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.

JHartEllis · January 20

Blocking them during the deck selection process would add a lot of time to the beginning of each match. It would be a lot more streamlined to just have an edit button on the activity finder that would allow each player to preemptively select 2 patrons that would be greyed out during deck selection.

Kappachi · January 20

you have equal opportunity to turn the tables on your opponent as they do you... maybe take the time and pick almalexia/rahjin and learn them yourself? I use these 2 very often, rahjin usually as counter to anyone who picks crow, and almalexia for counter or combination with hlaalu since there's a lot of things you can do with those 2 together. I'd never want any deck to be able to be "banned" by the other player because I like playing with every single deck in the game and earned them for that purpose.

SilverBride · January 20

JHartEllis wrote: »

Blocking them during the deck selection process would add a lot of time to the beginning of each match. It would be a lot more streamlined to just have an edit button on the activity finder that would allow each player to preemptively select 2 patrons that would be greyed out during deck selection.

I like this idea.

Altera0x · January 20

Kappachi wrote: »

maybe take the time and pick almalexia/rahjin and learn them yourself?

Have you considered that we know how to play these decks, but we hate the playstyle? Not everyone is excited to sit through 1+ hour slog every game.

Kappachi · January 20

Altera0x wrote: »

Kappachi wrote: »

maybe take the time and pick almalexia/rahjin and learn them yourself?

Have you considered that we know how to play these decks, but we hate the playstyle? Not everyone is excited to sit through 1+ hour slog every game.

then don't ruin it for others who enjoy every deck in the game. i started picking almalexia/rahjin as a combination due to this thread and it works out really well, enemy stuck on 0-5 prestige and after a long build up i can go 40+ in 1 turn.

SilverBride · January 20

Kappachi wrote: »

i started picking almalexia/rahjin as a combination due to this thread and it works out really well, enemy stuck on 0-5 prestige and after a long build up i can go 40+ in 1 turn.

If I run into those patrons I immediately concede and nope out.

Personofsecrets · 12:07AM

Last choice should go to second player. I have enough data to indicate that 1st player has a huge advantage. It's fine to take one of those advantages, the last pick, away.

Attorneyatlawl · 1:14AM

SilverBride wrote: »

Kappachi wrote: »

i started picking almalexia/rahjin as a combination due to this thread and it works out really well, enemy stuck on 0-5 prestige and after a long build up i can go 40+ in 1 turn.

If I run into those patrons I immediately concede and nope out.

Isn't that kind of gatekeeping how others play?

SilverBride · 1:33AM

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Kappachi wrote: »

i started picking almalexia/rahjin as a combination due to this thread and it works out really well, enemy stuck on 0-5 prestige and after a long build up i can go 40+ in 1 turn.

If I run into those patrons I immediately concede and nope out.

Isn't that kind of gatekeeping how others play?

No. It's taking control over how I play.

Personofsecrets · 2:04AM

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Kappachi wrote: »

i started picking almalexia/rahjin as a combination due to this thread and it works out really well, enemy stuck on 0-5 prestige and after a long build up i can go 40+ in 1 turn.

If I run into those patrons I immediately concede and nope out.

Isn't that kind of gatekeeping how others play?

That is an inherent consequence of the design choices that go into card games. Game pieces will tend to play out in certain ways. People who enjoy those interractions will stick around while player who do not will mostly leave.

Due to this inherent and indispinsible aspect of games, I find that diversifying games as to make them appeal to more players is a crude mistake that undermines a games identity at best and necessarily leaves some set of players marginalized.

Attorneyatlawl · 6:06AM

SilverBride wrote: »

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Kappachi wrote: »

i started picking almalexia/rahjin as a combination due to this thread and it works out really well, enemy stuck on 0-5 prestige and after a long build up i can go 40+ in 1 turn.

If I run into those patrons I immediately concede and nope out.

Isn't that kind of gatekeeping how others play?

No. It's taking control over how I play.

By blocking others from doing so themselves. It's a multiplayer game... Gotta compromise sometimes.

Weren't you in the overland difficulty thread advocating against there being difficulty options? That's gatekeeping just as it is here, saying people shouldn't have the option to play decks that are part of the game as they wish.

Altera0x · 9:07AM

Kappachi wrote: »

then don't ruin it for others who enjoy every deck in the game.

You're contradicting yourself right here. If you “enjoy every deck”, you'll have no problem playing other decks than RA from time to time if you meet players that ban them.

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

Isn't that kind of gatekeeping how others play?

No, it's not. Nobody is entitled to have a match with a specific player, anyone can leave the game whenever they want, for any reason. Insta-concede doesn't spoil anything for anyone: it's a random matchmaking queue, not a tournament (a serious tournament would have deck restrictions in its rules anyway).
And this doesn't prevent a Rajhin spammer to play ever, plenty of other spammers to play with.

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

It's a multiplayer game...

Random pubs are not multiplayer.

Starbridge84 · 3:13PM

SilverBride wrote: »

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?

That's called snake draw and you're right. Snake draw only makes sense if they patrons were not shared. Basically means first pick gets their prime pick, but then has to deal with left overs.

My family does this kind of thing for vacation time at a summer house.

They figure out the order they want, the 7 kids pick their time...
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1