How would you feel if each player on each team got one ban?

Rebonack·Jun 11, 2015·167 votes·5,593 views

Good?

Bad?

Ugly?

152 Comments

TomA3XJun 11, 201515 votes

They'd have to change ranked to force you to have ~20 champions before you can play it.

Edit: You can downvote all you want, it's a fact.

RebonackJun 11, 201588 votes

{quoted}

They'd have to change ranked to force you to have ~20 champions before you can play it, instead of the current 10.

It sure would be awful if people had to get a bit more experience playing the game before diving into Ranked.

TomA3XJun 11, 201519 votes

It's all very well to say that, but after leveling your account to level 30 you have what, 30k IP?

Even if you only bought all the 1350 champions, you could only buy 22, and I don't even think there are that many.

You then have to take IP for runes out of that, that's a lot of games you need to play. People shouldn't have to pick all the 450 champions just because they want to play ranked. You should be able to pick your champions based on whether you like them or not.

It would make league pretty unfriendly for new players.

I want more bans though, but this is an issue you should address, not ignore.

MVDuneCatsJun 11, 201514 votes

It's more like 40k IP when you level from 1 to 30.

Besides that, you paint the picture of the game being "unfriendly" to new players because it doesn't allow them to 1) spend their IP exclusively on the 6300 IP champs that they want AND 2) unlock ranked play the moment they hit lvl 30 AND 3) not spend a single cent on the game.

Players can choose between spending two currencies in this game: their time, or their money. You make it sound like players shouldn't have to spend either. If someone decides League isn't for them because they feel that they shouldn't have to spend either their time or their money, I think that's fine. The game will be better with less of that kind of entitlement.

TomA3XJun 11, 20156 votes

I just finished leveling my first smurf, and i had 27000 IP at the end of it before I bought anybody or any runes.

That's not what I said, even if you wanted to buy 1 6300ip champion, you'd have to buy 450s to be able to play ranked. I find most of the old champions boring to play, surely it is up to me which champions I pick, rather than having to buy a bunch of random champions just to reach some stupid requirement.

It takes on average 365 games to reach level 30. That's no small amount of game time, I'm pretty sure no other game demands this amount of dedication before you hit the leaderboards. If you really think that spending 300 hours plus on a game before you unlock ranked mode is too little, then I'd like some of whatever you are smoking.

You've already spend a long time when you hit level 30, sure you need some time after that to hone your skills, but moving the goalposts is not really fair.

MVDuneCatsJun 12, 20154 votes

That's a ridiculously low amount of IP. Did you only play Intro level Co-op games? (After a certain level, you stop getting first win of the day bonus from intro/beginner level Co-op.) Did you buy XP boosts to speed up getting to 30?

As far as being able to pick the champions you want instead of buying cheap ones, you can do that. But there's a trade off. You either have to wait longer to get into ranked, or you buy champions with RP.

What you're asking for is not having to make a choice between trade offs. You want what you want when you want it without having to pay for it. But life rarely caters to that.

ChaoticPineconeJun 12, 20155 votes

the forums are already plagued with posts about wanting runes cheaper or champions to go on sale - imagine if they upped the number required to 'unlock' ranked.

Ive been playing since the Elise release, have 2000+ games in norms and 1800+ games in ARAM, plus a 500 or so ranked since season 3, played all the special game modes, and ive spent money buying champions (i probably bought like 20 of the 6300 IP when they go on sale). im still short 6 champions and nowhere near getting all the runes.

Grinding is extremely time consuming, and you shouldnt be expected to gind anymore than necessary to unlock game modes - especially when the in-game play has nothing to do with your grind (For example, WoW).

Thunder DreamssJun 12, 20152 votes

(After a certain level, you stop getting first win of the day bonus from intro/beginner level Co-op.)

You can always get first win of the day from beginner bots. There are a number of people who do a quick TT or Dominion bot game each day for this reason.

CrettJun 11, 201518 votes

{quoted} It would make league pretty unfriendly for new players.

It would only make ranked unfriendly for new players. Which I think is a good thing. Most people tell me they started ranked too early, and their experience was worse for their limited champion pool and what roles they were comfortable with. I was the same way.

Phoenix Kotori Jun 12, 20154 votes

{quoted}

It's all very well to say that, but after leveling your account to level 30 you have what, 30k IP?

Even if you only bought all the 1350 champions, you could only buy 22, and I don't even think there are that many.

You then have to take IP for runes out of that, that's a lot of games you need to play. People shouldn't have to pick all the 450 champions just because they want to play ranked. You should be able to pick your champions based on whether you like them or not.

It would make league pretty unfriendly for new players.

I want more bans though, but this is an issue you should address, not ignore.

People shouldn't be zerg rushing into ranked anyways. Good.

AMYS GRAVEJun 12, 20152 votes

They can do away with the level system altogether and make the requirement "have X champions at level Y mastery" and add the requirement that to play a champion in ranked you need to have them to level Y mastery. At least that way it is somehow tied to competence with your champion.

CrossetteJun 12, 20152 votes

The issue with having mastery is that...

Say the requirement is 10 champions or so with level 3/4 or higher mastery. You're a mid main, so your 10 champions are... Ahri Akali Annie Azir Diana Ekko Galio Heimerdinger Katarina You're fourth pick, so you don't get priority over your lane choice. First pick calls mid and autolocks Galio. There goes a top lane pick.

Then you realize that the only open roles are top and jangle. Having the great ranked system the game has, here are the bans. Ekko Annie Akali Diana Katarina Now, your only choices are these. Azir Heimerdinger Ahri Heimer can go top lane, but since when does that work? Azir has never gone top in my days of experience. Ahri... Just no.

So you're stuck with three off-meta choices just because you don't play a variety of champions. Doesn't that suck? And then you'll lose your games and go back into Challenged V like all of the other players who died to this system.

See the point? <3

AMYS GRAVEJun 12, 20152 votes

That's absolutely true, but currently people who only want to play one role only buy those champions anyway so this problem is shared between both the levelling system and the champion mastery system. Either way i feel like you are arguing that people should have a large enough champion pool to play ranked and in either system that could be enforced with a higher number... and i would be on board with that too.

EDIT: i just looked it up and the current minimum champions to play ranked is 16, in this scheme it would have to be raised to 20, although i would be in favor of going higher.

EDIT 2: also i was thinking about it and ahri top wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, she gets a heal on her passive for some sustain. not good by any means but you could passively farm out the laning phase and wait for teamfights.

CrossetteJun 12, 20152 votes

I would be ok with a raise to 20, by the current OR the mastery system, just because you would still be able to get into ranked at early level 30, but to obtain a champion you like you would have to go out and get the IP for them, maybe keeping some inexperienced players out of the ranked system (and probably making them enjoy the game more).

If everyone else's calculations are correct (using Sozan5's calculations, btw) then you could buy 5 or so 6300 champions. That means you would need 15 more champions (and hopefully some runes) to go into ranked play. I'll stress the point that people don't take their bronze tier ranked games lightly. I've been forced into a champion I have never played before, did nothing wrong and my ADC still yelled at me (because apparently he loved to take very stupid risks that led him to dying and I wasn't chasing him in as Leona). And I mean 4v2s. Yes, the mid laner and jangler both appeared and this Jinx thought he was god. At level 5.

Plus he was duo with the jangler and the jangler NEVER GANKED OUR LANE.

Also, another issue with the mastery system is the inability to counterpick. If you have mastery with 4 champions in every role, and you're fighting a (insert faceroll) mid lane you only have so many choices. You could be screwed over because you don't play (insert balanced) champion enough. At least in the current system you don't have to play the champion for 40 games to level them up for ranked. All I'm saying is the mastery system, when the requirement is raised to 20, would be decent but flawed. (then again, what system isn't flawed anymore) item 3070

chipndip1Jun 13, 20151 votes

Isn't that making a ton of assumptions? Seeing how you need to buy 450s, but you only listed ONE 450, I'd imagine you'd have Ashe, Garen, Nunu, Yi, and a few others. You're making a worst case hypothetical.

CrossetteJun 16, 20151 votes

My example was an example of the mastery system. If you main mid lane, then you aren't going to have mastery with a lot of 450 champions you might own because they don't play the role of mid lane.

chipndip1Jun 17, 20151 votes

Well, there's that. I know I can only do two roles successfully because of that specific mindset.

TurquoiseYoshiJun 11, 201514 votes

I like it for Solo Queue, but Team 5v5s should stay as they are, because the team should be able to agree on 3 bans.

IcyPepperJun 11, 201514 votes

It's certainly get rid of scenarios like:

First pick: ... Friend: hey can we ban (x)? Me: hey I'd like to support or jungle. Where you doing? Random: Top please Last pick: I can support First pick: bans a top laner Me: Hm, I could jungle with Vi or Nautilus. Friend: I guess that makes me mid or adc. Where you going? First pick: bans another top laner Random: Are you going top? I can mid or adc too. First pick: ... First pick: bans another top laner Me: So... dude? Friend: Yo Random: Hey man, are you reading us? Last pick: Come on, man. We wanted at least Katarina or sometihng First pick: autolocks Nasus First pick: takes smite

in game: First pick: "report jungler for not camping my lane" Enemy jungler: "take flash or actually use tp for something else other than farming more" Me: sighs Me: ganks bot

RebonackJun 11, 201511 votes

If Riot launched this, it probably wouldn't be a terrible idea to make all the 450ip champions automatically unlocked when you start the game.

And then stop putting them on the free rotation.

That would help with the champ count requirement.

MVDuneCatsJun 11, 20157 votes

If we're talking about new players with 0 unlocked champs, then the cheapest path to getting 20 champs is 12 x 450 IP champs plus 8 x 1350 IP champs. That's 16,200 IP. The grind from 1 to 30 is going to yield somewhere around 40k IP. So that's still plenty of IP left over for runes.

That's not even counting Garen, Trist and Alistar which can all be gotten for free. Include those freebies, and it's only 13,050 IP to unlock enough champs.

Onimus TerlainJun 12, 201510 votes

Riot obviously does not want bans to increase.

God knows why.

But I think it would be a good idea.

No more do you see someone say "Can you ban <champion>," gets ignored by the 1st pick and then that champion is selected.

Then you have to deal with that person bitching the rest of the game, regardless of how that enemy champion does.

I'd love if everyone had a choice of who to ban.

PrinceArchieJun 11, 20158 votes

Ugly, A lot of people would never get the champs they would want to play.

slippykittenJun 11, 201525 votes

{quoted}

Ugly, A lot of people would never get the champs they would want to play.

Maybe that would be because a lot of the champs they always want to play are the ones other people dont want to play against.

BorblandJun 11, 201522 votes

The world isnt just champs like Sejuani and LeBlanc you know.

FistOfSharkieshaJun 11, 20154 votes

Tough shit. I always get stuck with support or jg which I hate but I do my best to help the team and don't complain about it. Also I'll play champs I hate like Taric and Morgana to counterpick if I have to. It's not all about auto locking your favorite champ.

P0IS0N IVYJun 12, 20153 votes

Why playing a game in which you have to do something you hate? Isn't your time better spent elsewhere? :P

Don't play the champs you hate. There are over 100.

FistOfSharkieshaJun 13, 20151 votes

Because I play ranked and you don't win ranked by picking shitty champions and counter-picking yourself. I take one for the team in order to carry the team.

P0IS0N IVYJun 14, 20151 votes

Or you could just play ranked with champs you enjoy and get good with them. :D

There's no such thing as a shitty champ. Only a shitty player.

You don't need to take one for the team. There are many champs you can choose that are both fun and helpful towards your team.

FistOfSharkieshaJun 14, 20151 votes

Yeah but I'm talking about not picking an Ahri into a Yasuo. Not picking a Nasus into a teemo. You can be the best Darius player in the game and will still have like 40 hard counters that you can't possibly even touch.

I understand having a main in each lane is good, but if you know how to use a champion, you should counterpick with it if possible.

DreadlocksJun 11, 20157 votes

But this would cut my time to take a piss or let my dog out when im not first pick xD but yeah sounds good to me haha.

MacDthreeJun 11, 20157 votes

the only thing I can see this being an issue with... is the first pick going "I'M GOING MID TEEMO" and then 2nd pick banning teemo. or somebody saying "hey I am going support Bard" and 3rd pick banning bard... and so on. people would probably troll it. as with everything.

ResiakedrømJun 11, 20151 votes

yes thats a great way to win a game

MacDthreeJun 11, 20154 votes

there are people that don't care about your win lol

ResiakedrømJun 12, 20151 votes

so then they lose aswell. What difference does this make from the first pick just banning out everyones champions?

ChaoticPineconeJun 12, 20152 votes

because, if (some unknown number) % of the population does this, there is a 1/5 chance that they will get first pick.

if each person gets a ban, the probability of them affecting your game rises.

KeevalroyJun 12, 20157 votes

We've gone over this many times, each time it was a resounding "Yes this is a good idea." I'm still supporting it.

LuggJun 11, 20155 votes

I would love that. I could ban that one champion that always gives me problems.

XinotineJun 11, 20153 votes

Good.

TehNACHOJun 11, 20153 votes

I can't ban Leblanc AND Shaco now.

Pick my poison.

Oh god.

TurquoiseYoshiJun 11, 20154 votes

You can ask somebody else to ban one of them. I bet somebody would take that LB ban for you.

7ha7guy777Jun 11, 20153 votes

Instead of hoping the captain listens to suggestions on who to ban, each player could ban someone they don't want to play against

TwitchInMyPantsJun 11, 20153 votes

Its a good idea.

Riot won't ever do it tho because apparently 3 bans for 125 champions is enough. I mean considering both teams 10 bans isn't even 10% of the champions and a lot of characters aren't viable due to having several counterpicks that destroy them, something like this would be great for champion diversity in solo q. Tho apparently diversity = bad?

1 WingJun 12, 20153 votes

A lot of the time, I don't want to ban a champion first, because I suspect the enemy will ban it. If this change were made, I would want to take the ban first in case no one else on my team bans it, and that reduces the risk/strategy of the bans.

Players can communicate who they want banned. I see ban suggestions taken or discussed at least 90% of the time that suggestions are made.

Dunkrius2gJun 11, 20152 votes

Happy. Because you can't let the enemy slip by with a Katarina or a Ryze .

Rubbery SkrubJun 12, 20152 votes

I like the idea for solo queue but it sounds like an absolute nightmare for competitive play. You could ban some players out of the game with 5 bans per team.

Big Bang BobJun 12, 20152 votes

I don't play ranked, but the only thing I would be worried about is people not waiting to see who not to ban before banning.

Very Hard EngageJun 11, 20151 votes

it wouldn't be bad, but there would be obvious choices at the later ranks and people would be able to use it much too effectively. "i know that scarra has been streaming in these high quality games, weve played 4 in a row now, i think it would be wise to ban katarina - leblanc - viktor - kassadin - diana" and suddenly hes banned out every game.

alternatively just having 10 bans as a whole can create some crazy scenarios for people, it would also require lower ranks to have a much more diverse champion pool so they cant call top and their 3 top laners all happened to get banned, now what are they going to do? lose because they cant play riven/rumble/nasus? you would see a lot more players banned out without actually having been the target of said bans.

Voluug13Jun 11, 20154 votes

If Scarra ends up ''banned out of every game'' then its his fault for not expanding his roster. Plus they can do the damn same thing to an oponnent.

All I can see from more bans is good things: People will need to play other champion not only FotM, and thus gave a better understanding of the game outside the spoiledkits of the latters FotM, which in turn makes people better at the game in genral.

On the Pro scene, that means pro players will need to expand their roosters, try contigency plans and strats in case such a situation arrises, and in turn create new metas or reinforce others.

Riot could need to stop enforcing the meta after Pro players need other strategies that arent abuse the lattest FotM or ridiculous synergy.

Very Hard EngageJun 12, 20152 votes

{quoted}

If Scarra ends up ''banned out of every game'' then its his fault for not expanding his roster. Plus they can do the damn same thing to an oponnent.

All I can see from more bans is good things: People will need to play other champion not only FotM, and thus gave a better understanding of the game outside the spoiledkits of the latters FotM, which in turn makes people better at the game in genral.

On the Pro scene, that means pro players will need to expand their roosters, try contigency plans and strats in case such a situation arrises, and in turn create new metas or reinforce others.

Riot could need to stop enforcing the meta after Pro players need other strategies that arent abuse the lattest FotM or ridiculous synergy.

you always need to accept the fact that you could be banned out, if my top 5 champions were all taken away from me (10 would be extreme) i would need to have practiced on an at least 11 champions to be capable of handling such a scenario which defeats the purpose, im not enjoying league, id be playing league at the competitive level.

the only reason people dont play exclusively their 1 preferred champion, is because they dont always get that one champion 100% of the time, which is why they include some of their less favorite champions but still likeable/good with. what would occur is players could end up playing a champion they dont even like for the sake of the team in order to win, what fun is that? what if the enemy team bans a bunch of junglers? and suddenly sejuani, nautilus, maokai, gragas, pantheon get banned, now assassins have a free pass to run rampant in this game, enemy team picks zed mid and fizz jungle, what can you're team do without some targeted CC on your team, they focus banned those champions.