Reason why the new ban system is bad

TLDR: Without discussing the decision to move up to 10 bans or keep it at 6 or somewhere in between, the method being used to implement 10 bans is probably the worst way that I think 10 bans could have been implemented into the game. No offense intended towards Riot, but the new method just shows a complete lack of regard for strategic thought in champion select.

Just to clue anyone in who hasn't read the specifics, there are going to be 5 bans on each team that aren't shown to each other until after ban phase. Yes, this means bans can be duplicated. Here's the problem: Ban phase is often also supposed to be a reactionary thing. "Oh they banned this, so we'll ban this in response."

Example: Oh, they banned Draven and they have first pick, so we should ban Xayah. Or oh, they banned 3 AD mid laners, perhaps we should be Kassadin. I could go on for a very very long time on this, but in the interest of time I won't.

I had honestly hoped that if we were going to have more bans that they would at least implement it in the same way that it's done in competitive. Dota 2 and League of Legends both go about having 10 bans in similar fashions, (tbh I haven't played Dota 2 in a while so I don't know if it's changed to be more or something) and they are good ways to have 10 bans. They are implemented in a way that prevents permanent champion targeting, otherwise some champions just never see the light of day. They are also implemented in a strategic fashion, so you actually have to think about who you're banning and why.

A 10 ban system in this fashion feels like Riot is turning ranked champion select into a giant joke. There's so much being left to chance and there's so much room for further champion abuse.

The problem they outlined with the competitive format is that it narrows a champion pool too much for a remaining role. But that's not a problem with the method - that's a problem with the game. In Dota 2, they've been able to have a ban phase like that for a very long time because there are a lot of viable options for every position. There are so many options that you pretty much just try to ban for whatever could best counter your game strategy. It doesn't make any sense to throw strategic thought out the window because of a lack for widespread champion balance.

If there aren't enough champions viable in every role to sustain a ban focus of 2-3 bans, then that's a problem with game balance. That isn't a problem with the drafting method. I'm not going to try to make an argument on overall game balance because that would take a few thousand more words. I'm just saying that I strongly disagree with their reasoning for choosing this ban method.

Honestly, I might make a separate post on this suggestion altogether, but here's a crazy idea I just got for how to do ban phase. Whenever someone picks a champion, they also have to ban a champion first. You could fool around with this idea and determine if you actually want the first 3-4 picks only to get bans and just a different number a piece. But here's the main idea behind this: It encourages priority picking something, while also leaving more options open for counter picking. Want to first pick Kassadin? Great, you only get to ban a singular champion before you do that. I think in a refined method, you let last pick red side do their ban before anyone picks as well as first pick red side do their ban before anyone picks. Then blue side gets first pick and a ban. Now there are only 3 bans on the table. Actually, yeah. I'm just going to make a different post on this idea all together. But upvote if you agree that the new ban phase is possibly one of the worst ways that 10 bans could be implemented. Not if you want or don't want 10 bans, just the way it's implemented.