i've reached the point where i wonder "why cant i veto classes"? In games like Starcraft you can veto maps that seem unbalanced to your race. I just dont understand why i cant "bann" one or two classes on ladder,(shouldnt be able to bann mirror matches).
I mean.. you dont have to bann them, but why can you do this in a turnament but not on the ladder?
I understand that you might not aggree with me here, but i for example disliked the pirate warrior meta or the so much needed change to druid. Since then... over metas like Shamanstone it now changed into a meta that i enjoy more, but i really dislike it to play against priest.
What do you guys think? You dont have to bann... but wouldnt you like the OPTION to bann the class you dislike the most?
Edit: this explains it somehow very well in my eyes:
if everyone had a choice most would just block druid so you would end up with whole groups of jade druids just playing other jade druids. then they would start to only put cards into their decks to deal with other jade druids knowing everyone else has you banned. you would end up with a two tier ranking system where the jade druids scrapped it out with themselfs and everyone else playing a totally differnt meta
He confirmed that THIS would mean that the most OP decks would change their deck and create more diversity, because they could end up fighting against their own deck all the time. Meaning people who then Q against those people have a better time, because it is not the most possible raffined deck.
Without a penalty, it will never be implemented in ranked Mode. It makes no sense to allow players to ban the best counter to their deck and get an easy climbing experience...
But since you dont have to counter so many decks you have a easyer time to counter the remaining decks. At least in Wild i have more than enoth counters to fight other decks...
But i have to say that it maybe wouldnt work this way in standard.
And to your "autolose". Yea... try to ban Pirate warrior, Shaman or Druid in their best times... where like 50% of the Q from 5-legend played the same deck... what a joke.
if everyone had a choice most would just block druid so you would end up with whole groups of jade druids just playing other jade druids. then they would start to only put cards into their decks to deal with other jade druids knowing everyone else has you banned. you would end up with a two tier ranking system where the jade druids scrapped it out with themselfs and everyone else playing a totally differnt meta
So you just confirmed that THIS would mean that the most OP decks would change their deck and create more diversity, because they could end up fighting against their own deck all the time. Meaning people who then Q against those people have a better time, because it is not the most possible raffined deck.
This probably would make for an interesting different game mode, could be on tournament mode or just a different kind of ladder.
That said, it's never going to happen. Let's face it, we still don't have replays, the UI is stiff as fuck, they can barely release working applications for all the platforms. It's not happening.
I'm all up for the option to ban a class from matchmaking, in CASUAL. In Ranked Mode, this should not exist. If it were to exist, it would need to apply a penalty to you, like one star lost authomatically when you get matched with that class, the game simply removes you one star and continues searching for next opponent.
Without a penalty, it will never be implemented in ranked Mode. It makes no sense to allow players to ban the best counter to their deck and get an easy climbing experience...
If it's in casual like you said, you can just bottom right and concede when the class you don't like pops up.
Say such a feature existed in Gadgetzan while Pirate Warrior ruled the ladder. Everybody bans Pirate Warrior, but Control Warrior which was vastly underrated at the time, gets no chance to shine. Despite that, besides the hero power, virtually every card in both decks are vastly different to the other. Two different playstyles. They are chalk and cheese.
You don't like to play against Tempo Rogue, should Miracle Rogue suffer for it? You don't like to play against Solitaire Mage, should Secret Mage be punished for it?
And as with most card games, there is a "Rock/Paper/Scissors" element to the game, even the strongest decks will have their natural weakness. So you can just ban your weakness, and crush everything else.
It works in some games, but it can't work in Hearthstone.
Except... the devs will only be able to gather data concerning specialized matches, which wouldn't reflect what's strongest/weakest in the game currently. "Proper" changes to cards (looking at you, Fiery War Axe) would not be as easy to make in order to keep the game mode fresh. The game would also start to feel like there are camps. Soon, you'll have people posting about how it feels like the game has taken a racism approach in order to curtail problems currently existent within the current meta. And no one wants to see memes about how Druid is essentially the African American class, considering people can just start putting people in cages.
This is not and will not ever be the correct approach.
EDIT: Please don't post this kind of question again. I will be forever reminded of this comment I've made concerning cages and racist memes every time I see this kind of question.
If a class is very strong.. you just veto it. If that deck then has 60-80% mirror matches it will be a fair game (same decks) OR the player will adapt and build a counter in their own class (that maybe doesnt work in standard, because of the cardpool beeing small).
Once people change their decks to counter the top deck of their own class it will make is better for the other classes to play against this class again -> problem gone.
So what is your problem? You're scared that Jade druid could veto big priest? Well, the meta would veto the jade druids... those then adapt by themself.. keeping the meta in balance!
If a class is very strong.. you just veto it. If that deck then has 60-80% mirror matches it will be a fair game (same decks) OR the player will adapt and build a counter in their own class (that maybe doesnt work in standard, because of the cardpool beeing small).
Once people change their decks to counter the top deck of their own class it will make is better for the other classes to play against this class again -> problem gone.
So what is your problem? You're scared that Jade druid could veto big priest? Well, the meta would veto the jade druids... those then adapt by themself.. keeping the meta in balance!
You're ignoring the fact that it does more harm than good just to keep talking about the idea. That last bit "So what is your problem, you're scared x will veto y" is a defensive, childish attempt to have people ignore problems evident in the suggestion you've made. Trying to start a fight will not get people to ignore that this is a bad idea. It looks as though you've ignored everything said to you to further attempt reinforcing your fantasy about how things would turn out, ignoring such things while also ignoring the fact that you're suggesting everyone should just chase each other in a circle, trying to be the player with the best counter to the top decks. This is only going to cause more problems than problems solved.
It's not the worst idea ever. I just don't see they could ever integrate something so massive with an overhaul in code. Maybe if the ever give a tournament specific mode but even a basic mode like that seems unlikely.
This probably would make for an interesting different game mode, could be on tournament mode or just a different kind of ladder.
That said, it's never going to happen. Let's face it, we still don't have replays, the UI is stiff as fuck, they can barely release working applications for all the platforms. It's not happening.
Every thing, and I mean EVERY THING they didn't implement because of "to prevent players to get confused"
and then Brode said "We don't think you guys are stupid!"
I don't think the idea of banning or regulating classes in some form on ladder is a bad idea, necessarily, but it is impossible or nearly impossible to do. This is because it would be more difficult to find where the meta is, as well as splitting the meta, and the game, into 2 or more parts on the same ladder. If there were some way to do it without this happening, maybe it could be a good idea. But, I do personally think it is best for banning/regulating of classes/cards/archetypes to stay in tournament formats only, because the difference between the ladder and the tournament scene is that the ladder contains everything, and you make the best out of what you can to get as high as you can, but a tournament is where you have to show you are skilled with more than just one deck, you prove you can dominate your enemies with any deck.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you need a Wild deck that is fun, competitive, high skill, and low RNG, check out my Highlander Malygos Deck!
So next time try a thread search because this has been brought up and answered quite a few times. It would lead to tremendously unbalanced play. The meta would come down to only a few very powerful decks pretty much facing mirror matches. Decks need weaknesses. Maybe in a tournament mode sort of setting it's fine and it would be a nice addition for a Brawl type situation but it's just a bad idea all around for normal ranked play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi,
i've reached the point where i wonder "why cant i veto classes"? In games like Starcraft you can veto maps that seem unbalanced to your race. I just dont understand why i cant "bann" one or two classes on ladder,(shouldnt be able to bann mirror matches).
I mean.. you dont have to bann them, but why can you do this in a turnament but not on the ladder?
I understand that you might not aggree with me here, but i for example disliked the pirate warrior meta or the so much needed change to druid. Since then... over metas like Shamanstone it now changed into a meta that i enjoy more, but i really dislike it to play against priest.
What do you guys think? You dont have to bann... but wouldnt you like the OPTION to bann the class you dislike the most?
Edit: this explains it somehow very well in my eyes:
Oh hey this post again. Bad ideas never die I guess.
This probably would make for an interesting different game mode, could be on tournament mode or just a different kind of ladder.
That said, it's never going to happen. Let's face it, we still don't have replays, the UI is stiff as fuck, they can barely release working applications for all the platforms. It's not happening.
If it's in casual like you said, you can just bottom right and concede when the class you don't like pops up.
Say such a feature existed in Gadgetzan while Pirate Warrior ruled the ladder. Everybody bans Pirate Warrior, but Control Warrior which was vastly underrated at the time, gets no chance to shine. Despite that, besides the hero power, virtually every card in both decks are vastly different to the other. Two different playstyles. They are chalk and cheese.
You don't like to play against Tempo Rogue, should Miracle Rogue suffer for it? You don't like to play against Solitaire Mage, should Secret Mage be punished for it?
And as with most card games, there is a "Rock/Paper/Scissors" element to the game, even the strongest decks will have their natural weakness. So you can just ban your weakness, and crush everything else.
It works in some games, but it can't work in Hearthstone.
If we had this, it could be interesting.
Except... the devs will only be able to gather data concerning specialized matches, which wouldn't reflect what's strongest/weakest in the game currently. "Proper" changes to cards (looking at you, Fiery War Axe) would not be as easy to make in order to keep the game mode fresh. The game would also start to feel like there are camps. Soon, you'll have people posting about how it feels like the game has taken a racism approach in order to curtail problems currently existent within the current meta. And no one wants to see memes about how Druid is essentially the African American class, considering people can just start putting people in cages.
This is not and will not ever be the correct approach.
EDIT: Please don't post this kind of question again. I will be forever reminded of this comment I've made concerning cages and racist memes every time I see this kind of question.
Come visit my Card Emporium. Strange things, you will find inside...
Come take the test, if you're daring. Feel free to show me your results in a message.
For me it stands true...
If a class is very strong.. you just veto it. If that deck then has 60-80% mirror matches it will be a fair game (same decks) OR the player will adapt and build a counter in their own class (that maybe doesnt work in standard, because of the cardpool beeing small).
Once people change their decks to counter the top deck of their own class it will make is better for the other classes to play against this class again -> problem gone.
So what is your problem? You're scared that Jade druid could veto big priest? Well, the meta would veto the jade druids... those then adapt by themself.. keeping the meta in balance!
I think banning could work if you limit it so that you could only implement the ban for 4 matches per day.
How about this, we get the ability to veto classes, but people who don't veto anything still show up even if they're playing the veto'd class.
Make the Card: The biggest thread on the site!
My mandibles which are capable of pressing down and tearing, my talons which are known to intercept and hold.
Come visit my Card Emporium. Strange things, you will find inside...
Come take the test, if you're daring. Feel free to show me your results in a message.
It's not the worst idea ever. I just don't see they could ever integrate something so massive with an overhaul in code. Maybe if the ever give a tournament specific mode but even a basic mode like that seems unlikely.
I don't think the idea of banning or regulating classes in some form on ladder is a bad idea, necessarily, but it is impossible or nearly impossible to do. This is because it would be more difficult to find where the meta is, as well as splitting the meta, and the game, into 2 or more parts on the same ladder. If there were some way to do it without this happening, maybe it could be a good idea. But, I do personally think it is best for banning/regulating of classes/cards/archetypes to stay in tournament formats only, because the difference between the ladder and the tournament scene is that the ladder contains everything, and you make the best out of what you can to get as high as you can, but a tournament is where you have to show you are skilled with more than just one deck, you prove you can dominate your enemies with any deck.
If you need a Wild deck that is fun, competitive, high skill, and low RNG, check out my Highlander Malygos Deck!
So next time try a thread search because this has been brought up and answered quite a few times. It would lead to tremendously unbalanced play. The meta would come down to only a few very powerful decks pretty much facing mirror matches. Decks need weaknesses. Maybe in a tournament mode sort of setting it's fine and it would be a nice addition for a Brawl type situation but it's just a bad idea all around for normal ranked play.