Print

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

[theory]

How can Making Fun better implement set selection on Dominion Online?  What does the casual/pro mode need?

[Trogdor the Burninator]

I was never really on Isotropic but a Veto mode sounds good

[GeoLib]

I'll just quote my posts from that other thread:

My 2 cents. Pro mode is pretty much fine as is, except that goko (or making fun, I guess?) really needs to implement automatch and a proper lobby system. There shouldn't be any kind of ban list or anything. In my mind "pro" means all-cards, full-random, no knowledge of the kingdom before hand. Obviously people having different set ownerships messes with this somewhat, but I don't really see any practical way to fix that. I don't think it's fair to exclude people who don't have all the cards from hosting pro (especially, what if they have all the sets, but not all the promos. Would that be enough?). Anyway, I don't see a practical solution to that issue. I do think that it makes sense that "pro" mode should be aimed at the interests of the competitive players though.

I think the real problem, as mentioned in the OP is that playing casual "it'd be hard to find an opponent because all the better players seem to just play pro." I think if casual were fixed up a little bit then perhaps people would be more willing to play it too. I probably would still only host pro-mode matches, but I'd be willing to join casual games if it were possible to see what criteria someone used when picking the game (including what sets were drawn from). This would require goko implementing a server-side functioning kingdom generator. LF points out that someone could just keep generating kingdoms until they got, say KC/Goons/Masq, which I guess is an issue, but I think if you were only allowed to put in your parameters and then you didn't see the kingdom until you hit "create game," then generating kingdoms until you got the one you want would be a sufficiently large hassle that it wouldn't be that much of a problem. Some dick would probably still do it, but, oh well, this is casual mode and I don't think it would happen very often.

To clarify, I meant that you would see the set of ten and the parameters they used to pick it (including the possibility to pick all 10. This is a useful feature and I don't think it should go away). Maybe it pops up that this set contains tournament and you don't join the game. If it comes up with a huge wall of text on all the requirements they used, you don't have to read it all. You can just decide that you'd rather not play that game (or play it anyway).

[LastFootnote]

Thanks for creating this topic. I was wanting to talk about some requests, but didn't really want to post them in the "I hate Tournament" thread.

I play mostly Unrated games using sets I create with my own randomizer. Like, I play enough Pro and Casual games to keep my ratings high enough that people know I'm not a noob, but that's it. So as far as Pro randomization goes, I have no horse in that race. I do have some opinions about custom Kingdom selection/randomization, so hopefully this is the place to talk about that.

If Making Fun wants to create a better set generator with parameters, I think they should consider using a text-based input field like the extension uses. It's arguably less user-friendly than Dominion Online's current Kingdom creator, but way, way more convenient. Right now the native Kingdom creator (the "My Cards" section) is a bit of a mess. The cards are divided up into not just expansions, but sub-expansions. Some of these are sorted alphabetically and some by card cost. It takes forever to, say, recreate one of Hinterlands's suggested sets of 10 using that interface. Whereas with the extension, I can just type in a comma-separated list of ten cards and bam, it's made. Or if I want to practice with a specific card, I can just type "Develop, All" and go. So it would be nice if the text-based input were at least an option. At minimum, they should revamp the "My Cards" section to be more user friendly and give various sort and search options (e.g. All Cards, By Expansion, By Sub-Expansion, By Cost, etc.).

My much greater concern is with the eventual native automatch implementation. Over half the games on Dominion Online seem to be Pro games. About half of the Casual games are Base-only. I almost never see an Unrated game that I'm not hosting. Right now this isn't a problem for me. I have no trouble finding players for my games because even if they'd prefer to play a Pro or Casual games, many are willing to play an Unrated game rather than sit around in the lobby. I have no idea how the native automatch will work once it's finally implemented, but if it works like the extension, players cannot say, "Well, I'd like to play this type of game, but I'm willing to play these others." You just choose a type of game and get matched. I will bet cash money that over 99% of automatched games are Pro games. So I'm concerned that native automatch will be the death knell of unrated and perhaps even casual games.

[JW]

One suggestion is:
The host of a pro game chooses whether the Kingdom will be generated according to "black list mode" (and this is a visible characteristic of the game). If so, each player's list of (up to) three cards won't be included in the Kingdom (when the game starts it lists which cards each player vetoed).

If a pro game is not generated in "black list mode", then only cards that are on every player's "black list" list will be vetoed. A tournament's rules might require not using black list mode, for example.

Additionally, no cards from the base set can be black listed. For the other cards, there is a worry that people will not purchase, say, Cornucopia if they will be forced to play Tournament in "pro" games. With the base set that concern doesn't apply.

[LastFootnote]

I was never really on Isotropic but a Veto mode sounds good

Where would you have it, though? In Unrated and Casual modes, the set of 10 is created before people join your game, and I for sure don't see that changing. So it would have to be an option for Pro mode only.

Again, I have no horse in the Pro-mode race, but I am against iso-style veto mode in general. It just serves to create a pre-game metagame where you try to maximize your advantage by tailoring the board. Ugh.

[GeoLib]

I was never really on Isotropic but a Veto mode sounds good

Where would you have it, though? In Unrated and Casual modes, the set of 10 is created before people join your game, and I for sure don't see that changing. So it would have to be an option for Pro mode only.

Again, I have no horse in the Pro-mode race, but I am against iso-style veto mode in general. It just serves to create a pre-game metagame where you try to maximize your advantage by tailoring the board. Ugh.

I agree. I would not be a fan of this entering one of the existing modes and I don't think it's worth making it's own mode. I don't really find it that compelling (then again, there aren't really any cards that I hate to play with).

[Robz888]

How can Making Fun better implement set selection on Dominion Online?  What does the casual/pro mode need?

Not to be all, "Dude, Isotropic was so awesome, just replicate it completely, jerks" BUT... bias toward certain sets, veto mode, and identical starting hands are the things I most want.

Identical starting hands most of all.

[Donald X.]

To clarify, I meant that you would see the set of ten and the parameters they used to pick it (including the possibility to pick all 10. This is a useful feature and I don't think it should go away). Maybe it pops up that this set contains tournament and you don't join the game. If it comes up with a huge wall of text on all the requirements they used, you don't have to read it all. You can just decide that you'd rather not play that game (or play it anyway).

If they pick the cards sufficiently randomly - e.g. 5 Seaside 5 Prosperity - then why show the ten cards?

I don't like the huge wall of text; sure I can ignore it, whatever, it's bad. If I can see the 10 cards then obv. I don't need to know anything except "did they force specific cards." If I can't see the 10 then I would limit it to, they either picked some simple thing here it is, or it's something complex and leave it at that, proceed at own risk. I mean I would show the cards they forced if any but not "include a village" or whatever if those were options.

So I guess that answers my question, if you show the 10 cards and highlight ones they forced to be included and maybe flash an alarm for picking KC+Masq then who cares how else they generated it, there's your actual set of 10.

But uh I feel like I don't want to know the set of 10. I want to be able to say "5 seaside" and not know what they are until the game starts. I don't want to pick a game to join based on the cards on the table. The only reason I care is if I hate a card and it's there, which brings us back to the veto mode thing.

[Donald X.]

Here is the veto mode proposal in its most advanced state. SheCantSayNo and maybe other people contributed.

- you can pick 3 cards total from expansions/promos, but not the main set (this is to reduce the potential to game the system)
- the creator of a game chooses either to not include cards on all players' lists (the default) or to not include cards on any player's list (so, if you don't want to use this system, that's already the default; don't pick 3 cards, leave it on "all")
- matchmaking allows 1) I want "gone if all banned it," 2) I want "gone if any banned it," 3) I don't care, match me already

Conceivably Goko Salvager could give this a trial run, see if people like it or not.

[Donald X.]

One suggestion is:
The host of a pro game chooses whether the Kingdom will be generated according to "black list mode" (and this is a visible characteristic of the game). If so, each player's list of (up to) three cards won't be included in the Kingdom (when the game starts it lists which cards each player vetoed).

If a pro game is not generated in "black list mode", then only cards that are on every player's "black list" list will be vetoed. A tournament's rules might require not using black list mode, for example.

Additionally, no cards from the base set can be black listed. For the other cards, there is a worry that people will not purchase, say, Cornucopia if they will be forced to play Tournament in "pro" games. With the base set that concern doesn't apply.

Yes, somehow I missed this. Yes an important part of the idea behind this is, do not just avoid buying Cornucopia to avoid seeing Tournament in games; you can buy a product and choose not to play with the card you don't like.

And similarly when you are hosting games, you should be able to turn off any expansions you don't want to play with, if it seems like anyone would ever do that.

For tournaments the key question would be, do people feel like the banned lists are unfair or what. If they don't then I would allow them in tournaments; we are all here to have fun. I am speaking only of official tournaments, which so far haven't existed; obv. anyone can run a tournament with whatever limits they want.

[Donald X.]

I play mostly Unrated games using sets I create with my own randomizer.

I am curious why you play unrated games. I don't know what other differences there are besides not being rated.

If Making Fun wants to create a better set generator with parameters, I think they should consider using a text-based input field like the extension uses. It's arguably less user-friendly than Dominion Online's current Kingdom creator, but way, way more convenient. Right now the native Kingdom creator (the "My Cards" section) is a bit of a mess. The cards are divided up into not just expansions, but sub-expansions. Some of these are sorted alphabetically and some by card cost. It takes forever to, say, recreate one of Hinterlands's suggested sets of 10 using that interface. Whereas with the extension, I can just type in a comma-separated list of ten cards and bam, it's made. Or if I want to practice with a specific card, I can just type "Develop, All" and go. So it would be nice if the text-based input were at least an option. At minimum, they should revamp the "My Cards" section to be more user friendly and give various sort and search options (e.g. All Cards, By Expansion, By Sub-Expansion, By Cost, etc.).

I think the "recommended sets" should just be there as an option; a lot of people like to play them IRL and I bet that carries over.

I am sympathetic to wanting something text-based. I (someone who has barely looked at this system) would like to be able to type a few letters and have it find the card. Maybe there are ten slots and for each one you can leave it random, or pick a set, or type your few letters (or endlessly look through a list). Or pick a special category (village, attack).

I think what Wei-Hwa had going on was way too complex.

I don't know if there are advantages to "bias towards Seaside" vs. "include 3 cards from Seaside."

My much greater concern is with the eventual native automatch implementation. Over half the games on Dominion Online seem to be Pro games. About half of the Casual games are Base-only. I almost never see an Unrated game that I'm not hosting. Right now this isn't a problem for me. I have no trouble finding players for my games because even if they'd prefer to play a Pro or Casual games, many are willing to play an Unrated game rather than sit around in the lobby. I have no idea how the native automatch will work once it's finally implemented, but if it works like the extension, players cannot say, "Well, I'd like to play this type of game, but I'm willing to play these others." You just choose a type of game and get matched. I will bet cash money that over 99% of automatched games are Pro games. So I'm concerned that native automatch will be the death knell of unrated and perhaps even casual games.

Well do we have any data from other games? I feel like, if I'm a newcomer and I see that there are "pro" and "casual" options, I will choose "casual" to start with so I'm not annoying anyone. "Pro" sounds like the players are better, even though that isn't actually part of it.

[LastFootnote]

I am curious why you play unrated games. I don't know what other differences there are besides not being rated.

I believe they also don't count for your quit % or win-loss ratio, which some people care about.

I play unrated games mostly because I'm at a point in my life where I could have to leave a game at any time. Sometimes I play at work, and I get pulled away to actually get some work done. When I'm at home, I need to quickly respond to the needs of my 7-month-old son. So sometimes I time out of games. I try to leave games like this as little as possible, and when I do have to leave, I try to resign rather than time out, but I don't always succeed.

Since I play primarily for fun, I also just prefer not having my games ranked. I tend to get upset when I lose a ranked game (even a casual one), but not when I lose an unranked game. So overall my enjoyment is increased by playing unranked games. But I could get over that. It's mostly the "could be pulled away at any moment" thing.

If Making Fun wants to create a better set generator with parameters, I think they should consider using a text-based input field like the extension uses. It's arguably less user-friendly than Dominion Online's current Kingdom creator, but way, way more convenient. Right now the native Kingdom creator (the "My Cards" section) is a bit of a mess. The cards are divided up into not just expansions, but sub-expansions. Some of these are sorted alphabetically and some by card cost. It takes forever to, say, recreate one of Hinterlands's suggested sets of 10 using that interface. Whereas with the extension, I can just type in a comma-separated list of ten cards and bam, it's made. Or if I want to practice with a specific card, I can just type "Develop, All" and go. So it would be nice if the text-based input were at least an option. At minimum, they should revamp the "My Cards" section to be more user friendly and give various sort and search options (e.g. All Cards, By Expansion, By Sub-Expansion, By Cost, etc.).

I think the "recommended sets" should just be there as an option; a lot of people like to play them IRL and I bet that carries over.

I am sympathetic to wanting something text-based. I (someone who has barely looked at this system) would like to be able to type a few letters and have it find the card. Maybe there are ten slots and for each one you can leave it random, or pick a set, or type your few letters (or endlessly look through a list). Or pick a special category (village, attack).

I think what Wei-Hwa had going on was way too complex.

I don't know if there are advantages to "bias towards Seaside" vs. "include 3 cards from Seaside."

To be fair, the "My Cards" board builder does already have a "type a few letters to narrow your search" function, but it's still way slower and requires switching between mouse and keyboard 10 times (11 with Young Witch).

If I had my druthers, there would be a randomizer option for "pick up to 2 sets (with larger sets being more likely), then get half the cards from each set", sprinkling in promos proportionally. In fact I have my own little HTML page that does exactly this, spitting out a nice string of Kingdom cards that I can copy and paste into the extension's Kingdom Generator. So far I've had good luck with generating fun boards using this technique, which is hardly surprising since I believe it's how most of the IRL testing was done.

My much greater concern is with the eventual native automatch implementation. Over half the games on Dominion Online seem to be Pro games. About half of the Casual games are Base-only. I almost never see an Unrated game that I'm not hosting. Right now this isn't a problem for me. I have no trouble finding players for my games because even if they'd prefer to play a Pro or Casual games, many are willing to play an Unrated game rather than sit around in the lobby. I have no idea how the native automatch will work once it's finally implemented, but if it works like the extension, players cannot say, "Well, I'd like to play this type of game, but I'm willing to play these others." You just choose a type of game and get matched. I will bet cash money that over 99% of automatched games are Pro games. So I'm concerned that native automatch will be the death knell of unrated and perhaps even casual games.

Well do we have any data from other games? I feel like, if I'm a newcomer and I see that there are "pro" and "casual" options, I will choose "casual" to start with so I'm not annoying anyone. "Pro" sounds like the players are better, even though that isn't actually part of it.

Sure. I would like to not be playing exclusively against noobs, though. I enjoy playing against a variety of skill levels. I don't feel the need to test my mettle against the best of the best, but I do like a challenge now and then.

Ideally (for me), any automatch system will have the option to say, "Gee I'd like to play a Pro game, but if I can't find one within X seconds, I'll take what I can get." But I have no clue how automatch would work with Casual and Unrated games where (presumably) the host has created the board beforehand. I don't even know how it's going to work in terms of matching up the haves and the have-nots in terms of set ownership. So I am unable to give any specific suggestions because I have no knowledge of the framework.

Again, this is all just my opinion. If I'm forced to play full-random in order to get any sort of competition, I'll suck it up and do so. All things being equal, I prefer to sometimes play games using the above randomization system, or the recommended sets of 10, or what-have-you.

[LibraryAdventurer]

I would be happy with any solution where: A) I could avoid a certain couple cards I don't like, and B) I can find someone to play with.
I don't care if this solution is implemented in casual or pro or unrated, but currently not many people with multiple sets seem to want to play casual games without exploiting their favorite combo, much less unrated ones. So I guess what I want is for casual and/or unrated games to be fixed so more people will want to play them, which woud mostly likely involve some way to be pretty sure that some jerk didn't craft the kingdom to exploit their favorite combo or whatever.

FWIW, I share LF's opinion about ratings: When playing a rated game, it's easier to get mad & frustrated if I lose. For this reason, unrated games can be more fun. Without ratings, Dominion is a game (unlike some others) where it can be just as fun to lose as it is to win, but ratings messes up that aspect.
(I did make a comment about 'too bad it wasn't a rated game' that time I played against Lastfootnote, but I was just joking about beating someone with a much higher rating than me...)

[michaeljb]

I usually don't join games created by other players in the lobby because I'd prefer to be certain it's going to include all the cards (which I have purchased/earned). Sometimes hosts of pro games don't indicate at all how many cards they own in the game title, and I'd rather create my own table instead of joining theres.

If the kingdom was generated from all of the cards owned by all players involved rather than just the host, I would have no problem joining almost any 2p pro game. I guess this would be more troublesome for casual/unrated if the kingdom is supposed to be generated before the game starts.

[Donald X.]

Since I play primarily for fun, I also just prefer not having my games ranked. I tend to get upset when I lose a ranked game (even a casual one), but not when I lose an unranked game. So overall my enjoyment is increased by playing unranked games. But I could get over that. It's mostly the "could be pulled away at any moment" thing.

I think obv. it should be possible to have a leaving player replaced with a bot, so you can have whatever fun was left to have. But the leaving player would have to be punished for that ranking-wise because maybe you are just quitting a game you've lost and so yes, unrated, I see.

To be fair, the "My Cards" board builder does already have a "type a few letters to narrow your search" function, but it's still way slower and requires switching between mouse and keyboard 10 times (11 with Young Witch).

In that case it should let you switch slots with a keypress - "space" to keep your choice and go to the next one.

If I had my druthers, there would be a randomizer option for "pick up to 2 sets (with larger sets being more likely), then get half the cards from each set", sprinkling in promos proportionally. In fact I have my own little HTML page that does exactly this, spitting out a nice string of Kingdom cards that I can copy and paste into the extension's Kingdom Generator. So far I've had good luck with generating fun boards using this technique, which is hardly surprising since I believe it's how most of the IRL testing was done.

Yes, mostly I played two expansions with 5 cards from each, although I also played the large expansions by themselves, especially Dark Ages. The cards aren't trying to be better for that format, but you do see set themes reinforced that way. Some cards do end up better, due to being combos with the set themes.

"Pick from 2 sets" seems like a good option provided there aren't lots of options like that (which is to say, I still favor not having a bewildering list of options). Wait, this can be folded into the previous proposal; you can label a slot "from random set #1" or "from random set #2" and then you know, if you have three random set #1's they are from the same random set.

Sure. I would like to not be playing exclusively against noobs, though. I enjoy playing against a variety of skill levels. I don't feel the need to test my mettle against the best of the best, but I do like a challenge now and then.

Ideally (for me), any automatch system will have the option to say, "Gee I'd like to play a Pro game, but if I can't find one within X seconds, I'll take what I can get." But I have no clue how automatch would work with Casual and Unrated games where (presumably) the host has created the board beforehand. I don't even know how it's going to work in terms of matching up the haves and the have-nots in terms of set ownership. So I am unable to give any specific suggestions because I have no knowledge of the framework.

It's hard to evaluate a timeout option just yet; you have to know, how popular is the game, how specific can you be with the matchmaking (thus generating a profile no-one will match). Obv. you can always be your own timeout option.

Probably optionally specifying a minimum number of expansions for matchmaking is okay? People for sure specify how many sets they have, that they don't want a certain quit% (though that needs fixing), that they want a certain rating.

[Donald X.]

I usually don't join games created by other players in the lobby because I'd prefer to be certain it's going to include all the cards (which I have purchased/earned). Sometimes hosts of pro games don't indicate at all how many cards they own in the game title, and I'd rather create my own table instead of joining theres.

I think obv. any information like that that you'd want to know should be visible without anyone having to stick it in their title. You see it right on the screen or hover over something to see it. They have 6 expansions, 2% quit rate, 4600 rating.

If the kingdom was generated from all of the cards owned by all players involved rather than just the host, I would have no problem joining almost any 2p pro game. I guess this would be more troublesome for casual/unrated if the kingdom is supposed to be generated before the game starts.

I find it hard to believe they will ever want to be more generous than the already friendly "play with all the cards the host bought."

[Beyond Awesome]

The only change I would like to see done to pro mode is the option to have identical starting hands.

I take that back. I would also like to see a change where if you lost the previous game and the person you play next won the previous game, you get to go first like iso did.

I have no interest in a veto mode, blacklist, or ban list.

[Donald X.]

I would be happy with any solution where: A) I could avoid a certain couple cards I don't like, and B) I can find someone to play with.
I don't care if this solution is implemented in casual or pro or unrated, but currently not many people with multiple sets seem to want to play casual games without exploiting their favorite combo, much less unrated ones. So I guess what I want is for casual and/or unrated games to be fixed so more people will want to play them, which woud mostly likely involve some way to be pretty sure that some jerk didn't craft the kingdom to exploit their favorite combo or whatever.

FWIW, I share LF's opinion about ratings: When playing a rated game, it's easier to get mad & frustrated if I lose. For this reason, unrated games can be more fun. Without ratings, Dominion is a game (unlike some others) where it can be just as fun to lose as it is to win, but ratings messes up that aspect.
(I did make a comment about 'too bad it wasn't a rated game' that time I played against Lastfootnote, but I was just joking about beating someone with a much higher rating than me...)

Well, for the jerk issue, does highlighting picked cards do the trick? Obv. you can randomly generate lists repeatedly until you see what you like, but that doesn't seem so scary, how much preying on people is happening that way.

What about if casual is just unrated? What are the merits of separate casual / unrated? "Casual" sounds to me like the kind of thing where I'm not worried about rating. Obv. people looking to get a high casual rating with KC/Masq would lose out but we are okay with that. People who aren't ready for pro humans but want a rating can play pro games against bots or rack up ratings of different kinds in adventures.

[jonts26]

Not that I'm particularly active in the competitive dominion community anymore but my thoughts anyway:

Pro games should absolutely not allow for people to have an individual veto list, no matter how short, because the purpose of a Pro ranking system is NOT to maximize each players individual enjoyment, it is to foster an environment conducive to the highest levels of competitive play. I'm sorry if you don't like e.g. possession, but it is a part of the game. Even if I hated the Dutch Defense, it would be silly to disallow it in a high level chess tournament. If there are cards you really can't stand you either A) suck it up for the relatively small percentage of games that card appears in, B) forfeit said game, or C) play casual.

Now if there were cards which hindered high level competitive play for whatever reasons (which I don't think there are), then those cards could be disallowed based on decision from some sort of committee in charge of such things. But I don't think there could be a consensus on such cards even if such a committee existed in the dominion community.

[Beyond Awesome]

Not that I'm particularly active in the competitive dominion community anymore but my thoughts anyway:

Pro games should absolutely not allow for people to have an individual veto list, no matter how short, because the purpose of a Pro ranking system is NOT to maximize each players individual enjoyment, it is to foster an environment conducive to the highest levels of competitive play. I'm sorry if you don't like e.g. possession, but it is a part of the game. Even if I hated the Dutch Defense, it would be silly to disallow it in a high level chess tournament. If there are cards you really can't stand you either A) suck it up for the relatively small percentage of games that card appears in, B) forfeit said game, or C) play casual.

Now if there were cards which hindered high level competitive play for whatever reasons (which I don't think there are), then those cards could be disallowed based on decision from some sort of committee in charge of such things. But I don't think there could be a consensus on such cards even if such a committee existed in the dominion community.

I agree with what jonts said.

On a separate topic, I think that casual should not have a rating system.

[jonts26]

On a separate topic, I think that casual should not have a rating system.

I think a ranking system is good for casual systems. I have a fairly strict view of what should be allowed in Pro games, so if you don't want to be beholden to those rules, but still want to be matched with someone of somewhat comparable skill (even if its much easier to game the casual system) there should still be a method for that. And the best thing I can think of is a casual leaderboard, no matter how game-able.

[michaeljb]

If the kingdom was generated from all of the cards owned by all players involved rather than just the host, I would have no problem joining almost any 2p pro game. I guess this would be more troublesome for casual/unrated if the kingdom is supposed to be generated before the game starts.

I find it hard to believe they will ever want to be more generous than the already friendly "play with all the cards the host bought."

That's basically what I figured. Making it clear what sets the host does own would help with this, you can always check and join if they have enough of the sets.

edit to squash my double post

I take that back. I would also like to see a change where if you lost the previous game and the person you play next won the previous game, you get to go first like iso did.

+1 for this part. It's kind of a small change (I'm not sure its effect would be super noticeable, I hardly pay attention to how often I'm first/second player), but it's at least based on the original rulebook.

I generally like identical starting hands, but I don't think it belongs in pro mode. It really is a Dominion variant, particularly since Hinterlands and definitely since Guilds. And even before that, some times 3/4 vs 4/3 affects early decisions in interesting ways.

Pro mode should simply follow the rulebook as much as possible*. In a couple cases, this means following suggestions in the rulebook rather than explicit rules, such as full random kingdom selection and proportional use of Shelters/Colonies. And there should definitely be different leaderboards for 2p/3p/4p/5p/6p. Or maybe just cut it off at 4p, who wants to play 5p/6p (I've done one session of 6p in person, never again).

It might be interesting to have different leaderboards for different number of sets used. If someone thinks it's too much of a hodgepodge to play with all 200 cards, they specify they just want to use 2 sets, but they don't know the cards or even which sets are used until the game starts. That'd be pro-ish, and would solve the buy-only-Prosperity-for-more-Colony-games issue, but it probably wouldn't work out to have 8 (or 24, to account for 2p/3p/4p) different "pro" leaderboards. This might also frustrate players who hadn't bought all the cards and didn't want to be forced to pay to get on the "real" leaderboard (obviously the 8-set leaderboard ), just brainstorming.
This whole idea actually came out of thinking a leaderboard for the recommended sets might be interesting; your game mode is "recommended sets", you don't know which one it will be (or what set(s) it's from) till you get in the game. Might be a more bearable version for a noob who doesn't know many cards, but still wants to be competitive and play with the pro kids.

*actually this also means that players who bought Intrigue should have the option of doubling up their Treasure piles. And if the base card art is ever released online (that would make me so happy), you should be able to buy multiple copies of it to keep making your Treasure pile bigger and bigger (source)

[Donald X.]

Pro games should absolutely not allow for people to have an individual veto list, no matter how short, because the purpose of a Pro ranking system is NOT to maximize each players individual enjoyment, it is to foster an environment conducive to the highest levels of competitive play. I'm sorry if you don't like e.g. possession, but it is a part of the game. Even if I hated the Dutch Defense, it would be silly to disallow it in a high level chess tournament. If there are cards you really can't stand you either A) suck it up for the relatively small percentage of games that card appears in, B) forfeit said game, or C) play casual.

D) host games and don't buy Alchemy. Alchemy is a separate product, it's only part of the game if you buy it. There's nothing analogous in chess.

[Donald X.]

This whole idea actually came out of thinking a leaderboard for the recommended sets might be interesting; your game mode is "recommended sets", you don't know which one it will be (or what set(s) it's from) till you get in the game. Might be a more bearable version for a noob who doesn't know many cards, but still wants to be competitive and play with the pro kids.

*actually this also means that players who bought Intrigue should have the option of doubling up their Treasure piles. And if the base card art is ever released online (that would make me so happy), you should be able to buy multiple copies of it to keep making your Treasure pile bigger and bigger (source)

They might like a "recommended sets" leaderboard, because it's a mild encouragement to buy all the sets.

I would increase treasures for 5-6 and otherwise not, as a flat rule; while technically it's an option I don't think it's interesting enough to give it space on whatever screen.

For sure they will do the alternate art Base Cards. I don't have a timeline there, or know how people will get it.