We've had competitive League of Legends for well over two years now, and so much has changed in that time. We've had countless new champions, new items, changes to the map, the jungle, old champion overhauls, graphics updates, but the number of bans remains at 3 a side. By the end of the year, we will have 109 champions available to play and still only 6 can be banned. Riot hasn't increased the number teams are allowed to ban at the same rate they add new champions, and it raises some interesting arguments. Do we need more bans? Do we need to change the way we look at bans and does it take away from the game in both solo queue and competitive play if certain champions are never seen?
The Case for more: Gimme More!
Not too long ago the game only had around 70 champions and we were still banning 6 total which is around 8.5% of the total champion pool at the time. 6 out of 70 is certainly not an overwhelming amount and felt right at the time. However, you look now and we are soon to have 109 champions to pick from and still only those 6 bans. 6 out of 109 comes out to just 5.5% of the champion pool and is a far cry away from the old numbers we use to enjoy.
In any patch, there are going to be strong cases for anywhere from 2-5 or 6 champions being overpowered at the time. The degree to which they are "OP" certainly depends on the patch, and those champions should be able to be taken away with bans especially in solo queue. In solo queue, teams are never going to be coordinated enough to consistently deal with champions that are significantly stronger than others in the current patch. It just makes sense that the team captain would get to eliminate some of these issues before going into the game.
This same sort of logic applies when looking at the game from a competitive standpoint. If Rengar or Diana or whomever else is particularly strong during a certain patch, competitive teams are forced to select these champions themselves, or are forced to use one of their precious 3 bans on a champion that is just "op" and not one the other team might be particularly proficient in. Since the number of bans are so low already, it means certain champions we will see every single game, and other champions we will never see just from the nature of the way bans are to begin with.
This brings us to the way DotA bans are done. When on the pick/ban screen in DotA, both captains in ban 3 heroes each, then select three, ban two more, then pick their last two. This adds a lot of strategy to the way picks bans are done, and adds a different dynamic to the game. I don't think this is the best course of action for League of Legends to take, but it is certainly refreshing to see something outside the box thought of instead of just leaving things the way they are.
The Case Against: Less can be a more
Specifically, the same number of bans isn't the worst thing in the world. If we added more bans, certain champions would almost never be heard from again. It sucks not being able to play one of you favorite or best champions in solo queue because they are always banned. Riot certainly hates eliminating people's fun, and even goes so far as to try and eliminate anything in the game that is anti-fun, so not being able to never see the crying eyes of Amumu or the regal rockiness of Malphite would certainly put some of their player base out.
Let's move this argument to the competitive scene. Players get known for playing certain champions. It's rare to be able to see Froggen get to play Anivia (banned 85% of the time against CLG.EU) or Misaya play TF (banned 86% of the time against World Elite) and fans are missing out on seeing those champions played to (near)perfection. If we up the number of bans, we'd see player's marquee champions even less because there would simply be more opportunities for teams to take that champion away.
If we moved up to 8 bans, we'd be at 7.3% of the total champion base, which is still less than when the game began adding bans in the first place, but it would eliminate some champions for good especially against certain teams. This is a double-edged sword because it could mean we could see more champions than ever before in competitive play, but the second someone gets good enough with certain comps for a certain patch, teams will have enough bans to take them out of it. Just because there are more bans doesn't mean there will be more innovation especially if it becomes even easier to take teams out of what the want to do.
It's a fine line Riot must walk in order to keep releasing new champions to keep making money and keep the game fresh, along with keeping the game balanced and fair to keep it entertaining to watch and play. Personally I think we need at least one more ban a side and perhaps look into banning two champions at one point of champ select, and two at another instead of all in a block at the beginning. I'm open to trying new things to see how it works and if it could add strategy to the game, but adding bans is certainly a slippery slope because before you know it players will want 5 bans a side (if you give a mouse a cookie etc...)
What do you think RoG'ers? What should Riot do about the number of bans and should they look into doing a more DotA style of champion selection? Would it help or hurt the competitive scene? Let us know in the comment section and stay tuned to Reign of Gaming for all your League of Legends related news, updates, and theorycrafting-related needs!
Follow Reign of Gaming on twitter and like us on Facebook
Follow me on twitter here!
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted 12/12/2012 6:10:19 PMI like it how it is. Amumu is the only man I care about, other than that w/e, I can play against them. I don't think 5.5% is a "farcry" from 8.5%.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted 12/12/2012 4:08:26 PMSince Riot copied every single thing from DotA, and they keep copying things (elise-bloodmother, as a recent example), why not copyin the pick and bans method? After all there is way too much champions now than there was before, it would be a possitive change imo
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted 12/16/2012 9:55:23 PMRofl, Elise plays nothing like Broodmother.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted 12/12/2012 10:10:57 AMI support the adoption of the DotA way of banning and should end up banning 10 champion.
Actually, having more bans would allow the players, esp. the competitive players, to practice more champion on top of that little OP pool and put it on action, the current ban coverage is too small that the competitive players always stick on to a small pool of champion(<40 out of 109), and more bans actually opens more potential.
However, having too much ban on each side would cause the players to no longer care about how counter certain champion, for example, Misaya TF, Toyz Orianna, and Froggen Anivia, up till now the league still have close to no solution towards this certain champion as they can easily ban it out. The Dota solution of Allowing part of the bans to be done AFTER the 1st pick seems to be the best way IMO.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted 12/12/2012 11:32:16 AMPersonal example. I love playing Morgana. I'm very good with her, and I've loved her for 2 years. She's had her ups and downs, but only about 2 months ago did she start actually being possible to play in ranked. That was after 2 nerfs when she was already at under a 50% ban rate. 6 bans is already enough that people aren't super careful is who they pick. They'll stick to tried and true "oh, always ban her" philosophies, which may not really be the best choice. Over the course of 4 months, in about 40 5 queue games in which my team was happy to first pick her for me, I played her once. That's lame, and it's unfun. If a champion is horribly OP, it's to be expected that they'll be unavailable for a while, but "ban memory" persists long beyond that.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted 12/12/2012 9:52:47 AMHere's an idea I am curious to hear your responses on. What if each team were instead given 4 bans, BUT; each team could use a ban to "un-ban". For example, Team A banned Nidalee and Team B's top is very strong with her. Team B could waive a ban in order to un-ban Nidalee.
To add more complexity to this, lets say Team A REALLY doesn't want B to have Nidalee. They could then use 2 bans, instead of 1, to lock that ban in.
This adds a whole new layer of strategy, as well as offering players the opportunity to play their favorite champions even if "weak banned".
Let's hear your thoughts!
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted 12/12/2012 4:36:50 PMI can't see any reason that would be unfair or anything, so I guess it could work, but it's the sort of change that would need some serious testing.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted 12/13/2012 5:33:27 PMAfter thinking about that a bit, I must say that's an interesting idea. It may still be heavily abused in competitive play.
4 bans split in two ban turns per team (the second turn before the 3rd player of each team picking for instance) looks a quite elegant solution to me.
Mongol General: Conan! What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.
Mongol General: That is good! That is good.
- Conan the Barbarian -
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted 12/12/2012 2:30:12 AMThere are so many interactions between the cast of 107 champions, over 400 abilities, with over 100 items, huge amounts of Runes and Mastery combinations... Altogether there is a massive amount of customization available, there are a huge amount of champions who can fulfill any role or strategy... Sure, Anivia might be the best champion at stalling games (opinion) but Lux is also great at it, even Zilean has impressive wave clearing capabilities, If your strategy is to stall till late game when a Nunu-buffed Kog'maw can wreck the enemy team, that's fine, you'll try to select the champions which best allow you to achieve that... But every strategy should have a counter...
If they ban Kog'maw, you'll need to quickly (Within a matter of minutes) change your strategy, re-evaluate your champion choices and come up with a new way to win the game... To me, this seems healthy... I'm of the opinion that the amount of Bans should be increased to 8, more bans means more counters to common strategise, which means more diverse game-play... Counters, countering counters...
Frogen is amazing at Anivia, but since she gets banned a lot against CLG EU, Frogen needs to leanr new champions, practise, become awesome at multiple champions, his team needs to be adaptive, if he can't play Anivia and stall the game out, they'll need to adjust their strategy and choose their champions accordingly... This will increase their skill level with multiple champions and make them a better team in general... Healthy for the game...
When I watch a season championship, I don't want to see a team use the same strategy every single game and win, that doesn't prove that their the best, that just proves that they had one good idea.... However, a team who constantly changes their strategy... They're worthy of the title of best in the world... They know how to strategise, they know how to play a huge roster of champions and how those champions synergise with the rest of the team...
If Pro's were allowed to play their favourite champions over and over again, they wouldn't get any better at the game, their skills would stop increasing and they would eventually fall, when other teams come up with a way to beat their strategy...
More Bans = More diversity, Better Teams, Closer Games, More Entertaining Tournaments...
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted 12/12/2012 5:43:37 AMThis...
...is just not true. If teams knew they had to face a Froggen Anivia or a Misaya TF they would work to cope with it. They would "increase their skill level" to "counter" these champions. I don't think the number of bans is that important in competitive play. To me it just means more or less homework.
Diversity isn't brought by the number of bans. It is brought by balance. When Orianna or Evelyn (or before that, Gragas) where OP you would see them every game. And we can't deny some champions are also seen a lot because their potential has just been discovered and players have not had time to adapt. Also you seem to assimilate the number of champions or the level of skill a player has to the level of the team while these are two very different things
In soloQ you just ban downright opness, if the game was balanced we wouldn't need more of them. Maybe we would need an item ban right now...
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted 12/11/2012 10:23:54 PMI'd like to see 4 instead of 3 bans for each team and maybe add 1 free pick for the captain before ban phase begins.
this also forces to have more teamwork, when picking "op champions" - who wanna play it and stuff.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted 12/11/2012 10:33:51 PMIs that you, roxxie? o.o
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted 12/13/2012 5:40:34 PMNo.
But maybe that could sound too lapidary and rude, so let me rephrase it:
NO.
Instapick FotM OP champion, ban any possible strong counterpick to that, GG. As you can easily imagine, the only acceptable answer is
NO.
Mongol General: Conan! What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.
Mongol General: That is good! That is good.
- Conan the Barbarian -
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted 12/11/2012 7:14:21 PMI agree with what some people have mentioned here already, that if the champion pool is kept relatively balanced, then 6 bans is plenty. However, it probably will need to increase eventually as more and more champions enter the League. Adding strategy to the ban phase, similar to the way it is handle in DotA2, only seems like a good thing to me. Make people think more about team play from champ select and hopefully stop picking trash comps.
-
View User Profile
-
Send Message
Posted 12/11/2012 6:19:18 PMI am sticking to 5 bans and 1 guaranteed pick per team.