Why do only the last 3 players get bans?

L Psy Kongroo·Mar 28, 2016·7 votes·430 views

The introduction of dynamic queue would have been the perfect time to implement the 1 ban per-player system that everyone wanted so much. Riot really missed out on a good opportunity there IMO.

14 Comments

NahuiMar 28, 20162 votes

Because privilege.

The top two players get to pick their champions first, so it's fair they don't get to ban. Now I understand there's some "Counterpicking" argument, but that's just strategy. It's simply that the top two have a higher statistical chance to get their champions/secure important champions, so it's fair the bottom 3 get to ban as they have a smaller statistical chance to get their champion. It allows all 5 people of a team to contribute together to forming a team.

Vistha KaiMar 28, 20161 votes

The top two players get to pick their champions first.

Unless we are talking about LCS or full premade teams, That's not a privilege. That's a handicap.

People don't swap and there is no possibility of reducing the meta OP golem to one or two picks for the first pick to matter. It wouldn't be possible even with 20 bans.

NahuiMar 28, 20161 votes

Well the LCS often has pick/ban champions. That is a privilege, not a handicap.

Vistha KaiMar 28, 20161 votes

FYI, LCS makes up for about 0.000002% of players in this game.

NahuiMar 28, 20161 votes

That's cool. It still applies to all games. Top two players get the privilege to select any champion they want either for themselves or for someone else. Last 3 get to ban. Bam, everyone has a piece of the pie.

Vistha KaiMar 28, 20161 votes

It's not that later picks are forbidden to pick whatever the hell they want.

They already get the role they want. First pick gets a middle finger for being the first pick in 99% of cases.

Kahl Drogo98Mar 28, 20161 votes

having 5 bans per person (making 10 total bans) would lead to a horrible game, because everybody would be banning the champs that they consider OP and it would lead to a smaller champ pool for the teams to pick from. having it where the last 3 people ban instead of just one person banning all 3 makes it so there is wider diversity of champs that can counter them in lane without banning too large of a champion pool.

JavelinJoeMar 28, 20161 votes

130 champs and still 6 bans. 6 bans was when there were less than 30 champs available, so i think 4 more for 100+ more champs is a bit reasonable.

L Psy KongrooMar 28, 20162 votes

[{quoted}](name=Kahl Drogo98,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=UXkkI3nc,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2016-03-28T16:44:30.422+0000)

having 5 bans per person (making 10 total bans) would lead to a horrible game, because everybody would be banning the champs that they consider OP and it would lead to a smaller champ pool for the teams to pick from. having it where the last 3 people ban instead of just one person banning all 3 makes it so there is wider diversity of champs that can counter them in lane without banning too large of a champion pool.

Let's be real here, there are ~130 champions in the game. Banning 10 of them per game still leaves over 100 champions to choose from, which is PLENTY. This whole "smaller champ pool" argument is shit. And it wouldn't be 5 bans per person, it would be 1 ban per player, so one person still isn't doing all the banning.

NahuiMar 28, 20161 votes

They also don't want you banning out a meta. They already give you 6 champions, no need to go and finish off the rest of the juggernauts or Sated's, or ADCs.

DrCyanideMar 28, 20161 votes

having 5 bans per [team] (making 10 total bans) would lead to a horrible game, because everybody would be banning the champs that they consider OP and it would lead to a smaller champ pool for the teams to pick from

You do realize there's nothing in your argument that's any different from having a total of 6 bans, right?

NahuiMar 28, 20161 votes

I mean the difference is 4 champions. Imagine banning out 4 more champions now. That's huge.

Also it would be an issue in the pro leagues where they master a small pool of champions. 5 bans would easily be used to shut an individual player down. 5 is far different than 3.

DrCyanideMar 28, 20163 votes

Imagine banning out 4 more champions now. That's huge.

Yes it is. We might be able to get the pool of available champions back down to those that are balanced with the current items.

Also it would be an issue in the pro leagues where they master a small pool of champions. 5 bans would easily be used to shut an individual player down. 5 is far different than 3.

I expect a pro player to master more than 5 champions. And if the enemy team spends all their bans trying to ban out one player, then they leave the other four teammates to get their strongest picks, putting them at a much greater disadvantage. If an LCS team is so reliant on one player that they are useless if that player is banned out, that team doesn't belong in the LCS.

Vistha KaiMar 28, 20161 votes