In a way, I sort of wish ranked didn't have any bans, kind of like how I wish dodge/leaver penalties were much bigger.
If there's a need for players to dodge ranked games until they decide the odds are right, I'd rather they have to wait a LONG time, to the point where that is not a viable strategy for ranking up. If they're dodging because of trolls, I'd rather the system detect the trolls sooner rather than later.
I don't think leaving is ever acceptable unless it's a personal situation (baby woke up, house on fire, etc.), but per Newt's post above, apparently even in diamond that doesn't necessarily even get punished.
For bans, in theory they allow for the possibility of ranked 5v5 teams, or tournament situations, where you go "We're doing a targeted ban on Bjergsen's mains" or "We're going to avoid a couple of top-lane counters for this particular pick". In solo queue ranked however, you don't know the enemy team's mains, which means all you can do is avoid counterpicks. What are the odds of the captain properly taking out counterpicks, given the varying levels of comfort and skill throughout the team?
If you take out player-targeting and counterpick-targeting, you are left with banning champions because they feel annoying/OP. I feel that is what bans end up getting used for in ranked generally, and sometimes may lead to this sort of fun time:
If ranked solo queue didn't have bans, then everyone would be forced to play, or deal with, the strongest champions. Riot would then have better data on how truly powerful they may be (at least in solo queue), instead of just PERCEIVED data based on how often those champions are banned. In theory Riot could then balance the champions better, avoiding any must-ban champions. And yes I know some may argue that bans are a way of temporarily fixing Riot's mistakes until the next patch.
It makes logical sense to me, but maybe I'm missing some important detail.
If there's a need for players to dodge ranked games until they decide the odds are right, I'd rather they have to wait a LONG time, to the point where that is not a viable strategy for ranking up. If they're dodging because of trolls, I'd rather the system detect the trolls sooner rather than later.
I don't think leaving is ever acceptable unless it's a personal situation (baby woke up, house on fire, etc.), but per Newt's post above, apparently even in diamond that doesn't necessarily even get punished.
For bans, in theory they allow for the possibility of ranked 5v5 teams, or tournament situations, where you go "We're doing a targeted ban on Bjergsen's mains" or "We're going to avoid a couple of top-lane counters for this particular pick". In solo queue ranked however, you don't know the enemy team's mains, which means all you can do is avoid counterpicks. What are the odds of the captain properly taking out counterpicks, given the varying levels of comfort and skill throughout the team?
If you take out player-targeting and counterpick-targeting, you are left with banning champions because they feel annoying/OP. I feel that is what bans end up getting used for in ranked generally, and sometimes may lead to this sort of fun time:
- Teammate complains [enemy champion] is so OP, gg, blames captain for not banning them.
- Teammate gets asked why they didn't pick said champion, if they're basically an auto-win.
- Teammate says that champion is too easy, and they don't play lame OP champions.
If ranked solo queue didn't have bans, then everyone would be forced to play, or deal with, the strongest champions. Riot would then have better data on how truly powerful they may be (at least in solo queue), instead of just PERCEIVED data based on how often those champions are banned. In theory Riot could then balance the champions better, avoiding any must-ban champions. And yes I know some may argue that bans are a way of temporarily fixing Riot's mistakes until the next patch.
It makes logical sense to me, but maybe I'm missing some important detail.
