Print

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

[theblankman]

So I suggested this to MF here: http://forum.makingfun.com/showthread.php?5288-Full-kingdom-Veto-mode-for-Pro-games&p=27786#post27786

There have been lots of arguments about specific-card veto on these forums, and my general issue with iso-style veto and its variants, as well as DXV's hate-list idea, is that I think they'll lead to de-facto banning of a few widely disliked cards, when really, like everything else, the degree to which a card makes the game less fun depends on the rest of the kingdom.  So my suggestion is rather than specific card hate, you can only veto a whole kingdom.  So in Pro games, one player can offer "Let's play a different kingdom" on their first turn, and if all opponents accept, a new kingdom is generated and we act like the vetoed game never happened. 

Sorry if this has been suggested before, but I'm curious what people think of it. 

[sudgy]

I think this is the only Veto idea that I would be grudgingly willing to play.

[amalloy]

So I suggested this to MF here: http://forum.makingfun.com/showthread.php?5288-Full-kingdom-Veto-mode-for-Pro-games&p=27786#post27786

There have been lots of arguments about specific-card veto on these forums, and my general issue with iso-style veto and its variants, as well as DXV's hate-list idea, is that I think they'll lead to de-facto banning of a few widely disliked cards, when really, like everything else, the degree to which a card makes the game less fun depends on the rest of the kingdom.  So my suggestion is rather than specific card hate, you can only veto a whole kingdom.  So in Pro games, one player can offer "Let's play a different kingdom" on their first turn, and if all opponents accept, a new kingdom is generated and we act like the vetoed game never happened. 

Sorry if this has been suggested before, but I'm curious what people think of it.

Hm, does it pick a new random starting player, or the same one? There are problems either way: if you keep the same first player, then in a boring kingdom with strong first-player advantage, P1 may be reluctant to reroll it, because you might get an interesting kingdom without a strong advantage. If you choose a new starting player, P1 will probably be reluctant on any kingdom at all. On the other hand, that at least implements a lower-overhead way to choose a starting player, for tournaments and the like, so I'd be more in favor of that scheme even though it would get used less often for your proposed purpose.

There's a similar problem with 5/2 openings: if I have a 5/2 opening on an Ambassador board, I am desperate for a reroll even if the kingdom is interesting; my opponent might offer a reroll because he doesn't like Ambassador, but would choose not to if he knew how far ahead he is even before a single card is played.

Arguably both of these are a "misuse" of the feature, because my imaginary players are using it for competitive advantage instead of to avoid boring kingdoms. But of course that will happen: Pro is for competitive play, and if a new feature is introduced that can influence a game this dramatically, players will find ways to use it for competitive advantage.

Edit: Actually this is a kinda funny Prisoner's Dilemma, isn't it? Supposing that this feature exists, players can choose to use it either to gain competitive advantage, or to play more fun kingdoms. If both players aim for more fun kingdoms (cooperate), they both have a better time, and the competitive playing field is still even. But if one aims for competitive advantage (defect), they get more wins and more fun kingdoms (because their opponent is mostly rerolling on boring kingdoms). If both players defect, you get a game that's just as competitively fair as both-cooperate, but less fun. Neat.

[soulnet]

You can just show the kingdom without choosing who is P1, and only assign seats once the kingdom is set.

[amalloy]

You can just show the kingdom without choosing who is P1, and only assign seats once the kingdom is set.

Of course. But doing this for every Pro game adds a ton of overhead to starting a game. I can't imagine this being added except in a way similar to how Salvager does #vpon, where the game starts normally and is immediately playable, but with some extra button to say "I want to play something else".

[Beyond Awesome]

I am okay as long as both players agree. So, if want to play a board, I can still play that board.

[silverspawn]

I don't like this idea nearly as much as the "ban three cards from expansions" one, but I'd still support it over nothing.

[markusin]

I don't like this idea nearly as much as the "ban three cards from expansions" one, but I'd still support it over nothing.

Can you describe this to me? I don't remember the suggestion.

I do like the intention of the board veto though. You're not vetoing IGG because it's IGG. Instead, you're deciding that this board is an IGG slog and you don't want that.

Practically speaking, it does seem like it's usually one card responsible for the problematic board, and vetoing that card solves the issue. This favours the iso-veto mode.

[silverspawn]

I don't like this idea nearly as much as the "ban three cards from expansions" one, but I'd still support it over nothing.

Can you describe this to me? I don't remember the suggestion.

I do like the intention of the board veto though. You're not vetoing IGG because it's IGG. Instead, you're deciding that this board is an IGG slog and you don't want that.

Practically speaking, it does seem like it's usually one card responsible for the problematic board, and vetoing that card solves the issue. This favours the iso-veto mode.

well it is what Donald proposed after a long thread about this topic. the idea is pretty much to put simplicity over everything else. you may blacklist any 3 cards, but you can only blacklist cards from expansions (i.e. everything that's not base). that way, you can't game the system, you are "rewarded" for buying expansions, and you don't have an awkward number that scales or something. you can just blacklist 3 cards.

I actually think does not depend that much on the board, at least not as much as most thing in Dominion. The cards that I hate, I hate in almost any situation where they aren't ignored. I guess this is more useful for people who really don't want to play slogs or something. But I don't mind slogs.

[theblankman]

I don't like this idea nearly as much as the "ban three cards from expansions" one, but I'd still support it over nothing.

My issue with the "ban three cards all the time" idea is that I feel like groupthink will win out, and almost everyone's three-card list will be taken from a set of maybe six cards, and we'll just about never see those cards again, even though there exist games in which those cards really are fun.  (A few predictions off the top of my head: Possession, Rebuild, Tournament, IGG) 

I actually think does not depend that much on the board, at least not as much as most thing in Dominion. The cards that I hate, I hate in almost any situation where they aren't ignored. I guess this is more useful for people who really don't want to play slogs or something. But I don't mind slogs.

I'm thinking this is useful when, for instance, I don't want to play a Tournament game in which there's nothing else to help control your deck and get the collision, and whoever gets Followers just lucks into a huge advantage.  But I don't want Tournament on my ban list, because I think it's a much more interesting card when you can manipulate your deck to get the most out of it.  So I might offer the reroll if I think it's a "lucky Tournament game" but not if there's Tournament plus Haven or Tactician or even just a strong trasher.  And I think similar logic applies to several cards that would be popular on ban-lists, like Possession (I won't reroll every Possession board, but I probably will reroll a Possession/Masq board). 

You can just show the kingdom without choosing who is P1, and only assign seats once the kingdom is set.

Yes, and if we're doing that, also don't show players their starting hands until a kingdom is accepted, to avoid the 5/2 issue that amalloy mentioned, i.e. I'd be silly to give up a Mountebank/Chapel opening, but if I don't know my hand then maybe I agree to not play that board.

[Beyond Awesome]

I don't like this idea nearly as much as the "ban three cards from expansions" one, but I'd still support it over nothing.

My issue with the "ban three cards all the time" idea is that I feel like groupthink will win out, and almost everyone's three-card list will be taken from a set of maybe six cards, and we'll just about never see those cards again, even though there exist games in which those cards really are fun.  (A few predictions off the top of my head: Possession, Rebuild, Tournament, IGG) 

I actually think does not depend that much on the board, at least not as much as most thing in Dominion. The cards that I hate, I hate in almost any situation where they aren't ignored. I guess this is more useful for people who really don't want to play slogs or something. But I don't mind slogs.

I'm thinking this is useful when, for instance, I don't want to play a Tournament game in which there's nothing else to help control your deck and get the collision, and whoever gets Followers just lucks into a huge advantage.  But I don't want Tournament on my ban list, because I think it's a much more interesting card when you can manipulate your deck to get the most out of it.  So I might offer the reroll if I think it's a "lucky Tournament game" but not if there's Tournament plus Haven or Tactician or even just a strong trasher.  And I think similar logic applies to several cards that would be popular on ban-lists, like Possession (I won't reroll every Possession board, but I probably will reroll a Possession/Masq board). 

You can just show the kingdom without choosing who is P1, and only assign seats once the kingdom is set.

Yes, and if we're doing that, also don't show players their starting hands until a kingdom is accepted, to avoid the 5/2 issue that amalloy mentioned, i.e. I'd be silly to give up a Mountebank/Chapel opening, but if I don't know my hand then maybe I agree to not play that board.

I like what you say here.  I do think group think would win out and the cards you mentioned would likely never show up in Dominion games again, pretty much.

I like this idea though if both players agree a board is crap, they don't have to play it, but if one player wants to play it then both players have to play it. I think that's much more fair and than a ban list or a veto thing or whatever.

[theblankman]

Donald X responded to my post over on MF's forums, and I copied it for the folks in this thread to see:

The argument against single-card veto is that that experiment was played out on isotropic, and lots of people didn't enjoy that games never had attacks anymore and so on. It didn't work.

People do hate certain cards; the rest of the kingdom is not so relevant there, except insomuch as it makes the hated card unplayable this game, hooray.

The rated version of the game has to try to be fun for people who care about rating. I think, once the 10 cards are dealt, you are stuck with them; other things just invite gaming the system in no-fun ways. Many people don't enjoy gaming the system but do it anyway to not feel like they are being cheated out of ratings points.

The 3-card hate-list proposal can also be gamed, but less so (you ban the 3 swingiest cards rather than the 3 cards you hate the most, but the more serious you are the more likely those overlap anyway), and addresses the "I really hate this card" issue with a minimal amount of "I never get to play with this card other people hate anymore." You never have to play with those 3 cards; you can play with cards other people hate when your opponent didn't put that card on that very short list of 3. Whereas vetoing a whole set of 10 increases how many cards you can avoid if your opponent agrees, and reduces it to nothing if your opponent doesn't. Then there is the block list issue; you won't veto what I want to veto, I block you.

Ultimately some people love what others hate and we can't satisfy everyone. You can reread old debates on this topic; as it stands I am still pushing for 3-card hate-list.

[Narz]

I am down for adding any sort of Veto system to Goko (down with King's Court and/or Alchemy!)

Do you think Goko will ever listen to us/add this?

[theblankman]

And my response to DXV's post:

The 3-card hate-list proposal can also be gamed, but less so (you ban the 3 swingiest cards rather than the 3 cards you hate the most, but the more serious you are the more likely those overlap anyway), and addresses the "I really hate this card" issue with a minimal amount of "I never get to play with this card other people hate anymore." You never have to play with those 3 cards; you can play with cards other people hate when your opponent didn't put that card on that very short list of 3. Whereas vetoing a whole set of 10 increases how many cards you can avoid if your opponent agrees, and reduces it to nothing if your opponent doesn't. Then there is the block list issue; you won't veto what I want to veto, I block you.

Doesn't the 3-card hate-list also reduce the avoidable cards to nothing if your opponent disagrees?  As I recall from some earlier debates (which I read and participated in, but at the time I didn't have this idea yet), the hate-list could be set to only veto cards that both players hate, right?  So if I leave my hate list empty and set "mutual veto only" then my opponents can't avoid any cards. 

Anyway, for me and maybe some other folks in this thread, it's really not about avoiding specific cards as much as it's about avoiding one card taking over a game.  Very few cards dominate so often I'd ban them outright (IGG and Rebuild are the ones that come to my mind).  However many do it often enough to be bothersome, but not often enough that I want to ban them entirely, and that's where the kingdom-dependence comes in.  A few posts up I give Tournament as an example of what I'm talking about. 

To be clear, I don't dislike the 3-card hate list; if it's implemented, I'll probably use it.  I just see some potential issues with it (also laid out a few posts up), that I think full kingdom veto avoids.  Full kingdom veto has its own issues as you've pointed out, so which poison do you pick?  Either one is better imo than the plain random we currently have. 

[theblankman]

I am down for adding any sort of Veto system to Goko (down with King's Court and/or Alchemy!)

Do you think Goko will ever listen to us/add this?

I think Donald X has told MF that he supports a 3-card hate list, but I don't think anyone can say when/whether they'll act on that. 

[Donald X.]

Doesn't the 3-card hate-list also reduce the avoidable cards to nothing if your opponent disagrees?  As I recall from some earlier debates (which I read and participated in, but at the time I didn't have this idea yet), the hate-list could be set to only veto cards that both players hate, right?  So if I leave my hate list empty and set "mutual veto only" then my opponents can't avoid any cards. 

Oh actually, checking the proposal, the hate-list was only used for casual. And then you never saw them, if your opponent hate-listed them they wouldn't show up. It was confined to expansion/promo cards. The idea being that you shouldn't be punished for buying something, and it's easier to play casual games without going to extra trouble to pick out the cards, and many people won't want someone to have picked out the cards. It was a fine feature to have for casual, actually saving time and accomplishing something, is what I am saying.

My memory now is, that when this was discussed previously, there were serious players who were strongly against anything whatsoever messing with random 10. Just, hate hate hate. You can look for that discussion. I don't feel like looking for it. Ultimately the rating is there for the people who like ratings. Those people are more likely to be against ways to game the system. In casual you can do whatever and have fun and it's not rated so you aren't cheating the people who like ratings.

[Donald X.]

I am down for adding any sort of Veto system to Goko (down with King's Court and/or Alchemy!)

Do you think Goko will ever listen to us/add this?

I think Donald X has told MF that he supports a 3-card hate list, but I don't think anyone can say when/whether they'll act on that.

Yes, there is a full matchmaking-system proposal, that dumps the current rooms thing. Jeff said it sounded good and that we would talk about it more when they were closer to implementing it. That was April and no talking has happened. My understanding continues to be that they are working on making a new version of whatever big hunks of program, so that it won't have the issues it currently has and also to support more devices. I haven't had an update recently.

[theblankman]

Yes, there is a full matchmaking-system proposal, that dumps the current rooms thing.

I'm sure this has already been said elsewhere, but I hope when the rooms are gone there will still be a way to bypass matchmaking and play games with opponents of our choice, so we can keep doing things like tournaments and the league. 

My memory now is, that when this was discussed previously, there were serious players who were strongly against anything whatsoever messing with random 10. Just, hate hate hate. You can look for that discussion. I don't feel like looking for it. Ultimately the rating is there for the people who like ratings.

I remember that discussion, and thinking it was kind of silly to consider random 10 the end-all of things on which to base ratings, especially when those same serious players depart from random 10 at the very top end (league championship is played with selections from league matches that people found interesting, GokoDom final is the kingdom design winners).  Also why do people who like ratings like ratings?  I guess they're competitive, and want to see who's better at the game.  But then I think they'd want to play games where the better player usually wins, rather than the player who gets luckier with swingy cards, and therefore they'd want to skip games where swingy cards dominate.  Anyway a player dead set on random 10 ought not to have a problem with what I proposed; they can just never agree to any reroll. 

[Donald X.]

Anyway a player dead set on random 10 ought not to have a problem with what I proposed; they can just never agree to any reroll.

But they can't stop other people from doing it in games they aren't in, and getting an advantage via doing it. So in fact they may have a problem with it.

[Awaclus]

Anyway a player dead set on random 10 ought not to have a problem with what I proposed; they can just never agree to any reroll.

But then they're not playing the same game as others on the same leaderboard, which is a problem. If you never reroll, then you're at a disadvantage against someone who rerolls kingdoms he doesn't know how to play well and sometimes plays against players who reroll kingdoms they don't find interesting, because then sometimes their interests overlap and the super competitive player gains more ranking points on average than (iPad just tried to correct that to "then") the players who never reroll or the players who only reroll boring kingdoms.

As a way of having fun games more often, I like this suggestion more than a veto more or a ban list. But from a pro leaderboard point of view, it's not very good.

I'm thinking that it might be nice if there's automatching, all base set cards are always available, and out of the cards each player owns, he can choose to ban up to X cards and up to Y whole expansions that he's not contributing to the game (others still can if they have those cards, too, but it would make them that much less likely to appear), and in your automatching settings, you can adjust max X and Y to your liking and only get matched with players with less or equal banned cards/expansions (and it would be super good if there was a choice to start ignoring your banlist if there's nobody whose X and Y settings are high enough). Games played with lower numbers of banned cards would affect the ranking more (exponentially? Maybe banning one card shouldn't be a huge deal, but banning 10 should). A lot of players should be fine with this system, at least.

Edit: No, actually that might suck too, because then you buy all the cards and get matched against people who only bought Dark Ages and then you'll still have to play with Urchin, Cultist, Rebuild, Knights and others almost twice as often as you normally would, and be at a disadvantage because your opponent plays every game like that and has much more experience with those cards.

[theblankman]

Anyway a player dead set on random 10 ought not to have a problem with what I proposed; they can just never agree to any reroll.

But they can't stop other people from doing it in games they aren't in, and getting an advantage via doing it. So in fact they may have a problem with it.

If two other people reroll a board they both didn't want to play, which gained an advantage over the other?  They're still gonna do their best to beat each other on whatever board they eventually play, right?  Since the board they do play is still random, the reroll doesn't change the probability of either of them winning, at least not in a way they can control.  So it doesn't change the expected effect of that game on the overall ratings, and therefore has no expected effect on my rating. 

[noughtpointzero]

I personally don't understand the point of vetos. My perspective is that the very beauty of dominion is the different cards that are going to show up: the great ones,  the mediocre ones and the hated ones. To me,  to only play with cards you like is to reduce the variety of the game. Even if you really loathe a card,  it's not going to show up very much. How often do you see possession?  Once in every twenty games? Isn't there some enjoyment to be had in playing that odd game with that hated card?

[silverspawn]

Isn't there some enjoyment to be had in playing that odd game with that hated card?

No. None whatsoever.

[pacovf]

Isn't there some enjoyment to be had in playing that odd game with that hated card?

No. None whatsoever.

[SirD]

I personally don't understand the point of vetos.

I do like variety, but there are some games/slogs that are really slow and painful to play. However I very much enjoy the solution AI has found with his "formula for modified card frequencies". It produces more fun games and I would love to see this idea implemented in pro games.

Maybe it is a good idea to merge the two ideas together and make "veto" modify card frequencies. Join the frequency from all players participating.

P.S. Also "same starting hands" I do long for.