I do not think it is correct to only allow a team to ban champions the other team has available to them. By doing this, you give the team with the most champions an advantage beyond team composition. The other team should not be aware of what champions the other team can pick. If the team wants to ban Garen, they should ban Garen; if the other team doesn't have Garen, so be it.

By giving the other team this information, you provide them an advantage that I believe RIOT has tried to avoid throughout the making of this game. Once you are in game, what you have purchased through RP should not hold any impact towards the games outcome. It is clear that in ranked games, the champion selection IS part of the game. It is obvious that team composition and selection flexibility is impossible to fix with the games champion buying system, but the other team should not be handed the other team's champion pool by default.

Here's an example of where this advantage is apparent:

I'm playing 3's and I know Morde and Lee Sin are very big champions in this map. As the game starts, I notice that both Morde and Lee Sin are not even available for me to ban. I simply force the other team to waste both of their bans on Morde and Lee Sin, or I grab them myself. I should have to take a risk by choosing not to ban these champions, yet with the enemies champion pool given to me, that risk is completely taken away.

To fix: Simply show all champions in the banning phase.

No one? Oh well, I tried. =P

Why would you play ranked without having almost all the champions? how can a team of 5 people not collectivly have every champion

I don't see why that makes any difference. Unlocking all the champions takes quite awhile.

Furthermore, I don't have Lee Sin and my friend doesn't have Lee Sin. I could easily see a TT game where we don't have any Lee Sin available out of us three.

This is more of a theoretical assessment of the system. It's a really easy change and I just wanted to see if others thought the current working is flawed or proper.

I can see your point, however I do not think it as big a deal as you may want it to be.

I never thought it was a huge deal; I just was pointing out a game mechanic affecting competitive play that could be improved.

you use the search function to ban champs you dont have. works in 5s. but i admit, i dont play 3s. so have no idea if its different.

I was talking about champs they don't have. I should be able to ban Garen even if they don't have Garen. I shouldn't be given the luxury of knowing they have not purchased Garen.

This is not a problem of mine. I just don't think the logic behind this feature is sound. I've played since beta and I have enough champs that I like to play. I don't even understand why my current situation holds any relevance.

Meh, as a developer I think about implementations as correct or incorrect. This just seemed incorrect. From a developer's standpoint, this variable is so easy to change (or it better be...), that RIOT had to make the decision that the list of bannable champions would be the union of a teams available champions instead of the entire list of champions.

...simply a design critique on something that affects competitive play. Thought it was worth noting.