5 bans each, the "meta" is so strong since lcs got popular that we rarely see balanced champions in soloQ (at least in higher elos. take a look at streams and see the same champs every game). what is the reason for you not wanting more bans?
Because adding bans doesn't do anything to solve perceived imbalance in the game.
Do you honestly believe that adding 4 more banned champions is going to shake up the meta and make everyone viable? Or do you think there will be one constantly banned group of champions with a second group of "strong but not the strongest" champions that would soon take over. Every other champion besides the top 10 are not really superbly balanced either.
What is your recourse then when that second group becomes the must picks? You can't ban them because then you release the 'top 10' from their perpetual ban stasis. Do you argue for more bans because the second group is just as bad now that they've taken over?
Because they don't want you to ban every champion that's "good" in the "meta" or in the LCS.
They want more diversity and freedom in the game and champ select, not less.
I've been confused with that question for quite some time. It isn't a question of champ balance, or complicated numbers. The number of champions/number of bans is a simple ratio that has drastically grown over time. There is literally no BAD reason to increase the number of bans except for the one argument that "it increases the pick/ban phase time." Still though, I find this argument weak.
5 bans, with each player getting one, is one of the changes I most wish to see in LoL, besides East Coast ping reduction, which they are working on.
Increased chances of Lee Sin being banned, there can be more obnoxious champions that need to be banned, if we had that many he would be permabanned.
It also means new players have to get more champions before playing ranked.
