©2019 by FreshThoughts.

ONGOING MONTHLY SUPPORT

To support the blog on an ongoing basis with choices of different monthly values, please click the button below

Would a ban-ban-pick-pick-ban-ban system work?


So Interro has publicly tweeted about this, he has also mentioned it a few times across his streams.I'll attach the tweet below. He wants to add a system where the ban phase is as follows:


Team A bans

Team B bans

Team A protects

Team B protects

Team A bans

Team B bans


Note - I have assumed it goes A-B-A-B-A-B but he didn't state.


This would be any operator, irrespective of side. Meaning that 4 attackers or defenders could be banned. I am not totally sure where I sit on this and have tried to think it through from as many angles as I possibly could, heres where I got to:


REASONS AGAINST

Parkers Justification: Variety


Parker said, " I feel like this could open up a lot of variety in the way that teams play certain maps and sites. It could also have a lot of influence over whether a map or meta is attacker or defender sided. I'm open to the system being tweaked but I think it's an interesting idea."


My reaction to that - I don't think it will open up variety. I think that if anything we will slide into an absolute META shitshow. The reason for this thought is twofold

  • If you've got something spicy prepared, lets say Ying or glaz or Nokk, you're never going to "protect" them, because that is an indication to your opponent you're going to play it. Even if you protect a thatcher over a maverick its a huge indication to how you're going to play.

  • The operators that are "protected" are the ones that get through ban phases a lot of the time anyway - its always going to be breachers and anchors. Its never going to be an off operator saved/banned, I think because of this it thrusts us more into a META game


Bans wont change:


A big preface of the argument is that there could be stacked bans, with 3 on one side or another. To me this is unlikely. I think we see 2 bans for defenders and 2 for attackers, but I would be heavily interested in seeing how this actually played out.


In my mind it plays out that either both teams ban 1 attacker, 1 defender each (as is currently) or both teams ban the opposite way to the starting side, meaning Team A starts on DEF and bans both attackers and Team B starts on ATK and bans both defenders.


I don't see a situation where a team puts themselves at a disadvantage in terms of risk by having 3 operators banned on the side they're playing. IE no team starting defence is going to allow Maestro, Echo and Valk to be banned as per Parkers suggestion unless they're super super confident on their defences. Most teams like comfort and this would go against that.


Maps will stop being played as much


Maps that are sided one way or the other are maps that will suffer the most from this due to the inherent risk that they are either pushed even more sided to say defence, or the risk that they're pulled right back to attacker favoured.


Take clubhouse, now imagine that you are attacking and manage through some weird way to get Thatcher saved, plus you ban Bandit/Kaid. Suddenly attacking isn't bad at all. Or alternatively, lets say you save thatcher, but the only hard breach available is Maverick because Thatcher/Hibana are banned.


Maps such as Club, Villa and maybe even Kafe will be stopped being played as much, so expect to see lots of Border, Coastline and Consulate.


Viewer experience in comp = less action


I don't mean this to be harsh, but I'm just going to put it bluntly. For the casual fan, the viewership experience in Siege sucks.


Its a highly complex game with a lot less 'action' than other esports. Some rounds can be 2 minutes of pure droning/no action and then 1 minute of execute/action, thats of course assuming that the observer catches the action properly - as it is often missed.


If you're adding another 30 seconds into the starting phase of the game, its not the end of the world, but it adds another layer and another time block to the match - for me as a diehard fan who watches all PL, thats fine. To a casual viewer, it is another layer and equally more confusing.


Just to actually counter my own point - this point is actually moot if you removed sixth pick phase. It really doesn't add all that much value and it takes up a significantly increased amount of time over the course of a playday/game. I would be well up for removing sixth pick and adding in "protect"


Its kinda pointless:


As siege goes on and on, saving operators really wont be an issue as there will be multiple operators for every single role. So even 2 bans wont screw the entire side advantage.


Take the following 5 groups on attack


Hard Breachers - Thermite, Maverick and Hibana. There will ALWAYS be one of these available currently.

Breach denial deniers - Thatcher, Maverick, Kali (when in), + all of the soft breach category

Soft breach - Buck/Sledge + anyone with breaches or shotguns

Fraggers - Anyone with a gun can be made a fragger, but Ash/Zofia/Twitch spring to mind

Other - Ying/Amaru/Lion/Dokk again, these are usually +1s that can be changed to another +


For defence, you can be even more fluid and less reliant on a set meta. The interchangeability here is nuts, therefore protecting 1 wouldn't be impactful anyway.


Or are we suggesting that we keep increasing the bans relative to operators being added?


I'm not sure.

If you enjoy my content, please consider making a small monthly donation via Patreon


https://www.patreon.com/FreshR6S

REASONS FOR/TWEAKS

I like the idea of protecting an operator:


I love the idea that an operator can be protected for one team each, I like the idea that a whole ban phase can be built around 2 operators being blindly protected. I think that would be a good change.


I would just tweak the system very slightly, in my system I would have


Team A + B protect one operator - both revealed at the same time to remove any advantages. Any operator can be saved irrespective of sides/starting sides.

Team A bans ATK

Team B bans ATK

Team B bans DEF

Team A bans DEF


I think under a system like that, you get to a point where you can secure something on your side that will help you greatly or saving something for the opposite side later down the line, whilst still having the usual tactics in a more structured ban phase to either aid yourself or hinder your opponent.


One thing on this is that lets say Clubhouse again, Team B is attack and Team A is defence


Team B saves Maverick

Team A saves Echo

Team A bans Thatcher

Team B bans Hibana

Team B bans Maestro

Team A bans Valk


You still get to a similar point, but your bans are played off what you save and are more reactionary. In this scenario Team B might take the advantage if they know Team A is poor with Maverick.


CONCLUSION

Its worth a try:


We're all theorycrafting here, but change can be and usually is good. I'd be more than happy personally if this was added and trialled in a competitive environment - like a Dreamhack or a Allied/OGA event where teams are being competitive but also its not as serious as Pro League or a Major.


I have theories that things will play out one way or another, but actually will that be the case? I quite like the balance and structure of 2 attack/2 defender bans, would teams default to that even if given freedom? The protect thing is however interesting and adds more layers, so from a pure point of view, I kinda wanna like it.




316 views