@RiotScruffy People who want many more champions are…

ofart · 2016-09-14T17:27:03.268Z

>{quoted} We hope for 6-8, but quality comes before quantity. So far 4 this year and we have more coming. I totally disagree with the previous poster who was disappointed by 4 champions per year. 4 is already a lot and a balance nightmare given the large existing roster (Riot has done a good job though). It isn't sustainable and will make the game unworkable from a balance perspective if it persists. It's already impossible for Riot to test and balance every comp. permutation. It becomes exponentially harder as you add more champions. Also, what exactly is the need for more champions when there is so much of the roster left unviable for higher level play? If the whole roster was equally viable, that would be like adding 25 more champions in one stroke. Consider more champions like adding new ingredients to a dish. Having just a few ingredients may be too bland but if you continue adding more and more, it eventually becomes an unrecognizable culinary mess and is made worse by each new addition. People who want many more champions are myopic and not thinking about the game's long-term health - at least if you want it to be a competitive endeavor and not a joke like NeoPets. Personally, I'm only interested in a competitive game and self-improvement. In fact, that's why I hated the idea of DQ (where some guys play with 4 friends and get the same rank as a solo player despite different skillsets). If I don't consider this a balanced and stable game which lets me isolate my own performance, I wouldn't play it anymore. I already played it far less this season and part of it is DQ but the other is that I can't accurately assess improvement when the game is so incredibly unstable. Way too many core game elements are changed every few months. One's performance 5 patches ago may have little correlation to current performance. Of course, this matters in a much more serious way for pro-teams and pro-gamers but I think everyone wants to feel that their mastery is growing in a non-artificial way when investing a lot of time in an activity. I've even started some guides a few months ago and worked on them every week or two only to eventually give up because I basically had to rewrite them after 2 months due to how much the game changed. I value games like chess or poker where there is incredible complexity/room for growth but also a stable ruleset so that your improvement doesn't get erased every year.

ModEchoingSep 14, 201619 votes

I'd just like to voice my support for limited available blocks of champions at some point much like M:TG's blocks, since that sounds like it'd be pretty cool for any lore interaction.

RiotRiot ScruffySep 14, 201627 votes

Cool, I too think that there are legs to that type of system. We may want to test it in a more "bubble up" kind of way though to see if players like it. Basically, don't force it, but see if given the option, players opt in.

Angry MonsterSep 14, 201684 votes

I really do not like the idea of cutting out champs. Riot has moved more and more into saying being a one trick, anything you do will punish a one trick.

Hell it would punish a player like me that has 5 really good champs, Well they are not in the block so to bad.

Also why would i pick up skins now? I will not be able to use them when i want.

Malicious MetalSep 14, 201627 votes

This.

Some people like myself would be totally screwed over by this kind of system.

ZacsterSep 14, 20163 votes

[{quoted}](name=Malicious Metal,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=yQZV2NOt,comment-id=00030000000000000000,timestamp=2016-09-14T20:46:41.276+0000)

This.

Some people like myself would be totally screwed over by this kind of system.

Can't agree more man.

AD EzrealSep 14, 20166 votes

Same. We're already getting punished by getting no box drops. :C

RiotRiot ScruffySep 14, 201660 votes

Yes, definitely we think there is a TON of risk to this (aka why we're not actively pursuing it).

It's a historical promise of LoL that you can have a "main" and play them when you want.

ModCaptainMårvelousSep 14, 20161 votes

Here's an idea:

Two ranked ladders.

Right now, Hearthstone has two styles of play not counter auxiliary modes. Wild and Standard. Why not have a "Wild" Format where you can play any champion you want and a standard format which fits Riot's restrictions. The only possible problem I forsee is a standard format vs. wild format meaning different rewards but it could also be something that plays to a strength (IE: Victorious Wild Champion for Wild Ladder, Victorious Standard Champion for standard ladder).

MeritasSep 15, 20161 votes

The idea is good, but Riot doesn't like the idea of splitting their playerbase in two separate ladders.

ModCaptainMårvelousSep 15, 20161 votes

Ironic considering surveys sent out to players ask if they want queues for Dynamic and Solo for ranked.

NineTailedMysticSep 15, 20162 votes

Both ladders would play together still, just be ranked differently. What you're saying is there'd be two completely different queues.

SwollwonderSep 14, 201632 votes

Judging by how the community reacted when you took gangplank out for about 3 days I'm thinking this isn't even remotely going to go down well.

XeroKimoSep 15, 20162 votes

The community now would want him out longer than 3 days now......along with yasuo and riven and all insert annoying/unfun champs to play against

BIAKabooseSep 15, 20161 votes

Gotta love that pool of 0 champions that aren't annoying to play against in most games they exist in am I right?

DISCLAIMER: I was originally going to say 3 champions, but then I couldn't actually think of a single champion that wasn't super annoying in one way or another.

SpoofghoulSep 15, 20162 votes

There are alot of champions i enjoy playing against

Sion who happens to be my main is also a champion i enjoy playing against, everyhting he does can be played around but if he plays well he can hurt you alot too

Its always an interesting laningfase where you have to stay on your toes to avoid his powerfull attacks, they are extremely telegraphed and take time to charge up to full power or have mechanics to empower them but you do know he will do so and have to act accordingly

It's like fighting a raidboss, its kind of fun.

too bad he falls off so hard later in the game both damage and tankwise something should be done about that.

Diananmen SquareSep 15, 20169 votes

Please try to avoid cutting out champions. A good amount of the community (especially at higher ELOs) are very hardcore mains or complete one-tricks (I'm not very high ELO, but I do have 400 Ranked Kindred games, my second most played being Anivia at 20). Removing possible picks would ruin the game for us, the players that enjoy League of Legends by one-tricking.

aspects1Sep 15, 20162 votes

your name...

LandorinSep 14, 201610 votes

Yea, I'm relatively certain this would straight up kill the game for a lot of people for not much gain. Really surprised it's even under consideration.

WarWorkSep 14, 201615 votes

Things like:

Limited draft modes (like original DOTA RD)
Rotating sets of champs that are "in play" (like things that Magic The Gathering does with cards and sets)
Shifting some more of the "make new champ" resources into big VGU style updates
Other crazy ideas like - In a best of 5 every time a champ is picked, they are cut from the pool for the rest of the series

I REALLY like the last, the last one seems particularly interesting it would make pro play a lot more interesting to watch (cuz i'm pretty sure we still gonna see lots of RekSai unless she gets a small rework). But don't you worry this will exhaust a lot of pro players who will have to master a lot more champions? Plus i assume if you do this you're not making more than 3 bans. Also for a best of 5 I think banning them from the next 2 games would be fair.

RiotRiot ScruffySep 14, 201618 votes

Yea, I too think this would be really fun to watch. It might push the "get good at a bunch of different champs" element too far though.

SmithneySep 14, 20165 votes

Speaking about champion variety at pro level, what about reworking the current pick & ban system? Perhaps a more advanced snake draft could work, especially since most champions are already getting their strategic identities and niches set in place.

SAGE: Thanks you for the answer.

RiotRiot ScruffySep 14, 201618 votes

We are actively working to improve the pick ban system for both pro and non pro play.

pinkshrubSep 15, 20163 votes

Would an event like MSI/3rd Party tournament/Or even the Challenger Series be an okay place to trial run something like this? I really like how the NFL runs new rules during the pre-season and all-star games to get a sort of legit take on rule changes. Having challenger series teams play best of 3s or holding open tournaments with this kind of alternative drafting system. I've thought of this idea before :D I think it would be fun, limiting to 2 games seems like a neat twist.

We4ponXSep 15, 20162 votes

{quoted}

Things like:

Limited draft modes (like original DOTA RD)

Rotating sets of champs that are "in play" (like things that Magic The Gathering does with cards and sets)

Shifting some more of the "make new champ" resources into big VGU style updates

Other crazy ideas like - In a best of 5 every time a champ is picked, they are cut from the pool for the rest of the series

I REALLY like the last, the last one seems particularly interesting it would make pro play a lot more interesting to watch (cuz i'm pretty sure we still gonna see lots of unless she gets a small rework). But don't you worry this will exhaust a lot of pro players who will have to master a lot more champions? Plus i assume if you do this you're not making more than 3 bans. Also for a best of 5 I think banning them from the next 2 games would be fair.

The problem with this idea is that some teams will get screwed out of a particular champion when the other didn't. Let's say one team picks Rek'Sai, wins the game, and then the next two games no one can pick her. Everyone considers Rek the top jungler right now and the second team just lost to it with no chance for redemption with the same champion. Seems imbalanced to me.

RexSaurSep 14, 201611 votes

{quoted}

I definitely agree with your core argument that more is not better. Over time we have been gradually shifting from TONS of new champs and 0 updates to less and less new champs -> more quality of new champs (and more updates).

Rough estimates off the top of my head: 2010 : 24 2011 : 24 2012 : 24 2013 : 8 2014 : 6 2015 : 5 2016 : like i said probably 6

This trend is definitely deliberate to focus on only making the few additions that will actually add something new and essential to the game.

A side point that you bring up about how managing 130+ champions is extremely complex and possibly reaching the ceiling of what is legitimately possible. We are constantly thinking about what systemic changes to the game we could or should make to make this a sustainable and scaleable future. Things like:

Limited draft modes (like original DOTA RD)

Rotating sets of champs that are "in play" (like things that Magic The Gathering does with cards and sets)

Shifting some more of the "make new champ" resources into big VGU style updates

Other crazy ideas like - In a best of 5 every time a champ is picked, they are cut from the pool for the rest of the series

These are very loose conversations at this point and we haven't found anything that we all agree is the right move for LoL, so don't expect that any of these are coming soon or in the pipe. Though I would appreciate and value your opinions/feelings on these types of directions.

Just please no rotating champs out, for the love of god, LoL is not a card game.

DecritSep 14, 20165 votes

I think he is talking about competitive. Having a main that you like being cut out from a tournament might feel shitty, but if that happens after it had its moment to shine and creates more opportunity for other champions it might be not that bad.

It is however an heavy-handed solution and i would not like to see that happen.

DrCyanideSep 14, 201610 votes

I'm strongly in favor of converting new champion resources to reworking older champions.

The other suggestion I have is to work extra hard on describing champions simply. Idealy, you should be able to stop cold turkey today, join a game of League three years from now, and between the champion select, the loading screen, and "minions have spawned" be able to know what your allies will want to with their champions and what your enemies will want to do with theirs, and how you can play around both.

You may say "three years is too long", but if Riot's really serious about League being a game people grow up with like a sport then it's honestly too short and being able to catch up on 10 years worth of changes should be the goal. You change this game every two weeks, and my friends with kids already can't keep up with the changes, picking up games that fit into shorter play sessions for now. You want them to play the game when their kids are ready for it, to help raise their kids with it, then you're going to need a way for them to get caught up quickly.

DarkRitualSep 14, 201632 votes

{quoted}

Shifting some more of the "make new champ" resources into big VGU style updates

Yes please?

I would like to see a year dedicated to reworking all the old champs who really need it instead of new champions. Morgana and Kayle aren't really in bad spots gameplay-wise, so they are never really high priority for gameplay updates, and thus low priority for complete reworks. They really really need new visuals, voiceover, and lore though, with minor kit adjustments. Urgot Aatrox Alistar DrMundo Evelynn Jax Mordekaiser Nunu Olaf Pantheon Swain Skarner Singed are all better candidates for a rework than Kayle Morgana though.

Like, can we have a year dedicated to fixing our current roster?

RiotRiot ScruffySep 14, 201630 votes

I am definitely a huge fan of fixing the old champs (worked on the update team for years). That said, I still think there is an experience offered from totally new champs that we wouldn't want to lose completely.

Going a full year without any new champs would make LoL lose some of that special excitement that keeps it vibrant.

hopeful4Sep 14, 201621 votes

Going a full year without any new champs

You dont need to go that far. Limit the champ releases to 2-3 per year until you fix all the current champions who have glaring health issues or are straight up worse versions than others. Isnt it worth it in the long term, with also all the benefits it will provide in the process (excitement for fully updated champs, more diverse pro play, satisfaction of people who main champs like Urgot who are unviable for healthiness reasons etc etc)

Honestly if releasing 2-3 less champs per year would mean 2-3 more mid/full level reworks then im ALL for it and i bet many others as well

333lomSep 14, 201613 votes

New champions are definitely one of the main reasons why I stuck with League and not with some other game. I think that's one of LoL's main characteristics, the ever-increasing pool of archetypal characters. It would be devastating to hear one day that the number has stopped, and would not increase anymore...

Great MutaSep 14, 20166 votes

Exactly. I hope someday league has 1000 champs. More champs > more ways to play > fresher match ups.

Nothing is more exciting for me than release day of a new champ.

New champs are one of the reasons I've been playing DOTA lately even though it's not the same. I like playing different characters.

ErablierSep 14, 20162 votes

Would the rework team ever do like a group of visual updates for champions who need visual,vo and lore updates but not really gameplay updates? (Ex:Kayle, Morg, Blitz, ect)

RiotRiot ScruffySep 14, 20168 votes

We used to do more of these but we found that their impact with players (from our surveys and metrics) was a lot lower than the ones that delivered the full package (gameplay, art, theme).

As we update stuff, everyone else moves up and up the list so someday, they will be our highest value choices.

WarWorkSep 14, 201610 votes

Could you re-do the survey or something, I like that we have to wait years to see these champions look like they fit in with the rest of league. I know champup is working hard and I think they are doing a great job. BUT I just dont think it's fair, esp for champs like blitz and morg who's kits are honestly okay to have to wait so long.

So far this is what the rework list looks like Warwick (2016) Galio (early 2017) Evelynn Urgot (probably 2017) Rammus Nunu Mordekaiser Amumu Blitzcrank Malphite Morgana Kayle probably 2018/9+

RiotRiot ScruffySep 14, 20166 votes

We actually do a recurring survey to learn a lot of things about how players feel about champions. Things like

"how much do you like this champ's gameplay?" "how much do you like this champ's art?" "how much does this champ need an update?"

BeardedLuchadorSep 15, 20165 votes

I've been playing Morde since Season 1 and I've never gotten one asking about him ;_;

Malicious MetalSep 15, 20162 votes

I feel ya.

Dogly GodSep 15, 20164 votes

Everyone forgets the Cho

DwarvenGiantSep 14, 20166 votes

This would be very interesting and is something I can see them doing eventually. At this rate, it will take them at least 2 or 3 more years to get to champs like Irelia, Shaco, or even Tryndamere, Volibear, Kayle & Morgana, who deserve some scale or form of a VGU as well, but aren't Urgot, Evelynn, Mordekaiser or Mundo (who probably need it more at the moment), so fully shifting their New Champs resources onto VGUs could solve this thing. More updates, but still done with quality.

######One thing I disagree about, though, is that Aatrox is a much better candidate for a Roster Update (Divers) than a full VGU of some sorts, because his visuals are up to par.

A good discussion to have, though, is, is it worth it, to shift all of these resources onto Champion Updates? I mean, there are probably a lot of people whose excitement as players, for being part of this game, at least partially comes from the hype and sense of freshness that completely new champions bring to the game. A lot of people might lose interest in the game, after a while with no new champions. Is it really worth it, though, having more new champs over VGUs? Or maybe it's the other way around? Would a year be enough for this kind of resource-shifting project? Is there even an "enough" in this kind of project? Should it continue for more than a year? What do you think?

Captain AishiSep 14, 20161 votes

Other crazy ideas like - In a best of 5 every time a champ is picked, they are cut from the pool for the rest of the series

I feel like this would be the best possible change to the competitive scene for league (I know I'd start watching it again if that were to be implemented at least) I was an avid watcher for all of S3 and S4 but completely stopped watching at the start of S5 because of how boring pro games have become to watch

LankPantsSep 14, 20162 votes

I'm just going to leave my essay response on the myriad of problems this would actually have if implemented into pro play

{quoted}

I don't see what the point of this is. You'd just end up developing a tier system where rank S champs are picked game one, rank A champs game 2 and so on.

You'd create a system where pick/bans are incredibly predictable as well, because if you're Red and you ban a champ out game 1 it becomes imperative that that champ stays banned every game. If you ever let let that ban slip then you have to try to fight a god-like champion with a far lower tier champ.

Of course you'd have no reason to let bans slip as Red side at least. There's no need for reactive bans. If the enemy team pulls out their secret Heimerdinger jungle (yes this happened) that you have no idea how to counter you don't have to worry about banning it. There are no reactive bans and with that a large amount of pick/ban strategy is lost. You lose value on unknown pocket picks because the enemy team doesn't have to ban them out or risk losing to a pick they can't play against. Sure it wins you a game, but currently unknown pocket picks can win you a series by forcing the enemy team to ban your random arse champ and play the rest of the series with a 1 ban disadvantage.

Additionally you are giving blue team a huge advantage in game 2. Let's say in game 1 and were banned out. These champs are valid picks in game 2. This means you create a scenario where blue team always wins the pick/ban phase.

Blue always gets to chose from what ever left over S tiers there are. For example

Blue bans Red bans Blue bans Red bans Blue bans (let's say) Red is now forced to ban a lower tier champ, we'll say for argument. Blue now gets to chose between and

And if Red bans or then Blue gets the other uncontested. If this sounds familiar that's because it's the scenario and were in during S5 worlds. Red lost bans because of their existence and as such were at an extreme disadvantage. This creates an extreme sum of pressure on Red side in the exact same way.

This creates polarised games which are decided on a single pick. You end up with a game of 'who carries harder, the Ashe who slipped or the Gnar who slipped' while the other 8 champions are relegated to supporting their vastly superior ally.

This also means that in round robin group stages where teams play best of ones their champ pools are entirely different to the best of fives in the bracket stage. You can a theoretical team who is the absolute best a tier A,B,C and D champs but worse at tier S champs than the rest of their group. This team could be the best in the world in games 2-5, that doesn't matter however because they aren't the best at game 1, and the round robin is simply 'play game one 6 times in a row'.

This also changes the dynamics of regions who play Bo2 vs Bo3 in groups. Regions who play Bo3 have to know how to play tier S,A and B champs in groups while Bo2 regions only need tier S and A.

Basically this sounds like a good, if somewhat cheesy idea until you actually think about the more in-depth ramifications this system would have on the game. Once you think about these effects it's one of the worst things you could do to pro play.

Chromatic EagleSep 14, 20167 votes

As a newer player, I'm wondering how you guys managed to produce 24 champions per year for like the first 3 years.

RiotRiot ScruffySep 14, 201622 votes

Put it in the game -> ship it.

Chromatic EagleSep 14, 20161 votes

So there were no attempts at testing it compared to the newer ones, or were their kits more simplistic?

Time42Sep 14, 201613 votes

Going by what FeralPony has said in the past, it was more a case of having to ship stuff quickly to avoid the company going bankrupt. :P

HigeSep 14, 20163 votes

they always had a test realm for those kind of stuff but the testing time was sooooo small that barely any feedback was actually flowing :P, I remember when Garen was released, they tested him LIVE hahaha.

I think what scruffy is trying to say is that there were barely any though as to kit synergy, theme and direction, as long as it was cool it was worth putting it in the game, kind of how fan made champions go :P even though, they did test champions for bugs and SOME balance (Release xin... Leblanc... Zyra... Twisted fate........) but as long as they looked cool and didn't break the game engine they were good to go.

AxxukaSep 14, 20164 votes

[{quoted}](name=Chromatic Eagle,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=yQZV2NOt,comment-id=0003001000000000,timestamp=2016-09-14T22:01:32.039+0000)

So there were no attempts at testing it compared to the newer ones, or were their kits more simplistic?

Brand didn't have a kit until 1-2 weeks up to his release. Just compare any 2010-2012 champion kit to a 2013+ champion. Kits or lore are much more complex and also more coherent. Look at champs like Zyra and Ahri, those were huge releases that worked well, but they didn't happen often... Now every champion is a big release and is unique to the game. A champion like Syndra could have been great but was released between Kha'zix and Rengar, two hard counterpicks at the time. We also get 2 months to appreciate and learn to play as/with/against said champs.

Look at lore releases like Gangplank, Taliyah, Lissandra... That kind of stuff would have been impossible to pull off with a champ coming every 2 weeks.

ofartSep 15, 20164 votes

{quoted}

I definitely agree with your core argument that more is not better. Over time we have been gradually shifting from TONS of new champs and 0 updates to less and less new champs -> more quality of new champs (and more updates).

Rough estimates off the top of my head: 2010 : 24 2011 : 24 2012 : 24 2013 : 8 2014 : 6 2015 : 5 2016 : like i said probably 6

This trend is definitely deliberate to focus on only making the few additions that will actually add something new and essential to the game.

A side point that you bring up about how managing 130+ champions is extremely complex and possibly reaching the ceiling of what is legitimately possible. We are constantly thinking about what systemic changes to the game we could or should make to make this a sustainable and scaleable future. Things like:

Limited draft modes (like original DOTA RD)

Rotating sets of champs that are "in play" (like things that Magic The Gathering does with cards and sets)

Shifting some more of the "make new champ" resources into big VGU style updates

Other crazy ideas like - In a best of 5 every time a champ is picked, they are cut from the pool for the rest of the series

These are very loose conversations at this point and we haven't found anything that we all agree is the right move for LoL, so don't expect that any of these are coming soon or in the pipe. Though I would appreciate and value your opinions/feelings on these types of directions.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to the community.

I've noticed the trend in champion releases. It makes sense for a more mature game and not just in terms of balance. New champions today are way more involved and tend to occupy a better-defined niche than LoL's first 50 champions. Riot's design philosophy is also more refined and new champions may need to meet game health criteria that didn't exist then. As much as some people desire, it's unrealistic for Riot to pump out 20+ champions a year like back then while maintaining these standards and not harming the game long term or making balance woes insurmountable. At some point, it also becomes unwieldy for a beginner. My first 6 months playing this game was mostly just understanding what each champion did and how they functioned.

I haven't pondered other balance solutions but I did suggest that balancing around high-level play is logical and far more manageable than trying to tackle every segment. I was making a more extreme argument there and I know the idea bothers many players but even if this was done, I don't think champion selection would be the limiting factor for players climbing in the lower ranks. Some games, like StarCraft, are balanced much more for high level play and it's not like it stopped me from getting Platinum. It wasn't even a concern and I just tried to improve. It's not entirely applicable to LoL because having 4 others on your team and varying levels of coordination among the tiers can shut down some strategies (which are factored in for balance) completely for low level play. Rek'Sai's tremor sense is probably 5x more important in Diamond than it is in Bronze because there's higher awareness and coordination in play making. Still, if this could work satisfactorily, it would save a lot of resources.

I'm not familiar with the original Dota but I don't like the idea of some champions being permanently excluded from competitive if that's the idea. Even if it wouldn't seem to matter for the average player, it's nice to know that your favorite champion may have his time in the spotlight someday and isn't just a "noob champion."

Rotating sets of champions for ranked could make sense once League's roster becomes significantly bigger, although I think it might be too radical for most people. Imagine how mad OTPs would be when the one champion they play well is out of the rotation. Even regular players might be annoyed by not having access to some of their favorite champions for 2-3 months (more so if they bought a lot of skins and chromas or got level 7 mastery). People are more attached to LoL champions than card game characters and also have to invest way more to become good at them mechanically as well as strategically. It could be an option for LCS but again, it might alienate viewers to know that the pros are playing a different game than them. While it would allow Riot to make that segment of the roster really balanced (perhaps seeing new strategies too) and would make ranked more friendly for novices, I think too much is sacrificed or at least players aren't ready for it.

I definitely like the idea that each champion picked would be cut out of the pool in a series. While it might put an unusually high emphasis on early drafting, it would also force pro teams to have deeper champion pools and play something more similar to the game we play in ranked (where there are more random picks). When there are more diverse picks, there are more diverse strategies too since each champion tends to have a niche/comp where they really excel. It'd be way more interesting to watch and encourage regular players to buy more champions when they see a lot of the roster used.

I'd expect more interest in the pro scene as diversity increases and this can bring more money for pro teams as well. It would also change how players are recruited and valued. The emphasis would shift to more well-rounded players rather than "Elise, Nidalee, & Rek'Sai God" etc.. In turn, this would make streams for ambitious or already pro players more exciting because they'd have to practice a larger pool. Moreover, needing more breadth would be a big boon to veterans who have more experience from different seasons and metas when the staple picks were entirely different. Increasing the value of experience would extend the career of the average pro and I think we can all agree that pro gamer careers tend to be too short. Sometimes this dissuades even very skilled players from attempting it.

Favoring more breadth over depth would mitigate visible balance problems too. Knowing that they can't rely on just a handful of picks and strategies, pro teams wouldn't be able to specialize as heavily so even if a champion like Azir were OP, it wouldn't be exploited as hard against the rest of the roster. It would simply be too risky to devote that much time to a single champion when it can only be used one game (they'd probably need to win 80% to justify the weakness in later drafts).

My initial concern was that the roster might still be too small to support this. Suppose that they pick or ban ADCs and by the deciding game, one team first picks the last remaining ADC. Now, the other team might be at quite a compositional disadvantage if they go Yasuo or some APC bot. Is this really a realistic issue though? Banning out an entire class will leave many other strong picks up and wouldn't make that much sense. Moreover, bans can be changed in some way to prevent this (for example, not allowing more than x bans from a primary class). With 5 bans, if each team were to ban only ADCs in the last game, there would only be Kennen, Morde (sort of) and Urgot left. With 3 bans, there's no issue and I don't think this is a realistic scenario (nor is it the end of the world).

Although I know promo series are good to give a sharper sense of progress, they're a bit artificial and implementing this idea for them too would encourage the same things mentioned before. OTPs would suffer a bit and players would be rewarded for being more well-rounded. Ultimately, it's more fun to have variety but there's a sense that you're taking away from your ability to win. This idea would nudge players into expanding their roster without feeling guilty about sacrificing immediate progress. I guess the main downside is that new playrs would need a larger roster for ranked (with the upside being that this would also apply to smurfs).

I doubt you guys are planning this for next season but I'd very much like to see it and I think it would be good for pretty much everyone. Sometimes competitive diversity isn't what it should be not only due to viability but just because there's not enough advantage to it and there's a certain inertia to the picks proven successful. If you've practiced 5-6 generalist mids extremely well, why bother investing a lot of time becoming good at another equally viable mid? You can't really be banned out and is surprise value enough to justify a champion you're less skilled in? Now there's a reason for more exploration.

btw: I had no intention of making this so long! Sorry about that but I don't have time to edit it down now. :D

@RiotScruffy People who want many more champions are shortsighted

196 Comments

More from Gameplay

More by ofart