It'd just be 4 more champions added onto the perma ban list. Don't say some horseshit about "more diverse banning" and "preventing counters". It'd be something like Tahm Kench, Soraka, Rengar, Fiora, Graves, Mundo, Malphite, Gangplank, Yi or something at least 70% similar to that every match. '
edit: the only good thing I can see from this is Yasuo and Zed not seeing the light of day.
ChargeItDownMid51 votes[deleted]
Kuroi868 votesNot really. Once you knock out the current top tier, the only thing that happens is the next tier becomes top picked.
The only way to ensure that diversity grows is to A. get rid of generalists and B. keep the meta shifting so each new meta will allow different champs to have their time to shine.
Uiraya30 votesIf the top tier has 8 champions in it and the next tier has 24 champions in it, that is fine.
Murdering Lee Sin is a good start, though.
Kuroi868 votesIf any champ needed a rework, it would be Lee Sin. He's the poster child for generalists. If Riot could get away with reworking him without potentially dumpstering their finances for a year or more you'd see the whole landscape of league change.
Ulquiorra99510 votesYeah, removing Lee from the equation would do wonders for the variety by itself. When your game has 130 different characters, and one of them sees play in 1 out of 3 games on average you have a problem.
But then, this is a game where pushing Lee out of the spotlight is a valid reason to get nerfed, so I wouldn't get my hopes up.
High52 votesThe meta shifts, but think of it more like interest rates.
ChargeItDownMid1 votes[deleted]
Kuroi861 votesNot really.
Even when Riot managed to rip the reigns of the jungle away from 
you still had issues with certain champs being picked while others were simply not as effective.
The meta will always seek out those champs that manage better than others. Even in the Cinderhulk meta, you had no more than four junglers that were considered gods while the others were just there.
Increasing the play rate of a few champs by 3-4% simply isn't good enough, increasing the bans simply doesn't cut it.
There are a hand full of issues in the game that sadly are core and will take a long time to work out, increasing bans simply causes people to ignore the problem rather than face the problem.
ChargeItDownMid1 votes[deleted]
Kuroi861 votesIncreasing the bans will make the game more diverse
No it won't, that's what I've been trying to say. All you're doing is making people complain about the C list junglers instead of the A and B list junglers because they are always banned. All you're doing is shifting the problem out of the way.
It's not even a band aid fix.
Again, all you're doing is ensuring that instead of the meta being ruled by say 
You instead have a meta ruled by say 
Nearly every other champ continues to get left in the shadows because there are simply better picks.
First ten bans "To increase diversity!"
Then 16 bans "To increase diversity!"
Then 20 something bans "To increase diversity!"
Where does it stop?
ChargeItDownMid1 votes[deleted]
Kuroi861 votesExcept time has proven your theory to be incorrect.
No matter the meta, no matter who was considered ban worthy, you've always faced the same problem.
The kings and queens of the meta. The champs that are just better picks for one reason or another.
Increasing the ban count WILL NOT change this. The meta will continue to operate as it always has. All you're doing is making it so that instead of Champs A,B, and C, you have to pick champs D,E, and F.
For all the people that think it will make champion M WAY down the line get picked enough to actually become popular, they fail to realize just how Niche their champion may be, how meta dependent may be, or how two or three other champs simply do their job better.
ChargeItDownMid1 votes[deleted]
Kuroi861 votesThe problem specifically lies in the fact that two or three god tier champions does a better job than most of the balanced champions
You have an issue though, it's not about who is the most overpowered, it's about who is most efficient in a given meta.
If you have an early game ganking meta, the best early game gankers will be top picks/bans.
If you have a late game hyper carry meta, then the top hyper carries will be pick/ban.
These picks typically fall in groups of 3-5 with all other picks being sub-par.
Even if you can ban out the best early game ganking junglers, then people are simply going to go to the next best 3-5 early game gankers.
In a tank meta, only the best tanks will see high picks. Even if you ban them out, it doesn't mean every tank will see good picks, it just means the top 3-5 will get banned out and the next 3-5 will be top picks instead.
ChargeItDownMid1 votes[deleted]
Kuroi861 votesYou're right and wrong.
A meta focuses on what champs accomplish what job the best.
Simply because the next tier of champs has 10-15 champs that can do the job, it doesn't mean they will all see action so much as the 3-5 among that tier that accomplish the job better than the rest.
sigh I honestly think we're at a point where we simply have to agree to disagree.
I think there are ways to help fix the meta and make picks more open, but I just don't see adding bans as a reasonable fix, just as people wanting a way to avoid improving their games, so if any champ moves anywhere near their personal "op" list, they get banned out asap.
Zuil2 votesWith the current state of game balance, you are right that 10 bans won't help much. However, you can't deny that there will be more diversity with more bans. Remember, champion power tends to fall on a bell curve with a few champions being god tier, a few champions being yorick tier, and most of the champions being clumped up in the middle. More bans allows more of the overpowered outliers to be permabanned.
The point of more bans isn't to increase ban diversity as much as it is to increase pick diversity. The more outliers that are pushed to permaban tier, the more balanced champions are allowed to enter the meta.
Interesting thought. But people will still find whats the best and abuse the hell out of it.
High52 votesTrue. Most people, myself included, are not smarter than the meta. Why play if the is not to win?
PeachsProperty3 votesHowever the increase of bans allowed would directly force them to add more free champs per week.
as 10 bans could ban all the free week champions, and newer people may only own them and be forced unable to pick anyone.
Vistha Kai15 votesThat'd mean you need 4 more champions before playing normal draft.
1 800 MID LANE4 votesPoor Yorick. :(
Destinycharge2 votesI'm trying to understand this whole "pick diversity" or "champion diversity" thing you guys be bring up. Is it some solution to have people increase their champion pools to be well skill in any number of champions?
Rivini14 votesIt's not just about being able to ban more OP/annoying champions. It's also to allow each team member to ban who they want without hoping to be one of the last 3 picks.
Imagine how satisfying it would be to play draft and not ever having to face the one champion you can't stand playing against the most, if you chose to stick to one champion of course.
Retillin4 votesShaco.... fucking hate Shaco.... Low level jungle cheese! Arrgg. I'm tilted and I'm not even playing right now...
Remlap12238 votesUh oh, you attacked an underdog champion, time for your opinions to forever be invalidated.
Keevalroy3 votesI tend to support the underdog champions, but Shaco can rot in Hell.
High56 votesThe issue has always been that more bans will drag out selection. Better to just learn how to play against champs than asking for more bans.
More bans is just catering to lazy players.
TeCoolMage4 votesIt won't drag out selection if everyone just picks at the same time or something
Like blind pick except with champs you hate
10 picks has problems unrelated to time or 'learning how to play'
Akali is SO HOT10 votesGiving more bans makes it so you can take care of the outliers in the champion pool (the ones that are way more powerful than the rest by far) which makes more champions available to be picked from. Get rid of the 10 God Tier champions that are screwing everything up and a lot more picks are open to be played.
Dengeden3 votesIs a lie that everyone believes for some reason.
Why is it that the top tier picks (competitively speaking) are never gradually picked but swarm the scene after a buff or leave it completely after a nerf? Why is it that Gragas, Sejuani, Sion, LB and Zed (to name a few) were either OP or UP in competitive?
Retillin8 votesBecause the meta changes and Riot doesn't always see the strength/weaknesses of a champion at a time. Or refuse to see it. (As the pros kept pointing out during Worlds with Morde just being vastly over-tunned)
Dengeden1 votesWow that was a very political statement, I'm impressed. Way to avoid my question. The meta changes based on what, if not what we read in the patch notes? A champion that's overtuned is what? OP or UP?
All I can gather from your vague accusations is that you think Riot nerfs and buffs the wrong things about a champion. Improbable, considering meta champions usually receive more than one patch of nerfs (direct or indirect).
Retillin5 votesYou don't have a lot of friends do you.
The meta changes based of nerfs/buffs to items, champs, auxiliary (towers/dragons/jungle). As well as game play innovation. (4 man tower pushes, double TP, ect.) A champion that is over-tuned is is OP. That's what the phrase means.... A champion that is under-tuned can not be OP. There is no blanket statement for why all champs are OP or UP. Each one is different.
Riot takes a careful approach to nerf/buffs. So it can takes many patches before a "problem" champion that players (and/or pros) are not happy with. Tahm is a perfect example. Riot **admits ** they were shocked at the frustration players had with Tahm. The fact that Riot views him first as a support and he was rocking over 60% ban rate for a while really caught them off guard.
So having more bans gives players a way to deal with champions that are OP while Riot looks at the issue. Rengar/Tahm/Gangplank/Ryze/Fiora/Graves/Mundo were all thought of has really strong to the point that players didn't want to deal with them in the past few patches. And we see some trickling of nerfs on them.
As far as why champs appear to just show up out of nowhere and become pick/ban worthy in pro play; it's innovation and number/kit changes. Once Faker showed how to button mash corrrectly on Ryze, pros followed suite and saw how crazy OP he was. Mundo with the item changes (reduction of the strength of last whisper, increase of the power of tank masteries, ect.) he became OP, and the pros saw this.
If you want I can walk you through more issues. Just try not to be so confrontational.
Dengeden1 votesDo excuse me, if someone implies it's all just Rito being stupid, moneyhungry etc. etc. as usual, I tend to see red.
So, champions are OP and picked often (for whatever reason) ... or they aren't and then never see the light of day (at least in LCS). Fact of the matter is, there's never champions that are "just OK" in the competitive scene, which is basically what was being implied. (Saying you could ban out "god tier" champions)
Retillin3 votesBut there are "just OK" champs. Cait, Orianna, Lux, Varus, Ashe, Kennen, ect. Champs that see some play but are not always picked/banned. Would some of them climb up to banned status if there were 10 bans? Yeah I'm sure there would be. (there would have to be 4 more no matter what)
The problem is there are about 8-10 champs that are just really better than the rest right now. GP, Fiora, Ryze, Graves, Corki, Lucian, Alistar, Tahm/Elise (we'll see with their nerfs). These are all thought of as "God Tier" by the players and casters both.
At the end of the day, 10 bans would help to keep the game fresh. Is there a possibility that in a year or two players would be asking for 12 bans? Yes. But Riot should (and has admitted as much) that they are playing more attention to what champs are banned by the players for more than just number tweeks, and more into why are the players frustrated with those champs.
Jbels9 votesIt could help shed some light on champions Riot might not see as broken, and force them to evaluate what it is that is making that champion so banworthy, leading it to a better degree of balance.
Zuil3 votesIt could help shed some light on champions Riot might not see as broken, and force them to evaluate what it is that is making that champion so banworthy, leading it to a better degree of balance.
Tahm has been on the high ban rate for a long time, and here he is not changed at all.
TheCeeJay7 votesExcept Tahm received nerfs last patch to his passive, E and R.
None of those are the nerfs he needed really, but they were nerfs.
Retillin4 votesThat's not true however. Riot said they were shocked at how much Tahm got banned. (They saw/see him as a support first) The bans did lead to Riot reevaluating the frustration level with Tahm. So we see that there can be a disconnect between Riot and the players at times. The fact that it took so long to ban Tahm is a great reason to increase bans. As it can take time for Riot to come to grips with player views vs internal views.
EyesOfTheFox3 votesIf Riot wants to see what's broken they can just watch the LCS. The pros only pick/ban broken champions. Riot also wants this to be a team game. If you are a full team of 5 you can actually create a really strong team comp that doesn't revolve around the perma ban champs. However, most of us are lucky to even be able to duo with someone, and that makes it hard to organize the team comp when everyone just wants to play whatever champ they want not considering the composition. Most games are lost not because certain champs get/don't get banned, but because over half the player base doesn't care about setting up a strategic comp with others. There are advantages to playing with a premade group and Riot knows this. However this occurrence is rare, especially at lower Elos. Most people ban the right champions, however I have noticed most people don't care about champion match ups after that. A lot of players have it in their mind that because they know how to play a certain champ, that champion is still a good pick regardless of team comp. Most of the people complaining about OP champs (which some are), don't take other team aspects into consideration, and wonder why they lose to seemingly OP champions which were designed to be a counter to them in the first place.
Monkey D Luffy7 votesUpvoted for your "edit: the only good thing I can see from this is Yasuo and Zed not seeing the light of day."
TaoistMaster5 votes can never see the light of day and he does fine
MadFuhrer6 votesA problem then arises with pro player and completely banning out an opponent. Going 5 deep into someone's pool would crush a good deal of rpro players. This could easily be remedied by keeping it 3 bans in the pro scene and allowing 5 bans for dynamic queue.
Zuil7 votesYou just answered your own question yeah. Normal que doesn't have to apply to the pro scene.
Shroom Junkie2 votesWhy we need 10 bans:
Broken champs. Plain and simple. If they were permabanned I personally would have no problem.
fééd l0rd2 votesPeople are simply dumb. They like banning op and annoying champions. So they think they need more bans, while every champion can be annoying if played right without him being op nor ban worthy.
