Bans were increased to 3 per team, from 2 on the Fizz patch (November 15, 2011) almost 4 years ago. That is 33% of the current roster being released after this patch with no increase in bans.
Don't you think it's time we got another ban? There's too much broken stuff to ban and not enough.
Romance12 votesNah that would make sense. Honestly I feel they should make it so each player in the game gets a ban. Equals 10 total bans which is an increase, and a fair one at that I feel. This also serves to stop those fucking jackasses who ban whatever counters THEM in lane. Like I'm glad Teemo, Vlad and Vayne are banned so our SINGED can have a decent laning phase, never mind the fact the enemy team just got something ridiculously overpowered.
3TWarrior1 votesor the troll banners who hold champ select hostage by banning things which make no sense
Ahurath4 votesThe thing is that there's not that many champions that are competetive anyways so it doesn't matter. If you really pat attention to what picks that are good atm there's not a ton in each role.
Marinaras Trench2 votesFOR SOLO QUEUE
I was way to lazy to type out every role but this gives you an idea that there are a lot of viable picks for YOLO QUEUE
HouseCat011 votesthe number of viable champions does not necessarily imply that there are tons of OP/broken champs (btw gj on including Naut on that list, though most of these champs you rarely see top lane anyways, ex: zed, naut, and fizz)
IS1a442cd69a169ed293a391 votesthe number of viable champions does not necessarily imply that there are tons of OP/broken champs (btw gj on including Naut on that list, though most of these champs you rarely see top lane anyways, ex: zed, naut, and fizz)
Let me tell you a secret. Bans are used for eliminating counters, not OP champions.
HouseCat011 votessorry, i misunderstood your reasoning behind wanting another ban, i thought you were trying to say that there were a bunch of OP champs that you needed extra bans for (and that's not a secret lol, it's just that few people do it)
IS1a442cd69a169ed293a391 votessorry, i misunderstood your reasoning behind wanting another ban, i thought you were trying to say that there were a bunch of OP champs that you needed extra bans for (and that's not a secret lol, it's just that few people do it)
BTW I am not the person above.
Anyways, if the system is used for banning OP champions, then Riot should really do something. I still remember people banned counters in season 3.
HouseCat011 votesah, sorry for not realizing that :D
Feathermane1 votesVlad and Vayne are legitimately some of the best bans you could make. Ekko is not.
MićaĆomlaDJ12 votesPeople need to realize that most off the champions that people consider "broken", aren't actully broken. There have been very few things that were actully, like: the old kassadin or the recent perma snare ryze. Most things people consider "broken", are actully just annoying and people don't want to deal with them so they just ban them out. If you would watch and higher elo streams you would see that people actully ban out pretty much whatever.
Plus more bans would in the end mostliky in 2-3 permabans, just because people find them annoying.
Mandang01 votesPlus more bans would in the end mostliky in 2-3 permabans, just because people find them annoying.
Did you arrive at this number because you've considered what would happen if players actually had more bans, or because you're using your personal experience with 6 bans and extending that to all future cases? Sorry, but I always see people assume 6 is the correct number of bans or that the number of permaban champions is just coincidentally the exact same as the number of bans we have, but that it wouldn't change were we to get more bans.
Anidan2 votesIt also doesn't help matters when anything perceived to be "broken" (see also: annoying) has reworks proposed for it all over the place which causes this delusion that anything annoying should be reworked to be less annoying. Not everyone needs a goddamn rework just because they're annoying, because if they did then Heimer would already be on the drawing board yet again, but he's not. If they did, Nidalee would be on the board, but she's not. If they did, then Riven would be on the drawing board, but she's not (I could foresee a nerf to remove animation cancels, but that's not a rework). If they did, Vayne would be on the drawing board for a rework, but she's not. If they did, Swain would be on the drawing board for a rework, but he's not.
Plus Mica is right - more bans in League would just result in frustration bans to avoid playing against a champion that frustrates you, then maybe 1 or 2 that counter your potential strategy, similar to now except annoying champions would be even more likely to be banned out.
Champion Skin1 votesSigh.... sometimes things are better left banned...
the old days with globals being OP (the good old noob days with banning amumu, malphite, shen and such... engage OP lol).... I had a teammate that was like OMG Shen is open... picks shen... doesn't know how to play shen... let's just say it didn't go so well
TotN Titan7 votesRiot isn't going to add more bans because you interpret parts of the game as "broken". They will, however, continue to monitor, rework, and balance in small amounts to try to bring the massive champion pool better in line with each other. But there will never be the truest balance, where any champion can be played any time, in any game. There will always been stronger picks than others and there will always be counter-picks to your favorite champions.
The call for more bans is extremely old (probably brought up daily), but all of the arguments don't hold weight as to why it should be. You will never be given enough bans to completely block out your opponents from all of the "op gg" picks (nor should you ever be able to). Instead, you're going to have to use a bit of strategy in your pick/ban phase and a bit of teamwork, as well, to overcome a potential "op" champion that your opponent grabbed. Maybe you should have grabbed the "broken" champion for your own team before they did instead of wishing for one more ban so they could pick a different "broken" champion.
Mandang04 votesWow, I haven't seen anyone sound this condescending in a long time. I'd be really impressed if you actually had anything worthwhile to say.
There's no "strategy" in the pick/ban phase when you have 3 bans a side for a game with 120+ champions. Increasing the ban pick number, and introducing a phase of bans AFTER some picks have been made would be the way to put more emphasis on pick/ban, but Riot's already expressed concern that skill is a zero sum game, where if they let players express skill anywhere outside of gameplay, it necessarily lowers the amount of skill in gameplay (which is absurd).
TotN Titan4 votesThat's amusing, since I wasn't being condescending at all. I was merely stating the fact that no matter how many champions we are given the opportunity to ban, you will always end your pick/ban phase with someone playing a "broken" champion. Perhaps you thought my quotation marks were unnecessary; that would be your opinion. But there is very little in the game that is truly broken, as Mica just reiterated my point, outside of those few oppressive cases (like Ryze's stun lock fiasco).
The game is built to try to diversify what people are allowed to pick. Having 5 or 6 champions to choose from when counter-picking your lane is a bonus to the game, not a detriment. If you start throwing around more bans, you're still going to have that top laner who is first pick banning out all of the top lane "OP" picks so he doesn't have to see them. Now he just has more bans to expend. Adding more bans doesn't fix the "broken" parts.
In the end, people have always taken better favor to what is in meta, but then you could just say that whatever is in meta is what is "broken". So where does Meta stop and "broken" begin? The pick/ban phase (and adjusting the length of it) doesn't address this.
Mandang01 votesYou should hear yourself talk.
It's the OP's opinion that certain parts of the game are broken, and it's your opinion that they're not. You're both free to have an opinion, but don't confuse it for anything more than that. Just as they "interpret" parts of the game as broken, you "interpret" that Riot could NEVER produce something broken by disagreeing with them. Unfortunately, instead of asserting that it's what you think, you have to make it sound like the OP (and anyone who agrees with them) is merely complaining to help themselves, to ensure their mains become top tier. No one's asking for every champion to become equally viable, nor would extending the number of bans even attempt to accomplish that - I have no idea why you even went on that tangent, that's not what this is about at all. In fact, it's exactly the case of perfect balance when you'd want FEWER bans, not MORE, as bans would then skew your perfect balance.
Also, the easy solution to all concerns about entire roles getting banned out is to only offer some of the bans at the beginning, then offer some picks, then offer some bans. This provides for a greater number of bans if you want to attempt something strategic with your bans, makes that more realistic by providing information before your later ban waves that you can act on, and again prevents one role or pro player's champ pool from getting banned out. If you need to see an example of how this is implemented, look at Dota.
In the end, people rarely question what the correct number of bans is. Many players come to the conclusion that the correct number is exactly how many we have now...and how many we had when we had 40 less champions...and that it was 2 bans for however many Riot had before that... They come to this conclusion for no reason other than that they're familiar with it (the same reason people also argue that the size of the permaban pool is always 6 champions). I couldn't care less about whether something is "meta" or how much a champion has to overperform before you can call it "broken", neither of those makes the current number of bans any more or less appropriate. As the champion pool grows in size, as new releases remain just as strong on release, as the ban count is kept at a meager 3... I feel more than ever like there's nothing I can accomplish with bans, and that's why I think it's about time Riot increases the number (or just drop them altogether so we can finally see just how large that permaban pool is).
TotN Titan2 votesIt's the OP's opinion that he needs more bans because champions are "broken". It's my opinion that instead of saying "broken", I understand that most everything in this game (as overpowered as it might be) has a way of being dealt with in game. I don't believe that anyone is being self-serving by starting a thread like this, but I do believe that they come to the forums after having a rough day on the Rift, frustrated that something in their previous game wasn't banned out and want a way to counter it than just better gameplay.
When people talk about "broken" in any thread, it means they think there needs to be better balance. Because, let's be honest, people use the word broken to describe anything that they feel doesn't fit into what we currently have or what they believe we should have. Yes, it was a over-tuned that Ekko did not have a mana cost on his ultimate, which is something that every champion has. That's not "broken", but it is the word people used to describe it. Sejuani was a beast in the jungle for several patches because of how her %health scaled and her itemization was optimized to the Cinderhulk changes. That's not "broken", just a little more beneficial for her, but people still used that to describe why she needed to be a permaban. When I think of a mechanic that is broken, I think of Ryze's snare lock and how you can go from 100% to dead without moving once. THAT would be where I would use the word, but the instances of that happening are not nearly as common as people using that term. Those are the permabans. There are not 6 of those running around every patch.
Ultimately, my original point is this: the pick/ban phase is just what we have to handle what is currently in the game. You'll never be able to get rid of everything you hate to play against. It can be improved, however, but we have to have better reasoning than just "broken" champions to add two (or even one) ban to each side. It has a greater impact on the game than people realize and it's not just an easy fix to the balance issues in the game.
HouseCat011 votesYou should hear yourself talk.
take your own advice.....everyone's entitled to an opinion, and i don't think Chazrek was being condescending, he was just explaining his opinion, and saying what he thought was wrong with OP's opinion, much like you are doing, just in reverse (explaining your/OP's opinion while saying what you think is wrong with Chazrek's)
M Schumacher7 votesRiot isn't going to add more bans because you interpret parts of the game as "broken**". They will, however, continue to monitor, rework, and balance in small amounts to try to bring the massive champion pool better in line with each other.** But there will never be the truest balance, where any champion can be played any time, in any game. There will always been stronger picks than others and there will always be counter-picks to your favorite champions.
The call for more bans is extremely old (probably brought up daily), but all of the arguments don't hold weight as to why it should be. You will never be given enough bans to completely block out your opponents from all of the "op gg" picks (nor should you ever be able to). Instead, you're going to have to use a bit of strategy in your pick/ban phase and a bit of teamwork, as well, to overcome a potential "op" champion that your opponent grabbed. Maybe you should have grabbed the "broken" champion for your own team before they did instead of wishing for one more ban so they could pick a different "broken" champion.
You mean like how they let certain champions become permanent banned like Season 3 Kassadin for MONTHS? LOL
TotN Titan4 votesCertain champions will always be a permanent ban or a permanent first pick just based off of the ebb and flow of how games go. Kalista, Jinx, Urgot, Gragas, Rek'sai, Rumble, Azir, Gnar, Ekko, Alistar, Nautilus, Irelia, Bard, and Thresh are constantly banned/first picked this season. Last season, we saw other bans like Zed, Fizz, Lee Sin, Syndra, Leblanc, Annie, Zilean, Janna, Kog'maw, and Morgana as never fail ban/first picks. Every season will be different and every season something will be just a little stronger than something else. That's just the nature of online/competitive play games.
Zenthon Prime3 votesJust because something has always been a certain way doesn't mean you can't do anything to improve it.
Mind you, I don't completely agree with OP's reasoning, but let's not pretend that Riot is doing a great job on balance lately.
TotN Titan1 votesI agree that things can always be changed to improve, that's for sure. With all of the sweeping changes Riot has been doing (like in revamping the entire jungle), there have been several situations this season that stability in power has gone way out of whack for some champions. I would, however, just like to see better reasons for more bans than just too many broken champions. Introducing more bans is a bigger change to the current system than even the jungle changes. It's definitely not something that can be introduced lightly and I think some of these threads don't take into that account. More champions does mean that we have less percentage of champions we can ban than we used to be able to, but it also creates more choices left open for you in champion select. I can't see that as a bad thing.
Ravenstiker1 votesDid you just say that urgot gets picked a lot?
HouseCat011 voteswait...fizz is no longer perma ban? GIVE ME DAT IP, I'M GONNA BUY HIM RIGHT NOW
Syvenon1 votesI feel like nothing will ever top Season 2 Amumu bans. Like I'm pretty sure that was an extremely common ban for the entire season.
Occams Raiser1 votesOP said broken but there are legit reasons to have more bans.
OyddAWqJ5r5 votesLol. Off to the pile with you More Bans Thread #673
Gati4 votes[{quoted}](name=Sleeper Cell,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=7yfb9Inb,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2015-07-04T12:33:20.678+0000)
Lol. Off to the pile with you More Bans Thread #673
This is sad cause it's actually true
Lugg4 votesI agree that one more ban is needed. It would make LCS so much better, IMHO. That way a player has to be able to play more than 3 champions well. It would also make the balance team do their job since the OP champs would really be perma-banned. It's a win-win all around.
XxxLumberJackxxX3 votesactually i don't. When I'm first pick its hard for me to think of a champion that is ban worthy. So i typically ban champs I just dont want on my team (right now fail ap ezreals are #1). Or champions that stomp team fights too hard bc solo q doesn't know how to avoid sejuani ults etc.
Champion Skin1 votesWell generally bans in soloQ doesn't really matter much as you are limiting your own team as much as yours... so it is like whatever... in soloQ they could probably give each player one ban it likely wouldn't change much other then that people might bitch and complain about the bans a bit less... (or more.. hard to say) The biggest annoyance would of course be that it would make champ select take longer (Obviously in competitive and such 5 bans per team would be too much unless the banning was done differently or something)
I remember the days when I was a silver noob and global abilities were the OP thing... and like OMG Shen is open... picks shen... and feeds and lose hard....
Like yeah.. even if it is "OP" don't pick stuff you don't know how to play...
Snowplosion3 votesIn the current state of league there is a lot of champs. I can see why the community wants more bans. But in all honesty, right now how many champs are racking up huge win rates (in ranked) because they are extremely strong or have overloaded kits? Increasing amount of bans would be admittably nice but just think is it going to make a big and positive difference in the community or just have Riot waste their time?
Ancestor0072 votesActually the strongest champions in YoloQ are not overladed.
Has one of the highest won rates in the game, but he is almost never banned
Has the biggest win rate as support. Almost never banned.
Too lazy to coninue
Champion Skin2 votesDepends High win rate with low pick rate isn't OP it usually means the champion is only picked in certain favorable situations or by mains who are really good at the champions
Like yeah Thresh has a low win rate but his pick rate is insanely high (I doubt anyone think Thresh is actually weak and need buffs... but his win rate is low...) Which means that people who isn't all that good at Thresh is likely playing him and he actually isn't that easy to play
Jeddy0172 votesAdding one more ban both sides seems very reasonable then.Maybe even 2,but let's just get one more ban added for now.Just to see how adding a 4th banned effects the game. Maybe they can do it during the Preseason later this year.
FastAsHeck2 votesnot to mention that if we had 5 bans we could give each player one so no more "im the captain, i ban 
and i go mid" bullpoop.
Llanite2 votesWait till another 40 champs are released then they'll give each person one ban :))
Shosuko2 votesBans haven't gone up, and yet I rarely feel there are any "must bans" anymore... I think Riot might be doing something right.
Biff Manly2 votesGive us one ban for each person, then we don't have this arbitrary god-figure that we have to hope is listening to our lowly prayers to ban Kat and Rumble. Cuz He got randomly assigned his almighty banning power for no damn reason.
Occams Raiser2 votesThere are a lot of counter arguments that basically strawman a player that bans because x champ feels OP. Every part of the game has some strat to it even the banning phase. I ban people based on who i plan on laning with. not cause it is OP. If I am leona, I don't want to see Al ( I still wouldn't ban him but you get the point). If play Cass, I don't want to see Ahri. Ahri happens to be strong but she is MY strong counter. Stop making it about this fictitious player that wants more bans cause there is SO MANY OP BROKEN CHAMPS. I want each person to have a ban in solo queue cause I don't believe in team captains in a game where you play with strangers.
AMYS GRAVE1 votesthere are more straw men on these boards than in all the fields and gardens in the world.
Adanim1 votesIt is a very bad idea to add more bans. The OP of the thread is saying that we should be able to ban out more of the "op gg" champions. The fact is, though, they are only "op" because they were strong at first, and then banned so often that when they did show up people weren't used to fighting them so they got crushed. The thing is, every single champion is viable, if played well (which has always been true. I hate it when people who suffer from confirmation bias say "every champ is that way, so it doesn't count", because that argument is complete bullcrap). Having a small amount of bans in comparison to the amount of champions available makes you strategize by talking with your team to ban out what will counter your team composition the hardest, banning that, and then picking your champions accordingly to theirs to make the game sway in your favor the most you can. It also forces you to ACTUALLY PLAY AGAINST the "op" champions. You will realize that they aren't actually "op" when you know how to fight them.
YambrinZ1 votesWell, I dont see a problem with adding a ban for one basic and simple reason. Every champion on release is OP as fk and needs banned and/or you dont want your own team playing a champ first time in your ranked game. Ive always been a fan of one ban per person. How many times you seen your first pick ban only his lane counters. How many times you seen first pick ban sona,taric, and trundle just for the lullz? I think we are are long overdo for 5 bans in SOLO QUEUE. Ranked 5's is a different story (which is what LCS is people), and I have no opinion on adding bans there.
Sokel1 votesI honestly feel that there should be 5 bans per team. It would be a healthy compromise for the amount of champions we have now. 10 might be overkill, but any increase would still be good.
windwolf7771 votesGiff dota 2 pick ban order つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
