|
On September 04 2015 00:23 Caiada wrote:
If you could explain how pick order determined by MMR was somehow better than random, that'd be cool, since that's what your argument was actually about.
On September 03 2015 22:11 VayneAuthority wrote:
its not just about more bans either, the system has needed a rework for a while now ever since they made captain completely random. It was fine when you had the highest MMR person doing the bans because they deserved it, but now just anyone being able to do the bans can severely impact the game and its highly unfair. If its going to be random the ban system should have been moved to more equality a long time ago, which ties in with 5 bans per side anyway.
first post I made on the subject. My argument has always been if its going to be random then it needs to be fair.
and determined by MMR is better then random because it's being determined by SOMETHING. nothing random is ever good for
#COMPETITIVE INTEGRITY
|
Determined by a system with inherent statistical variance, determined by a random number generator, what is honestly the functional difference?
|
On September 04 2015 00:27 Caiada wrote:
Determined by a system with inherent statistical variance, determined by a random number generator, what is honestly the functional difference?
so what exactly do you find so appalling about every player getting a ban and making it completely equal?
|
Nothing, but that's not the argument, is it?
I have a vague inclination that's possibly too many bans, but I'd probably test it. Shit's far-reaching.
|
On September 04 2015 00:28 Caiada wrote:
Nothing, but that's not the argument, is it?
it is exactly the argument. people just took what I posted out of context and started a completely different tangent, that's always been the original post.
5 bans 1 per player > MMR > random
|
I'd be tempted to link that mafia game where one guy convinced the others to random lynch d1 with math, and it hit scum. 
Volibear's passive is %HP-based so it actually doesn't care whether you build HP or resistances as long as they are well-balanced, Req.
(The bite scaling on %bonus HP and the fact that HP is way cheaper than armour and works well against MR too still make you right for building HP.)
|
On September 04 2015 00:34 Alaric wrote:I'd be tempted to link that mafia game where one guy convinced the others to random lynch d1 with math, and it hit scum. Volibear's passive is %HP-based so it actually doesn't care whether you build HP or resistances as long as they are well-balanced, Req. (The bite scaling on % bonus HP and the fact that HP is way cheaper than armour and works well against MR too still make you right for building HP.)
Well yeah, as far as the passive goes there's probably not a solid reason to pick HP over Resists (math may prove that wrong or right), but the fact that it does get stronger with Health is a nice bonus. And Bite is really strong. I feel like his W is a flat out amazing ability for Jungling. Gives clear speed, build tank, still nuke people in fights.
That said, he probably does struggle in top lane without a reliable clear or pushing power.
|
it's like you guys have never seen vayneauthority post or something
|
Titanic/SV into Warmog's is what I'd do taking him top. A lot of health, a lot of damage, crazy Warmog's passive. And you get waveclear. Only problem is, I think then you're just a slightly worse Shen.
|
On September 04 2015 00:40 Nos- wrote:
it's like you guys have never seen vayneauthority post or something
In my defense, I really haven't. I'm just a lonely jungle golem whose home was burned down.
But his ban per player idea is interesting, as I said before. Caiada, you said 5 bans might be too many, but I'm not sure. It would certainly shake things up. I know the topic of interwoven bans (a la Dota) has been mentioned and likely talked to death, but I think it would really add to the strategy of picks bans
|
The issue with interwoven bans in solo q is that League's pay model drastically reduces players ability to play everything. Dota doesn't have this issue so making team comps is a lot easier and the UI doesn't have to account for the pool of heroes each member has. Don't think there's anything wrong with the solo q system now. You could make a case for bans being something that game doesn't even need at that level and instead merely lock champs out of ranked if they have had any drastic changes.
|
Lol you definitely need bans pls don't be ridiculous.
|
On September 04 2015 01:12 nafta wrote:
Lol you definitely need bans pls don't be ridiculous.
I'd rather have a situation where there are no characters that are so strong that they "have to be banned" and then have no bans, just let people play what they want. But that'd never happen, as is the nature of balance in these sorts of games.
I much prefer bans in the way of "we ban out characters that counter our characters/composition", rather than "we ban out characters that are broken".
|
On September 04 2015 01:12 nafta wrote:
Lol you definitely need bans pls don't be ridiculous.
Well if all the broken champs aren't in ranked or there just aren't broken champs then front loaded bans don't actually do anything. That's kind of the logic I can see people making a case for. If there will ever be a case like that is another story.
|
Theres also the "i personally think x is bullshit and would rather not play against it if I can help it" factor.
|
On September 04 2015 01:26 Osmoses wrote:
Theres also the "i personally think x is bullshit and would rather not play against it if I can help it" factor.
Which is a fine reason to ban too, I'd say.
|
Right? Some champs are just not fun to play against/with.
|
On September 04 2015 01:26 Osmoses wrote:
Theres also the "i personally think x is bullshit and would rather not play against it if I can help it" factor.
Thing is, there's a grey zone between 'I hate playing against this champion' and 'This champion is flat out broken, can't let enemy have it'.
Removing bans would be a really bad idea, wouldn't be surprised if the soloQ meta became very stale because of it. Some champion pick rates might skyrocket because there's no way to prevent that champion from being in the game, and then the enemy team would be forced to play around it, instead of just banning that champion.
You could make a case for bans being something that game doesn't even need at that level and instead merely lock champs out of ranked if they have had any drastic changes.
That would mean Riot wouldn't know if a champion was overtuned or not until it hit ranked, which is just a waste of time. Normals are not a good indicator of champion health, considering that people of different MMR get thrown into the same game. And disabling a champ on live just seems a good way to add fuel to the anti-Riot circlejerk.
|
Bans are complicated. Which is kind of why I prefer keeping the soloq system as simple as possible and, if it was tested and shown to potentially be really cool, making a more complicated drafting style for competitive/ranked 5s.
|
I'd argue that ranked play is already "stale" and a poor indicator of champion strength. Will it be any less stale if the reworked champs just were disabled? Who knows. A lot of assumptions and theories but until it gets done you can't really say.
I'm merely looking at how someone else who has been designing a moba for years goes about doing things and trying to see if such logic can be applied to a similar but different game. The league community has had things a certain way for so long that any change will be seen as a negative. We already saw that in the Ghostcrawler ban discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
