Defending heroes banned list to preserve game's balance

This topic is a proposal to the game’s developers to think about preventing certain heroes to be featured into defenses of certain game modes, wich would be shown from the game mode’s panel, to preserve the balance of the game without having to nerf heroes.

Few noticeable examples:

  • Treevil: war (rush battle), tournament (rush battle)
  • Kalø: war (all), torunament (all)
  • Xnolphod: tournament (bloody battle)

To notice that the list would be up to Developers to redact the list with the data they are able to collect and their own analysis.

  • I agree
  • I disagree

0 voters

As long as players keep spending money and keep logging in to spend time, broken heroes will continue to be released.

Nerph revenues, not heroes.


A blanket ban of heroes is not a progressive way forward in my opinion. Can see it working on a smaller scale (MAYBE) if it’s a unique set each time. Like how tournaments don’t allow certain colours maybe war could have no barbarian heroes and then rotate, etc. A blanket ban on certain heroes is not reasonable to those that pull them. I stopped going for the shiny new heroes so whilst this would benefit me it’s just not fair all round.


@RubeusVulpes My reasoning in this regard is that the most fair thing to players is that heroes wouldn’t be drastically changed from their release.

To avoid overperforming defending heroes being nerfed the most suitable choice is to prevent them from being featured into certain game mode’s defenses. I can’t see this work with torunament’s like restrictions.

the reason people pull and chase specific hero is to increase their offence and defense team.

what the point if the hero getting banned then? eventhough only banned for specific case but it just feels like when u buy something but you can’t fully own it if there is some restriction comes into it


@mogulemon The point about this proposal would be to not decrease their power on attacks and on other areas where they doesn’t pose a balance problem.

For example Treevil, he doesn’t pose a threat to balance on titans nor on pvp rules other than rush battles. There he have an exaggerated bulk and damage, he is capable to erease a whole team along with a round of autoattack and it would be a pity if to balance him he would be nerfed, even if he is simply too powerful for his rarity tier at the moment even when compared with similar heroes.

but this things will make the heroes become niche since it can be used in this area but not in that area.

if it has too many specific rules, i think people won’t pull and could possibly create some confusion as it applies on specific individual hero and not heroes in general


Well, it’s possibile but not necessarily true for every hero or player.

Niche defending heroes exists since forever, some are only good defenders, others like Guinevere (wich were nerfed once) were only exceptionals as tanks and many others are good in other areas too.

Regarding the confusion aspect I don’t think there would be a problem, it there would just be the need for the exception to be shown on the game modes’ panels and/or in an icon on the hero card.

On the pull part you are probably right but on the other hand it would make pulling more “carefree”. On many new heroes’ topics, posts wich speaks about the fear of ascending/limit breaking heroes due to possible nerfs can be seen since what happened to Krampus© and while having some balance breaking heroes being prevented to be featured on certain defenses’ game modes could upset some players I’m sure that a nerf to their card would too. To me it would be a fair compromise to keep said heroes as they are and at the same time to make other heroes and tactics more relevant.

1 Like

don’t mess up the game and stop crying


“Thanks” for your constructive comment.

I am fundamentally against blacklisting heroes, but if we are thinking about it, I would change the selection.
Treevil, how good it can be, is only a 3* and when not limited to 3* level is manageable, even on fast mana. So blacklisting him from wars is not needed, and in case of tournaments it would be enough to blacklist it from 3* rush.
If you want to blacklist a hero from rush wars it should be Alfrike.

I kinda like the idea, however there are a lot of flaws that needs to be adressed, making it difficult to implement.
First possible bans that come in mind are alfrike, Ludwig, Franz, double reviver, all in VF mode, but then maybe the problem isn’t the Heroes, but the mode itself (and please note that it’s the one I found more funny).
I also have some trouble fighting defenses depending on tiles (frigg, xnophold, Odin, octros) but here I don’t think a ban will be the solution.
Other thing that needs tombe adressed: I did several pulls in challenge festival looking for treevil, as he would be my tank for VF mode (missing alfrike). If you decide to ban him i would be very upset, as I go only for him and there would be no difference in SG’s Nerf/bait and switch.
About kalo I’ve mixed feelings. I own two, still unleveled (and I’m probably gonna work em in a few weeks), and I find his special something unique and funny. The issue are others heroes specials that are clearly unbalanced.

A better solution would be imho releasing or reworking easy accessible heroes (hotm, S1 costumes or S5 4*) that can counter the troublesome ones. We just have a taunt hotm, now we need some ailment protection grazul-like, a mass mana controller, and a mana booster like xnophold or Ludwig. This way the players would have more tools to deal with imba heroes, without taking away the fun from anyone.

Unfortunately this will NEVER happen, as SG/Zynga has 0% interest in keeping the “game” balanced, they ONLY care about increasing revenues.

learn to play lol.

I don’t like some hero, but I do with it.

it’s easy to always cry, but to play with that head is to complicate

@H.V well, it would be up to SGG to redact the list… the listed heroes were just famous examples: Treevil is the last “Rush Monster” and the most available to players, Kalø is the most likely next nerf candidate and Xnolphod on bloody battle is a clear example of a healer too much success in that mode. I remember that when Telluria made her debut she were dominating bloody battles too… we know how it went.

@Kalgaath I agree, buff and reworking of underwhelming heroes would be for the best. The bait and switch feeling could be a problem but isn’t there the same story when a hero gets nerfed?



For me, this defeats the purpose. I would never ever level or even LB Treevel if I could not use hin in the rush tournament. It is the only single instance where I use him. Same with Kalo - if I can not use him in the tournaments, I have no purpose of having him. If the restrictions would only be for defensive use, then we would risk having overly easy tournaments where one could end up outside 1% even with 100% wins.

An alternative to this would be to add a 3rd layer to Tournament hero selection.

Rather than banning individual heroes. Rotate which Class heroes can not be used.
So we could end up with
A 3* Rush Tournament that allows Purples but doesn’t allow Wizards. (no more Treevil)
A 5* Rush Tournament that allows Purple but doesnt allow Wizards (no more Alfrike)
A 4* Rush Tournament that allows Red but doesnt allow Druids (no more Ferant)
A 5* Bloody Battle that allows purple but doesnt allow Sorcerers (no more Xnolphod).

People with these specialist heroes will still be able to use him in other Rush or BB tournaments but will be forced from time to time to change up.

Just realised this is also what @RubeusVulpes was proposing i think.


rush that does not allow purple would be enough. But there was no such tournament in this game history :wink:

Yep that was what I was thinking as a fleeting idea but you’ve padded that out nicely in this explanation :slight_smile:

1 Like

Playing with the classes in tournament could be interesting. What about instead of a color-ban, you have a list of 5 allowed classes. (or more).

1 Like

banning heroes is a nerf of a different kind.