Quote:
Originally Posted by Verxl
It works better with DotA where the game is more about hard countering the other team whenever possible. Most of the decisions that give you an advantage aren't gameplay decisions, they're champ pick/ban or itemization decisions. It ends up boiling down to that rock-paper-scissors agreement, and the actual "game" has nothing to do with the gameplay unless mechanical skills are vastly different.
This is something they don't want with League. That's why there are so few absolute hard counters in this game, and why they don't want to introduce weaving bans.
|
Thanks for the Zileas quote, but I don't really agree with the above comment. If anything, I think that LoL is much more obvious in terms of counterpicking than DotA is. I don't know how much you know about DotA, but I don't think that picking Batrider as a counter to Templar Assassin is anywhere near as bad as seeing Talon against Ahri. Although itemization decisions and picks/bans are very important to DotA, I think that DotA also has a much stronger element of teamwork. In League of Legends, it's more about outfarming your lane opponent or killing them, getting ahead, and buying items
before they do. An AD carry lane is a pretty good example of this, as it's probably the least diverse item building lane. It comes down to who farms better, who doesn't die to the jungler/opposing carry. In DotA, you have more chances to come back by strategically choosing items and teammates and choosing your battles. You shouldn't lose the lane the moment a Blitzcrank zones you.
Anyway, I'm also going to respond a little bit to the Zileas quote. I see some of what he's saying. Most of it is pretty agreeable, but I do have a couple disputes. One of them is in regards to the "S tier" champions. While I do agree with him that some of the latest champions Riot has released have started off more balanced, the fact that there are certain S tier champions that always need to be banned is a little dumb to me. In DotA, there are definitely a handful of champions that are often picked or banned, but I think that these champions change much more rapidly than they do in League of Legends. I haven't been able to keep up with DotA recently, but for example, Dark Seer, Broodmother, Sand King, and Shadow Demon used to almost always be among the first 6 bans, or at least picked or banned at some point. Now, I can't remember the last time I saw a Sand King or Broodmother, and Dark Seer is still seen often but doesn't seem to be banned nearly as much anymore. Even Shadow Demon is becoming a little less common. I feel that this whole "Blitz/Alistar/Malphite/Shen/Cho'Gath" thing has been going for a little while now. I'm getting a little off topic, but what I'm trying to say is that League of Legends seems to have some champions that are just always better, to the point that they may as well be removed from available champions in draft because they are almost NEVER playable. It renders the bans pointless.
In regards to banning signature champions, that's completely understandable. Of course, everyone wants to see their favorite player play their best champion. However, I think it works pretty well as it is in DotA. For one thing, it forces good players to have more than one really good champion. Therefore, it actually makes it
more likely that you'll see them play at their highest level. Another thing, is that it makes the actual games more entertaining to watch. I'll use a pretty good example here, but it won't make sense if you don't know about the DotA community. One of the best DotA teams in the world, and almost certainly the best in Europe, is Natus Vincere (Na'Vi). One of their star players, Dendi, is notorious for his playing of Pudge. In the first DotA 2 international tournament, Na'Vi basically won because of this. In the second international, almost every team respect-banned Pudge because of this. However, I believe either in TI2 or in a tournament shortly after, some teams didn't ban Pudge and he didn't get picked up. Eventually, they must have just thought that Dendi wasn't going to pick him.
But then he did. The game was an absolute faceroll. It was hilarious and enjoyable, but I wouldn't want to see that every game. Also, while we're talking about Dendi, I haven't seen him play Pudge for a while, but I always look forward to seeing him play Batrider, Templar Assassin, and Magnus because he's very good with all of those champions as well.
TL;DR There should be less perma-bans. The game needs to be balanced more often. Signature bans are okay sometimes because they force players to essentially have more signature champions. In other words, it adds variety to the meta. Players need to react to bans so that THEY don't get countered, rather than just who they play as. It's okay to associate Dendi with Pudge or Westrice with Akali, but do you REALLY want to watch Westrice play nothing except for Akali every single game? I don't.
More bans helps prevent a stagnant meta.
That's just my opinion. Still though, thanks for the input. It's perfectly okay if at the end of this thread I find myself to be wrong, as long as there is good reason for me to see why the system is the way it is. I'm just not convinced yet.
Edit: Jeez, sorry about the wall of text. Got a little ahead of myself.
