It would actually create more problems while solving nothing. Don't really support it for casual either, it will screw up queue times and force high mirror rates for certain classes. Just take the loss if you want to be picky, it's not like it matters anyway or takes much time.
@OP in a constructed format, there is little difference between a card ban and a class ban because there are only a handful of decks anyway.
Banning a certain card would not accomplish having a more diverse meta.
It is a stupid idea for several reasons listed in this thread. Firstly, it gives a HUGE advantage to decks that do not rely on a specific combo, but only use strong cards, in particular tempo and aggressive decks but also classical control decks that just aim for attrition. E.g. aggressive decks remove early taunts or early removal from the opponent ( Tar Creeper , Defile , ...) and can't be slowed down any more. Control decks remove the prevalent combo tool ( Shudderwock , King Togwaggle , ...) and win the value game.
Secondly, this approach really weakens combo decks, since can immediately lose a game if their wincon is removed. so this seems more to be a I-hate-combo approach
And thirdly, in particular the replacement card system wouldn't work. If I build a deck, do I have to assign a replacement card for every one of the 30 cards, since if The Lich King gets banned I need another replacement than when Tar Creeper gets banned? Do I choose one out of my collection when my opponent bans the card before the game? Then it would be much easier if you simply play with 28 cards (which raises different issues since you destroy deckbuilding decisions).
Hearthstone is good as it is for what it wants to accomplish. Blizzard mostly knows what they are doing. Even people like OP who complain about the game are still playing it. So obviously Blizzard's approach is working fine.
Tl;dr: Could your ban system work and solve any problems? No.
While the idea of banning cards could be interesting, as users before me stated, it would end up being detrimental to the game. Even the possibility of a different banning system the took other parameters into account rather than what you suggested would be bad for the game.
For example, say, at the end of every season, Blizzard would restrict the use of the top 2 played cards for each class and the top 5 neutral cards. That would bring out a lot of variables to take into account: do we take into account all of the ladder or just half of it for the bans? What would happen if they just banned based on usage of a card in, say, rank 5 to legend and pretty much everyone on the rank 5 floor and legend rank 300-below was playing the same meme deck that was made around, say, Duskfallen Aviana? How would the new player at rank 48 react to the idea of not being able to play The Lich King after spending some money on packs because the card happens to be banned?
Those questions apply to my quick suggestion in bold but they also apply, in a way, to your suggestion. Unless there is a Bo3 format on ladder, a ban phase would be detrimental. Even then, unless there were changes made by the player to their own deck, they would be seen as detrimental after a while.
If your concerns are about staleness of the game, look no further than to the fact that virtually half our available cards (at least in standard) will never rotate out and the fact that Team 5 keeps designing way too many synergistic themes that either work out really well or not at all, making deck-building more about "synergistic card packages + tech cards" being added to your decks rather than deck creativity. And even if they were to switch the design aspect into just designing strong individual cards, they would risk facing a meta like the Midrange Shaman meta we had in Karazhan. The key is finding the balance between synergies and individual power in the design aspect of the game to allow for more decks that don't rely on card packages to survive. And that is MUCH easier said than done.
the other thing I wanted to know is: are you ok with the fact that the meta usually allows no more than, like 10 decks to be viable on the ladder?
if not, con you think of a way it could be improve?
for us cheap working class dudes, getting legendary cards takes so long, and when we get most of them they're useless because not viable, that makes me sad =( ... its boring only being able to climb with one single deck
the other thing I wanted to know is: are you ok with the fact that the meta usually allows no more than, like 10 decks to be viable on the ladder?
if not, con you think of a way it could be improve?
for us cheap working class dudes, getting legendary cards takes so long, and when we get most of them they're useless because not viable, that makes me sad =( ... its boring only being able to climb with one single deck
10 viable decks is kinda great though. There have been times when a single deck was straight up destroying almost everything. Druid used to do that before plague was nerfed.
Also, there are a lot of other decks that are semi viable. Control warrior, midrange hunter, topsey priest, espionage rogue... maybe try playing one of those? Also, in casual you can play decks that are not viable. You have the option of not laddering and just trying to make fun combos
apparently people prefer a meta with a handful of viable decks instead one with dozens.. i wish to understand the reason
people do not prefer a meta with less variety. but this would not solve the problem.
Infirc said this on the first page. but with you being able to ban legendarys, then people would just play aggro decks that would just kill you with all their common/rare minions.
and also with baku and genn, what then! the meta may be annoying, but this would not solve it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rejoice, for even in death, you have become children of Thanos.
Dont you think that a banning system could work in hearthstone and would solve most of our problems?
What problem?
Step 1 is to define the problem and confirm it is true. Do we even have a problem? Maybe in Casual. Ranked Ladder is not for people who wish to have easy games, see a rich and diverse meta etc etc. It is for people who wish to face against opponents who will do anything to win.
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.
To remove the need to ban OTK core cards, disruption neutral cards should be evergreen and that is what makes meta more interesting because it creates more diversity when you can tech for everything rather than banning and it takes more skill too.
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.
the whole point of banning is so that you dont face the matches that you have no chance of winning. so then why would you do that and then auto lose?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rejoice, for even in death, you have become children of Thanos.
Well it depends on how you plan on implementing it exactly. If the bans were global amongst all players then it could technically work. For example, a weekly poll where all players get to vote on 1 card to ban from each class. And maybe not allow the same banned card get banned twice in a row.
That being said tho, this would create a pretty bad atmosphere, as players who invested in a certain deck (especially budget players) would get screwed over by the banning system. Also, considering monetization, I doubt blizzard would want us to disallow each other to play essential archetype cards.
So in short, although it could work if applied as global bans, it would create a bad experience for players who just want to play their favorite deck. So it's a no from me.
Also, as some people already mentioned, depending on what cards get banned, the rock paper scissors system of the card game could fall apart, and we'd have weeks were aggro dominates all due to a key card getting removed from each class. And to put it into perspective, aggro decks barely ever rely on single cards to achieve win conditions, whereas control/combo decks tend to do. Not to mention that even if you ban a card primarily used in an aggro deck, there are still dozens of replacements for them. Aggro decks just have much more to choose from.
the thing is that most people just get the cards playing for free.... which means that for us to have a nice variety of viable decks we have to spend a looot of time to craft the required legendaries either by crafting or being lucky enough to get the few you want from a pack (I dont know the statistics, but they seem pretty low) ..
or we end up with a lot of cool variety of legendaries that will never be viable so we never play them and I think that sucks..
so playing constructed ladder leaves the avarage poor player the possibility of only using a few decks, wich is pretty boring...
guess in the end its better for blizzard for forcing ppl to pay $$$, thats always the point
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
1. You didn't ask at all for anyone else's ideas. You just presented one, asked us if it was feasible, then bashed everyone because they said it wasn't. You then didn't reply to any of them to debate their points nor said "So if you dislike my idea what do you think we should do?" or anything that would prompt a discussion. You didn't even ask if we were 'perfectly fine with the game'. It also suggests that you haven't spent much time in this forum given that "Everyone playing the same #*()$#(* decks" has been just about the #1 most complained about item in Hearthstone since Boomsday and has only slightly toned down due to everyone chowing into the expansion. Just lurking in the forums, or probably reading from that salt thread, would show that A LOT of people would love a lot more deck variety in the game. Even folks who say "there's plenty of variety" tend to not complain about the idea of adding more of it.
But again you didn't prompt a discussion about that.
This thread is just about your idea and how awesome you think it is. And you're bothered because we don't agree.
And you constantly making that "it's not banning a class" defense makes me wonder if you've read the replies, because many of them specifically bring up that your idea is just banning one card. And it actually makes the idea WORSE than if you banned the class.
the other thing I wanted to know is: are you ok with the fact that the meta usually allows no more than, like 10 decks to be viable on the ladder?
if not, con you think of a way it could be improve?
for us cheap working class dudes, getting legendary cards takes so long, and when we get most of them they're useless because not viable, that makes me sad =( ... its boring only being able to climb with one single deck
Not liking your idea does not mean we like the way things currently are. Again, you did NOT ask for our ideas on how to improve deck diversity. You just asked about your idea then assumed we like the status quo because we didn't like your idea.
At this point this isn't a good thread to be asking "what do you think can be done". Most people who come here will read the OP and title which, again, does NOT have that question. Your question needs its own thread, and a lot less assumption of what you think the community wants.
But to try to give something very quick on touching that answer:
1. If you mean getting others to play a variety of decks, guilds. You CANNOT force a large playerbase to be creative or varied or interesting. Find one of my posts where I babble about 'innovators' if you need to know why. But yes, bans, incentives, ext just hurts diversity even further.
Guilds mean you can find a SMALL group of folks who share your interests and can focus on playing with them, maybe also finding rival creative guilds as well. MTG is loved because a lot of people played it in small shops or with friends locally.
2. If you mean being able to play a variety of decks, Hearthstone is known for being one of the stingiest of the digital card games. They've improved things, but it's still far from good enough for beginning players.
As for ideas, I can think of a bold one: Make the Classic set 100% free. Just GIVE it to everyone day 1 or perhaps via quests or stages if you want people to grow into it. But FREE. That should destroy the barrier to entry without really killing their profits. Then you can focus on just getting into the expansions. The dust/quest system is sustainable enough AFTER you have your base of cards.
3. If you mean being able to climb the ladder with a variety of decks. I'm not so sure on this one. There actually tends to be a TON of decks that pro players can use to get at least to legend at any point in time, including every deck tier 3 and up and a lot of tier 4 decks.
"Yeah, but they are pro players. They are good at the game."
Exactly. Which tends to mean those who can't get up there without a tier 1 deck (or even with one) might not have the playtime/skill to get to legend, which is a player issue, not a deck diversity issue.
IMO the biggest isssue is that we really only have three 'tiers' anyone cares about: non-legend, legend, and #1 legend. over 95% of the playerbase sits below legend. We really should have tiers for them to strive for that's not all the way at the top.
There's more ideas, and more details on these but again, this is a BAD thread for that.
Idea is not bad but for a completely new game mode, I would love them to ban 1 legendary and 1/2 epics for each class and some of neutral ones and change it weekly. Each week new decks - at least on paper. Still, I don't believe that it will happen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It would actually create more problems while solving nothing. Don't really support it for casual either, it will screw up queue times and force high mirror rates for certain classes. Just take the loss if you want to be picky, it's not like it matters anyway or takes much time.
@OP in a constructed format, there is little difference between a card ban and a class ban because there are only a handful of decks anyway.
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
here we go again, stop this nonsense
get gudd
Banning a certain card would not accomplish having a more diverse meta.
It is a stupid idea for several reasons listed in this thread. Firstly, it gives a HUGE advantage to decks that do not rely on a specific combo, but only use strong cards, in particular tempo and aggressive decks but also classical control decks that just aim for attrition. E.g. aggressive decks remove early taunts or early removal from the opponent ( Tar Creeper , Defile , ...) and can't be slowed down any more. Control decks remove the prevalent combo tool ( Shudderwock , King Togwaggle , ...) and win the value game.
Secondly, this approach really weakens combo decks, since can immediately lose a game if their wincon is removed. so this seems more to be a I-hate-combo approach
And thirdly, in particular the replacement card system wouldn't work. If I build a deck, do I have to assign a replacement card for every one of the 30 cards, since if The Lich King gets banned I need another replacement than when Tar Creeper gets banned? Do I choose one out of my collection when my opponent bans the card before the game? Then it would be much easier if you simply play with 28 cards (which raises different issues since you destroy deckbuilding decisions).
Hearthstone is good as it is for what it wants to accomplish. Blizzard mostly knows what they are doing. Even people like OP who complain about the game are still playing it. So obviously Blizzard's approach is working fine.
Tl;dr: Could your ban system work and solve any problems? No.
While the idea of banning cards could be interesting, as users before me stated, it would end up being detrimental to the game. Even the possibility of a different banning system the took other parameters into account rather than what you suggested would be bad for the game.
For example, say, at the end of every season, Blizzard would restrict the use of the top 2 played cards for each class and the top 5 neutral cards. That would bring out a lot of variables to take into account: do we take into account all of the ladder or just half of it for the bans? What would happen if they just banned based on usage of a card in, say, rank 5 to legend and pretty much everyone on the rank 5 floor and legend rank 300-below was playing the same meme deck that was made around, say, Duskfallen Aviana? How would the new player at rank 48 react to the idea of not being able to play The Lich King after spending some money on packs because the card happens to be banned?
Those questions apply to my quick suggestion in bold but they also apply, in a way, to your suggestion. Unless there is a Bo3 format on ladder, a ban phase would be detrimental. Even then, unless there were changes made by the player to their own deck, they would be seen as detrimental after a while.
If your concerns are about staleness of the game, look no further than to the fact that virtually half our available cards (at least in standard) will never rotate out and the fact that Team 5 keeps designing way too many synergistic themes that either work out really well or not at all, making deck-building more about "synergistic card packages + tech cards" being added to your decks rather than deck creativity. And even if they were to switch the design aspect into just designing strong individual cards, they would risk facing a meta like the Midrange Shaman meta we had in Karazhan. The key is finding the balance between synergies and individual power in the design aspect of the game to allow for more decks that don't rely on card packages to survive. And that is MUCH easier said than done.
Ranked game wins per class (26/Dec/2018): Druid - 457; Hunter - 482; Mage - 345; Paladin - 435; Priest - 295; Rogue - 234; Shaman - 430; Warlock - 419; Warrior - 367
I really should update my signature more often...
ok, im convinced its not the best idea...
the other thing I wanted to know is: are you ok with the fact that the meta usually allows no more than, like 10 decks to be viable on the ladder?
if not, con you think of a way it could be improve?
for us cheap working class dudes, getting legendary cards takes so long, and when we get most of them they're useless because not viable, that makes me sad =( ... its boring only being able to climb with one single deck
>Play odd warrior
>Ban shudderwock
>Ban deathstalker rexxar
>Ban jaina
>Ban any other core otk card
100% winrate
10 viable decks is kinda great though. There have been times when a single deck was straight up destroying almost everything. Druid used to do that before plague was nerfed.
Also, there are a lot of other decks that are semi viable. Control warrior, midrange hunter, topsey priest, espionage rogue... maybe try playing one of those? Also, in casual you can play decks that are not viable. You have the option of not laddering and just trying to make fun combos
people do not prefer a meta with less variety. but this would not solve the problem.
Infirc said this on the first page. but with you being able to ban legendarys, then people would just play aggro decks that would just kill you with all their common/rare minions.
and also with baku and genn, what then! the meta may be annoying, but this would not solve it.
Rejoice, for even in death, you have become children of Thanos.
What problem?
Step 1 is to define the problem and confirm it is true. Do we even have a problem? Maybe in Casual. Ranked Ladder is not for people who wish to have easy games, see a rich and diverse meta etc etc. It is for people who wish to face against opponents who will do anything to win.
I agree with this
To remove the need to ban OTK core cards, disruption neutral cards should be evergreen and that is what makes meta more interesting because it creates more diversity when you can tech for everything rather than banning and it takes more skill too.
the whole point of banning is so that you dont face the matches that you have no chance of winning. so then why would you do that and then auto lose?
Rejoice, for even in death, you have become children of Thanos.
Well it depends on how you plan on implementing it exactly. If the bans were global amongst all players then it could technically work. For example, a weekly poll where all players get to vote on 1 card to ban from each class. And maybe not allow the same banned card get banned twice in a row.
That being said tho, this would create a pretty bad atmosphere, as players who invested in a certain deck (especially budget players) would get screwed over by the banning system. Also, considering monetization, I doubt blizzard would want us to disallow each other to play essential archetype cards.
So in short, although it could work if applied as global bans, it would create a bad experience for players who just want to play their favorite deck. So it's a no from me.
Why u hav to be mad? is only card gaem.
Also, as some people already mentioned, depending on what cards get banned, the rock paper scissors system of the card game could fall apart, and we'd have weeks were aggro dominates all due to a key card getting removed from each class. And to put it into perspective, aggro decks barely ever rely on single cards to achieve win conditions, whereas control/combo decks tend to do. Not to mention that even if you ban a card primarily used in an aggro deck, there are still dozens of replacements for them. Aggro decks just have much more to choose from.
Why u hav to be mad? is only card gaem.
To climb efficiently in ranked ladder you should choose a deck which counters current meta or tech your deck more so it becomes more viable in it.
What??? LMAO, but you suggested it, dude. Thread title: "Could a ban system work and solve all our problems?"
Seriously, bro, do you pay attention to what you write?
the thing is that most people just get the cards playing for free.... which means that for us to have a nice variety of viable decks we have to spend a looot of time to craft the required legendaries either by crafting or being lucky enough to get the few you want from a pack (I dont know the statistics, but they seem pretty low) ..
or we end up with a lot of cool variety of legendaries that will never be viable so we never play them and I think that sucks..
so playing constructed ladder leaves the avarage poor player the possibility of only using a few decks, wich is pretty boring...
guess in the end its better for blizzard for forcing ppl to pay $$$, thats always the point
1. You didn't ask at all for anyone else's ideas. You just presented one, asked us if it was feasible, then bashed everyone because they said it wasn't. You then didn't reply to any of them to debate their points nor said "So if you dislike my idea what do you think we should do?" or anything that would prompt a discussion. You didn't even ask if we were 'perfectly fine with the game'. It also suggests that you haven't spent much time in this forum given that "Everyone playing the same #*()$#(* decks" has been just about the #1 most complained about item in Hearthstone since Boomsday and has only slightly toned down due to everyone chowing into the expansion. Just lurking in the forums, or probably reading from that salt thread, would show that A LOT of people would love a lot more deck variety in the game. Even folks who say "there's plenty of variety" tend to not complain about the idea of adding more of it.
But again you didn't prompt a discussion about that.
This thread is just about your idea and how awesome you think it is. And you're bothered because we don't agree.
And you constantly making that "it's not banning a class" defense makes me wonder if you've read the replies, because many of them specifically bring up that your idea is just banning one card. And it actually makes the idea WORSE than if you banned the class.
Not liking your idea does not mean we like the way things currently are. Again, you did NOT ask for our ideas on how to improve deck diversity. You just asked about your idea then assumed we like the status quo because we didn't like your idea.
At this point this isn't a good thread to be asking "what do you think can be done". Most people who come here will read the OP and title which, again, does NOT have that question. Your question needs its own thread, and a lot less assumption of what you think the community wants.
But to try to give something very quick on touching that answer:
1. If you mean getting others to play a variety of decks, guilds. You CANNOT force a large playerbase to be creative or varied or interesting. Find one of my posts where I babble about 'innovators' if you need to know why. But yes, bans, incentives, ext just hurts diversity even further.
Guilds mean you can find a SMALL group of folks who share your interests and can focus on playing with them, maybe also finding rival creative guilds as well. MTG is loved because a lot of people played it in small shops or with friends locally.
2. If you mean being able to play a variety of decks, Hearthstone is known for being one of the stingiest of the digital card games. They've improved things, but it's still far from good enough for beginning players.
As for ideas, I can think of a bold one: Make the Classic set 100% free. Just GIVE it to everyone day 1 or perhaps via quests or stages if you want people to grow into it. But FREE. That should destroy the barrier to entry without really killing their profits. Then you can focus on just getting into the expansions. The dust/quest system is sustainable enough AFTER you have your base of cards.
3. If you mean being able to climb the ladder with a variety of decks. I'm not so sure on this one. There actually tends to be a TON of decks that pro players can use to get at least to legend at any point in time, including every deck tier 3 and up and a lot of tier 4 decks.
"Yeah, but they are pro players. They are good at the game."
Exactly. Which tends to mean those who can't get up there without a tier 1 deck (or even with one) might not have the playtime/skill to get to legend, which is a player issue, not a deck diversity issue.
IMO the biggest isssue is that we really only have three 'tiers' anyone cares about: non-legend, legend, and #1 legend. over 95% of the playerbase sits below legend. We really should have tiers for them to strive for that's not all the way at the top.
There's more ideas, and more details on these but again, this is a BAD thread for that.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
"Can I ban the card that counters my deck because I don't like losing to it?" ... sure that seems fair.
@OP
I want to ban Baku the Mooneater boom, half of the game gone.
Idea is not bad but for a completely new game mode, I would love them to ban 1 legendary and 1/2 epics for each class and some of neutral ones and change it weekly. Each week new decks - at least on paper. Still, I don't believe that it will happen.