I think people that say having a ban list in Wild is counter productive have never played in Wild when it was dominated by one deck to the point where you could not even play anything else. Star Aligner Druid is a great example. There was a time when Druid was so strong if you queued anything else, you lost. Is that healthy for wild?
Short term balance is not the same thing as long term health.
If you banned every deck except exactly Firebat Undertaker Hunter (circa 2015), you'd definitely have a balanced game mode since everybody would be playing the same cards, but that wouldn't be healthy for the game mode long term, since people would get bored/frustrated rather quickly and leave.
The same thing is about to happen in 3 months when half of Warlocks banned list is up for rotation: somebodies favorite card will just not be playable (either because the effects are wildly altered or they stay banned) because the effects themselves are unhealthy for Wild - numbers be damned. Then those players will get frustrated that they can't play the deck/card they want to, and leave.
Also, your example is terrible because Star Aligner druid didn't fall out of favor because of any bans - it fell out of favor because parts of the combo were nerfed into the ground. See again: nerfs retain the functionality of the card (even if the numbers change), where bans will unanimously require functionality changes.
I've said this before but I'm of the opinion that having a banlist *at all* in Wild runs counter to the goals of the game mode.
The devs (specifically, Dean Alaya) have said that one of the underlying goals of Wild is that players are able to play their old Standard decks even after they've rotated - the individual cards may be buffed or nerfed, and the decks may lose viabiity over time as a consequence of those buffs/nerfs and overall power creep, but the core functionality of those decks will be preserved.
A lot of the "card is functionally changed forever" things they've done in Wild were for dealing with things that were never possible in Standard, and didn't disrupt any of the combos that actually saw play in those Standard decks (for example, the Echo nerf), or were reverting changes that ruined a previous Standard decks core gameplay (Warsong Commander +1 attack).
Banning a card from wild - even for a week - just flat out contradicts that goal, since it means for however long that card is banned, you aren't able to play that historic deck. Just think about the people who want to play Patron Warrior who just *couldn't* because Death Knight had an infinite combo that ate players turn timers? It sucks, and I'm glad they can play their deck again (even if it isn't viable)
Yes. I know they've banned a *bunch* of cards from Wild since for power level reasons: I think that doing so in the first place is fundamentally contrary to the purpose of the format and only raises questions of what other format goals are being actively disregarded because it's inconvenient.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Short term balance is not the same thing as long term health.
If you banned every deck except exactly Firebat Undertaker Hunter (circa 2015), you'd definitely have a balanced game mode since everybody would be playing the same cards, but that wouldn't be healthy for the game mode long term, since people would get bored/frustrated rather quickly and leave.
The same thing is about to happen in 3 months when half of Warlocks banned list is up for rotation: somebodies favorite card will just not be playable (either because the effects are wildly altered or they stay banned) because the effects themselves are unhealthy for Wild - numbers be damned. Then those players will get frustrated that they can't play the deck/card they want to, and leave.
Also, your example is terrible because Star Aligner druid didn't fall out of favor because of any bans - it fell out of favor because parts of the combo were nerfed into the ground. See again: nerfs retain the functionality of the card (even if the numbers change), where bans will unanimously require functionality changes.
I've said this before but I'm of the opinion that having a banlist *at all* in Wild runs counter to the goals of the game mode.
The devs (specifically, Dean Alaya) have said that one of the underlying goals of Wild is that players are able to play their old Standard decks even after they've rotated - the individual cards may be buffed or nerfed, and the decks may lose viabiity over time as a consequence of those buffs/nerfs and overall power creep, but the core functionality of those decks will be preserved.
A lot of the "card is functionally changed forever" things they've done in Wild were for dealing with things that were never possible in Standard, and didn't disrupt any of the combos that actually saw play in those Standard decks (for example, the Echo nerf), or were reverting changes that ruined a previous Standard decks core gameplay (Warsong Commander +1 attack).
Banning a card from wild - even for a week - just flat out contradicts that goal, since it means for however long that card is banned, you aren't able to play that historic deck. Just think about the people who want to play Patron Warrior who just *couldn't* because Death Knight had an infinite combo that ate players turn timers? It sucks, and I'm glad they can play their deck again (even if it isn't viable)
Yes. I know they've banned a *bunch* of cards from Wild since for power level reasons: I think that doing so in the first place is fundamentally contrary to the purpose of the format and only raises questions of what other format goals are being actively disregarded because it's inconvenient.