We've had 3 bans per team for years now but the number of champions keeps going up. With more champions, we get more broken champions that Riot refuse to fix. Give us 5 bans each. Then we can perma-ban all the broken champs until Riot finally fix them. 3 used to be enough but it just isn't anymore.
I kinda agree but not at the same time, because if we get more banning in the champ selection then riot won't be fixing champs that are broken, they will be saying that you have more room to ban them.
but the idea of 5 is good.
Or Zed and Fizz could automatically be banned at the start of every draft pick game.
There's 3 main issues with more bans:
Champion pools have always been fairly small in LoL. While you can always point to teams like SSW or a star player on each pro team as having a big pool - those aren't average players. Those aren't even average pro players - many of which only have ~3 champions they're at a pro level on.
And then there's you're average player - who needs to grind for months to get the 10 necessary champions to even play ranked. If you want to own enough champions to actually play any roll without getting banned out with 3 champions - there's a decent investment in IP, especially if you find you're not really into champions you thought you'd like after 10+ games. Bump the number up to 5 per team - and you can easily and regularly ban out an average player by accident, let alone LoL King them and do it on purpose.
For extra time - more bans will take a little more time to punch in.
Average game length is around ~33 minutes from what I've been able to find about LoL, and most TV sitcoms are 21 minutes with 9 minutes of commercials. You probably don't want to hit that ratio, and you certainly don't want to go over it.
Then we can perma-ban all the broken champs until Riot finally fix them
This is the biggest reason not to add more bans though.
It gives a really awkward message to Riot's balance team. It's ok to make something crazy OP to test out because it will get banned? Also gives a weird message to the community - Riot's balance team has thrown in the towel and it's up to the players now?
Not to mention more bans doesn't actually solve any issues in regards to broken/OP champions. Every data-tracking site that looks at LoL champions doesn't have ~15 outliers at the top. Champion balance is just one fuzzy, gradated line that pushes some from ~45% to ~55% win rates. Even if you gave 30 bans per team you'd still have to many "broken/OP" champions to ban out.
Broken/OP is more of a psychological, player-based issue for LoL than an actual balance issue from everything I've seen. The meta favoring ~3 champions in each given lane position strikes me as having everything to do with gold, silver, and bronze medals being a big deal in western culture and people being to lazy to remember more than 3 things.
As such - more bans is a band-aid solution to such an issue, if it's even a solution at all.
Obvious pros of more bans is more greater tactical leverage for banning out specific strategies and play styles, but I'm not sure that really outweighs the cons.
yeah exactly no more syndra/lucian/thresh/fizz/zed every game god bless 5 bans.
Riot has talked about this before in a long thread on the old forums, the best answer and something Riot was thinking about doing if they added more bans was upping it to 5 bans per team and making it one ban per player, instead of one player making all the bans for the team. That why everyone could ban that one champ that they don't want to see and it improves champ select greatly. It is by far the best answer we came up with.
Nice argument.
5 is too much 4 would do. And 10 extra seconds to decide the bans would also be appreciated if the OP petition goes tru.
1 ban per player would be better.
With 5 in the hand of only one player, you are not safe from doom ban like sona/soraka/viktor/taric/urgot (you know, the not so great ban :p)
Not sure how I feel about 5 bans, mainly because that promotes more "BAN CHAMP CUZ OP" rather than "How do I play against this champ?" At the same time though, it would make ESports more variable and the 10 champs played regularly would lose prominence because of the constant ban status.
In any case, we needed 5 bans for King Poro mode. Sona, Jayce, Nidalee, Ziggs, Wukong, Katarina, Master Yi, Fizz, Soraka and Fiddlesticks are all infuriating to play against despite being fun to play. I do not see a single issue with the potential and option to ban all of them too for that mode.
Riot give us unlimited bans so we can ban everything, except for urgot the only balanced champion.
So what you're saying is I should ban Zilean 
No just no the thing is that u already have to kiss first picks ass then u have to preffer lane then that one moment wen u actually get your prefferd lane they ban the top 10 midlaners u get pissed then u get on a rant like this 3 is enough however u should have the team decide on bans that way your first pick doesnt ban fiora or ryze thank you for taking time out your day to hear me go off
Problem with bans is that people use it for champs that they find are OP more than anything else.
Bans exist to play your team's strategy around. Till this starts happening regularly in soloQ more bans will honestly bring nothing to the game but the same problem.
No what you should do is learn the op broken free win champs and then never ban anything.
I can agree with this, but the problem now is to play ranked you must have 16 champions and be level 30. If 10 of the 16 champions you have are banned it kinda creates a problem. Say I buy all the "OP" champions and they literally ban 10 out of 16 of them. I now only have 6 to choose from, and what if all the positions are taken.. Say the 6 I have a primarily bot lane, but bot lane already has an adc and support, now I have to play a champion against the meta.
It's not too big of a problem, but if they increase the bans, they have to increase the amount of champions required to play ranked.
Said it before and Ill say it again:
grant one ban per player. It will actually make the ban phase faster (less pondering per player as they only worry about one ban), cause less drama (why didn't you ban x complaints will be gone) and solve the fact that the champion pool has nearly made bans obsolete anyway.
In solo queue, you could give every player one ban. Of course, you might as well just remove Fizz from the game in the same patch notes.
I agree with four bans.
In my opinion, draft games should move away from the "team captain" model. Instead, players should each get to ban champs before their group picks.
E.g.:
This method means that players have a better chance to both play champs they want to play as well as pick bans relevant to their own champ picks.
Obviously this would increase total bans to 5/team, but the bans would be controlled by the entire team and also you don't risk situations like blue team banning all the adcs except for Lucian or something like that.
3 per team is plenty.
You guys complain about the same exact champs every single thread; Zed, Yasuo, Fizz, Syndra, Leblanc, Lucian, etc. It's like a broken record.
And yet, who have the pros been constantly insta-banning? For the past 6 months, it's been majority Nidalee, Alistar, Zilean, Ryze, Maokai, and so on. Obviously the pros don't agree with you on who's broken. And they seem to agree that majority top laners are the ones that are ban-worthy and not mid.
Don't you think that if these mid lane assassins were as broken and many of you say, then pros would ban them just as much as you?
I dislike the arrogance with which you address Riot's work and the way you claim to have enough knowledge of the game (IN LOW SILVER) to make such statements.
"broken champions that riot refuses to fix"? Who do you think you are? Do you feel like you're a victim of Riot's balancing who wants to punish "honest players" who only play non-FotM champions and hate whoever does? Are you serious? I don't think you have the right to speak with such words against a company providing you with a free game to play (well, unless you buy RP).
Any way, I don't think 5 bans makes any sense right now. Changes to the pick/ban phase could though, I don't know in which way but there could definitely be some changes.
Increasing the number of bans has 2 major counterarguments: first, it extends pick/ban phase INSANELY, second, it's not really needed. Right now there are just a few bans which are really important because the champ is extremely broken, such as Rek'Sai, Gnar and Azir. Others like Fizz, Katarina and Akali you ban because you can't really trust your SoloQ team and you feel like they are going to snowball out of control (they do have weaknesses, just you don't trust your team). Others like Fiddle, Janna and Zed you ban because they're annoying as hell (Fiddle also has very low counterplay and is easy-ish to pick up so you never know).
Fact is, you're not going to ban to support a strategy any way, because SoloQ doesn't really allow it, especially in lower ELOs like ours (it still doesn't in higher ones, you see crappy team comps in streams all the time), and because you cannot just come up with a strategy from the start. In DOTA 2 you can have 5 bans per team because a captain gets to choose them AND picks the heroes for the team, also everyone has all the heroes and the bans are chosen inbetween picks, not all at the beginning.
Another reason for which increasing the bans # is not a good idea is that all the stronger champions are going to become close to 100% ban rate, depriving Riot of the data needed to actually make changes to them (kind of like Kassadin, it took ages to nerf him because Riot really couldn't understand how) and creating a "sub-meta" of champions that aren't as good as the banned ones but do not get banned, thus having some champions seem OP when they actual aren't, just because no choice will be involved when choosing bans. Right now banning means picking the champions you don't like playing against (or with) and getting rid of them for one game. Bring the ban number to 5 per team will be closer to actually shrinking the champion pool by the same ~8% all the time, this would only lead people into finding new champions to complain about.
Sorry for the long post.
"please ban _______ because she/he has abilities and spells and if he/she casts them I might die ;_;"
if this change happens i hope to god they only give you like 10 secs to ban each champ it takes to long already
I agree that we need more bans because the champion list has exceeded the limits of just 3. Since there are more champions to pick from then by laws of statistics there should be more bans. This will also help with getting complete noobs in games that you hope to win. The logic behind that is the fact that if there are more bans then the amount of champions required to play ranked games goes up as a result. Thus creating a smaller pool of players that are just now getting to level 30 and have enough champions to play.
I do agree more bans would be beneficial to the game in many ways. And give us an opportunity to make for better skilled games not blow outs.
