There used to only be 2 bans per team, which was increased to 3 as the roster grew larger. Now, the roster is large enough to allow for 4 or even 5 bans per team in ranked. It would allow for more variety in gameplay. Yes you'd get more flavor of the month bans, but by sheer roster size alone the ban number should have increased by now.
Sailor Mint2 votesBans were increased to 3 per team to match competitive play. Either way, as long as the competitive champion pool remains a stable ~50 on every given patch, there's no need for more bans.
More bans wouldn't encourage more unique picks, it'd simply move the play rate to a different member of the top 3-5.
ChargeItDownMid1 votes[deleted]
Sailor Mint2 votesI'll assume that you don't follow competitive play.
Traditionally, you simply graded power picks, banned the problem champions and picked the strongest remaining available champion.
Right now, there's too many things that are actually worth playing. Former meta power picks didn't get nerfed hard enough for them to fall off and a large number of champions are trying to take their place.
Do you honestly think Urgot would be a allowed to be a first pick in a world with more bans?
Sarutobi1 votesi think as the games champ pool increases they should increase the bans, not by much but i would think now that we have over 100 champs (126 to be exact) the bans should at least be 5! with probably another 2-3 bans following the champ pool of 150.
The5lacker1 votesEveryone gets a ban. Ban order same as pick order. Nobody can bitch that the champion they absolutely want banned wasn't banned, creates a greater team reliance right off the get-go.
Swampmajikk1 votesi was thinking the same thing. honestly 5 (one per player) would make sense.
killd0zer1 votesBans are not to remove a % of the champion pool.
They're supposed to be used strategically, and seeing as the current ban strategy is "ban what's OP" I can't really say I support more.
