Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All]

Author Topic: Banning 5 Cards  (Read 2888 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

cascadestyler

  • Ambassador
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
  • Adventurer had its place!
  • Respect: +33
    • View Profile
Banning 5 Cards
« on: August 26, 2017, 11:17:13 am »
+7

Donald X recently said he'd appreciate a system where each player can ban up to 5 kingdom cards and still play rated games where the union of the two sets of banned card is banned.

1 - Is this a good idea?
2- What would you ban?

I think it's probably a good idea, and I'd ban the following:

Rebuild
Governor
King's Court
Embassy
Tournament
Logged
Please do not feed the blue dogs

ehunt

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1351
  • Shuffle iT Username: ehunt
  • Respect: +1481
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2017, 11:49:16 am »
0

Like.


if there's no strategy to it:

Possession
Rebuild
Sauna/Avanto (does that count as two??)
Urchin
Tournament


It's more interesting if you get to change each game. Generally you want to eliminate high skill cards and cards that require strong tactical decisions if the opponent is better than you, and you want the opposite against weaker players. Also, if you know you are second player, you should ban cards that greatly benefit first player (Governor comes to mind), and first player should ban cards that favor longer games. I suppose first player should also ban Tax.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9554
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9319
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2017, 12:15:50 pm »
+3

I'd ban Lighthouse and Possession.

ThetaSigma12

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1245
  • Respect: +970
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2017, 12:18:49 pm »
+10

I'm hardcore:

Province
Duchy
Estate
Copper
Curse
Logged
If you have a fan card you want to be created, just post about it here! I'd love to take a look at it.

Jack Rudd

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 958
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jack Rudd
  • Respect: +834
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2017, 12:28:13 pm »
+2

Jack of All Trades
Embassy
Trader
Bureaucrat
Masterpiece
Logged
Centuries later, archaeologists discover the remains of your ancient civilization.

Evidence of thriving towns, Pottery, roads, and a centralized government amaze the startled scientists.

Finally, they come upon a stone tablet, which contains but one mysterious phrase!

'ISOTROPIC WILL RETURN!'

kieranmillar

  • Coppersmith
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
  • Shuffle iT Username: kieranmillar
  • Respect: +106
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2017, 12:32:33 pm »
0

Possession
Tournament
Cultist
Rebuild
Page
Logged

teamlyle

  • Ambassador
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
  • Shuffle iT Username: La-Ya
  • Did you know that cashews come from a fruit?
  • Respect: +43
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #6 on: August 26, 2017, 01:00:03 pm »
+2

If I were playing for enjoyment, I would ban:

Tournament
Urchin
Swindler
Chapel
Cultist

They're just too swingy, too much luck and the only skill aspect of all those cards I can see is "buy it because it's good." But if I were more concerned about my rating, my list would be

Apothecary
Tactician
Prince
Young witch
Trade route

Mostly just because I know those are all "good" cards, but I suck at playing them.
Logged
Please join Forum Survivor season 4!

jsh357

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2499
  • Shuffle iT Username: jsh357
  • Respect: +4047
    • View Profile
    • JSH Gaming: Original games
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #7 on: August 26, 2017, 01:10:31 pm »
0

Possession
Chariot Race
Page
Swindler
Governor

If I could do more I'd add Cultist and Peasant
Logged
Join the Dominion community Discord channel! Chat in text and voice; enter dumb tournaments; spy on top players!

https://discord.gg/2rDpJ4N

Mic Qsenoch

  • 2015 DS Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1547
  • Respect: +3747
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #8 on: August 26, 2017, 01:11:35 pm »
+32

All I ever learn from these threads is that people hate fun.
Logged

teamlyle

  • Ambassador
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
  • Shuffle iT Username: La-Ya
  • Did you know that cashews come from a fruit?
  • Respect: +43
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #9 on: August 26, 2017, 01:13:25 pm »
0

All I ever learn from these threads is that people hate fun.

Losing isn't fun!
Logged
Please join Forum Survivor season 4!

Beyond Awesome

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2810
  • Shuffle iT Username: Beyond Awesome
  • Respect: +2190
    • View Profile
    • Beyond Awesome's Dominion Blog
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #10 on: August 26, 2017, 01:39:16 pm »
0

Possession
Swindler
Harvest
Mandarin
Another card no one ever buys...Stash
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9554
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9319
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #11 on: August 26, 2017, 01:41:25 pm »
+7

Another card no one ever buys...Stash

Now that you mention it, I'm pretty sure I haven't seen anyone buy a Stash this year.

faust

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1615
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +2087
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #12 on: August 26, 2017, 02:21:29 pm »
+4

Jack of All Trades
Embassy
Trader
Bureaucrat
Masterpiece
Someone really doesn't like Silver!
Logged
Since the number of points is within a constant factor of the number of city quarters, in the long run we can get (4 - ε) ↑↑ n points in n turns for any ε > 0.

Eevee

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1003
  • A wild Eevee appears!
  • Respect: +853
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #13 on: August 26, 2017, 03:10:03 pm »
0

I'd ban Lighthouse and Possession.
Why lighthouse?

Rebuild
Familiar
Possession

don't really dislike any other cards (yet atleast). About half my games are against a real life friend and we often put black market in the board and randomize the rest, banning possession if available.

I've grown to think that BM might be my slice of dominion heaven.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9554
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9319
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #14 on: August 26, 2017, 03:43:11 pm »
0

I'd ban Lighthouse and Possession.
Why lighthouse?

Because games with Lighthouse and a strong attack are dumb. Lighthouse, too, is strong enough that both players will have to buy it in those games, and then there's a good chance that exactly one player is actually protected against the other's attack while the other has a silly nonterminal Copper/Peddler effect and still gets attacked.

Chris is me

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2167
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +2420
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #15 on: August 26, 2017, 04:17:15 pm »
+1

For fun / strategic depth:
Possession
Rebuild
Swindler
Harvest
Bureaucrat

The bottom two are just shitty cards. Swindler is swingy, Rebuild is either ignorable or not, Possession has lots of problems.
Logged
Twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisisme2791

bug me on discord

they/them

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9554
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9319
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #16 on: August 26, 2017, 04:19:52 pm »
+3

Rebuild is either ignorable or not

Hard to argue with that.

Chris is me

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2167
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +2420
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #17 on: August 26, 2017, 04:25:02 pm »
0

Rebuild is either ignorable or not

Hard to argue with that.

If it's ignorable, it wastes space. If it's not, it ruins the rest of the board. Nothing positive there, even if the latter is a lot less common.
Logged
Twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisisme2791

bug me on discord

they/them

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9554
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9319
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #18 on: August 26, 2017, 04:48:16 pm »
0

Rebuild is either ignorable or not

Hard to argue with that.

If it's ignorable, it wastes space. If it's not, it ruins the rest of the board. Nothing positive there, even if the latter is a lot less common.

Well, you don't always know if it's ignorable or not.

trivialknot

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 368
  • Respect: +466
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #19 on: August 26, 2017, 07:33:22 pm »
+1

Isn't this only a question for Shuffle IT?  Offline we can ban as many cards as we like.  :P

In our offline games we generally ban:
Cultist
Rebuild
King's Court
Alchemy

We don't have copies of Black Market or Sauna/Avanto.  I would consider banning those too, because Black Market has a cumbersome setup and Sauna/Avanto is OP.

Among the 1st edition cards, we un-ban Tribute.
Logged

crj

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
  • Respect: +215
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #20 on: August 26, 2017, 09:49:10 pm »
0

Rebuld
Fool's Gold (it's fine in a kingdom hand-crafted to be fine with it, but will otherwise often dominate boringly)
The Gathering cards: Farmers' Market, Temple, Wild Hunt
Logged

Cave-o-sapien

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 322
  • Respect: +483
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #21 on: August 27, 2017, 12:17:15 am »
0

My list has changed a lot since this idea was first endorsed by DXV. I like that I can ban 1-N cards temporarily; if I get annoyed by a certain card I can just "mute" it until I feel like playing with it again.
Logged

Chris is me

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2167
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +2420
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #22 on: August 27, 2017, 01:51:53 am »
+1

Rebuld
Fool's Gold (it's fine in a kingdom hand-crafted to be fine with it, but will otherwise often dominate boringly)
The Gathering cards: Farmers' Market, Temple, Wild Hunt

Fool's Good is pretty rarely dominant; most fools gold rush strategies will lose to even weak engines.
Logged
Twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisisme2791

bug me on discord

they/them

SirSlugma

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 90
  • Respect: +74
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #23 on: August 27, 2017, 02:33:41 am »
0

To answer #1, I think it's a perfectly fine idea.  I don't know if I'd really use it (though I'd be tempted to toss Rebuild and Urchin aside) but there are just so many kingdom cards nowadays that it's not going to sway the game strongly in any direction even if someone's five banned cards are all junkers or trashers or whatever.
Logged

crj

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
  • Respect: +215
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #24 on: August 27, 2017, 09:24:20 am »
0

Fool's Good is pretty rarely dominant; most fools gold rush strategies will lose to even weak engines.
But on a board where there are engines, I find that more often than not you need to pick one that exploits Fool's Gold, or get squashed. And it's not good to let one player flood their deck with it, so it's often necessary to compete/mirror.

I'd certainly go for it in any non-Colony game with a source of +Buy and even light trashing.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9554
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9319
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #25 on: August 27, 2017, 09:50:42 am »
0

But on a board where there are engines, I find that more often than not you need to pick one that exploits Fool's Gold, or get squashed. And it's not good to let one player flood their deck with it, so it's often necessary to compete/mirror.

Well, it's a Treasure card that gives you money, and that's all it does. Usually you need Treasure cards that give you money to kickstart engines.

I don't remember the last time I bought more Fool's Golds than I wanted for my own deck just to deny them from the opponent.

Marcory

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 607
  • Respect: +934
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #26 on: August 27, 2017, 12:35:45 pm »
+5

Ruined Market
Ruined Village
Ruined Library
Abandoned Mine
Survivors
Logged

johnnyhala

  • Pawn
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #27 on: August 27, 2017, 12:59:37 pm »
0

Long time lurker, first time poster.

My cards to ban would be:

Rebuild
Familiar
Kings Court
Cultist
Knights
Logged

achmed_sender

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 234
  • Shuffle iT Username: achmedsender
  • Respect: +199
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #28 on: August 27, 2017, 02:21:23 pm »
0

Rebuild
Cultist
Chapel
Familiar
Governor
Logged

JW

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 563
  • Shuffle iT Username: JW
  • Respect: +930
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #29 on: August 27, 2017, 02:49:35 pm »
0

Possession (encourages ruining your own deck, and can lead to stalemates), Rebuild and Cultist (more than any other cards, they can lead to boring, monolithic games) are the three cards I'd most like to ban.
Logged

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1655
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
  • Respect: +1779
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #30 on: August 27, 2017, 08:41:07 pm »
+1

Rebuild
Possession
Whatever else I'm finding annoying at the time


What I'd actually like to see is a system where you get to rate each card in terms of how much you enjoy playing with it, and then the average of your and your opponent's ratings determines how likely each card is to show up. Obviously that would take more work to set up.
Logged

Chappy7

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chappy7
  • Respect: +69
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #31 on: August 27, 2017, 11:17:38 pm »
0

1. Page
2. Rebuild
3. Chapel
4. Donate
5. Storyteller
(6. Ghost Ship)
Logged

dedicateddan

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 292
  • Shuffle iT Username: dan brooks
  • Respect: +433
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #32 on: August 28, 2017, 12:14:51 am »
+2

I think it's a great idea. Sometimes, certain cards don't mesh well with certain players. My list would be:

1. Transmute
2. Transmute
3. Transmute
4. Transmute
5. Transmute
Logged

Marcory

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 607
  • Respect: +934
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #33 on: August 28, 2017, 06:45:04 am »
0

I think it's a great idea. Sometimes, certain cards don't mesh well with certain players. My list would be:

1. Transmute
2. Transmute
3. Transmute
4. Transmute
5. Transmute

But Transmute is an awesome card! It lets you get more Transmutes!
Logged

Deadlock39

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1675
  • Respect: +1669
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #34 on: August 28, 2017, 08:54:03 am »
+11

I think it's a great idea. Sometimes, certain cards don't mesh well with certain players. My list would be:

1. Transmute
2. Transmute
3. Transmute
4. Transmute
5. Transmute

But Transmute is an awesome card! It lets you get more Transmutes!

That's why you have to ban it 5 times.

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9554
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9319
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #35 on: August 28, 2017, 09:09:32 am »
+3

But Transmute is an awesome card! It lets you get more Transmutes!

That's why it oftentimes results in monolithic strategies where you mostly ignore all other cards in the Supply.

Chris is me

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2167
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +2420
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #36 on: August 28, 2017, 09:21:02 am »
0

(re: my earlier list - thinking I'll put Transmute in for Harvest, since the niche Bonfire rush thing is all it has going for it)

Fool's Good is pretty rarely dominant; most fools gold rush strategies will lose to even weak engines.
But on a board where there are engines, I find that more often than not you need to pick one that exploits Fool's Gold, or get squashed. And it's not good to let one player flood their deck with it, so it's often necessary to compete/mirror.

I'd certainly go for it in any non-Colony game with a source of +Buy and even light trashing.

It's really not that crazy though - it's just a cheaper option for economy in those games, so it plays a little faster. It's not so dominant that you ignore stronger engine strategies, and it's not like if the game has a Gold gainer like Courtier etc you're gonna always ignore it to rush Fool's Golds.

I'd say maybe half the time I pick up some Fools' Golds, and I go for it too often. When I see someone just rush it on a strong engine board, I generally feel pretty good, as it means I have a little time.
Logged
Twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisisme2791

bug me on discord

they/them

Cuzz

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 375
  • Shuffle iT Username: Cuzz
  • Respect: +552
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #37 on: August 28, 2017, 10:09:30 am »
+6

Ruined Market
Ruined Village
Ruined Library
Abandoned Mine
Survivors

Agreed. People complain about rebuild and possession and swindler but these here ruin more games than all of those put together.
Logged

Omastar68

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 97
  • Shuffle iT Username: Omastar68
  • Respect: +41
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #38 on: August 28, 2017, 11:48:56 am »
0

Rebuild ofc
Page(can Donate be one?)
Familiar
Lurker
Sauna Avanto
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6869
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +8853
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #39 on: August 28, 2017, 01:27:58 pm »
0

Possession
Rebuild
Tournament
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

LibraryAdventurer

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 986
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +680
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #40 on: August 28, 2017, 11:22:28 pm »
+2

Donald X recently said he'd appreciate a system where each player can ban up to 5 kingdom cards and still play rated games where the union of the two sets of banned card is banned.

1 - Is this a good idea?
2- What would you ban?
Most people have not responded to #1. I say yes. I've been wishing something like this was an option for a long time. (But I haven't been playing that much recently.)

I'd ban Rebuild, Tournament, Possession, Governor, [EDIT] then maybe Ghost Ship (or Salt the Earth, or Transmute...) and Ill Gotten Gains. (Just remembered my 5th most disliked card.)
« Last Edit: September 04, 2017, 12:07:57 am by LibraryAdventurer »
Logged

Chappy7

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chappy7
  • Respect: +69
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #41 on: August 28, 2017, 11:41:08 pm »
0

Donald X recently said he'd appreciate a system where each player can ban up to 5 kingdom cards and still play rated games where the union of the two sets of banned card is banned.

1 - Is this a good idea?
2- What would you ban?
Most people have not responded to #1. I say yes. I've been wishing something like this was an option for a long time. (But I haven't been playing that much recently.)

I'd ban Rebuild, Tournament, Possession, Governor, then maybe Ghost Ship (or Salt the Earth, or Transmute...)

I agree.  I think it is a really good idea.  Although if everyone has really similar lists of five, those cards might as well not exist or get 2nd editioned. 
Logged

Cave-o-sapien

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 322
  • Respect: +483
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #42 on: August 29, 2017, 01:00:50 am »
+1

My list:

1. Potion
Logged

Jacob marley

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 118
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jacob Marley
  • Respect: +97
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #43 on: August 29, 2017, 03:31:55 pm »
0

I'd assume that anyone who posts their ban list is implicitly answering yes to question 1.  My list:

Possession
Rebuild
Logged

crj

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
  • Respect: +215
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #44 on: August 29, 2017, 05:45:16 pm »
0

I'd assume that anyone who posts their ban list is implicitly answering yes to question 1.
Not necessarily. I responded to question 2 because there are cards I dislike, but I abstained from question 1 because I don't play online.
Logged

Shvegait

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #45 on: August 29, 2017, 10:36:39 pm »
0

What I'd actually like to see is a system where you get to rate each card in terms of how much you enjoy playing with it, and then the average of your and your opponent's ratings determines how likely each card is to show up. Obviously that would take more work to set up.

This is how I think the ban list should work, but without a rating, just a Yes/No. You "ban" some cards, and your opponent "bans" some cards. If both of you have a certain card "banned", you won't play with it. It's not a real ban, but if you and your opponent mutually agree that you would like nothing more than to never see Rebuild, it won't show up, and you'll both have more fun.

But if someone wants to play with a rotation of all the cards, including the most hated ones, they would still get to do that, even at high rankings where maybe a lot of players have Rebuild or Possession or whatever "banned".

The problems with a ban system where one player banning the cards means they absolutely won't show up ever, in auto-matched games, are:
1) Some players may want to play with a selection of all the cards, and don't really have this as a choice if banning cards is popular
2) You could, potentially, game the overall rating system slightly by banning your personal lowest win % cards

Maybe the effects of both of these are very minor. But requiring both players to have "banned" the card to prevent it from showing up would solve these problems. On the flip side, the banning might not do much at all in this case, if hardly anyone uses the feature...

As a compromise, what might work is what Jimmmmm suggested, but only with ratings of 100% and 0% (could still just be implemented as a 5 card ban list). If one player "bans" the card, the chance of it appearing is halved relative to the normal probability of it appearing. If both players ban it, it will never show up. Might be a reasonable compromise, since still any card *could* show up (vs. players who may prefer to see that card), and you would still see your least favorite cards less often.
Logged

JW

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 563
  • Shuffle iT Username: JW
  • Respect: +930
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #46 on: August 30, 2017, 12:54:33 am »
0

I am in favor of this idea but I had a slightly different take on how it should be implemented:

What about: List one: Indicate up to three of your most disliked cards.
List two: Indicate any other disliked cards

Cards in any players' three most disliked cards never get used for filling in random kingdom events/cards. In addition, cards that are in all players' set of disliked cards never get used.

There is a table option to turn off this feature for tournaments and the like, but games found through any kind of matching always have the feature on.
Logged

Calamitas

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 407
  • Shuffle iT Username: Calamitas
  • Respect: +47
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #47 on: August 30, 2017, 07:29:42 am »
+2

I think not the union but the intersection should be taken.
Logged
Oh, i just don't like mafia games.

Town (5/9): M85, RMM35, M87, NM9, M90RMM38, M92, M91, M102,
Scum (3/3): M84, M88, M100

MVPs (1): M84

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7729
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Prepare to be boarded!
  • Respect: +8602
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #48 on: August 30, 2017, 08:01:44 am »
0

Honestly I'd just like fewer random games with Landmarks. I'm cool with an Event in a majority of games, but I think Landmark use should only come with an Empires kingdom card.
Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

Jacob marley

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 118
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jacob Marley
  • Respect: +97
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #49 on: August 30, 2017, 12:16:10 pm »
+2

What I'd actually like to see is a system where you get to rate each card in terms of how much you enjoy playing with it, and then the average of your and your opponent's ratings determines how likely each card is to show up. Obviously that would take more work to set up.

This is how I think the ban list should work, but without a rating, just a Yes/No. You "ban" some cards, and your opponent "bans" some cards. If both of you have a certain card "banned", you won't play with it. It's not a real ban, but if you and your opponent mutually agree that you would like nothing more than to never see Rebuild, it won't show up, and you'll both have more fun.

But if someone wants to play with a rotation of all the cards, including the most hated ones, they would still get to do that, even at high rankings where maybe a lot of players have Rebuild or Possession or whatever "banned".

The problems with a ban system where one player banning the cards means they absolutely won't show up ever, in auto-matched games, are:
1) Some players may want to play with a selection of all the cards, and don't really have this as a choice if banning cards is popular
2) You could, potentially, game the overall rating system slightly by banning your personal lowest win % cards

Maybe the effects of both of these are very minor. But requiring both players to have "banned" the card to prevent it from showing up would solve these problems. On the flip side, the banning might not do much at all in this case, if hardly anyone uses the feature...

As a compromise, what might work is what Jimmmmm suggested, but only with ratings of 100% and 0% (could still just be implemented as a 5 card ban list). If one player "bans" the card, the chance of it appearing is halved relative to the normal probability of it appearing. If both players ban it, it will never show up. Might be a reasonable compromise, since still any card *could* show up (vs. players who may prefer to see that card), and you would still see your least favorite cards less often.

I flat out disagree.  If the feature is to be implemented, I will ban Possession because I hate the card and find it unfun.  That means I never want to see it again.  With your suggestion, I would then have to restrict myself to playing others who also ban it, which restricts my pool of available players and lengthens wait times.

If we are going to go that route, then why have a ban list?
Logged

Cave-o-sapien

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 322
  • Respect: +483
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #50 on: August 30, 2017, 01:13:13 pm »
+3

I think not the union but the intersection should be taken.

This would be catastrophically bad from a user experience perspective. You're better off not having a ban list than implementing  one that is effectively meaningless most of the time.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4297
  • Respect: +16835
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #51 on: August 30, 2017, 01:19:10 pm »
+4

I am sensitive to the issue of gaming the system, which is why I suggest "5 cards" rather than "as many as you want." The biggest issue is fun, making sure players are having as much fun as possible. It's more fun to not play with a card you hate. Playing against a card you hate is way larger than not getting to play with a card you like that most people hate. If you love Possession and everyone else hates it, you can always play unrated games sometimes where you force it to be included.
Logged

JW

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 563
  • Shuffle iT Username: JW
  • Respect: +930
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #52 on: August 30, 2017, 01:36:08 pm »
0

I am sensitive to the issue of gaming the system, which is why I suggest "5 cards" rather than "as many as you want." The biggest issue is fun, making sure players are having as much fun as possible. It's more fun to not play with a card you hate. Playing against a card you hate is way larger than not getting to play with a card you like that most people hate. If you love Possession and everyone else hates it, you can always play unrated games sometimes where you force it to be included.

That's why my suggestion is: ban the union of each player's 3 (or 5) least favorite cards. Ban the intersection of each player's least favorite cards past the first 3 (or 5). This way there's no gaming of the system, but if two players both dislike several cards, they won't need to play with them, even in rated games.

What about: List one: Indicate up to three of your most disliked cards.
List two: Indicate any other disliked cards

Cards in any players' three most disliked cards never get used for filling in random kingdom events/cards. In addition, cards that are in all players' set of disliked cards never get used.

There is a table option to turn off this feature for tournaments and the like, but games found through any kind of matching always have the feature on.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4297
  • Respect: +16835
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #53 on: August 30, 2017, 02:51:52 pm »
+2

That's why my suggestion is: ban the union of each player's 3 (or 5) least favorite cards. Ban the intersection of each player's least favorite cards past the first 3 (or 5). This way there's no gaming of the system, but if two players both dislike several cards, they won't need to play with them, even in rated games.
The cards I hate, I don't want to play with, even if the other player likes them.

Further designations, e.g. "this card is in my bottom 50%, can I see it 30% less often" are just too much to ask of players. It's not worth explaining to people or programming.

You can game the system even if you only get to ban cards if both players want to ban them.
Logged

JW

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 563
  • Shuffle iT Username: JW
  • Respect: +930
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #54 on: August 30, 2017, 05:18:26 pm »
0

That's why my suggestion is: ban the union of each player's 3 (or 5) least favorite cards. Ban the intersection of each player's least favorite cards past the first 3 (or 5). This way there's no gaming of the system, but if two players both dislike several cards, they won't need to play with them, even in rated games.

The cards I hate, I don't want to play with, even if the other player likes them.

Banning the intersection of a list of disliked cards that is allowed to be any length shouldn't offend anyone, but allowing a long unilateral ban list would. For example, letting people who don't like potion-cost cards (or don't like discard attacks) not play with them when their opponent has the same preferences would be good, even if you believe that allowing a unilateral ban list of, say, 10+ cards wouldn't be advisable.

But, whatever modes it applies to, "intersection of hated cards" offends no-one except with regards to leaderboard accuracy; union of hated cards also may mean not getting to play with cards you like that lots of people don't. In casual, I may be willing to let my opponent veto cards that I don't veto myself; I may not.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4297
  • Respect: +16835
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #55 on: August 30, 2017, 05:45:41 pm »
+2

Banning the intersection of a list of disliked cards that is allowed to be any length shouldn't offend anyone,
It lets you hugely game the system, and for sure some people would not like it and rightfully so. I personally would not like it. I don't want to have to ban all the fun swingy cards to be competitive with other people who do so.

You have not changed my opinion. I don't like your idea and still like mine.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9554
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9319
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #56 on: August 30, 2017, 05:50:39 pm »
+6

I don't like your idea and still like mine.

But what if your opponent bans Mine?

kieranmillar

  • Coppersmith
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
  • Shuffle iT Username: kieranmillar
  • Respect: +106
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #57 on: August 30, 2017, 05:56:55 pm »
0

I support the idea of a card you ban never showing up in your rated games, solely because I don't want to play with Possession any more.

Heck, I'd be very happy with this feature reduced to only banning a single card.

Even better idea: Errata Possession to limit it to once per turn.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6869
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +8853
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #58 on: August 30, 2017, 05:58:36 pm »
+3

I don't like your idea and still like mine.

But what if your opponent bans Mine?

Then you won't be able to trash a bunch of Coppers and later make copies of better treasures.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

crj

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
  • Respect: +215
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #59 on: August 30, 2017, 06:32:03 pm »
0

...that would be Mint, not Mine?

(I feel by pointing this out I may be overlooking some obscure meta-joke.)
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9554
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9319
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #60 on: August 30, 2017, 06:50:26 pm »
+4

...that would be Mint, not Mine?

(I feel by pointing this out I may be overlooking some obscure meta-joke.)

No, this is mint:

2.71828.....

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1190
  • Shuffle iT Username: irrationalE
  • Respect: +1237
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #61 on: August 30, 2017, 06:56:51 pm »
+3

...that would be Mint, not Mine?

(I feel by pointing this out I may be overlooking some obscure meta-joke.)

You know how people go through phases? Like, maybe you were in chess club for a year or two, then you did something else, etc. f.ds went through a "mine/mint" joke phase similar to                                         moat.                                       . Some people still haven't grown out of it.
Logged
Man. I had four strips of bacon yesterday. Was one automatically undercooked, one automatically overcooked? No, let's put a stop to that right here, all four strips were excellent.

ThetaSigma12

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1245
  • Respect: +970
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #62 on: August 30, 2017, 07:06:21 pm »
+3

...that would be Mint, not Mine?

(I feel by pointing this out I may be overlooking some obscure meta-joke.)

You know how people go through phases? Like, maybe you were in chess club for a year or two, then you did something else, etc. f.ds went through a "mine/mint" joke phase similar to                                         moat.                                       . Some people still haven't grown out of it.
The best was the phase of endless brackets. Favorite card brackets, best village brackets, best bracket brackets, best bracket of best brackets bracket...

yeah, glad that's over.
Logged
If you have a fan card you want to be created, just post about it here! I'd love to take a look at it.

Omastar68

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 97
  • Shuffle iT Username: Omastar68
  • Respect: +41
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #63 on: August 30, 2017, 07:08:18 pm »
0

Rebuild ofc
Page(can Donate be one?)
Familiar
Lurker
Sauna Avanto


nvm all that, KC and Archive
Logged

gkrieg13

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 496
  • Shuffle iT Username: gkrieg
  • Respect: +421
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #64 on: August 30, 2017, 07:22:48 pm »
+1

...that would be Mint, not Mine?

(I feel by pointing this out I may be overlooking some obscure meta-joke.)

You know how people go through phases? Like, maybe you were in chess club for a year or two, then you did something else, etc. f.ds went through a "mine/mint" joke phase similar to                                         moat.                                       . Some people still haven't grown out of it.
The best was the phase of endless brackets. Favorite card brackets, best village brackets, best bracket brackets, best bracket of best brackets bracket...

yeah, glad that's over.

I'm sure it will start up again next March!  Unless there is a better month for brackets. 

We should figure out which month is the best month for brackets.  I guess I should start a ...  ;D
Logged
twitch: www.twitch.tv/gkrieg

"Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God." - Ether 12:4

Shvegait

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #65 on: August 30, 2017, 07:26:30 pm »
0

What I'd actually like to see is a system where you get to rate each card in terms of how much you enjoy playing with it, and then the average of your and your opponent's ratings determines how likely each card is to show up. Obviously that would take more work to set up.

This is how I think the ban list should work, but without a rating, just a Yes/No. You "ban" some cards, and your opponent "bans" some cards. If both of you have a certain card "banned", you won't play with it. It's not a real ban, but if you and your opponent mutually agree that you would like nothing more than to never see Rebuild, it won't show up, and you'll both have more fun.

But if someone wants to play with a rotation of all the cards, including the most hated ones, they would still get to do that, even at high rankings where maybe a lot of players have Rebuild or Possession or whatever "banned".

The problems with a ban system where one player banning the cards means they absolutely won't show up ever, in auto-matched games, are:
1) Some players may want to play with a selection of all the cards, and don't really have this as a choice if banning cards is popular
2) You could, potentially, game the overall rating system slightly by banning your personal lowest win % cards

Maybe the effects of both of these are very minor. But requiring both players to have "banned" the card to prevent it from showing up would solve these problems. On the flip side, the banning might not do much at all in this case, if hardly anyone uses the feature...

As a compromise, what might work is what Jimmmmm suggested, but only with ratings of 100% and 0% (could still just be implemented as a 5 card ban list). If one player "bans" the card, the chance of it appearing is halved relative to the normal probability of it appearing. If both players ban it, it will never show up. Might be a reasonable compromise, since still any card *could* show up (vs. players who may prefer to see that card), and you would still see your least favorite cards less often.

I flat out disagree.  If the feature is to be implemented, I will ban Possession because I hate the card and find it unfun.  That means I never want to see it again.  With your suggestion, I would then have to restrict myself to playing others who also ban it, which restricts my pool of available players and lengthens wait times.

If we are going to go that route, then why have a ban list?

Sorry, I don't understand the bolded in your quote. How would you restrict yourself to playing others who also ban it in auto-matched rated games? You would just see Possession sometimes. Strictly less often than you do now, though. My suggestion didn't have anything to do with lengthening wait times or allowing you to pick opponents based on your card preferences. (Maybe I worded something poorly?) Cards on your ban list you would see half as often as you do now; assuming your opponent doesn't have it on theirs. Cards on both players' ban lists would never appear.

I guess the overall philosophical question is what should rated games be about. If you have a unilateral ban list, for any particular game, it doesn't matter what cards were banned, because they're just not in the kingdom, and it's just like the randomizer didn't pick them. It only really matters at a more macro level, after tens or hundreds of games. If you really wanted to climb the ladder, you'd probably ban the swingiest cards earlier in your climb, then perhaps switch to the cards you're not as good with at the top (or keep banning the swingy cards). Would the effect be large enough to matter and is this a concern to current top ranked players?

Another possibility is just making the most hated card(s) banned by default for all players for rated games. If so many players hate Possession, then it can join Stash as a banned card at least for rated games. That gets around the system gaming issue. I'm not really advocating for this, but it's a way to do it.

Banning the intersection of a list of disliked cards that is allowed to be any length shouldn't offend anyone,
It lets you hugely game the system, and for sure some people would not like it and rightfully so. I personally would not like it. I don't want to have to ban all the fun swingy cards to be competitive with other people who do so.

You have not changed my opinion. I don't like your idea and still like mine.

Can you expound on how banning the intersection of a list of disliked cards would allow you to hugely game the system? It means that if both players have banned a card, it won't appear. Otherwise, it still could. So if one player bans Swindler, Cultist, Rebuild and Possession, and you only ban Possession, then Possession will not appear in this game. The other cards still could. If one player bans no cards, all the cards could appear. I don't see how this is gameable, but the ban list in this case also probably doesn't do anything most of the time...

This would be more like those Rebuild "gentleman's agreements" where both players decided in chat they would skip Rebuild. Except, now it gets auto-replaced with a different card if these preferences are expressed in the system before the games start.



ETA: We actually already have this "intersection ban" system, in a sense. These are the subscription levels. If you're not subscribed to cards, they are soft banned. If both players are not subscribed to a card, it will never appear. I mean, you can't game it really, just pointing out that this is not really a radical departure from how rated games work currently. (i.e. not all rated games pull from ALL cards as it is.)
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 08:09:20 pm by Shvegait »
Logged

JW

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 563
  • Shuffle iT Username: JW
  • Respect: +930
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #66 on: August 30, 2017, 09:59:48 pm »
0

Can you expound on how banning the intersection of a list of disliked cards would allow you to hugely game the system? It means that if both players have banned a card, it won't appear. Otherwise, it still could. So if one player bans Swindler, Cultist, Rebuild and Possession, and you only ban Possession, then Possession will not appear in this game. The other cards still could. If one player bans no cards, all the cards could appear. I don't see how this is gameable, but the ban list in this case also probably doesn't do anything most of the time...

This would be more like those Rebuild "gentleman's agreements" where both players decided in chat they would skip Rebuild. Except, now it gets auto-replaced with a different card if these preferences are expressed in the system before the games start.

The logic of how a ban system could be used to game the rating system is that certain cards tend to systematically favor the more skilled player. Exactly which cards these are, and how much they matter is up for debate, and probably changes at different levels of the game. But under any ban system, a player who wants to maximize their rating will be encouraged to ban cards that they are worse with, or, if they usually play lower rated opponents, that make it easier for the less skilled player to win. I find that concern rather overblown when 5 or fewer cards can be unilaterally banned, and any other cards would need to be banned by all players to be excluded. Fun should be a much higher priority than the accuracy of the ranking system because the purpose of the ranking system is to increase fun, and game to game fun doesn't depend on having the most accurate ranking system.

If I have decided that, say, I am terrible with all of Alchemy, then I am encouraged, even in a system where only cards banned by all players are excluded, to ban Alchemy, even if I enjoy playing with it, in the hopes that I can do better against opponents who simply banned Alchemy because they dislike it, rather than because they are unskilled with it. Or if beyond Cultist and Rebuild, 8 more cards make it easier for the less skilled player to win, I should put all 10 cards on my ban list in the hopes that my opponents will ban them because they dislike them, even though my lower rated opponents would benefit from having them show up in games against me.

For example, this same logic would imply that "gentleman’s’ agreements" to not gain Rebuild could also be used to game the ranking system, if higher ranked (and solely concerned about their ranking) players propose banning Rebuild to increase their chances of winning, even though they find it fun, and lower ranked players go along with it because they don’t find Rebuild fun, even though it would increase their chances of winning. More power to the system enforcing the gentleman’s agreement, I say!

Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9554
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9319
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #67 on: August 30, 2017, 10:11:46 pm »
+2

For example, this same logic would imply that "gentleman’s’ agreements" to not gain Rebuild could also be used to game the ranking system, if higher ranked (and solely concerned about their ranking) players propose banning Rebuild to increase their chances of winning, even though they find it fun, and lower ranked players go along with it because they don’t find Rebuild fun, even though it would increase their chances of winning.

This is a bit of a tangent, but I once refused such a proposal when I had 5/2 and my opponent was convinced that I only refused because of my opening even though I actually did because I think Rebuild games are fun enough. In principle though, you could game gentlemen's agreements that way by proposing them when you have an unfavorable opening and refusing when you have a favorable one.

Deadlock39

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1675
  • Respect: +1669
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #68 on: August 30, 2017, 10:38:46 pm »
+1

Sorry, I don't understand the bolded in your quote.

He is implying that under your system, he could avoid ever playing games with Possession by blacklisting any player he played against when Possession appeared. He is also implying that Possession is so un-fun that he would be personally obligated to do so, and his pool of available players would therefore be reduced.

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6869
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +8853
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #69 on: August 30, 2017, 10:42:10 pm »
+4

...that would be Mint, not Mine?

(I feel by pointing this out I may be overlooking some obscure meta-joke.)

It's not a particularly obscure meta-joke... it was common in the Isotropic era to accidentally click on Mint rather than Mine, and vice versa, when they showed up next to each other--so close in name, and Iso could be played with no graphics.  This became an in-joke, and perpetuating these sorts of in-jokes is a hobby of mint.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

Shvegait

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #70 on: August 30, 2017, 11:02:21 pm »
0

Sorry, I don't understand the bolded in your quote.

He is implying that under your system, he could avoid ever playing games with Possession by blacklisting any player he played against when Possession appeared. He is also implying that Possession is so un-fun that he would be personally obligated to do so, and his pool of available players would therefore be reduced.

Ah, I see. But this does imply that having a reduced player pool is still preferable to him compared to playing sometimes with Possession, still an improvement compared to the current situation. Otherwise, he would decide not blacklisting those players would give him greater utility than blacklisting them.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4297
  • Respect: +16835
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #71 on: August 30, 2017, 11:05:15 pm »
+7

...that would be Mint, not Mine?

(I feel by pointing this out I may be overlooking some obscure meta-joke.)

No, this is mint:


They had Dominion mints at Essen in 2009.


Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4297
  • Respect: +16835
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #72 on: August 30, 2017, 11:15:54 pm »
+1

The logic of how a ban system could be used to game the rating system is that certain cards tend to systematically favor the more skilled player. Exactly which cards these are, and how much they matter is up for debate, and probably changes at different levels of the game. But under any ban system, a player who wants to maximize their rating will be encouraged to ban cards that they are worse with, or, if they usually play lower rated opponents, that make it easier for the less skilled player to win. I find that concern rather overblown when 5 or fewer cards can be unilaterally banned, and any other cards would need to be banned by all players to be excluded. Fun should be a much higher priority than the accuracy of the ranking system because the purpose of the ranking system is to increase fun, and game to game fun doesn't depend on having the most accurate ranking system.
My concern is that people would feel like they should ban a bunch of cards (from games where their opponent also did) to get an advantage, and this would result in them having less fun. How much of an advantage it would actually be isn't a factor.

With just 5 cards, you ban the ones you hate the most and so much for that. There probably aren't tons of cards you hate, if you're playing Dominion. If you feel like you have to ban Smithy because it's so swingy even though you enjoy it, that's bad, but at least I've limited the damage to 5 cards.

Obv. people already have complete control of what cards are used for unrated games, and can play nothing but unrated games. The ban list is for rated games and thus needs to keep gaming-the-system low. The 5-card ban list is a concession to the fact that some people hate some cards but prefer to play rated games.
Logged

Shvegait

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #73 on: August 30, 2017, 11:18:49 pm »
+1

Can you expound on how banning the intersection of a list of disliked cards would allow you to hugely game the system? It means that if both players have banned a card, it won't appear. Otherwise, it still could. So if one player bans Swindler, Cultist, Rebuild and Possession, and you only ban Possession, then Possession will not appear in this game. The other cards still could. If one player bans no cards, all the cards could appear. I don't see how this is gameable, but the ban list in this case also probably doesn't do anything most of the time...

This would be more like those Rebuild "gentleman's agreements" where both players decided in chat they would skip Rebuild. Except, now it gets auto-replaced with a different card if these preferences are expressed in the system before the games start.

The logic of how a ban system could be used to game the rating system is that certain cards tend to systematically favor the more skilled player. Exactly which cards these are, and how much they matter is up for debate, and probably changes at different levels of the game. But under any ban system, a player who wants to maximize their rating will be encouraged to ban cards that they are worse with, or, if they usually play lower rated opponents, that make it easier for the less skilled player to win. I find that concern rather overblown when 5 or fewer cards can be unilaterally banned, and any other cards would need to be banned by all players to be excluded. Fun should be a much higher priority than the accuracy of the ranking system because the purpose of the ranking system is to increase fun, and game to game fun doesn't depend on having the most accurate ranking system.

If I have decided that, say, I am terrible with all of Alchemy, then I am encouraged, even in a system where only cards banned by all players are excluded, to ban Alchemy, even if I enjoy playing with it, in the hopes that I can do better against opponents who simply banned Alchemy because they dislike it, rather than because they are unskilled with it. Or if beyond Cultist and Rebuild, 8 more cards make it easier for the less skilled player to win, I should put all 10 cards on my ban list in the hopes that my opponents will ban them because they dislike them, even though my lower rated opponents would benefit from having them show up in games against me.

For example, this same logic would imply that "gentleman’s’ agreements" to not gain Rebuild could also be used to game the ranking system, if higher ranked (and solely concerned about their ranking) players propose banning Rebuild to increase their chances of winning, even though they find it fun, and lower ranked players go along with it because they don’t find Rebuild fun, even though it would increase their chances of winning. More power to the system enforcing the gentleman’s agreement, I say!

I get how you could game the system with union bans, it's only the intersection bans I was questioning. If the only downside is that lower ranked players may ban swingy cards to their own detriment, it doesn't seem like that big of a downside. I was mostly questioning the assertion that in an intersection ban system that you would be compelled to ban these cards to be competitive. The ban doesn't do anything against players that ban 0 cards, so then there must be some game theory reason why the banning meta-game would gravitate to all the top players banning all (max #) of the swingiest cards. I wonder if that is really true, because at some point having the swingy cards in the game is better for you, but perhaps not if you are more often facing lower ranked players (but who also decide to ban the swingy cards).
« Last Edit: August 30, 2017, 11:21:40 pm by Shvegait »
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6869
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +8853
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #74 on: August 30, 2017, 11:20:39 pm »
+1

They had Dominion mints at Essen in 2009.

Oh man.  There's a piece of amazing memorabilia.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

cascadestyler

  • Ambassador
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
  • Adventurer had its place!
  • Respect: +33
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #75 on: August 31, 2017, 06:45:27 am »
+3

I don't like your idea and still like mine.

But what if your opponent bans Mine?

This is the first comment I have ever upvoted
Logged
Please do not feed the blue dogs

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6542
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +8495
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #76 on: August 31, 2017, 08:38:04 am »
+11

I don't like your idea and still like mine.

But what if your opponent bans Mine?

This is the first comment I have ever upvoted

WHY ARE YOU ENCOURAGING HIM
Logged

Jacob marley

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 118
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jacob Marley
  • Respect: +97
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #77 on: August 31, 2017, 02:43:56 pm »
0

Sorry, I don't understand the bolded in your quote.

He is implying that under your system, he could avoid ever playing games with Possession by blacklisting any player he played against when Possession appeared. He is also implying that Possession is so un-fun that he would be personally obligated to do so, and his pool of available players would therefore be reduced.

Ah, I see. But this does imply that having a reduced player pool is still preferable to him compared to playing sometimes with Possession, still an improvement compared to the current situation. Otherwise, he would decide not blacklisting those players would give him greater utility than blacklisting them.

Shvegait is essentually correct.  Now, in reality, I would not really blacklist everyone I play where a Possession comes up, because ultimately I don't want to restrict my opponent list for that reason.  However, I pointed out that this is exactly what I would have to do under your method to insure that I don't see possession.  Thus, what I'm really trying to say is that my goal for the ban list is to never see the hated cards, and using the union of ban lists fails in this regard.
Logged

FemurLemur

  • Ambassador
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
  • Shuffle iT Username: FemurLemur
  • Respect: +50
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #78 on: September 02, 2017, 03:27:07 pm »
+1

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned any of the 3 attacks from Prosperity on their ban list.

I don't think that having an intersection of both players ban lists would be too hard to program or explain to users. You could phrase it as "pick up to 5 cards to never play with. Now you can pick as many cards as you want that you won't play with if your opponent agrees not to". At the same time, it being game-able is a valid concern.

I will say this though, the Union list is, in my opinion, at a greater risk of being gamed in a more unscrupulous way. For instance, when crafting my list, why would I bother to put Possession on there if I believe the chances of my opponents doing so on their list are high? Why don't I just create a bot that goes through every player's ban list (assuming they're public), find the most common cards, then be sure that I don't put them on my list. Now I have confidence that I'm X% likely to not encounter all of those cards I would actually want to ban, and I can still ban 5 additional cards that I'm bad with.

And if we overcome the above problem by making the ban lists private, I can still keep a log of all of the banned cards from every game I play. The only solution to that problem that comes to mind is to not tell players what cards are being banned at all, which I'm not a fan of.

I question whether solving these issues would even be worth it. The very nature of Dominion means that I won't actually see my least favorite card often because the card pool is always growing. If we ignore the possibility of a Bane card, the current odds that one specific Kingdom card will be in the game is 4% (which will decrease to 3.53% when Nocturne comes out). Granted, the odds that one of my 5 least favorite cards comes out is 17.25% (15.51% once Nocturne comes out). But if that sounds like a lot to you, remember that not all cards are hated equally. I may have 3 cards I despise and 2 that I feel "meh" about, and that 17.25% just refers to the odds that 1 of those 5 comes out to play.

There's also the issue that it could cause resentment from players who like certain unpopular cards. If I buy Alchemy because I really love Possession (and am apparently a statistical anomaly), and then it never comes out on the table, I'm gonna be frustrated that I spent money on something I don't get to use. There's already only a 4% chance that I get to play with Possession in a game. Now consider if 80% of the community bans it. That means I only have a 20% chance of playing a game where Possession is even an option (ignoring any matchmaking probabilities), just to get a ~4%* chance that it shows up. So in total I would have less than a 1% chance of ever seeing Possession.

I don't agree with the notion that we only have to worry about the hated cards that do get played, and not the beloved cards that don't get played. There are certain cards that I get really happy to see, and if I paid for them, I don't think it's fair that I have lower odds of seeing them just because the people I play against online can't deal with them on the rare occasions they come out.

Final point: I worry that this kind of thing will lead to increased community group think. Surely Donald is familiar with our occasional tendency to just decide that a certain card is broken, too strong, too weak, too worthless, etc. only to later realize that maybe we made a bigger deal about it than it really was. I think that that moment of realization only happens when we play with those cards more. So if the community just decides "this new card from Nocturne is stupidly broken, it's just an auto-buy every game", and everyone starts banning it, then it's going to take far longer for people to start using it enough to fairly assess it.



*The reason this is phrased as approx 4% is because now in this scenario we're using bans, which decreases the card pool by up to 10 cards, depending on if my opponent and I have duplicates or not. So the odds that Possession shows up if neither of us have banned it becomes anywhere from 4%-4.17% before Nocturne, and 3.53%-3.66% after Nocturne
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4297
  • Respect: +16835
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #79 on: September 02, 2017, 03:32:49 pm »
+3

Final point: I worry that this kind of thing will lead to increased community group think. Surely Donald X. is familiar with our occasional tendency to just decide that a certain card is broken, too strong, too weak, too worthless, etc. only to later realize that maybe we made a bigger deal about it than it really was. I think that that moment of realization only happens when we play with those cards more. So if the community just decides "this new card from Nocturne is stupidly broken, it's just an auto-buy every game", and everyone starts banning it, then it's going to take far longer for people to start using it enough to fairly assess it.
It's 5 cards. You can't ban each card you think is strong; you pick 5 and you're done. I don't think people will immediately ban new cards. And if they do that's actually fine; I don't need people to fairly assess cards, I just need them to have fun. I'd rather they missed out on the fun they'd have with Jack than that they skip playing because they hate Possession.
Logged

FemurLemur

  • Ambassador
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
  • Shuffle iT Username: FemurLemur
  • Respect: +50
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #80 on: September 02, 2017, 04:31:54 pm »
0

Final point: I worry that this kind of thing will lead to increased community group think. Surely Donald X. is familiar with our occasional tendency to just decide that a certain card is broken, too strong, too weak, too worthless, etc. only to later realize that maybe we made a bigger deal about it than it really was. I think that that moment of realization only happens when we play with those cards more. So if the community just decides "this new card from Nocturne is stupidly broken, it's just an auto-buy every game", and everyone starts banning it, then it's going to take far longer for people to start using it enough to fairly assess it.
It's 5 cards. You can't ban each card you think is strong; you pick 5 and you're done. I don't think people will immediately ban new cards. And if they do that's actually fine; I don't need people to fairly assess cards, I just need them to have fun. I'd rather they missed out on the fun they'd have with Jack than that they skip playing because they hate Possession.

I can't argue with that! So do you think it's worth the trade-off/risk that the player who loves Possession feels they never get to use it? (Not a loaded question, genuinely want to know your take on this)

Another way of thinking of this is, if I plan on playing Dominion online all day tomorrow, it's already unlikely that I'll see my least favorite card even after playing 16 games in a row (19 games in a row after Nocturne). At 17 (20) games, it becomes more probable that you will see it rather than that you won't.

Now imagine we have ban lists of up to 5 cards, 80% of players have banned Possession, and Possession is my favorite card. It's unlikely that I'll see my favorite card even after playing 86 (97) games in a row. At 87 (98) games, it is now more likely that I will than I won't.

And if 80% sounds unrealistic, how about we say 50% of players have banned Possession. That still means I'm going to need to play twice as many games- 35 (39)- before I'm expecting to see Possession on the table once.

Granted, if 80% of players are banning Possession, it means that only 20% of players are going to be negatively affected by this, so I wouldn't blame you for considering this a non-issue. But to me, it just seems like players should be content with the 16 games in a row that they are likely to never see Possession in rather than needing an avenue for outright removing it. Especially since the card pool is always growing. Whereas if I have to go anywhere from 35 to 98 games before having a >50% chance of seeing a card I like even once... Well, that's quite a long wait


Also, sorry I forgot the "X." :P
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4297
  • Respect: +16835
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #81 on: September 02, 2017, 05:05:31 pm »
+1

I can't argue with that! So do you think it's worth the trade-off/risk that the player who loves Possession feels they never get to use it? (Not a loaded question, genuinely want to know your take on this)
You can play unrated games to see those cards. You don't have to leave it to luck; you can say, this game, include Possession. You can spend the day playing endless Possession games.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9554
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9319
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #82 on: September 02, 2017, 05:48:28 pm »
+1

WHY ARE YOU ENCOURAGING HIM

I'm not doing it for the upvotes, I'm doing it for the lulz.

Titandrake

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1953
  • Respect: +2052
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #83 on: September 03, 2017, 03:48:22 am »
+3

WHY ARE YOU ENCOURAGING HIM

I'm not doing it for the upvotes, I'm doing it for the lulz.

Not to derail too much, but I found the contrast interesting.

Awaclus on Discord today:

Quote from: Awaclus
but yeah, basically I agree that if you're looking for actual Dominion strategy discussion that helps you improve as a player, this discord server is the only option

f.ds is too focused on upvote fishing and all the other communities are too anti-competitive

Awaclus on f.ds today: "I'm going to post Mine/Mint jokes."

Just saying, "for the lulz" isn't very different from "doing it for the upvotes".
Logged
I have a blog! It's called Sorta Insightful. Check it out?

LaLight

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 520
  • Shuffle iT Username: LaLight
  • Because I'm a potato
  • Respect: +498
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #84 on: September 03, 2017, 03:53:32 am »
+3

WHY ARE YOU ENCOURAGING HIM

I'm not doing it for the upvotes, I'm doing it for the lulz.

Not to derail too much, but I found the contrast interesting.

Awaclus on Discord today:

Quote from: Awaclus
but yeah, basically I agree that if you're looking for actual Dominion strategy discussion that helps you improve as a player, this discord server is the only option

f.ds is too focused on upvote fishing and all the other communities are too anti-competitive

Awaclus on f.ds today: "I'm going to post Mine/Mint jokes."

Just saying, "for the lulz" isn't very different from "doing it for the upvotes".

Hm, sorry, but sometimes you joke for the sake of joke, not for the upvotes. I mean, if I come up with a good pun, I want to share it with people and I definitely don't think about the upvotes. Why is here a different situation?
Logged
Wow where is all this LaLight love coming from all of the sudden?

Wins: M87, M85, M92, M99, M107, RMM37, RMM39, RMM44, RMM45, BM24, M86, M94, M95, M100, ZM24
Losses: M88, M90, RMM38, NM8, NM9, M97, M106, ZM23, NM10
Draws: RMM40
Lynched: M95, NM10
MVPs: RMM39, RMM44
Mod/Co-mod: RMM37, M89, M93, M91, M96, RMM41, M98, M101, M102, M104, M105

Titandrake

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1953
  • Respect: +2052
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #85 on: September 03, 2017, 03:55:17 am »
0

WHY ARE YOU ENCOURAGING HIM

I'm not doing it for the upvotes, I'm doing it for the lulz.

Not to derail too much, but I found the contrast interesting.

Awaclus on Discord today:

Quote from: Awaclus
but yeah, basically I agree that if you're looking for actual Dominion strategy discussion that helps you improve as a player, this discord server is the only option

f.ds is too focused on upvote fishing and all the other communities are too anti-competitive

Awaclus on f.ds today: "I'm going to post Mine/Mint jokes."

Just saying, "for the lulz" isn't very different from "doing it for the upvotes".

Hm, sorry, but sometimes you joke for the sake of joke, not for the upvotes. I mean, if I come up with a good pun, I want to share it with people and I definitely don't think about the upvotes. Why is here a different situation?

Sure, that's fair. I just don't like Mine/Mint jokes. They've been done enough that it's hard not to see them coming, so they all preemptively fall flat.

Edit: Okay I just realized it was Kirian that made the Mine/Mint joke, so this whole thing was a waste of time. I'll accept that "for the lulz" isn't the same as "doing it for the upvotes", but I stand by them being similar.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2017, 04:00:56 am by Titandrake »
Logged
I have a blog! It's called Sorta Insightful. Check it out?

LaLight

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 520
  • Shuffle iT Username: LaLight
  • Because I'm a potato
  • Respect: +498
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #86 on: September 03, 2017, 03:59:57 am »
0

WHY ARE YOU ENCOURAGING HIM

I'm not doing it for the upvotes, I'm doing it for the lulz.

Not to derail too much, but I found the contrast interesting.

Awaclus on Discord today:

Quote from: Awaclus
but yeah, basically I agree that if you're looking for actual Dominion strategy discussion that helps you improve as a player, this discord server is the only option

f.ds is too focused on upvote fishing and all the other communities are too anti-competitive

Awaclus on f.ds today: "I'm going to post Mine/Mint jokes."

Just saying, "for the lulz" isn't very different from "doing it for the upvotes".

Hm, sorry, but sometimes you joke for the sake of joke, not for the upvotes. I mean, if I come up with a good pun, I want to share it with people and I definitely don't think about the upvotes. Why is here a different situation?

Sure, that's fair. I just don't like Mine/Mint jokes. They've been done enough that it's hard not to see them coming, so they all preemptively fall flat.

Different people have different sense of humour. My personal opinion, for one, is that I do like Mine/Mint, Moat and other stuff when it comes up, I mean I at least smile. But I do understand that a lot of people are tired of this set, so I rarely joke them myself.
Logged
Wow where is all this LaLight love coming from all of the sudden?

Wins: M87, M85, M92, M99, M107, RMM37, RMM39, RMM44, RMM45, BM24, M86, M94, M95, M100, ZM24
Losses: M88, M90, RMM38, NM8, NM9, M97, M106, ZM23, NM10
Draws: RMM40
Lynched: M95, NM10
MVPs: RMM39, RMM44
Mod/Co-mod: RMM37, M89, M93, M91, M96, RMM41, M98, M101, M102, M104, M105

ThetaSigma12

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1245
  • Respect: +970
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #87 on: September 03, 2017, 08:04:34 am »
0

Hm, sorry, but sometimes you joke for the sake of joke.
This. Whenever I make a joke, my #1 target audience is me. If I can think of something that I find downright hilarious that's the real goal. Other people are too darn hard to please anyways.
Logged
If you have a fan card you want to be created, just post about it here! I'd love to take a look at it.

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9554
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9319
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #88 on: September 03, 2017, 09:06:00 am »
+1

WHY ARE YOU ENCOURAGING HIM

I'm not doing it for the upvotes, I'm doing it for the lulz.

Not to derail too much, but I found the contrast interesting.

Awaclus on Discord today:

Quote from: Awaclus
but yeah, basically I agree that if you're looking for actual Dominion strategy discussion that helps you improve as a player, this discord server is the only option

f.ds is too focused on upvote fishing and all the other communities are too anti-competitive

Awaclus on f.ds today: "I'm going to post Mine/Mint jokes."

Just saying, "for the lulz" isn't very different from "doing it for the upvotes".

I also post Mine/Mint jokes on Discord where I can't get upvoted, so I think that's enough to prove that my motivation for them doesn't stem from the upvotes.

chipperMDW

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 119
  • Respect: +218
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #89 on: September 03, 2017, 10:43:30 am »
+8

Maybe each person should be able to ban 5 memes they never want to see.
Logged

Deadlock39

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1675
  • Respect: +1669
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #90 on: September 03, 2017, 11:55:13 am »
0

I'm a fan of jokes, but I can't see any difference between posting them because you want upvotes vs. because you think they are funny. Upvotes in this context are just a reflection of how funny people think it is. I think it is especially ridiculous within the context it was mentioned on discord, which was related to the frequency of this behavior derailing threads here on f.ds. Your motivation for posting does not have any bearing on whether a post is on topic.

People who do not like jokes posted in strategy threads will not change their opinion of your jokes based on your motivation for posting them. This is mostly obvious because your intention is not something they can know.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2017, 11:59:09 am by Deadlock39 »
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9554
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +9319
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #91 on: September 03, 2017, 12:24:04 pm »
+1

I'm a fan of jokes, but I can't see any difference between posting them because you want upvotes vs. because you think they are funny. Upvotes in this context are just a reflection of how funny people think it is. I think it is especially ridiculous within the context it was mentioned on discord, which was related to the frequency of this behavior derailing threads here on f.ds. Your motivation for posting does not have any bearing on whether a post is on topic.

People who do not like jokes posted in strategy threads will not change their opinion of your jokes based on your motivation for posting them. This is mostly obvious because your intention is not something they can know.

The context in which it was mentioned on Discord had nothing to do with derailment. The problem is not that people post jokes, the problem is that people are inclined to not post stuff that isn't a joke or something that the average player already agrees with. Which is a problem because the average player's view on Dominion strategy is not the goal that we should all be striving to reach.

pacovf

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3041
  • Multiediting poster
  • Respect: +3322
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #92 on: September 03, 2017, 02:49:00 pm »
0

Sorry I am a bit confused, what is this thread about, again?
Logged
pacovf has a neopets account.  It has 999 hours logged.  All his neopets are named "Jessica".  I guess that must be his ex.

Qvist

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2306
  • Shuffle iT Username: Qvist
  • Respect: +3759
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #93 on: September 03, 2017, 03:59:49 pm »
+2

It's about banning the union of the 5 most disliked f.ds puns from the forum.
Logged

Cave-o-sapien

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 322
  • Respect: +483
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #94 on: September 03, 2017, 04:14:17 pm »
+1

If the ban N cards is implemented on ShuffleIt, then I'd like to see which cards I currently have banned at the matchmaking screen, with the option to un-ban them right there. I think it should also be visible somewhere for the opponent: perhaps at the start of the gamelog?
Logged

Asper

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3853
  • Respect: +4064
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #95 on: September 04, 2017, 10:28:44 am »
0

Rebuild
Page
IGG
Cultist
Leave this one for whatever I feel like excluding in that moment.

crudefilmschool

  • Pawn
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
  • Shuffle iT Username: chrismikethomas
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #96 on: September 11, 2017, 11:28:31 am »
+2

I adore this idea, PLEASE implement it.

I'd ban Sauna, Donate, Possession, and beyond that I don't really care. Maybe Governor or Montebank.
Logged

ackmondual

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 165
  • Respect: +86
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #97 on: September 12, 2017, 04:05:16 am »
0

Sauna/Avanto (does that count as two??)
No. It's the same pile.  Going strictly by the rules, you can't have a game with just Avantos, or Suanas (although that could make for neat variant :p)

What I'd actually like to see is a system where you get to rate each card in terms of how much you enjoy playing with it, and then the average of your and your opponent's ratings determines how likely each card is to show up. Obviously that would take more work to set up.

This is how I think the ban list should work, but without a rating, just a Yes/No. You "ban" some cards, and your opponent "bans" some cards. If both of you have a certain card "banned", you won't play with it. It's not a real ban, but if you and your opponent mutually agree that you would like nothing more than to never see Rebuild, it won't show up, and you'll both have more fun.

But if someone wants to play with a rotation of all the cards, including the most hated ones, they would still get to do that, even at high rankings where maybe a lot of players have Rebuild or Possession or whatever "banned".

The problems with a ban system where one player banning the cards means they absolutely won't show up ever, in auto-matched games, are:
1) Some players may want to play with a selection of all the cards, and don't really have this as a choice if banning cards is popular
2) You could, potentially, game the overall rating system slightly by banning your personal lowest win % cards

Maybe the effects of both of these are very minor. But requiring both players to have "banned" the card to prevent it from showing up would solve these problems. On the flip side, the banning might not do much at all in this case, if hardly anyone uses the feature...

As a compromise, what might work is what Jimmmmm suggested, but only with ratings of 100% and 0% (could still just be implemented as a 5 card ban list). If one player "bans" the card, the chance of it appearing is halved relative to the normal probability of it appearing. If both players ban it, it will never show up. Might be a reasonable compromise, since still any card *could* show up (vs. players who may prefer to see that card), and you would still see your least favorite cards less often.

I flat out disagree.  If the feature is to be implemented, I will ban Possession because I hate the card and find it unfun.  That means I never want to see it again.  With your suggestion, I would then have to restrict myself to playing others who also ban it, which restricts my pool of available players and lengthens wait times.

If we are going to go that route, then why have a ban list?
Hmm, solution presented?  It sounds like it may make more sense to not ban 5 cards, but ban 5 players.
Logged
Village, +2 Actions.  Village, +3 Actions.  Village, +4 Actions.  Village, +5 Actions.  Village, +6 Actions.  Village, +7 Actions.  Workers Village, +2 Buys, +8 Actions.  End Action Phase.  No Treasures to play.  No buy

ackmondual

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 165
  • Respect: +86
    • View Profile
Re: Banning 5 Cards
« Reply #98 on: September 12, 2017, 04:12:04 am »
+3

I'm hardcore:

Province
Duchy
Estate
Copper
Curse
Whereas I'm more of a form over function player.  To that end, I'd suggest:
randomizers
blanks
starting cards
1st edition cards
2nd edition cards

I don't like your idea and still like mine.

But what if your opponent bans Mine?

This is the first comment I have ever upvoted

WHY ARE YOU ENCOURAGING HIM
We should have Abandoned Mine!
Logged
Village, +2 Actions.  Village, +3 Actions.  Village, +4 Actions.  Village, +5 Actions.  Village, +6 Actions.  Village, +7 Actions.  Workers Village, +2 Buys, +8 Actions.  End Action Phase.  No Treasures to play.  No buy
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All]
 

Page created in 0.248 seconds with 20 queries.