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.
Mannysmoker21 votesI 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.
Gunpoint16 votesOr Zed and Fizz could automatically be banned at the start of every draft pick game.
WolfBV1 votesHaving zed and fizz permanently banned from ranked will never happen. No matter how much you want it to.
67chrome15 votesThere'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.
VDc0zCqe0w2 votesdota players always have 5 bans, no one complains about none of the last 2 things you listed (they can't for the 1st one cos it's free to play)
30 seconds is already alot of time, i'd just give 10 seconds for each ban, or 20 at most
Thighlander2 votesLet's give extra time for the first ban though, to talk strategy or whatever first.
wolfax8 votes'Tactical banning' doesn't happen for like 99% of the playerbase. When was the last time you had a game where you banned out a strategy rather than the new FotM champion that everyone believes is broken?
Grand Eleven7 votesThere's 3 main issues with more bans:
- champion pools of people playing the game
- extra time
- Wanting more bans to fix Riot's balance
I don't see this as a problem ... at all for any of the above. Lets go in tit for tat then ...
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.
The reason your average pro player has such a small champion pool is because they can get away with it. That's it. Seriously. I personally would LOVE to see professional players be forced into larger pools because there are enough bans to lock someone out.
Exactly how would forced champion variety be bad for the ro scene from an entertainment factor?
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.
So if a entry level ranked player has 10 champions and every champion gets banned thats a problem ... OK bump the champ requirement to 15. Done. How is this such a big problem?
For extra time - more bans will take a little more time to punch in.
Wrong. See my comment above. Hand out 1 ban per player.
In team matches everyone coordinates anyway so the time added is negligible I'd argue well under a minute.
In solo queue the ban phase will be faster as everyone will simply ban their most feared opponent and not give a darn about deep counterpicking because ... well ... it's solo queue.
So team queue slightly longer ... solo queue significantly faster. That sounds like an overall win to me.
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?
I'm not sure how this gives such a message. It simply acknowledges that the champion pool has outgrown existing mechanics.
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.
It does not fix a broken champion, true. But it DOES make bans more relevant. Right now you can't ban out play styles ... there's just too many champions that play similarly. It would be a more interesting game if people could ... for example ... ban out the support/utility mages from bot use .... or ban out counter junglers ... or actually force playstyle changes rather than just champion changes.
3 bans won't allow that. 5 might (I say might as I've not actually mathed out all the options).
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.
Ahh you got to that pro eventually ... my bad. The problem right now is i feel bans are meaningless "Feel goods". They don't impact the game enough. If they arn't going to impact the game ... might as well remove them and save me those 2 minutes.
Narasimha1 votes. Hand out 1 ban per player.
This is the wrong option. This turns it from "Which bans are best for the team" to "Which bans make my lane the easiest?" I mean, sure, you could have a dick captain who bans all of his counters now, but those are pretty rare cases.
Grand Eleven1 votesDo you even solo queue?
"disk captains who bans of his counters" is like ... 90% of games in in ranked. If they don't ask then they typically don't listen to what you type in chat.
WarCrazy2 votesThere's 3 main issues with more bans:
- champion pools of people playing the game
- extra time
- Wanting more bans to fix Riot's balance
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.
More an issue of an extra 30 seconds not being a huge deal, but a lot of tiny additions of 30 seconds without considering the added time can end up being a huge deal - so it's something worth considering.
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.
You can't LOLKING someone in champ select because you can't see their names.
Grand Eleven1 votesGoogle more. THere is a way. Many of them in fact.
Scuttler Slayer2 votes
- champion pools of people playing the game
This is a non-issue. No one is forced into playing ranked at any point. So what if players have to spend more time in grinding in normals for IP and expanding their playable pool? I think that's a good thing.
ImHerVoice7 votesyeah exactly no more syndra/lucian/thresh/fizz/zed every game god bless 5 bans.
Artorris6 votesThresh is not really op. Dodge the hook (like with a blitzcrank) and don't let him catch you out of position.
Fizz don't let him lane, counter pick him.
Syndra has very little mobility and her stun can be dodged if you pay attention to Geometry. 
Zed is wonderfully easy to kill nowadays. He ults and appears behind the ulted. Easy cc shot which he cannot dodge for anyone who is paying attention.
Have to agree with 67Chrome as far as Broken/OP being a psych problem. Example is when a Fizz, usually on your team, goes 0/5/1 with 32 cs at ten minutes. Is he still broken? This leads into another topic of people blaming Champs being broken instead of acknowledging time and effort put into playing and excelling at a champ.
Any champ can be broken if they are fed enough/allowed to farm enough. Have seen an Urgot get a Pentakill and a Susan one shot (just about) a J4.
Joe Dredd9 votesI agree for thresh. Don't let Fizz lane. More like, Fizz doesn't let you lane. WQR under turret then use E to dodge any retaliation, free kill while only taking 1-2 turret shots. Syndra has 3 billion crutches, such as how she has a huge aoe knockback, plus her stun has the biggest hitbox na. Zed was balanced when junglers could give more pressure. Now that the jungle is way harder, Zed is much harder to keep down. If a fizz is 0/5/1, the enemy is either a smurf or the fizz bought his account.
Rew7111 votesWho counter's 
?
EnterTheDark3 votesWho counter's
meatjunjun4 votes
also counters Fizz
Saevum6 votesNice 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.
FyshinaTux3 voteswhy would you need 10 extra seconds? 30 seconds per ban per team is more than enough from my experience.
Saevum5 votesTrue, true.
But not always is YOU the one who bans. That's the thing.
FyshinaTux3 votesit doesn't NEED to be me, I've rarely had a teammate fail at banning someone due to time constraints. AFK's? Yes. Time issues? No.
Saevum2 votesBeing in games where the player did not Ban certain champ cause they fail at searching... it seems. The best explanation that i want to believe is that it wasn't enough time. Let me be ok?
FyshinaTux3 votesRiot gave us a search bar at the top of champ select mate, it should be used.
Saevum2 votesNot talking about ME. Not talking about YOU. I thought that was already clear.
Numot6 votesRiot 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.
Lobode2 votesRiot 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.
I think this would be great for the game. Banning the top 10 champs would get a lot of other champs being played. Having each player get one ban pick means that you can ban any hard counters you really don't want to face or have the team be more tactical and communicate about the bans. Right now for better or worse, for meta or anti-meta/trolling each team is stuck relying on 1 guy.
Flemman4 votes1 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)
Jasiwel4 votesNot 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.
JalØpy3 votesSo what you're saying is I should ban Zilean 
Poober3 votesRiot give us unlimited bans so we can ban everything, except for urgot the only balanced champion.
Tiropat2 votesNo what you should do is learn the op broken free win champs and then never ban anything.
Clomph2 votesI 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.
Lobode2 votesI 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.
Those that just buy all the OP champs and happen to all get banned that's too bad. If all you can play is Akali, Zed, Katarina, Yasou, Fizz, Lee Sin, Syndra, Lucian, Trist, and whoever the current FOTM is then I really don't feel sorry for you. Maybe that person shouldn't try to freelo so much.
For increasing the champion pool required, at most it would be 4 more champs needed to play ranked. So 20 total champs owned. This would end up keeping newer players out of ranked a little bit longer, which could be a pro or a con depending on who you asked.
Cindikle2 votesProblem 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.
Grand Eleven2 votesSaid 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.
AmazingGoat2 votesIn 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.
WarCrazy2 votesI agree with four bans.
Nebuul2 votesIn 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.
meatjunjun2 votes3 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?
Alpharite2 votesHow do people still think Lucian, LB, Yasuo are broken? It's more salt than logic at this point.
meatjunjun5 votesYasuo was nerfed a couple months back too. He got a slight buff recently to compensate, but overall he has a pretty low win rate. Which much mean that he can't be dominating lane as much as people are complaining about.
To be honest, I hate Yasuo for a different reason. He has a secret passive where every time he's on my team, he sucks balls, and whenever he's on the enemy team, he's fkn pro and killing everyone.
As a champ tho, he's balanced.
BrutalCabbage2 votesI 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.
Willow Ninja2 votes"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
supersayingod2 votesNo 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
texasone11 votesI 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.
