Thanks RITO for the ˝7-ban system˝

PokladnicaZla·Jun 11, 2017·2 votes·450 views

18 Comments

Hero NaofumiJun 11, 20172 votes

Whats the 7-ban system?

King of DemonsJun 11, 20173 votes

{quoted}

Whats the 7-ban system?

People that are too stupid to not ban the same champs every game will end up only having 7 bans instead of 10 due to duplicate bans.

PokladnicaZlaJun 11, 20171 votes

Umm,you ban champs that are either pick or lose.It's unavoidable not to have the same champion/s banned.

King of DemonsJun 11, 20173 votes

{quoted}

Umm,you ban champs that are either pick or lose.It's unavoidable not to have the same champion/s banned.

There are no pick or lose champs.

PokladnicaZlaJun 11, 20172 votes

Are you completely sure about that?

Remember season 3-4? When Gragas's ultimate did shitloads of damage? You either picked him and stomped or you banned him to not wreck. Cinderhulk Sejuani was pick or ban. Elise when I started playing around 2011/2012 was freaking strong pick in LCS.

There're always OP champions that are favored by the meta and are priority picks or bans. Currently Ivern,Lulu and Fizz take high ban priority in higher ELO,if not they're likely to get picked and make the game hell for the other team.

Asayake 5150glowJun 11, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Are you completely sure about that?

Remember season 3-4? When Gragas's ultimate did shitloads of damage? You either picked him and stomped or you banned him to not wreck. Cinderhulk Sejuani was pick or ban. Elise when I started playing around 2011/2012 was freaking strong pick in LCS.

There're always OP champions that are favored by the meta and are priority picks or bans. Currently Ivern,Lulu and Fizz take high ban priority in higher ELO,if not they're likely to get picked and make the game hell for the other team.

Look at their winrates - they clearly aren't pick or lose.

If they were, they'd have at least 70% winrates. Hell, by definition they'd have 100% winrates.

PokladnicaZlaJun 11, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=Cant Hold Me Now,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=m744ENkT,comment-id=000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-11T16:28:05.168+0000)

Look at their winrates - they clearly aren't pick or lose.

If they were, they'd have at least 70% winrates. Hell, by definition they'd have 100% winrates.

If you actually gave thought to what you wrote,you would know that only would apply to situations where X-champ is strong and ONLY played by people who have experience with X. The stronger X-champion the more people will play X and just pick him no matter the situations and experience.

Dont know about others,but after I buy a champ I always play a coop the get the feeling of delays/cast time and range.Some people dont even do that.

Besides that,if a champ were to reach such an apsurd winrate X would get nerfed asap (hotfix),like release Zyra for example

Asayake 5150glowJun 11, 20171 votes

{quoted}

If you actually gave thought to what you wrote,you would know that only would apply to situations where X-champ is strong and ONLY played by people who have experience with X. The stronger X-champion the more people will play X and just pick him no matter the situations and experience.

Dont know about others,but after I buy a champ I always play a coop the get the feeling of delays/cast time and range.Some people dont even do that.

Besides that,if a champ were to reach such an apsurd winrate X would get nerfed asap (hotfix),like release Zyra for example

Yeah, because if a champion becomes pick or lose, then they would be hotfixed. Which is why you're wrong.

PokladnicaZlaJun 12, 20171 votes

Pick or lose isn't as literal as it sounds. It means that the team picking champion X has a higher chance of winning,just because of the mere champion present.

Champions tend to get hotfixed with apsurd high winrates(which thankfully aren't common).

So,you're saying a a medium difficulty champion with 35% playrate and a 56% winrate would be balanced?

Asayake 5150glowJun 12, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Pick or lose isn't as literal as it sounds. It means that the team picking champion X has a higher chance of winning,just because of the mere champion present.

Champions tend to get hotfixed with apsurd high winrates(which thankfully aren't common).

So,you're saying a a medium difficulty champion with 35% playrate and a 56% winrate would be balanced?

You made it sound literal.

And while they're overpowered, it's still often possible to win against them.

I've played Irelia and Nautilus into Jayce when he was OP and come out ahead in lane, not to mention won.

PokladnicaZlaJun 12, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=Cant Hold Me Now,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=m744ENkT,comment-id=000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-11T16:28:05.168+0000)

Look at their winrates - they clearly aren't pick or lose.

If they were, they'd have at least 70% winrates. Hell, by definition they'd have 100% winrates.

Have you checked their winrates?

Pick or ban isn't literal. Have you checked their winrates and playrates through ELOs and games with played with X-champ?

King of DemonsJun 11, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Are you completely sure about that?

Remember season 3-4? When Gragas's ultimate did shitloads of damage? You either picked him and stomped or you banned him to not wreck. Cinderhulk Sejuani was pick or ban. Elise when I started playing around 2011/2012 was freaking strong pick in LCS.

There're always OP champions that are favored by the meta and are priority picks or bans. Currently Ivern,Lulu and Fizz take high ban priority in higher ELO,if not they're likely to get picked and make the game hell for the other team.

Ivern is annoying and so is Fizz. Lulu is something I would consider banning, yes.

No, they do not automatically win games. They don't have a 100% winrate. You can beat them.

Fizz especially since his nerfs is not something I would consider top tier anymore.

The system got pushed to personal preference.

NahuiJun 11, 20172 votes

7 is more than 6. What's the problem? You're the same kind of guy that complains that they don't get enough keys or boxes for free shit just for playing the game.

PokladnicaZlaJun 11, 20171 votes

Yeah

NahuiJun 11, 20171 votes

Anyways, for the constructive post, the system is meeting a compromise. We keep asking for 10 bans, but that's honestly just us wanting to ban out a meta or something like that. But 6 was too little. So they met us half way. We can ban 10, which in my experience tends to happen, or we can ban between 5 (unlikely that both teams ban the exact same champions) and 10. In my experiences, the lowest I've gone is 8 bans. Still better than 6. 7 seems to be an arbitrary number you picked.

ParvatiShallowJun 11, 20171 votes

As long as I get to ban what I want I am happy. No more begging my team to ban since I can always ban what I want guaranteed. More bans does not mean better just more flexible and choice bans.