I think it's time to increase the number of bans per side from 3 to 5 per side. One, because the number of champions available to pick has increased over time. Two, because it would allow every player to have a say in who gets banned. Thoughts?
Trolosaurus20 votesYes The system for 3 per side was adopted when there were only 40 champions. We now have 129. Hell, 6 bans per side might be good.
OyddAWqJ5r3 votes...wut. It came out on the Fizz patch. I don't know the exact number but I believe it was more than 70 atleast.
3ofGot40ve15 votesEither they increase the number of bans for each team to five or they actually fix some of the champs so that everyone gets a turn in the meta.
DevlinCrow14 votes1 each is incredibly reasonable, why hasn't this already been implemented?
Chespin20135 votesBecause Dota has it and Riot wants to make LOL to be different but their are just somethings that you kinda have to copy from what is successful from your competitors to make your product better for your consumers.
Prismatic7 votesHonestly, Riot's biggest qualm as far as I know is that it hurts the professional scene (someone could ban every pick of the opposing team etc) but why not just make an exception to the 5 ban rule, and have LCS remain with 3 bans, but have 5 for everyone else??
Ego Sum Redemit10 votes"Ban every pick of the opposing team"
What does that mean? Every single pro player has several viable picks they can go with, and some can play pretty much every champ in their given role. Yes, most have one or two in particular 'comfort picks', but 5 bans wouldn't hurt the pro scene at all. In fact, it would increase diversity in champions being played, and GOOD pro teams wouldn't fall into the trap that is target banning one player/role, because you'd leave the other 4 guys on their best/favorite champs. Pro teams would adapt, ban strategy would get MORE interesting, not less, and I think it would increase diversity seen in pro play.
kauketsu3 votes[{quoted}](name=Ego Sum Redemit,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=R5IAxnu4,comment-id=00050000,timestamp=2016-02-25T17:39:39.884+0000)
"Ban every pick of the opposing team"
What does that mean? Every single pro player has several viable picks they can go with, and some can play pretty much every champ in their given role. Yes, most have one or two in particular 'comfort picks', but 5 bans wouldn't hurt the pro scene at all. In fact, it would increase diversity in champions being played, and GOOD pro teams wouldn't fall into the trap that is target banning one player/role, because you'd leave the other 4 guys on their best/favorite champs. Pro teams would adapt, ban strategy would get MORE interesting, not less, and I think it would increase diversity seen in pro play.
agree, what kind of pro players they are if they can only handle few champions ?
Tentacle Advisor6 votesI do believe we should have more bans. My reasoning is that, currently, 3 bans just doesn't cut it with the way the meta keeps shifting so frequently. Another thing I'd like to add on to this is a touch-up on the point everyone has been making about the increasing champion pool.
Right now, we have over 120+ something champs. Banning a total of 6 (the current 3:3 ban per team) is not enough to cover it. Now, I'm not saying that we should be allowed to ban 80 champs or some outrageous number like that to match the champion pool, no. What I'm saying is that if not 6 bans per side, we should at least be able to have every player on a team have a ban opportunity (i.e. a 5:5 ban per team)
I understand that the ban system was initially meant to ban strategically, like banning sustain champs if using poke comps or banning hard engage/disengage champs if using a burst comp and stuff like that, but right now, that isn't what the bans are being used for. (At least, not in SoloQ)
If anything, (and if at all possible), the bans for LCS/any ranked team queues (i.e. 5 friends vs 5 friends) could remain the same, since communication with teammates is present in these games. [Well...for the most part, anyway.] And then they could switch the SoloQ bans to the 5:5 ban per team thing I mentioned earlier.
Going back to the 120+ champs, again, we currently have about 8+ FoTM/OP champs right now, including but not limited to:
- Permabanned because just....NO!
- Can't decide if op or just FoTM, but most players say he's broken so I listed him
- Ever since Riot God-buffed him, for unknown reasons
- We'll see what happens with the Runick Echoes nerf, but prior to the patch coming up, he's pretty op with all that MoveSpeed/on-hit
- I stopped seeing him, for quite a while after the nerf, but I do still believe he's one of the op champs
As you see here, there are 11 champs that are ban-worthy right now (in SoloQ, that is). Each team gets to ban 3, meaning 6 out of 11 are banned. This leaves the other 5 champs available to be played. That doesn't seem like much but when you consider the ones that are generally banned:
Team 1 - Xin - Mundo - Jax
Team 2 - Zed - Kog'Maw - Jhin
This leaves open Yi (ridiculous damage), Veigar (ridiculous damage; kinda like Nasus, however has his own damn-near 2 second AoE stun), Tahm Kench (god-like peel), Lee Sin (just a pain to deal with in SoloQ, as this champ relishes the lack of communication), Udyr (though slow to start, once he gets his items and Runick Echoes, he can't be killed and does way too much damage, even while building nothing but tank).
TL;DR - We need more bans, because the number of FoTM/OP champs cannot be settled with just a measly three. 5 bans per team seems like a logical and fair fix. LCS and team (5 friends) ranked games can remain at 3.
Ego Sum Redemit3 votesI like most of your points, but I disagree with the WHY. We don't need more bans to deal with balance issues, thats Riot's job. We need more bans to develop a deeper strategic meaning to the ban phase of the game. Instead of "ban the 3 Op's you can think of" then it becomes "Ban the most unfavorable matchup for the champ you wanna play, OR ban an OP if you really want to. For the same reason, I think the 5 ban should apply to ranked play as well, because I truly believe it would only increase the diversity of champs seen, and exponentially increase the strategy of the ban phase.
Tentacle Advisor2 votesThat makes sense. The bans do kind of seem like that, as of now. When I first started playing League, though, I actually thought that the bans were meant for the reason you stated. (Believe it or not.) However, as I continued to play more and more, I came to realize they were only used to "ban the current OP's so we don't have to deal with them".
Truthfully, I like choosing my champs based off of who I play the most and am comfortable with. And generally, I choose to "ban the op's" for my teammates, rather than for myself because I know how to work around my counters if need be. Be it by warding better, watching my cooldowns, roaming, etc. However, I do enjoy the idea of picking a champ based off of specific team strat. My bans generally reflect the team comp I hope my team would use. If I wish to use a poke comp, for example, I always ban Soraka. Otherwise, I don't ban her.
But, yeah, like you said people just ban champs because "they're op right now." or "they're too much of a hassle to learn how to deal with." In all honesty, my desire for more bans is more-so due to salt than anything else. What I really want is for people to ban stuff based off of team comp. And, if anything, at least TRY to figure out how to deal with the "op champs".
I hope this all made sense. Feel free to let me know if anything here contradicted itself, as it is almost 3 in the morning while I'm typing this and I haven't slept since yestermorning.
Ego Sum Redemit2 votesI completely agree with you on pretty much every point. Bans should be about giving your teamcomp the best chance of winning, or maybe avoiding a lane matchup that you just dispise, not because of OP, but because of play style. A perfect example of this is Blitzcrank. in low elo, Blitz was permabanned for the better part of 2-3 seasons because nobody wanted to pay against him. He's not OP, he's just a niche pick that can have a huge effect on the game. Now I see him banned way less as people pick around him with ADC's with dashes or high mobility, or supports with good disengage/peel, and still banned when the bot lane goes with a little less mobile duo. Your Soraka example is also a really good example. I personally ban Quinn any time I'm going ADC because of how much I hate that damn blind, not to mention the mobility and burst. As a Twitch main, I remember the days of being able to bully her in lane (#RIP).
Main point: Bans should be strategic/gameplay decisions, not balance decisions.
Cosmic Warper4 votesI do believe we should have more bans. My reasoning is that, currently, 3 bans just doesn't cut it with the way the meta keeps shifting so frequently. Another thing I'd like to add on to this is a touch-up on the point everyone has been making about the increasing champion pool.
Right now, we have over 120+ something champs. Banning a total of 6 (the current 3:3 ban per team) is not enough to cover it. Now, I'm not saying that we should be allowed to ban 80 champs or some outrageous number like that to match the champion pool, no. What I'm saying is that if not 6 bans per side, we should at least be able to have every player on a team have a ban opportunity (i.e. a 5:5 ban per team)
I understand that the ban system was initially meant to ban strategically, like banning sustain champs if using poke comps or banning hard engage/disengage champs if using a burst comp and stuff like that, but right now, that isn't what the bans are being used for. (At least, not in SoloQ)
If anything, (and if at all possible), the bans for LCS/any ranked team queues (i.e. 5 friends vs 5 friends) could remain the same, since communication with teammates is present in these games. [Well...for the most part, anyway.] And then they could switch the SoloQ bans to the 5:5 ban per team thing I mentioned earlier.
Going back to the 120+ champs, again, we currently have about 8+ FoTM/OP champs right now, including but not limited to:
As you see here, there are 11 champs that are ban-worthy right now (in SoloQ, that is). Each team gets to ban 3, meaning 6 out of 11 are banned. This leaves the other 5 champs available to be played. That doesn't seem like much but when you consider the ones that are generally banned:
Team 1 - Xin - Mundo - Jax
Team 2 - Zed - Kog'Maw - Jhin
This leaves open Yi (ridiculous damage), Veigar (ridiculous damage; kinda like Nasus, however has his own damn-near 2 second AoE stun), Tahm Kench (god-like peel), Lee Sin (just a pain to deal with in SoloQ, as this champ relishes the lack of communication), Udyr (though slow to start, once he gets his items and Runick Echoes, he can't be killed and does way too much damage, even while building nothing but tank).
TL;DR - We need more bans, because the number of FoTM/OP champs cannot be settled with just a measly three. 5 bans per team seems like a logical and fair fix. LCS and team (5 friends) ranked games can remain at 3.
Jax, veigar, and jhin on this list? Why?
Tentacle Advisor1 votes"Late response is late", on my part.
But, yeah, the Jax, Veigar, and Jhin mentions are because I still see them get actively banned in some of my games. Could be because I'm just a silver, I don't know, but they are there.
MazeMangler2 votesIn LeagueOfMaw, Veigar took a huge hit
Tentacle Advisor1 votesThat's true. It's why I don't ban him. I just see others ban him. Probably due to salt towards a Veigar that beat them in previous games.
L0ve Is Blue4 votesa game without 
my dream
Bob70102 votesWanna add one more?
67chrome3 votesI think it's time to increase the number of bans per side from 3 to 5 per side. One, because the number of champions available to pick has increased over time.
That's basically saying the purpose of Bans is to decimate the champion pool. Which strikes me as a bad reason to do something.
Always thought their purpose was more to remove/even-out the first-pick advantage of picks and make pick order seem pretty even for both teams.
With more bans you increase the strength of target-banning specific players, which isn't great. And with more bans you also increase the likelihood a specific champion is just stuck in a 100% ban spot at the whim of the community.
TonyTonyMordecai2 votesWhile that may be true, if one person gets ban-targeted, that leaves the other four to pick their strongest, most comfortable picks, which may be the worst idea because you also allowed them to pick champions that hard counter 2 or 3 of the enemy team, or even just be able to be strong against a few champs.
Plus, if 10 total bans decimates the champion pool, then there could be changes made to make it easier to access the champion pool, like price decreasing, and/or increasing required champs to enter ranked/draft, maybe even increasing free week rotation numbers, or increasing IP gain from matches.
Also, bans should be used to ban hard-counters for certain champion picks. It may seem like banning the first-pick advantages right now because of how the current champion balance is right now, but hopefully it will even out soon.
And if a champion is stuck in a 100% ban rate by the community (or even LCS), then Riot would look at the data and do something to put that 100% ban champion into a more comfortable spot, so that they can at least be played outside of blind pick. That was what happened with Kassadin and Alistar (though I think Alistar was only in LCS).
67chrome1 votesWhile that may be true, if one person gets ban-targeted, that leaves the other four to pick their strongest, most comfortable picks, which may be the worst idea because you also allowed them to pick champions that hard counter 2 or 3 of the enemy team, or even just be able to be strong against a few champs.
True - but LoL is typically a game where it takes a team to win but only 1 person to loose.
If a player is target-banned, forced onto uncomfortable picks, and then relentlessly ganked: that can loose their team the game, even if the rest of their team does a little better than average.
And with ~15 must-ban champions, it's not like getting 4 of those is going to instantly snowball you to victory when facing a team with another 4 of those picks. It's also not like there's a huge valley in power between the top 15 picks and everyone else, most stat-tracking sites show a pretty shallow slope champion performance sits on where the next best 15 picks are still quite capable in dealing with the top 15 picks. Same deal with tier lists.
Plus, if 10 total bans decimates the champion pool, then there could be changes made to make it easier to access the champion pool, like price decreasing, and/or increasing required champs to enter ranked/draft, maybe even increasing free week rotation numbers, or increasing IP gain from matches.
Decimate technically means killing 10% of the population :P
Also, bans should be used to ban hard-counters for certain champion picks. It may seem like banning the first-pick advantages right now because of how the current champion balance is right now, but hopefully it will even out soon.
From playing the game for over 5 years: bans always seemed to be intended more about evening out first-pick advantage over covering RIot's butt for balancing mistakes or counterpicking.
Generally speaking, most counterpicks in LoL are also fairly soft. Not many offer much certainty in actually shutting down a particular champion, strategy, or team composition.
And if a champion is stuck in a 100% ban rate by the community (or even LCS), then Riot would look at the data and do something to put that 100% ban champion into a more comfortable spot, so that they can at least be played outside of blind pick. That was what happened with Kassadin and Alistar (though I think Alistar was only in LCS).
The main issue I see with this is what actually happened to Kassadin:
Overnight, he went from a champion everyone felt pretty "meh" about to one that dominated the pro scene for years. Then riot nerffed him. And nerffed him again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And then they re-worked him and gave him a substantial nerf, where he dropped from 100% pick/ban to one of the worst champions in the game.
Also, with playing this game for several years: the community frequently latches onto champions like Master Yi, Akali, Evelynn, Riven, Fizz, (insert any assassin here) as the champion everyone loves to hate. In most cases this champion has pretty lackluster performances but floods the boards with Q_Q threads, and if you gave a sufficient number of bans such champions could easily be completely removed for no other reason than the community decided they don't like that champion.
In both cases: the way Riot has stopped such complaints has either been ignoring them until they stopped being FOTM to make, or nerffing a champion so substantially they became unplayable: so I'm not sure there's really that much Riot could do to combat certain champions being 100% pick/ban. Especially seeing as the community loves to hate assassins more because of their play style than their power level.
TonyTonyMordecai1 votesDecimate technically means killing 10% of the population :P
Could you possibly elaborate on this? I'm a little confused by the wording.
Other than that, no arguments with your points.
I mean, if someone is forced onto an uncomfortable champ pick, then that person might just be more comfortable with other champs, but have confidence in others in case their first choices get banned/unfavorable matchup.
I don't like any of those assassins you listed either, but Akali isn't played enough to earn a ban, and neither is fizz and Evelynn. Riven is manageable, in the sense that if you pick against her, or make it hard for her to be able to do anything in lane, then she can't make it into the mid game as powerful as she needs to be.
Assassins are just weird to balance, because they either destroy (with three of them on each team), or just cant do anything to save their life. Right now I think is a good middle ground of where assassins are strong, but other champs can be picked in place, and still contribute to the team.
Dar Raksada1 votesCould you possibly elaborate on this? I'm a little confused by the wording.
Other than that, no arguments with your points.
I mean, if someone is forced onto an uncomfortable champ pick, then that person might just be more comfortable with other champs, but have confidence in others in case their first choices get banned/unfavorable matchup.
I don't like any of those assassins you listed either, but Akali isn't played enough to earn a ban, and neither is fizz and Evelynn. Riven is manageable, in the sense that if you pick against her, or make it hard for her to be able to do anything in lane, then she can't make it into the mid game as powerful as she needs to be.
Assassins are just weird to balance, because they either destroy (with three of them on each team), or just cant do anything to save their life. Right now I think is a good middle ground of where assassins are strong, but other champs can be picked in place, and still contribute to the team.
Decimate comes from something the romans did where they would kill every 10th man, aka killing 10%.
Lewd Loli Thighs3 votesThe 3 ban system works fine. You aren't supposed to be able to ban every single champion you don't like, you have to make a choice on which ones you want gone and which you're fine having to deal with in the game. There will always be popular champions on top of the meta, but having the ability to ban all of them, and then some is just silly. Plus I don't want to think about how long that it would take to set up a game x_x it already takes a long time with just 3 bans and that is assuming no one dodges.
Yaskamasandwich3 votesIt may effect pro play, so why not keep ot seperated? Maybe even better yet decrease the number of pans as your ranking goes higher.
For example Gold and lower gets 5 bans per team. Platinum gets 4 bans per team. Diamond and higher gets back to 3 bans per team.
That might even make things feel more skillful as you progress. Diamond and higher you ban hopefully based off team compositions and such. Not because of op champions.
tXQbsPrjN53 votesWhat and have OP shit like Ahri and Janna banned? Wtf is Meddler gonna jerk off to every game? Fuck off.
ZeeWolfZ3 votesWith the amount of NEW CHANGES riot implements and CONSTANT trial/error experiments with masteries, champions, turrets, balances, keystones, we definitely require more bans. This season is all about who plays more OP champs on their side.
NsEternal2 voteswell i feel as tho 5 should be enough that way its like near 10% of the champs get removed. 5 bans per side would be ok at least in my opinion because then each individual player can ban out a champion that they dont feel comfortable facing.
Nameless Voice2 votesIn an ideal world, there should be no bans, but also no champions that everyone doesn't want to play against for reasons of balance, fun, or hard-counterness.
Unfortunately, we don't live in that world, and perfect balance isn't possible.
Right now, being first- or second- pick feels bad - you don't get to ban anything and you are much more likely to get counterpicked, but don't actually get anything in return. In theory you get first dibs at whichever champion is ridiculously overpowered at the time, but it's just sad when the balance is so bad that that's considered a valid compensation, and it's a sad state for the game if people feel forced to pick the balance outliers instead of what they actually want to play.
Adanim2 votesThere is more strategy and skill involved with having less bans. Increasing the number of bans only causes more problems. Having more bans means that every "top tier" champion gets banned every game, meaning that the next tier of champions only get played. If you ban out all of the champions that are perceived as OP, then they don't get played, then Riot doesn't get the data.
Moreover, champions that are considered too strong are just banned all the time so people aren't used to fighting them. Banning should be for taking champions away from the other team that counter your desired comp, not what is "stronger" than anything else. Things are only strong because they get banned. People don't learn how to play against them.
SpongebobIsLife3 votesI somewhat disagree. It is the large amount of op/broken champs that is limiting players from playing more diverse picks. There are actually very few bad picks in each respective lane at the moment so I don't players would just start playing "the tier one picks".
Also, I say the reverse, there is more strategy when given more bans, especially when you have as large an amount of op/broken champs as there currently are. After all, the purpose of bans is for one to build around ones team comp or strategy, like I'm going for a proect the hypercarry style comp, I'm going to want to ban hard divers, like talon, rengar, and/or fizz. But wait, if I do that, I'm leaving the abomination that is Master Yi along with several others open. If we allowed for more bans it allow for bans to placed to placed strategically rather than out of fear that some monstrosity riot has created is going to run absolutely amuk in my game.
Adanim1 votesI somewhat disagree. It is the large amount of op/broken champs that is limiting players from playing more diverse picks. There are actually very few bad picks in each respective lane at the moment so I don't players would just start playing "the tier one picks".
Also, I say the reverse, there is more strategy when given more bans, especially when you have as large an amount of op/broken champs as there currently are. After all, the purpose of bans is for one to build around ones team comp or strategy, like I'm going for a proect the hypercarry style comp, I'm going to want to ban hard divers, like talon, rengar, and/or fizz. But wait, if I do that, I'm leaving the abomination that is Master Yi along with several others open. If we allowed for more bans it allow for bans to placed to placed strategically rather than out of fear that some monstrosity riot has created is going to run absolutely amuk in my game.
I think that the best way to fix the issue is to actually learn how to beat the strong picks. They are only barely winning more often than the rest of the champions (55% is the highest I believe, held by Kog'Maw) so they are losing. There are ways to beat them. I know for a fact that the main reason there are "OP" champions is because of a blatant refusal to accept that you lost to a better player, or they get banned so often that when they do come through the ban phase, you have less experience playing against that champion (and then you ban it next game because you don't want to lose to it again).
It's all psychological, the concept of "overpowered". Once people realize that the game becomes much more fun and less of an irritation for them.
SpongebobIsLife2 votesno there are some cases where that champion is overpowered, as in they are very overtuned and give the team with said champion a large advantage. Think Fiora, Master Yi, Jax, Soraka. Yes there are ways to play against these champions, but it takes much more work and coordination to do so then with others.
Tentacle Advisor1 votesYes there are ways to play against these champions, but it takes much more work and coordination to do so then with others.
From this point, it would seem that the "we need more bans" applies more to SoloQ, and not so much as to 5's teams. With a team of 5 friends, Communication is always there, so dealing with someone like Master Yi or Soraka is easily done. As for SoloQ, however, there is no communication, so yeah, it'd be a pain to learn how to deal with said champ. It also doesn't help that when the players who DO know how to deal with said champ(s) try to inform their teammates of whatever strategy they may need to use, a lot of players will respond with some form of sarcastic/salt-filled comment, stating something along the lines of "I know what I'm doing. Stop acting like you're better than me." Only to be complaining moments later at a "Defeat" screen about how the "op champ" in question has no weaknesses.
Cosmic Warper2 votesI think 4 would be okay. 5 sounds a bit much and at that point there would be too many bans and too much time taken up.
XIII Vanitas2 votes5 bans per side would be nice. OP champions slip through the PBE and Riot needs at least 2 weeks to bring them back in line. With 5 bans per side, we would be able to remove the 4 worst offenders and then use the 6 bans left to support the team comp of our choice.
Occams Raiser1 votesyou don't have to block all the OP champs. just the ones that that YOU didnt pick.
XIII Vanitas1 votesI don't agree with this. I don't want my teammates to be forced to use champions that they're not familiar with just because those champions are OP. And, even if they are familiar with them, if they don't fit our team comp I don't want them either.
Occams Raiser1 votesIf I assume we are talking about ranked. People should be learning Meta champs. not only just to play them but to learn their weakness. If everyone learned a new fighting move you wouldn't be able to say " I don't want to use that move and I also don't want to have to defend that move".
Certain champs work better than others and people who want to win will first root their foundation in the meta and branch out from there. Now if we are talking normals You can do what ever you want. Its all just practice.
Playing non-optimal in ranked is tantamount to trolling. My bro fences. There are those he could beat by holding the sword with his BUTT CHEEKS, but that won't get him to the Olympics.
How bad do you want to win?
Vynikk2 votesAnd it feels like first pick needs something since they are vulnerable to counter picks.
Tentacle Advisor1 votesYes! 100% yes!
NegroMaximus1 votesThe only problem with this is that you could ban every champ someone owns for a role. Like for example if someone mains ADC, but they only own Graves, Ezreal, Corki , Kog'Maw ,and Twitch then they could get all their champs banned. Four seems like a better idea.
agbudar1 votespeople have been asking for this since we hit the 100+ champ mark
Occams Raiser1 votesit isn't about the number of champs their are. it is about what screws you comp. In solo q bullshit is magnified. It looks worse than it is because you aren't cooperating with teammates. Lock in whatever you want, and play want you want but just realize that it is more than likely leaving holes in your comp.
Add Me After1 votes"it isn't about the number of champs their are. it is about what screws you comp."
As the champion pool increases, there are more champions that can screw with your comp, no?
Occams Raiser1 votesI believe the only way this could be true is if your comp was comprised of none of the OP champ. If they go OP and you go mid tier, there would be more op champs that counter you. My mind set in RANKED is get that which wins. I play normals for fun and practice. I am not trying to cut against the grain or add an extra level of difficulty by deliberately playing shit champs into Top tier opponents.
They get half the op, I get half the op and we ban out the rest. If he takes zed, I'm grabbing fizz. I'm not going to be the dumb ass who goes Nidalee.
hgjkdlsaf jeldvb1 votesYes. We've been over this countless time. There is no good reason not to do this. Riot doesn't want all the cancer banned though because lcs is more interesting when teams are dumb enough to let whatever op pick through and that's a lot harder to do when teams can actually ban a decent portion of the bullshit.
Teridax681 votesI'm not especially fond of the idea of expanding bans simply to match the size of the champion roster, since the goal of bans is (ideally) to block either key components to the enemy team's strategy, or key counters to yours. However, I really like the idea of giving each player one ban, as it would avoid the current often-uncalled privilege/burden of banning for your entire team, and gives each player some degree of agency. This is a yes from me.
Saronsen1 votesGood god, yes.
