Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a ton of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out the boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

GO TO BOARDS


Idea on a New Banning System

1
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ninjin Desu

Recruiter

01-21-2013

Currently, there are way too many champions in the game to still only be banning 6 champions. I have a solution to this problem. Most of us can agree that at times there are champions that are currently too strong and therefore become permabanned for a while. If this is the case, one or more of the 6 bans shouldn't be wasted on these champs but a different system should be made for these cases. Both teams should have about 30 seconds to a minute to secretly pick 2 champions for potential ban before the actual bans. If any of the 2 champions chosen on either side match, then they are banned, then we resume with the regular banning system.

TLDR: Initially both teams secretly pick 2 champions for potential bans. If any of them match on both teams, it is banned and then continue the rest of the bans with the current banning system. With this system there would always be at least 6 bans, but potentially could have 7 or 8.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Gaijin Desu

Member

01-21-2013

I'd say this is a great idea. As you said, there's always a couple of champions people feel are overpowered and "need" to ban, in solo queue at least, and it's frustrating having to either play the typically banned champ, or ban them and waste targetted bans. It might take a bit extra time to get the games started, but I feel it'd be worth it due to the increasing size of the champion pool.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

doingdamagess

Junior Member

01-21-2013

I like this idea!


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

jester82

Senior Member

01-21-2013

What do you gain from doing your secret ban over banning 4 champ per side ? I dont understand that.

I wouldnt mind seeing 8 ban split in 2 banning sessions (ban 4, 1st 3 player of each team pick their champ, ban another 4). Dota2 used a similar system and it add more strategy during banning phase.

Exemple, if the opposite team pick their mid jungle and top with their 1st 3 pick. You could ban 2 Support or 2 ADC to really narrow their pick.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Stormed

Member

01-22-2013

Bans should just be % based.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

KingClement

Senior Member

01-22-2013

Sounds like a great idea, hopefully this will be added to the game.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MicKretz

Senior Member

01-22-2013

just remember that more bans = more champs ppl have to own in order to play rank...now i know most ppl would consider that a plus (less newer players in rank) but looking at it from LoL point of view, thats less ppl that could enjoy all the features even when they hit lvl 30.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

01-22-2013

No.

Look, Riot has addressed the banning phase, and they've addressed it primarily in regards to the top teams and how they play (and how they ban).


Riot noticed that in any given tournament, depending on the patch, the first 2-3 bans are reserved for A-Tier champions. At the time Riot was addressing this issue, I think they mentioned Yorick, Alistar, and someone else maybe. These were champions that were getting banned across the board by all teams.

The other 3-4 bans were being used to specifically ban champions that Team A knew Team B was particularly good with. For example, when people played against CLG.eu, Anivia was banned a lot. Morgana gets banned a lot by people playing against Curse NA (though I feel in the future, the Curse bans will be target more at Voyboy rather than Nyjacky).

And ultimately, this is where Riot wants bans. If a champion like Yorick or Alistar is on a must-ban list every match, Riot feels that's a problem from their end, and they'd rather address that specific champion with a balancing patch than to increase the number of bans so that that particular champion can remain on permaban status (Riot wants people to be able to play the champions they created).

And Riot wants bans tailored specifically for the teams they're playing against to remain "a thing" for ranked. They find this to be somewhat interesting.

But at the same time, they don't want to see everyone's primary champion banned all the time. The few times you get to see Froggen play Anivia, or Nyjacky play Morgana, these are rare treats. Increasing the number of bans decreases the odds of getting to see one of these professional players play with their main champions.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ninjin Desu

Recruiter

01-22-2013

Quote:
jester82:
What do you gain from doing your secret ban over banning 4 champ per side ? I dont understand that.

I wouldnt mind seeing 8 ban split in 2 banning sessions (ban 4, 1st 3 player of each team pick their champ, ban another 4). Dota2 used a similar system and it add more strategy during banning phase.

Exemple, if the opposite team pick their mid jungle and top with their 1st 3 pick. You could ban 2 Support or 2 ADC to really narrow their pick.


8 bans is currently too many bans. This new way I suggested can go up to 8 bans, but still could be 6 bans.
The split bans is an interesting idea though.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ninjin Desu

Recruiter

01-22-2013

Quote:
PogoPogoPogoPogo:
No.

Look, Riot has addressed the banning phase, and they've addressed it primarily in regards to the top teams and how they play (and how they ban).


Riot noticed that in any given tournament, depending on the patch, the first 2-3 bans are reserved for A-Tier champions. At the time Riot was addressing this issue, I think they mentioned Yorick, Alistar, and someone else maybe. These were champions that were getting banned across the board by all teams.

The other 3-4 bans were being used to specifically ban champions that Team A knew Team B was particularly good with. For example, when people played against CLG.eu, Anivia was banned a lot. Morgana gets banned a lot by people playing against Curse NA (though I feel in the future, the Curse bans will be target more at Voyboy rather than Nyjacky).

And ultimately, this is where Riot wants bans. If a champion like Yorick or Alistar is on a must-ban list every match, Riot feels that's a problem from their end, and they'd rather address that specific champion with a balancing patch than to increase the number of bans so that that particular champion can remain on permaban status (Riot wants people to be able to play the champions they created).

And Riot wants bans tailored specifically for the teams they're playing against to remain "a thing" for ranked. They find this to be somewhat interesting.

But at the same time, they don't want to see everyone's primary champion banned all the time. The few times you get to see Froggen play Anivia, or Nyjacky play Morgana, these are rare treats. Increasing the number of bans decreases the odds of getting to see one of these professional players play with their main champions.


The secret bans don't have to actually happen. Both teams can randomly pick any two champs that would have a low percent chance of matching with the other teams picks, if they don't want to utilize these bans.


1