no one is being punished. if people dont want to play againt your favorite deck, its not a punishment for you, anymore then its a punishment to make them. why should people be forced to play againt decks that ruin the meta. which was clealry the case sense they nerf quest rogue on 3 different occasions. you know in real life people refuse to play againt people all the time and magic the gather still exist.
Why do you think ban class = not being allowed to play this class. Banning a class is not the same as a forum ban.
Rogues for example? And that is if we keep with your simplified illustration.
Because if you happen to be playing a popular class that receives a ton of hate for that meta, your pool of available opponents will be reduced and likely result in higher queue times, even if you aren’t playing the hated deck for said class. It’s not as if everyone that didn’t ban your particular class can always provide the same level of availability.
Next, it would allow decks to climb far more easily by banning their worst or most popular counter. That doesn’t mean there arent others, but you cannot tell me this doesn’t immediately give someone a big advantage by altering their personal meta experience to fit what they want to see.
exactly why players should have the option to ban. if you dont like bans dont ban.
In a casual setting? Sure. In a competitive setting? No. You can’t sign up for an FNM tournament and say up front “Yeah, I don’t want to play against Simic Nexus tonight. If you don’t mind changing the structure of the entire tournament so that I could avoid playing against that deck, that’d be great”.
It’s another subject altogether if you’re playing kitchen table-style MtG with no stakes available. If you’re part of a group and one person plays a deck that no one else enjoys, then it’s on them to either change their deck or find a new group. In this sense, implementing a class ban in Casual for HS would be fine in my book. On Ranked though, where stars are on the line? No.
and it been repeated serval times they could just do it in casual.
I really don’t care if they implemented it in Casual.
It will likely reduce in higher queue times, but not necessarily. For ranked (which I think only takes into account your rank from rank 20 upwards) there shouldn’t be any difference.
Legend might be troublesome, yes. Though there are ways to combat that as they do with Overwatch with role lock.
It’s also not really true that decks can climb more easily by banning their worst counter, since decks queuing against such a deck also are sharper, since they did not ban the first deck. So I probably would tell you that it doesn’t immediately give someone a big advantage by altering their personal meta experience? Balance would be different. Not necessarily better or worse.
if only hearthsone had some sort of casual mode
So… We agree? Not sure where you’re going with the sarcasm. You’ve never explicitly stated that you’re in support of implementing this in Casual-only, Ranked + Casual, etc. My post was to help clarify the comparison to MtG.
Ignoring the subjectivity of this statement, the no-class-ban state of the game is achieved naturally.
Fixing your ladder experience artificially just to swing the pendulum the way you like it is the instance that needs justification:
Playing against them is a naturally part of the game, artificially fixing matchmaking to impair their matchmaking is punishment BEYOND just a bad matchup. That’s an artificial consequence.
So perpetual mirrors are an acceptable scenario for you? Nonsense.
class bans in tournaments make more sense because people only bring one deck per class, extending it to ladder like that makes no sense
so you cant read or do you just like to argue?
No. If you want to play some op tier 1 netdeck I have every right to face you with my hard-counter. That’s how meta balancing works. If we would have your big “choose what you want to face”-fiesta, some classes would be literally unuseable.
1 Like
its been literally said by me and someone else several times.
for example. It wouldn’t be much worse than the first weeks of Rise of Shadows. And people would only continue to ban Rogue, if a lot of people continued to play Rogue. It’s not at all as you claim.
I stress again: Your scenario does not reflect reality.
Edit: If more than half the classes ban, let’s say, Rogue. Maybe Rogue is a problem?
1 Like
And to be fair, there has been no arguments given to support banning that reflect reality.
If more than 30% of people play rogue to begin with. Maybe rogue is a problem?
The argument is that you don’t have to play your least liked matchup? And that would make a lot of people happy. I think this needs no proof: You ban a class → You don’t get matched against that class. While the counter argument that you have 10h queue times or only mirrors is rather far-fetched.
Rogue is a problem 
You’ve implied that it could be implemented in Casual, but haven’t gone so far as to separate Casual and Ranked. Similarly, a lot of people have been talking about the topic of implementing this on Ranked as per OP and assumed (based on your posts defending the topic) that you were also defending the implementation of this on ladder. There’s just been a miscommunication between players here. I think, strangely, most of us are can agree on the subject outside of the OP.
Kitchen-table paper CCGs are a pretty good example that reflects reality, at least to a degree that justifies using a Class/deck/card ban system in Casual.
They actually reflect friendly matches. Casual in HS is still a system controlled by a computer in massive scale. (And just to be clear I’m not super against this in casual, I’m just stating that it’s not really comparable.)
3 Likes
Kinda tells it self if you remove one class completely you will have a smaller pool of opponents and decks you may face. And with the ban in place the decks that has your deck as their worst matchup has mostly likely banned you aswell.
So the meta for you will be more stale its not a false statement its simple MATH. Learn it and you may see things from a different perspective.