Duelyst Forums

DeathsAdvocate's Potential Community Run Ban List


#81

i agree with mantis. before ANYTHING gets banned, it should be agreed upon by the people playing in the tournament, it definitely shouldn’t be enforced in ladder. Like the rotation, it just limits the possibilities, and when you get used to not using a card, when it becomes available again you may just forget about it.


#82

wait, sandwhirl reader and lava lance?!?! why though?


#83

Not things I think belong there, but are things (Hacker is actually the one that wants to ban Lance) that others have mentioned. And as it’s a community generated list I added them.


#84

I’ll preface this post by saying that I am not a hardcore Duelyst player. I’ve played on and off for a few years, regularly get myself into gold and then a little further and very likely could make it into diamond and beyond but tend not to feel the need as I have other games I devote that time to. So take what I say with that in mind.

I agree with what some other’s have said in that this is probably not something that will overall be possible. It has too many moving parts and too much faith on individual people who don’t actually have any real reason to commit to it. That being said, I personally think it’s a great idea and would be more than willing to follow it should a consensus be reached.

I can’t speak for the experience in the upper ranks as I never really try to make it in, but as for the experience in the lower-mid levels of the game, which is where newer or more casual people will be mind you, the decks that I see as more of a problem are, as some people stated, the ones that are simply unfun or rather uninteractive to play against, primarily trial decks. I played one myself; I put together a neurolink vet trial list, played it for a little while, and then stopped when I saw how readily it crushed people who otherwise should have won. Was it fun to deal 36 damage in one turn? Sure. Did I actually enjoy those matches though? Not really. And it probably turned off some of those people in ladder who were likely not that experienced, or just liked to play more casually.

Of course, there’s counterplay to that deck. There’s counterplay to wanderer (sometimes). There’s counterplay to any deck out there. But I think the two main issues is that in order to counter some of the decks out there that are particularly strong right now, you’re unable to play against many other decks, so you choose one or the other. This is something that happens in all kinds of games. I don’t know if anyone here plays warhammer 40k, but currently, imperial knight lists are stomping all kinds of players. You can build a list to beat them, but then a lot of other lists will beat you. You could argue that’s how metas work, but it’s far too extreme in one direction.

The other issue is that not everyone even wants to play the counterplay deck/cards, or even necessarily has/is able to build them. Again, this is more of an issue for casual players, but it’s something that I think should be considered for the overall health of the game due to the fact that a game needs new players to grow, and no one is going to make it into those higher ranks if they keep getting crushed by the same 2-3 decks even after trying to find a way to beat that 4th oppressive deck.

This is why I agree with the ban list overall. Taking out something exceptionally prevalent like wanderer and fault I think are good ideas, but I also think a couple extra cards should be taken out that are not only exceptionally powerful but don’t allow for any sort of reasonable counter, such as flash. I think duelyst is at it’s best when you can feel comfortable making your own new deck with cards you may not always see or in combinations you don’t get often. I’ve tried several variations on vespyrs and love playing those decks, despite the many issues they have. I’m ok with not plowing my way through ladder with a vespyr deck if other people simply have better deck builds or are playing better than me. But when I run into the same Xor player who sits in the corner killing his own gor 10 times a turn while I sit there trying to actually maneuver around the board, it turns me off the game, even when I win.

This ended up very long winded and I think I lost my point, but tldr; I don’t think the banlist is going to really work overall, but I support it and would follow it if actually does get made, and am more than happy to add my own thoughts on it as a mid-level player rather than as a high-level player, which I think is an important perspective to have included in a game like this and with its current situation.

And as for what actual cards I think should go…personally, I think trials period should not be played except for maybe memeton, because of what I was saying before, there’s no real interaction between players, your opponent is just racing to drop their permanent effect that wins them the game a good amount of the time. But I understand some people enjoy those decks, so really just wanderer is the only one I actually think should go, not because of it’s strength alone, but because like you’ve said, it’s too prevalent and chokes the meta regardless of how much it may or may not be able to be countered.

I also agree that while there are some cards I would not mind seeing removed either due to rewarding uninteractivity (such as the necrotic sphere talk earlier in the thread) or because of oppressive prevalancy (if that’s a term?) like makantor, I do agree that the ban list should be incredibly small and only for cards that enable strong cards to be stronger. For fault, I think only rae needs to go, because realistically, why is anyone playing rae otherwise? Kha may be strong, but is at least a cool design and can allow other dervish focused decks to have a finisher. Same thing for fault; it is very strong, yes, but it is still a cool concept of a card that you can build a deck around. No one is using rae for anything other than fault decks.

I’ll think of more I’m sure but I feel like I should stop typing before this post loses even more of it’s train of thought.


#85

Thanks, I like your input, seems like we are largely on the same page.

I am going to nitpick the rae/fault/kha issue again though, as everyone always seems to miss the big picture and just likes to focus on the highroll Rae plays. And I think its really important.

Kha/Fault is the root of the problem, while rae makes it worse, rae can easily be replaced with reassemble, blood tear, or any other one drop. Meanwhile as long as Kha/Fault exist together stuff like Vaath, Artifacts, and similar will be pushed out of the meta, when they normally serve as an important check and balance. That’s what is actually choking the meta. Fault has counterplay, Kha does not.

Kha and Rae can go, Rae and Fault can go, just Kha or Fault can go, all three can go, or just banning Kha and Fault togeter is also fine. But just removing Rae will not help the meta much, it will just change how the deck plays a tiny bit.


#86

That’s a fair point, I don’t tend to think of how kha shapes other decks, more how it interacts with fault. I guess ultimately I’m biased toward Kha simply because I think it’s a very cool concept of a card. Personally I think if two of the three were to be removed, I’d rather see fault and rae go, which is because I honestly don’t really see kha outside of fault decks myself. I feel like the decks using kha could end up being more creative than decks using fault; at least with kha, you would need to setup a board first. It also adds to the dervish archetype, whereas fault is an “archetype” of 1 card.

You could argue that fault has more counterplay without kha around though however, and I would agree. In the end I would be ok with either but personally I would vote fault to go. And either way, rae could absolutely go, because seriously, who uses it for anything other than fault cheese? There’s very little reason to have it around otherwise.


#87

Except kha does have counterplay. I agree that fault +rae makes a lategame combo too midgame, and go with the rae tweak on the basis that 0 mana minions are fundamentally broken.

But Kha? Come now.

You Vaath? Cool. Don’t bbs unless your deck can aggro down that noob before 7. Plow your makantors into 4 attack minions or Rae to avoid mirage. Hold a rebuke or plasma for when fault comes down, and don’t spam it on curve like a noob unless a portal guardian is sniffing up your ass. You run a deck with removal, aoe, and heals up the ass. Things vet does not. Use them. Win. Unfavored matchups exist and they always will.

You Ziran? Cool. Don’t play lancer unless you’re confident you can kill before 7 and stop the ramp. Heal tiles erase poop tiles. You have heals and aoe up the ass, things vet does not. Use them. Win. Matchup is even, but you need to know it to push in your favor.

Best of luck, comrade.


#88

Not using Vaths BBs tends to be suicide as well, so you are damned if you do damned if you don’t. Ziran does have that option but it sure is awkward, and has pushed her into the far more toxic aggro shell compared to the traditional Midrange/control shell. The fact that it completely shuts out entire an entire general and archetypes, which are usually important for checks and balances, is not ok. Until Kha existed Vaath was top tier and helped kept the meta in check.

He has vanished now, when he was around Ziran and Rag had to be a lot more conservative in the deck building phase so they wouldent get shut down by Vath, meanwhile vet needed dispel or stuff like Aymara to keep Vaath in check, and Vaath struggled with artifacts. We actually had some pretty fair decks as each of them kept each other in check. Taking out a part of that equation is how we were left with this polarizing meta.

And again removing Rae would barely phase the deck at all. You can still do six mana faults with reassemble, and bloodtear Fault is almost as good.

Kha mixed with Fault is the problem. Rae won’t change that, it will weaken the deck slightly versus the other top decks, but it won’t release Khas polarizing stranglehold on the meta.

I don’t mind if Rae goes as well, and I think the happy compromise would be ban Rae, and ban Fault/kha together but not independently.


#89

Vaath has not vanished tbf. There were at least 4 last month in the top 50 alone. Hell, you could probably hit top 20 atm just by playing a normal vaath and conceding everytime you queued into fault lol.

He struggles with fault and even more so with artifact hai/vet(lol), but this handicap is compensated by the fact that he absolutely deletes so many other decks like any minion kaleos (10000IQ point-and-click removal on a deck with 0 4 attack minions), fast egg builds, many strategos builds, etc. All the formers come on top of having a favorable aggro reva mu, a common threat in this meta as well as an even mu vs most wanderers if you mix up the standard shell.


#90

I dunno. Reassemble fault decks sound a lot more tame to me. You don’t start with a free minion; your “free” minion costs 4 mana of setup at least. 4 mana can usually develop 3-4 extra bodies for vet thanks to the ramp of metallurgist and celebrant. Without those bodies to help contest the board, controlling center column is much more difficult.

Rae ensures Vet doesn’t have to skip a beat when transitioning from cheap golem spam in the early game to indefinite sand value in the late… I mean mid game.

Remember, Ka and Fault did exist without Rae when we had rotation format. Only when rotations were undone and Rae returned did Fault rise to the top.


#91

As I recall Reassemble Fault was the top of the meta during rotations, which was also a very short lived meta and was still being figured out, and then prior to rotations when we had fault/rae but no kha the deck was only thought of as tier two, although towards the top of said tier.


#92

Maybe I slept on it but I can’t remember “reassemble fault” ever being top tier or placed on any tier list in all my time playing. Now I could well be wrong here and I’ll gladly concede if I am but I don’t remember this alternate time line in the slightest.


#93

Oblysks were recognized, and it was a frequent variant of it, as it fixed the Vath match up. One that carried my team through the previous teamwars, and fault/kha, independently of reassemble or with, would pop up frequently as opposition as well.

We also barely had any thing like recognized tier lists during that brief period thus your fuzzy memory, heck people were thinking Vanar was going to be top tier for a little… Wanderer and Fault Kha were the up and coming decks right when the format ended, and then they exploded right after.


#94

Hi all,

Just wanted to comment on DA’s idea before enthusiasm wanes…

To begin with the positive, I think it is actually a great plan - and could revitalize the game for the significant portion of the current player-base who feel the current meta is stale and boring (a group which is inevitably going to grow). But… having read the thread, it seems to me that everyone is over complicating the issue to the point where it is unlikely to get enough traction to succeed. With that in mind, I would like to put forward a simplified "This Is Just A Test" version for your perusal:

  1. Organize a free vote by the current Top 50. Choose the top X cards (the fewer the better: maybe 3? Or 1 from each Faction?) and ban them FOR ONE MONTH.

  2. On all relevant social media, make a sticky “Break The New Meta!” explanatory, opt-in post where players can see the month’s banned cards and add their IGN to the list. Challenge everyone to make the best deck they can (without feeling bad about it!)

  3. At the end of the season, the reward for fighting your way into the "New Meta Top 50" is a vote on NEXT months ban list (+glory, +bragging rights ofc)

  4. Expand. Tweak. Improve. Repeat.

A few additional thoughts:

There is no need to argue about which cards should be banned. If your picks or combination of picks aren’t chosen this month, next month they can be.

The "New Meta" season may have to end a few days early to allow time for a new vote before the official monthly reset.

It may be discovered that it is more fun if "New Meta" seasons last 2 months, or longer - but starting with a single month allows for rapid iteration and improvements on the initial idea

The law of unintended consequences will have its way… Some months the ban list might theoretically just break the game and THAT’S FINE

Maybe a ban list might evolve which produces a stable fun meta that everyone loves and wants to play with forever… But realistically, it will probably never happen.

Duelyst streamers getting involved would probably help a bunch, since most of them are pretty positive and inclusive in general (I know, I know - there are a couple of honourable exceptions… ;))

Initially this plan is only going to involve the participation of a small group of players - mostly long-term, expert Duelysts who already all know each other by name at least. Because the tip of the ranked pyramid is small, this should not be a problem.

The whole thing will quickly go to the dogs if the participants do not recognise that it is 100% OK NOT TO TAKE PART. Being insulted about something you didn’t even know about (or decided just wasn’t for you) is no fun at all - it already happens to some extent with Rag Wanderer and this might easily exacerbate the problem

Anyway… that’s it from me

Cheers guys


#95

Thanks for stopping by! You seem to be on the same page as me, that is what I was trying to get kickstarted, but it got muddled with disagreements. Which as I tried to explain was A. Opt in, B. Experimental, and C. Disagreements are fine, that’s what the voting is about.

Sadly so far I have had no luck attracting duelyst central/top players, and the whole thing won’t work unless I can get people on board.


#96

Okay so, there is a huge problem with community driven banlists. Players rarely get what should be banned right.

Players are driven by emotions and often can’t find the root cause of the problem. They also have a small understanding of how this game is balanced.


#97

Assuming (for the sake of argument ;)) that by “players” you mean yourself and some other people whose opinions you either agree or disagree with…

It doesn’t matter, because:

a) You don’t have to vote
b) You don’t have to participate
c) If you tell us who they are, we can of course make sure that those emotional people don’t vote either

If, on the other hand, you meant all players including game developers, mathematicians, ccg experts and riverboat card sharps then it still doesn’t matter because:

a) You don’t have to vote
b) You don’t have to participate
c) The idea is to shake up the meta in a fun way on a temporary basis while experimenting with different options that one day, hypothetically, might lead to a more balanced game (but if it doesn’t, no one will be too worried)

EDIT PS Apologies for the snark, but the idea that (some? many? most?) regular players are not quite as good at card balance as the designers of the game seems both obvious and unhelpful…


#98

The only people who truly know how to balance Duelyst are CPG, even top-players don’t have that much know how on how to balance the game.

My point is that community banlists are terrible as they always end up as a mess because they are designed by people who don’t know how to balance the game.


#99

Probably the wisest thing I’ve seen you say on forums.

Personally, I will forgo any bans because I love to stick with the board-based control faction because I love to play board-based control using board-based control tools that control and are 100% board-based.


#100

#board-basedmasterrace