Boards›Gameplay

Banning Order Needs to be Revised. Here's Why...

Mister Modesty··30 votes·1,899 views

Okay, so the way we used to experience champion select left a lot of privilege to the person who picked first. A- First person chose all the bans B- First person was usually guaranteed their role -This led to the term "pick order", which doesn't seem to apply anymore: Now we have a system that assigns us to a pre-determined role, so there is no more "pick order". The person who picks first could be given an undesired role- okay, that's fine. But let's get into the banning system.

When we had the "pick order" system, people who were last in line had to suffer playing the roles that are left. This really seemed to create a disadvantage for players further down the line. But, the "role placement" system flip-flopped the consequence entirely. I'm going to start by stating my opinion: I think the First 3 players should get the ban election. Why? Well- the last players don't need them. They get to watch all the champions being selected, and choose accordingly. The person who picks first is going in completely blind. So the person who is last gets to ban a champ they don't like, ensuring some advantage, then gets to choose a champ after seeing everyone else's. This is a double-advantage when it comes to counter-play. So, to even the scales- if we allowed the First 3 players to ban, then there would be some security for their champ selection. The players further down in line can simply watch who everyone else is picking- so there's no absolute reason they need to ban.

40 Comments

z14GaKI7TO11 votes

Yeah im not sure why the last 3 ban instead of the first 3. The lower people usually get counterpick.

Mister Modesty1 votes

If I'm Summoner 5, I'll ban a champ recommended by Summoner 1. It only makes sense that way. The last thing I want is for my team to cascade in counters.

Vistha Kai3 votes

You are in minority, since most people will ban the champion they dislike, regardless of how underpicked or actually weak that champion wouldn't be and whatever others said.

Nameless Voice6 votes

I always feel at a real disadvantage when I'm first pick. I know I'll get countered, and don't even get to ban.

The supposed advantage of being firstpick is that you get to grab whichever OP champion is the most-contested and not banned - but that doesn't apply to people who prefer to actually play the champions they're good at rather than the FotM.

Mister Modesty1 votes

With the "pick order" system, first pick was an advantage. You could pick that OP champ, and just sit comfortably along with 3 bans to secure your position.

But, with the "role placement" system first pick is always a random role. If your first pick is Support, you need to hope they can trade champs if you want that nice Top lane powerhouse.

And it seems like they allowed the Last 3 ban because the extreme disadvantage of being Last pick in the "pick order" system. But the "role placement" system kind of neutralized that already. Allowing more than one person to ban is a great idea- but leave it to the First 3.

Jayrett1 votes

since the bans happen before anyone picks a champ, I don't see any difference in the bans being given to the first 3 or last 3.

Spicy Rice1 votes

The difference is bans are meant to help you deal with potential counters. For the first pick, they dont jave any chance to deal with their counters. On the otherhand, last pick gets to watch everyone elses picks and choose accordingly

Vistha Kai1 votes

You completely missed OP's point.

Unless you trade(unlikely Plat and below) you are going in blind asking to get counterpicked.

Before the first pick was the most desired place. You got to pick whatever the hell you wanted and ban most if not all possible counters.

Now you have to beg to either trade, ban or change role entirely.

Elphrihaim4 votes

imho, each player should just have their own ban.

(bans 6 -> 10)

It would kind of suck time-wise, but I think it works nicely.

Mister Modesty1 votes

I don't know, I think 6 bans is enough. Even with 6 bans a game, certain champions have 40+% ban rates. If you had 4 more bans, some of these champs would practically disappear from the game all together.

Astôlfo1 votes

No, that would be a terrible idea.

Elphrihaim1 votes

{quoted}

No, that would be a terrible idea.

Ah, but why?

How is it bad?

I mean, obvious reasons why it is bad include:

a- needing 20 champions instead of 16 to start ranked/draft play b- decreases probability of players being able to play the champion they want c- makes it possible for a team to ban an entire subsection of champions or eliminate all enablers of a strategy

Positives:

a- everybody having a ban makes the gameplay feel more fair b- everybody having a ban removes the confusion behind "am I banning or picking" that a lot of players have fallen victim to [I say this from experience] c- if there's something you just refuse to put up with, you can refuse to put up with it 100% of the time

some may argue that my positive c is also a negative and I think that that is a valid statement, but that it is so positive a scenario that the small negativity of interaction denial is fine.

If a player can't work something out with their team such that they have a champion they are comfortable on, I would say that's indicative of an error on the designer's end to make the play experience for the player; or on the player for not being willing to (try to) expand their comforts within the genre.

But those are just the reasons that I remember-- what do you personally think on the matter?

Astôlfo1 votes

Because banning was never meant to eliminate meta champions or champions people hated on/QQ'd about/didn't want to play against. It was meant to ban champs that were bad or counters for your teamcomp. Of course, almost no one in Normals or low ELO really makes comps in the first place, and everyone QQs about some 2 dozen different champs, so they usually ban those instead. Out of the reasons you listed, C is the biggest problem out of them, A/B are more minor.

How does more bans make a game feel more fair? If anything, it's less fair because people would just ban more QQ champs or champs they don't want to learn how to play against or ban an entire section of them. B isn't a problem if people can just read the text of what it says before they pick. C shouldn't be something that can happen. You either learn to deal with it, or don't play. Simple as that. And no, it's not a positive scenario in any case. It's just encouraging the former idea of what I mentioned (banning QQ champs/banning stuff they personally hate on/etc) and encouraging being lazy.

If they can't work something out and they're not completely brand new to the game, unless someone either troll bans their pick or enemy team snipes them unintendedly, they really shouldn't have that problem. Literally the only way that problem could occur is if they're just lazy or stubborn and don't want to expand past their comfort zone. That's not the designer's problem. Designers aren't meant to baby-feed everyone everything.

Sorry if I came off as aggressive, I just go through this kind of argument/debate posts about stuff I really don't believe in so many times I get tired of it. Most of the time, they also have no actual points besides "WELL I DON'T LIKE IT SO BAN" or such. Kudos to you for actually having a decent amount of reason. ^^

Myrmiron4 votes

I agree, good thinking! Also I think Riot spread the bans to multiple players so that with the new "Pick intend" feature trolls who happen to have gotten first pick don't hold so much power.

Weasel Kensei4 votes

This would matter more if we wernt forced to ban the OP BROKEN FLAVOR OF THE MONTH champs.

Really, bans for counter picks are nice, but a lot of the time you just have to ban the strongest champ in the entire game, or pick them yourself.

I agree though, picking say - Sion for top, probably means getting a Riven or ADC flopping around all over the place meaning you miss most of your skills and get harassed off most of your farm.

While it makes sense, a ban to help avoid being counter picked so hard, the flavor of the month balance needs to be addressed as well. When Xin was broken OP stupid as hell, and a player got first pick.... they got Xin, Kog broken as hell, first pick got Kog, Uyder broken as hell... first pick Udyr. So giving those picks bans too is bad. They already got the broken OP to hell champ, no need to let them ban counters.

First we REALLY need balance, then I think first three could reasonably get bans.

Rain NT3 votes

Agreed feels bad when youre first pick top, but you cant even ban counters lmao xD

ChaoticPinecone3 votes

I disagree. I think the last 3 should get bans because it preserves balance and promotes teamwork. If you really want a ban as first pick, you should ask your team. Just like if you want a highly contested champ but youre last pick, you should ask your team.

Why should you get first pick to secure contested champions and have all the bans? Right now there is a balance of power. The first 2 can secure picks. The last 3 get bans.

Mister Modesty2 votes

There is no contest. People are assigned their roles before they select a champion. Have you played the new season?

ChaoticPinecone4 votes

contested champions not contested roles.

Like i said, the first 2 can secure picks, the last 3 get bans. It has nothing to do with assigned roles.

Spicy Rice1 votes

The first 2 are also gonna get the shit countered out of them, since they are picking blind

ChaoticPinecone2 votes

Getting a later pick doesnt mean youre immune to getting countered. Blue side last pick can get countered, and may be forced to pick blind.

This idea is just greedy. You just want the power to ban out your counters while first picking the broken champs. There should be a balance of power - you want that first pick Udyr? Then be prepared to have a Janna on the enemy team. First pick has a lot of power in dictating what champions are played. Allow last pick to do the same by influencing what the first-pick can choose.

Spicy Rice1 votes

Theres a difference say, with picking udyr first rather than last (even on blue side). Fist pocking udur means the enemy team has 5 slots they can use to make your life miserable. Last picking udyr makes it so then there is 1 slot that can screw you.

ChaoticPinecone1 votes

and picking Udyr allows you to control the pace of the game. Either the enemy plays a lot of disengage or plays super safe for 30 minutes. And then has to pick a strong splitpusher so they can 1v1 you, or else youll just take their nexus.

And it means the enemy team cant pick the 55% winrate Udyr.

Spicy Rice1 votes

Udyr was just an example. You can replace him in my statement with any champion. Teemo, bard, galio, aatrox, ashe, azir, yasuo, karma, cassiopea, kassadin etc..

ChaoticPinecone1 votes

Thats exactly my point. First pick Teemo or Ashe requires the enemy to adjust their playstyle or find ways to deal with their unique mechanics, as well as denying that pick for the enemy team. If youre first pick, you dont have to pick such a niche champion that easily countered. Youre free to play a safer champion, like Lucian/Ezreal or Nautlius. If you want to pick a counterable champ, thats your prerogative.

I still dont see why first pick should also get first ban. Think of it from someone in summoner 5 spot. You would have zero power in dictating the champ select until after everybody else has what they want. Id like some influence in the pick/ban before the 6 bans and 8-9 other champions are chosen.

Mister Modesty1 votes

Last pick has more power than they need. They are the anchor selection. And how is it "greedy" when I can just as well land myself as Summoner 5 as easily as being Summoner 1? Even if I was Last pick, I would think the ban decision should go to First Pick. If my ally gets countered, that hurts me.

As Last Pick, I'm satisfied with tying everything together. I like being Last Pick because all the security. I know I'm not facing a champion I hate because I banned the champion (unless First Pick suggests a ban), I know my Champion will work well with the team because I know who they're all using, and I can work well against the enemy team because I know who they're using as well.

Being First Pick is a nightmare- you start the pace, and now you have nothing to cushion your decision except the bans from people who are much less likely to get countered. Then you get those lobbies where someone will ban your champ because you got the role they wanted. And you could just not choose a champ until it's your turn to pick- but that's counter-productive- then they might ban your champ simply for not knowing.

ChaoticPinecone1 votes

Its greedy not because of the chance of getting the pick, but the power of your pick order.

Summoner 1-2 have more power in the champions that they get to choose first and the way they want to set up the team. Summoner 3-5 have more power in the champion they dont want seen in the game. When you put all the power into the earlier picks, summoner 5 has zero power to influence the picks in champ select (aside from asking really nicely).

If you want to ban out a counter for your first pick, youre free to do so. But when I'm last pick, i like having some influence in pick-ban before the 6 bans and 8-9 other champions are chosen.

Mister Modesty1 votes

I rarely see different roles request the same champion. The greatest stand off I know of is Mid or Support champs like Lux or Morgana. So- the fact that your role is determined kind of secures your champion selection already. If I get Jungle, the chances of someone else wanting my champion are slim.

Uiraya3 votes

Why don't we do what needed to be done years ago and make it five bans?

FortisDominus2 votes

this was one of those problems with the game i always thought about, but never made a thread about it because i didnt think many people would agree, i fully support op

La Barbotte2 votes

how about all having one ban (5 per team, riot please)

Spoofghoul2 votes

Dude why would you want the first 3 people to have a ban??? i ahve a better idea

give everyone a ban

Mister Modesty1 votes

I think the largest problem with that is ban rates. We already see some champions with over 40% ban rates. If you add another 4 bans to each game, some of these could jump up to almost 60%- (66% more bans, might mean 66% increased ban rate). I think the new system is geared to help people get the champ they want to play. Many champs can play two roles, so you have the option of picking two roles your champ can do. If you hand out more bans- people will never get to play their champs.

Elphrihaim1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Son of Kolrath,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=gZMiVyjI,comment-id=00100000,timestamp=2016-03-13T19:45:19.161+0000)

I think the largest problem with that is ban rates. We already see some champions with over 40% ban rates. If you add another 4 bans to each game, some of these could jump up to almost 60%- (66% more bans, might mean 66% increased ban rate). I think the new system is geared to help people get the champ they want to play. Many champs can play two roles, so you have the option of picking two roles your champ can do. If you hand out more bans- people will never get to play their champs.

OR OR OR

MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE

Riot could fix the problems that CAUSE those champions to have such ridiculously high ban rates.

ThePartyLeader1 votes

It's too keep champ select as engaging as possible so people have less time to afk inbetween actions so less people afk so queues should clear faster.

DREADN0UGHT1 votes

The order in which the bans are distributed is entirely meant for AFK checking to be layedout evenly.

Beldair1 votes

If i'm banning, i usually ban someone that counters one of the 2 that can't ban.

cmd011 votes

First pick has the highest chance of getting their champion. Last three can ban unwanted match ups. Sounds like a fair trade off to me.

GenghisEmo1 votes

Pick Order still makes sense. Get supp, hey, you pick first. Get Mid ^_^

Noticed this has been happening more. Saw several ADCs and Top-laners just get their primary or preferred and leave last pick with supp.

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 Mister Modesty

How do you track your Honor progress?
Gameplay151 comments
48
votes
MR Build for the Item: Bami's Cinder
Gameplay23 comments
26
votes
Thresh "In the Flesh" skin
Concepts & Creations10 comments
18
votes
Riot, can we expect the Taric rework in 6.7 or before?
[ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous87 comments
15
votes
Shurima-themed Thresh Skin: Warden of the Sands
Concepts & Creations9 comments
14
votes
I can't buy Aurelion Sol- Says "Unavailable"
Report a Bug9 comments
11
votes