Alternative queue with a personalized banlist in unranked

[Outrageous!]

Imagine an alternative queue where every player gets to ban 5 cards before starting it.
The algorithm then filters out opponents that play decks containing any of those 5 cards.

While this might be a terrible idea for ranked, since it would allow you to specifically target bad matchups, it might be very healthy for unranked.

I'm a brewer and basically never netdeck. While I generally don't mind other players to netdeck, since It's an efficient way to spend your wildcards, it really frustrates me in unranked.

Sometimes I just want to play wonky decks and dont really bother about my winrate as long as I get to play the game. But its beyond infuriating to face 9 out of 10 games against the exact same oppressive cards that require specific answers immediately.

Turn 1 Monastery Swiftspear - scoop.
Turn 2 Knight-Errant of Eos - scoop.
Turn 3 Simulacrum Synthesizer - scoop.
Turn 4 The one Ring - Scoop.
Turn 5 Sunfall - scoop.

If I'm playing in a Tournament at a local game store I will accept playing against those cards. However, if I play there for fun I have the option to simply avoid players that want to play their Monored Netdeck. So why not have this option for MTG Arena?

I would happily accept a significantly longer queue time for this.

What's your opinion on this?
How would your Banlist look like?

[BunnyBunny]

So you make a deck and you can ban cards that are good against your deck ?.. Seems good to me ! It s just unranked ! Unharmful fun eh !

[Nubbles]

Why not try brawl? If you play a very good deck there, you will play against others who are playing very good decks. If you play jank, you will play against jank. Sometimes newer commanders aren't weighted properly, but other than that, you pretty much have this in brawl. I haven't faced any raffines, te5eris or ruskos with my beluna yet.

[Outrageous!]

Unfortunately I really don't like brawl.

[ʍolɟ ǝɥʇ ǝsɹǝʌǝɹ]

Something like this would only work for unranked modes. I don't think it would even be that intensive to code, you just need to check versus a decklist for duplicates from their ban list then you go to next.

The question would be how many you could avoid, I would imagine 5-10 at most. Wotc could even make it a paid feature if they were going to offer some kind of subscription based model with other features. I know they try subscription with brawl for the first few months it existed.

I'd avoid sheoldred, bristle bill and a few others probably

[Outrageous!]

A paid feature with a subscription based model?
Shhhhhhh Wotc might be listening! :D

[mwesthoff]

It's already rigged, why would you want it to be even more rigged? Skill issue?

[ʍolɟ ǝɥʇ ǝsɹǝʌǝɹ]

Originally posted by mwesthoff:

It's already rigged, why would you want it to be even more rigged? Skill issue?

How is avoiding 5-10 cards out of 1000's rigged

[magnumaniac]

So with your example above, you would constantly be matched against Black / Dimir discard and endless removal... and would be on here complaining about overpowered black cards.

On the flip side, you could play a super aggro deck (i.e. Boros convoke) and personally ban all the most played low cost sweepers for fast no risk wins.

This is a terrible idea. I could maybe see it if it was a separate queue that doesn't progress daily wins / quests (because it would be way too exploitable) - but then I don't think enough people would bother.

[mwesthoff]

Originally posted by ʍolɟ ǝɥʇ ǝsɹǝʌǝɹ:

Originally posted by mwesthoff:

It's already rigged, why would you want it to be even more rigged? Skill issue?

How is avoiding 5-10 cards out of 1000's rigged

Because if you don't play against those cards then the matchmaker will have trouble finding games for those people using those cards.

You are essentially saying, "I want the game to be more rigged" by expecting everyone else to pick up the slack. Very liberal thinking.

[Tom the Mime Artist]

Originally posted by magnumaniac:

On the flip side, you could play a super aggro deck (i.e. Boros convoke) and personally ban all the most played low cost sweepers for fast no risk wins.

You're thinking too small. Minion of the Mighty historic deck banning fatal push, galvanic discharge, static prison, thoughtseize and spell pierce. Yeah, player selected bans for individual matches is a horrible idea and will never and should never happen.

[ʍolɟ ǝɥʇ ǝsɹǝʌǝɹ]

Originally posted by mwesthoff:

Originally posted by ʍolɟ ǝɥʇ ǝsɹǝʌǝɹ:

How is avoiding 5-10 cards out of 1000's rigged

Because if you don't play against those cards then the matchmaker will have trouble finding games for those people using those cards.

You are essentially saying, "I want the game to be more rigged" by expecting everyone else to pick up the slack. Very liberal thinking.

If everyone is banning the same cards using this, maybe they should just be banned for the format. I'd be ok with this informing wotc what cards need ban. And they would just end up as mirror matches, like many already do

[mwesthoff]

Originally posted by ʍolɟ ǝɥʇ ǝsɹǝʌǝɹ:

Originally posted by mwesthoff:

Because if you don't play against those cards then the matchmaker will have trouble finding games for those people using those cards.

You are essentially saying, "I want the game to be more rigged" by expecting everyone else to pick up the slack. Very liberal thinking.

If everyone is banning the same cards using this, maybe they should just be banned for the format. I'd be ok with this informing wotc what cards need ban. And they would just end up as mirror matches, like many already do

The path of least resistance is seldom a good learning experience. If you want to control what people play... learn how to do it. Don't expect the game to hold your hand.

[Outrageous!]

Originally posted by mwesthoff:

Originally posted by ʍolɟ ǝɥʇ ǝsɹǝʌǝɹ:

How is avoiding 5-10 cards out of 1000's rigged

Because if you don't play against those cards then the matchmaker will have trouble finding games for those people using those cards.

You are essentially saying, "I want the game to be more rigged" by expecting everyone else to pick up the slack. Very liberal thinking.

Read what I'm writing. I wrote ALTERNATIVE not REPLACEMENT.
I also wrote that I would happily accept longer queue times.
If YOU don't then noone forces you to play it.

[Outrageous!]

Originally posted by Tom the Mime Artist:

Originally posted by magnumaniac:

On the flip side, you could play a super aggro deck (i.e. Boros convoke) and personally ban all the most played low cost sweepers for fast no risk wins.

You're thinking too small. Minion of the Mighty historic deck banning fatal push, galvanic discharge, static prison, thoughtseize and spell pierce. Yeah, player selected bans for individual matches is a horrible idea and will never and should never happen.

No it wouldn't. Maybe I'm not thinking about other formats. But as for Standard - which is the only format I'm playing - I am very certain, that with a list of 5-10 cards banned I can (sadly) easily eliminate 95% of all meta. And this would encourage people to actually think outside of the box for once.

[Outrageous!]

Originally posted by mwesthoff:

Originally posted by ʍolɟ ǝɥʇ ǝsɹǝʌǝɹ:

If everyone is banning the same cards using this, maybe they should just be banned for the format. I'd be ok with this informing wotc what cards need ban. And they would just end up as mirror matches, like many already do

The path of least resistance is seldom a good learning experience. If you want to control what people play... learn how to do it. Don't expect the game to hold your hand.

You are clearly arguing from a perspective of a ranked player.
IM NOT IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM ARE CRITICISING RANKED OR THE WAY A META IS FORMED. I'm criticising that there is no casual mode available outside of brawl that creates a more casual environment. And i think that is a shame.