|
On October 09 2013 04:15 xes wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 03:57 wei2coolman wrote: Though Yango keeps advocating interwoven bans, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with just all front bans. We still see really deep ban strategies from the highest tier of teams. Also, considering only 3 bans and 5 picks, and the recent item fuck up (triforce+SV changes), some champions became increasingly dominant, I thought champion spread was perfectly fine. I believe it was like 65 or 66 champs ban/pick'd. Front loaded bans are extremely boring because they are extremely predictable. They also offer pretty much zero strategic depth (apart from one-time niche comps). This is the case with betting in poker. In machine poker your bet is a priori given any rerolls and so the EV table is pretty much completely fixed. It is stale and lacking in variety. In any variation of hold'em you have interwoven bets which are based on updated conditional inferencing, allow much more adaptive and thus varied play. Basically if your complaint is the competitive champion pool is stale, then you cannot ignore that front loaded ban system will always have a weakly inferior complexity than interwoven bans. They're boring in solo queue, they're boring in low-mid level pro play. However in highest tier of play, ban/pick phase with frontloaded bans can be really strategic. Obviously phased ban phase offers "more" diversity, but I don't think front loaded bans automatically leads to "boring" bans.
One issue I do have with phased ban phase, is it actually eliminates fragile team comps that can be very effective, and can be a band-aid ban due to "oh shit forgot about X or Y champ". That's not to say that's why phased bans shouldn't be a part of LoL. I still think parity between pro play and ladder is the #1 reason I prefer front loaded bans.
|
United States47024 Posts
|
United States47024 Posts
On October 09 2013 04:45 wei2coolman wrote: They're boring in solo queue, they're boring in low-mid level pro play. However in highest tier of play, ban/pick phase with frontloaded bans can be really strategic. Obviously phased ban phase offers "more" diversity, but I don't think front loaded bans automatically leads to "boring" bans. At the highest tier of play, front-loaded bans are only strategic when teams have enough information about each other to be strategically equivalent to second-phase bans. That is--a team is so familiar with another that they already know what they will pick. This level of familiarity is going to be the exception at an event like Worlds where the vast majority of games will be between teams have never played each other before. You simply cannot use pre-emptive bans strategically in that scenario because the risk is too high.
On October 09 2013 04:45 wei2coolman wrote: One issue I do have with phased ban phase, is it actually eliminates fragile team comps that can be very effective, and can be a band-aid ban due to "oh shit forgot about X or Y champ". This is actually a flawed reason Zileas used against the idea of interwoven bans.
In practice, fragile teamcomps are more easily dismantled by counterpicks which they can defend against with second phase bans than they are by counter-bans.
|
Well, it was more so. Thinking about Dig's old IPL strat with the 3 support comp, how you could just ban it out. Though the issue wasn't counterpicking the strat, it ended up banning the strat. Where the strat is fragile because of the # of champs to fill the required niches, not fragile in the strategic sense, is what I meant.
|
Increasing ban complexity reduces the likelihood that bans will be targeted on signature champions.
Front loaded bans pretty much ensure that signature champions are top priority to be banned.
Edit: in fact, rereading Zileas' post, he specifies that interwoven bans indicate that games are won/lost at pick/ban more with interwoven than front loaded, where in fact because half of your pick/ban is basically completely blind (only priors without ability for posterior adjustment) a front loaded ban in fact means higher likelihood that game is won/lost at pick/ban.
|
I think the key difference between what I'm thinking and Zileas's argument is that he thinks that banning to deny a specific player a specific champion is a bad thing, whereas I think in general it's a good thing.
Using xPeke Kassadin as an example lets say, I do want to see that sometimes, but if my choices were to see it every game or see him play a diverse champion pool, I'd go for the latter. Diversity in champion picks matters more to me than signature champions does.
And I think based on how much you see people cheer at live events when new champions get picked, that that's a majority opinion. I'm willing to bet that the first time Fizz got picked at Worlds the crowd went nuts, because it was a little bit unexpected, but by the 8th time they weren't going nuts anymore.
Also, I think the logic that phasing the bans increases the number of denial bans is a bit flawed. If a specific player playing a specific champion is so incredibly critical, then it is going to be first picked for them. Fnatic first picked Kassadin for xPeke every single time the enemy team allowed them to do it. By reducing the number of starting bans and adding more bans later in the draft, the chances of xPeke playing Kassadin actually goes up, so long as the team makes the decision that picking it before the second round of bans is necessary.
So while yes the second round of bans will go more likely towards denying a specific role, the chances of a specific player getting a specific, game altering, fan favorite champion actually increases.
|
On October 09 2013 04:58 xes wrote: Increasing ban complexity reduces the likelihood that bans will be targeted on signature champions.
Front loaded bans pretty much ensure that signature champions are top priority to be banned.
Edit: in fact, rereading Zileas' post, he specifies that interwoven bans indicate that games are won/lost at pick/ban more with interwoven than front loaded, where in fact because half of your pick/ban is basically completely blind (only priors without ability for posterior adjustment) a front loaded ban in fact means higher likelihood that game is won/lost at pick/ban. The solution to signature champs, is just to have more signature champs. #thingsFakerdoes.
@ketara, if anything we just see a lot more mediocrly played champs, than well played signature champs. I could watch Faker play Ahri every fucking game, and I wouldn't get tired of it, it's fucking glorious. EDIT: Ideally we'll end up seeing 5v5 faker matchups, and bans/picks are no longer an issue.
|
United States47024 Posts
On October 09 2013 05:03 wei2coolman wrote: I could watch Regi play Zed every fucking game, and I wouldn't get tired of it, it's fucking glorious. Fixed.
|
On October 09 2013 04:45 wei2coolman wrote: One issue I do have with phased ban phase, is it actually eliminates fragile team comps that can be very effective, and can be a band-aid ban due to "oh shit forgot about X or Y champ". That's not to say that's why phased bans shouldn't be a part of LoL. I still think parity between pro play and ladder is the #1 reason I prefer front loaded bans.
you do understand how Kennen and Ryze went full gatekeeper this spring for what was allowed to be picked in side lanes? thanks to only 3 front loaded bans, you could pick from any strategy involving all ~4 viable side lane picks.
On October 09 2013 05:03 wei2coolman wrote: if anything we just see a lot more mediocrly played champs, than well played signature champs. I could watch Faker play Ahri every fucking game, and I wouldn't get tired of it, it's fucking glorious. EDIT: Ideally we'll end up seeing 5v5 faker matchups, and bans/picks are no longer an issue.
For me the real treat was watching Faker do well with Ahri, but especially to watch Nagne solve it.
|
On October 09 2013 05:24 Slusher wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 04:45 wei2coolman wrote: One issue I do have with phased ban phase, is it actually eliminates fragile team comps that can be very effective, and can be a band-aid ban due to "oh shit forgot about X or Y champ". That's not to say that's why phased bans shouldn't be a part of LoL. I still think parity between pro play and ladder is the #1 reason I prefer front loaded bans. you do understand how Kennen and Ryze went full gatekeeper this spring for what was allowed to be picked in side lanes? thanks to only 3 front loaded bans, you could pick from any strategy involving all ~4 viable side lane picks. Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 05:03 wei2coolman wrote: if anything we just see a lot more mediocrly played champs, than well played signature champs. I could watch Faker play Ahri every fucking game, and I wouldn't get tired of it, it's fucking glorious. EDIT: Ideally we'll end up seeing 5v5 faker matchups, and bans/picks are no longer an issue. For me the real treat was watching Faker do well with Ahri, but especially to watch Nagne solve it. Same applies to the Riven pick against Zed. Like I said with the whole front loaded bans issue, those are minor issues in comparison to parity between solo queue and pro play imo.
|
I'm going to need you to elaborate.
(not about Riven vs. Zed.)
|
|
Front bans are retarded for several reasons. No one wants to see target bans for 1 player. Even if they have a large champion pool it wouldn't be fun never seeing that player on their signature heroes ever again. For example, we'd never see madlife on anything with great playmaking ability; even if Frost became a stronger team with more players to ban out, they could still allocate bans for madlife.
As much as we believe players should be able to play everything, the realistic expectation is that they're able to play 3-5 champions at the highest level. Even faker has champions that are better/worse than his other champions. I don't think we should decrease the quality of play through front bans and target banning.
|
On October 09 2013 05:35 Itsmedudeman wrote: Front bans are retarded for several reasons. No one wants to see target bans for 1 player. Even if they have a large champion pool it wouldn't be fun never seeing that player on their signature heroes ever again. For example, we'd never see madlife on anything with great playmaking ability; even if Frost became a stronger team with more players to ban out, they could still allocate bans for madlife.
As much as we believe players should be able to play everything, the realistic expectation is that they're able to play 3-5 champions at the highest level. Even faker has champions that are better/worse than his other champions. Really strong teams, won't ever get banned out like that though... Even when Faker takes target bans (tbh, mids were eating bans all fucking day long in Worlds, in general, not just Faker) there is a clear advantage in eating target bans outside of "op'd" or "meta". Ex. Froggen eating Anivia bans opens up Wick'd and Yolopete (too bad both of them still suck) but you get my point?
|
I guess I just strongly disagree then, for people that watch enough to actually care what the pros are banning it is not confusing.
there is one problem with the entire premise, it asks me to accept that a player who only watches enough pro LCS/Dota to know of it's existance but to be confused by the picks/bans would insist on the same format. For me it's one or the other, either the masses care if the pros play on the same format, or the format the pros play on is too much for the masses to enjoy.
the post that you are borrowing for your argument wants it both ways.
|
Capped's argument makes the assumption that adding more bans / phasing bans makes the drafting system more confusing, and I think that is extremely questionable.
The drafting system is not confusing. When it's time to ban something you ban something. When it's time to pick something you pick something.
People are already banning stupid shit like Amumu, adding more stupid shit for them to ban does not increase the required complexity of the bans. While it increases the potential complexity, that is not the concern of getting the masses to like it. The minimum complexity is what is important there, and that does not change.
It's not the same as say, adding creep denies to the game, because that actually does increase the minimum amount of mechanical skill necessary to play the game. Adding more bans is not like that.
|
I think the draft format must be tweaked, even if it's slightly different for soloq and ranked.
Soloq. Emphasis is on a faster ban phase. If you have to ban 2 champs per turn to maintain the current number of ban phases, that's fine. Maybe a 2/2 ban phase(add like 10s to the current allotted ban time), then 3 picks each and then 1/1/1/1. First 4 bans go towards OP's/fotm champs, and the 2nd phase allows people to ban out the missing elements on each team.
Competitive. Split the 2/2 into a 1/1/1/1, but otherwise is the same. More emphasis on targeted bans/OP's for first phase, while second phase allows teams to ban out synergistic champs.
There is definitely a problem with the current draft mode though. There is hardly any strategy to it other than ban OP's or ban signature champions.
|
I'm okay with the lack of "complexity" tbh. One of the key things that I really liked about LoL, especially in pro scene is the ready adaption of players from solo queue. I think that's something Riot wants to keep. So definitely that's the parity issue, that any format that changes for pro-scene needs to adapted to solo queue. As far as Ketara's sentiment goes, there is a very different thought process going to banning front end, and phased. I just don't see too much added benefits from changing to phased, at least so far as LoL is concerned. At least off of 3-bans per team. If expanded to 5 per team, I would agree, phased would be better/necessary.
|
On October 09 2013 06:12 wei2coolman wrote: I'm okay with the lack of "complexity" tbh. One of the key things that I really liked about LoL, especially in pro scene is the ready adaption of players from solo queue.
You specifically mentioned Riven vz Zed. Faker had a hilarious winrate in SoloQ playing Riven and even Riven matchups vs Zed but could not replicate that success on the world stage.
The parity between soloQ and the competitive scene is a farce.
|
On October 09 2013 06:12 wei2coolman wrote: I'm okay with the lack of "complexity" tbh. One of the key things that I really liked about LoL, especially in pro scene is the ready adaption of players from solo queue. I think that's something Riot wants to keep. So definitely that's the parity issue, that any format that changes for pro-scene needs to adapted to solo queue. As far as Ketara's sentiment goes, there is a very different thought process going to banning front end, and phased. I just don't see too much added benefits from changing to phased, at least so far as LoL is concerned. At least off of 3-bans per team. If expanded to 5 per team, I would agree, phased would be better/necessary.
so you are saying adding phased bans will not increase the 23 "priority" champions as explained in the OP outside of the obvious +number of bans to this list?
you are welcome to that theory, it can't be proven or disproven unless phased ever goes live, but it is my belief that only increased emphasis on objective control has a chance at even coming close to having an impact on champion/strategy variety.
|
|
|
|