| Forum Index > LoL Tournaments |
In bold, please post any uStream feedback you have. Include your country and browser I'll be relaying intel back to Riot. Much thanks. - Neo, 11:37 30.08 Day 1 Data Day 2 Data | ||
|
Cuddle
Sweden1345 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + So I was watching the CLG vs. Dig game VODs and first game was 1 clip. When game 2 (clip 2) was 30-40 mins in and CLG were catching up I looked at the timer on the video: "Oh, the video is 1:30:30 long. So there's gonna be a game 3 after all..." Then I was like:  | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
On September 02 2012 16:32 zulu_nation8 wrote: there are not enough bans. Also the two top thing is stupid, can't believe no team has thought of anything that just trashes it, the teams who won just did it better. I actually think it's the other way around. The number of bans is fine, or it should be reduced. Right now it is being used on a meta-level way too often and easily abused. What I mean by that is a team would often set out targeted bans against a single player (e.g. Froggen's Anivia, Misaya's TF), not because these champions hinder their strategy in mind, but that these players are considered "too good" at these champions. So teams often go, "hey, we are playing against Froggen, so let's ban Anivia so we don't have to deal with it". I think this is bad for two reasons: 1. From Froggen's perspective, he probably spent a lot of time practicing Anivia so he can win games, not to get Anivia banned every single game. To be able to click the "ban" button to put so many hours of his practice time in vain seems a bit unfair to me. 2. As a "counter" strategy it is way too powerful. If, say, champion X is currently believed to be "strong", the players should try to develop strategies to counter champion X. Unfortunately it's just so much easier to click the "ban" button instead of sitting down and develop new strategies. Putting professional level games aside, in typical soloQ bans exist because they give Riot a sad excuse for having an imbalanced game. What do you think would have happened if we were a the time of the release Zyra and there were no bans? The blue side would pick Zyra every single game as as a result there would be a LOT more QQing about Zyra. | ||
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On September 02 2012 17:56 Sufficiency wrote: I actually think it's the other way around. The number of bans is fine, or it should be reduced. Right now it is being used on a meta-level way too often and easily abused. What I mean by that is a team would often set out targeted bans against a single player (e.g. Froggen's Anivia, Misaya's TF), not because these champions hinder their strategy in mind, but that these players are considered "too good" at these champions. So teams often go, "hey, we are playing against Froggen, so let's ban Anivia so we don't have to deal with it". I think this is bad for two reasons: 1. From Froggen's perspective, he probably spent a lot of time practicing Anivia so he can win games, not to get Anivia banned every single game. To be able to click the "ban" button to put so many hours of his practice time in vain seems a bit unfair to me. 2. As a "counter" strategy it is way too powerful. If, say, champion X is currently believed to be "strong", the players should try to develop strategies to counter champion X. Unfortunately it's just so much easier to click the "ban" button instead of sitting down and develop new strategies. Putting professional level games aside, in typical soloQ bans exist because they give Riot a sad excuse for having an imbalanced game. What do you think would have happened if we were a the time of the release Zyra and there were no bans? The blue side would pick Zyra every single game as as a result there would be a LOT more QQing about Zyra. lol it's absolutely ok to punish players for being one dimensional. Also, champions are banned for way complicated reasons than being "strong." Yorick was banned because he's strong in 1v2, does it mean he's strong in any other meta or in solo queue? Not really. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6223 Posts
On September 02 2012 17:56 Sufficiency wrote: I actually think it's the other way around. The number of bans is fine, or it should be reduced. Right now it is being used on a meta-level way too often and easily abused. What I mean by that is a team would often set out targeted bans against a single player (e.g. Froggen's Anivia, Misaya's TF), not because these champions hinder their strategy in mind, but that these players are considered "too good" at these champions. So teams often go, "hey, we are playing against Froggen, so let's ban Anivia so we don't have to deal with it". I think this is bad for two reasons: 1. From Froggen's perspective, he probably spent a lot of time practicing Anivia so he can win games, not to get Anivia banned every single game. To be able to click the "ban" button to put so many hours of his practice time in vain seems a bit unfair to me. 2. As a "counter" strategy it is way too powerful. If, say, champion X is currently believed to be "strong", the players should try to develop strategies to counter champion X. Unfortunately it's just so much easier to click the "ban" button instead of sitting down and develop new strategies. Putting professional level games aside, in typical soloQ bans exist because they give Riot a sad excuse for having an imbalanced game. What do you think would have happened if we were a the time of the release Zyra and there were no bans? The blue side would pick Zyra every single game as as a result there would be a LOT more QQing about Zyra. I'm on the side of not quite enough bans. In professional play, there are 3 guaranteed bans and 1/2 guaranteed "bans" beyond that. First pick team can actually ban out 4 champions from a single player, (Example being the banning out of karthus, anivia, gragas + FP ahri against froggen). This left a lot of strong champions though like alistar and shen for example. If your players have enough of a champion pool to adapt to things like this, you can put yourself at a large advantage (For example, irelia, kogmaw, maokai, alistar are all open, all champions that clgeu loves and other teams have banned out in the past). 2. Some champions are also straight up OP or certain strategies are difficult to deal with. There's a reason that PAX is played on the diana patch with diana disabled. She is OP on that patch and forcing the second pick team to use a ban to ban her out is unfair. In tournaments that didn't disable diana, she was banned out pretty often. When zyra first launched, I believe scarra? played her like two days after release in a tournament in a BO3 and after the first game zyra was first banned by purple side. If you're forced to adapt to the previous game in a series by removing some champions from the pool that aren't common, fewer bans are detrimental to the game (Example from the asian scene is lulu+shyvana, that combo resulted in lulu bans or orianna + malphite that resulted in the ban of one or the other). I started watching dota for the international and I think that giving teams a chance to pick two champs on each side and then allowing one final ban on each side would probably be the best solution. It doesn't allow a team to completely ban/pick out a player, giving his team a chance to grab a champion for that particular role while also giving people room to eliminate a strategy based on the champions seen. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22415 Posts
On September 02 2012 17:56 Sufficiency wrote: I actually think it's the other way around. The number of bans is fine, or it should be reduced. Right now it is being used on a meta-level way too often and easily abused. What I mean by that is a team would often set out targeted bans against a single player (e.g. Froggen's Anivia, Misaya's TF), not because these champions hinder their strategy in mind, but that these players are considered "too good" at these champions. So teams often go, "hey, we are playing against Froggen, so let's ban Anivia so we don't have to deal with it". I think this is bad for two reasons: 1. From Froggen's perspective, he probably spent a lot of time practicing Anivia so he can win games, not to get Anivia banned every single game. To be able to click the "ban" button to put so many hours of his practice time in vain seems a bit unfair to me. 2. As a "counter" strategy it is way too powerful. If, say, champion X is currently believed to be "strong", the players should try to develop strategies to counter champion X. Unfortunately it's just so much easier to click the "ban" button instead of sitting down and develop new strategies. Putting professional level games aside, in typical soloQ bans exist because they give Riot a sad excuse for having an imbalanced game. What do you think would have happened if we were a the time of the release Zyra and there were no bans? The blue side would pick Zyra every single game as as a result there would be a LOT more QQing about Zyra. I would actualy say there are not enough OP champions in LoL. The fact people can ban out players shows they have bans to spare. By increasing the number of very good (utterly OP is bad ofc) champions the banning phase becomes much more tactics. You have to set up strategies that can deal with a set of these champions while banning the onces it cant deal with. | ||
|
Gaslo
Finland951 Posts
| ||
|
TheKefka
Croatia11752 Posts
On September 02 2012 19:24 Gaslo wrote: I thought the championships would be played on the same patch as the regionals? So without Diana? yep,no diana | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6223 Posts
On September 02 2012 18:51 Gorsameth wrote: I would actualy say there are not enough OP champions in LoL. The fact people can ban out players shows they have bans to spare. By increasing the number of very good (utterly OP is bad ofc) champions the banning phase becomes much more tactics. You have to set up strategies that can deal with a set of these champions while banning the onces it cant deal with. What would the point of purposefully making OP champions be? Zyra was insanely broken on release. Gank her at level 2? She has E already, aha, snared, gtfo. Gank her at 4 after clearing and being at 75% health? NP, she'll kill you and then kill your midlaner with her passive. Gank her after 6? Easy double for her. Making champions so broken that the only solution that isn't firstpicking them is banning them out is stupid. If there's too many, there's going to be a shift away from the current "mains" towards them and the OP will become the standard which doesn't make sense at all. Currently 60-70% of the champion pool sees competitive play at any given tournament and 80-85% have been played at a tournament in the past three months. You're proposing having 10% of the champions be autolocks/bans and then the other 50% fight it out for a chance at the lastpick slot? Froggen's probably one of the best and worst examples to use as far as targeted bans. There have been times where people have taken four or more of his champions out of the pool of available champions and he still goes legendary on a fifth or sixth champion in his roster. He's just so good at the game that people have to try and shut him down by whatever means possible, whether it's trying to ban him out or camping him non-stop. There's certain people that draw single bans, oddone on maokai, long ago hotshot on nidalee, alex ich on ryze but very few if any pros draw the same level of ban-outs that froggen does. | ||
|
.Riot
Philippines242 Posts
It's kind of sad for me how I'm a CLG fan, and it felt so confident and sure that CLG COULD pull through against any team in NA. The same kind of feels I had during the previous MLGs. Now it feels like from the get go, that they're underdogs. Like the only one who you can kind of rely on to win his lane is Chausterlift now.  | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22415 Posts
On September 02 2012 19:40 Lmui wrote: What would the point of purposefully making OP champions be? Zyra was insanely broken on release. Gank her at level 2? She has E already, aha, snared, gtfo. Gank her at 4 after clearing and being at 75% health? NP, she'll kill you and then kill your midlaner with her passive. Gank her after 6? Easy double for her. Making champions so broken that the only solution that isn't firstpicking them is banning them out is stupid. If there's too many, there's going to be a shift away from the current "mains" towards them and the OP will become the standard which doesn't make sense at all. Currently 60-70% of the champion pool sees competitive play at any given tournament and 80-85% have been played at a tournament in the past three months. You're proposing having 10% of the champions be autolocks/bans and then the other 50% fight it out for a chance at the lastpick slot? Froggen's probably one of the best and worst examples to use as far as targeted bans. There have been times where people have taken four or more of his champions out of the pool of available champions and he still goes legendary on a fifth or sixth champion in his roster. He's just so good at the game that people have to try and shut him down by whatever means possible, whether it's trying to ban him out or camping him non-stop. There's certain people that draw single bans, oddone on maokai, long ago hotshot on nidalee, alex ich on ryze but very few if any pros draw the same level of ban-outs that froggen does. Read my post. I dont mean the utter OP BS champions but atm there just are not enough "must bans" Having more champions that you really wanne ban is good for the game believe it or not. It forces teams to think of strats to beating them. I dont like pointing to it but look at Dota2. I can name two dozen "OP" champions and i dont even play the game. It stops a lot of target bans and makes teams develop tactics that deal with a certain set of champions while banning out those it cant beat. It makes things so much more interesting then the boring champion selects we see now. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35173 Posts
On September 02 2012 18:32 Lmui wrote: I'm on the side of not quite enough bans. In professional play, there are 3 guaranteed bans and 1/2 guaranteed "bans" beyond that. First pick team can actually ban out 4 champions from a single player, (Example being the banning out of karthus, anivia, gragas + FP ahri against froggen). This left a lot of strong champions though like alistar and shen for example. If your players have enough of a champion pool to adapt to things like this, you can put yourself at a large advantage (For example, irelia, kogmaw, maokai, alistar are all open, all champions that clgeu loves and other teams have banned out in the past). 2. Some champions are also straight up OP or certain strategies are difficult to deal with. There's a reason that PAX is played on the diana patch with diana disabled. She is OP on that patch and forcing the second pick team to use a ban to ban her out is unfair. In tournaments that didn't disable diana, she was banned out pretty often. When zyra first launched, I believe scarra? played her like two days after release in a tournament in a BO3 and after the first game zyra was first banned by purple side. If you're forced to adapt to the previous game in a series by removing some champions from the pool that aren't common, fewer bans are detrimental to the game (Example from the asian scene is lulu+shyvana, that combo resulted in lulu bans or orianna + malphite that resulted in the ban of one or the other). I started watching dota for the international and I think that giving teams a chance to pick two champs on each side and then allowing one final ban on each side would probably be the best solution. It doesn't allow a team to completely ban/pick out a player, giving his team a chance to grab a champion for that particular role while also giving people room to eliminate a strategy based on the champions seen. I thought Diana was disable because Riot went "this, this, and this will be in regionals/worlds" and China was behind in patches so it would have been unfair for them to practice for it without a champion for most of that time. | ||
|
D u o
Canada381 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On September 02 2012 21:05 D u o wrote: Is it just me or does rivington sound super scripted with everything he says? Lmao Yes, yes, yes, yes. Aside from Jatt, they all have some annoying mimmick, with their way of talking and moving, even Seltzer (Rachel) seems to have this urge to move her arms while talking, Phreak's style. I really don't like it, it feel fake. | ||
|
Chiharu Harukaze
12112 Posts
| ||
|
qtiehunter
1088 Posts
On September 02 2012 21:10 WhiteDog wrote: Yes, yes, yes, yes. Aside from Jatt, they all have some annoying mimmick, with their way of talking and moving, even Seltzer (Rachel) seems to have this urge to move her arms while talking, Phreak's style. I really don't like it, it feel fake. I thought Phreak's mimmick was spamming TONS OF DAMAGE  He actually should do it in some casts for the luls. Not like he can escape it anyways, as he always gets someone with a big TONS OF DAMAGE sign behind him in every event.Can't wait for the deathmatch in the deeps of the jungle between hsgg and sv! | ||
|
D u o
Canada381 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On September 02 2012 21:21 D u o wrote: I just turn the volume down, I still need some noise but its quite annoying, sorry for being so nit picky but ugh.. @__@ sc2 to league casting is just rough. :< Jatt / Deman / Miller are easily on par with SC2 casting. (and also that German guy with the long hair, I like him) | ||
|
EquilasH
Denmark2142 Posts
On September 02 2012 21:23 WhiteDog wrote: Jatt / Deman / Miller are easily on par with SC2 casting. (and also that German guy with the long hair, I like him) The German guy with the long hair is ZenonTheStoic, he's on Teamliquid (ID: DanielzKlein) - I also think Deman has a few posts on TL. | ||
| ||
|
|
Maestros of the Game
Classic vs Lambo
Clem vs Maru
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Maestros of the Game
Serral vs Rogue
herO vs SHIN
OSC
Replay Cast
Maestros of the Game
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
