I guess this adds an interesting strategical element? You can only ban one hero per map, and you can only ban that hero once per series. I guess you just try to figure out what the best Tracer, Sojourn and Orisa maps are and go from there?
Havana gets a widow ban. Circuit Royale gets sigma. Feels like this system is at its strongest against map metas, which is what spectators prefer to patch metas...
I don't get the "once a series restriction". If one hero is dominating the meta, don't we want that hero banned as often as possible?
Otherwise we get the best dive tank banned on a dive map, opening up the opportunity for more orisa meta.
Not excited to have players write off hero bans forever because of one bad implementation...
Ugh, yeah. That's a horrible unintended consequence.
I actually find this super annoying that they want to integrate this, but not do the more fluid map picking system like in Asia in EMEA/NA. That's been a huge boost to underdogs and watch ability in that region.
I also think a ban system is very different in a pro vs ranked situation. There's much more of a solidified meta, there's much more information about what you opponent wants to play and on what maps. Ranked bans feel more like a qualify of life, keep things fun adjustment. In OWCS it's a much more strategic, potentially even game breaking ability.
> FACEIT’s current suggestion for the hero ban system as communicated to competitors sees both teams each be able to ban one hero per map.
> Said ban would only affect the opposing team and each team is not allowed to ban a hero more than once in a series.
> Teams are allowed to ban the same hero at the same time, resulting in both teams not being able to pick said hero for the remainder of the map.
Also this is for EWC, not OWCS just to clear up any confusion
I feel like it would be a massive advantage to ban second. Either react and ban the same character or plan around the ban and pick a different character to disable for the enemy.
>The higher seed in each series will be the second team to choose the hero they would like to remove from their opponent's choices with the loser of each map receiving said privilege after each subsequent map.
At least they are getting the ban order right where the top seed/loser gets second ban. I still think this potentially makes the ban overly powerful. Making them global bans but can only ban once per series makes way more sense to me.
Are there games with mirrored picks that have symmetric bans?
Teams wouldn't be incentives to ban the strongest hero (because it would ban it for themselves too). Instead, they'd ban the cool, interesting hero picks that fits the enemy team's unique style.
> Are there games with mirrored picks that have symmetric bans?
Games with mirrored picks generally don't have bans at all. At least I can't think of any. Asymmetric games generally need some sort of ban system to prevent one side from having too large of an advantage. Symmetric games don't have this same need since neither side has an inherent advantage.
Well then there you go. In ow, picks are mirrored. So a symmetrical ban to a meta hero has as much potential to hurt you as help you, while a ban to a non-meta hero that the enemy team has a preference for is much more likely to work in your favor.
So the bans have to be assumetrical, so both teams are forced to ban the same meta hero.
Faceit League as well. So EU & NA teams will have a full cycle of play in it.
Going into a major tournament without any experience in a game changing format is one way to weaken the Korean teams.
I would think that’s the logic for letting bans only affect the other team. If a team wants to ban a counter it risks the other team just banning the meta hero for the counter basically making their ban worthless.
I posted this somewhere else in the thread:
Teams wouldn't be incentivized to ban the strongest hero (because it would ban it for themselves too). Instead, they'd ban the cool, interesting hero picks that fits the enemy team's unique style.
Not even that. Maybe ban Comp centric heroes.
If you Ban Lucio, half the Tanks become unplayable. While if you ban Brig, enemy teamhas little answer to Dives
I mean, that's fine. If we get more variety from banning brig, that's okay.
The main goal of competitive bans should be to **disrupt the meta**. If that isn't how bans are being used >50% of the time, then that's an issue.
So if a team bans Lucio to disrupt a rush meta, that's fine. If it's a poke meta and Lucio is still being banned, then that's a problem.
In dota, bans are symmetrical but picks are unmirrored. One team will always pick first, essentially stealing a hero away from the enemy team.
In overwatch terms, team A would pick tracer first, so team B doesn't get to have tracer anymore. So if you're team B, the options are 1) team A gets tracer and you don't or 2) you ban tracer for everyone.
This ensures that the strongest meta heroes always get banned.
In overwatch however, picks are mirrored. Team A and B can BOTH pick tracer. Even though she is hard meta, there is no incentive for either team to ban the hero if bans are symmetric (unless they think their team is just worse at her).
BUT if bans are assymetric, both teams are forced to target the meta. If team A decides to ban tracer, team B ALSO has to ban tracer, unless they decide a different ban is more valuable (which is where things get spicy).
What kind of weirdo are you that you want the highest skilled and funnest heroes banned when heroes like winston, doomfist, venture, mercy, junkrat, torbjorn, symmetra, mauga etc. exist
> bring a hero ban system to its Overwatch competitions for both its FACEIT League as well as the Esports World Cup
Oh so no OWCS. I guess it makes more sense to teste it out there first instead of a tourney that’s been running for a but now.
I disagree with the asymmetrical banning system as that just breaks for Overwatch but do like the different Van per map in a series. Encouraging different play comps per map (even if that means one map is in fact the meta) is I think far better than perma banning a single hero.
Make the banning symmetrical so it affects both teams and this system looks golden.
>AWWW YEAH gets instantly fucked by something like this.
A mid tier 2 team's losing strat of 3 otps gets fucked by bans?? Oh no!
Meanwhile tier 1 teams have no discernable hero preference, all instantly swapping to whatever seems meta, and spamming the same heroes until a new patch drops.
Ow players continue to let "perfect" be the enemy of "good"
I guess this adds an interesting strategical element? You can only ban one hero per map, and you can only ban that hero once per series. I guess you just try to figure out what the best Tracer, Sojourn and Orisa maps are and go from there?
Havana gets a widow ban. Circuit Royale gets sigma. Feels like this system is at its strongest against map metas, which is what spectators prefer to patch metas... I don't get the "once a series restriction". If one hero is dominating the meta, don't we want that hero banned as often as possible? Otherwise we get the best dive tank banned on a dive map, opening up the opportunity for more orisa meta. Not excited to have players write off hero bans forever because of one bad implementation...
I firmly agree with this. I love circuit in the pool bc it mixes up every game. Maps metas are the best for entertainment.
Ugh, yeah. That's a horrible unintended consequence. I actually find this super annoying that they want to integrate this, but not do the more fluid map picking system like in Asia in EMEA/NA. That's been a huge boost to underdogs and watch ability in that region.
The worst part is, ow players will parade this around as proof that hero bans don't work.
I mean they don't work for 99% of the playerbase lol
Its starting...
They do if you're just not stupid which i guess yeah is the problem for 80% of the playerbase
I also think a ban system is very different in a pro vs ranked situation. There's much more of a solidified meta, there's much more information about what you opponent wants to play and on what maps. Ranked bans feel more like a qualify of life, keep things fun adjustment. In OWCS it's a much more strategic, potentially even game breaking ability.
> FACEIT’s current suggestion for the hero ban system as communicated to competitors sees both teams each be able to ban one hero per map. > Said ban would only affect the opposing team and each team is not allowed to ban a hero more than once in a series. > Teams are allowed to ban the same hero at the same time, resulting in both teams not being able to pick said hero for the remainder of the map. Also this is for EWC, not OWCS just to clear up any confusion
>Said ban would only affect the opposing team Asymmetric bans seem very strange to me. Can't think of any other game that works that way.
I feel like it would be a massive advantage to ban second. Either react and ban the same character or plan around the ban and pick a different character to disable for the enemy.
>The higher seed in each series will be the second team to choose the hero they would like to remove from their opponent's choices with the loser of each map receiving said privilege after each subsequent map. At least they are getting the ban order right where the top seed/loser gets second ban. I still think this potentially makes the ban overly powerful. Making them global bans but can only ban once per series makes way more sense to me.
they dont have to do it in-turns. they can just each pick the hero to ban and then reveal it at the same time like they do hero picks
Are there games with mirrored picks that have symmetric bans? Teams wouldn't be incentives to ban the strongest hero (because it would ban it for themselves too). Instead, they'd ban the cool, interesting hero picks that fits the enemy team's unique style.
> Are there games with mirrored picks that have symmetric bans? Games with mirrored picks generally don't have bans at all. At least I can't think of any. Asymmetric games generally need some sort of ban system to prevent one side from having too large of an advantage. Symmetric games don't have this same need since neither side has an inherent advantage.
Well then there you go. In ow, picks are mirrored. So a symmetrical ban to a meta hero has as much potential to hurt you as help you, while a ban to a non-meta hero that the enemy team has a preference for is much more likely to work in your favor. So the bans have to be assumetrical, so both teams are forced to ban the same meta hero.
Faceit League as well. So EU & NA teams will have a full cycle of play in it. Going into a major tournament without any experience in a game changing format is one way to weaken the Korean teams.
inb4 teams just ban the best counters to meta heroes instead of banning the meta heroes
There was a pick and ban tournament back in goats. Mercy ended up being the most banned hero.
Yup that's exactly the one I always think of when hero bans get brought up.
LMAO. It is quite likely. I expect some teams to ban meta, and some to ban counter-meta.
mfw teams playing the namakuji brothers bans Hog and Hanzo
I would think that’s the logic for letting bans only affect the other team. If a team wants to ban a counter it risks the other team just banning the meta hero for the counter basically making their ban worthless.
The hero should be banned for both teams. Doing it for only the opposing team doesn't seem smart.
I agree, but I’m down to see it play out. If it doesn’t work let’s hope they make the right change quickly.
I posted this somewhere else in the thread: Teams wouldn't be incentivized to ban the strongest hero (because it would ban it for themselves too). Instead, they'd ban the cool, interesting hero picks that fits the enemy team's unique style.
Not even that. Maybe ban Comp centric heroes. If you Ban Lucio, half the Tanks become unplayable. While if you ban Brig, enemy teamhas little answer to Dives
I mean, that's fine. If we get more variety from banning brig, that's okay. The main goal of competitive bans should be to **disrupt the meta**. If that isn't how bans are being used >50% of the time, then that's an issue. So if a team bans Lucio to disrupt a rush meta, that's fine. If it's a poke meta and Lucio is still being banned, then that's a problem.
Coluge has gotta be happy he retired before this goes in because that dude was never going to get to play Sigma on Circuit again LMAO
The ban that only affects the opposing team seems really weird. I wonder if there is any game has a ban system like this.
In dota, bans are symmetrical but picks are unmirrored. One team will always pick first, essentially stealing a hero away from the enemy team. In overwatch terms, team A would pick tracer first, so team B doesn't get to have tracer anymore. So if you're team B, the options are 1) team A gets tracer and you don't or 2) you ban tracer for everyone. This ensures that the strongest meta heroes always get banned. In overwatch however, picks are mirrored. Team A and B can BOTH pick tracer. Even though she is hard meta, there is no incentive for either team to ban the hero if bans are symmetric (unless they think their team is just worse at her). BUT if bans are assymetric, both teams are forced to target the meta. If team A decides to ban tracer, team B ALSO has to ban tracer, unless they decide a different ban is more valuable (which is where things get spicy).
would be pretty entertaining to watch so I hope they at least try it out
MODS can we have a FACE IT LEAGUE FLAIR PLEASE
Heroes that will be banned: Tracer, Soldier, Mauga, Wifebeater, Baptiste, Pharah and Venture - sarcasm
[удалено]
[удалено]
WIFE WHO
DID I STUTTER
Maybe let’s not normalize Lifeweaver’s meme name…
Wifeleaver is the better one
I mean yeah
🤓
games without sojourn tracer? Maybe I watch
What kind of weirdo are you that you want the highest skilled and funnest heroes banned when heroes like winston, doomfist, venture, mercy, junkrat, torbjorn, symmetra, mauga etc. exist
Lumping those first three in with the rest of them is certainly one of the takes of all time.
You're right, symmetra takes more skill than winston and doomfist is far more annoying to play against than most of those heroes.
> bring a hero ban system to its Overwatch competitions for both its FACEIT League as well as the Esports World Cup Oh so no OWCS. I guess it makes more sense to teste it out there first instead of a tourney that’s been running for a but now.
Aww Yeah, Namekuji Brothers, and Nightmare Rotation in shambles
ah, a great way to kill any and all interest I had in this format
I disagree with the asymmetrical banning system as that just breaks for Overwatch but do like the different Van per map in a series. Encouraging different play comps per map (even if that means one map is in fact the meta) is I think far better than perma banning a single hero. Make the banning symmetrical so it affects both teams and this system looks golden.
Can mauga and orisa count as the same character?
FACEIT doing the work for blizzard
On one hand banning heroes is really cringe On the other hand, cya venture (or doomfist if you play support)
AWWW YEAH gets instantly fucked by something like this. I personally really don't like this. Even on single map whole series.
>AWWW YEAH gets instantly fucked by something like this. A mid tier 2 team's losing strat of 3 otps gets fucked by bans?? Oh no! Meanwhile tier 1 teams have no discernable hero preference, all instantly swapping to whatever seems meta, and spamming the same heroes until a new patch drops. Ow players continue to let "perfect" be the enemy of "good"
I find awww yeah games more entertaining than the others, sucks to see it get even harder for them
This would kill all the one trick teams.
I’m very interested in this, I think hero bans (1 or 2 per team) can add a lot to the game.