During Deckbuilding you can select up to 5 cards out of the format as banned cards. At the start of your games all copys of 5 cards chosen are instantly removed out of both decks.
Why would that be needed?
Hearthstone is a card game with little to no influence on the Opponents turn and his hand cards which results into complete archtypes beeing unplayable just because certain cards exist as for example Pre Raza nerf/ Jade Idol shuting down most other thinkable control decks. Giving those otherwise unplayable decks a chance to be viable by banning out single cards that make a whole deck unplayable is a good thing in my opinion.
The best answer to netdecking?
Taking a look at the salt threads its pretty easy to tell that netdecking is widely seen as a problem to the game, resulting in 1-2 card changes in otherwise identical decks especially on high ranking.
A banning option would in my opinion be a great solution to this problem since cards out of the most famous decks will be banned more often leading to card dissadvantages the result would be more creative deck lists trying to avoid bans.
The failure of tech cards
As for now Team 5 tryed to counter overused mechanics via tech cards (See Skulking Geist vs Jade Idol).
This attempt however seems to be a failure since until now tech cards were:
1. Simply to bad
2. Not impactfull enough.
3. You still have to draw them, which you sometimes simply wont.
For example if you are anoyed vs cubelock you could decide to tech a Ooze/Waepon Removel or Spellbreaker however as far as stats go both cards will even drop your winrate even AGAINST Cubelock.
This basically goes for all tech cards atm. So Tech cards atm. even reduce your winning % even against the deck you tech them for which just shows that teching doesnt work in this game.
A good thing for new Players
A lot of players atm complaining about the game gotten more expansive with tripple full expansion a Year thus leading to more "Must craft epics/Legendarys"
A banning option would highly reduce this problematic since those cards will more likely be banned by the opponent leading to a dissadvantage.
Less work and complaining for Team 5.
In recent threads about banning/hall of faming it came clear thet people have a verry wide opinion about which cards need to get banned/famed. Pushing team 5 to complex decisions.
Why not give the players the chance to make their own bann choices, leading to less forced nerf decisions.
Whats your opinion about a banning system in hearthstone?...
Please search for topics like this. There’s a new post about it every week and any one of those will explain to you why this is a bad idea.
The only new idea you brought is the worst idea I’ve seen floated on how to impliment a ban system. How rage inducing would it be to craft some cards and build a deck only to have it gutted before you start the game. Let’s just float exodia mage as an example, banning summoners just made the entire deck worthless and unwinnable.
It will not work: as now there are netdecks, if that "ban option" would be ever implemented there will be a "ban meta" that everyone will use, so the most used decks will then be those without that powerfull cards that are always banned. People then start to ban other cards and the previous will return, leading to a cycle.
Also you should have checked around this board for one out of hundreds of threads similar to yours before posting: you would have found all the counter-arguments to your statments there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
For what profit is it to a man, if he gains the world and loses his own soul?
It will not work: as now there are netdecks, if that "ban option" would be ever implemented there will be a "ban meta" that everyone will use, so the most used decks will then be those without that powerfull cards that are always banned. People then start to ban other cards and the previous will return, leading to a cycle.
Also you should have checked around this board for one out of hundreds of threads similar to yours before posting: you would have found all the counter-arguments to your statments there.
The meta won't even cycle. I've seen metas where the popular decks had very direct counters. The meta either just stuck to the original deck or abandoned the deck wholesale and stuck to the counters. The meta never cycles from rock <-paper <-scissors<-repeat. It just goes rock or paper, whichever seems easier to climb with.
Same happens with 'ban cards'. It won't create a new dynamic meta. It'll do the same thing that happened with nerfs. The meta will stabilize with the new system.
You basically make it so that combo decks don't exist anymore. Aggro decks dont care for a particular single minion so it would create an aggro/ midrange meta
It might be interesting as some "sand box" brawl mode, but not as the main mode. You could pay 1000 gold (or whatever they figured out made sense so there weren't too many sandboxes) for a "sand box" for a day... banning particular cards, perhaps even having a choice of some "brawl rules"... Other players could enter your sandbox for free.
Any constructed meta will stabilize in short order, look at tavern brawl, even it has a meta. The only way it would have any effect is if the ban was random epics and legendaries cycling on a frequent basis. Then the meta would not get to stabilize before the next shift. Problem is that for all the high falutin talk, the vast majority of people who bemoan net decking in favor of deckbuilding don't actually have a clue how to build a deck and would lose interest in the game as they continue to lose matches, now without their convenient 'net decking' excuse to fall back on.
Asking for card bans is almost the same thing as asking for class bans. Sure, some classes have a couple different archtypes in standard, but many either only have one or the two archtypes are close enough to each other already (such as Control Lock & Cube Lock).
Card bans might end up looking like this:
Ban Voidlord to prevent having to play either control or cube lock.
Ban Call to Arms to more or less prevent having to play against aggro or murloc pally.
Ban Y'Sharrjj to prevent having to play against Big Priest & the highroll version of Spell Hunter.
Ban Sorcerer's Apprentice to prevent having to play against both burn mage and quest mage.
I do get a big kick out of 'The Failure of Tech Cards' point #3 "You still have to draw them" The humanity of needing to draw cards instead of just picking one every turn. In addition, they are both 'bad' and 'not impactful' I personally prefer cards that are bad but impactful or good, but not impactful.
What would that look like?
During Deckbuilding you can select up to 5 cards out of the format as banned cards. At the start of your games all copys of 5 cards chosen are instantly removed out of both decks.
Why would that be needed?
Hearthstone is a card game with little to no influence on the Opponents turn and his hand cards which results into complete archtypes beeing unplayable just because certain cards exist as for example Pre Raza nerf/ Jade Idol shuting down most other thinkable control decks. Giving those otherwise unplayable decks a chance to be viable by banning out single cards that make a whole deck unplayable is a good thing in my opinion.
The best answer to netdecking?
Taking a look at the salt threads its pretty easy to tell that netdecking is widely seen as a problem to the game, resulting in 1-2 card changes in otherwise identical decks especially on high ranking.
A banning option would in my opinion be a great solution to this problem since cards out of the most famous decks will be banned more often leading to card dissadvantages the result would be more creative deck lists trying to avoid bans.
The failure of tech cards
As for now Team 5 tryed to counter overused mechanics via tech cards (See Skulking Geist vs Jade Idol).
This attempt however seems to be a failure since until now tech cards were:
1. Simply to bad
2. Not impactfull enough.
3. You still have to draw them, which you sometimes simply wont.
For example if you are anoyed vs cubelock you could decide to tech a Ooze/Waepon Removel or Spellbreaker however as far as stats go both cards will even drop your winrate even AGAINST Cubelock.
This basically goes for all tech cards atm. So Tech cards atm. even reduce your winning % even against the deck you tech them for which just shows that teching doesnt work in this game.
A good thing for new Players
A lot of players atm complaining about the game gotten more expansive with tripple full expansion a Year thus leading to more "Must craft epics/Legendarys"
A banning option would highly reduce this problematic since those cards will more likely be banned by the opponent leading to a dissadvantage.
Less work and complaining for Team 5.
In recent threads about banning/hall of faming it came clear thet people have a verry wide opinion about which cards need to get banned/famed. Pushing team 5 to complex decisions.
Why not give the players the chance to make their own bann choices, leading to less forced nerf decisions.
Whats your opinion about a banning system in hearthstone?...
No because then there would be a defacto "ban meta" that would emerge and a new meta would form around that.
Please search for topics like this. There’s a new post about it every week and any one of those will explain to you why this is a bad idea.
The only new idea you brought is the worst idea I’ve seen floated on how to impliment a ban system. How rage inducing would it be to craft some cards and build a deck only to have it gutted before you start the game. Let’s just float exodia mage as an example, banning summoners just made the entire deck worthless and unwinnable.
It will not work: as now there are netdecks, if that "ban option" would be ever implemented there will be a "ban meta" that everyone will use, so the most used decks will then be those without that powerfull cards that are always banned. People then start to ban other cards and the previous will return, leading to a cycle.
Also you should have checked around this board for one out of hundreds of threads similar to yours before posting: you would have found all the counter-arguments to your statments there.
For what profit is it to a man, if he gains the world and loses his own soul?
n o
Would be interesting to thin your deck by banning your own cards.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
You basically make it so that combo decks don't exist anymore. Aggro decks dont care for a particular single minion so it would create an aggro/ midrange meta
It might be interesting as some "sand box" brawl mode, but not as the main mode. You could pay 1000 gold (or whatever they figured out made sense so there weren't too many sandboxes) for a "sand box" for a day... banning particular cards, perhaps even having a choice of some "brawl rules"... Other players could enter your sandbox for free.
Any constructed meta will stabilize in short order, look at tavern brawl, even it has a meta. The only way it would have any effect is if the ban was random epics and legendaries cycling on a frequent basis. Then the meta would not get to stabilize before the next shift. Problem is that for all the high falutin talk, the vast majority of people who bemoan net decking in favor of deckbuilding don't actually have a clue how to build a deck and would lose interest in the game as they continue to lose matches, now without their convenient 'net decking' excuse to fall back on.
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
Asking for card bans is almost the same thing as asking for class bans. Sure, some classes have a couple different archtypes in standard, but many either only have one or the two archtypes are close enough to each other already (such as Control Lock & Cube Lock).
Card bans might end up looking like this:
Ban Voidlord to prevent having to play either control or cube lock.
Ban Call to Arms to more or less prevent having to play against aggro or murloc pally.
Ban Y'Sharrjj to prevent having to play against Big Priest & the highroll version of Spell Hunter.
Ban Sorcerer's Apprentice to prevent having to play against both burn mage and quest mage.
You've taken one of the most common worst suggestions for the game and made it even worse. Congratz man.
I do get a big kick out of 'The Failure of Tech Cards' point #3 "You still have to draw them" The humanity of needing to draw cards instead of just picking one every turn. In addition, they are both 'bad' and 'not impactful' I personally prefer cards that are bad but impactful or good, but not impactful.
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
no, end of thread.
close this please.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!