Is there a reason for the current number of bans?

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

Princess Gobball

Junior Member

08-17-2012

I'm making this thread in the hopes that Riot will respond and provide an explanation to the question "why do we currently only have 3 bans for each team"

The way I see it at the moment, the banning phase exists to counter out unfavourable enemy strategies and to reduce enemy picks which may cause you a large degree of trouble. A year or so ago, 3 bans was a fitting number which reflected and accurate demand of bans being sated.

However, as more champions are released, (and very rapidly as well for that matter), 6 bans all up just doesn't cut it any more. 5.88% of champions is simply not good enough at this current time where a vast number of champions which "just feel too strong" exist, and thrive to this very day.

Perhaps I am wrong, and there is a reason for there only being 3 bans at the moment, and if a member of Riot staff could explain my failed reasoning to me, then I would be more than happy to accept your word, provided that what you said made sense. Maybe I am totally incorrect and off on some wild tangent, and if so you have my apologies. But at the same time, a part of me thinks that 6/102 is just not fair and shut down too many avenues for entertainment in what is otherwise a generally soundly balanced game.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PheFX

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

Member

08-17-2012

The idea of only being able to ban a small percent is just ridiculous for the amount of champions in this game.

Players have complained about a lack of variety in higher elo and pro games. By allowing 5 (4 itself is just too small.) bans it means that 10%~ of champions will be banned. That is two line ups by each team being banned. This will allow for more champions and different line ups to emerge, and even help in the balance of the game because even if a hero is OP or broken you know you can just ban them.

More bans is necessary, there is no avoiding that, hampions are being pumped out at an alarming rate and we are getting no bans in return.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

KnightxSScarlett

Senior Member

08-17-2012

I like the 3 bans a team because it forces people to make decisions about their bans more wisely. You wanna ban blitzcrank? Okay, but are you letting the enemy team get malphite or shen?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Time Crusader

Member

08-17-2012

You would need to have quite a bit of champions unlocked if they raised that number.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Princess Gobball

Junior Member

08-17-2012

I understand your point Mageinta, but he point still remains that it leaves too many undesirable avenues open.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Treza

Senior Member

08-17-2012

banning isnt in place to weed out champions you dont like facing... banning against random people is virtually pointless and doesnt really achieve anything. it gives noobs a false sense of "pro" by making "good" bans such as your typical overrated morgana shen kassadin etc


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Augie B

Member

08-17-2012

It's a good idea, however if you were to raise it to 5 each, for example, you'll never see many of the common bans ever. Morgana, shen, malph ect. will be completely out of ranked and would nearly never be used, I like the idea of making thought out decisions for who to ban


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

TeknoWizard

Senior Member

08-18-2012

There's a reason there isn't much variety in top-tier games. It's because they're using top tier champions. You ban out 5 on each side, I really doubt that would make much of an impact or bring any variety. In fact, I think it would lessen it. So let's just assume 6 standard bans are made, we'll say Morgana, Kassadin, Malphite, Nautilus, Shen and Alistar. What 4, that would make a meaningful impact, would you ban above that? Well, if you take out Blitzcrank, you've limited good aggressive supports to Taric and Leona. Everyone knows that 2 is better than 4, right? Right? Take out Kennen or Karthus? I mean, surely with these extra bans you've been able to ban everything to let a less played mid, like Viktor, to come on out right? Right?

Honestly. These bans wouldn't fix anything, and it would only limit options. Even in solo queue games, you gotta make those decisions. "Do we ban Malphite and first pick Nautilus? Or the reverse? What do we play better?" And let's just make it this simple. We ban out Ashe, Vayne, Graves, Ezreal, and Corki. Are we suddenly going to see a spike in Miss Fortune players? No. We won't. They'll just gravitate down to a slightly lower tier.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

IKorey

Senior Member

08-18-2012

If they did then they'd have to lower the prices on some champions ahah.

Seriously 3 is fine, it gives everybody time to really think who is OP and who to use the bans on.

It's dumb to give everybody 5 bans because you don't know the counters.

The system is fine.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

DirtyJs

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

Senior Member

08-18-2012

if u wanted to use morgana/malph or some other commonly banned champ, and your team was first pick, you get a chance if u convince your first pick to troll ban zilean, yorick, eve - then maybe enemy team will leave her open.

with 5 bans - not a chance in hell. morg malph shen will only ever be open 1/100 games


12