They had it in the freaking bag... Bans in ARAMs! The option to remove the most frustrating elements of the ARAM was there, and it was glorious. During the ban event, I BARELY saw anyone leave in champ select, nor did the games feel frustrating or unfun. Sure, once in a while, team strength would be lop-sided, but that's never gonna be disappear entirely.
The bans should've stayed, since the other options for ARAM are ones they are never going to take, namely 1) remove certain champs from the pool or 2) give the accounts the entire champ pool during ARAM.
And their reasoning is are totally non-nonsensical! These 2 quotes really make little to no sense:
"But the bans were so targeted to a select group of champions that we saw an overall decrease in champion diversity."
That just sounds plain wrong on multiple levels. Let's just say that ranged pokers are the group being targeted - even if somehow no 2 players on opposing teams ban the exact same ranged pokers, then that's still only 10 pokers gone. That might remove the 10 best pokers, but there are still a decent amount more than that - and even if there wasn't, if the SAME 10 POKERS ARE BEING BANNED EVERY SINGLE GAME, doesn't that just show that people don't want to play against those champs? That they are so frustrating, that they are being banned constantly? In real life, we know wasn't the case, we didn't have perfect bans, and I am willing to be just about every cent I have, in between people not banning and double bans, the average effective rate of champions banned during the even would be no more than 7 each game, MAYBE 8 if certain regions were REALLY good at not double banning, making their point even less understandable.
Let's say it's not a select group and type of champions they are referring to, but just the same 20-30 bans that are the most popular. Even that makes little sense, since at any given game, only 10 can be banned, and then you still have 133 champions from the pool. Unless, of course, most accounts are ARAM only, but then, lack of champion diversity is a moot point, since those accounts are made EXACTLY to counter champion diversity in ARAM games.
Bans will always affect champion diversity, sure, but not in the way it does in SR, since we aren't picking our own champions as reactions to the bans and their picks. Bans simply removed a very small handful of champions each game - at the VERY best, 10 champs gone is not even 7 % of the available champions. We are to believe that skewed the diversity to a point that made banning not worth it? Please.
"For players who just wanted to reroll for those champs, and didn’t care about having a perfectly balanced experience, it now felt like they were never available. Our goal isn’t to change what ARAM is to most players, and the bans almost took away the whole purpose of it to them."
This just sounds incredulous. Sure, ARAM isn't supposed to be super balanced, but the fact that a small handful of champions are stupidly strong, and another handful of champions are frustrating to the point where you just wanna let the opponents end, is something we should just be fine with because some people enjoy being those overpowered champions? Try that logic in SR:
"We know Zoe is a problem because she one-shots people with little counterplay, but we're not gonna nerf her or introduce bans because some people enjoy her!"
Again, SR balance and ARAM balance aren't the same thing or equal, but the frustration in ARAM is no less just because ARAM isn't ranked. The bans helped alleviate that frustration, and it seems as if that matters nothing, because some players enjoyed playing champions that are obviously overpowered or straight up Zoe-levels of frustration.
I am, hoping against hope, that the bans will be reintroduced. Having had a taste of how fun ARAMs have the potential to be, it's almost too tough to return to ARAM now and face the likes of Veigar, Fiddlesticks and Zilean again. Riot, you were sooooo close to giving something really nice to ARAM players, and you blew it. Here's to hoping you'll fix it, ASAP