In tonight's Hearthstone AMA from Hearthstone Dad, Dean Ayala, we've learned of a new system that is "very likely to happen" as a sort of test.
- The team has a couple of ideas for limited-time systems changes - probably 2-4 weeks long.
- One idea is to let players ban a class on the ladder.
- This would require changes to UI and server-side which involves multiple teams.
- The impact of such a change is very complex. Its possible that we could find out the game is more fun with it.
- None of this is currently in development but it is "very likely to happen".
With nothing planned for the immediate future, we ask you: Would you be interested in this as a temporary change? What other limited-time changes would you like to see?
Quote From Dean Ayala
@IksarHS Have you ever considered adding a class ban option to the ladder to increase diversity of deck viability? Like you won't match against selected class. Competitive HS feels more balanced when watching as they can ban the opponent's decks that counter their own selected decks.
@grizzlebees Yes, and I'd actually like to try it for a limited time. There is significant meta impact at the high level with something like this, though. Many decks have only 1-2 counters so the best overall deck probably isn't the best deck in a ban format. (Source)
@grizzlebees We have a couple ideas for limited-time system changes. This is one of them. Will probably try for a 2 week or month long time period. It's possible that we'll find out the game is just more fun this way. (Source)
@grizzlebees But like I said, the impact is quite complex. Not something currently in dev but I'd put it on the list of very likely to happen. Need UI and server side matchmaking changes, both teams are booked pretty solid with work atm. (Source)
Feels like a lot of dev work required from multiple teams for a "limited-time change"
I wonder what would happen when there is an overpowered deck and everyone bans the same class. Would people playing that class be stuck in the queue for minutes? I guess that would encourage them to play something else though, so maybe it's not so bad.
I'd rather ban a card than a class though. For example, in Wild I'd gladly ban Secret Mage or Big Priest, but I have no issue playing against other Mage or Priest decks.
That's actually a really interesting approach - it wouldn't cut out entire classes but you could eliminate the most tilting match-ups - like a control deck could ban cards like Demonseed without eliminating cubelock from showing up.
Directly messing with Standard ladder, even for a limited time, is a terrible idea. People have been asking for a tournament mode forever, and then I finally started playing Runeterra a couple weeks ago, and Gauntlets are exactly what Hearthstone needs. You could argue that it's similar to ranked, but it's a very different experience. Basically pick three decks, you and your opponent ban one, and then first to win with their remaining two decks advances to another match sort of like Arena. The more you win, the more XP you get, and some of them can even qualify you for official tournaments. Hearthstone is such an amazing game engine, but I feel like they're really behind the curve on what they could be doing with it. I know LoR gameplay isn't for everyone (I usually prefer Hearthstone), but their game client, game modes, rewards, and cosmetics are superior. What Team 5 should do is mess with Wild ladder. Rotate the legal Wild card pool every two months. It doesn't need to be every card every printed all at the same time. They could balance the mode without changing individual cards. Simply don't allow certain combos depending on the rotation.
Honestly that would be the laziest solution ever.
Team 5 needs to own up to the fact the Hearthstone is a PVP game, not PVE and balance the game accordingly.
And in the end, control is still dead. Now you can pick your flavour of how you want to die: Warlock or Mage
Its an interesting concept in theory, but in practice means not only do you need to balance and design around 9 classes, there's now an added consideration of possible bans strats. Its just adding more work for very little benefit.
There's also the problem that the experience will be very much linear for certain classes. The current most hated class right now is likely either warlock or mage, so does that mean most of the time the two classes will simply be a mirror match? Just think of the barrens meta. How many players will actually genuinely match against a priest, if a ban was possible? Chances are priest will eternally be matched up either against spell mage, deathrattle decks, control warrior, or a mirror match. Why'd anyone even want to play priest at all then?
Not exactly excited about this. Though I really wish I can just ban mage out of my experience right now, I'd much rather the devs just balance the game rather than hand me a couple of blinders.
Beyond how this will affect which deck is most popular, I wonder how this will be implemented for more casual folks. While Team 5 is always talking about reducing complexity, this change might would make the Standard ladder feel too 'serious' for some folks.
Perhaps it would only be available after Diamond 10 or Legend? Perhaps it would be opt-in?
Shadowverse has a pane of stats and other such things that only appears once one has reached Grandmaster (Legend, basically). Perhaps something similar - reaching Legend unlocks a new pane that can be opened from the matchmaking screen, with additional options and beta features.
I'm curious whether this will happen, and how it will if it does.
Woh, I don't know how I feel about this. One the one hand, the last time I actually was able to 'ban' something was Heroes of the Storm, and Warcraft 3 (ban maps).
I think on the one hand, banning helps you overcome "meta favorites". (In HOTS during it's peak, banning usually meants you banned some of the meta favorites, in order to create a more diverse environment). On the other hand, banning in Hearthstone is not a team endeavor, so I don't know how I'd feel about being able to ban one deck.
I feel like this will just polarize the meta more, but most importantly add an extra layer of complication that really doesn't need to be added.