4 or 5 bans per team in draft

Meriipu·Feb 8, 2016·46 votes·3,476 views

4 or 5 bans per team in draft too many champions

http://i.imgur.com/xMltfho.png

52 Comments

Those BeyondFeb 8, 20167 votes

That would be nice so that everyone gets 1 ban

HoridasFeb 8, 20166 votes

Then absolutely no one would get to play their favorite champion, or the one they want at least.

MeriipuFeb 8, 20163 votes

{quoted}

Then absolutely no one would get to play their favorite champion, or the one they want at least.

is 8 bans instead of 6 so 2 more banned champions really enough to cause that large concerns?

maybe a pro player in a tournament that only plays 4 or 5 champions might be banned out though are not pro player expected to be experienced enough at the game to be able to deal with this?

5ome White GuyFeb 8, 201618 votes

{quoted}

Then absolutely no one would get to play their favorite champion, or the one they want at least.

with 10 bans, theres STILL 119 champs to play, god forbiid you dont get to play one of the 10 champs that Riot has let go out of control at the time

WhiteTieNekoFeb 8, 20167 votes

You must discount the champs that aren't in the meta, and the ones you dont play very well ... regular players knows how to play well 3 - 6 champs per lane, so lets say (hypothetically) that everyone knows how to play 4 champs per lane, thats 20 champs in total counting all lanes, so if there were 5 bans per team, you lose a maximun of 10 of your champs, but being honest you will lose like 5 of your champs.

So, which champs are the people going to ban, the ones that are OP and are currently on the META. Lets put this in a ranked aspect, a ranked player who knows how to pick a champ smartly knows this aspects:

Pick a champion with which you feel comfortable playing.
Pick a champion who is strong right now/in the Meta.
Counter Pick.

so that leaves you with pretty reduced options considering the relation within the players Champion Pool, CounterPicks,Meta.

And remember that "if an enemy picks a champion that counters your main(s) you are going to be crushed if you pick one of those champs, and the one that i know how to play isn't weak against X champ is banned, golly molly what a bad luck. and you are not going to play a champ that you do not control very well.

So The current number of Bans per team seems correct for me, i really must point out to riot that this is his game, the costumer may be always right, but if you go to a fruit store and tell the shopkeeper to sell Burgers instead of pinneapples, he will not do that, Even if a bunch of costumers told the shopkeeper to sell Burgers instead of pinneapples, he will not do that, 'cause he is a Fruit vendor not a Burger vendor.

I hope that Riot or tencent or whoever is in charge here knows when the costumers are not right.

This is my opinion, i think that increasing the numbers of bans is not going to be fair for some players.

Also, think in new players who are first going into Draft Pick/Ranked and do not know how to play a extensive variety of champs for every lane, and have at least 16 champs at their disposal, counting the CounterPicks and Champions mastery. that wouldn't be fair to them. i'm glad that at Riot/Tencent they take in consideration new players, 'cause from them, they grow.

MeriipuFeb 8, 20161 votes

{quoted} And remember that "if an enemy picks a champion that counters your main(s) you are going to be crushed if you pick one of those champs, and the one that i know how to play isn't weak against X champ is banned, golly molly what a bad luck. and you are not going to play a champ that you do not control very well.

that is a fair point though as more and more new champions are added one could expect the pool of champions a player has found to like to grow (maybe at a delay of 6-12 months after the release of a champion, for that champion to solidify and find a spot in the meta/game). and as pools grow, so does the flexibility you have to deal with somebody picking a hard counter for your main picks

the flip side of your point is that while they have more bans, and might ban more of your champions - so do you. you have more bans (probably), and so you should be able to also ban the picks they would pick that would give your secondary picks problems

WhiteTieNekoFeb 8, 20161 votes

Agreed, but learning how to play new champs at 100% takes a while, and someone probably is going to lose experience with other champs.

I agree with the part of the bans, but that is something that can be done with New champ select , 3 players get to ban one champ, so you can ban a champ that gives you problems, even if there were 5 bans per team you'll probably get to still ban one champion 'cause the bans would be distributed among all players.

5ome White GuyFeb 8, 201618 votes

{quoted}

You must discount the champs that aren't in the meta, and the ones you dont play very well .

no, you dont. YOU haveing a small champion pool that revolves around "Meta" champs is not an argument against more bans

Angry MonsterFeb 8, 20165 votes

actually it is. You just do not like the argument so you do not considered it valid. Reality and what you want do not meet here apparently.

Occams RaiserFeb 8, 20165 votes

Looks like you got down voted for using that pesky logic again.

WhiteTieNekoFeb 8, 20162 votes

Yeah there you're right, but someone does not play the 100+ champs at 100%. At 100% someone plays 3 - 6 champs per lane, regardless if some or all of those champs are in the meta/op or is your personal secret OP or whatever the reasons. I could say (Hypotetically) that my top laners champs that i know how to use 100% in that lane are Rammus RekSai Yorick and Nasus .

and in ban phase, 3 of them are banned, so that reduces my options, and you see that the enemy is picking something that counters your remaining champs, and that leaves you with 2 options, play the champ that you know how to play and maybe you'll win maybe not, or play something that you dont know how to play but counters the enemy champ, thats not going to go well.

And lets say that someone really really likes a champion regardless the reason (thematic, kit, etc.) but alas that champ is in a very good position right now. So lets say someone really likes TahmKench Elise Gangplank Poppy . he will not be able to play his favorite champ 'cause those champs are in a good spot now, and are banned in N. Draft/Ranked. And he doesn't use them for being strong right now, he use them 'cause he really loves that champion, and he knows how to play them 100%, so l'il Timmy or Good ol' Richard cannot play their favorite champs. What i'm trying to say is that increasing the number of bans to 5 per team would wildly increase those cases. Also Emphasizing what i said before, there are new players that can't adjust to the increase of bans due the number of champs they have. regardless the game, Devs must think about new players in their games, so they don't get a toxic experience, imagine how toxic 10 bans in total would be for players initiating their first games in N. Draft/Ranked.

Occams RaiserFeb 8, 20162 votes

What is meta isn't arbitrary. There are some people that play to win. Winning is fun.

Occams RaiserFeb 8, 20162 votes

It actually is an argument. It means banning out the most efficient champs just moves the problem to the next tier. You should ban what interferes with the five champs you want to comp, not the most ill. If you are playing a comp that is highly counter-able, you never really wanted to win that bad anyway.

PePsiLemoNNFeb 8, 20161 votes

Then how about nerfing the op champs so we don't need 10 bans ?

WhiteTieNekoFeb 8, 20162 votes

Riot isn't going to do that, the Meta is how the keep a % of players in the game. realesing new champs making changes to the various champions is a way of keeping things "Fresh". Nerfing the OP champs would be a solution to bans, but there's always going to strong champs for X Y Z reasons.

Occams RaiserFeb 8, 20161 votes

There will always be a meta champ or a meta comp. There is always a best and a worst. The only question, How bad do you want to win.

WhiteTieNekoFeb 9, 20161 votes

Exactly, as in any sport, people play to win, but its a bad habit to be obssesed with winning. When i play, i play to win, but i know that the other team plays to win too.

Its like i was a little kid and played futbol or baseball, i didn't cared if i win or not i was just playing for fun, but i was playing to win ... but above all, have some fun.

Occams RaiserFeb 9, 20161 votes

im from a different gen. We were not happy losing. We got no joy from participation trophies.

BrawnstudFeb 8, 20162 votes

Or do it like DOTA.

2 bans, 2 picks, 2 bans, 2 picks, 1 ban, 1 pick

Dunkrius2gFeb 8, 201610 votes

Then absolutely no one would get to play their FREEELO champion

FTFY

EParadoxxFeb 8, 20161 votes

You probably shouldn't play ranked if your pool is limited to 1-5 champions total regardless of the role, the risk of them getting banned exists even if there were only 2 bans, plus there's still the possibility of enemy team picking it. Also, hello? have you played ranked yet ? You can select what you wanna play before you pick it, so the chances of getting your champion banned are overall lower than they have been any time before. previous seasons people had no idea what you wanted to play so they could just as likely ban your champion as the enemy, now, theoretically the probability of that is cut in half and if you added two more bans for each time it would STILL be lower than it was before.

S H A Y C 0Feb 8, 20165 votes

really? 10/129

thats 8%

out of 119 champions you can find ANYBODY you wanna play?[slayer-jinx-unamused]

Occams RaiserFeb 8, 20161 votes

The correct equation is 10 out of X meta. You don't count the bullshit. People want to ban meta champs so it becomes a free for all of shenanigans. Some people have to accept that there are people that really like winning. They have to go somewhere where winning isn't a factor. Where do losers go to have fun? Blind Normals.

PiVoRxFeb 8, 20165 votes

"Problem is not ammount of bans, the problem is ammount of shit we have to ban"

pivorx since forever

5ome White GuyFeb 8, 20163 votes

re post this without diana in there and its perfect.

But really Rito, there should have been more bans starting at 100 champs. now theres almost 130 (129)

side note, the new draft would work so much better if every person got a ban. hell even with 8 total bans, atleast the 2nd pick on each team wouldnt be screwed (no bans, not first pick)

Slamurai JackFeb 8, 20162 votes

I can't take anyone who actually thinks Lee is ban worthy seriously.

MeriipuFeb 8, 20165 votes

[{quoted}](name=Slamurai Jack,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=zn6Oqs44,comment-id=0008,timestamp=2016-02-08T09:42:38.238+0000)

I can't take anyone who actually thinks Lee is ban worthy seriously.

it is not necessarily because of lee it is because of the kind of people who tend to play lee

Slamurai JackFeb 8, 20163 votes

Those "kind of people" don't tend to like it when a teammates bans their champion and are likely going to be a total ass regardless of what champion they pick. Banning Lee isn't going to make any difference, other than likely pissing them off before the game even starts.

MeriipuFeb 8, 20164 votes

Banning Lee isn't going to make any difference, other than likely pissing them off before the game even starts.

not if they are on the opposing team :3

seriously though I feel lee is too overloaded

Slamurai JackFeb 8, 20163 votes

He still sucks even with being overloaded. Seriously, he isn't even good. Let the enemy team pick him. Don't get completely dumpstered early game and you win automatically. He's a bottom tier jungler in Solo Q at any level below Master's and you should be fucking glad when the enemy team picks him instead of an actual strong jungler like Amumu, Udyr, or Master Yi.

plantersFeb 9, 20161 votes

that's not how it actually happened. Originally lee sin was stronger but then riot nerfed him into his current state. The overloadedness of his kit used to be even greater allowing for less counter play. Besides that, the arguement that a champions is weak because a chunk of people such at the champion is not really a good arguement. if everyone in a game is bad at turret diving does this make ezreal a particularly bad turret diving champion? not really it just means the people cant use his dive potential to its fullest level.

Slamurai JackFeb 9, 20161 votes

It's not a chunk of people sucking at Lee Sin. It's the vast, vast, vast majority. Lee Sin's with 125+ games still only win 48.75% of the time. Not only is Lee Sin really hard to play well, but he's also extremely reliant on team coordination, making him terrible at any elo below Masters at the lowest. When a champion is only good for .01% of the playerbase, perhaps it's time to re-evaluate them. He certainly isn't OP in the elo that any of the people complaining about him here play at, that's for sure. You're Bronze? Lee Sucks. Silver? Lee Sucks. Gold? Lee Sucks. Plat? Lee Sucks. Diamond? Lee still fucking sucks. Masters, Challenger, and Pro Play? Now he's finally competitive, but still takes a back seat to whatever the top tier junglers are at the time. Even at the level where he's finally played to potential, he's still severely outclassed by the likes of Elise, Kindred, Rek'sai, Graves, Nidalee, Poppy, and Quinn. That's not the story of a good champion. That's the story of a champion that's been overnerfed for the sake of those at the highest level of play and left to be complete garbage everywhere below that. You're losing to Lee Sin to gold? You'd lose to pretty much any jungler that particular that Lee could have played because he's just plain better than you. He already beat you with a trash tier champion, now imagine if he had been playing Elise instead.

plantersFeb 9, 20161 votes

i mean while im the first to look at win-rate for INDICATIONS of strength you cant use it as the end all be all for balance. Leblanc is noted for almost never having a 50% win rate and still being really strong. It's also a well noted fact that almost everyone who plays lee sin does not want him changed and the number of people who play him has caused a ton of community backlash when riot even mentioned the change. Realistically i dont know why they even buffed him. They should have just left him terrible and waited for a rework like they've done in the past but I guess riot is moving away from this philosophy. Anyway him getting stronger is only a breeding ground for more problems down the road so I'd say anything outside of a full rework (which is not likely to happen) is the only good way to approach this. Just my two cents though.

Slamurai JackFeb 9, 20161 votes

I'd argue that Leblanc is similarly overvalued, at least in Solo Q. But at least she starts winning more than half her games once you've played her a ton. Lee Sin doesn't even reach an average level of performance for the people that really should be doing well with him. Are you honestly trying to tell me that people people who have played Lee over 100 times should still be losing over half the time? I get that winrates in isolation don't have much value but the winrates of the best players of a champion at respectable elos (Plat+) should be a pretty good indicator of how strong a champion is. And his are terrible and have consistently been terrible for over a year now. You're better off first timing half the junglers in the game than you are playing Lee as a dedicated Lee player; that's the mark of a really weak champion.

plantersFeb 9, 20161 votes

Once again my own opinion is simple. Give lee a straight rework. I truly believe that straight buffs will make him OP so just reworking him seems the simplest way to fix this.

MeriipuFeb 9, 20161 votes

{quoted}

that's not how it actually happened. Originally lee sin was stronger but then riot nerfed him into his current state.

but reddit complained and rito went back on their nerfs a bit

plantersFeb 9, 20161 votes

yeah i was really dissappointed that they did. Was actually hoping for a minor rework myself

EParadoxxFeb 8, 20161 votes

If you're gonna keep increasing the champion pool by 4-6 champions a year it only makes sense to increase the number of bans by at least one or two. The ban options are seriously piling up.

Occams RaiserFeb 8, 20161 votes

The amount of meta champs doesn't increase.

D3m37r1Feb 8, 20161 votes

I'll be totally honest. Diana kind surprised me.

MeriipuFeb 8, 20161 votes

{quoted}

I'll be totally honest. Diana kind surprised me.

It might have been leftover trauma from those days a few months back when she was everywhere.

I considered adding riven and yasuo too butdecided the backslash from people disagreeing would be a bit too much

The LovelessFeb 8, 20161 votes

Diana is pretty ridiculous. I like pulling her out because people seem to have forgotten that she's still a bursty offtank. I actually gobbled up a foolish marksman who stepped a little bit in front of her turret. I did my 3 moves of doom within half a second and then walked back. She was dust.

ElewdFeb 8, 20161 votes

I would've put Ezreal or Riven instead of Diana.

Festive BearFeb 8, 20161 votes

maybe 8 total bans, 10 is a bit over, you would just ban all current meta champs. 8 leaves some tension for those 2 unbanned champions.

The LovelessFeb 8, 20161 votes

I own most of the champs I like/would like to have, except Malz, Udyr, Tahm and Vel. Just bought Heim, Vik and Yorick last week. 10 bans won't stop me from having FUN. That's the point of games. XD

I would actually like to see league become a game where people love trying out different champs and roles instead of maining. I think maining is lame and too tryhard. Okay you got your rank up a bit, now what, gonna go pro? Relax.

Occams RaiserFeb 8, 20161 votes

somethings will always be optimal. Once you figure that out, the only question left is DO YOU REALLY WANT TO WIN OR NOT? "Tryhard" disparaging remarks are a result of games being free. If you were spending money per play you wouldn't call people tryhards. Damn free to play and home consoles screwed it all up. "He's trying to win. What a loser."

Wildheaven182Feb 8, 20161 votes

I want more bans plz that's all there is to it.

EDIT: Okay fine, the issue with increasing the number of bans is the fact that more bans decrease the value of each individual ban. That being said, even with one more ban on each side for a total of 8 bans, players will be able to "toss around" bans more liberally. There is actually a lot of volatility this can cause. From Riot's perspective, banning is probably balanced around the opportunity cost of not banning something else, rather than the number of power picks, meta champions, total champions, or typical champion pool for players at certain levels of play. However the fact of the matter is that this opportunity cost is a derivative of the number of total champions, power picks, etc. To put this in perspective, even one extra ban on each side can have large implications for what players can and cannot play on a regular basis because players tend to ban specific champions very consistently (that is to say that very few champions often have very high ban rates while the vast majority of champions have next to 0% ban rates as a result).

In short, there are a lot more factors to consider about increasing the number of bans than one might think.

M SchumacherFeb 9, 20161 votes

Zed is a troll ban

MeriipuFeb 10, 20161 votes

[{quoted}](name=M Schumacher,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=zn6Oqs44,comment-id=000d,timestamp=2016-02-09T22:37:23.899+0000)

Zed is a troll ban

no he is not