I was contemplating a drafting format for the game; in which each player bans a hero, then alternates selecting from the remaining pool (shared pool; where each hero is a unique x1 pick).
I’m curious how this would affect the gameplay; in that, which heroes are big winners, and which heroes are big losers.
I think Vandy would be the first ban for a lot of players, then potentially Rook?
What would you ban, and where might you head; in such a format?
Could possibly add an [after second hero for each player] ban as well, to try and keep things even more reasonable… that said, having an extra ban simply wouldn’t allow for 4players in a large ffa; but in that case, 4 bans + 12 rotating picks might be good enough.
Leaving aside that I dislike having players ban each other from playing things, I’ll point out that Zane is another likely candidate to be banned in a format like this.
Well, I figured it might help the meta self correct; but to be fair, I’m largely out of touch with the meta and how balanced this game is overall… I just know that Vandy can be quite favorable to play, for many players.
And true, Zane would likely be banned as well.
The intent was to shake things up each game/round, and keep it fresh. That said, it’s very possible (and likely) it would result in an even more skewed meta. Maybe a limited 1v1 format where the players had to do something with each of the heros (minus neutral heroes); to mean that you’d have to play/have faced everything at least once.
I’d expect River and Garth to be high on the ban list, because their specs interact strongly with almost everyone else’s specs, but also make the deck versatile.
I think you’d need more than one round of bans to get rid of all the dominant hero choices. I’m not sure if that would make for a more balanced meta, or just lead to another set of heroes being dominant.
Maybe a limited 1v1 format where the players had to do something with each of the heros (minus neutral heroes); to mean that you’d have to play/have faced everything at least once.