More bans would be alright but...

Irelia Bot·Oct 29, 2016·1 votes·324 views

only if it is done in a way that has some of the bans being reactive (after some champs are picked) instead of proactive (before any champs are picked.)

If you are wanting to add more bans just for the sake of having more bans then you are not really doing anything besides increasing the size of the perma banned pool. Making it preemptive will only increase the number of champs who get in a "perma banned" situation from about 8 to about 14 taking turns getting banned. I want to see people banning Janna and Thresh because they will screw over a team comp that is already being made or banning Cait because the enemy team already has the makings of a good siege comp.

4 Comments

Ozzie StormOct 29, 20161 votes

That's what is hopefully gonna happen in competitive play. Unfortunately for casual low ranked players, unless you're in a team that plays stragetically, the increase in bans would just do that, increase the bans.

RivuoOct 29, 20161 votes

If a champ is permabanned because the 5 ban system then there is something wrong with that champ

Irelia BotOct 29, 20161 votes

you mean rox tingers play support MF and no one wants to deal with that on their team?

People tend to be sheep in this game.

Some of the champs that are popular are over preforming while some are not and the bans tend to be what people think is being played a lot more then what is actually a worthwhile ban.

I want to see people actually rewarded for banning out synergy or couynters to themself after the fact instead of it all having to be done before.

Say someone wants to play Ahri but they don't want to play it against Zed because they can play better options against Zed and Zed does not seem like he is worth banning out before any picks happen since other options could easily deal with Zed. They could pick Ahri right before some bans to insure they don't have to face Zed by banning him right after without having to use a preemptive ban on him.

Stop pretending like this kind of reactive ban can not and will not be applied to ranked.

RivuoOct 29, 20161 votes

[{quoted}](name=Irelia Bot,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=ncJyyaiw,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2016-10-29T02:46:35.627+0000)

you mean rox tingers play support MF and no one wants to deal with that on their team?

People tend to be sheep in this game.

Some of the champs that are popular are over preforming while some are not and the bans tend to be what people think is being played a lot more then what is actually a worthwhile ban.

I want to see people actually rewarded for banning out synergy or couynters to themself after the fact instead of it all having to be done before.

Say someone wants to play Ahri but they don't want to play it against Zed because they can play better options against Zed and Zed does not seem like he is worth banning out before any picks happen since other options could easily deal with Zed. They could pick Ahri right before some bans to insure they don't have to face Zed by banning him right after without having to use a preemptive ban on him.

Stop pretending like this kind of reactive ban can not and will not be applied to ranked.

They said that competitive banning and solo queue banning will be handled differently. There will still be tactical banning in competitive games i dont think you have to worry about it.