Unpopular Opinion: Removing keystones or having ten ban choices. Right now, we can only have one.

Tl;dr: We don't know how the game would change if we removed keystones, and adding more bans may straight jacket the game experience because of it. Therefore, we can only have one or the other. The potential solution is how the bans are made, whilst keeping the amount as a secondary focus, which can prevent anything too drastic from the gameplay itself changing.

So I've been seeing a fair amount of discussions about how we either need to have more bans in the game or how keystones aren't making the game any better in terms of balance. I get the feeling I'll be heavily downvoted for this, but here is explanation for my opinion:

I can understand masteries as a whole: They'll be needed to make those off-meta picks that might not work at all without them, so I don't think it's right to remove them entirely. But the keystones? They feel unnecessary. We have a wide range of items that covers similar properties of what most of these keystones do already, effects that aren't compulsory for early game.

However, I do feel like using keystones are a fun feature to have! It's like playing Yasuo or Annie, whilst you might feel a little scummy for playing them, you can't deny that it feels oddly satisfying to play. I don't know about you, but I also get this feeling when I get a kill thanks to the usage of Thunderlords or from some assistance on Warlords! In that sense, the keystones meet their purpose.

Now, if we really have to have these keystones, then having more bans will be needed. Whilst I'm on this subject of bans, whilst some of us may agree that the assassins rework didn't quite cover the overall goals of what Riot had in mind, it might be a case of the numbers being adjusted from either the champions themselves or the items that were done in turn. I can't say whether I'm right or wrong on the matter, but the point is: We can't have more bans solely on the basis that a rework didn't quite hit the nail on the head (cough Juggernaut update cough).

Now if these keystones were removed? A lot of strength may be taken away from a lot of champions that rely heavily on getting ahead in the early game. This would change the meta completely! Do you really think ten more bans are needed when we don't know how the meta would shape itself after such a drastic change? There's a lot of strong picks right now, but strong doesn't mean overpowered or broken. If we did add more bans after keystones were removed, we may end up feeling too restricted with our games. Rules are needed for games to be fun, but we need room to breathe.

In my opinion, there needs to be a way in which the bans are actually selected. For example, instead of all bans being made at the start, what if they were made at different times? So three bans are made from the start, then another two are made when three champions on both sides have been locked in? This way there is more strategy in how champions are banned, instead of just banning generalized champions we don't want to deal with.

But I don't know, this is just my opinion. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

I hope this post wasn't a complete waste of your time, sorry if it was.