We need a 4th ban

I agree that the "team captain" shouldnt get to decide all the bans. Too many times they ban only the people they dont want to fight rather then communicating with team or they just ban random champions because they dont care...

THIS. This would make everyone on the team a little happier, and it wouldn't give control of who gets banned to one person. Everyone would be able to ban one champion that they particularly hate playing against. For example, when I play Kayle mid, I hate playing against Yasuo (damn wind wall), but the captain might think it's a higher priority to ban someone like Zed because he's considered so strong right now.

This has actually been suggested multiple times, however Riot seems very adamantly against the idea (simply because it adds more bans....I really don't understand their, Riot's, logic here, it just seems silly that they would be so against it. I would dig up the post but I am pressed for time atm)

Well, you also have to consider that in Dota they alternate between picking and banning and they don't just ban all at once.

EDIT: But yes I agree. (Even though I think that we should have the dota system I also agree with more bans in general

That would work well for competitive play. For solo queue, it makes more sense to have 5 and just let every player ban the ONE thing they absolutely don't want to see.

I think that is the only way we're ever going to see more diversity. Because, honestly, when are we ever going to see Urgot in competitive play? No offense...

Hmmmm, y'know, that's a neat idea right there. It would also help players keep an eye on in-game trends. You log on for the first time in a week and notice Zed, Yas, Leb, and Talon on the auto-ban list (For whatever reason). You now not only know that mid is unlikely to be an assassin or hyper carry type, but that somebody else on the enemy team *is * probably going to be that assassin/hyper carry. The ramifications of the fluxes in play this could cause are very interesting. Probably limit it to only a top 3 ban though.

Actually, if they did it RIGHT, like DotA's picks and bans phase, it would actually increase the number of strong main champs you would see in the LCS. Instead of getting three bans right away and banning out the strongest player on the enemy team, you'd only get two chances to lock them out. They'd get their third choice EVERY time if you made that banning strategy a priority, and then they'd get their first choice for another role.

Then the other bans come, and, like in DotA, the teams would try to predict what strategy the opponent is aiming for and ban with that in mind. Then there would be a final pick phase. There would be a lot more strategic depth to champion selection, and strong players wouldn't have to keep expanding their champ pool just because nobody else on their team was worth banning out.

EDIT: Of course, Riot hates admitting that any other MOBA got something right where they got it wrong.

I can agree to more bans simply based on how many champions there currently are in the game, but you're argument of "more bans cause them broken champs" is a fallacy. Zed has, currently for the past month, a 48% win rate (and most of the time he hovers around there; technically the likes of Galio and Viktor are stronger/more successful than Zed is). Yasuo has around a 45% win rate (one of the lowest ones in the game). However Fizz (nearly 51% win rate), Akali (nearly 53% win rate), and Katarinia (nearly 53.5% win rate) are the more successful champions currently in soloque (though not the most successful). But, like all champs, there are ways to play against them (especially against assassins such as these off the top of my head I can think of good team coordination, overlapping cc, extra emphasis on vision control to counter their roams, etc.). I cannot stand to see comments like yours or entire threads whinning about "X op champ" cause it doesn't contribute anything; I'm only a lowly silver scrub and even I recognize the correct way on how a team should approach facing these champs. There is no such a thing as a 'freelo champion'. And it especially irritates me when I see these things cause often times the people don't know what their talking about; like, for example, all those threads complaining about Zed or Thresh or Lee Sin about how 'OP' or 'Broken freelo' that they are but the person complaining hasn't: A) Played said champions to see how they work and the mechanical skill required of them, and B) haven't looked up any relevant statistics concerning said 'broken' champs (Zed 48% win rate, Lee Sin 46% win rate, Thresh 47% win rate for those of you curious). End of rant.

most summoners: Who cares! give us 6 bans now! We can rage about "IP walls" and "new-player-non-friendly game" afterwards!

There are already a lot of smurfs who complain about the bad new player experience just coz they are annoyed that they need to get to lvl 30 again and earn IP for 16 champs and runes and rune pages... Imagine them if Riot suddenly implemented 5 bans. They are gonna flip!

So yeah i think is a bit bad for the current leveling and IP earning system. At least its gonna raise flaming toward rito, "a bit". :D

U are missing something.

They have all the champions(heroes) available on there, they can have 39 bans per team if they want - On lol u can only play with owned champs.

So if they go with 5 bans per team u will need minimum 20 champions to enter solo queue. This actually can be good for Riots profits but i think a lot of players will be unsatisfied/toxic. This will lead to major changes in profile leveling and XP and IP earnings.

U can have a new mode on which u will be allowed 5-6 bans... but then u will split the competition to -new players who don't yet have 20 champs so they play 3 bans - and - the rest who eater spend more money on league or are playing bit longer and can aford to enter ther new mode; Which is not good in any way.

Quite probably why they haven't bumped up the ban count yet, though I think most players could expand their pools fairly quickly.