The only reason against ban in Casual i can think of, is that you would add a further passage for an actual game, a further window that increases the feel of clunkiness (conscious or not), while the game and its interface should stay as simple as possible.
And ofc the time spent for implementation.
Multiple class ban could lead to unpleasant wait times tho, and it is better to not give such a choice at all. One class is already alot.
Card ban is horrible. Insanely clunky and ultimately too dumb: if a card is problematic, it should just be nerfed, otherwise you should just learn to deal with it.
You have no more right than any other player to dictate how other players are supposed to play and enjoy the game. If they want to bring actually good decks into casual they have the right to do so. If they want to bring trash they have the right to do so as well. If you're not enjoying playing against a certain deck, though luck, but your voice carries absolutely no more weight than their does.
Then go play it on ladder. Get yourself to a ranked floor and go play it on ladder.
Alternatively, no bans in casual.
Well, if "just get a ranked floor and play your wacky deck on ladder" sounds ridiculous, think of how it sounds to me every time I complain about netdecking casual and am told, "just concede if you don't like it, who cares it's just casual."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination.
Warlock is op, everyone choose to don't get matched against warlocks, random dude wants to play quest warlock in casual and he will never be able to do that. That's why they won't do this
Well, if "just get a ranked floor and play your wacky deck on ladder" sounds ridiculous, think of how it sounds to me every time I complain about netdecking casual and am told, "just concede if you don't like it, who cares it's just casual."
If everybody gets to ban one bad match-up, that's even, therefore no help farming gold at all (just more even and entertaining matchups.) What do y'all think tournaments do? Does banning let those guys all win the tournament? Check you logic.
"Play with your friends. You can ask them to play whatever you want!" Yeah, I suppose those would be my imaginary friends, the ones who haven't already quit the game because casual is such a trainwreck. Literally every friend who I used to play with has quit the game but no, we shouldn't try to improve it. Hell no. Lord, take me now.
Well, if "just get a ranked floor and play your wacky deck on ladder" sounds ridiculous, think of how it sounds to me every time I complain about netdecking casual and am told, "just concede if you don't like it, who cares it's just casual."
I didn't tell you that!
Not you specifically, but generally, that is the response to any of my rants about netdecking in casual.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination.
You have no more right than any other player to dictate how other players are supposed to play and enjoy the game. If they want to bring actually good decks into casual they have the right to do so. If they want to bring trash they have the right to do so as well. If you're not enjoying playing against a certain deck, though luck, but your voice carries absolutely no more weight than their does.
The ban system wouldn't affect the other player. Does every human being have some kind of moral responsibility to play Hearthstone, because by not playing your grandmother dictates the opponent who wants to play tier 1 decks specifically against her? She has no obligation to be in the pool of the opponent's matchmaking, and I don't have one anymore than they do.
Why? I see the argument for having to deal with whatever the opponent chooses to play in Ranked, where one has to accept the card's quality is its only relevant property, but in Casual the game simply doesn't provide us any tools for dealing with cards that are problematic by some other metrics considered irrational by developers.
You have no more right than any other player to dictate how other players are supposed to play and enjoy the game. If they want to bring actually good decks into casual they have the right to do so. If they want to bring trash they have the right to do so as well. If you're not enjoying playing against a certain deck, though luck, but your voice carries absolutely no more weight than their does.
The ban system wouldn't affect the other player. Does every human being have some kind of moral responsibility to play Hearthstone, because by not playing your grandmother dictates the opponent who wants to play tier 1 decks specifically against her? She has no obligation to be in the pool of the opponent's matchmaking, and I don't have one anymore than they do.
Yes, yes it would. If enough players ban several cards or, even worse, a complete class the queue times of players who play those cards and/or class will increase. That is affecting those players.
You have no more right than any other player to dictate how other players are supposed to play and enjoy the game. If they want to bring actually good decks into casual they have the right to do so. If they want to bring trash they have the right to do so as well. If you're not enjoying playing against a certain deck, though luck, but your voice carries absolutely no more weight than their does.
The ban system wouldn't affect the other player. Does every human being have some kind of moral responsibility to play Hearthstone, because by not playing your grandmother dictates the opponent who wants to play tier 1 decks specifically against her? She has no obligation to be in the pool of the opponent's matchmaking, and I don't have one anymore than they do.
Yes, yes it would. If enough players ban several cards or, even worse, a complete class the queue times of players who play those cards and/or class will increase. That is affecting those players.
Would your grandmother in this hypothetical scenario be then morally obliged to start playing HS and ban everything but Paladins to decrease the queue times for them?
You have no more right than any other player to dictate how other players are supposed to play and enjoy the game. If they want to bring actually good decks into casual they have the right to do so. If they want to bring trash they have the right to do so as well. If you're not enjoying playing against a certain deck, though luck, but your voice carries absolutely no more weight than their does.
The ban system wouldn't affect the other player. Does every human being have some kind of moral responsibility to play Hearthstone, because by not playing your grandmother dictates the opponent who wants to play tier 1 decks specifically against her? She has no obligation to be in the pool of the opponent's matchmaking, and I don't have one anymore than they do.
Yes, yes it would. If enough players ban several cards or, even worse, a complete class the queue times of players who play those cards and/or class will increase. That is affecting those players.
Would your grandmother in this hypothetical scenario be then morally obliged to start playing HS and ban everything but Paladins to decrease the queue times for them?
Your example is poorly constructed. No one is morally obliged to do anything. There is no ''morality'' involved in any aspect of this game, regardless how hard you look.
You have no more right than any other player to dictate how other players are supposed to play and enjoy the game. If they want to bring actually good decks into casual they have the right to do so. If they want to bring trash they have the right to do so as well. If you're not enjoying playing against a certain deck, though luck, but your voice carries absolutely no more weight than their does.
The ban system wouldn't affect the other player. Does every human being have some kind of moral responsibility to play Hearthstone, because by not playing your grandmother dictates the opponent who wants to play tier 1 decks specifically against her? She has no obligation to be in the pool of the opponent's matchmaking, and I don't have one anymore than they do.
Yes, yes it would. If enough players ban several cards or, even worse, a complete class the queue times of players who play those cards and/or class will increase. That is affecting those players.
Would your grandmother in this hypothetical scenario be then morally obliged to start playing HS and ban everything but Paladins to decrease the queue times for them?
Your example is poorly constructed. No one is morally obliged to do anything. There is no ''morality'' involved in any aspect of this game, regardless how hard you look.
The question in its simplest form is what the system should be like.
In your first comment, you mention the lack of my right to dictate other players' way of playing.
In your second comment you bring up the increased queuing times, which is a type of harm caused to the other player.
The aforementioned harm has a value, which is weighed against other either intrinsic or instrumental values.
The actions of players happen inside of and limited by a system. If I don't have moral obligations to do certain things, the system cannot simultaneously remain just and force me to do such things.
It is a moral question until you show otherwise. As I've shown that to be the case both before and here, the burden of proof is on you, meaning you stating the negation of my claim is extraneous.
The only reason against ban in Casual i can think of, is that you would add a further passage for an actual game, a further window that increases the feel of clunkiness (conscious or not), while the game and its interface should stay as simple as possible.
And ofc the time spent for implementation.
Multiple class ban could lead to unpleasant wait times tho, and it is better to not give such a choice at all. One class is already alot.
Card ban is horrible. Insanely clunky and ultimately too dumb: if a card is problematic, it should just be nerfed, otherwise you should just learn to deal with it.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
No.
You have no more right than any other player to dictate how other players are supposed to play and enjoy the game. If they want to bring actually good decks into casual they have the right to do so. If they want to bring trash they have the right to do so as well. If you're not enjoying playing against a certain deck, though luck, but your voice carries absolutely no more weight than their does.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
Warlock is op, everyone choose to don't get matched against warlocks, random dude wants to play quest warlock in casual and he will never be able to do that. That's why they won't do this
No, because it won't actually solve anything and open the door for exploits
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
If everybody gets to ban one bad match-up, that's even, therefore no help farming gold at all (just more even and entertaining matchups.) What do y'all think tournaments do? Does banning let those guys all win the tournament? Check you logic.
"Play with your friends. You can ask them to play whatever you want!" Yeah, I suppose those would be my imaginary friends, the ones who haven't already quit the game because casual is such a trainwreck. Literally every friend who I used to play with has quit the game but no, we shouldn't try to improve it. Hell no. Lord, take me now.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
It’d be waaaay too easy to abuse the system because of the ability to eliminate weaknesses of a deck by never getting matched up against its counter.
Imagine if quest rogue could ban Paladin. The majority of aggressive decks right now.
There will always be a meta in every single multiplayer game. The sooner that’s accepted, the more fun you can have.
It is a moral question until you show otherwise. As I've shown that to be the case both before and here, the burden of proof is on you, meaning you stating the negation of my claim is extraneous.