Hearthpwn

Just posted it on the salty thread but decided to bring here because I want to know your oppinion on that.

Dont you think that a banning system could work in hearthstone and would solve most of our problems? It shouldnt be that complicated, i thought something like for each class you can, by default, ban, let's say, one legendary card and one epic (or just one legendary would be good enough i guess). And, on the other hand, for each of your decks, you could have an extra card in case one of your cards is banned.

That would allow sooo much more variability in the ladder... Like, just being able do ban Deathstalker Rexxar... Frost Lich Jaina... Kingsbane... Malfurion the Pestilent.....just a sigle card that ruins a fucking match and wins the game to who pull it ... people would actually have to think when building a deck, instead of netdecking and doing the same boring strategy over and over 

dont you guys think that something like this could be feasible? i think it would be amazing..

To be brief, on ladder, no.

Not really, no.  Not on ladder.  It's simply not viable because what do you do?  You just ban all of, or most of, the bad matchups for the deck you're laddering with.

Bans work in Conquest formats because you *have* to use multiple decks and there's a tactical element to the ban because of that fact.

No, because it allows for power creep to occur much faster to the point where it would be much easier from a balance prospective to just rotate sets out and potentiality rotate sets back into standard. 

Quote from AkiraTerion >>

Not really, no.  Not on ladder.  It's simply not viable because what do you do?  You just ban all of, or most of, the bad matchups for the deck you're laddering with.

Bans work in Conquest formats because you *have* to use multiple decks and there's a tactical element to the ban because of that fact.

 but im not talking of banning an entire deck, just one brocken card would be enough... like, odd mage would still be viable without dk jaina.. deathrattle hunter would still be viable without dk rexar and so on... of course, for some combo decks or decks like kingsbane or baku, etc that would ruin the hole deck, but that would have to be figured out somehow...

and its a thing that you would not be able to know wich archetype you would be facing, like you choose to ban hagatha when you face a shaman. If your opponent doesnt use hagatha then nothing happens, but if he does, it is replaced by the reserve card that he chose (grumble, for example)

the thing is that its such a waste that we have hundreds of cards, dozens of legendaries that never see play because the meta lets no more than ten decks to be viable.. dont you think thats a problem, and that it could be solved somehow?

First thoughts were: ohhh no, not this thread again

Second thoughts were: okay this is a different thread which is sillier in a way, the short answer is no, if you implemented a ban system jsut to ban win conditions then people would jsut play zooey aggro decks that stacked solid early minions and couldnt care less about what you banned, also what would happen if you ban genn or baku against even or odd decks? you0d seriously gimp them.

third thought: Op was using some odd paladin, lost to Jaina and just got salty,

No.  There is no problem.  This nonsense thread should have stayed in the salt section.

apparently people prefer a meta with a handful of viable decks instead one with dozens.. i wish to understand the reason

Quote from DiamondDM13 >>

For Casual Mode, it should be already in the game, no reason for it's absence.

In Ranked Mode, it shouldn't as it wouldn't solve the problems. If it were to ever exist, it would work as a Class Ban, but it would have a forced downside to the player. For example, when you Queued, whenever you were matched up with that class, you would instantly lose a Star, and the system would continue searching instead for the next opponent.

There would never be a Ban System in Ranked Mode without a downside, otherwise that just removes the entire purpose of Ranked Mode. You should be forced to play against both your good and bad matchups. Banning your Bad Matchups simply artificially amplifies your Win-Rate, which would allow you to climb to a point where you didn't deserve to be.

 It's a bad idea for casual still. It is freaking casual, why would you ban some classes ?

Salt thread and dumb concept.

TBH, thought Op was going to offer something about banning a class you don't want to face in ladder, which honestly makes more sense since you can just ban the class you hate facing the most and hopefully have a better experience.

But with only 9 classes it's a hard concept, and the card ban thing, no, just no.

This is a horrible idea and here’s why

1 - Devalues the cards you open in packs, since you can’t use them to win games you’re favored in.

2 - Creates a meta where there are less viable decks

3 - Would increase que times

4 - Make games even more polarizing

Anyone who wants to play a deck that gets demolished by a single card can. Nothing's stopping them. 

Only if a Conquest mode were to be made. 

Otherwise this is a terrible idea for Ladder and Casual.

Don't want to face as many spell hunters? Have fun facing twice as many off paladins

Quote from Talesusde >>

Quote from AkiraTerion >>

Not really, no.  Not on ladder.  It's simply not viable because what do you do?  You just ban all of, or most of, the bad matchups for the deck you're laddering with.

Bans work in Conquest formats because you *have* to use multiple decks and there's a tactical element to the ban because of that fact.

 but im not talking of banning an entire deck, just one brocken card would be enough... like, odd mage would still be viable without dk jaina.. deathrattle hunter would still be viable without dk rexar and so on... of course, for some combo decks or decks like kingsbane or baku, etc that would ruin the hole deck, but that would have to be figured out somehow...

and its a thing that you would not be able to know wich archetype you would be facing, like you choose to ban hagatha when you face a shaman. If your opponent doesnt use hagatha then nothing happens, but if he does, it is replaced by the reserve card that he chose (grumble, for example)

the thing is that its such a waste that we have hundreds of cards, dozens of legendaries that never see play because the meta lets no more than ten decks to be viable.. dont you think thats a problem, and that it could be solved somehow?

 Your idea does no such thing to solving it.  You're picturing some situation where, say, a Deathrattle hunter deck would swap out, say, their DK for some other card and find some unique way to win.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. 

Banning the DK in Deathrattle Hunter would completely gut the card against odd warrior or Elemental mage.  That card is the reason why the deck has a chance against slower decks.  Otherwise it's only win condition is to hope for a perfect opening hand for a hyper fast start with their eggs.  

(sidenote, against faster decks you just have to ban the egg to gut the deck)

That you even think that odd mage has a chance without Jaina DK is maddening.  Elemental cards, by themselves, are weak offensively.  Rag is interesting but that card wasn't overwhelming when you were able to play him without a messed up conditional.  The deck has no staying power without Jaina.  

What's worse is that the game still goes on.  Unlike past 'ban' ideas where you get to play your deck, just not against folks who don't like it, your idea still forces me to play with the deck after it's gutted and think that being able to just slot in some other card will fix things up.  So if I play Odd Paladin and they ban Baku, what card is going to make losing the entire point to the deck WORK OUT?  

(also how WOULD that be set up?  Do I have to auto-pick the card, even though I won't really know what card is going to be banned?  Do we go to our collections and choose the card after finding out that something was banned, thus causing both players to have to sit while the other spends 5, 10+ minutes looking through their entire collection to decide which card to add in?  Both methods sound rather messed up)

So any deck where a key card being removed results in a risk of getting autolost.  And since the smart strategy would be to knock out the deck you are weak to (NOT the one you are sick of playing against) that means your opponents will either gut your deck or be strong against your deck.  Which means the decks you will need to play to avoid this will need to be decks which don't really care which card is lost.  That typically means aggro decks.  A major point to aggro is their lack of a bad start since they tool their entire deck to 'work' whatever the combination (i..e lots of 1 drops so that no matter what cards show or don't show they'll have a 1 drop of some type).  

So how does this idea actually INCREASE deck diversity?  Just make a tier 1 aggro deck without a lot of enemies, nerf the key card in that deck, and most of your opponents will either be too weak of a deck to fight you, a deck you naturally counter, or a gutted version of what would be your counter deck.  

You already see some of these issues, yet you gloss it off with a "we'll figure out something."  Then you wonder why everyone is so critical of it and instead of arguing their points you just assume everyone just LIKES netdecking and playing with only a few decks.  "It couldn't possibly be that they see my idea as not only not working but possibly backfiring to create a worse situation.  No.  my idea is perfect.  They just know it and don't want my idea to happen because it'll ruin their good thing."

Most of us like deck diversity, and wouldn't mind a good idea that encourages it.

But this isn't it.  There's a LOT of holes to your idea that you either haven't pieced together or do notice but don't want to get into in your hope that it'll bring a utopia of homemade decks.  

We don't hate utopia.  We just think your idea won't bring about that utopia.

Should have stayed in the salt thread if you are going to finish your post with:

"people would actually have to think when building a deck, instead of netdecking and doing the same boring strategy over and over "

Obviously, your super awesome original deck keeps getting stomped on Ladder by refined decks using one of the cards you mentioned. 

But, just to play along ... no, I don't really care for your convoluted idea of banning cards, but I wouldn't mind seeing the ability to ban one class on ladder each month. It would prevent the issue of having 73% of games played so far this season against a single class. 

This would be a bizarre and confusing system with some rather strange metagame implications.  On top of the countless players who will get frustrated and quit the game, it would also mean you can't build any sort of deck that is reliant on a single card as its win condition, which would again kill a bunch of people's favorite decks and cause them to quit the game.  

Banning cards is an intersting idea in tournament formats, and has been done in that context before, but it makes very little sense on ladder.  

Rock, paper, scissors. You ban one of those and the entire game falls apart, at least from a competitive standpoint. 

Plus, the game is already heavily based on rng coin flips and you want to suggest another ban idea that further makes deckbuilding and potential match-making even more automatic by not having to think ahead before hitting "Play" by trying to anticipate harder match-ups beforehand? God forbid you have to actually think about what decks you might face and have to swap cards in & out of your deck now and then.

the point of this thread is to raise a discussion on how to improve the game we spend so much time on... most people here didnt bother to read the fucking post and assumed that I was talking about banning classes...

i was just talking about banning ONE card for each class, AND at no point I said that this is a perfect solution that would fix the game entirely, its just an idea, and I wanted to know if the other players have any other idea or are perfectly fine with the game as it is, in which a handful of OP decks are the only viable options in ladder

Quote from Talesusde >>

the point of this thread is to raise a discussion on how to improve the game we spend so much time on... most people here didnt bother to read the fucking post and assumed that I was talking about banning classes...

i was just talking about banning ONE card for each class, AND at no point I said that this is a perfect solution that would fix the game entirely, its just an idea, and I wanted to know if the other players have any other idea or are perfectly fine with the game as it is, in which a handful of OP decks are the only viable options in ladder

 Just read the whole thread, it seams more like it is you who does not read other peoples responses.

They have explained multiple times why this would be a bad idea.

Banning anything in this game will just lead to people banning what counters them, ie increasing their win percentage and severely limiting the numbers of viable decks.