DD Suggestion: Rotational Tournament Bans

12
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Sakuri Ono

Senior Member

11-15-2012

I've been mulling over this idea for a while now and I would like to put it out to the community to see what others think of this. Correct me if I'm wrong; but the purpose of giving the DD Tournaments 4 additional 'Chat Bans' is to increase diversity in champion selection and shut out the most balance wrecking champions of the time, yes? However in recent tournaments these bans are often very similar (at least for the streamed games). There will be at least 1-2 champions banned out 'almost' every game and 1-2 always banned every single game.

I.E: DD #30 did not see a single game where Jayce and Kassadin were not auto-banned right out the starting gate in Chat Bans.

IMO; Dominion would benefit from allowing teams more freedom to execute Targeted and Tactical Bans rather than simply 'Let's get all the OP stuff on lock down.'

Solution/Suggestion:

Implement two bans labeled Tournament Bans. These bans are selected in the following manner.

-Chat Bans (not normal game bans) are recorded for every game in a DD tournament.
-The amount of times an individual Champion was banned is tallied.
-The Champions with the two highest tallies are then placed on the Tournament Ban list; meaning they are not even an option for play or for banning in the next DD.
-This can be modified so that Tournament Bans are locked for the next 3 games, 5 games, ect. Whatever number is deemed to best fit a rotation and keep Champion selection fresh. (I.E: If Jax and Teemo were TB'd after DD 35 on a 5 game rotation, then DDs 36-40 would have the Jax/Teemo TB in effect.)

In theory the end result should allow for more flexible banning and a higher diversity of Champions played in DD.

Other sub rules would have to be worked out of course (such as a Champion needing to have been banned a certain % of games in addition to being highest to oust the previous TBs, what to do in a three or four way tie, ect.) This is just a rough outline to garner discussion on such an addition to the DD rules.

So; thoughts? Would this be a positive or a negative thing for the DD scene?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

DiscworldDeath

Senior Member

11-15-2012

So, assume bans last 5 tournaments, and you pick the top 2, the 6th week you'll have 10 automatic bans, alongside the 6 proper bans, for 16 champions banned?

This is the idea you are suggesting, 16 champions banned every tournament? Or if 3 weeks, then it'd be 14 champions banned...

Soon we'll get to Poke'Mon Showdown rules "UP only" "Rarely seen only", etc.

If you want more bans, lobby for that, if anything this makes things less fluid, as you have a number of bans pre-determined. And such a ridiculous number of bans at that.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Sakuri Ono

Senior Member

11-15-2012

No no; TBs wouldn't stack. So for any given tournament it would be:

2 Tournament Bans (Static)
4 Pre-Game Bans (Chosen by Teams)
6 Normal Bans (Chosen by Captains)

So 12 total bans for an individual game.

The idea is TBs would be rotated out every X amount of tournaments based on what was the new Ban-of-the-Month in Pre-Game bans. I suggest a hard limit of 2 just to prevent the ban number from reaching those higher totals. The only thing that carries over in games between rotations is the 'Chat-Ban Tally' which is used to determine what the next TBs will be when they rotate out.
_________

I'll use a 3-Game Rotation as an example.

-DD 40-42 results in Jax being Chat Banned 13 times and Teemo 12. (As the 'top two'.)
-So for DD 43-45 Jax and Teemo are banned.
-Before DD 46 the tallies for Chat Bans are totaled from DD 43-45.
-DD 43-45 results Jayce being Chat Banned 15 times and Kha'zix 13.
-So for DD 46-48 Kha'zix and Jayce are TB'd; Jax and Teemo are fair-game again.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

FOODFOOD

Senior Member

11-15-2012

Why don't we just have Kass and Jayce perma-banned? It seems like we're just making extra rules that will eventually lead to this anyways.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

DiscworldDeath

Senior Member

11-15-2012

It seems to me people just want more bans. More and more bans.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Nyx87

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

11-15-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscworldDeath View Post
It seems to me people just want more bans. More and more bans.
To be fair, Jayce and Kass are so game warping that we really only have 4 bans per team.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

DiscworldDeath

Senior Member

11-15-2012

"Only 4 bans per team".

Exactly my point.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ryzol Ryzo Ryz R

Senior Member

11-15-2012

I actually think we have too many bans. Kass Jayce and Teemo need to be banned for the game to be playable. Everything else has counters.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Nyx87

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

11-15-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscworldDeath View Post
"Only 4 bans per team".

Exactly my point.
Please don't twist my words with your emphasis. My point is there are 107 champs and we get to currently pick 10 to say "NO", that's less than 10% of the roster and this percentage is shrinking quite rapidly. Very few of these bans can be targeted against players and must be used on game warping champs like Jayce, Kass, Teemo, Kha'Zix, and Jax, so you cannot just dismiss why players want more bans.

I will say though that i find the currently banning system fine with 5 per team.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ahlen

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

11-15-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscworldDeath View Post
"Only 4 bans per team".

Exactly my point.
And that's not enough.

Not to be a jerk, but I'm going to be a jerk - are you new to competitive gaming in general?


12