Maybe we can get this if they add more patrons in the future.

Treeshka wrote: »

Maybe we can get this if they add more patrons in the future.

Unless they change the default starting number of patrons a player has, then as long as they are planning on having new players, there will always be people who have only 4 patrons.

A possible alternative is to have a queue where only the default patrons are available.
I am fine with things the way they are. Sure, I hate the Sorcerer king because of how much of a spam fest it turns the game into, but that just gives me a reason to try to get better strategies.

They could make it so that you are able to ban 1. Then you pick 1 patron each. Then last 2 patrons of match are random selected. That way wouldnt need to own the deck. Not that it really matters though. This game needs a lot of rework done to it and I highly doubt anything gets changed besides maybe cost goes up on a few things to bandaid fix stuff.

These suggestions do atone of a certain desperation. Imo unwarranted, I never pick Orgnum, but I have a decent win record against it. You just have to leverage your free gold coin turn 1. That means take decks that give gold starters, and ones that give strong, slow cards for 6 but not super strong or fast cards for cheap. Basically that means take psijic and hlaalu.

If you get turn 1 oathman just contest orgmum every turn after and ride to an easy win.
Other good cards are relicmaster, prophecy, customs seizure.

The other thing I do is keep a notepad with my past opponents and the decks they chose. That way I'm not surprised by a 4th deck Orgnum pick.

Good luck all.

To note, the original post never mentioned Orgnum, but it's interesting that that's the assumption the community seems to have made. While I suspect Orgnum would be banned by a good number of players, I suggest a ban phase not solely as a response to Orgnum, but rather as a matter of addressing some of the obvious imbalance in certain decks. The game will always need adjustment and will never be perfectly balanced, so a ban phase allows players to self-correct until patches can come through as well as afford players the opportunity to change things up if they feel they're encountering a certain deck too often.

As for the issue regarding some players only having four decks, that's relevant and would need to be addressed somehow. I would suggest making it so that a player can only play in ranked matches once they've unlocked 6+ decks. Since this would be a competitively-minded change, it would make sense to expect players participating in ranked queues to have unlocked other decks and, therefore, expect them to be more familiar with the game in general. This sort of model has been used successfully in a plethora of other games.

I'm glad to see the responses and the discussion being had!

I don't think we would necessarily need a "ban phase" if the decks were balanced properly. The only reason most people seem to want a ban button is to ban Orgrum. The answer is better Orgrum balance.
Apart from that, another reason not to have bans is that it could make patron picks very consistent and games could be very similar to one another, if a player wished. I think having to play different patrons every game is a good thing.