Increase ban limit to 5 and give each player a ban

Meserion·Dec 9, 2015·319 votes·8,957 views

I'll play ranked and ban Yasuo every game :3 because screw him.

Seriously though, there are what? 128 champions in total and we can ban 6 at max, the time has come to increase the ban limit to account for more than 5% of the champion pool. By raising it to 10 it accounts for a whopping 8% instead of 5, not much but the more important part is we give each player on the team the chance to contribute pregame, to the team setup.

If you have an AFK in the top slot it stinks, if the leader doesn't ban who you don't want to fight, it also stinks. Lets be honest solo queue blows mostly because your position and who you have to face is often out of your hands. By giving each player 1 ban during the lobby phase we lower potential toxicity and empower players to feel as though they have a modicum of control over the turnout of a match.

178 Comments

PIMPSMOOTHDec 9, 201590 votes

I'll play ranked and ban Yasuo every game :3 because screw him.

This is all I needed to read. Take my upvote.

[slayer-pantheon-thumbs]

JnFnRuJan 8, 20161 votes

[slayer-pantheon-thumbs]

Mike Hunts ToxicDec 9, 201525 votes

with the new lobby system, letting each person ban needs to happen, and should have happened 2 years ago

Makior72Dec 9, 201514 votes

Even if only 1 person got to ban we would still be better off if we got 5 bans per team. There are alot of champions and a good portion of them are ban worthy. Need more bans.

warpenguin555Dec 9, 201512 votes

NO NO NO NO NO. as a fotm player that would limit my options so much. Unfair just like all the things I play ^ this right here is the main argument. My response? Fuck yo broken shit. Second main argument "But you can ban out a whole role" If Lucian Vayne Kalista Jinx Draven Ashe MissFortune Graves Quinn KogMaw are all 10 banned red team dersves the loss for banning so stupidly. Plus there are still more adcs you can play. Such as Corki Varus Caitlyn Twitch Ezreal Sivir

"You don't know what the enemy team plays so you would just be banning OP champions, which there are never that many to justify more bans" 1st off op is pretty opinion based most of the time. For example I find Wukong to be OP, but I would be hard pressed to find others who agree. 2nd, you might not know what the enemy is going play but you can make some pretty good guesses still based on what's Meta and what pick and ban rates are high.

"More bans would screw up the pros and target banning would run rampent" This here is the only thing I can without a doubt agree with. But I doubt riot would do nothing before hand about this. They could add bans in ranked play and leave the current amount in pro play, similar to how there are differences in college level football and in the NFL other than skill of the players.

RetillinDec 9, 20153 votes

{quoted}

"More bans would screw up the pros and target banning would run rampent" This here is the only thing I can without a doubt agree with. But I doubt riot would do nothing before hand about this. They could add bans in ranked play and leave the current amount in pro play, similar to how there are differences in college level football and in the NFL other than skill of the players.

I never really understood this. I get that some people are one hit wonders. But you can't be a pro and do that. If as a pro you only play 4ish champions in your lane/role, you have a clear weakness. You should (as a pro) be able to adjust to just about anything. There is only one role that seems like it would be hurt by this, and that is jungle. But then it's not like people have been complaining that there are only a hand full of junglers we see every pro game.... This would force Riot to either open up the roles/balance better, or allow quicker meta shifts.

MAestRIODec 10, 20151 votes

It's not really "only playing an amount of champions", it's about completely mastering an amount of champions AND fitting into a pre-designed team comp AND fitting against the prognosed opponent team. If like Dyrus is amazing at Rumble, but they needed to have a high cc tank top to make Bjerg and Turtle able to do damage for a long period of time, they can't make Dyrus go Rumble or Fiora or... Or if the opponent's only danger wil be mid lane and they think he will go Veigar for example. Will they pick champions that have to walk towards Veigar to do damage? Or champions that will actually be able to reach him when he launches the AoE stun?

Also: Bengi for example. It's not like he only plays a couple of champions (I mean, it's Bengi..), but at Worlds he pretty much always took Elise or Rek'sai. I guess Elise was the preferred pick pretty much always but she does have a decent ban rate. He took Jarvan 2 games and Gragas 1 game.

RetillinDec 10, 20152 votes

True, but the question is: did Bengi take Elise and Rek because they were just so much better than everyone else (if so more bans are better for the viewers as in helps to prevent game to game stagnation) or because he just felt safest on them (if so those champions need more weaknesses).

But even if you try to ban out one person (let's say Dyrus), that leaves the rest of the team to get a power pick or two in their roles. Just over all (remember at the end of the day the pros play for viewers just like in basketball/football) I can't see a reason why this isn't better over all.

LarcosDec 9, 20156 votes

I think the reason why they won't allow 5 ban yet is because in competitive scene, a team can possibly ban an entire champion pool of a specific person. This would essentially make it a 4v5 if the person being targeted can't play more than 5 champs.

AdderTudeDec 9, 20158 votes

{quoted}

I think the reason why they won't allow 5 ban yet is because in competitive scene, a team can possibly ban an entire champion pool of a specific person. This would essentially make it a 4v5 if the person being targeted can't play more than 5 champs.

But there lies the inherent problem. The devs care too much about the pros and not enough about the rest of the community (which, by the way, overwhelmingly outnumbers the pros), so saying that this change shouldn't happen because eSports is totally inane. I stopped playing ranked because they haven't done anything to the ban count (along with other reasons which are irrelevant to the topic at hand) while the champion list grows ever longer. I'll only pick up ranked again once teams get five bans instead of a paltry three.

ahferroin7Dec 9, 20156 votes

So, taking this further: Assume You have two pro teams banning. If one team bans 5 ADC's, then that's 5 champs that their ADC can't play either. That's also going to mean they have less control over what their opponents pick in other roles. Based on this, the team that just banned 5 ADC's is at a noticeable disadvantage compared to a team who banned one champ in each role.

Also, any pro that can't at least hold lane with more than 5 champs in their main role, should not be playing at a professional level.

SpellFlingerDec 9, 20155 votes

{quoted}

But there lies the inherent problem. The devs care too much about the pros and not enough about the rest of the community (which, by the way, overwhelmingly outnumbers the pros), so saying that this change shouldn't happen because eSports is totally inane. I stopped playing ranked because they haven't done anything to the ban count (along with other reasons which are irrelevant to the topic at hand) while the champion list grows ever longer. I'll only pick up ranked again once teams get five bans instead of a paltry three.

That isnt a problem. You don't balance a game around the players who are bad at it. You balance it around the best of em. The pro scene. They are the only ones who can provide valuable information in a short enough time span to make balance relevant.

MrRadoDec 10, 20152 votes

This response needs to be seen. +1

AdderTudeDec 17, 20151 votes

{quoted}

That isnt a problem. You don't balance a game around the players who are bad at it. You balance it around the best of em. The pro scene. They are the only ones who can provide valuable information in a short enough time span to make balance relevant.

What about the amateur players who are just as good, then? Do they not count because they aren't getting paid to play the game?

How about the time that Jinx was released? A large number of players in the PBE at the time gave Riot the go-ahead to release her even though she was the most broken champion. Her damage was too high, her slow was far too heavy, and she consumed a negligible amount of mana on her Q (per shot) for any real sort of counterplay against her. And you know who loved that kind of power the most? I'm willing to bet it was the pros that tested the hell out of her in the PBE, since they (as you said) are the only sources of valuable testing information, unlike everyone else who tested her. Guess getting paid to play a game makes you one of the "in" crowd while the rest of us are basically irrelevant (again, going off what you're saying).

SpellFlingerDec 18, 20151 votes

The amateurs really are not as good as the pros, that is why they are not pros. You are taking my comment to the extreme anyhow. What I am saying is you do not balance this game around the Bronze Population. When it comes to general game-play it doesn't matter if something is OP in bronze, because those kids cant even last hit. They are not losing to OP strats, they are losing to themselves. But If something is horribly skewing win rates in Master tier? Might need to be looked at. Stop trying to attack me because you are not good enough to get paid to play this game. I'm not either bro, its ok. You are not going off what I am saying really, at all.

PBE is for finding bugs and super apparent brokenness in new champs before a release. They will test meta tweaks on the PBE, but the PBE is not where they are gathering the information necessary to decide what those tweaks are.

You know, I have a friend that I duo with regularly. At least once a game he uses the words " god damn that's so broken". Sometimes several times a game. My usual response is " it would not feel broken if you didn't suck at this game".

AdderTudeJan 8, 20161 votes

{quoted}

The amateurs really are not as good as the pros, that is why they are not pros. You are taking my comment to the extreme anyhow. What I am saying is you do not balance this game around the Bronze Population. When it comes to general game-play it doesn't matter if something is OP in bronze, because those kids cant even last hit. They are not losing to OP strats, they are losing to themselves. But If something is horribly skewing win rates in Master tier? Might need to be looked at. Stop trying to attack me because you are not good enough to get paid to play this game. I'm not either bro, its ok. You are not going off what I am saying really, at all.

PBE is for finding bugs and super apparent brokenness in new champs before a release. They will test meta tweaks on the PBE, but the PBE is not where they are gathering the information necessary to decide what those tweaks are.

That is a given, considering one would have to follow the money to see who's opinion is more valued. It basically says the community at large doesn't matter anymore if only the pros' voice were listened to because it's their job. They have to play the game. For the rest of the community that plays the Game because they love it (hence "amateur"), you're basically saying they have a less-than-valued opinion because they don't get the money. It isn't taking your comment to the "extreme" when the tone of it sends this exact message: "Whoever gets the pay, gets the say."

I don't care about getting paid to play this mess of a Game anyhow, seeing as how the direction isn't going anywhere good (and many former players who've moved on would agree with me on this). I also know how the damned PBE works because I was a part of it for several months. Doesn't change the fact that that part of the community basically gives the devs the go-ahead signal to release a champion after most of the bugs have been worked out. Two of the biggest mistakes to come out of the PBE were Jinx (for the reasons I previously stated) and Illaoi (who still snowballs far too hard from mid-game onwards, once one stacks armor and hp on her first in that order, especially when that first item is item 3742 ).

There will always be the difference in talent across Bronze/Silver (basically the same tier with different names), Gold, Platinum, Diamond, and so on (you're talking to one of the top fifty players in NA of the short-lived Infinite Crisis, out of several thousand on the server, so I know full well about skill differences). However, the voice of each and every single player in the community on the whole ought to be valued if the devs actually cared about player retention (by the way, they pretty much don't if one isn't already a fanboy/girl). It's like politics. The devs (politicians) only listen to the pros (lobbyists) while screwing over the community at large, since a lot of their patches (new and updated rules/laws) cater specifically to the pros under the guise of being aimed at everybody. Only difference between the devs and politicians is that the developers don't work for us.

SpellFlingerJan 18, 20161 votes

Everyone keeps assuming that money has anything to do with what I am talking about in my comment. It doesn't. Let me ask you this though, who plays the game the most? Pros. Who is by far and large the most talented at the game? The pros, and at what level of play is the competition the most evenly matched? only level really, The Pros. Thats why you use only the most elite tier of play to figure out balancing for a game.

AdderTudeFeb 3, 20161 votes

{quoted}

Everyone keeps assuming that money has anything to do with what I am talking about in my comment. It doesn't. Let me ask you this though, who plays the game the most? Pros. Who is by far and large the most talented at the game? The pros, and at what level of play is the competition the most evenly matched? only level really, The Pros. Thats why you use only the most elite tier of play to figure out balancing for a game.

That's assuming only the pros play the game the longest, which is a borderline fallacious statement. There are plenty of amateurs out there that play the game just as long so why does their voice not matter, then? Because they don't get big checks? Because they don't have sponsors? Money is the core issue here, whether you agree or not. Money talks, and devs listen.

Just because a politician's been at the game longer, doesn't necessarily mean they know everything. And yet they're still worshiped like gods by those who like (and envy) 'em. Pros are essentially the same way, in this case.

SpoofghoulDec 9, 201525 votes

Can't really call them pro if they can't even play more then 5 champions . .

Your Pal ChrisDec 9, 20153 votes

Its more about viability. Sometimes there aren't more than 5 viable champs at a specific role. Usually jungle or adc...

dEAdbUsDec 9, 20152 votes

I think pros will adapt to any situation. In the past there weren't jungler, adc and support roles. Players invented them.

iiBlackBirdiiDec 9, 20152 votes

Wrong, season 1 Championship had the same meta as today.

dEAdbUsDec 10, 20151 votes

Before championship?

TheDiffDec 10, 20152 votes

Yeah, i remember in season 1 there would be Top-tank maybe 2 top depends on the players mid- adc bot- bruiser/mage Jungle- if there was one it wouldve been an assasin or somone who could gank extremely easily because there was no ward limit.

RetillinDec 9, 20159 votes

Then.... shouldn't Riot look at that issue instead of just using this as a band-aid?

l Main RenektonDec 9, 20157 votes

Balance is ridiculously hard.

RetillinDec 9, 20153 votes

You are not wrong. But something might be wrong in the philosophy if there are only 4-5 viable champs at a specific role to begin with. This may in fact make it EASIER to balance over all. Seeing as 1 or 2 outliers in power can be ignored a bit longer with 10 total bans instead of 6. No need to knee-jerk nerf if say Yas/Kindred or someone is really strong at any given moment.

DairdrekDec 11, 20151 votes

Bruh, I've found that by playing shit that isn't "viable" you have more fun and your games become more dynamic instead of the same old," oh they have nasus top, rengar jungle, viktor mid, cait adc and blitz support. Well fuck." The character I've logged the most play time in is considered the least viable adc by most, yet I can usually still outplay the enemy just because I'm practiced with him, and I know how to work with my strengths and be careful round my weakness. ( btw I'm talking about Varus)

LordFluffyJrDec 9, 20152 votes

They can play more than 5 champions. Its just pro players only play certain things in competitive since competetive is a whole other meta. Unless you're faker then you can take anything mid Olaf Irelia JarvanIV

dEAdbUsDec 9, 20153 votes

They are pros, they're getting money for their job. When boss asking me to stay after work and finish project, I'm not saying to him that he's pushing me over my limits.

Let's remove bans at all then - every player then will main one or two champions.

WookieJesuzDec 9, 20155 votes

They said it wont happen bc it would be too hard for new lvl 30 to be able to play ranked... I say bs give 5 bans. Ill never have to play against vayne again.

KeevalroyDec 9, 20159 votes

"it will be harder for new level 30s to go into ranked"

If they're new to 30, why are they immediately going into ranked? Why shouldn't we bar the entry so they can learn the game more by playing extra games to unlock the new minimum? We've tossed out so many arguments that they don't have answers for...

TheOvermindDec 9, 20155 votes

Well at season 1 there were what ? 20-40 champions ( not sure on this correct if I'm wrong ) well that's 30-15% of the champions banned every ranked respectively with 6 bans. Well I'm not saying we should reach 15% of champions banned every game but I'm sure 8 % is fine so that means 10 champions banned every game, which sounds fine to me. If not allow everyone to ban in a team and then shuffle those 5 bans and randomly 3 will be chosen at the end to ensure everyone gets to contribute while keeping the traditional 3 bans per team if necessary . Not to mention that 10 bans in lcs would mean that the pros get a bit more free on selecting champs rather than just always playing top tier champs

MansanaDec 9, 20154 votes

On another note, the number of champions owned would need to be updated to accommodate this. Reasoning, currently the requirement is 16 because assuming on a very rare occasion that 6 of your champs are banned, and the other 9 are picked, you therefore have at least one champion to play. So the number of champions needed to play ranked would then be 20. Which isn't a big issue since Riot still needs to solve IP problems for new players.

RasCaelestisDec 9, 20154 votes

Riot recently added more champions and skins to their bi-weekly sales. They recognize that their champion roster has grown substantially, and so they have adapted to match it. ...At least in the case where they can make money off of a change.

Colgate MinuetteDec 9, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Riot recently added more champions and skins to their bi-weekly sales. They recognize that their champion roster has grown substantially, and so they have adapted to match it. ...At least in the case where they can make money off of a change.

There is still not enough room for people to have a proper champion pool accounting for a possible loss of up to 19 champions in said pool. Draft phase, ranked and pro scene will be fucked for 2-3 years at the rate champions are being released.

There are simply not enough champions viable in each position to allow 10 total bans.

AdderTudeDec 9, 20156 votes

[{quoted}](name=Colgate Minuette,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=mIffjl7u,comment-id=00150000,timestamp=2015-12-09T11:38:59.877+0000)

There are simply not enough champions viable in each position to allow 10 total bans.

The number is approaching one hundred thirty and you think roughly fifty are the only viable ones (five per role, per team, so twenty-five per side in any given game)? Following your logic, then changes would have to be made to the other sixty-eight to somehow make them "viable" at their intended positions. Not only is this untrue, but it also assumes that people are only limited to five champions for any given role. I, for one, play whoever I feel like when the situation calls for it (meaning I don't limit myself to only five choices for a role). As an example, I play Swain, Syndra, Malzahar, Veigar, Ahri, Annie, Brand, and Cassie in mid, so I don't limit myself to just four or five, as is the supposed norm.

Colgate MinuetteDec 9, 20151 votes

{quoted}

The number is approaching one hundred thirty and you think roughly fifty are the only viable ones (five per role, per team, so twenty-five per side in any given game)? Following your logic, then changes would have to be made to the other sixty-eight to somehow make them "viable" at their intended positions. Not only is this untrue, but it also assumes that people are only limited to five champions for any given role. I, for one, play whoever I feel like when the situation calls for it (meaning I don't limit myself to only five choices for a role). As an example, I play Swain, Syndra, Malzahar, Veigar, Ahri, Annie, Brand, and Cassie in mid, so I don't limit myself to just four or five, as is the supposed norm.

Viable mid lane right now:

Yasuo (banned)
TF
Malzahar (Banned sometimes)
Leblanc (banned)
Ahri (Banned)
Brand (banned sometimes)

Sure you can play more mids but those are the most popular and most useful to their team at this point in time and they are banned or picked in most cases. With this model POPULAR CHAMPIONS WILL NEVER BE PLAYED BECAUSE THEY WILL ALWAYS BE BANNED for example I have a friend who lovvesss to play Yasuo he likes hte champion a lot and has a lot of fun with him but can never play him because hes banned so often. What about the other players?

Personally if we have 1 ban each I'm banning alistar every single game and playing Leona there's nothing left to stop me anymore I can beat Thresh no problem same with any other shit support you try to throw at me.

Personally if we have 1 ban I'm banning volibear in the jungle cause hes the only one I can't kill in his own jungle early game with shaco (sometimes, I can be creative and get him on occasion but rarely)

Personally if we have 1 ban each I'm banning Vi as an ADC cause fuck that lockdown.

Personally if we have 1 ban each I'm banning Kayle as Zed because tho I can beat her in lane it's just too much effort to do it every single game.

Personally if we have 1 ban each I'm banning vlad and playing whatever top laner I want cause fuck vlad.

Bottom line is, if everyone bans one time for their own lane people aren't gonna be able to play the champions they want to play. I know people who if there were 5 bans they would ban shaco every single game just cause they hate the champion. Or ban Zed every game cause they wana play immobile mids/adcs. There is just not enough room for 10 bans.

AdderTudeDec 9, 20155 votes

[{quoted}](name=Colgate Minuette,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=mIffjl7u,comment-id=0015000000000000,timestamp=2015-12-09T12:05:37.748+0000)

Viable mid lane right now:

Yasuo (banned)

TF

Malzahar (Banned sometimes)

Leblanc (banned)

Ahri (Banned)

Brand (banned sometimes)

Sure you can play more mids but those are the most popular and most useful to their team at this point in time and they are banned or picked in most cases. With this model POPULAR CHAMPIONS WILL NEVER BE PLAYED BECAUSE THEY WILL ALWAYS BE BANNED for example I have a friend who lovvesss to play Yasuo he likes hte champion a lot and has a lot of fun with him but can never play him because hes banned so often. What about the other players?

I fairly object to Fate because I've consistently been beaten by Syndra. Also, Ahri currently has 0.8% ban rate (less than one percent!), so no, that little bit isn't correct either.

Bottom line is, if everyone bans one time for their own lane people aren't gonna be able to play the champions they want to play. I know people who if there were 5 bans they would ban shaco every single game just cause they hate the champion. Or ban Zed every game cause they wana play immobile mids/adcs. There is just not enough room for 10 bans.

This assumes most players can play ONLY one or two champions for their selected role. If you look at Defense of the Ancients 2, VALVe allows five bans per side, and as far as I've seen at The International, captains ban at least one or two heroes per position because they recognize the threat that some of those heroes pose while drafting counters to whatever the team has already picked or expected to pick (also, their draft system is better, imo).

Colgate MinuetteDec 9, 20151 votes

{quoted}

I fairly object to Fate because I've consistently been beaten by Syndra. Also, Ahri currently has 0.8% ban rate (less than one percent!), so no, that little bit isn't correct either.

This assumes most players can play ONLY one or two champions for their selected role. If you look at Defense of the Ancients 2, VALVe allows five bans per side, and as far as I've seen at The International, captains ban at least one or two heroes per position because they recognize the threat that some of those heroes pose while drafting counters to whatever the team has already picked or expected to pick (also, their draft system is better, imo).

Well I know if I had a ban each game and I was playing mid I'd ban Ahri and play Xerath.

Furthermore what about streamers? People like Annie Bot and Shaclone would be completely crippled by such a change. 5 bans means the enemy team goes "GUYS SHACLONE IS ON THE OTHER TEAM, BAN HIS ENTIRE CHAMP POOL" (which is basically just 4-5 people total) and now shaclone is fucked. What about Annie bot? "Guys annie bot is on the other team ban Annie, Janna, Vlad, Vayne, Leona and it's basically 4v5 in our favor"

AdderTudeDec 9, 20154 votes

[{quoted}](name=Colgate Minuette,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=mIffjl7u,comment-id=001500000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-12-09T12:24:57.716+0000)

Well I know if I had a ban each game and I was playing mid I'd ban Ahri and play Xerath.

Furthermore what about streamers? People like Annie Bot and Shaclone would be completely crippled by such a change. 5 bans means the enemy team goes "GUYS SHACLONE IS ON THE OTHER TEAM, BAN HIS ENTIRE CHAMP POOL" (which is basically just 4-5 people total) and now shaclone is fucked. What about Annie bot? "Guys annie bot is on the other team ban Annie, Janna, Vlad, Vayne, Leona and it's basically 4v5 in our favor"

But that leaves open a lot of other options for the rest of his team to use, beyond your side's focus on attempting to screw him over.

dEAdbUsDec 9, 20155 votes

Rengar mains reached challenger, while Rengar was in top 3 bans half of an year.

TransgressorDec 9, 20154 votes

I don't know about 5 bans per team, but for fucks sake they could at least add ONLY ONE MORE FUCKING BAN PER TEAM ALREADY.

JUST 1. AND THEN THEY CAN SEE HOW IT GOES ON THE PBE. THEY REMOVE ITEMS AND CHANGE SKINS, THEY CAN'T TEST THIS SHIT? FUCK!

SSShutTheDuckUpDec 9, 20153 votes

I agree with that. And talking about level 30 difficulties:

My biggest mistake, since I start playing LoL was that I played my 10 ranked games at the week I reached 30. Making it more difficult would make new players a favor, no matter what they think.

If you do not want to restrict them - give new players IP bonuses (until they reach lvl 30)

If you do not want - keep the old draft ranked, but give "older" players the 5-champ ban system.

As for pros: someone said, that a player with less than 6 champions cannot be considered pro, and i kinda agree. Also that would means that we will watch more exiting games, not Elise LeeSin or RekSai (pick 2) in the jungle every time. After all - pro league is not about the proplayers, it is about spectators

devdev463Dec 9, 20154 votes

2015 worlds only saw 5 or 6 junglers being played throughout the whole tournament with 3 being clear power picks and the other 3 being the next best thing. So a pro can definetly get by with a low champ pool, in the jungle specifically.

DecimúsDec 9, 20153 votes

They said they will enable it ,looks like nobody hear bother to read preseason 6 changes .....

K54Dec 10, 20152 votes

HOLY FUCKING SHIT DUDE! I've never taken being down voted so personal. I've literally posted this exact same shit, almost ver batim about 20 times and always get downvoted to hell! Now I know it's just because people don't like me lol

Anyways, good on you mate! You've earned my upvote [slayer-pantheon-thumbs]

CarameI FrappeDec 10, 20152 votes

People are quick to jump sides.

If someone sees your post with -2 votes, they're more likely to downvote you because the thumbs up / down influences how people see your posts. If your post had +4 likes, then your post is obviously "worthy" of being read. I don't like it myself, and every person's opinion is of great worth to me ... so, you have my upvote good sir.

PentchDec 9, 20151 votes

This is a good idea in order to make everyone happy, but what happens when there aren't any ADC's left to play since absolutely all of the ones you owned were banned? I could just see that having 10 champs banned from a game could be a little overboard considering some people have the minimum amount of champs in order to play ranked (16).

If you really want good communication ask your team who they should ban. If you disagree just chose a ban that you want.

KeevalroyDec 9, 20154 votes