We need to be able to block certain Patrons from Casual games

SilverBride · January 12

There are 3 Patrons that I never have a good outcome playing against. I wish we had the option to block up to 2 or 3 Patrons for Casual games because some of these make playing a long tedious nightmare.

I will not play against Almalexia, or Rahjin (after losing something like 57 to 0 to someone who chose that Patron), or Alessia because I never have a good outcome when I do and do not want to spend my game time dealing with the frustration.

If someone chooses any of these I just concede and try again later.

Please gives us the option in Casual games to not only choose 2 Patrons, but block 2 also.

Necrotech_Master · January 12

that sounds more like a rule for the ranked mode than unranked

even then, i still see there being complaints if you say are picking 2nd and the other person already picked a patron you want to block

if it goes in order, player 1 picks 1 blocks 1, player 2 picks 1 blocks 1, then player 1 picks 2 and blocks 2, etc

whoever is player 1 still will have access to all patrons they have available

SilverBride · January 12

It could go:

Player One blocks 1
Player 2 Blocks 1
then
Player One picks 1
Player Two picks 1
Player One picks a second
Player Two picks a second

I never understood why Player One only picked one but Player Two picked both of theirs before Player One picked their second. Why not just alternate then evenly?

Personofsecrets · January 12

I'd be happy with Mora and Alessia banned.

Altera0x · January 12

SilverBride wrote: »

Please gives us the option in Casual games to not only choose 2 Patrons, but block 2 also.

This would mean that both players need to have 8+ decks unlocked. ZOS can't just dump some decks into basic pool, and they are most definitely aren't going to restrict PvP with the condition “unlock 4 more decks”.
Don't get me wrong, I would love the ability to not play against Rajhin ever again, but when I tried to write a proposal for a single deck ban I couldn't find a feasible way to incorporate it. Even requiring 2 extra deck unlocks for PvP may just finish the mode that is already struggling to attract players. And making 2 extra “basic” decks is not feasible, because ZOS don't have dev power to do even a simple balance pass on ToT, new decks seem to be out of question period.

SilverBride · January 12

If blocking Patrons isn't feasible then they should take a look at tweaking these overpowered decks. Being harassed with non-stop Bewilder cards, or facing 7 Agents that we can never keep up with removing, or spending a long time watching our opponent play 20 cards and just keep generating more does not make for a fun experience.

SeaGtGruff · January 12

SilverBride wrote: »

It could go:

Player One blocks 1
Player 2 Blocks 1
then
Player One picks 1
Player Two picks 1
Player One picks a second
Player Two picks a second

I never understood why Player One only picked one but Player Two picked both of theirs before Player One picked their second. Why not just alternate then evenly?

Maybe it's to help offset the disadvantage of not getting to pick first. I mean, that might not be seen as a disadvantage since both players can still use whichever patrons are picked, but it's my understanding that players often like to pick a given patron as a counter to some other patron that's already been picked, in which case the very first patron picked could potentially steer the rest of the picks toward specific counter patrons, thereby greatly shaping the whole selection process and resulting match just because Patron A was chosen first instead of Patron B.

Personofsecrets · January 13

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

It could go:

Player One blocks 1
Player 2 Blocks 1
then
Player One picks 1
Player Two picks 1
Player One picks a second
Player Two picks a second

I never understood why Player One only picked one but Player Two picked both of theirs before Player One picked their second. Why not just alternate then evenly?

Maybe it's to help offset the disadvantage of not getting to pick first. I mean, that might not be seen as a disadvantage since both players can still use whichever patrons are picked, but it's my understanding that players often like to pick a given patron as a counter to some other patron that's already been picked, in which case the very first patron picked could potentially steer the rest of the picks toward specific counter patrons, thereby greatly shaping the whole selection process and resulting match just because Patron A was chosen first instead of Patron B.

That's right. When I go second, I basically never get to play the decks that I want to because it would give the opponent too much of an advantage.