Hearthpwn

It would make ranked a lots less frustrated , especially in this meta , for example , if i played a taunt Druid and i run into Quest Rogue , it's an auto lose and Not My fault  ... at all . There're decks that have good winrate ( Paladin atm ) but is it mean i have to play the decks that i don't want to play ? 

Considering this , Blizzard . This may make you got less money (people buying less packs) but it's more healthy for everyone else . 

No, it will be a disaster.

Consider this: whomever is hiring the devs and play testers aren’t idiots, and hire people who are competent. Any competent crew would have tested this a billion times in the all the time hearthstone has existed, including pre-release. Since it has obviously been tested and isn’t around today it is most likely not as great of an idea as you think.

If you eliminate your worst matchup then your second worst matchup becomes your worst and you're right back at where you started, being frustrated that you play against your worst matchup. Also, that would make the game more challenging to balance which is not what you want in a game that is rarely balanced anyway. Plus, there's strategy in picking a ban in tournaments,  there's no strategy to do the same in ladder. You would just pick your worst matchup every time.

You do realize that it works both ways, right? For every loss you avoid by blocking someone, you lose a win by them blocking you. This would lead to a meta where the dominant classes are the ones that have exactly one counter 

In this situation, suppose you're running spiteful druid. The only decks that beat you are murloc paladin, even paladin, and quest rogue. If you ban paladin, there is exactly one deck that beats you. As such, pretty much everyone will run Spiteful Druid. Having hard counters is healthy for the meta; it keeps decks from getting out of hand

I would like the idea in casual play. I wold totally ban warlock

If you look at the latest HCT tourney, you would disagree.

Aggro decks ban the class with the best Anti-Aggro deck and SMOrc hard

Control decks ban the class with the best Anti-Control deck and Greed hard

Every game is now Bake Hunter vs Cubelock and Quest Rogue vs Priest.

Quote from clanmaster1987 >>

 it's an auto lose and Not My fault  ... at all . There're decks that have good winrate ( Paladin atm ) but is it mean i have to play the decks that i don't want to play ?

I don't care about banning a class in ranked. I accept all classes are "fair game".

But in casual? If I knew I'd never encounter a warlock again? I would be so happy, AND I could design different decks without being afraid I'll get stonewalled by a turn 5 Voidlord, etc.

This would be a horrible idea as it would completely kill deck types.  For example it's safe to say at the beginning of the expansion everyone would have blocked cubelock.  So if you wanted to play cubelock...you'd just sit there forever in queue waiting for a match.  Nobody should have to not play a deck they like just because others don't like it. 

If you think you ban the class you lose against, they ban same, so on and so on. Games would take long time to wait for matches. Too many bands and not enough willing to play your class. Tournaments are different.

I would ban the priest, so I would never face this pos class again! No, I don't play aggro, but I can't standing the priest class design, and it makes the game so un fun for me. 

Every class is counterable... why do we need to ban a class....

no idea why people are soo opposed to this... I agree with the O.P. There are tons of fun, minion based decks i play that can beat anything but cubelock, so I just concede immediately when I get matched vs a warlock that hero power passes the first 4 turns. When by some miracle I do actually win, I still don't have any fun because I rage the whole time and don't actually get to interact with the board. I win because my opponent didn't draw any decent cards and it happens like 1/5 games. The fact that cubelock exists plays no role whatsoever in my deck building. Reshaping my whole deck to play around 1 specific deck is not fun game design. Not to mention, a lot of classes/decks cannot physically build in any way to compete with decks like cube-warlock or quest rogue.

To all of the people saying "It'll make X class/deck too powerful", when has that ever played a role??? The meta in half of the expansions was literally rock paper scizzors. Having decks that counter each other doesn't actually encourage people to change their decks, it just makes ladder less fun.

Quote from CyrodiilChampion >>

I don't think it's as simple as banning your most unfavorable match-up and then winstreaking your way to Legend for one simple reason: banning the class you dislike the most would mean you can safely change your deck around to something that will never have to worry about encountering them, and from here it just gets too complicated to predict. And of course it also works both ways, people that DON'T ban the most hated class in an expansion will be relatively well prepared to handle their Tier 1 decks in that meta, which means it would be way easier to surprise them with a different archetype that they may not handle as well.

Then again it's like I said, it's one of those cases that are nigh impossible to accurately predict without first-hand experience so I don't know what to say other than try to think how it would change the current meta, and I think it wouldn't be all that bad.

The reason why it's a bad idea is because banning a class on the ladder can make climbing way easier.

Quote from Moop547 >>

The fact that cubelock exists plays no role whatsoever in my deck building. Reshaping my whole deck to play around 1 specific deck is not fun game design.

Having decks that counter each other doesn't actually encourage people to change their decks, it just makes ladder less fun.

Quote from TonyDanza >>

The reason why it's a bad idea is because banning a class on the ladder can make climbing way easier.

Quote from Moop547 >>

The fact that cubelock exists plays no role whatsoever in my deck building. Reshaping my whole deck to play around 1 specific deck is not fun game design.

Having decks that counter each other doesn't actually encourage people to change their decks, it just makes ladder less fun.

If you reshape your deck with a few silences and maybe 4-health minions to play around hellfire then maybe you would have more fun on ladder! Ladder is all about deckbuilding. Refusing to change your deck just makes you lose more games!

Run a faceless and copy their Voidlord lol. Warlocks don't run Spellbreakers. 1 card counter EZ.

 

I like the idea be tested for a while, maybe is not that terrible so many is worried about.

I ban warlocks for sure, I play with and vs anything else and get fun, losing or winning, warlock bullshit is disgusting, I can't stand anymore play vs this cursed deck even when I win.

It's a stupid idea considering that the entirety of the Hearthstone population will end up banning classes that they matchup unfavourably against.