League of Legends Community
1234511 ... 29

League of Legends Community (http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/index.php)
-   General Discussion (http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Is it time for a 4th ban on both teams in ranked? (http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=2324900)

King Roofus 07-06-2012 12:26 PM

Is it time for a 4th ban on both teams in ranked?
 
Lets think about this. At 100 champions next patch with the current bans you leave 94 champions available. With 4 bans you still leave 92. Reasons for not adding another ban are mostly so new players can play ranked once they hit 30. Well if you buy all the 450 and 1350 champions you have more than enough champions to play ranked anyway.

tl:dr Should we or should we not get a 4th ban since we're nearly at 100 champions. (Other similar games such as DotA have more bans just saying) and a similar number of champions.


Also please bump this so it can stay up for someone at Riot to see.

Edit: We are now at 101 champions. And i thought of another thing they could do if they don't want to add bans in the middle of a season. Don't allow new champs from the past 3 weeks in ranked. That way i don't have to worry about banning champs that will either get nerfed or need massive buffs ruining my or their team.

edit: We are now at 106 champions if i'm not mistaken. And we still have no evidence Riot will even add bans in the future.

Diabolic Jungler 07-06-2012 12:28 PM

I think it's about time for a fourth ban personally. I mean as you said 100 champions. Even with 8 bans total that leaves 92 things you have to choose from.

Bobd n Weaved it 07-06-2012 12:29 PM

sounds good

Fuma518 07-06-2012 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malzapar (Hozzászólás 26590960)
I think it's about time for a fourth ban personally. I mean as you said 100 champions. Even with 8 bans total that leaves 92 things you have to choose from.

^this

Arhcaea 07-06-2012 12:30 PM

Honestly i think we waited too long to go into the whole 3rd ban thing. We should of gone straight to 4 bans.

Syvenon 07-06-2012 12:31 PM

Well in reality like only half of the champions are viable in ranked games. On tier lists there are 5 tiers or whatever and generally only the top 2 or 3 are really usable...

Avalon Bright 07-06-2012 12:31 PM

Absolutely need 4 bans. hell I'd even be down with 5, though that might be a bit much...

Bu Gao Xing 07-06-2012 12:32 PM

I think 4 should've came at like 50 personally.. but yah, most of the champions are really dusty atm (eve, twitch, karma, galio, trundle, heimerdinger... and on and on and on) So in theory, with all the rarely played champions for w/e reasons.. I'd go with we need at least 5 per side to eliminate a 10% of the champions.

MMEGATRON 07-06-2012 12:33 PM

bump

Hayow 07-06-2012 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syvenon (Hozzászólás 26591065)
Well in reality like only half of the champions are viable in ranked games. On tier lists there are 5 tiers or whatever and generally only the top 2 or 3 are really usable...

I agree and disagree. People say Hecarim and Sejuani are bad. yet i have friends in the 1700's maining them. I think if you master any champion you can win just as much if not more than someone playing a stronger champ not as well.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:43 PM.
1234511 ... 29


(c) 2008 Riot Games Inc