How about the ability to ban one class when playing standard (ranked) or even casual?
Would allow less frustration and non games from hard countered matchups, and would allow players to avoid some cards that would otherwise make them scream “nerf so and so”.
It should be easier than actually nerfing all the recommended cards for the hearthstone devs to just allow a class to be banned when queing for a match.
And probably make player base happier and play more.
This will never happen.
You also can’t listen to everyone who screams about any given card because a heavy portion of the time they just don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. There was a post a while back about fing Luckysoul Hoarder. Tickatus didn’t get them, but Luckysoul Hoarder did. Listening to these voices is a waste of time.
The lead designer, Iksar, was interviewed and asked that question by GetMeowth in the State of Wild podcast, 2-3 weeks ago.
They said they didn’t like that as a permanent feature of Hearthstone, but it’s something they could do as a temporary thing. Which sounds like a possible Tavern Brawl.
No. Too many problems.
Too many of the same problems, packed together with a bunch of new ones. Bad Idea.
This is one of those things that sounds like it would be better than it actually would be.
Yes, it might seem amazing to be able to ban one of your worst/most disliked matchups.
But it’s harder to imagine how you’re going to feel when many of your good matchups ban you.
Overall, I expect that introducing a ban system would actually make the ladder feel less diverse and more frustrating, since you’d be matched with a narrower range of classes based both on what you ban and who bans your class. And because all your remaining matchups would likely be on average closer to even, more of them would feel really consequential, i.e. more pressure all the time.
Finally, it would also be bad for players who really like building their own decks. Because suddenly their matchups would be warped by which meta decks from the class they’re interested in building are most likely to attract bans. They wouldn’t be as able to build for what their goals are, since they’d be forced to account for what that class’s popular meta deck(s) are going to do to their potential range of opponents.
hearthstone is a game the lets you play a lot of different classes, and you want to remove the ability for players to play the class they want?
the only way a ban system would make sense is if the ladder was a bo3 with 3 different decks and each player bans one deck for their opponent
How would it make the player base happier when you start introducing decks with less counters on the ladder?
Priest banning Warlock for example means Warlock just doesn’t exist ever because that’s one of the few classes/decks they can actually counter. Even then there are Priests that find ways to get past Warlock.
We’ve had quite a few decks with high winrates against most other decks. Being able to remove one hard counter just makes them even more polarizing.
I don’t think having a ban feature would be healthy for the game, being able to ban your worst matchup would just make queue times longer and warp the meta without really improving gameplay.
Decks are balanced on the basis that every so often you will face your nemesis, remove that and you’d have to rebalance every class. I think people imagine ‘if I could only ban Priest/Warrior/Warlock I would have a 70% winrate!’ But in reality everyone would have a ban, and everyone can’t have a 70% winrate in a pvp game, so something has to give.
Now a tournament mode with deck choices and bans, that could work, but not for general ladder play.
This constantly gets brought up, and it will never stop being a bad idea. Some people don’t seem to realise that they should have some bad matchups, that’s the whole idea behind balance. If a deck is obviously out of line and has no clear counters, that’s when nerfs or buffs need to come in.
As pointed out, when everyone bans his deck’s worst matchup we’d be back to square one, but with less decks in play: You not only lose your worst but also best matchups, since those prospective opponents will prob. ban your class. 
As for the issue itself, my magic scrying glass (top secret, upper right corner, DON’T tell anyone!) brought up similar groundbreaking ideas within recent time.
May you Live in interesting times.
I think that I should be able to ban anyone smarter than me.
This is offensive to ban players!
feel casual standard would work but not for Rank that to much power because someone could stack odds in favor of their deck
It sounds great but priests would play mirror matches only
Imagine the queue time for priest players. 
No ban required when you learn how to counter.
Wanna really know the problem here?
People have some idiotic complex where they think that there is really something to be learned playing stupid stuff like 90/10 matchups.
And the reality is that there isn’t.
EVEN if you win said type of matchup it only gonna mean that you highrolled so hard that isn’t even funny because only piloting your deck at it’s best still not gonna win that type of matches.
That to not say we have tons of problems with balance that would in fact be solved with bans.
We would finnaly be able to stop balance the game on perceived power and start balance it on facts.
Letting the bans take care of the first.
That to not talk about reducing the number of polarized matchups , making the game a little more like it’s e-sports scene and even opening space for different decks that would never be able to be played without bans.
Yes. Eliminate Best and Worst matchups and there will be actual gameplay, not a matchmaking contest. 90/10 matchups are not games.
Banning would not be to improve winrate, but to remove non-games.
What people that want a banning system don’t consider is that the people they beat will also ban him.
Let’s say there are 5 decks.
You are the deck number 1. 2,3 beats you while you are able to beat 4,5. You ban 2 but 4,5 also ban you so you don’t beat them. In conclusion, most of the games you will be against 3 that was anyway in favour against you, so sure you were able to ban 2 but you’re against 3 anyway and the problem is that now you’re 70% of games against 3.
Yes, it might work in the begginers elo where they would ban randomly, but in pro play for sure people ban the counters.
The decks you are talking about are not played because they are bad. Not because they are countered, it’s just because they are bad.
Nobody gonna go meme murloc priest just because they are gonna be against their second-counter 70% of games.