Duelyst Forums

DeathsAdvocate's Potential Community Run Ban List


#61

I think that in banning Kha and Rae, we’d only be ignoring the actual main problem with Vetruvian decks at the moment which is Fault. Rae only gains its power from fault, and although Kha is quite a good card, it’s tiers higher than it should be only because of Fault. I think Kha and Rae can remain unbanned if we instead just ban Fault. Of all the Vetruvian decks I’ve seen posted on different forums and the discord, not all of them have Kha, not all of them have Rae, but every single one has Fault.

As for other classes, I think Crescent spear is a good ban for Songhai, or, as a substitute ban, Lantern Fox. I also think that Flamewreath is incredibly good at what it does but as it’s Kaleos’ main theme, I don’t think that would be a good idea to ban.

As for magmar, I think a ban of either Flash or Makantor would help diversify the decklists in that class.

For neutral, the only other thing I can think of would be a ban of Celebrant to indirectly nerf golem builds and Vetruvian’s infamous “Golem Pack”, as well as to tone down ramp decks in general. I’d suggest a ban of Metallurgist instead, but I think as it’s the true core to most golem decks it would be too hurtful to remove it.


#62

As far as actually enforcing this ban list – I don’t think it’s a possibility. This would merely be an opt-in rule set for players who wanted to participate and/or give themselves a challenge for the season’s climb. If people in the top 50 decided to not participate, or stop participating half way through, it would be entirely up to them, and shouldn’t make them less respected as players. I think monitoring the community and watching every replay to make sure people weren’t “cheating” would be quite Orwellian and honestly a waste of time. In the end, if people want to do something like this, they can make the decision to challenge themselves on their own. Announcing that it’s the only thing that any given player should be allowed to play, as dictated by “the committee” is way too oppressive for a game whose community is already shrinking.


#63

where do you get this info? i’m kinda curious, because no one really seems unpleased, unless i am misinterpreting the complaining as jokes. I personally am not really bothered by the state of the game.


#64

There’s little for me to add that hasn’t already been said. But since I was mentioned directly in the OP I’ll give my 2 cents anyway.

Enforcing bans for a tournament is plausible since it’s entirely community run and everyone there has to agree to them to play in it. For ladder it’s pretty much unreasonable, and even if the idea of not accepting lists to the community collected top 50 is interesting I’m certainly not interested in policing it. Additionaly it’s exclusionary, as it’d be pretty easy for someone to miss the memo or simply ignore it. If Abjudicator got ‘banned’ I’d probably still play it, because my enjoyment is more important than any prestige left in the game. Also, please bear in mind the last couple top 50s have already sat at only around 50% of people’s list collected. You could cut that by a lot by excluding even more people off it, just doesn’t feel good to me. A returning or new player being told they didn’t do it ‘properly’ so we won’t share their achievement is not what I want to be doing.

But let’s say that it was to happen, you’d want it to be as few cards as possible. You want to keep it as close to the real game as possible. You’d also want only the ones that were most agreed upon and not any that were contentious. One thing I learned from the Power Rankings is everyone disagrees about what’s good and what’s bad. Like a lot. I think you’re seeing that here and in reaction to your previous fanmade balance patch. Plus not everyone likes being told different, even when it’s specifically told as mere opinion that they can ignore. Why the fuck would anyone listen to us trying to dictate down to them what they can and can’t play?

Your heart is in the right place and I know you care deeply about the game, but I feel that even trying this would not bring people together, but shard people even more. We’d all like to enjoy the game as long as possible, so I really respect that you’re trying to come up with workable solutions, I simply don’t foresee any consensus on this.

It is an interesting discussion though, so if anyone did want to know what my shitty opinion is then imo: Flash, Rae & Ragnora (yeah just that whole character) and I’d be happy enough to discuss it further.


#65

ragnora wouldn’t be a problem if the rippers weren’t eggs, and didn’t have rebirth, and abjudicator enables decks like hatefurnace, where they wouldn’t work at all/ very much without it. imo, this ban list isn’t going to help, but it is a noble cause. Thx for trying, it is appreciated. it just kinda sounds like Communism with the people thinking they have a voice, but the “nobles”, or committee are the only ones with a vote (that is meant to be taken as a joke). i don’t think it really is worth all the extra work.


#66

they all left long ago


#67

In the light of our yesterday’s discussion and what I also said here before, my picks on Abyssian would probably not make it to a final poll for the ban list as this should be as small as possible, and priority should be given to those absolute wrong cards that are causing, so to say, the most troubles.

Still, even if I share what you say about the functioning of the deck depending highly on how you draw, I stand on my ground and I agree with @eurasianjay on the whole Xor archetype being incredibly unfun deck to play against, especially for the newer players who approach the game and encounter this archetype.


#68

@mrmana3

I fully intended on it being a long term committee where we vote monthly just like with the power rankings.

Certainly new top decks will arise, but we can have, and have had in the past, top decks that are not extra unfun nor cause a rock paper scissors effect. There is not anything wrong with there being strong or top decks, only when they are polarizing and unfun.

A lot of games have a shared casual/ranked ladder. In theory I would think the most competitive folks would adhere so if you are not running into them, you can probably handle more casual folks playing banned cards. But yea it would be unfortunate if half of the top players did not get on board and you just ended up face checking fault/wanderer all day anyways. But I think that is a risk we need to be willing to take, and hopefully it will catch on more as time goes on.

Yea working for free sucks, but I think it would be less work then running tournaments or power rankings, all of which are things we were happy to do anyways.

@qaaz
That is the idea I hope it came across that way. It’s purely an opt in thing, and policing really wouldent need to be done as you would know who has opted in, and the others that opted in would report folks that did not follow and only then would it take a quick check. Plus I figure most that opted in would just follow the rule.

Then my hope would be it would catch on. It would make tournaments standardized, and the more people that opt in, the greater an effect it will have on the ladder, without bothering people that are not into it.

I had already added in banning fault instead of Kha/Rae or in addition to as an option.

I don’t like the thought of hitting faction staples, we really only want to hit specific problem cases like eggs in Magmar, Fault/kha/Rae in Vet, arcanyst/highrolls in Songhai, Tempo Burn Ziran in Lyonar, and of course Wanderer. As these are the actual thing causing the issues right now, not just popular general purpose cards.

But it looks like flash is so hated I might have to add it to the Vote list.

@niklaren
I hope to at least get this to take off for tournaments. The ladder aspect may be a pipe dream, but I would like to hope that it is possible. Anyone that “missed the memo” would not even be aware of said top fifty regulated ban list and would be completely unaffected. As its an opt in thing you are free to make that choice to keep playing with Abjudicator (a card I also like and run in many harmless decks, but one I recognize as a problem.) And we can still just post a top fifty list and just make the distinction between opt in folks and people who did not know.

I do agree we want it to be as few as possible. Currently I am forming a comprehensive list of options to vote on, in theory only a small handful of them would actually go. I am quite aware of how much folks disagree on the power rankings, and this is likely something folks will disagree on more, but the format we used to make the power rankings did an excellent job at representing a wide range of viewpoints and dealing with disagreements.

As for going after Rag that seems a bit extreme, if you are really serious about it I will add it to the list. While I disagree about flash as a stand alone, and am impartial about Rae that’s something that voting can sort out.

While there is a chance it may shard the players more, I think doing nothing is far worse.

@atheistmantis
This is not about banning unfun things, its about hitting problems. If we wanted to ban unfun things then 8gates, Mantra, and artifacthai would be at the top of the list leagues above Xor.


#69

Rag was a bit tongue in cheek, but you can’t ban ripper without banning rag :stuck_out_tongue:


#70

Plus the current way we do it let’s people see what I played anyway. Whenever the Jan top 50 comes out you’ll be able to look and see that I played Rampers Wake & Bangle-hai, and judge me yourself that I played unfun uninteractive decks in January. boo me. If anyone wanted to restrict themselves to not playing Wanderer & Fault for example they can do that anyway. I think you’re overestimating the influence and effect this would have.

I enjoy your optimism that Duelyst is just one community effort away from being fresh again, I agree we’re pretty close to a good meta, and that this one has lasted I guess 9ish months now and has people still enjoying it says at least some good things to how it is.

But I disagree when you say ‘doing nothing is far worse’.


#71

So we would not actually really have to change how the top fifty is gathered, we would just acknowledge the folks who opted in to following the ban list. And hopefully more will follow suit over time.

I do not think we are in a good meta. I think we are in the second worst meta of all time with some of the most polarizing, highrolly, meta restricting decks we have ever seen. Not to mention the nine month stagnation. Even the folks that are in the “Wander and Kha are ok and think the meta is alright” camp still have to acknowledge these decks, along side ziran and eggs, have stifled the meta for far to long. But I do think if we deal with those top four lists, and also possibly nip problems like adjudicator while we are at it, the meta would be in a great spot.

Start with standardizing tournaments, and with luck the ladder aspect will gain traction. Heck just having the top level folks testing for the standardized tournaments will already make a difference on the ladder, my hope is it will just continue to have a greater and greater effect on the ladder, especially if we add some incentive with the top fifty list.

Disagree or not the community is unhappy and dwindling, so I think it is at least worth the risk to try something ambitious rather then just let things continue to decline. I for one may be done with the ladder unless something changes, this is the first two seasons in years I have skipped.


#72

please cite your source


#73

Take a look at recent topics on forums/redit, as well as the decreased frequency of new posts. Rhacker was already proposing enforcing a ban list for his tournaments on the captains table of team wars. Decreased numbers can be seen with steam charts/longer que times/notable folks not playing much anymore, again less posts on forums/reddit, and the fact that we can not even get in touch/do not recognize half the people on the top fifty list. Plus a good chunk of the activity on this thread, and the fact that this thread even exists.

Citations are everywhere and readily available. And nit picking some of my less then perfect wording that has little baring on the topic its self is derailing the thread.


#74

any actual links that we can see? It sounds to me like it is just “cause i said so.” top 50 don’t have to be reachable, they may just want to play the game and not have to deal with other people. You created the post, and the tone doesn’t exactly sound so supportive. Longer que times would be due to a lack of sufficient server maintenance, and less post doesn’t mean anything. it could just be that people moved on to other games or have responsibilities irl. If it where just in team wars, that would be all well and good, but imposing it in ladder is not going to happen.

p.s. not meant to be an attack or offensive at all


#75

I’m confused now.
When you were replying to mrmana3 about the possibility of new top decks rising you said:

I thought your ban proposition was exactly aimed to find a solution for polarizing AND unfun decks, that’s why your list includes cards that are staples in them (Egg Morph/Inceptor for Rag, Kha for FaultVet, Beam/Vitriol for Healyonar).
My proposition is not different from yours in that sense, and as much as you may disagree, it has the same right to be considered.

I respect that you may have a different opinion about Xor/Aphotic/DFS, and I think you should feel free to call out 8gates, Mantra and a whole archetype (ArtifactHai) if you have a good argument for it.
Perhaps you could tell why you think my Abyss picks are not fitting the parameters.

Gotta say that between Xor and Aphotic I’d rather see the Mythron go, especially in the light of the other uses of Aphotic in other less popular archetypes.
But even though Xor is not AS popular, reliable, strong, tier valuable as Fault Zirix or Wanderer Ragnora, it definitely deserves to be taken in consideration for its impact especially in gold and diamond, where most of the average Dooly players are.


#76

Primary is Problems, tertiary is Unfun. If its a problem and unfun it definitely needs to go. If its a problem it likely needs to go. If it is just unfun then we are purely into opinion territory as what is fun to one may not be to another and vice versa. Since these are not things that are shaping the meta I do not think they warrant consideration for bans. For example I love playing as and against Xor.

That being said I did put them on the “watch list” because a good chunk of folks find them unfun, and if the other big decks go down and those rise and turn into problems, then perhaps they would be ban worthy.

The goal is to achieve balance and shake up the meta. And we want to make the smallest amount of changes possible to achieve that.


#77

Rae did nothing wrong


#78

I approve of the efforts to improve the game in the ways we can, but I have my doubts that most of the top players would just agree to stop playing certain cards on the ladder. I may be completely wrong, but I think there will always be people who will ignore such a banlist should it come to exist, and try to win using the strongest deck possible that is allowed in the game. The amount of players that promoted and played bugged decks in the past like DDOShai and 3xWanderer, justifying it by simply being available should already show that a honor system is unlikely to have much effect.

Banning cards for tournaments seems much more realistic but that obviously doesn’t change anything on the ladder.

Despite this post seeming discouraging, I want to say that I do support the idea of trying to improve the game. I just can’t exactly see this plan working properly.


#79

Ok, fair enough.
Since you are the promoter of this ban list idea I would suggest you to add to your original post a sketch with the parameters that we all should use to evaluate how a card could be considered ban-worthy.

Now that the thread is out and sparkled the conversation I think it’s time to give some more structure and organization to these thoughts, and come out with a common understanding on how this thing should be done concretely.

I mean, you did have explained and argued replying in the thread, but I’m talking about something more defining like:

  • How PROBLEMATIC a card is from 1 to 5?
  • How UNFUN a card is from 1 to 5?
  • How META WARPING a card/archetype is from 1 to 5?
  • How NEGATIVELY this card has CONTRIBUTED making players lose enthusiasm for Duelyst from 1 to 5?

Polls can be useful tools too. Just an idea.

I am still sceptical about the application and regulation of a ban list in ladder, but I agree it’s worth trying to work it out.


#80

Well again I am not really trying to poll the community just trying to gather the list from the community. The purpose of the thread is discussion, to gather a list, and to try and get the committee put together.

How the power rankings work is everyone gets the list of cards, and then they number them 1 to X of what they want to see go the most. Then we take the average result of all of those and that gives us a firm grasp of where stuff stands. All those people are going to rate the cards differently for different reason so polling exactly why I do not think would be that important.

Like I have done a couple times when people mentioned some things that seemed off the wall, I just asked them if they really thought it was a problem for the meta. If they said yes I added it, if they said no, I did not, and if they just said they really disliked it, I put it on the watch list.

I suppose I could expand on this a bit in the OP, but it is pretty long winded as it is. (I added some brief clarifications in the op.)