So, most people are kind of sick of facing the same decks all the time, getting too little fun out of playing said matches.
Class ban proposals pop up here and there. I think that would be excessive and too easy to exploit, not helping too much in avoiding a meta to get stale, not to mention the unfairly queue time increase for who wants to play a certain class just because a specific deck of it is abused. (#controlshamanlivesmatter)
But I'd welcome very well a UP TO 3-card ban choice that wouldn't match you against lists that contains them. You can choose also to not ban anything It would give hints to Blizzard about cards to balance and shaking up the meta more actively, as people would adjust deck list depending on how frequently a card gets banned.
If you ban Thunder Bluff Valiant you will not face Midrange Shaman, but still have chance of facing Evolve/Control Shaman. If you ban Execute, you will not run into Control Warrior. If you ban Ice Block, you won't run into Freeze Mage.
Avoiding for granted to face determinated cards opens up new possibilities. Ban Sylvanas Windrunner, Entomb and Hex and voilà, Sneed's Old Shredder becomes much better, for example.
I think the player base is wide enough to support such a system without occuring into drastic queue times, just a few seconds more. If mass baning of a card heightens the queue time considerably, it means that said card is a problem card that requires to be addressed because it is a gamelimiting auto-include in every single deck (read Piloted Shredder or Azure Drake if any, but then again, I don't really think people relates their frustration to those single cards as stand-alone) If really really, even if unlikely, the ban system gets to massively slow down queues all the time, it can be limited to Class cards.
If someone enjoys winning and wants to exploit some borderline broken and hated cards, he can do it, but he will be probably matched against players that expect to run into those and has built decks who can get around their strength and turn it against them.
Such a system would add a new layer of skill revolving about ban strategy and deck building. It would impact heavily netdecking phenomenom making list copying just to win more unreliable, because key ban cards will halt the main strategy. It would bring much wider game difference, as many niche decks halted by the dominance of certain deck archetypes would see light of the day without leading to an insta-loss. It would reduce salt-level overall because people would be able to ban cards they get frustrated to play against, reducing nerf-begging requests. It would help Blizzard to detect easier problem cards and adjust those with minor nerfs that wouldn't straight up murder them.
So guys, what do you think about it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember playing Control Shaman with Reincarnate shenanigans? No? It was fun, here's a refresher!
banning mysterious challenger, dr boom and piloted shredder will increase my wild search time to like 40 minutes
Piloted Shredder is not too smart of a ban as it barely functions as a game win condition. Still, mass bans to it could lead to a minor nerf to it, like 4/2 or 3/3 stats, which wouldn't be bad. Dr. Boom is not played as much as people would think in Wild format, due to poor synergy with N'Zoth. Nobody forces you to ban all those cards if you want to play in Wild anyway. Dr Boom and Mysterious Challenger are both in the same deck. Ban Challenger alone and you are free from the Secret Paladin plague, and you can be able to play against everything else in very short time. Don't assume everyone would ban the same things, because everyone would have different strategies and dislikes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember playing Control Shaman with Reincarnate shenanigans? No? It was fun, here's a refresher!
3 is too much or choices should be predefined to not abuse like I did.
Agreed that 3 could be too much and could make system exploiting too easy. By the way, ban Totem Golem, you can get matched against Control Shaman. You need to ban Hex to completely avoid it. But then again... is it really that big of an advantage to avoid a Class at all? After all, who knows what kind of decks might be hiding around the corner. I was having a 7 win streak in Wild as Deathrattle rogue against all meta decks. Then I got Wrecked by MURLOC Shaman.
Edit: Plus, we all know Totem Golem and Savannah Highmane (which I would permaban for MY games, and then again, I have a nice winrate against hunters, would it be really smart of me to ban it) are problem cards. Savannah is a stronger Cairne in a Hunter deck. That should say something about it. And you can run 2. Totem Golem... why not ban Tunnel Trogg and get that overload to be a drawback instead of an advantage? :)
How about we stop asking for bans and just learn to accept that some decks are countered by others? Banning cards is not much difference from banning whole classes if you pick key cards, like Hieii's example. Doesn't matter if it's one pick or three, a whole class or a single card. Play the meta or endure bad matchups.
I personally accept that and abuse it, but it's boring. I could get legend with Rattle Rogue on Secret Paladin corpses pile if I didn't dislike grinding 60-65% winrate. My proposal just opens up possibilities to shape your own personal meta. You WILL incur on bad matchups anyways if you don't manage your bans properly, because if you want to play against a specific archetype you are favoured against, it's true that that archetype doesn't want to play against yours.
Even if Hieii's example, you have banned 3 classes. Fine. You will still run into Malygos Druid, Zoolock, Control Warrior, Resurrect Priest, Miracle Rogue and so on. 4 very different games to play. Denying counter cards can help you build a new flavour unexpected deck. The goal of this system is to make meta-sheeping pointless.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember playing Control Shaman with Reincarnate shenanigans? No? It was fun, here's a refresher!
I think this would actually be neat. Unless you chose 3 cards that at least one is in about every deck, I think it would work. I think it would also force people to think of new decks and avoid using certain cards.
I've seen threads like this before, and I just want to state again that even though I'm not saying card bans are a bad idea when I say this, in some situations banning a card that gets used by the majority of decks in any certain situation would lead to some annoyingly long queue times. I mean, imagine if Blizzard had card bans implemented before Standard and someone banned Dr. Boom, aka the card used in 95% of ranked decks. I mean, right now, there isn't really one card used by every single deck, but I can think of singular cards used by certain deck archetypes. Banning Sylvanas would allow you to dodge a lot of Control decks, and something like Secret Hunter could get so many free wins off of that with their main counter-archetype completely out of the way. And anyone playing a Control deck could just ban something like Twilight Guardian to avoid most of the really powerful board control decks (and yes, in case you didn't know, there are really powerful Midrange Shaman decks that use dragons) because so many of the strongest board control decks are dragon-oriented. Of course, I don't really know of any decks with a single bad matchup that could abuse card bans, and card bans would help keep the meta in check by not allowing one singular deck to completely dominate any section of the ladder, which we can all agree would be a good thing. All I'm saying is, we should all be thinking this through.
Far too easy to abuse since in hearthstone most decks share the same powerful cards. Ban ragnaros for instance and that's like half the meta.
I think just being able to ban one class would be fine. There's always one deck that's stupid and out of control. Right now it's midrange shaman. You can't even build against it that well, the cards are just too good.
When that happens we have to wait a year for blizzard to finally fix it.
It might empower some decks a little much though. Freeze mage for instance only really has warrior as a hard counter, but freeze mage is hard to play and may or may not suck. Same for warlock which struggles a lot with hunter.
It quite sucks to have a 10% chance to win before you even start.
I personally accept that and abuse it, but it's boring. I could get legend with Rattle Rogue on Secret Paladin corpses pile if I didn't dislike grinding 60-65% winrate. My proposal just opens up possibilities to shape your own personal meta. You WILL incur on bad matchups anyways if you don't manage your bans properly, because if you want to play against a specific archetype you are favoured against, it's true that that archetype doesn't want to play against yours.
Even if Hieii's example, you have banned 3 classes. Fine. You will still run into Malygos Druid, Zoolock, Control Warrior, Resurrect Priest, Miracle Rogue and so on. 4 very different games to play. Denying counter cards can help you build a new flavour unexpected deck. The goal of this system is to make meta-sheeping pointless.
You can remove the "sheeping" part, it'll make the meta pointless. Let's take everyone's favorite deck as example. According to saltystorms meta snapshot, midrange shaman has 3 matchups which are below 50%. Two of those matchups are at 45%, while the third matchup is just 30% (obviously this is freezemage). Ban core card of freezemage: Now the midrange shaman has basically 50% on every matchup at the least. Just one card ban and you're set.
Freezemage has two good matchups: Midrange shaman and zoolock. These would both be stupid not to ban freezemage, effectively making the whole freezemage archetype pointless in the meta.
Anyone who slightly knows what he's doing in this game will just remove their worst matchup. Sure there are other unfavored matchups, but you can manipulate your winrate, and in some cases excessively so.
I'll reply to you to not reply to everyone, as you bring arguments and data.
The point of the system IS to make meta pointless. More than pointless, I'd say unpredictable.
Freeze Mage is terribly weak against a shitload of decks and would disappear, as it will anyways when Ice Block will join his friends Charge, Warsong Commander and poor Molten Giant,as Blizz stated it's on their radar. Because it's an unhealthy deck that renders pointless whatever choices the opponent can do to beat it when it works. We can all agree that if Charge got reworked because of a niche deck, it's sealed in stone that Ice Block will get reworked.
As for our favourite deck: Midrange Shaman Hunting would begin. Most people would ban core cards of it, making lots of games impossible for it. So, people that are ok playing against it would show up WAY more frequently. People who can now build decks specifically to destroy Midrange Shaman, banning other decks that would make those decks unplayable. An archetype sniping mechanism would begin to show up. People who play the most common and predictable decks will get destroyed constantly by people smart to read the new meta, which would be constantly shifting. Players who auto-pilot strong deck lists will just be lost as they will get steamrolled by the weirdest counters, cause all the others don't wanna play against them.
And yes, people could skyrocket their winrate if they are good at reading the meta and know when to shift deck archetypes and how to find the ones he wants to face (like swapping/cutting "key cards" aimed at banning a class and find those classes that didn't want to play against yours). Because if a player is good and creative at deck building, he deserves to win A LOT more than other people who just "monkey play". Competitive players with highest winrates around 60% is just sad, imho.
If you think a stable fixed meta with clear archetypes being much better than everything else, that's ok, it's your opinion, from which I take great distance (Cause I find such meta quite boring).
If three cards are too much, beginning with only one could be a starting step.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember playing Control Shaman with Reincarnate shenanigans? No? It was fun, here's a refresher!
How about we stop asking for bans and just learn to accept that some decks are countered by others? Banning cards is not much difference from banning whole classes if you pick key cards, like Hieii's example. Doesn't matter if it's one pick or three, a whole class or a single card. Play the meta or endure bad matchups.
Ok,counter midrange shamanand not be rekt by more than 60% of the meta decks.
Good luck.
A card ban system is okay but not for this ladder format.You will need to wait to much.
In a world that bot players have 2 minutes to build a deck after you found a player and card bans are did it is okay.
The entire ladder system is the problem. The ladder NEEDS to be more complex than the actual ladder.
Also ladder now is to much casual.You just build a deck like a monkey can do(copy and paste) instead of really think about it.
sniper a deck is good and if freeze mage with warrior bans becomes a thing then people will start to ban alex and bye freeze mage entire deck.
This seems on the cover like a great idea, but in reality it's ridiculous. So many decks are hyper-focused on beating a certain archetype but lose to many others. So if you take, for example, a combo deck like Anyfin Pally and ban some aggro cards then you can get so many easy matchups.
I just don't understand why people don't get that this is a terrible idea.
People enjoy metas. That's why they play card games. Shifting your deck to deal with certain matchups is what is fun about the game. If you can just outright ban things then that defeats the whole purpose. Tech cards are a great part about playing card games (like people running baron geddon for shaman right now, a card that hasn't seen play in quite a while)
Your idea is to counter a stale meta. You could do the same thing by releasing a new card every single day. Do you know why blizzard doesn't do that? BECAUSE they want the meta to stabilize. Thats again part of the fun.
Do I really have to explain all the countless reasons this is a terrible idea. Here i'll just throw out one.
I'm a new player and I love warrior, now that I learned how to play I'm going to take it into ranked. In the meta that I'm playing it warrior is one of the strongest decks so everyone bans fiery war axe to avoid them. And now as a new player I have 30 minute queue times. Well, I guess I'm quitting hearthstone.
Because of how decks work in hearthstone this idea is NO DIFFERENT than a class ban. I'm sorry, but each class has staples.
Sneed's old shredder becoming more viable....geeze. You're making cards like Tirion straight up broken.
Didn't really care for the idea at first. However, today i faced about 5 million shamans on ladder. After becoming incredibly annoyed I decided I would try to counter them so I switched to Freeze Mage. Next 2 matches are against Control Warrior, which I had faced exactly 0 times previous to switching. Done with the game for the day. Maybe a system like that wouldn't be too bad. Blizzard, please fix your shitty game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, most people are kind of sick of facing the same decks all the time, getting too little fun out of playing said matches.
Class ban proposals pop up here and there.
I think that would be excessive and too easy to exploit, not helping too much in avoiding a meta to get stale, not to mention the unfairly queue time increase for who wants to play a certain class just because a specific deck of it is abused. (#controlshamanlivesmatter)
But I'd welcome very well a UP TO 3-card ban choice that wouldn't match you against lists that contains them. You can choose also to not ban anything
It would give hints to Blizzard about cards to balance and shaking up the meta more actively, as people would adjust deck list depending on how frequently a card gets banned.
If you ban Thunder Bluff Valiant you will not face Midrange Shaman, but still have chance of facing Evolve/Control Shaman.
If you ban Execute, you will not run into Control Warrior.
If you ban Ice Block, you won't run into Freeze Mage.
Avoiding for granted to face determinated cards opens up new possibilities.
Ban Sylvanas Windrunner, Entomb and Hex and voilà, Sneed's Old Shredder becomes much better, for example.
I think the player base is wide enough to support such a system without occuring into drastic queue times, just a few seconds more. If mass baning of a card heightens the queue time considerably, it means that said card is a problem card that requires to be addressed because it is a gamelimiting auto-include in every single deck (read Piloted Shredder or Azure Drake if any, but then again, I don't really think people relates their frustration to those single cards as stand-alone)
If really really, even if unlikely, the ban system gets to massively slow down queues all the time, it can be limited to Class cards.
If someone enjoys winning and wants to exploit some borderline broken and hated cards, he can do it, but he will be probably matched against players that expect to run into those and has built decks who can get around their strength and turn it against them.
Such a system would add a new layer of skill revolving about ban strategy and deck building.
It would impact heavily netdecking phenomenom making list copying just to win more unreliable, because key ban cards will halt the main strategy.
It would bring much wider game difference, as many niche decks halted by the dominance of certain deck archetypes would see light of the day without leading to an insta-loss.
It would reduce salt-level overall because people would be able to ban cards they get frustrated to play against, reducing nerf-begging requests.
It would help Blizzard to detect easier problem cards and adjust those with minor nerfs that wouldn't straight up murder them.
So guys, what do you think about it?
Remember playing Control Shaman with Reincarnate shenanigans? No? It was fun, here's a refresher!
banning mysterious challenger, dr boom and piloted shredder will increase my wild search time to like 40 minutes
I ban Savannah Highmane Goodbye hunter.
Sorcerer's Apprentice Goodbye Mage.
Totem Golem Goodbye Shaman.
I just now have to choose a warrior counter :)
3 is too much or choices should be predefined to not abuse like I did.
Love the tribes.
Dr. Boom is not played as much as people would think in Wild format, due to poor synergy with N'Zoth.
Nobody forces you to ban all those cards if you want to play in Wild anyway. Dr Boom and Mysterious Challenger are both in the same deck. Ban Challenger alone and you are free from the Secret Paladin plague, and you can be able to play against everything else in very short time. Don't assume everyone would ban the same things, because everyone would have different strategies and dislikes.
Remember playing Control Shaman with Reincarnate shenanigans? No? It was fun, here's a refresher!
So I ban Execute, Shield Block and Fiery War Axe so that I can destroy everything with freeze mage? Seems legit.
By the way, ban Totem Golem, you can get matched against Control Shaman. You need to ban Hex to completely avoid it.
But then again... is it really that big of an advantage to avoid a Class at all?
After all, who knows what kind of decks might be hiding around the corner.
I was having a 7 win streak in Wild as Deathrattle rogue against all meta decks. Then I got Wrecked by MURLOC Shaman.
Edit: Plus, we all know Totem Golem and Savannah Highmane (which I would permaban for MY games, and then again, I have a nice winrate against hunters, would it be really smart of me to ban it) are problem cards.
Savannah is a stronger Cairne in a Hunter deck. That should say something about it. And you can run 2.
Totem Golem... why not ban Tunnel Trogg and get that overload to be a drawback instead of an advantage? :)
Remember playing Control Shaman with Reincarnate shenanigans? No? It was fun, here's a refresher!
My proposal just opens up possibilities to shape your own personal meta. You WILL incur on bad matchups anyways if you don't manage your bans properly, because if you want to play against a specific archetype you are favoured against, it's true that that archetype doesn't want to play against yours.
Even if Hieii's example, you have banned 3 classes. Fine. You will still run into Malygos Druid, Zoolock, Control Warrior, Resurrect Priest, Miracle Rogue and so on. 4 very different games to play. Denying counter cards can help you build a new flavour unexpected deck.
The goal of this system is to make meta-sheeping pointless.
Remember playing Control Shaman with Reincarnate shenanigans? No? It was fun, here's a refresher!
Me freeze mage *hur, hur*, me ban warrior cards and Reno. *hur hur*
This idea is just as stupid as the class ban idea.
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.
Would be good for making small tournaments with friends, although just not picking the cards is easy enough in those scenarios.
I think this would actually be neat. Unless you chose 3 cards that at least one is in about every deck, I think it would work. I think it would also force people to think of new decks and avoid using certain cards.
I've seen threads like this before, and I just want to state again that even though I'm not saying card bans are a bad idea when I say this, in some situations banning a card that gets used by the majority of decks in any certain situation would lead to some annoyingly long queue times. I mean, imagine if Blizzard had card bans implemented before Standard and someone banned Dr. Boom, aka the card used in 95% of ranked decks. I mean, right now, there isn't really one card used by every single deck, but I can think of singular cards used by certain deck archetypes. Banning Sylvanas would allow you to dodge a lot of Control decks, and something like Secret Hunter could get so many free wins off of that with their main counter-archetype completely out of the way. And anyone playing a Control deck could just ban something like Twilight Guardian to avoid most of the really powerful board control decks (and yes, in case you didn't know, there are really powerful Midrange Shaman decks that use dragons) because so many of the strongest board control decks are dragon-oriented. Of course, I don't really know of any decks with a single bad matchup that could abuse card bans, and card bans would help keep the meta in check by not allowing one singular deck to completely dominate any section of the ladder, which we can all agree would be a good thing. All I'm saying is, we should all be thinking this through.
ive been playing alot more wild lately and can confirm lol
This seems broken. For example you have a deck that only loses to Shaman, Warrior and Hunter; you can ban their main cards and get %100 percent wins.
Playing since 1 June 2014.
Review on Every Card: http://goo.gl/RTz806
Cards That Will Be Missed in Standart Next Year: http://goo.gl/adNMnn
Far too easy to abuse since in hearthstone most decks share the same powerful cards.
Ban ragnaros for instance and that's like half the meta.
I think just being able to ban one class would be fine. There's always one deck that's stupid and out of control. Right now it's midrange shaman. You can't even build against it that well, the cards are just too good.
When that happens we have to wait a year for blizzard to finally fix it.
It might empower some decks a little much though. Freeze mage for instance only really has warrior as a hard counter, but freeze mage is hard to play and may or may not suck.
Same for warlock which struggles a lot with hunter.
It quite sucks to have a 10% chance to win before you even start.
Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice - Sneak Review! http://www.thepoxbox.com/challenges.php?id=batmanvsuperman
The point of the system IS to make meta pointless. More than pointless, I'd say unpredictable.
Freeze Mage is terribly weak against a shitload of decks and would disappear, as it will anyways when Ice Block will join his friends Charge, Warsong Commander and poor Molten Giant,as Blizz stated it's on their radar. Because it's an unhealthy deck that renders pointless whatever choices the opponent can do to beat it when it works. We can all agree that if Charge got reworked because of a niche deck, it's sealed in stone that Ice Block will get reworked.
As for our favourite deck:
Midrange Shaman Hunting would begin. Most people would ban core cards of it, making lots of games impossible for it. So, people that are ok playing against it would show up WAY more frequently. People who can now build decks specifically to destroy Midrange Shaman, banning other decks that would make those decks unplayable. An archetype sniping mechanism would begin to show up. People who play the most common and predictable decks will get destroyed constantly by people smart to read the new meta, which would be constantly shifting. Players who auto-pilot strong deck lists will just be lost as they will get steamrolled by the weirdest counters, cause all the others don't wanna play against them.
And yes, people could skyrocket their winrate if they are good at reading the meta and know when to shift deck archetypes and how to find the ones he wants to face (like swapping/cutting "key cards" aimed at banning a class and find those classes that didn't want to play against yours). Because if a player is good and creative at deck building, he deserves to win A LOT more than other people who just "monkey play". Competitive players with highest winrates around 60% is just sad, imho.
If you think a stable fixed meta with clear archetypes being much better than everything else, that's ok, it's your opinion, from which I take great distance (Cause I find such meta quite boring).
If three cards are too much, beginning with only one could be a starting step.
Remember playing Control Shaman with Reincarnate shenanigans? No? It was fun, here's a refresher!
This seems on the cover like a great idea, but in reality it's ridiculous. So many decks are hyper-focused on beating a certain archetype but lose to many others. So if you take, for example, a combo deck like Anyfin Pally and ban some aggro cards then you can get so many easy matchups.
I just don't understand why people don't get that this is a terrible idea.
People enjoy metas. That's why they play card games. Shifting your deck to deal with certain matchups is what is fun about the game. If you can just outright ban things then that defeats the whole purpose. Tech cards are a great part about playing card games (like people running baron geddon for shaman right now, a card that hasn't seen play in quite a while)
Your idea is to counter a stale meta. You could do the same thing by releasing a new card every single day. Do you know why blizzard doesn't do that? BECAUSE they want the meta to stabilize. Thats again part of the fun.
Do I really have to explain all the countless reasons this is a terrible idea. Here i'll just throw out one.
I'm a new player and I love warrior, now that I learned how to play I'm going to take it into ranked. In the meta that I'm playing it warrior is one of the strongest decks so everyone bans fiery war axe to avoid them. And now as a new player I have 30 minute queue times. Well, I guess I'm quitting hearthstone.
Because of how decks work in hearthstone this idea is NO DIFFERENT than a class ban. I'm sorry, but each class has staples.
Sneed's old shredder becoming more viable....geeze. You're making cards like Tirion straight up broken.
Didn't really care for the idea at first. However, today i faced about 5 million shamans on ladder. After becoming incredibly annoyed I decided I would try to counter them so I switched to Freeze Mage. Next 2 matches are against Control Warrior, which I had faced exactly 0 times previous to switching. Done with the game for the day. Maybe a system like that wouldn't be too bad. Blizzard, please fix your shitty game.