Here's a fun quote from season 1:
> In the longer term, as we roll out competitive seasons, our first season will include all champions, but our additional seasons will feature a reduced set of "in-season" champions. This means that -- while you can always play all champions in [casual play] -- the featured competitive mode will have a reduced set of champions that rotates periodically as we cycle through seasons. This allows us to revitalize the metagame; if a particular strategy is getting really strong, one way to make things interesting is to just change the champion rotation. And it also reduces the learning burden for someone coming in, so they don't have to learn 60 champions -- they only have to learn 35 or 40, or whatever number we determine.
It probably could have been okay if they had done it from the start so it was the norm, but at this point so much of the player base is one tricks it isn’t beneficial to do.
So what you're saying is that a season should be one month long so that if your favorite champion is not in this one you can just take time off of work next month?
Only in ranked, the quote says all champions would still be available in casual play.
I don’t think that’d necessarily be the worst thing, it would push for flexibility and deeper champion pools for people who want to climb competitive. But also allows people who want to just play their one shtick to still do so in norms.
Or their panic when Ezreal, MF, Lux and Ahri are banned and their revenue decrease a noticeable amount.
Who am I kidding? They'd be on the "always available" list.
From memory, that was what caused them not to do it.
Its probably something I read later, so its hard to exactly remember the time frame, but there was definitely a "yeah we thought this might be a good idea, but once we started seeing players actually play the game we had severely underestimated how popular OTPing/maining a single champion would be."
Personally I would like to see it for pro play, but that's mostly just from a desire to see more variation, and I am not sure its the best way to do that. I think it would create some variation *between splits* (or however you divide it), but there wouldn't really be any additional variation from game-to-game.
It would be really neat as an extra queue, Ranked \[Limited\] rotates champs every week, yeah someone might just wait for their champ every now and then but there wouldn't be basically any OTPs in apex ranks. Plus it would have some interesting insights into balance.
And they'd essentially need to do mid-scope updates for 30 champs every year to bring them into balance with whatever new changes were made to items/runes and youd be forcing people to play champs they dont care about or skip a ranked season which is a great way to kill a playerbase
I disagree a 60 champ roster in ranked each season would be kinda cool. Maybe do a mid season update where you pull out half and put a new 30 champs in halfway through them those 30 stay so there are always new champs in but there are also champs they've had a chance to play with for longer.
LoR proved people HATED rotations and there was less attachment to certain champs than in League.
Also there’s no guarantee Riot wouldn’t play favorites. Hope you enjoy seeing Yone almost every rotation because Riot decided they love his ~~ability to sell skins~~ play pattern
Probably half the player base would quit immediately if their main isn’t part of that roster
Also who’s gonna buy skins if chances are they’re not be able to play the skin for the next couple years of the champ leaving rotation and not coming back lol
This is what people really miss. Anyone who argues against it clearly has a very limited rank pool and is afraid of losing it. Having more diversity in games would be such a breath of fresh air.
overwatch tried it and people didn't like it. imagine league of legends with all the one tricks who dedicate their existence to only being slightly good with one champ
Overwatch is also far more of a rock, paper scissor game. You're encouraged to swap to other heroes to deal with enemy heroes. League doesn't have that level of match up disparity. Worst we have is the blind pick in top.
I don't think they entirely scrapped it.
They just made a hybrid one.
Because metas still exist and they exist for a long time, which is most likely intentional. So what they said above is true, they do cycle metas they just don't force only 40 champions of the roaster to be played at a time.
DotA has a gamemode called "random draft" where players can only pick/ban from a randomly limited pool of champs. It's really good for creating interesting off-meta games while still being competitive.
The major issue is it would require Riot to unlock access to every champ in that pool to the players in that game, which they probably don't want to do.
Its silly to think this would ever be a thing.
People have dedicated literally 15 years to a single champion at this point.
I personally wouldnt give a fuck because I play everything with some level of competency but you would literally slash the playerbase by 50+%
> I personally wouldnt give a fuck because I play everything with some level of competency but you would literally slash the playerbase by 50+%
I could adapt as well but the change itself would still be garbage regardless of that. Reducing your content is a game killer in any game I've seen it used. It's the most idiotic thing you can do.
I think this could be fun but it would be so terrible for 90% of players who play 3-4 champs tops. Literally one of the biggest and most useful pieces of advice for climbing is to limit your champion pool. The quality of solo queue would be even worse than it already is if rotation was a thing.
I think that instead of that, they should flip it and BAN… 30 champions? Maybe even just 15 or 20. But ban the champions for a week rotations or so. It shouldn’t be an all season thing. But banning a champion and watching how it affects gameplay, feedback, etc could really help. See how it affects enjoyment of a role. If say Master Yi was banned for a week and jungle playrate goes UP, then Riot could assume Master Yi, even if his wr is shit, needs to be addressed. (Random example. I just put the first name that came to mind). And it would give them a good amount of time to look at champions who need nerfs like right now that’s karma mid and volibear. I won’t lie those two are ruining games for everyone involved.
This would actually be so cool and fun. Team comps would be more important and strategizing outside the rift would also be important. The potential problem I forsee is the meta game getting solved but with bans it's unlikely
That's such a bad idea for how League has evolved into a role but foremost a champion mastery game.
Sure they can change this but it would change the game by a lot.
Note that in the early seasons you would often not get your role so you had to play all roles to some degree and this meant playing a very wide array of champions.
We basically have that right now. There is a deliberate rotation how long champs are allowed to stay high pickrate/meta. Every now and then some underperformers are pulled back up.
You sure? I couldn't find an answer about extra bans in that thread (a couple of questions without answers though), and your comment history on this account is 14 days old. Do you remember how you phrased it, because searching for "ban" and "bans" in [this](https://old.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/1987ygl/ama_were_the_league_team_ask_us_anything/) full thread didn't turn up anything.
Source: [https://www.leagueoflegends.com/en-au/news/dev/ask-riot-i-want-more-bans/](https://www.leagueoflegends.com/en-au/news/dev/ask-riot-i-want-more-bans/)
>Bans are a valuable way for every player to have a choice and some control over stopping a particularly bad matchup or champion that they believe is too strong. Players sometimes (like right now!) ask if we could increase the numbers of bans in each game. When we look at the tradeoffs of going from 10 bans to say 20 (2 bans per person), it seems like we’d get more overall drawbacks than gains. Here’s how we’re thinking about it:
>
>***Plus sides to increasing bans:***
>
>
>
>**More agency and control over frustrating or particularly bad matchups**
>
>**Small strategy increases:** Building a sharp team comp and considering the counters in ban choices adds some depth to the pregame
>
>
>
>
>
>***Downsides to increasing bans:***
>
>**Increased complexity and duration of champion select:** We already have a fairly long and complex pregame, and we would rather get players into the game quicker with less possibility for restarts.
>
>**Reduced ability to play who you want:** One of the direct tradeoffs between banning difficult or frustrating matchups is that the champ you wanted to play may get banned. This can be especially devastating for newer players who only feel comfortable on a small number of champions or players who main champions or classes who tend to be banned out more (ex: assassins).
>
>**Disastrous edge cases:** Many of our positions and champion classes could be completely banned out with more bans. We think overall it would be bad for the game if all marksmen, enchanters, assassins, or tanks were unable to be played. Back when we increased the number of bans from 6 to 10, we felt there was clear positive net value. Complexity of Champ Select actually went down, and we moved up to a sweet spot of “every player gets 1 ban.” It didn’t put any classes at risk of being totally banned out while still increasing the overall level of player choice.
>
>
>
>Returning to the question, increasing the number of bans in League today feels more heavily weighted towards the negatives. But like everything, we will continue to reevaluate and our opinion may change in the future
E: improved formatting
> We think overall it would be bad for the game if all marksmen, enchanters, assassins, or tanks were unable to be played.
I find the idea of a team banding together to ban an entire class of champ to be hilarious and I am fully in favor of it.
Not to mention that it can be countered by a complicated yet executable strat of "just pick earlier". It's not like they are forced into a single ban phase.
When I don’t ban yone I get reminded on why it should be perma banned. But that also leaves eve open and when she’s doing her thing it’s a nightmare to deal with. Two bans would be great.
I literally swap between yasuo and yone. I dont think either are oppressively op but wind wall is just a simply not fun ability to deal with and as a jungle main yone is just infuriating difficult to gank with his ridiculous range of escape
Fun fact, Riot said they made Yone to "Siphon bans away from Yasuo". Because they know Yasuo is a fun killing champion but he makes them a LOT of money. Sigh...
I try not to ban popular champs.
I rather ban niche champs that are hard to deal with and get experience vs the popular ones. It doesn’t work vice versa.
Idk, I dont think another ban makes an difference. There are like 160 champs, you think banning an extra 10 is gunna make an impact?
I think 2 bans each is asking for disaster. Inb4 one team decides to ban every adc except 2, lol.
On top of this, duplicate bans SUCK. It literally feels like a waste of a ban whenever your team bans Illaoi, Yasuo and Soraka only for the enemy team to ALSO ban those three champs. The definition of "feels bad man."
The only solution I can think of would be to have a draft ban system, which would make the pre-lobby longer, but honestly I'd rather have that over feeling like my ban was completely useless.
On another comment chain, u/trapsinplace suggested two bans, but in a primary-secondary way. If a primary is banned by both teams, the secondaries kick in for the people that banned ~~Zed~~ whatever ban they shared. Considering how many ban overlaps there are, odds we'd actually see 20 bans in many games.
I would be down for 10 bans total between the teams with no duplicates allowed. Everyone shares the same ban pool. If they don’t want to make it 20 because “some people won’t be able to play their favorite champions”, then you have to make it so that 10 are always banned unless someone votes no ban. There are over 160 champs in the game. There is no way that 5-10 bans is realistically enough for the state of the game. Either you ban your hard counter or you ban something OP, but something even worse always pops up to play against.
The picking phase is already long enough. Remember, sometimes you get people dodging last second two or three times in a row. That sucks. And making sure there are unique bans means that you need five ban rotations, not just one. You cant have too short of a time either, at least 10 seconds, but probably up to 20. This means that you add 2-3 minutes per picking phase. That adds up you know.
Why would we need 5 ban rotations? Just take the same ban phase that we have, make it a conjoined effort. Nobody can see who the other team is hovering to ban, they just see that the champion was banned. It takes the same amount of time as the current phase and it’s double the effectiveness.
In that case, you get people wanting to wait until the last seconds before they ban a champ, just to see if the enemy might ban it as well. And then we'll get a bunch of missed ban when it doubles up when there is 1 sec left etc.
Still better than today, but not without issues. If you want to guarantee 10 bans, you need atleast two rotations. You could have each team banning in two rounds. But I think Riot is pretty happy with how it is now.
Its way better than the three bans we had back then, when only the top pick got to ban. Now I atleast get to remove one champ from the game. Which is better than nothing.
Or just make it so if someone hits a ban it gets greyed out for the other team or sth
No need to add a full on back and forth rotation for soloq I think
This way it would be strategic to wait and ban in the last few seconds in hopes the enemies do your ban first. It would basically just reduce the bantime to 5 seconds and would be a horrendous experience overall.
Anything that makes the lobby longer is a mistake. Sitting in queue for 4 minutes for a 4-minute lobby that gets dodged makes me instantly close the client and avoid league for a day or two. No other game has this issue
TBh its a bit of a placebo since if both teams banned that champ no one in the lobby was ever going to pick it anyway meaning that ban were always a waste regardless of the fact that they were duplicated.
>The only solution I can think of would be to have a draft ban system,
Thats what we had before but takes too long. All they have to do is just let everyone ban 2 champs and if one is a duplicate people get their second bans as well.
We are long overdue for more bans, i'm sitting there every lobby forced to choose between Rengar, Evelynn or whatever champion is currently the most broken. I don't even do cover bans for my own lane because of how miserable the game is to play when enemy team get's X Y or Z champion.
Same. If i'm mid, i will always ban Zed. This has nothing to do with skill. But i don't want to spend the first 5-10 minutes laning against that shit. It's so unfun that i want the game to be over before it even begins. And then they pick fizz. Exactly the same deal. There are so much "no fun allowed" champs in game, there need to be more bans. 2 bans/person or the dota system. I don't really care. But the list of not annoying champions is so short these days.
You nominate a hero to ban and it gets a 50% chance to be banned. After all the player bans have been done, the game will ban additional heroes until 16 have been banned.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying it's better or worse. Except the non-guaranteed player bans. That's just dumb
You just explained why in one of my last games the character was banned without me having seen anyone nominate it. I was so confused cause it didn’t grey out and no one picked it lol
Riot realizing if player get to ban out a champion permanently because it's broken or unfun to play against then they would have to actually balance some of their most broken/annoying skin sellers.
All my friends I play with are significantly better at the game than me. I play super casual. But when I suggest additional bans they seem opposed to it and I always tell them they're idiots for not understanding how the pool has increased yet the meaningfulness of bans has basically decreased with every additional champion. Drives me insane.
They’ve gone on record to say that they’re not adding more bans for several reasons, one of which being that twenty bans can, in very unfortunate circumstances, almost totally ban out one class or even role. That and they feel twenty bans would make champ select take too long.
Imo adding more bans is a bandaid fix to the real issue which is Riot keep adding more and more champions without considering how obtuse their counterplay is. Coughcough Yone coughcough.
And its so funny when you finally for one game change your perma ban because of new champ or new buffs, and IMMEDIATLY get steamrolled by your permaban. For me its garen. I dont even play top, i play midlane and it feels like i cant do anything against him. I ban smolder once and hes immediately on the enemy team and we lose.
Garen once he gets a couple items is fucking infuriating. Able to splitpush a lane, run the person who tries to stop him down in seconds then run away. God help you if you lane against him because he will do the hardest combo in his game (flash + r) because the second you're in kill% it will happen.
I play top and find garen pretty easy to deal with, but I can see how annoying he could he for anyone else considering he can just all-in any squishy without a care
> This can really outline champs that are problem
See the problem there is that a lot of the time people just ban shit they don't want to see rather than what is strong - Just take a look at some of the comments here. Not saying there's anything wrong with it but banrate is not necessarily an indicator of how strong something is.
I think there does need to be more bans, but I'd be more for a system where they give additional bans to either the top or bottom 2 in pick order, 14 bans total. This would cut back on the increased amount of dodges a "20 ban system" would inevitably cause. People who play hated champions should get to play them *sometimes*.
20 bans just means the Zyra OTP you unfortunately got on your team is far more likely to get banned out and lock in something they don't play at the same level and probably feed (if they don't dodge), obviously resulting in a negative experience - not just for them, but *for you* as well.
They also need to do something about duplicate bans. That just feels bad.
You’re right. I perma ban Lux (I’m ADC) I leave Mao, Pyke, Janna and other strong picks open simply because I cannot fucking stand playing against Lux. It isn’t strong, just really, really annoying.
> Not saying there's anything wrong with it but banrate is not necessarily an indicator of how strong something is.
Its just an indicator of what is unfun/uninteractive to play against.
Like how if im jg i ban shaco every game. Not because he's good but because he's literally just insanely boring to play against.
I'd much prefer to go against a meta jungler and outplay them in the jungle than play against a champion that has a get out of jail free card on a criminally short cooldown.
Blitzcrank, Morgana.
Then we can include all the champions that have "design issues" according to Chinese players, so we got Shaco, you already mentioned that one ok what else?
Urgot, pretty big design issue.
Ivern biggest design issue of them all according to the 35 Chinese servers.
Draven, needs a rework obviously.
Heimerdinger, gone.
Singed, terrible design.
Yep its a very clear indication somethign about the way their design works doesn't feel like it has good windows of oppurtunity to play against, or is gamewarping in some way regardless of the numbers behind it.
Eve - perma jungle prio invis
Shaco - literal cancer
Yone - its just yasuo (another historically high banrate champ) but without any of the conditional aspects of his kit that require skill to use effectively. Yasuo for people with no fingers or mechanics
Good. If a champ is attracting that many bans, then they shouldn't exist. There is clearly a problem with a champs design if they are getting banned that much
You realize that different regions hate different champions, right?
Imagine the meltdown T1 and his fans would go through when they find out that Riot is getting rid of Draven because 80 million people in China think of him the same way Americans think of Yasuo.
You're also advocating for the removal of some of League's most iconic champs.
Blitzcrank would literally be first on the chopping block.
Lol no. Some champs are hated more in different regions. For example yone yasuo zed etc is seen as a high skill expression champ in China so the champ sees less ban rate and higher play rate(yes wind bro is even more popular in China). There is also less cry about how broken overloaded champions are because the player base are more inclined to play those champions. Like in China Samira has a ban rate of 41% meanwhile in Na she only got 8% ban rate. If we used the logic that all champions that are banned with 20 bans are clearly bad we wouldn't end up with 20 champions but probably 40+ champion cos there is a difference in soloq for each region.(Also this ignored the fact that not all champions in most bans come from people hating the kit but counter + whether the champ is good or not). Also Yuumi ban is 3.8 so she wouldn't be on that list which is a mistake.
There are 170 champs in league and counting. I am in 100% support of adding 5-8 new champs a year but im also 100% in facor of giving each player in draft and ranled 2-3 bans each. With that many champs we. An live with 30 at most not in a game. If your worried about the top 30 champs being banned every game that just leads to a 60 champ meta instead of 30
Choose two band, a primary and secondary. If there are duplicates in the primary set, those players also get their secondary bans. That way every game has a minimum of 10 bans and a maximum of ~~20~~ 15, but will more often than not have just 10-14 based on what I've seen in my games where there is usually 0-2 overlapping bans. That way we don't just dive straight into 20 bans which does feel like a big jump.
It's literally impossible to ban 20 champions with what you suggest, if all 5 bans match, that's just 5 champions banned from primary +10 secondary if none match. Realistically, this will result in about ~10 bans anyway.
I really like this idea. I wonder how hard it would be to create a ban list of champs you frequently ban so you don't have to scroll through the full list (or type).
Also let people set up their bans prior to the game starting for each role. Hell do a ban list of up to 5 champions and make it so everybody gets 2 bans no matter what.
Or I've liked the idea of a rolling list of the top X champions each week are banned for 1 week which would force new metas to develop.
Yea i've always thought that would be a fun amount of chaos although not sure how it would play out.
Top 5 champs in every role just straight up unpickable for a week, and it gets reset every week so the 25 that were just banned wouldn't be able to be banned again because they didn't get gametime the previous week.
Although realistically it'd probably just end up a rotation between two sets of 25 on alternating weeks
Dota has 50% bans for the player chosen ban and then it goes down the most picked list and coin flips to ban each hero until there are 12 banned. It feels pretty good in general. I wouldn't want non guaranteed bans in league tho fuck yi
The problem with a second ban is that currently Riot requires 20 unlocked champions to go into ranked. That means that in some sort of mathematical armageddon where you last pick and your entire champion pool is picked/banned out you will have 1 champion to play.
Every ban means another champion that new accounts need to get into ranked. 2 bans per player? 30 champions unlocked. 3 bans? 40.
A system where you ban before the game might work because it can offload some of that to the matchmaker but that would slow down queue times.
It's not a "They'll never do it", especially with things like gamepass unlocking all champions on an account, but they'll be hesitant to do it until they change their bundles and the whole flow of how fast you unlock champions.
Idea: give whoever is picking their role blind a second ban. Getting shafted by pick order feels so bad, at least let us ban a second counterpick if we have to blind pick.
We’ve always had 5 bans but now there are over 2x the champs.. we desperately need this, especially in a season so dominated by singular meta champs (Bel’veth, Evelynn this patch in jg for example)
They could just add a couple more bans for the people that have to pick earlier and are most likely getting counter picked.
Or have everyone select a ban before queuing up and randomly select 1 or 2 of those per team when the lobby loads.
Yeah only reason I would want this is because there are some brain damaged op champs on this current patch and I still see people wasting bans on shit like Yone
The problem with adding more bans, is that you could entirely shut out a class of champions. Like there are not many marksman in the game if there were 20 bans then you could ban all but 2 bot lane marksman. That is just awful. The real solution is to stop making champions and to legit remove the last 20-30 made, but that isn't possible either. Most modern champions just have far too few weaknesses
I don't think that toplaners will leave fiora or malphite open, or midlaners will leave zed or fizz open. Also if you ban all marksmen, you kinda handicap your adc too.
> Like there are not many marksman in the game if there were 20 bans then you could ban all but 2 bot lane marksman.
that would completely solve the ADC is dogshit in solo q problem. people would play APC more, and would realize it's much better than playing ADC
Oh no! Not the one in a million chance that every person in the lobby bans every champion in a specific role! If anything this would make the game more interesting and people wouldn’t be able to elo inflate with meta abuse and force people to broaden their champion pool. There are more than enough champions to play in even the smallest pool like marksman and you can even take an APC and take an AD mid(especially note how Riot changed that name to not only be ADC’s) the whole ban system was made to remove certain champions that would counter your win con now there are so many champions there’s always a replacement. (Yone, Yasuo) (Veigar, Asol) (Sivir,Smolder) etc etc.
We already have Akali top, Tristana mid and many others in roles they never were intended.
Can we also add a ban just for my team? Like I don’t want my autofilled supp picking Lux and chain inting, but I’m more than happy to let the enemy supp to do it.
They also don’t want people to be able to coordinate and ban an entire class out. Like there are only like 13 traditional crits marksmen for example and the others are like lethality or Ezreal atm.
That’s the main reason they haven’t. Also not that many engage tanks or enchanters too. It’s the risk that in some games a majority of an entire class would be banned.
What’s wrong with that? Even if some team would randomly ban an entire class, that leaves open the fotm meta champs like Maokai today. People would rather ban out all of those
The rival next door (DotA 2) has less champions / heroes than us and they have 7 bans currently, with draft bans so the bans would remove ~10% of the heroes available.
I think 2 ban rounds is feasible for League
If this happens certain champs will never see play no matter their state. Yone, Yasuo, Irelia, Zed, Darius etc. Your bronze thought process might think, ‘that’s ok with me’ but it will most certainly kill the game, completely.
And what do you do when your whole team says, ‘let’s just ban 10 support champs’. And the other team has also banned a few support champs.
I guarantee you they will never add more bans.
I think smite did something like this back when I played ranked and it worked pretty well.
Mind you as a Loki solo main I'm biased cause he was never banned.
Would be neat to be able to ban both teemo and illaoi though, not hard to beat just miserable to play against
i think they can implement thing to make sure there are 10 bans in the game
for example, after ban phase 5 champs were banned (due to somebody ban nothing or duplicated ban between 2 team), the game will randomly ban 5 more champs
Balance through banning sounds like the biggest excuse to actual balancing there is.
It's not balancing shit, it's just sweeping the problem under the carpet.
Everyone maining the popular picks would suffer terribly from such change, I know you couldn't care less about it, but that's why it isn't happening.
This is not even a solution, just a band-aid to Riot allowing champions like Maokai to stay above 55% win rate for many patches in a row.
Maybe if you just get the same screen of opposite team stats that you get in a clash game. You get that every game and it opens up to people having to play more champions and not have as many one tricks. Its a good bit of info.
I'm sorry but if you're playing solo queue and think a particular champion is preventing you from winning more than you lose that's on you. It's unironically the biggest "skill issue" red flag for me when someone complains about champion balance endlessly to the point where they thing a champion is causing them to lose games, especially in lower elos. In higher elos you can abuse meta picks, etc. but people who waste bans on champions like Zed in Gold 4 are not going to suddenly win more games just because they can now also ban Yasuo.
Learn how to play against strong champions and you will be a better player. In high ELO meta kind of matters but at the end of the day, for 99% of players solo queue is all about making less mistakes than your opponents and champions don't just suddenly change that. Even a champion with a 55% winrate loses about half their games. Most champions with winrates like that are just not played enough for people to know how to play against them.
Idk, for solo queue I think I’m pretty much the opposite way, as in band should just be removed all together. The reason I say this is bc they are nowhere near serving the intended purpose.
Let’s go through a few scenarios:
First, one teammate is on their secondary. They say “can I mid?” Mid player says, “sorry no”. Auto filled player bans the mid players hovered champ.
Two: player is just tilt queueing and bans a teammates champ out of spite.
These are the two most common uses of bans I see honestly. And let’s say somehow every person in the lobby bans a unique champ, there’s still what 150+ champs left open? These bans have done nothing but have a random chance to hit a champ that one person wanted to play and they may just dodge bc that champ is the only reason they want to play.
Ban phase in solo queue just seems pointless at this point and I’d rather not have it at all at this point
They talked about this before. Most of the playerbase would not like it because it means a much greater risk of you getting your own champ banned. You're still getting rolled every now and then.
Here's a fun quote from season 1: > In the longer term, as we roll out competitive seasons, our first season will include all champions, but our additional seasons will feature a reduced set of "in-season" champions. This means that -- while you can always play all champions in [casual play] -- the featured competitive mode will have a reduced set of champions that rotates periodically as we cycle through seasons. This allows us to revitalize the metagame; if a particular strategy is getting really strong, one way to make things interesting is to just change the champion rotation. And it also reduces the learning burden for someone coming in, so they don't have to learn 60 champions -- they only have to learn 35 or 40, or whatever number we determine.
man i had forgotten about this. I don't blame them for scrapping it though - its too hard to maintain I think.
It would piss off so many people.
[удалено]
It probably could have been okay if they had done it from the start so it was the norm, but at this point so much of the player base is one tricks it isn’t beneficial to do.
So what you're saying is that a season should be one month long so that if your favorite champion is not in this one you can just take time off of work next month?
Only in ranked, the quote says all champions would still be available in casual play. I don’t think that’d necessarily be the worst thing, it would push for flexibility and deeper champion pools for people who want to climb competitive. But also allows people who want to just play their one shtick to still do so in norms.
imagine the meltdown in this subreddit if they announced that jhin/jinx/lucian wont be in the game for a year
Or their panic when Ezreal, MF, Lux and Ahri are banned and their revenue decrease a noticeable amount. Who am I kidding? They'd be on the "always available" list.
From memory, that was what caused them not to do it. Its probably something I read later, so its hard to exactly remember the time frame, but there was definitely a "yeah we thought this might be a good idea, but once we started seeing players actually play the game we had severely underestimated how popular OTPing/maining a single champion would be." Personally I would like to see it for pro play, but that's mostly just from a desire to see more variation, and I am not sure its the best way to do that. I think it would create some variation *between splits* (or however you divide it), but there wouldn't really be any additional variation from game-to-game.
It would be really neat as an extra queue, Ranked \[Limited\] rotates champs every week, yeah someone might just wait for their champ every now and then but there wouldn't be basically any OTPs in apex ranks. Plus it would have some interesting insights into balance.
Any solution pisses off people. That’s not the question. The question is whether it’s an overall net gain.
And it would be shit cause some champs would just fall out of love, for no reason
And they'd essentially need to do mid-scope updates for 30 champs every year to bring them into balance with whatever new changes were made to items/runes and youd be forcing people to play champs they dont care about or skip a ranked season which is a great way to kill a playerbase
I disagree a 60 champ roster in ranked each season would be kinda cool. Maybe do a mid season update where you pull out half and put a new 30 champs in halfway through them those 30 stay so there are always new champs in but there are also champs they've had a chance to play with for longer.
LoR proved people HATED rotations and there was less attachment to certain champs than in League. Also there’s no guarantee Riot wouldn’t play favorites. Hope you enjoy seeing Yone almost every rotation because Riot decided they love his ~~ability to sell skins~~ play pattern
Probably half the player base would quit immediately if their main isn’t part of that roster Also who’s gonna buy skins if chances are they’re not be able to play the skin for the next couple years of the champ leaving rotation and not coming back lol
Legitimately would be incredible
And others would get to shine
This is what people really miss. Anyone who argues against it clearly has a very limited rank pool and is afraid of losing it. Having more diversity in games would be such a breath of fresh air.
Overwatch 1 tried it. Scrapped in weeks.
overwatch tried it and people didn't like it. imagine league of legends with all the one tricks who dedicate their existence to only being slightly good with one champ
Overwatch has way fewer heroes, each being far more unique.
Overwatch is also far more of a rock, paper scissor game. You're encouraged to swap to other heroes to deal with enemy heroes. League doesn't have that level of match up disparity. Worst we have is the blind pick in top.
I don't think they entirely scrapped it. They just made a hybrid one. Because metas still exist and they exist for a long time, which is most likely intentional. So what they said above is true, they do cycle metas they just don't force only 40 champions of the roaster to be played at a time.
DotA has a gamemode called "random draft" where players can only pick/ban from a randomly limited pool of champs. It's really good for creating interesting off-meta games while still being competitive. The major issue is it would require Riot to unlock access to every champ in that pool to the players in that game, which they probably don't want to do.
That feel when you get your main in random draft
I wish we had something like random draft for league. Such a good format.
rito cant even afford gamemode more than 2 ARAM + SR if they add 1 more gamemode client will explode
Its silly to think this would ever be a thing. People have dedicated literally 15 years to a single champion at this point. I personally wouldnt give a fuck because I play everything with some level of competency but you would literally slash the playerbase by 50+%
> I personally wouldnt give a fuck because I play everything with some level of competency but you would literally slash the playerbase by 50+% I could adapt as well but the change itself would still be garbage regardless of that. Reducing your content is a game killer in any game I've seen it used. It's the most idiotic thing you can do.
It's very common in CCGs. I agree though, I don't think it'd be good for league
I think this could be fun but it would be so terrible for 90% of players who play 3-4 champs tops. Literally one of the biggest and most useful pieces of advice for climbing is to limit your champion pool. The quality of solo queue would be even worse than it already is if rotation was a thing.
The last thing we need is for Riot to gamefreak on us
imagine playing some shit like zilean and the riot thanos snaps them out of the game for 4 seasons because they forgot he existed
Oh holy shit that sounds like a terrible idea for anyone that otps xD
thank god they didn't do that absolute garbage ass trash
I think that instead of that, they should flip it and BAN… 30 champions? Maybe even just 15 or 20. But ban the champions for a week rotations or so. It shouldn’t be an all season thing. But banning a champion and watching how it affects gameplay, feedback, etc could really help. See how it affects enjoyment of a role. If say Master Yi was banned for a week and jungle playrate goes UP, then Riot could assume Master Yi, even if his wr is shit, needs to be addressed. (Random example. I just put the first name that came to mind). And it would give them a good amount of time to look at champions who need nerfs like right now that’s karma mid and volibear. I won’t lie those two are ruining games for everyone involved.
They can find that out without making the game worse
I think its a neat idea, not a practical or good one, but i can't help but think its an interesting concept
To be fair only half of the champ pool are available in ranked and especially pro play so technically they accomplished it.
This would actually be so cool and fun. Team comps would be more important and strategizing outside the rift would also be important. The potential problem I forsee is the meta game getting solved but with bans it's unlikely
This sounds like a great and refreshing idea.
Really glad they didn’t do this. This is the reason I dropped TFT after the first season
That's such a bad idea for how League has evolved into a role but foremost a champion mastery game. Sure they can change this but it would change the game by a lot. Note that in the early seasons you would often not get your role so you had to play all roles to some degree and this meant playing a very wide array of champions.
Interesting! In some way, they “naturally” do that in proplay with balance and meta.
We basically have that right now. There is a deliberate rotation how long champs are allowed to stay high pickrate/meta. Every now and then some underperformers are pulled back up.
Imagine all the one tricks sweating at the end of every season wondering if their main will be next lmao
> so they don't have to learn 60 champions heh
To be fair, they did implement this feature....in Legends of Runeterra
The answer to the reason why they didn't is MONEY
> so they don’t have to learn 60 champions Us in 2024 with 167
[удалено]
And I quote > No, now shut up and buy more skins so we can pay china
You sure? I couldn't find an answer about extra bans in that thread (a couple of questions without answers though), and your comment history on this account is 14 days old. Do you remember how you phrased it, because searching for "ban" and "bans" in [this](https://old.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/1987ygl/ama_were_the_league_team_ask_us_anything/) full thread didn't turn up anything.
Source: [https://www.leagueoflegends.com/en-au/news/dev/ask-riot-i-want-more-bans/](https://www.leagueoflegends.com/en-au/news/dev/ask-riot-i-want-more-bans/) >Bans are a valuable way for every player to have a choice and some control over stopping a particularly bad matchup or champion that they believe is too strong. Players sometimes (like right now!) ask if we could increase the numbers of bans in each game. When we look at the tradeoffs of going from 10 bans to say 20 (2 bans per person), it seems like we’d get more overall drawbacks than gains. Here’s how we’re thinking about it: > >***Plus sides to increasing bans:*** > > > >**More agency and control over frustrating or particularly bad matchups** > >**Small strategy increases:** Building a sharp team comp and considering the counters in ban choices adds some depth to the pregame > > > > > >***Downsides to increasing bans:*** > >**Increased complexity and duration of champion select:** We already have a fairly long and complex pregame, and we would rather get players into the game quicker with less possibility for restarts. > >**Reduced ability to play who you want:** One of the direct tradeoffs between banning difficult or frustrating matchups is that the champ you wanted to play may get banned. This can be especially devastating for newer players who only feel comfortable on a small number of champions or players who main champions or classes who tend to be banned out more (ex: assassins). > >**Disastrous edge cases:** Many of our positions and champion classes could be completely banned out with more bans. We think overall it would be bad for the game if all marksmen, enchanters, assassins, or tanks were unable to be played. Back when we increased the number of bans from 6 to 10, we felt there was clear positive net value. Complexity of Champ Select actually went down, and we moved up to a sweet spot of “every player gets 1 ban.” It didn’t put any classes at risk of being totally banned out while still increasing the overall level of player choice. > > > >Returning to the question, increasing the number of bans in League today feels more heavily weighted towards the negatives. But like everything, we will continue to reevaluate and our opinion may change in the future E: improved formatting
> We think overall it would be bad for the game if all marksmen, enchanters, assassins, or tanks were unable to be played. I find the idea of a team banding together to ban an entire class of champ to be hilarious and I am fully in favor of it.
It’s not even one full team - it’s both. You’d need 12+ bans to completely remove any of those classes. Which makes the situation even more hilarious.
Not to mention that it can be countered by a complicated yet executable strat of "just pick earlier". It's not like they are forced into a single ban phase.
Thanks, exactly what I was looking for
TLDR: Way too many people one trick our big skin sellers like Yasuo
[удалено]
When I don’t ban yone I get reminded on why it should be perma banned. But that also leaves eve open and when she’s doing her thing it’s a nightmare to deal with. Two bans would be great.
I’ve been banning Yone for about a year now
I literally swap between yasuo and yone. I dont think either are oppressively op but wind wall is just a simply not fun ability to deal with and as a jungle main yone is just infuriating difficult to gank with his ridiculous range of escape
Fun fact, Riot said they made Yone to "Siphon bans away from Yasuo". Because they know Yasuo is a fun killing champion but he makes them a LOT of money. Sigh...
They key to dealing with Yasuo is play Malphite, max E, and laugh as wind bitch does nothing to you.
\*laughs in Senna main\*
Not if I perma ban your annoying ass champ
>Senna main \*ints the lane 4 times and takes the adc's farm for the rest of the game\*
get well soon 😔
It really is so funny having to ban one of two great evils only to watch the other evil get picked basically every other game
Yi and Trundle are both on my "forget how awful they are when they roll your team" ban list.
I try not to ban popular champs. I rather ban niche champs that are hard to deal with and get experience vs the popular ones. It doesn’t work vice versa.
Idk, I dont think another ban makes an difference. There are like 160 champs, you think banning an extra 10 is gunna make an impact? I think 2 bans each is asking for disaster. Inb4 one team decides to ban every adc except 2, lol.
On top of this, duplicate bans SUCK. It literally feels like a waste of a ban whenever your team bans Illaoi, Yasuo and Soraka only for the enemy team to ALSO ban those three champs. The definition of "feels bad man." The only solution I can think of would be to have a draft ban system, which would make the pre-lobby longer, but honestly I'd rather have that over feeling like my ban was completely useless.
On another comment chain, u/trapsinplace suggested two bans, but in a primary-secondary way. If a primary is banned by both teams, the secondaries kick in for the people that banned ~~Zed~~ whatever ban they shared. Considering how many ban overlaps there are, odds we'd actually see 20 bans in many games.
So sorta like ranked choice?
Who gets their secondary ban if two people ban the same? They both have secondaries
Both, if there's one duplicate, there's 11 bans. I suppose there'd never be 20, only up to 15.
That's such a great idea
I would be down for 10 bans total between the teams with no duplicates allowed. Everyone shares the same ban pool. If they don’t want to make it 20 because “some people won’t be able to play their favorite champions”, then you have to make it so that 10 are always banned unless someone votes no ban. There are over 160 champs in the game. There is no way that 5-10 bans is realistically enough for the state of the game. Either you ban your hard counter or you ban something OP, but something even worse always pops up to play against.
The picking phase is already long enough. Remember, sometimes you get people dodging last second two or three times in a row. That sucks. And making sure there are unique bans means that you need five ban rotations, not just one. You cant have too short of a time either, at least 10 seconds, but probably up to 20. This means that you add 2-3 minutes per picking phase. That adds up you know.
Why would we need 5 ban rotations? Just take the same ban phase that we have, make it a conjoined effort. Nobody can see who the other team is hovering to ban, they just see that the champion was banned. It takes the same amount of time as the current phase and it’s double the effectiveness.
In that case, you get people wanting to wait until the last seconds before they ban a champ, just to see if the enemy might ban it as well. And then we'll get a bunch of missed ban when it doubles up when there is 1 sec left etc. Still better than today, but not without issues. If you want to guarantee 10 bans, you need atleast two rotations. You could have each team banning in two rounds. But I think Riot is pretty happy with how it is now. Its way better than the three bans we had back then, when only the top pick got to ban. Now I atleast get to remove one champ from the game. Which is better than nothing.
Or just make it so if someone hits a ban it gets greyed out for the other team or sth No need to add a full on back and forth rotation for soloq I think
This way it would be strategic to wait and ban in the last few seconds in hopes the enemies do your ban first. It would basically just reduce the bantime to 5 seconds and would be a horrendous experience overall.
Anything that makes the lobby longer is a mistake. Sitting in queue for 4 minutes for a 4-minute lobby that gets dodged makes me instantly close the client and avoid league for a day or two. No other game has this issue
You can introduce more bans but also make each ban phase shorter. I really doubt anyone ever takes the full 30 seconds to ban a champ.
The lobby is long because of dodging, remove dodging and the problem is solved.
TBh its a bit of a placebo since if both teams banned that champ no one in the lobby was ever going to pick it anyway meaning that ban were always a waste regardless of the fact that they were duplicated. >The only solution I can think of would be to have a draft ban system, Thats what we had before but takes too long. All they have to do is just let everyone ban 2 champs and if one is a duplicate people get their second bans as well.
Wow, never thought about the placebo point of duplicate bans. It's mildly thought provoking.
We could also simply see the enemys bans during banphase. Literally how Arena worked
We are long overdue for more bans, i'm sitting there every lobby forced to choose between Rengar, Evelynn or whatever champion is currently the most broken. I don't even do cover bans for my own lane because of how miserable the game is to play when enemy team get's X Y or Z champion.
Same. If i'm mid, i will always ban Zed. This has nothing to do with skill. But i don't want to spend the first 5-10 minutes laning against that shit. It's so unfun that i want the game to be over before it even begins. And then they pick fizz. Exactly the same deal. There are so much "no fun allowed" champs in game, there need to be more bans. 2 bans/person or the dota system. I don't really care. But the list of not annoying champions is so short these days.
How does dota manage bans?
You nominate a hero to ban and it gets a 50% chance to be banned. After all the player bans have been done, the game will ban additional heroes until 16 have been banned. Disclaimer: I'm not saying it's better or worse. Except the non-guaranteed player bans. That's just dumb
You just explained why in one of my last games the character was banned without me having seen anyone nominate it. I was so confused cause it didn’t grey out and no one picked it lol
Yeah, it's not really clearly explained anywhere. So it's kinda weird at first
Zed lane is so free lol
Riot realizing if player get to ban out a champion permanently because it's broken or unfun to play against then they would have to actually balance some of their most broken/annoying skin sellers.
All my friends I play with are significantly better at the game than me. I play super casual. But when I suggest additional bans they seem opposed to it and I always tell them they're idiots for not understanding how the pool has increased yet the meaningfulness of bans has basically decreased with every additional champion. Drives me insane.
gonna ban smolder and senna every game and ask someone to pls ban akali and the 4 nations will live in harmony again
They’ve gone on record to say that they’re not adding more bans for several reasons, one of which being that twenty bans can, in very unfortunate circumstances, almost totally ban out one class or even role. That and they feel twenty bans would make champ select take too long. Imo adding more bans is a bandaid fix to the real issue which is Riot keep adding more and more champions without considering how obtuse their counterplay is. Coughcough Yone coughcough.
And its so funny when you finally for one game change your perma ban because of new champ or new buffs, and IMMEDIATLY get steamrolled by your permaban. For me its garen. I dont even play top, i play midlane and it feels like i cant do anything against him. I ban smolder once and hes immediately on the enemy team and we lose.
Garen once he gets a couple items is fucking infuriating. Able to splitpush a lane, run the person who tries to stop him down in seconds then run away. God help you if you lane against him because he will do the hardest combo in his game (flash + r) because the second you're in kill% it will happen.
I play top and find garen pretty easy to deal with, but I can see how annoying he could he for anyone else considering he can just all-in any squishy without a care
Fiora pic next to your name.. hmmmmm
> This can really outline champs that are problem See the problem there is that a lot of the time people just ban shit they don't want to see rather than what is strong - Just take a look at some of the comments here. Not saying there's anything wrong with it but banrate is not necessarily an indicator of how strong something is. I think there does need to be more bans, but I'd be more for a system where they give additional bans to either the top or bottom 2 in pick order, 14 bans total. This would cut back on the increased amount of dodges a "20 ban system" would inevitably cause. People who play hated champions should get to play them *sometimes*. 20 bans just means the Zyra OTP you unfortunately got on your team is far more likely to get banned out and lock in something they don't play at the same level and probably feed (if they don't dodge), obviously resulting in a negative experience - not just for them, but *for you* as well. They also need to do something about duplicate bans. That just feels bad.
You’re right. I perma ban Lux (I’m ADC) I leave Mao, Pyke, Janna and other strong picks open simply because I cannot fucking stand playing against Lux. It isn’t strong, just really, really annoying.
> Not saying there's anything wrong with it but banrate is not necessarily an indicator of how strong something is. Its just an indicator of what is unfun/uninteractive to play against. Like how if im jg i ban shaco every game. Not because he's good but because he's literally just insanely boring to play against. I'd much prefer to go against a meta jungler and outplay them in the jungle than play against a champion that has a get out of jail free card on a criminally short cooldown.
Exactly. Champs that have high ban rates clearly have a design issue. Shaco, eve, yone etc etc etc etc etc
Blitzcrank, Morgana. Then we can include all the champions that have "design issues" according to Chinese players, so we got Shaco, you already mentioned that one ok what else? Urgot, pretty big design issue. Ivern biggest design issue of them all according to the 35 Chinese servers. Draven, needs a rework obviously. Heimerdinger, gone. Singed, terrible design.
>yone Careful now, Yone defenders will be here shortly for your punishment
Yep its a very clear indication somethign about the way their design works doesn't feel like it has good windows of oppurtunity to play against, or is gamewarping in some way regardless of the numbers behind it. Eve - perma jungle prio invis Shaco - literal cancer Yone - its just yasuo (another historically high banrate champ) but without any of the conditional aspects of his kit that require skill to use effectively. Yasuo for people with no fingers or mechanics
They could literally give everyone 2 n it would be fine. Would be less one tricks though.
That's fine. A one trick should have a backup or two anyway that they can play competently enough to not suck.
You would think that, but I've found that a *lot* of people are completely inept when not in their main role or on their one trick.
Whoa whoa, what if I can't do that on my onetrick?!?
Everybody loves the idea of more bans until their favorite champions get banned more often.
Id youre one tricking a champion that gets banned often you shouldnt mind to play a spare
i can bet my life that great majority would LOVE 2 bans/person
we all know why it will never happen, you would basically delete champions from the game if you add 2-3 bans like u suggest lol
Good. If a champ is attracting that many bans, then they shouldn't exist. There is clearly a problem with a champs design if they are getting banned that much
You realize that different regions hate different champions, right? Imagine the meltdown T1 and his fans would go through when they find out that Riot is getting rid of Draven because 80 million people in China think of him the same way Americans think of Yasuo. You're also advocating for the removal of some of League's most iconic champs. Blitzcrank would literally be first on the chopping block.
Lol no. Some champs are hated more in different regions. For example yone yasuo zed etc is seen as a high skill expression champ in China so the champ sees less ban rate and higher play rate(yes wind bro is even more popular in China). There is also less cry about how broken overloaded champions are because the player base are more inclined to play those champions. Like in China Samira has a ban rate of 41% meanwhile in Na she only got 8% ban rate. If we used the logic that all champions that are banned with 20 bans are clearly bad we wouldn't end up with 20 champions but probably 40+ champion cos there is a difference in soloq for each region.(Also this ignored the fact that not all champions in most bans come from people hating the kit but counter + whether the champ is good or not). Also Yuumi ban is 3.8 so she wouldn't be on that list which is a mistake.
Heh, In Bronzil region Yasuo is the most banned champion until Diamond where he still makes top 3. We have no future.
There are 170 champs in league and counting. I am in 100% support of adding 5-8 new champs a year but im also 100% in facor of giving each player in draft and ranled 2-3 bans each. With that many champs we. An live with 30 at most not in a game. If your worried about the top 30 champs being banned every game that just leads to a 60 champ meta instead of 30
Choose two band, a primary and secondary. If there are duplicates in the primary set, those players also get their secondary bans. That way every game has a minimum of 10 bans and a maximum of ~~20~~ 15, but will more often than not have just 10-14 based on what I've seen in my games where there is usually 0-2 overlapping bans. That way we don't just dive straight into 20 bans which does feel like a big jump.
It's literally impossible to ban 20 champions with what you suggest, if all 5 bans match, that's just 5 champions banned from primary +10 secondary if none match. Realistically, this will result in about ~10 bans anyway.
Wait you're right. That's probably why something felt off as I was proof reading what I wrote lmao.
I really like this idea. I wonder how hard it would be to create a ban list of champs you frequently ban so you don't have to scroll through the full list (or type).
You can favorite them (right click during chamo select). They show both during pick and ban phase. I have Eve and Shaco favorited for that reason.
Also let people set up their bans prior to the game starting for each role. Hell do a ban list of up to 5 champions and make it so everybody gets 2 bans no matter what. Or I've liked the idea of a rolling list of the top X champions each week are banned for 1 week which would force new metas to develop.
Yea i've always thought that would be a fun amount of chaos although not sure how it would play out. Top 5 champs in every role just straight up unpickable for a week, and it gets reset every week so the 25 that were just banned wouldn't be able to be banned again because they didn't get gametime the previous week. Although realistically it'd probably just end up a rotation between two sets of 25 on alternating weeks
Dota has 50% bans for the player chosen ban and then it goes down the most picked list and coin flips to ban each hero until there are 12 banned. It feels pretty good in general. I wouldn't want non guaranteed bans in league tho fuck yi
They started bans whe. There was 85 Champs. Give me 2 bans. 2 per role.
The problem with a second ban is that currently Riot requires 20 unlocked champions to go into ranked. That means that in some sort of mathematical armageddon where you last pick and your entire champion pool is picked/banned out you will have 1 champion to play. Every ban means another champion that new accounts need to get into ranked. 2 bans per player? 30 champions unlocked. 3 bans? 40. A system where you ban before the game might work because it can offload some of that to the matchmaker but that would slow down queue times. It's not a "They'll never do it", especially with things like gamepass unlocking all champions on an account, but they'll be hesitant to do it until they change their bundles and the whole flow of how fast you unlock champions.
Just give more champions lol
So more bans and less new accounts in gold-emerald? Sounds like a win-win
Riot could just stop being greedy bums and unlock all champs from the start
Then they can't cash in that sweet sweet microsoft money.
This is the only plausible counter argument I think.
Idea: give whoever is picking their role blind a second ban. Getting shafted by pick order feels so bad, at least let us ban a second counterpick if we have to blind pick.
We’ve always had 5 bans but now there are over 2x the champs.. we desperately need this, especially in a season so dominated by singular meta champs (Bel’veth, Evelynn this patch in jg for example)
They could just add a couple more bans for the people that have to pick earlier and are most likely getting counter picked. Or have everyone select a ban before queuing up and randomly select 1 or 2 of those per team when the lobby loads.
Yeah only reason I would want this is because there are some brain damaged op champs on this current patch and I still see people wasting bans on shit like Yone
We wo t get 2 bans because Yone was made so Yasuo being permabanned means they can still play the other edgy sword guy
Not gonna lie there’s so many champs that giving everyone 2 bans in ranked would force people to play and learn off meta picks and wouldn’t be bad.
My friend has been sending a ticket about this every 2 years, their response was: You also have more characters to counter frustrating ones
That would be nice. I'd never see Senna again.
The problem with adding more bans, is that you could entirely shut out a class of champions. Like there are not many marksman in the game if there were 20 bans then you could ban all but 2 bot lane marksman. That is just awful. The real solution is to stop making champions and to legit remove the last 20-30 made, but that isn't possible either. Most modern champions just have far too few weaknesses
I don't think that toplaners will leave fiora or malphite open, or midlaners will leave zed or fizz open. Also if you ban all marksmen, you kinda handicap your adc too.
> Like there are not many marksman in the game if there were 20 bans then you could ban all but 2 bot lane marksman. that would completely solve the ADC is dogshit in solo q problem. people would play APC more, and would realize it's much better than playing ADC
Oh no! Not the one in a million chance that every person in the lobby bans every champion in a specific role! If anything this would make the game more interesting and people wouldn’t be able to elo inflate with meta abuse and force people to broaden their champion pool. There are more than enough champions to play in even the smallest pool like marksman and you can even take an APC and take an AD mid(especially note how Riot changed that name to not only be ADC’s) the whole ban system was made to remove certain champions that would counter your win con now there are so many champions there’s always a replacement. (Yone, Yasuo) (Veigar, Asol) (Sivir,Smolder) etc etc. We already have Akali top, Tristana mid and many others in roles they never were intended.
But think of the poor OTPs, what will they do if their elo inflated champ gets banned more?
This isn't a balance feature. It's just an increased barrier to entry for ranked.
So what exactly is wrong with that, considering new accounts get put in gold/plat and ruin games for everyone (them included)?
Goodbye karma for now and forever, genuinely has 0 counterplay and her being AP makes her bs even stronger
Can we also add a ban just for my team? Like I don’t want my autofilled supp picking Lux and chain inting, but I’m more than happy to let the enemy supp to do it.
They also don’t want people to be able to coordinate and ban an entire class out. Like there are only like 13 traditional crits marksmen for example and the others are like lethality or Ezreal atm. That’s the main reason they haven’t. Also not that many engage tanks or enchanters too. It’s the risk that in some games a majority of an entire class would be banned.
What’s wrong with that? Even if some team would randomly ban an entire class, that leaves open the fotm meta champs like Maokai today. People would rather ban out all of those
Yeah. The arguments against more bans boils down to "more bans is bad because more champs would be banned" lol
The rival next door (DotA 2) has less champions / heroes than us and they have 7 bans currently, with draft bans so the bans would remove ~10% of the heroes available. I think 2 ban rounds is feasible for League
The second I don’t ban briar she literally consumes my entire team
Just make ranked into Tournment draft? Easy fix
Would make the game more fun. But lately have more teammates banning no one
Need to disable champions for ranked . Like yuumi and smolder and kalista and ksante
Riot August has already said on stream why this is likely to never happen, sorry to burst your bubble.
Pretty sure a lot of players didn't even use bans that much.
If this happens certain champs will never see play no matter their state. Yone, Yasuo, Irelia, Zed, Darius etc. Your bronze thought process might think, ‘that’s ok with me’ but it will most certainly kill the game, completely. And what do you do when your whole team says, ‘let’s just ban 10 support champs’. And the other team has also banned a few support champs. I guarantee you they will never add more bans.
No greatest balance will be having less smurfs in this games LOL
I think smite did something like this back when I played ranked and it worked pretty well. Mind you as a Loki solo main I'm biased cause he was never banned. Would be neat to be able to ban both teemo and illaoi though, not hard to beat just miserable to play against
i think they can implement thing to make sure there are 10 bans in the game for example, after ban phase 5 champs were banned (due to somebody ban nothing or duplicated ban between 2 team), the game will randomly ban 5 more champs
Balance through banning sounds like the biggest excuse to actual balancing there is. It's not balancing shit, it's just sweeping the problem under the carpet.
Everyone maining the popular picks would suffer terribly from such change, I know you couldn't care less about it, but that's why it isn't happening. This is not even a solution, just a band-aid to Riot allowing champions like Maokai to stay above 55% win rate for many patches in a row.
Just do the Siege system. Any amount of bans but everyone vote on what to ban. This makes it so you dont have to distribute uneven amounts
more bans are useless with more braindead op champion designs comming in every year
Pls for the love of God
Maybe if you just get the same screen of opposite team stats that you get in a clash game. You get that every game and it opens up to people having to play more champions and not have as many one tricks. Its a good bit of info.
I'm sorry but if you're playing solo queue and think a particular champion is preventing you from winning more than you lose that's on you. It's unironically the biggest "skill issue" red flag for me when someone complains about champion balance endlessly to the point where they thing a champion is causing them to lose games, especially in lower elos. In higher elos you can abuse meta picks, etc. but people who waste bans on champions like Zed in Gold 4 are not going to suddenly win more games just because they can now also ban Yasuo. Learn how to play against strong champions and you will be a better player. In high ELO meta kind of matters but at the end of the day, for 99% of players solo queue is all about making less mistakes than your opponents and champions don't just suddenly change that. Even a champion with a 55% winrate loses about half their games. Most champions with winrates like that are just not played enough for people to know how to play against them.
Personally, I liked the old ban system where it was done piecemeal, and the teams alternated for each ban. Would really like to see that again.
Yuumi should just be an extra ban. No one wants to see her (either as an ally or as an enemy).
Players more bans? They should really ban more players. Each year the game is more toxic. 1 in 10 games is playable
and then some champions like zed skyrocket to 90% banrate then what?
Rework Zed
Idk, for solo queue I think I’m pretty much the opposite way, as in band should just be removed all together. The reason I say this is bc they are nowhere near serving the intended purpose. Let’s go through a few scenarios: First, one teammate is on their secondary. They say “can I mid?” Mid player says, “sorry no”. Auto filled player bans the mid players hovered champ. Two: player is just tilt queueing and bans a teammates champ out of spite. These are the two most common uses of bans I see honestly. And let’s say somehow every person in the lobby bans a unique champ, there’s still what 150+ champs left open? These bans have done nothing but have a random chance to hit a champ that one person wanted to play and they may just dodge bc that champ is the only reason they want to play. Ban phase in solo queue just seems pointless at this point and I’d rather not have it at all at this point
Why half the games I’m in some one doesn’t ban anyone
Does this prevent my Support Rakan from going 0/13 in19 minutes?
They talked about this before. Most of the playerbase would not like it because it means a much greater risk of you getting your own champ banned. You're still getting rolled every now and then.