|
|
Bearded Elder29905 Posts
I have all champions as well :\
|
On April 16 2014 20:06 Zdrastochye wrote:Riot doesn't intend on increasing the bans, and I'm alright with that. 8-10 bans focused on one role would force people to have 9-11+ champions that they can play at their desired or secondary role. Can't really ask for that in fairness. Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 20:05 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On April 16 2014 19:57 arb wrote:On April 16 2014 19:07 Duvon wrote:
You don't own all the champions though. And we've all seen the posts "should I buy X or Y?, X is banned all the time but so fun". Considering the Riot business model, I can definately see them not allowing more bans.
Personally I think it'd be fine with more bans though. It'd be cool if each person could choose a champ to ban, not only team captain. people actually dont own all the champions? lol I mean i'm missing 11, but i have no real desire to buy or play any of the champions left(i didnt like them before) so its like, why even bother? I have more than enough to play whatever role im forced into playing Realistically, even with 10 bans, even if you banned all jungles, that would mean some of the less played wooders(nunu fiora mummy pig cow) or something could all still be played and would be perfectly fine at it. I own all champions and I have spent $0 on this game #rekt #ggggggggggg Opportunity cost of playing League, how much money could you have made if you were doing paid work instead of all your time spent playing League? TYL that you could've made an additional $40,000. #rekt
I did it in my free time while working and getting my doctorate
This is my hobby, as in i play this game casually maybe once a day now and i'm still plat 3 and rising #rekt
PS, what are you doing with your life? [edit back because it was too aggro]
|
On April 16 2014 20:51 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 20:06 Zdrastochye wrote:Riot doesn't intend on increasing the bans, and I'm alright with that. 8-10 bans focused on one role would force people to have 9-11+ champions that they can play at their desired or secondary role. Can't really ask for that in fairness. On April 16 2014 20:05 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On April 16 2014 19:57 arb wrote:On April 16 2014 19:07 Duvon wrote:
You don't own all the champions though. And we've all seen the posts "should I buy X or Y?, X is banned all the time but so fun". Considering the Riot business model, I can definately see them not allowing more bans.
Personally I think it'd be fine with more bans though. It'd be cool if each person could choose a champ to ban, not only team captain. people actually dont own all the champions? lol I mean i'm missing 11, but i have no real desire to buy or play any of the champions left(i didnt like them before) so its like, why even bother? I have more than enough to play whatever role im forced into playing Realistically, even with 10 bans, even if you banned all jungles, that would mean some of the less played wooders(nunu fiora mummy pig cow) or something could all still be played and would be perfectly fine at it. I own all champions and I have spent $0 on this game #rekt #ggggggggggg Opportunity cost of playing League, how much money could you have made if you were doing paid work instead of all your time spent playing League? TYL that you could've made an additional $40,000. #rekt I did it in my free time while working and getting my doctorate This is my hobby, as in i play this game casually maybe once a day now and i'm still plat 3 and rising #rekt PS, what are you doing with your life?
youve also been playing since the dawn of time
granted ive bought almost everything with IP, only a couple with rp if i was real lazy and didnt feel like farming.
Harder for people to get IP now since they did that change forever ago that shit on ip farming zzz.
|
On April 16 2014 20:51 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 20:06 Zdrastochye wrote:Riot doesn't intend on increasing the bans, and I'm alright with that. 8-10 bans focused on one role would force people to have 9-11+ champions that they can play at their desired or secondary role. Can't really ask for that in fairness. On April 16 2014 20:05 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On April 16 2014 19:57 arb wrote:On April 16 2014 19:07 Duvon wrote:
You don't own all the champions though. And we've all seen the posts "should I buy X or Y?, X is banned all the time but so fun". Considering the Riot business model, I can definately see them not allowing more bans.
Personally I think it'd be fine with more bans though. It'd be cool if each person could choose a champ to ban, not only team captain. people actually dont own all the champions? lol I mean i'm missing 11, but i have no real desire to buy or play any of the champions left(i didnt like them before) so its like, why even bother? I have more than enough to play whatever role im forced into playing Realistically, even with 10 bans, even if you banned all jungles, that would mean some of the less played wooders(nunu fiora mummy pig cow) or something could all still be played and would be perfectly fine at it. I own all champions and I have spent $0 on this game #rekt #ggggggggggg Opportunity cost of playing League, how much money could you have made if you were doing paid work instead of all your time spent playing League? TYL that you could've made an additional $40,000. #rekt I did it in my free time while working and getting my doctorate This is my hobby, as in i play this game casually maybe once a day now and i'm still plat 3 and rising #rekt PS, what are you doing with your life? If you spent time sucking dick instead of commenting about other people's lives you could have made an additional $600000
cant outrek 5hit
|
On April 16 2014 20:51 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 20:06 Zdrastochye wrote:Riot doesn't intend on increasing the bans, and I'm alright with that. 8-10 bans focused on one role would force people to have 9-11+ champions that they can play at their desired or secondary role. Can't really ask for that in fairness. On April 16 2014 20:05 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On April 16 2014 19:57 arb wrote:On April 16 2014 19:07 Duvon wrote:
You don't own all the champions though. And we've all seen the posts "should I buy X or Y?, X is banned all the time but so fun". Considering the Riot business model, I can definately see them not allowing more bans.
Personally I think it'd be fine with more bans though. It'd be cool if each person could choose a champ to ban, not only team captain. people actually dont own all the champions? lol I mean i'm missing 11, but i have no real desire to buy or play any of the champions left(i didnt like them before) so its like, why even bother? I have more than enough to play whatever role im forced into playing Realistically, even with 10 bans, even if you banned all jungles, that would mean some of the less played wooders(nunu fiora mummy pig cow) or something could all still be played and would be perfectly fine at it. I own all champions and I have spent $0 on this game #rekt #ggggggggggg Opportunity cost of playing League, how much money could you have made if you were doing paid work instead of all your time spent playing League? TYL that you could've made an additional $40,000. #rekt I did it in my free time while working and getting my doctorate This is my hobby, as in i play this game casually maybe once a day now and i'm still plat 3 and rising #rekt PS, what are you doing with your life? [edit back because it was too aggro]
I am pursuing a bachelor's degree in professional sports, obviously. I didn't know about it until you told me, now I'm finding that the median pay rate is like $1-5m/year for baseball players, so I'm going to just do that.
And I only play League at night because my primary job is hooking, and that's hooking primetime.
|
On April 16 2014 19:57 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 19:07 Duvon wrote:
You don't own all the champions though. And we've all seen the posts "should I buy X or Y?, X is banned all the time but so fun". Considering the Riot business model, I can definately see them not allowing more bans.
Personally I think it'd be fine with more bans though. It'd be cool if each person could choose a champ to ban, not only team captain. people actually dont own all the champions? lol I mean i'm missing 11, but i have no real desire to buy or play any of the champions left(i didnt like them before) so its like, why even bother? I have more than enough to play whatever role im forced into playing Realistically, even with 10 bans, even if you banned all jungles, that would mean some of the less played wooders(nunu fiora mummy pig cow) or something could all still be played and would be perfectly fine at it.
lol
"Just play 16 junglers, ezpz."
Didn't know champ pools were supposed to be champ lakes.
|
Quick, throw a fish pun in that pond!
|
On April 16 2014 21:05 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 19:57 arb wrote:On April 16 2014 19:07 Duvon wrote:
You don't own all the champions though. And we've all seen the posts "should I buy X or Y?, X is banned all the time but so fun". Considering the Riot business model, I can definately see them not allowing more bans.
Personally I think it'd be fine with more bans though. It'd be cool if each person could choose a champ to ban, not only team captain. people actually dont own all the champions? lol I mean i'm missing 11, but i have no real desire to buy or play any of the champions left(i didnt like them before) so its like, why even bother? I have more than enough to play whatever role im forced into playing Realistically, even with 10 bans, even if you banned all jungles, that would mean some of the less played wooders(nunu fiora mummy pig cow) or something could all still be played and would be perfectly fine at it. lol "Just play 16 junglers, ezpz." Didn't know champ pools were supposed to be champ lakes.
Well, lol, you kinda have to assume the other player is in the same position so you get Rusty amumu vs. rusty udyr.
|
3/3 ban phase 1/2/2/1 pick phase 1/1 ban phase 2/2 pick phase.
Job done. Still 6 bans and whatever role is targetted is obviously picked in the first pick phase, no problems whatsoever with removing a complete position.
You make timers legit (not doto here have 30 mins of reserve time) and theres no issue.
Why are people saying riot dont want to add more bans because it would "delete a role"? Maybe if you have 10 bans at the beginning it might cause a problem.
|
On April 16 2014 21:24 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 21:05 Gahlo wrote:On April 16 2014 19:57 arb wrote:On April 16 2014 19:07 Duvon wrote:
You don't own all the champions though. And we've all seen the posts "should I buy X or Y?, X is banned all the time but so fun". Considering the Riot business model, I can definately see them not allowing more bans.
Personally I think it'd be fine with more bans though. It'd be cool if each person could choose a champ to ban, not only team captain. people actually dont own all the champions? lol I mean i'm missing 11, but i have no real desire to buy or play any of the champions left(i didnt like them before) so its like, why even bother? I have more than enough to play whatever role im forced into playing Realistically, even with 10 bans, even if you banned all jungles, that would mean some of the less played wooders(nunu fiora mummy pig cow) or something could all still be played and would be perfectly fine at it. lol "Just play 16 junglers, ezpz." Didn't know champ pools were supposed to be champ lakes. Well, lol, you kinda have to assume the other player is in the same position so you get Rusty amumu vs. rusty udyr.
Brb, learning at least 3 times as many champions for my main role so I can play some pretty crappy ones and be the team scapegoat some more.
On April 16 2014 21:33 Omnishroud wrote:
3/3 ban phase 1/2/2/1 pick phase 1/1 ban phase 2/2 pick phase.
Job done. Still 6 bans and whatever role is targetted is obviously picked in the first pick phase, no problems whatsoever with removing a complete position.
You make timers legit (not doto here have 30 mins of reserve time) and theres no issue.
Why are people saying riot dont want to add more bans because it would "delete a role"? Maybe if you have 10 bans at the beginning it might cause a problem.
Because people are asking for 8-10 bans, which requires 10-12 meta champs to not fuck a role over. Also, that assumes that none of them can be moved outside their role.
|
|
|
On April 16 2014 21:34 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 21:24 cLutZ wrote:On April 16 2014 21:05 Gahlo wrote:On April 16 2014 19:57 arb wrote:On April 16 2014 19:07 Duvon wrote:
You don't own all the champions though. And we've all seen the posts "should I buy X or Y?, X is banned all the time but so fun". Considering the Riot business model, I can definately see them not allowing more bans.
Personally I think it'd be fine with more bans though. It'd be cool if each person could choose a champ to ban, not only team captain. people actually dont own all the champions? lol I mean i'm missing 11, but i have no real desire to buy or play any of the champions left(i didnt like them before) so its like, why even bother? I have more than enough to play whatever role im forced into playing Realistically, even with 10 bans, even if you banned all jungles, that would mean some of the less played wooders(nunu fiora mummy pig cow) or something could all still be played and would be perfectly fine at it. lol "Just play 16 junglers, ezpz." Didn't know champ pools were supposed to be champ lakes. Well, lol, you kinda have to assume the other player is in the same position so you get Rusty amumu vs. rusty udyr. Brb, learning at least 3 times as many champions for my main role so I can play some pretty crappy ones and be the team scapegoat some more. Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 21:33 Omnishroud wrote:
3/3 ban phase 1/2/2/1 pick phase 1/1 ban phase 2/2 pick phase.
Job done. Still 6 bans and whatever role is targetted is obviously picked in the first pick phase, no problems whatsoever with removing a complete position.
You make timers legit (not doto here have 30 mins of reserve time) and theres no issue.
Why are people saying riot dont want to add more bans because it would "delete a role"? Maybe if you have 10 bans at the beginning it might cause a problem. Because people are asking for 8-10 bans, which requires 10-12 meta champs to not fuck a role over. Also, that assumes that none of them can be moved outside their role.
Lol what? It would be so rare in solo queue, and if there were all 1 role there probably be some guy who is all about bringing back some old champ.
In 5v5, you're own team needs to conspire against you, for this scenario lol.
|
On April 16 2014 21:34 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 21:24 cLutZ wrote:On April 16 2014 21:05 Gahlo wrote:On April 16 2014 19:57 arb wrote:On April 16 2014 19:07 Duvon wrote:
You don't own all the champions though. And we've all seen the posts "should I buy X or Y?, X is banned all the time but so fun". Considering the Riot business model, I can definately see them not allowing more bans.
Personally I think it'd be fine with more bans though. It'd be cool if each person could choose a champ to ban, not only team captain. people actually dont own all the champions? lol I mean i'm missing 11, but i have no real desire to buy or play any of the champions left(i didnt like them before) so its like, why even bother? I have more than enough to play whatever role im forced into playing Realistically, even with 10 bans, even if you banned all jungles, that would mean some of the less played wooders(nunu fiora mummy pig cow) or something could all still be played and would be perfectly fine at it. lol "Just play 16 junglers, ezpz." Didn't know champ pools were supposed to be champ lakes. Well, lol, you kinda have to assume the other player is in the same position so you get Rusty amumu vs. rusty udyr. Brb, learning at least 3 times as many champions for my main role so I can play some pretty crappy ones and be the team scapegoat some more. Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 21:33 Omnishroud wrote:
3/3 ban phase 1/2/2/1 pick phase 1/1 ban phase 2/2 pick phase.
Job done. Still 6 bans and whatever role is targetted is obviously picked in the first pick phase, no problems whatsoever with removing a complete position.
You make timers legit (not doto here have 30 mins of reserve time) and theres no issue.
Why are people saying riot dont want to add more bans because it would "delete a role"? Maybe if you have 10 bans at the beginning it might cause a problem. Because people are asking for 8-10 bans, which requires 10-12 meta champs to not fuck a role over. Also, that assumes that none of them can be moved outside their role.
I have to go with unseen on this one. 8-10 bans, provided only 6 are at the beginning before a pick phase, changes absolutely nothing and requires no more "meta champs" then the current system. 6 bans -> oh jungle was targetted -> pick jungle before next ban phase.
Any more bans at the beginning is stupid, which i think i already half-said. Theres a reason dota does it the way it does. For riot to refuse outright because dota does it would be extensively stupid considering their game is a clone of it to begin with.
Ban/pick/ban/pick is just the way it works in mobas. There is no other option after a certain point. (e.g 100+ champions to pick.) Riot are just being pigheaded.
|
i remember the good ole days when it was 4 bans, and garen sion taric and mummy were all of them
lolol
|
On April 16 2014 21:47 Omnishroud wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 21:34 Gahlo wrote:On April 16 2014 21:24 cLutZ wrote:On April 16 2014 21:05 Gahlo wrote:On April 16 2014 19:57 arb wrote:On April 16 2014 19:07 Duvon wrote:
You don't own all the champions though. And we've all seen the posts "should I buy X or Y?, X is banned all the time but so fun". Considering the Riot business model, I can definately see them not allowing more bans.
Personally I think it'd be fine with more bans though. It'd be cool if each person could choose a champ to ban, not only team captain. people actually dont own all the champions? lol I mean i'm missing 11, but i have no real desire to buy or play any of the champions left(i didnt like them before) so its like, why even bother? I have more than enough to play whatever role im forced into playing Realistically, even with 10 bans, even if you banned all jungles, that would mean some of the less played wooders(nunu fiora mummy pig cow) or something could all still be played and would be perfectly fine at it. lol "Just play 16 junglers, ezpz." Didn't know champ pools were supposed to be champ lakes. Well, lol, you kinda have to assume the other player is in the same position so you get Rusty amumu vs. rusty udyr. Brb, learning at least 3 times as many champions for my main role so I can play some pretty crappy ones and be the team scapegoat some more. On April 16 2014 21:33 Omnishroud wrote:
3/3 ban phase 1/2/2/1 pick phase 1/1 ban phase 2/2 pick phase.
Job done. Still 6 bans and whatever role is targetted is obviously picked in the first pick phase, no problems whatsoever with removing a complete position.
You make timers legit (not doto here have 30 mins of reserve time) and theres no issue.
Why are people saying riot dont want to add more bans because it would "delete a role"? Maybe if you have 10 bans at the beginning it might cause a problem. Because people are asking for 8-10 bans, which requires 10-12 meta champs to not fuck a role over. Also, that assumes that none of them can be moved outside their role. I have to go with unseen on this one. 8-10 bans, provided only 6 are at the beginning before a pick phase, changes absolutely nothing and requires no more "meta champs" then the current system. 6 bans -> oh jungle was targetted -> pick jungle before next ban phase. Any more bans at the beginning is stupid, which i think i already half-said. Theres a reason dota does it the way it does. For riot to refuse outright because dota does it would be extensively stupid considering their game is a clone of it to begin with. Ban/pick/ban/pick is just the way it works in mobas. There is no other option after a certain point. (e.g 100+ champions to pick.) Riot are just being pigheaded.
I think this discussion has happened a thousand times in this forum. In fact Yango most likely has prewritten responses for it. At the end of the day it won't happen until Riot decides to let Solo Q and competitive league be separate. They'll want the two to seem similar and will never do interwoven bans in solo q due to their Hero model(Also complexity).
This is unfortunate as they will never ever have niche heroes or strategies become a thing without a way to protect and react in the draft phase. On another note I hate how people call for more bans due to the hero pool. Interwoven bans has nothing to do with the number of heroes and everything to do with adding in more potential in the draft phase. The difference between 70 or 100 or 200 heroes is hardly the reason why they should change the draft system.
|
I've thought for a while it should be upped to 8 bans total.
The champion pool is just too massive at the moment banning 6 of 130 champions really doesn't have much of an effect at all.
|
On April 16 2014 21:42 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 21:34 Gahlo wrote:On April 16 2014 21:24 cLutZ wrote:On April 16 2014 21:05 Gahlo wrote:On April 16 2014 19:57 arb wrote:On April 16 2014 19:07 Duvon wrote:
You don't own all the champions though. And we've all seen the posts "should I buy X or Y?, X is banned all the time but so fun". Considering the Riot business model, I can definately see them not allowing more bans.
Personally I think it'd be fine with more bans though. It'd be cool if each person could choose a champ to ban, not only team captain. people actually dont own all the champions? lol I mean i'm missing 11, but i have no real desire to buy or play any of the champions left(i didnt like them before) so its like, why even bother? I have more than enough to play whatever role im forced into playing Realistically, even with 10 bans, even if you banned all jungles, that would mean some of the less played wooders(nunu fiora mummy pig cow) or something could all still be played and would be perfectly fine at it. lol "Just play 16 junglers, ezpz." Didn't know champ pools were supposed to be champ lakes. Well, lol, you kinda have to assume the other player is in the same position so you get Rusty amumu vs. rusty udyr. Brb, learning at least 3 times as many champions for my main role so I can play some pretty crappy ones and be the team scapegoat some more. On April 16 2014 21:33 Omnishroud wrote:
3/3 ban phase 1/2/2/1 pick phase 1/1 ban phase 2/2 pick phase.
Job done. Still 6 bans and whatever role is targetted is obviously picked in the first pick phase, no problems whatsoever with removing a complete position.
You make timers legit (not doto here have 30 mins of reserve time) and theres no issue.
Why are people saying riot dont want to add more bans because it would "delete a role"? Maybe if you have 10 bans at the beginning it might cause a problem. Because people are asking for 8-10 bans, which requires 10-12 meta champs to not fuck a role over. Also, that assumes that none of them can be moved outside their role. Lol what? It would be so rare in solo queue, and if there were all 1 role there probably be some guy who is all about bringing back some old champ. In 5v5, you're own team needs to conspire against you, for this scenario lol.
I consistently see 4-6 jungle bans in soloq, if only because of low elo staples like Blitzcrank.
|
If you main jungle that should be an advantage for you...
|
I still feel like increasing bans just kills innovation at the pro level. If there are 5 bans/team then you get to bust out your cool new champ for one game and then it gets banned every game after that.
see: support Annie at Worlds
|
On April 17 2014 00:00 Alzadar wrote:
I still feel like increasing bans just kills innovation at the pro level. If there are 5 bans/team then you get to bust out your cool new champ for one game and then it gets banned every game after that.
see: support Annie at Worlds
This is a pretty huge misconception. It actually increases innovation if it's done interwoven. The reason for this is with just upfront bans there is no way to protect a champion or strategy and there is no way to try deny one. Everything is banned before any actual gameplan or strategy is forming. That is why you always see standard bans and picks. Even the "niche" picks you see are more often than not actually pretty standard while not changing the overall strategy by much.
Another big misconception is that a champion by itself is innovation. Support Annie at worlds was more a fad than real innovation. You can tell this by the way Royal used annie compared to what most other teams used her. Royal almost always laned her mid with a strong jungler and deep wards in order to facilitate strong aggressive jungling and rotations. Side lane annie was actually a lot weaker and for lack of a better word ruined the whole reason for picking her but you still saw most of the teams use her like this. The real innovation was not annie but the use of her in the mid with aggressive jungling. It's entirely possible that his gameplan might have worked with other champions instead of annie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
