This topic comes up from time to time and I always find it fascinating that people think it "can never work" when it demonstrably has worked in several games with ranked ladders before.
Like... "oh no, some decks are designed to be balanced around having 1 weakness. If we let them ban that weakness, they'll have absurd winrates" is such level 1 thinking when it comes to ban systems.
When StarCraft II implemented a ban system for their map selection, you know what people moaned about?
"Oh, terran is broken on Y map because of the island expansion, they're gonna ban every other map to queue into that map exclusively"
Well guess what happened? Zerg and Protoss saw the exact same data and just banned the map Terran was broken on, forcing Terrans on that map to play mirror matches, forcing the map to become a 50/50 coinflip, and therefore not at all desirable for Terrans to actually queue into.
Surprisingly, banning maps/classes is one of those self-correcting systems as far as meta balance.
This topic comes up from time to time and I always find it fascinating that people think it "can never work" when it demonstrably has worked in several games with ranked ladders before.
Like... "oh no, some decks are designed to be balanced around having 1 weakness. If we let them ban that weakness, they'll have absurd winrates" is such level 1 thinking when it comes to ban systems.
When StarCraft II implemented a ban system for their map selection, you know what people moaned about?
"Oh, terran is broken on Y map because of the island expansion, they're gonna ban every other map to queue into that map exclusively"
Well guess what happened? Zerg and Protoss saw the exact same data and just banned the map Terran was broken on, forcing Terrans on that map to play mirror matches, forcing the map to become a 50/50 coinflip, and therefore not at all desirable for Terrans to actually queue into.
Surprisingly, banning maps/classes is one of those self-correcting systems as far as meta balance.
You May have a Point concerning the self correction of such a system. As I also speculated in an earlier Post, I think the Meta would quickly rebalance around the knew conditions. But would it actually solve OPs original Problem? For him/her it was not about the Balance, He Just doesnt want to Play against certain Decks (mainly Long attrition Battles).If you believe the post, no matter even If it was a good matchup. But with 10 classes and so many cards in wild and 1 Ban, I think there will Always be room for such Decks in different classes, and you endup cueing into Others Decks which you then realise you also find tidious to Play against.
When StarCraft II implemented a ban system for their map selection, you know what people moaned about?
"Oh, terran is broken on Y map because of the island expansion, they're gonna ban every other map to queue into that map exclusively"
Well guess what happened? Zerg and Protoss saw the exact same data and just banned the map Terran was broken on, forcing Terrans on that map to play mirror matches, forcing the map to become a 50/50 coinflip, and therefore not at all desirable for Terrans to actually queue into.
Are you saying it'd be good for the game because it would force players who want to play a particular strong class to either stop playing the class they want or to play nothing but mirror matches?
Hearthstone doesn't have maps, so there's no equivalent of letting you continue to play who you want but only where it's fair to do so. The Hearthstone version would just that Druid (for example) gets banned and now if you want to play druid you're only going to play other druids 'forcing the [game] to become a 50/50 coinflip.' Though it's only a coin flip in the same way that chess is a coin flip.
As you said yourself, from the point of view of the person affected, that's:
not at all desirable
Also:
Surprisingly, banning maps/classes is one of those self-correcting systems as far as meta balance.
I don't think that's surprising. Forcing mirror matches would be the single best thing the devs could do for balance. Make it so that every class can only play against itself. Suddenly every class has a flat 50% win rate across the board. Doing it for just the outliers takes the least balanced classes and makes them the most balanced classes.
Terrible for player experience though.
No.
I'm saying the sorts of people who jump in and say "NEVAR! IT AM BE BROKEN AND UNBALANCED" are demonstrably wrong.
When I use words like "desirable" I mean for winrates - obviously, if winrates are not what you're looking for, me saying "X is more desirable for Y" has no bearing. Like if someone was discussing Warlock winrates and then brought up that Ignite was a card that felt bad to play against - both may technically be true, but they are non sequitors of each other.
As for game feel and how "the person affected" experiences it... have you considered that would be pretty easy to avoid just by changing your ban selection to your own class?
Heck, I remember wanting to ban Rogue back in Witchwood... not because of any impalance or being OP issues, but because old thief rogue cards cared about your opponents class, not "from another class". I wanted to use fun random cards, but couldn't get any of the cool synnergies in the rogue mirror.
In what world are you facing and losing to Questline priest in Wild? Seems like the most ridiculous thing you can complain about as most every playable deck can beat it consistently in Wild.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just for the sake of complete info, what class do you play?
EU 11/2015+ , f2p 03/2021+: DK 63 / DH 205 /Dr 277 / Hu 733 / Ma 6666 / Pa 1072 / Pr 1165 / Ro 1791 / Sh 1303 / Wl 707 / Wr 664
This topic comes up from time to time and I always find it fascinating that people think it "can never work" when it demonstrably has worked in several games with ranked ladders before.
Like... "oh no, some decks are designed to be balanced around having 1 weakness. If we let them ban that weakness, they'll have absurd winrates" is such level 1 thinking when it comes to ban systems.
When StarCraft II implemented a ban system for their map selection, you know what people moaned about?
"Oh, terran is broken on Y map because of the island expansion, they're gonna ban every other map to queue into that map exclusively"
Well guess what happened? Zerg and Protoss saw the exact same data and just banned the map Terran was broken on, forcing Terrans on that map to play mirror matches, forcing the map to become a 50/50 coinflip, and therefore not at all desirable for Terrans to actually queue into.
Surprisingly, banning maps/classes is one of those self-correcting systems as far as meta balance.
You May have a Point concerning the self correction of such a system. As I also speculated in an earlier Post, I think the Meta would quickly rebalance around the knew conditions. But would it actually solve OPs original Problem? For him/her it was not about the Balance, He Just doesnt want to Play against certain Decks (mainly Long attrition Battles).If you believe the post, no matter even If it was a good matchup. But with 10 classes and so many cards in wild and 1 Ban, I think there will Always be room for such Decks in different classes, and you endup cueing into Others Decks which you then realise you also find tidious to Play against.
No.
I'm saying the sorts of people who jump in and say "NEVAR! IT AM BE BROKEN AND UNBALANCED" are demonstrably wrong.
When I use words like "desirable" I mean for winrates - obviously, if winrates are not what you're looking for, me saying "X is more desirable for Y" has no bearing. Like if someone was discussing Warlock winrates and then brought up that Ignite was a card that felt bad to play against - both may technically be true, but they are non sequitors of each other.
As for game feel and how "the person affected" experiences it... have you considered that would be pretty easy to avoid just by changing your ban selection to your own class?
Heck, I remember wanting to ban Rogue back in Witchwood... not because of any impalance or being OP issues, but because old thief rogue cards cared about your opponents class, not "from another class". I wanted to use fun random cards, but couldn't get any of the cool synnergies in the rogue mirror.
Again - ban systems are self correcting.
In what world are you facing and losing to Questline priest in Wild? Seems like the most ridiculous thing you can complain about as most every playable deck can beat it consistently in Wild.