The Precedent has been set...
So, Nunu support/smite was (according to what I read by RIOT) banned NOT for his pick, and NOT for his strategy, but the fact that enough people said it had a negative impact on their experience...
This is a very large can of worms that RIOT has opened, and there are a plethora of reasons why. I am going to give some thoughts on at least what I feel is the primary reason and then give a hypothetical scenario to attempt to show the flaw.
Defining a negative game experience:
This is far and above the biggest issue with the ban handed down. How do you define what is a ban-able behavior in this category? There are a TON of things that can make someone's game experience a negative one:
1- Foul language toward myself or other players (name calling, belittling, racism, etc.) 2- Intentional Feeding 3- Death threats or wishes (I do put these in a whole different category than 1. Just my feelings on it) 4- People trying new stuff in ranked games 5- Players that refuse to communicate in the lobby during champ select 6- Players that pick their champs with no regard to what has already been picked. 7- Going off meta 8- Picking Teemo
Im sure there are more but you get the picture.
Some of these are easily definable as punishable offenses, some could even be argued for instant ban. But the precedent that RIOT has set with this ban is that if you play anything that (whether it is meta or not, regardless of your intentions to win) that enough people feel "ruins their game experience", than you have committed a ban-able offense.
Imagine this scenario: (this is from experience actually)
Its champ select, your team is talking (well 3 of you are) and you, the top laner, along with the support, are convinced to play tanks, and protect the carries for the win. You, the adc and the support are now on the same train of thought. The Jungler joins the conversation saying he is going to pick Graves for early aggression and damage since we have 2 tanks already. Mid is last to pick and has said nothing this whole time. He shows Zed in his champ window. Everyone on the team is saying things like, "Hey, we really need some magic damage, do you have like a ziggs or Xerath? Or if you really want assassin do you have Ahri?" etc. Mid says nothing, and picks Zed.
Now, regardless of how this game goes, this Zed player, (maybe he's a one trick? Maybe he just wanted to play Zed? Doesn't matter) even though he is not intentionally trying to throw the game, even though he has said nothing negative, even if he communicates with pings and uses wards, regardless of whether or not we win or lose, has created a "negative game experience" for the other 4 players on his team who were trying to work together to build a winning comp.
This, of course, is a rare BEST case scenario. This exact same thing could happen even if NO ONE was communicating in lobby during champ select, and the same 4 people would all be upset with the Zed pick because now they have no Magic Damage and the enemy has an EZ time building against us if we don't snowball in 15 min.
Because of what has transpired, not only can the Zed get reported by the other players, but now he can even be banned. Remember, its not about what champion you pick for what role, cuz that would be a meta thing, which RIOT has stated is not ban-able. But because he created a negative experience for the other players on his team, he can be banned assuming this gets reported more than 2 or 3 times.
Growing up, I was always taught that when you disagreed with someone, you still needed to be respectful. It didn't matter if they were right or wrong, you still showed some respect. In league, we are told by RIOT that we have to communicate, but there is a mute button if you don't like what people are saying.(also, what if you are chat banned? just a thought). We are encouraged to "try new things" and "play what you want" and not to let ourselves be bullied by other players and that the "meta" isn't something to be enforced.
But RIOT, this decision, even if you do not INTEND it, does exactly the opposite of "not enforcing meta". Because going off meta can create uncertain feelings in other players that may cause their game experience to be "negative". You have set a precedent now that will have players asking for bans against anyone who consistently plays off meta champs and strats, and have, albeit UNINTENTIONALLY, told every off meta player that they are now subject to being enslaved to the "meta" when playing the game.
I hope you understand that I have no hard feelings toward you as a company. I love this game, and I think you guys are trying REALLY hard to do what you think is right, but I do think you dropped the ball on this one.
Peace, Love, Napalm, and all those other warm sticky things,
Shahamut
EDIT:
http://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/developer-corner/KETw2nEF-quick-gameplay-thoughts-march-3
Thanks to everyone who was non-aggressive and calmly contributing to this discussion. RIOT mentioned in their gameplay thoughts post (linked above) That they have lifted the remaining ban time and are going to address this topic more specifically internally, because guess what, this topic is also highly debated within RIOT and the rules are not clearly understood on these kinds of areas.
Feel free to read the post yourselves, I look forward to hearing again from them on this topic. As I have stated, I believe RIOT to be a good company, and this action supports that train of thought. Thanks again to everyone and thank you RIOT for taking action!
