Certain players hate certain decks. "Hey loser! ... wasn't meeee". "Greetings fellow humans ... heh heh heh". "Alas poor Warlock".
So what if there was an option to ban a certain class you can queue against? Make it a weekly ban so if you are playing aggro you can ban Priest, but cannot ban Priest the following week. That way people can try out new decks as oppose to playing the same class for weeks on end.
I know with the new expanion on the horizon alot of annoying cards will be gone from standard, but there will always be some new ones around the corner.
Is this something anyone can see being introduced into standard in the future? (It is mandatory to ban a class in competitive Hearthstone, so why not on ladder?
Yeah...but you can always just quit when you queue up. I doubt Blizzard understands how annoying certain decks are or even if they do, they still want you to face them.
My thoughts exactly. If you always ban the class most likely to beat you, are you really winning? Back in the old day warrior and priest would just ban each other because of their long match times. Ban warrior never worry about your highlander getting bombs. In tournaments they do bans. It is a different place though. Their decks and play styles are slow and well thought about. Sometimes missing an opportunity for pressure because they want to win money. For regular Hearthstone players, no.
Awful idea, I want to climb the ladder and avoid the deck that I least like playing against or is the current strongest?
What happens if 90% banned rogue. What do rogue players do? What if a couple of classes are banned much hevaier than others, those players are forced to switch class? What if this happens for a few months? Half the player base can't get matches in the game's most prominent game mode, great.
There are so many other issues that you just clearly haven't considered because you've seen this idea through the sole lens of your perspective and failed to consider other people/classes. The dev team can't be that blinkered or selfish, they would have no game left.
I think banning a class is too much. I think it would be cool if we could ban a single card though. Would have to think a lot about it and it could allow new or less played archetypes to emerge. Don’t like secret mage? Ban counterspell. Don’t like reno priest? Ban Shadowreaper anduin. Don’t like playing rogues that dump a lot of cards? Ban secret passage. Etc. It would allow for more interesting deck building I think.
I think banning a class is too much. I think it would be cool if we could ban a single card though. Would have to think a lot about it and it could allow new or less played archetypes to emerge. Don’t like secret mage? Ban counterspell. Don’t like reno priest? Ban Shadowreaper anduin. Don’t like playing rogues that dump a lot of cards? Ban secret passage. Etc. It would allow for more interesting deck building I think.
But how does that work? Any deck that has counter spell and it avoids it? Is the coding even capable of doing that? Seeing as it would have to be done prior to the game starting, it's not like a start of game effect. So does it tick through, match you, check the deck, ban that deck, look for another opponent, rinse and repeat?
Why would it allow for better deck building? You have no idea what will be banned so when you're constructing the deck, how are you accounting for possible bans? How many people would have significantly slower queue times or not be able to find a match at all because so many people have banned different elements of their deck?
You can already do both of these things - organise games with like minded people and agree to exclude specific classes or cards. Setup a sub reddit or discord and try to build somewhat of a community for this type of thing.
I really can understand the motivation, as it's never a pleasant experience to face That Same Deck Again™ or That Deck I Hate™ and a few years back, I might've been on your side. However, I had a bit of an epiphany after losing 100,000 games in a row to Jade Druid back in the day.
It's one of those things which are obvious in retrospect but I've always been a slow learner, so it took me quite a while to work it out. It's simply: If you want your deck to perform better, sometimes you need to change it.
Doubtless that's hardly a shock to you but for me, it meant that I had to endure the heartbreak of removing Confessor Paletress and Kel'Thuzad, which left a scar that may never heal. :(
In reality, it means that we all have a simple deck-building challenge: What compromises can I afford to make in order to give me a chance to humiliate <insert hated deck here>.
Alternatively, just accept that x% of your games will be against this deck and write 'em off.
I think banning a class is too much. I think it would be cool if we could ban a single card though. Would have to think a lot about it and it could allow new or less played archetypes to emerge. Don’t like secret mage? Ban counterspell. Don’t like reno priest? Ban Shadowreaper anduin. Don’t like playing rogues that dump a lot of cards? Ban secret passage. Etc. It would allow for more interesting deck building I think.
But how does that work? Any deck that has counter spell and it avoids it? Is the coding even capable of doing that? Seeing as it would have to be done prior to the game starting, it's not like a start of game effect. So does it tick through, match you, check the deck, ban that deck, look for another opponent, rinse and repeat?
Why would it allow for better deck building? You have no idea what will be banned so when you're constructing the deck, how are you accounting for possible bans? How many people would have significantly slower queue times or not be able to find a match at all because so many people have banned different elements of their deck?
You can already do both of these things - organise games with like minded people and agree to exclude specific classes or cards. Setup a sub reddit or discord and try to build somewhat of a community for this type of thing.
Yes, it would check before confirming the matchup with the other player. Matchup times could be an issue, so they might have to adjust the mmr range when queuing, which wouldn't be that difficult. The way that it could improve deck building is simple. Player "A" playing archetype "X" would ban the card from their worst match up from archetype "Y"? If everyone playing archetype "X" did that, then it means that player "B" playing archetype "Y" would no longer be facing their best matchup, lowering their overall win rate. In order to change this, player "B" would have to figure out which card from archetype "Y" is getting banned and swap it, or simply accept that they will no longer face archetype "X". This would lower the win rates of tier 1 decks or decks which require oppressive build-around cards because they would no longer be facing their best matchups unless they swapped their best cards for something else or played another archetype entirely. On the other hand, you could hate losing to a certain tech card, so you could ban that tech card to improve your win rate, so it could balance out.
I think banning a class is too much. I think it would be cool if we could ban a single card though. Would have to think a lot about it and it could allow new or less played archetypes to emerge. Don’t like secret mage? Ban counterspell. Don’t like reno priest? Ban Shadowreaper anduin. Don’t like playing rogues that dump a lot of cards? Ban secret passage. Etc. It would allow for more interesting deck building I think.
But how does that work? Any deck that has counter spell and it avoids it? Is the coding even capable of doing that? Seeing as it would have to be done prior to the game starting, it's not like a start of game effect. So does it tick through, match you, check the deck, ban that deck, look for another opponent, rinse and repeat?
Why would it allow for better deck building? You have no idea what will be banned so when you're constructing the deck, how are you accounting for possible bans? How many people would have significantly slower queue times or not be able to find a match at all because so many people have banned different elements of their deck?
You can already do both of these things - organise games with like minded people and agree to exclude specific classes or cards. Setup a sub reddit or discord and try to build somewhat of a community for this type of thing.
Yes, it would check before confirming the matchup with the other player. Matchup times could be an issue, so they might have to adjust the mmr range when queuing, which wouldn't be that difficult. The way that it could improve deck building is simple. Player "A" playing archetype "X" would ban the card from their worst match up from archetype "Y"? If everyone playing archetype "X" did that, then it means that player "B" playing archetype "Y" would no longer be facing their best matchup, lowering their overall win rate. In order to change this, player "B" would have to figure out which card from archetype "Y" is getting banned and swap it, or simply accept that they will no longer face archetype "X". This would lower the win rates of tier 1 decks or decks which require oppressive build-around cards because they would no longer be facing their best matchups unless they swapped their best cards for something else or played another archetype entirely. On the other hand, you could hate losing to a certain tech card, so you could ban that tech card to improve your win rate, so it could balance out.
Right, so that player leaves out counter spell because they believe that is likely to be banned. Which it is, by 20% of the players they play against but what about the 10% who ban Reno? And the 5% who ban apprentice. The 13% who ban puzzle box and so on and so on.
You can't possibly ever account for that and the matchmaking woukd have to not only match two players but then scan both decks, find the banned card and then unmatch them and try again. And again. And again.
You seem to have massively over simplified this in your head and it honestly sounds like a logistical nightmare and appears to me that it would completely mess how constructed works up, not to mention whether the coding can even work that way.
If you've got a background in coding and development then please break down how it works because as a lay person, I can't see how that can work. Is it even able to match, scan both decks and then unmatch? Multiple times? I've heard of systems which can do this before and after but I don't know about it being intelligent enough to read multiple decks whilst the matchmaking is ongoing.
If you don't have any background in this type of thing then I'd question how you can say it 'it wouldn't be that difficult'. Will it not? How do you know?
I think banning a class is too much. I think it would be cool if we could ban a single card though. Would have to think a lot about it and it could allow new or less played archetypes to emerge. Don’t like secret mage? Ban counterspell. Don’t like reno priest? Ban Shadowreaper anduin. Don’t like playing rogues that dump a lot of cards? Ban secret passage. Etc. It would allow for more interesting deck building I think.
But how does that work? Any deck that has counter spell and it avoids it? Is the coding even capable of doing that? Seeing as it would have to be done prior to the game starting, it's not like a start of game effect. So does it tick through, match you, check the deck, ban that deck, look for another opponent, rinse and repeat?
Why would it allow for better deck building? You have no idea what will be banned so when you're constructing the deck, how are you accounting for possible bans? How many people would have significantly slower queue times or not be able to find a match at all because so many people have banned different elements of their deck?
You can already do both of these things - organise games with like minded people and agree to exclude specific classes or cards. Setup a sub reddit or discord and try to build somewhat of a community for this type of thing.
Yes, it would check before confirming the matchup with the other player. Matchup times could be an issue, so they might have to adjust the mmr range when queuing, which wouldn't be that difficult. The way that it could improve deck building is simple. Player "A" playing archetype "X" would ban the card from their worst match up from archetype "Y"? If everyone playing archetype "X" did that, then it means that player "B" playing archetype "Y" would no longer be facing their best matchup, lowering their overall win rate. In order to change this, player "B" would have to figure out which card from archetype "Y" is getting banned and swap it, or simply accept that they will no longer face archetype "X". This would lower the win rates of tier 1 decks or decks which require oppressive build-around cards because they would no longer be facing their best matchups unless they swapped their best cards for something else or played another archetype entirely. On the other hand, you could hate losing to a certain tech card, so you could ban that tech card to improve your win rate, so it could balance out.
Right, so that player leaves out counter spell because they believe that is likely to be banned. Which it is, by 20% of the players they play against but what about the 10% who ban Reno? And the 5% who ban apprentice. The 13% who ban puzzle box and so on and so on.
You can't possibly ever account for that and the matchmaking woukd have to not only match two players but then scan both decks, find the banned card and then unmatch them and try again. And again. And again.
You seem to have massively over simplified this in your head and it honestly sounds like a logistical nightmare and appears to me that it would completely mess how constructed works up, not to mention whether the coding can even work that way.
If you've got a background in coding and development then please break down how it works because as a lay person, I can't see how that can work. Is it even able to match, scan both decks and then unmatch? Multiple times? I've heard of systems which can do this before and after but I don't know about it being intelligent enough to read multiple decks whilst the matchmaking is ongoing.
If you don't have any background in this type of thing then I'd question how you can say it 'it wouldn't be that difficult'. Will it not? How do you know?
I actually did graduate with a degree in computer science. It is not that much data to sift. For each matchup, you'd have to do a simple "for loop" statement for 60 data points. A computer can check 60 data points in nanoseconds, basically instantaneously. It would not be a big deal for 100s or even thousands of this loop to be running at once. Code would look something like this, and then do it for each players' deck.
Boolean mathchup = true; //True false statement
For (int count = 0; count < 30; count++) { //loop which starts with 0 and goes up to 29, # of cards in a deck
if (BannedCard A =/= DeckB(count) { //this checks the card in player B's deck at the current spot in the iteration
continue; } //continues through the deck if it's not found at that spot
else {
matchup = false; //if the banned card is found at the current spot, it will proceed to the next player
break; }
Once the code completes, it would have a boolean (true/false statement) on whether the matchup was valid. It could do this check in less than a second easily.
If you don't believe me, here is a link comparing how fast code can run different scripts. The code is much harder to understand if you don't have a cs background though, but the millions of times per second should be convincing enough.
If there was an option to ban a class or card I would definitely use it.
However, strong tech cards can probably achieve the same result.
Something as simple as healbot could really help vs. All the rogues for instance.
Defile could help vs those wide boards.
Dirty Rat would be a welcome addition to folks trying to combat combo decks.
There is a ton the devs could do to help deckbuilders find answers, but they choose not to do so.
I think the only meta they want to see is aggro/midrange vs. Aggro/midrange. And if multiple classes have good aggro/midrange decks they think they have achieved class balance.
What he's proposing is definitely possible. Consider this:
Each player queues with a deck. Each deck has a class attached (which has an unique id behind the scenes). Each card also has an unique id.
Comparisons would be quite fast since each deck is basically a dictionary containing a class id and a list of 30 card ids. Comparing one id to 30 others takes a fraction of a second (especially if those ids are numbers). In most cases it wouldn't even get to this, since the first comparison is the deck's class to the card's class (with the exception of neutrals).
Thus, if card == neutral OR card.class == opponent.deck.class, start comparing to see if the deck contains the banned card. Else, start the match.
Also, consider the fact that we don't see what happens when the stupid matchmaking wheel spins. At most, it would add a few dozen seconds to the queue WHEN too many players are using your banned card (and at most 1 second otherwise).
Similarly, you assumed the deck containing your banned card gets removed from your temporary queue and the matchmaking is restarted. What if this is all changed to a "start of game" effect, in which the opponent gets that card removed from his deck?
There are a lot of ways to improve the queue times if needed (like quickly getting a matching list of several players by mmr, then checking their decks to see if one is eligible to not have the banned card; the numbers of matched players from the list could change depending on certain conditions, like total online players, too, to further improve queue times).
Now, the reason this nor something similar is ever gonna get done by blizzard is because they gain nothing out of it. Nothing. If you think they give a shit about your enjoyment of the game and not the "potential" money you could be giving them (even in the future), you're delusional.
Moreover, they knowingly print retarded cards to force things in a certain direction. Why would they allow us to ban exactly those cards?! I mean, it's been clear for a few years that they have no clue how to think up a proper design for the game, which doesn't revolve around powercreeping. Nor do they have any incentive to do it, since few people care about it anyway, while the others happily spend their money on the game.
All in all, it's a nice thought, definitely possible (technically), but there is no monetary incentive to do it. Quite the opposite, based on their design patterns and abilities.
Personally I wish they would just include a side board. So you pick a 28 card deck and then choose 4 other cards which you can rotate in or out before each game, totalling 30 cards.
This request has been proposed in the past. The problem with it of course is it makes the game even more difficult to balance than it already is for the development team. If a specific deck/class is such a hard counter for someone then it's likely healthy for game balance that there is always a risk someone will be matched against that deck/class.
Certain players hate certain decks. "Hey loser! ... wasn't meeee". "Greetings fellow humans ... heh heh heh". "Alas poor Warlock".
So what if there was an option to ban a certain class you can queue against? Make it a weekly ban so if you are playing aggro you can ban Priest, but cannot ban Priest the following week. That way people can try out new decks as oppose to playing the same class for weeks on end.
I know with the new expanion on the horizon alot of annoying cards will be gone from standard, but there will always be some new ones around the corner.
Is this something anyone can see being introduced into standard in the future? (It is mandatory to ban a class in competitive Hearthstone, so why not on ladder?
Yeah...but you can always just quit when you queue up. I doubt Blizzard understands how annoying certain decks are or even if they do, they still want you to face them.
Terrible idea tbh
My thoughts exactly. If you always ban the class most likely to beat you, are you really winning? Back in the old day warrior and priest would just ban each other because of their long match times. Ban warrior never worry about your highlander getting bombs. In tournaments they do bans. It is a different place though. Their decks and play styles are slow and well thought about. Sometimes missing an opportunity for pressure because they want to win money. For regular Hearthstone players, no.
Why do u guys post this terrible idea of banning classes every week? It is not happening.
Awful idea, I want to climb the ladder and avoid the deck that I least like playing against or is the current strongest?
What happens if 90% banned rogue. What do rogue players do? What if a couple of classes are banned much hevaier than others, those players are forced to switch class? What if this happens for a few months? Half the player base can't get matches in the game's most prominent game mode, great.
There are so many other issues that you just clearly haven't considered because you've seen this idea through the sole lens of your perspective and failed to consider other people/classes. The dev team can't be that blinkered or selfish, they would have no game left.
I think banning a class is too much. I think it would be cool if we could ban a single card though. Would have to think a lot about it and it could allow new or less played archetypes to emerge. Don’t like secret mage? Ban counterspell. Don’t like reno priest? Ban Shadowreaper anduin. Don’t like playing rogues that dump a lot of cards? Ban secret passage. Etc. It would allow for more interesting deck building I think.
But how does that work? Any deck that has counter spell and it avoids it? Is the coding even capable of doing that? Seeing as it would have to be done prior to the game starting, it's not like a start of game effect. So does it tick through, match you, check the deck, ban that deck, look for another opponent, rinse and repeat?
Why would it allow for better deck building? You have no idea what will be banned so when you're constructing the deck, how are you accounting for possible bans? How many people would have significantly slower queue times or not be able to find a match at all because so many people have banned different elements of their deck?
You can already do both of these things - organise games with like minded people and agree to exclude specific classes or cards. Setup a sub reddit or discord and try to build somewhat of a community for this type of thing.
I really can understand the motivation, as it's never a pleasant experience to face That Same Deck Again™ or That Deck I Hate™ and a few years back, I might've been on your side. However, I had a bit of an epiphany after losing 100,000 games in a row to Jade Druid back in the day.
It's one of those things which are obvious in retrospect but I've always been a slow learner, so it took me quite a while to work it out. It's simply: If you want your deck to perform better, sometimes you need to change it.
Doubtless that's hardly a shock to you but for me, it meant that I had to endure the heartbreak of removing Confessor Paletress and Kel'Thuzad, which left a scar that may never heal. :(
In reality, it means that we all have a simple deck-building challenge: What compromises can I afford to make in order to give me a chance to humiliate <insert hated deck here>.
Alternatively, just accept that x% of your games will be against this deck and write 'em off.
Yes, it would check before confirming the matchup with the other player. Matchup times could be an issue, so they might have to adjust the mmr range when queuing, which wouldn't be that difficult. The way that it could improve deck building is simple. Player "A" playing archetype "X" would ban the card from their worst match up from archetype "Y"? If everyone playing archetype "X" did that, then it means that player "B" playing archetype "Y" would no longer be facing their best matchup, lowering their overall win rate. In order to change this, player "B" would have to figure out which card from archetype "Y" is getting banned and swap it, or simply accept that they will no longer face archetype "X". This would lower the win rates of tier 1 decks or decks which require oppressive build-around cards because they would no longer be facing their best matchups unless they swapped their best cards for something else or played another archetype entirely. On the other hand, you could hate losing to a certain tech card, so you could ban that tech card to improve your win rate, so it could balance out.
Right, so that player leaves out counter spell because they believe that is likely to be banned. Which it is, by 20% of the players they play against but what about the 10% who ban Reno? And the 5% who ban apprentice. The 13% who ban puzzle box and so on and so on.
You can't possibly ever account for that and the matchmaking woukd have to not only match two players but then scan both decks, find the banned card and then unmatch them and try again. And again. And again.
You seem to have massively over simplified this in your head and it honestly sounds like a logistical nightmare and appears to me that it would completely mess how constructed works up, not to mention whether the coding can even work that way.
If you've got a background in coding and development then please break down how it works because as a lay person, I can't see how that can work. Is it even able to match, scan both decks and then unmatch? Multiple times? I've heard of systems which can do this before and after but I don't know about it being intelligent enough to read multiple decks whilst the matchmaking is ongoing.
If you don't have any background in this type of thing then I'd question how you can say it 'it wouldn't be that difficult'. Will it not? How do you know?
I actually did graduate with a degree in computer science. It is not that much data to sift. For each matchup, you'd have to do a simple "for loop" statement for 60 data points. A computer can check 60 data points in nanoseconds, basically instantaneously. It would not be a big deal for 100s or even thousands of this loop to be running at once. Code would look something like this, and then do it for each players' deck.
Boolean mathchup = true; //True false statement
For (int count = 0; count < 30; count++) { //loop which starts with 0 and goes up to 29, # of cards in a deck
if (BannedCard A =/= DeckB(count) { //this checks the card in player B's deck at the current spot in the iteration
continue; } //continues through the deck if it's not found at that spot
else {
matchup = false; //if the banned card is found at the current spot, it will proceed to the next player
break; }
Once the code completes, it would have a boolean (true/false statement) on whether the matchup was valid. It could do this check in less than a second easily.
If you don't believe me, here is a link comparing how fast code can run different scripts. The code is much harder to understand if you don't have a cs background though, but the millions of times per second should be convincing enough.
One second code: Do YOU know how much your computer can do in a second? (computers-are-fast.github.io)
If there was an option to ban a class or card I would definitely use it.
However, strong tech cards can probably achieve the same result.
Something as simple as healbot could really help vs. All the rogues for instance.
Defile could help vs those wide boards.
Dirty Rat would be a welcome addition to folks trying to combat combo decks.
There is a ton the devs could do to help deckbuilders find answers, but they choose not to do so.
I think the only meta they want to see is aggro/midrange vs. Aggro/midrange. And if multiple classes have good aggro/midrange decks they think they have achieved class balance.
Galavant Animation
What he's proposing is definitely possible. Consider this:
Each player queues with a deck. Each deck has a class attached (which has an unique id behind the scenes). Each card also has an unique id.
Comparisons would be quite fast since each deck is basically a dictionary containing a class id and a list of 30 card ids. Comparing one id to 30 others takes a fraction of a second (especially if those ids are numbers). In most cases it wouldn't even get to this, since the first comparison is the deck's class to the card's class (with the exception of neutrals).
Thus, if card == neutral OR card.class == opponent.deck.class, start comparing to see if the deck contains the banned card. Else, start the match.
Also, consider the fact that we don't see what happens when the stupid matchmaking wheel spins. At most, it would add a few dozen seconds to the queue WHEN too many players are using your banned card (and at most 1 second otherwise).
Similarly, you assumed the deck containing your banned card gets removed from your temporary queue and the matchmaking is restarted. What if this is all changed to a "start of game" effect, in which the opponent gets that card removed from his deck?
There are a lot of ways to improve the queue times if needed (like quickly getting a matching list of several players by mmr, then checking their decks to see if one is eligible to not have the banned card; the numbers of matched players from the list could change depending on certain conditions, like total online players, too, to further improve queue times).
Now, the reason this nor something similar is ever gonna get done by blizzard is because they gain nothing out of it. Nothing. If you think they give a shit about your enjoyment of the game and not the "potential" money you could be giving them (even in the future), you're delusional.
Moreover, they knowingly print retarded cards to force things in a certain direction. Why would they allow us to ban exactly those cards?! I mean, it's been clear for a few years that they have no clue how to think up a proper design for the game, which doesn't revolve around powercreeping. Nor do they have any incentive to do it, since few people care about it anyway, while the others happily spend their money on the game.
All in all, it's a nice thought, definitely possible (technically), but there is no monetary incentive to do it. Quite the opposite, based on their design patterns and abilities.
And that is why we can't have (most) nice things.
Personally I wish they would just include a side board. So you pick a 28 card deck and then choose 4 other cards which you can rotate in or out before each game, totalling 30 cards.
Heh, yeah. That pretty much sums it up. :)
This request has been proposed in the past. The problem with it of course is it makes the game even more difficult to balance than it already is for the development team. If a specific deck/class is such a hard counter for someone then it's likely healthy for game balance that there is always a risk someone will be matched against that deck/class.
They can't cuz priest would have 17 hour ques and only get to play mirrors.