Boards›Gameplay

10 BANS in Total

Be A Squirrel··60 votes·6,734 views
Let's talk Smurfs, Snow, and Bans in Ask Riot

I have been playing this game since season 2 like a lot of veterans and I have always said "Why are we getting more champions and balancing the game more or getting more bans to balance it?" . After trying to deal with the amount of anti-fun champs there are to play against( Zed, Taric, Irelia, etc) this season, I asked myself why we did not get at least one more ban(hopefully two). There ARE WAY TOO MANY CHAMPS and some are just too strong right now. We can't ban all of them and I know I am complaining a bit, but I just want an extra chance to get rid of the easy win champs. I believe as a community we need to pressure riot into trying out the 1 ban a person system. We tried dynamic queue and that had some backlash, but overall, I like were their heads were. Why not try the 1 ban a person and see if it slows champselect too much? I just want it to be Beta Tested.

Please pressure riot into looking into this a bit further.

104 Comments

The Yetii Rider16 votes

The argument against 10 bans (and it's a good one) is that you could just completely ban out a star player like Bjergsen in the LCS and ruin a game.

Jesus Died 4 You7 votes

The argument would work if each player had their own set of "mastered" champions, but they don't. The players choose the strongest meta champions at the time, so banning out Bjergsen is just banning the meta midlaners for everyone, in which every LCS midlaner knows how to competently play more than 5 midlane champions anyway.

EDIT: Isn't that the original point of high-tier banning? To ban out certain key players and counter predicted team compositions, and not just ban the champions that are the strongest?

The Yetii Rider4 votes

{quoted}

The argument would work if each player had their own set of "mastered" champions, but they don't. The players choose the strongest meta champions at the time, so banning out Bjergsen is just banning the meta midlaners for everyone, in which every LCS midlaner knows how to competently play more than 5 midlane champions anyway.

EDIT: Isn't that the original point of high-tier banning? To ban out certain key players and counter predicted team compositions, and not just ban the champions that are the strongest?

If you ban out a player and then camp him, the game isn't a real showing of skill or fighting between the teams. It's just one team stomping the other. Look at what happened to Dyrus at MSI.

TheShréktEffect24 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Yetii Rider,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=YB0Zo2b6,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2016-06-19T16:04:37.106+0000)

The argument against 10 bans (and it's a good one) is that you could just completely ban out a star player like Bjergsen in the LCS and ruin a game.

Then they should learn to play more champions instead of being one-trick ponies. Don't you think that someone who managed to get themselves into LCS should be able to play more than 4-5 champions at least decently? That would be what really showed their skill at the game, winning with a champion they are not so familiar with. But nope, better stick to 2-3 champions because that's what gets easy wins.

Angry Monster8 votes

mains 5 must be a one-trick pony.....

Xaenos8 votes

theres more than 5 champions for 1 role

The Yetii Rider1 votes

{quoted}

theres more than 5 champions for 1 role

AD Mids have 3 champions. You can play Kha'Zix or Lee Sin mid but you are asking to get killed.

AP junglers have Nidalee, Gragas, Fizz, Diana and Elise, basically.

If you're trying to ban out disengage supports so you can easily dive 5 bans would hit Janna, Braum, Lulu, Bard and Alistar.

TheSingularity4 votes

you dont get 10 bans each, If you ban 5 supports that can stop your engage. Then fine then. I'll grab naut sup, gragas top and zac jg. Disengage sorted

Oakleaf Ranger3 votes

You mean the potential for one team to use 5 bans for one player not 10 since its both teams that get 5 bans...

Bobloser35551 votes

If you pick his lane champion you effectively ban out 6 of his champs.

DrCyanide1 votes

At the cost of letting everyone else on their team get their best pick.

An LCS team shouldn't be so dependent on one player that they can't function if that player is banned out. An LCS player should have a wide enough roster of champions they can play that they can still be effective on their 8th or 9th pick.

YCitizenSnipsY1 votes

Depends, in the TSM example yes you probably aren't hurting them that much. But there have been plenty of examples of banning a single player and it working.

Think of the same secnario with Echo Fox, do you really care if anyone else on that team gets a power pick? Ban out Froggen of the power picks and comfort picks and what do they have left?

MonkeyMadness4 votes

Also, if you spend all your bans to counter a single player, good luck dealing with the other 4.

But if that really is an issue in LCS play, Riot can always keep the tournament client as is and fix it for us. Would be nice to see some love for the rest of us every now and then...

ModKnightsKemplar3 votes

Okay, you're right, but I must politely agree with other replies. To me, this is another great reason in the "for" category.

There are 130 champs. Yes, bjerg can play maybe 5-6 at the highest level. So what? If they spend ALL their bans on him, make him play something less comfortable. It's not unfair. It's just another layer of strategy.

Hay5eed3 votes

It is a good argument but... 1.) We would see more diversity in League 2.) Instead of knowing only 5 champs, players would react by learning about 2 more. 3.) By banning an entire player, you let every other player have exactly what they want. This could be bad, this could be good

MetalGearTeemu2 votes

The fact that this is even a concern is why I hold such little respect for high level league, compared to Dota2.

The Yetii Rider2 votes

{quoted}

The fact that this is even a concern is why I hold such little respect for high level league, compared to Dota2.

With Riot gutting three champions a patch and expecting the pros to keep up its no surprise they can't maintain perfect skill over more than four or five champs at a time.

MetalGearTeemu2 votes

Riots poor balance is exactly why they only maintain a skillset of 4 or 5 champions. Riots champion usage statistics are laughable when compared to the representation heroes have in dota.

Players are also expected to play multiple roles and positions in Dota though, while riots artificial hype kinda locks them into a single slot.

Jet Sett6 votes

Faker played Olaf mid, I think we're good.

DarkSunSovereign1 votes

Then add 10 bans for regular ranked play and leave 6 for Masters, Challenjour and the LCS. Bam the end.

The Yetii Rider1 votes

{quoted}

Then add 10 bans for regular ranked play and leave 6 for Masters, Challenjour and the LCS. Bam the end.

The other argument I've heard from Riot about the issue is that they don't want champ select to be too long.

DarkSunSovereign2 votes

Then make all the bans be banned at the same time or sth idk.

KekOfTheFinest7 votes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-69joJzP4_A

Go and watch this video as it details this problem more.

Dota 2 has 10 bans with 114 champs(AFAIK) and they work perfectly good. Why? Because of their balance.Dota 2 is balanced around kits and champ counters and the tier system is sorta like this: Tier 1:I'll call them 'best champs',but they really aren't,they're just the most versatile right now. Tier 2:Not the best champs,and not as versatile or as good as tier 1 champs,but,can counter the tier 1 champs. Tier 3:Very rarely picked,but can almost completely shutdown champs. Tier 4:VERY,VERY rarely picked,BUT,when picked,they can shut down,not champs,but entire comps just by picking them.

So you got this problem of when picking tier 1 champs that are not banned that,if you pick them,they could hard counter you,but if you don't pick them,you can get stomped because of a comp that works with that team. OR,you can ban counters to that champ,pick him and play him and revolve the comp around that. Sometimes you don't even need to ban champs just to confuse the fuck out of the enemy.

But,in league,they're balanced around roles,not abilities and kits. So,you can often get in a situation where champ A is just better than champ B,because they're way to similar. And in league,you have 'bout 20+ Tier 1 champs and with league balance,you can't even counter them hard.Just soft counters at best.

Again,go and watch the vid,i just mostly copy pasted it's point about the balance between the 2 games so and it should be better to provide as to why we need 10 bans.

ZT Xperimentor6 votes

Well . . . we wouldn't need 10 bans if riot actually tried balancing the game.

Emerald Fang4 votes

We could still have 6 bans in LCS, just 10 bans everywhere else. B/c it's not that fair when you don't get an input on banning if you're the 1st or 2nd person.

SwiftKitten884 votes

i think it should be TESTED at least, even if it doesn't even up going live, it certainly worth a try. I'm "for" it

Glîtchy3 votes

Pro bans if 5 are permitted.

Zed Fizz Taric Irelia Thresh

Me: *Sees someone ban Urgot * Are you asking me to punch you?

ThePikol2 votes

{quoted}

Pro bans if 5 are permitted.

Zed Fizz Taric Irelia Thresh

Me: *Sees someone ban Urgot * Are you asking me to punch you?

I've seen people ban Soraka, Galio and Yoric. I know the feel bro

Sir Fuzzi2 votes

This sounds like the wrong solution to a different problem. Maybe 'anti fun' champs should be adjusted instead.

If you ban all those 'anti fun' champs, people will just make another champ 'anti fun' and go ham with that. And if there's more than 10, then 10 bans ain't gonna save ya.

There's a lot of complaints lately about playing against champions. I think the balance meta might want a looking-at if balance has resulted in this little fun.

Ichabod Kong2 votes

Taric is hardly anti-fun. Look at his attire! Fabulous... Taric

Voluug132 votes

''taric''

''antifun''

What is this, a post made by a Riven main?

RISE Shlack1231 votes

Well, if you've ever been dove at lvl 6 because of Taric ult, you'd know the feels.

Embertine2 votes

223 votes for but only 36 upvotes. . . .some people are forgetting to upvote.

EvilMerodach2 votes

I'm for 10 bans, but not because 'too many op champs.' There are always gonna be op champs, and tiers of op champs. You ban one wave of them next wave takes over. Unless we have like 110 bans, that's not going to change. But 1 ban per person just seems fair and symmetrical and whatnot. Velkoz Plus if you're 1st/2nd pick you don't get that bad feeling of 0 control over bans..

Calabok2 votes

Nope none nicht nein

Lowvyr1 votes

The amount bans doesn't really change anything. If you ban all the anti-fun champs, there will then be another set of anti-fun champs and everyone would complain and eventually there would be no playable champs. The entire roster would be banned every game. If you ban the most op thing, the next thing under it becomes the most op so you have to ban it. No matter how many bans you have there will always be anti-fun champs. You can get rid of the biggest sources of cancer and aneurysms but you can never get rid of them all.

Biff Manly6 votes

I'd argue "why have bans AT ALL" to that. This is less about balancing the game ourselves (because we all know Riot has no idea how to) and more about giving each player an input on it. This is the first season where I think bans aren't cancer thanks to new champ select, it used to be one person with three bans and you had to pray he wasn't an asshole. If each player gets one ban, 1st pick won't feel like such a liability, as you'll be able to remove one champ you KNOW is a hard counter to the one you want to play, at least.

Leetri1 votes

Bans are meant to prevent your opponent from doing or countering certain strategies. Say if you're gonna play Kog'Maw and build a team around that you'd ban champions capable of diving and killing Kog'Maw, like Zed or LeBlanc. Of course, no one bans that way and instead ban whatever the pros have told them to ban.

Biff Manly6 votes

If you want to create a team built around a strategy like that, you may want a premade. You can't just lock Kog and throw out "plz everyone peel for me thx"

Everyone would have to plan it first, and that's just not possible in the 10 seconds everyone has to lock in their bans.

Happy Effect1 votes

While I'd love this, I think it would completely change the face of competitive play.

Yura May Zing1 votes

How? Be more specific?

HazyCloud72 votes

For one, banning out specific players would be more feasible. And we'd basically never see certain players on certain champions. With 5 bans nobody will ever allow Bjergsen to get Azir or Zed for example.

RISE Shlack1231 votes

On the flip side, if Bjerg can't work around those bans, his pool is too small. If a team focus bans one opponent, they leave the rest if the opposition with power picks. You should never be in a position where you can be banned out of the game.

HazyCloud71 votes

I'm not speaking in terms of his effectiveness. Bjergsen's champion pool is bigger than any other mid in NA, but there's a certain novelty to getting to see a pro player play their signature champions.

RISE Shlack1231 votes

Right, of course there is novelty to this. I agree, actually. But I also strongly feel the game needs the 10 bans in total because the health and variety of the game as a whole is in jeopardy. There are so many champions, yet we have the same ban count as we did when that last increased it to 6 total bans. And we've had nearly 100 champions added to the game since that time.

Plus, nothing entertains me more than a pro player being forced to play a pocket pick and then dumping on the enemy team because they weren't ready for it. I know the example doesn't fit perfectly, but I loved watching P1 beat TSM with Rengar. You never see it, and TSM got beat because they didn't know how to answer it. And it was brilliantly entertaining, and I'm a TSM fan.

When it comes to watching the LCS, I get really sick of seeing the same 2-3 champions in each role every game. It will be nice to see pros have to dig a little deeper and break out something fresh every now and again instead of picking their best stat-check champion that wasn't banned this game.

RISE Shlack1231 votes

Of course it would. And as someone who is tired of seeing Gragas and Rek'sai in every damn game, I welcome this change. It would make watching LCS more entertaining. And that's the reason the LCS even exists - entertainment.

Sammystorm1 votes

My problem with adding more bans is that it won't change anything. Banning "anti-fun", "easy win", or "op" champs isn't how the ban system is suppose to be used. Banning is suppose to be limited and strategic. Adding more bans makes it so that their is a bigger list of champions that no one gets to play. It also gets rid of a lot of the trade off during the ban phase and lets organized teams ban entire strategies. More bans is not a very good idea for the competitive health of the game.

Glîtchy2 votes

{quoted}

My problem with adding more bans is that it won't change anything. Banning "anti-fun", "easy win", or "op" champs isn't how the ban system is suppose to be used. Banning is suppose to be limited and strategic. Adding more bans makes it so that their is a bigger list of champions that no one gets to play. It also gets rid of a lot of the trade off during the ban phase and lets organized teams ban entire strategies. More bans is not a very good idea for the competitive health of the game.

So banning 10 outta 131 champs is heavily limiting?

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/scsc.gif

Sammystorm1 votes

Yes it is actually. You can ban out most of the viable adc's for example or on the other extreme you can have the same top 10 champions banned every game and never get to play your favorite champion because of this. I don't think it is worth the cost of adding problems just to get more bans. Honestly it is more a balance issue if their are that many must ban champions in the game. I don't think I have ever had a time where I have needed to ban more then 4 or 5. Usually I only need to ban 2-3.

It is posts like this one that got us dynamic queue and every one saw how well that turned out.

Bobloser35551 votes

each team has 5 bans if both teams want to ban adcs so be it nothing wrong with it.

More from Gameplay

3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay764 comments
7,167
votes
3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay156 comments
3,510
votes
UPVOTE FOR URF
Gameplay606 comments
2,440
votes
Yes plz.
Gameplay456 comments
1,721
votes
3 Refunds per season, up vote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay114 comments
1,716
votes
When is ANYONE at riot going to address the awful new player experience?
Gameplay634 comments
1,383
votes

More by Be A Squirrel

J:null account
[ARCHIVED] Fantasy LCS0 comments
2
votes