Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[greatexpectations]

a post with some probably relevant (pre-dark ages) data:

A comment in the "optimizing your level" thread prompted me to look at logs from the first couple days of veto mode:

6353 games with veto
  422 Saboteur                   96 Navigator                  43 Apprentice
  420 Possession                 92 Stash                      42 Venture
  411 Sea Hag                    90 Horn of Plenty             42 Remodel
  384 Young Witch                85 Secret Chamber             42 Quarry
  364 Witch                      84 Outpost                    42 Island
  357 Mountebank                 82 Forge                      41 Library
  324 Pirate Ship                76 RANDOM                     40 Moneylender
  302 Familiar                   76 Adventurer                 39 Royal Seal
  301 Swindler                   75 Coppersmith                38 Woodcutter
  298 Torturer                   73 Envoy                      37 Conspirator
  295 Tournament                 71 Ironworks                  36 Council Room
  284 Ghost Ship                 71 Expand                     35 Salvager
  277 Goons                      71 Baron                      35 Lighthouse
  268 Treasure Map               68 Spy                        35 Laboratory
  264 Minion                     68 Bishop                     34 Pearl Diver
  247 Militia                    67 Moat                       33 Trading Post
  242 Thief                      66 Hoard                      33 Harem
  205 Ambassador                 64 Bank                       33 Great Hall
  190 Smugglers                  63 Harvest                    32 Warehouse
  188 Black Market               62 Horse Traders              32 Monument
  183 Alchemist                  61 Explorer                   29 Walled Village
  168 Gardens                    60 Remake                     28 Merchant Ship
  159 Embargo                    59 Wishing Well               27 Wharf
  152 Jester                     59 Loan                       26 Haven
  148 Scrying Pool               58 City                       25 Hamlet
  146 Chapel                     57 Lookout                    25 Cellar
  140 King's Court               56 Trade Route                24 Mine
  137 Golem                      56 Grand Market               24 Caravan
  137 Duke                       54 Throne Room                22 Courtyard
  132 Masquerade                 54 Feast                      21 Steward
  131 University                 54 Bridge                     21 Pawn
  128 Cutpurse                   53 Peddler                    20 Upgrade
  123 Bureaucrat                 52 Nobles                     20 Menagerie
  117 Chancellor                 49 Scout                      20 Fishing Village
  112 Fortune Teller             49 Hunting Party              19 Shanty Town
  110 Rabble                     48 Workshop                   18 Farming Village
  108 Apothecary                 48 Vault                      17 Worker's Village
  106 Transmute                  48 Tribute                    17 Mining Village
  105 Tactician                  47 Native Village             15 Smithy
  104 Philosopher's Stone        47 Mint                       14 Village
  103 Vineyard                   47 Herbalist                  14 Festival
  102 Counting House             46 Talisman                   11 Bazaar
  100 Contraband                 45 Treasury                    9 Market
   97 Fairgrounds                43 Watchtower

No real surprises here: people dislike attacks and like villages.Note that "RANDOM" is the option (added this morning) to have it
randomly select a card to veto for you, for people who don't care.

[DG]

Goko should always have given the option whether to play with each of your expansions or not. If you want to play intrigue+alchemy then you should be able to play just intrigue+alchemy, if you've bought the sets. To my mind this solves some of the problems mentioned in this thread and gives wider benefits as well.

[Jimmmmm]

My memory of veto mode is being annoyed that people would always veto the most fun cards. In my opinion, some of the most fun cards are in the left-hand column.

[LibraryAdventurer]

How would people feel about a short banned cards list for Pro games? Let's say you can pick three cards, and those won't be picked in Pro games you play, whether you generate the game or someone else does.

This would make me very happy.

[Donald X.]

Goko should always have given the option whether to play with each of your expansions or not. If you want to play intrigue+alchemy then you should be able to play just intrigue+alchemy, if you've bought the sets. To my mind this solves some of the problems mentioned in this thread and gives wider benefits as well.

Well I think this is reasonable, it should totally, but at the same time I don't want it to be "don't buy Cornucopia, you will never play with it because you hate Tournament."

[sudgy]

I think veto mode should just be an option.  If people like it, have veto mode.  If people don't, don't have it.

[Donald X.]

However, more than a banned list, what I think would benefit pro games the most is the ability to start with identical hands.

What could conceivably be done - and you-all could trial run this on Goko Salvager and see what it actually did - is, to have no changes to the games themselves, but have additional leaderboards that factor in whatever. A leaderboard for games where you went first, a leaderboard for games where you went second; a leaderboard for games where the opening split was the same.

[Donald X.]

My memory of veto mode is being annoyed that people would always veto the most fun cards. In my opinion, some of the most fun cards are in the left-hand column.

I agree, and certainly don't want isotropic-style veto mode.

[silverspawn]

I really, really think there should be a veto mode. it's such an obvious way to make the game more fun for the majority of people playing, and that's what should be the main goal.

How about: you can ban any 3 cards... but only from expansions. Yes some people would be sad they couldn't ban Chapel, but you know, this seems kind of direct. You don't need to worry about buying Cornucopia being bad for you, you can ban Tournament. You can't ban cards from the main set, but you didn't buy that one. If you have no sets you can't ban anything, but we aren't saying "buy something if you want to ban something." The worst case now is buying just a small set and banning 3 cards from it.

This wouldn't be my favorite way of doing it, but it's a way which makes it very hard not to prefer it over how things are now. So, you can buy the smallest expansion and then ban 3 cards. First of all: who would really do this, and secondly, even doing that doesn't really accomplish anything. I don't see anyone getting a significnatly higher rating because he does it, and even if someone got 200 points more because of it, what's the big deal. No ones life was ruined.

You can't ban chapel; well you couldn't ban chapel without a veto mode either. You don't get to play with certain cards; well just make the bans count only for games that you created. If it's important to you to have all cards included, create games yourself. If it's important to you to veto cards, create games yourself. If you don't care, do whatever you want. I just don't understand the decision not to implement somehting like this, in some way or another.

[soulnet]

I agree, and certainly don't want isotropic-style veto mode.

I think the real problem, at least in Pro, is that choosing what to veto (iso-style) becomes part of the game. And since it is not part of "Dominion", choosing strategically can even be considered gaming the system. Maybe vetoing before knowing who will be first and second player reduces that, but still.

I liked veto mode in iso, but for letting people avoiding particular cards, I think many other ideas, including many already mentioned, are way better.

[SCSN]

I adore Black Market, love Goons and Ambassador, like Tournament and Possession and don't mind Rebuild.

People forcing me to not play with cards I like in a pro game I host with sets I bought is completely unacceptable.

Edit: I'd be happy with a system where you can specify a number of cards you'd rather play without (as many as you want), and those cards won't appear in a game if and only if both you and your opponent have them on their ban list.

[Donald X.]

I adore Black Market, love Goons and Ambassador, like Tournament and Possession and don't mind Rebuild.

People forcing me to not play with cards I like in a pro game I host with sets I bought is completely unacceptable.

Edit: I'd be happy with a system where you can specify a number of cards you'd rather play without (as many as you want), and those cards won't appear in a game if and only if both you and your opponent have them on their ban list.

What about if you can pick 3 cards to be banned in veto mode, and veto mode is optional, and it turns out that most people use it?

[JW]

What about if you can pick 3 cards to be banned in veto mode, and veto mode is optional, and it turns out that most people use it?

Presumably the host of each game would decide whether the game will use veto mode, so even if veto mode is typically used people who don't want to use veto mode can just host their own games.

[Donald X.]

What about if you can pick 3 cards to be banned in veto mode, and veto mode is optional, and it turns out that most people use it?

Presumably the host of each game would decide whether the game will use veto mode, so even if veto mode is typically used people who don't want to use veto mode can just host their own games.

Yes, that's what you would do, but the people who "use it" who didn't start the game, aren't joining your game. They are getting matched against someone who allows veto mode.

I'm not saying this is awful; I'm asking how awful it is.

[SCSN]

I adore Black Market, love Goons and Ambassador, like Tournament and Possession and don't mind Rebuild.

People forcing me to not play with cards I like in a pro game I host with sets I bought is completely unacceptable.

Edit: I'd be happy with a system where you can specify a number of cards you'd rather play without (as many as you want), and those cards won't appear in a game if and only if both you and your opponent have them on their ban list.

What about if you can pick 3 cards to be banned in veto mode, and veto mode is optional, and it turns out that most people use it?

That would be alot better than forced veto mode, though I'd still prefer a system in which it's possible (without some complicated preparations) for two people who both prefer not to play with IGG to do so without their unshared preferences being enforced as well. What about two modes: one that takes the intersection of the ban-lists, and another that takes their union?

[Polk5440]

What about two modes

Yes! Let's call one "pro" and one "casual"!

While it's nice to hear Goko/Making Fun may be interested in improving the client, I'll be honest; tweaking how pro works or adding additional randomizer options (like veto or by expansion) for casual mode can't be even in the top 10 of things they should be working on.

[Donald X.]

That would be alot better than forced veto mode, though I'd still prefer a system in which it's possible (without some complicated preparations) for two people who both prefer not to play with IGG to do so without their unshared preferences being enforced as well. What about two modes: one that takes the intersection of the ban-lists, and another that takes their union?

That sounds good, I mean if neither (or all N) of them wants to play with the card, we shouldn't try to force them. It's still just two possibilities and you can always not pick your 3 cards.

[Donald X.]

Yes! Let's call one "pro" and one "casual"!

While it's nice to hear Goko/Making Fun may be interested in improving the client, I'll be honest; tweaking how pro works or adding additional randomizer options (like veto or by expansion) for casual mode can't be even in the top 10 of things they should be working on.

Well Making Fun haven't said anything on this topic to me; I'm just talking in a thread someone made as a cry for help.

Sure there are higher priority things. That doesn't really change the discussion. When they are working on matchmaking, this will be an issue, and the latest suggestion sounds like a good approach. Just don't pick 3 cards, pick the "only if we both hate it" option, and then the only change for you will be people not playing you who don't like that.

Again to me pro/casual is all about "it would be great to just let you pick cards any which way, but people would game that system, so here's a mode that hasn't been gamed." [Except for people playing against themselves which is a separate issue and anyway only relevant for the leaderboard.]

[yed]

Pro mode is one of the things Goko made better than Iso. I really like that. No stupid veto modes please! I hate any system which forces me not to play with some cards.

[Awaclus]

Pro mode is one of the things Goko made better than Iso. I really like that. No stupid veto modes please! I hate any system which forces me not to play with some cards.

Nobody would force you to use the veto mode.

Also, I would definitely like a system that would let me play without Lighthouse and Moat.

[yed]

Pro mode is one of the things Goko made better than Iso. I really like that. No stupid veto modes please! I hate any system which forces me not to play with some cards.

Nobody would force you to use the veto mode.

Yes but only if I avoid playing against veto-only people.

[Awaclus]

Pro mode is one of the things Goko made better than Iso. I really like that. No stupid veto modes please! I hate any system which forces me not to play with some cards.

Nobody would force you to use the veto mode.

Yes but only if I avoid playing against veto-only people.

Well, the same is true for the VP tracker and it's still a nice thing to have around.

[ragingduckd]

Well Making Fun haven't said anything on this topic to me; I'm just talking in a thread someone made as a cry for help.

So do you know (and can you share) anything about MF's plans for the client?

[Polk5440]

Yes! Let's call one "pro" and one "casual"!

While it's nice to hear Goko/Making Fun may be interested in improving the client, I'll be honest; tweaking how pro works or adding additional randomizer options (like veto or by expansion) for casual mode can't be even in the top 10 of things they should be working on.

Well Making Fun haven't said anything on this topic to me; I'm just talking in a thread someone made as a cry for help.

Ah; gotcha.

[Donald X.]

Nobody would force you to use the veto mode.

Yes but only if I avoid playing against veto-only people.

Obv. it would have to be built into the matchmaking. So yes, you wouldn't be playing against veto-only people, but, provided the non-veto-only people existed, you wouldn't be doing any work to do so.