language. And if it isn't, silent and stubborn is NOT aggressive at all. And especially on these forums that's actually extremely tame.

1). If english is not your first language, then you get a free pass, seeing as you write and punctuate better than I do and it being my primary language lol

2). if it is your first language, you should probably look into just what exactly dbaggy and aggressive means. And how out of context these words are here.

HalloweenDeathOct 11, 20147 votes

I agree. Smart idea

FlemmanOct 12, 20146 votes

I ban per player, instead of 3 for the first pick, will be much fair for all the team as one player counter champ in not always the same as his teammate.

For target player ban, they just need to add 2 champ in their pool, is not that hard (they already do it with each pach change)

Hyrum GraffOct 12, 20146 votes

I think the concern is targeted bans at the competitive level. With 4 bans and first pick, you have the ability to ban/pick pretty much every champion someone plays.

I think the solution is to give each team 5 bans that work like this:

|Team 1............|Team 2| |- |Ban 1 | | | | Pick 1| | | Ban 1 & 2| |Pick 1 & 2 | | |Ban 2 & 3| | | | Pick 2 & 3| | | Ban 3 & 4| | Pick 3 & 4 | |Ban 4 & 5| | | | Pick 4 & 5| | | Ban 5 | Pick 5 | |

Note: **Each player has 1 ban, and they ban right after they pick (except for team 1's player 5, who chooses the first ban).

This way, you can't deny someone every champ in their pool, and while some OP's get through, it's also harder to ban their counters. Furthermore, say team 2 first picks tristiana. Now team 1 won't waste any bans on adcs - their remaining bans are more effective.

NeoBrawlerMar 22, 20151 votes

I hate to say it but isn't that like Dota (Through they have a better banning system than LOL). It would be nice to see a similar ban pick system in LoL but would it cause conflict with valve?

Hyrum GraffMar 24, 20151 votes

I don't know; I don't play Dota. I doubt it would cause a conflict.

It's not really that inventive. I mean, I came up with it in 10 minutes without ever having played Dota.
Mobas copy each other all the time. They are all OK with this because, if one of them comes out with something awesome, all the others want to be able to use it, too. If steam sued league over 'stealing' their ban system, then they have to worry about league suing them over whatever they steal from league next. Not worth.

GhostStalkerOct 12, 20145 votes

Also, for the Rioters that are against this and have these internal debates and possibly debate and cause deadlocks between your decision makings regarding this topic.....

It's been 3.5 years and the number of champions has increased dramatically and we're still working with 3 bans per side.

That's a problem. At least admit that much.

NeoBrawlerMar 22, 20151 votes

Very true, I have been playing since S3 and when i got into ranked. I wanted another ban (Mostly cause everyone needed to ban kass) and back then it was 97 or so. Now their is so much I get lost in what to ban cause with the reworks (which rito has do a ton of them lately) and new champs, that you need to ban them. i would say six per team would be better cause you can;t just ban all the adc's or supports anymore.

SernethOct 12, 20144 votes

Personally I'd like to see a system similar to what Dota had. Where you ban 2/3 champs, pick half, ban 2/3 more, then pick the rest. It would let you target bans to counter what strat your opponent seems to be going towards, and adds a whole bunch more stratagey in the pick/ban phase.

iamthegoatofwarOct 12, 20143 votes

Or we can keep things simple the way they are now and just add an extra 2 bans for each side.

NeoBrawlerMar 22, 20151 votes

How long have you been playing? A season? This game isn't about simplicity. Dato has a great system that LoL could use to implement to give a deeper planning stage for each game. (Example: You want a knock up team for Yasou? Well i see you picked a ton of knock up, will lets ban yasou so you can't have the core champ of your comp.). It could make ranked a lot better than preemptively banning champs that the other team might want to use.

ecneregillebOct 12, 20144 votes

Id honestly like to see 2 more bans per side, and a new pick/ban phase system.

Akin to bans in the middle of picks.

DudbearHagglerOct 12, 20144 votes

I don't care about some champsbeing "op" I want more bans so we don't have the exact same champions every game...

NeoBrawlerMar 22, 20151 votes

Agreed, I see zed's and the FotM (each month) so much. I usually ban the FotM so I don't see idiots playing him/her.

CNY10000Oct 11, 20143 votes

Bump Riot, plz see this thread!!!!!!!!

SalidfingersOct 12, 20143 votes

We should remove bans and learn to counter pick.

NOOOOO!! i want to play the champion i only like to play. Well cant help you there.

hatemoronsbusterOct 12, 20142 votes

I agree with this whole heartedly. I hate bans in ranked.

wolfaxOct 12, 20146 votes

It's because they're misused. They're seen as a way to ban FotM. They're meant to allow you to counter a strategy that will counter yours.

NeoBrawlerMar 22, 20151 votes

Totally agree, but this game isn't a prefect balance. their are some champs that you need to pick if it's open. It's not only about FotM or against a strategy cause their are OP champs. Some champs that just need to ban, remember kass S3 and S2?

UPfreelyOct 12, 20143 votes

it would be hilarious to ban 8 adcs and see how they react

GhostStalkerOct 12, 20145 votes

I think it would actually force interesting picks if you ask me.

UPfreelyOct 12, 20141 votes

I think it would actually force interesting picks if you ask me.

agreed

cshakesOct 12, 20142 votes

We have 15 ADCs, excluding Urgot, Quinn, Teemo, Azir and Jayce. The ADC pool can survive it.

We have 14 supports. The support pool can survive more bans.

The pool of junglers used by pros (and others) is often kind of small, so maybe this would bring jungle diversity?

NeoBrawlerMar 22, 20151 votes

Like Rito wants and doesn't want? I agree too btw.

shppyOct 12, 20143 votes

Personally, I'd go a bit further than that and make it 10 bans, with each player getting one (takes the first-pick's bias out of the mix, too).

OrinneOct 12, 20143 votes

One suggestion that hasn't popped up as much as I thought is to assign a ban system more similar to DotA 2. Assuming only 4 bans each side, it would look something like:

Team A bans. Team B bans. Team A bans. Team B bans. Team A Player 1 pick. Team B Player 1 pick. Team B Player 2 pick. Team A Player 2 pick. Team A bans. Team B bans. Team B Player 3 pick. Team A Player 3 pick. Team A Player 4 pick. Team B Player 4 pick. Team B bans. Team A bans. Team A Player 5 pick. Team B Player 5 pick.

(for 5 bans, you can add another set of B/A bans after Player 1/2 picks)

What this basically does is allow more variation in bans based on what the enemy team already has, and allows for a bit more strategy in pick/ban phase. If the enemy first picks Lee Sin, you won't need to ban any more junglers and can instead focus on trying to pick/ban for another lane. In addition, you can actively ban out possible strategies, eg. if the enemy team is going for a wombo combo with Yasuo's ult that you're aware of, you could ban something like Wukong/Malphite to make them think of a different strategy.

The Aqua SnakeOct 12, 20142 votes

One suggestion that hasn't popped up as much as I thought is to assign a ban system more similar to DotA 2. Assuming only 4 bans each side, it would look something like:

Team A bans. Team B bans. Team A bans. Team B bans. Team A Player 1 pick. Team B Player 1 pick. Team B Player 2 pick. Team A Player 2 pick. Team A bans. Team B bans. Team B Player 3 pick. Team A Player 3 pick. Team A Player 4 pick. Team B Player 4 pick. Team B bans. Team A bans. Team A Player 5 pick. Team B Player 5 pick.

(for 5 bans, you can add another set of B/A bans after Player 1/2 picks)

What this basically does is allow more variation in bans based on what the enemy team already has, and allows for a bit more strategy in pick/ban phase. If the enemy first picks Lee Sin, you won't need to ban any more junglers and can instead focus on trying to pick/ban for another lane. In addition, you can actively ban out possible strategies, eg. if the enemy team is going for a wombo combo with Yasuo's ult that you're aware of, you could ban something like Wukong/Malphite to make them think of a different strategy.

This would make me actually watch the Pick and Ban phase since it has actual meaning to it.

TenSlashTenOct 12, 20142 votes

yeah atm I've been banning thresh/lucian/xxx forever i'd like to have thresh lucian yasuo on perm ban and the rest idc about. Even zed is less annoying when fed than a yasuo because at least you live longer than 5 seconds against him with QSS.

Yasuo just gets 7+ stats in gold worth of damage for just buying 2 items. Can't even deal with that unless you're equally fed and as a jungler the likiness of me being able to out carry against a yasuo is hardly appealing.

ecneregillebOct 12, 20142 votes

S1: 6 Bans total per game, 40 available champions.

3 years later...

S4: 6 Bans total per game, 120 available champions.

Something isn't right here. Ratio seems a bit off.

t4tNoFp4VeOct 12, 20142 votes

The number of bans wont change anything, what we need is DotA's Captain's Mode Now that's an interesting banning/pick phase

GhostStalkerOct 12, 20141 votes

I don't think pick-ban should become a game of itself where it becomes complicated. I think just doing all the bans first and then all the picks is fine.

The Aqua SnakeOct 12, 20144 votes

I don't think pick-ban should become a game of itself where it becomes complicated. I think just doing all the bans first and then all the picks is fine.

Disagree.

If you just added an extra ban for each team but didn't alternate the pick and bans, then not much will change.

If anything, this can be a separate mode made exclusively for tournaments.

Besides, I don't think Riot should continue to believe that its player base is incompetent to handle alternating picks among other things. This is a strategy game after all.

NeoBrawlerMar 22, 20151 votes

Agree, LoL is not made for simplicity. Not only adding a ban would change a lot (Since you can ban both OP champs and champs that counter you) but also implanting the dota like banning system would make this game soooooooooo much better in ranked.

HopeslayerOct 12, 20142 votes

1 ban per player is what needs to be done in solo queue without a doubt, having 1 lucky guy win the dice roll for first pick, just to do all troll bans, or selfish bans for only his lane is pretty annoying.

jaymc1130Oct 12, 20142 votes

@ Hyrum graff. I like the thought, but a system that allows bans and picks to happen like the one you describe could be easily exploited as well and the player picking last is at an extreme disadvantage given that the role he is going to play is known and now you are using a system that will directly encourage a targetted ban at the player picking last. Say for example, in todays meta, that the player picking last is taking adc, Trist, twitch, lucian were all banned, corki was picked, ezreal is now banned. You have just forced this top level competitive pro to pick an adc that isnt in the same tier meta wise with any of the aforementioned picks. Consider another example: The last player to pick is picking mid, the opposing took a mid that they had already banned all but one counter to, now they ban the last counter and the team picking last is in a difficult position given the targetted ban. Simply knowing what the last pick's likely role is would cause a ban system like this to become problematic quickly.

I'm still for 5 bans, one per player. I think we need that many with over 120 champs. I'm actually ok with the possibility of banning out nearly every viable pick at a position. How cool would it be to have 10 ADC's banned and to watch 2 pro teams play comps with no adc at all? Im all for increasing the level of creativity we see from pro teams in regards to team composition.

I also feel like it'd be cool to see a ban added for a single summoner spell. What crazyness would result from a game where smite is banned? How much priority do mobile champs gain pick wise in games where flash is banned? Map rotations in games without TP would be key. Assassins run amok when you ban exaughst. I'd really like to see some of these things played out. I feel like it opens the door for all new kinds of strategies and skill play to have a chance to shine and entertain us all.

AloneInTheCrowdNov 6, 20142 votes

There's a ton of different champions now. With 4 bans per side it would still be impossible to completely shut out a strategy. And there's just a lot of champions that quite frankly need bans. I don't think it's fair that we have to wait on Riot's live balance team to do something that we all know should be done in the first place. I'd rather just have that those extra bans to deal with stuff that is just too overpowering.

You can't just keep adding champions (and reworking) and still issue the same bans you did 3 years ago. 3.5 years ago you had like what. less than 80 champions? Now we have like 121 champions now?

Look. Something's gotta change. Either the balancing needs to be immediate and on point (which can't be done, because balancing is more than just knee-jerk reactions). Or you can give us those extra bans, which I feel is the more logical approach.

Stop being silent and stubborn and talk to us here.

For ranked solo queue we need 1 ban per person , it's solo / duo so we don't really need a team captain this was and is abused right as we speak by players who ban purposly champions that noone plays or that someone form his team wants to play . So this makes 10 bans exactly per solo / duo ranked game . I think it's only fair since we already have " 214142 " champions in this game .

NeoBrawlerMar 22, 20151 votes

Yeah, but if they ban all the supports, there is only four to play. You have to take in account roles and how much there is in each pool. (excluding the offpicks)

IzentoOct 13, 20141 votes

I agree with the OP. We can see that the game has developed into something greater but we are stuck with these archaic methods of handling some problems. 4 bans sounds like a great idea with how the champion pool has increased significantly and it's not as if we can ban a whole team comp with 4 bans (which is why I would be wary to up it to 5 bans per side). I'm not saying this should be immediately done, but it should be heavily considered and tested. I for one see it as a good idea from the get-go.

OrinneOct 13, 20141 votes

The primary concern, afaik, with increasing ban sizes is that at the moment, it's already very possible to ban out certain players on the pro scene, especially prominent in the NA LCS where champion pools aren't very diverse. There's also some problems with outright banning a role out completely in solo queue, though this is more of a problem with jungle and support (and even then, players will just choose the next best option available).

The solution is fairly simple. Alternate picks and bans instead of doing all of the bans at the beginning, where blocking out a player/role is possible.