Shuffle iT Forum

Dominion => Feature Requests => Topic started by: Cave-O-Sapien on 01 June 2017, 01:01:27 AM

Title: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: Cave-O-Sapien on 01 June 2017, 01:01:27 AM
From a discussion on f.ds:

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17265.msg696753#msg696753

Quote from: Donald X
Quote from: Limetime
I wish you could like ban 5 cards from rated games.
I agree, this continues to sound good to me. Players shouldn't have to play with cards they hate, even for the privilege of playing rated games. The only reason to not let you ban cards is to avoid gaming the system, and 5 cards doesn't give you much room to game the system, while going a long way towards letting you ban the cards you hate.

Any chance of this happening?
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: JW on 01 June 2017, 02:07:33 AM
If 5 cards is considered too drastic, I propose 3 cards as an alternative. For me, 5 cards isn't necessary, and I suspect other people have a small number of "most disliked" cards as well.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: SkyHard on 01 June 2017, 07:24:58 AM
I like the idea. No, actually I love it. Please implement it ASAP! :-)
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: Jacob Marley on 01 June 2017, 07:17:13 PM
I also like this idea.  I personally have 2 cards I would ban.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: yed on 01 June 2017, 07:54:04 PM
I am against this proposal.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: WhiteRabbit1981 on 02 June 2017, 03:36:51 PM
Everyone would ban Possession. Personally, i find heavy-possession games very amusing - noting beats Apprentice-ing a Colony without regrets  8)
So, this proposal would lock me out from playing with something like 90% of the playerbase.

Similar would happen to other love-or-hate cards. KingsCourt, Grand Market, Goons ....

Think about why you hate cards. My top-2 ban cards are "Wolf Den" and "Tax". I hate playing those, because they alter my playstyle too much. Being level 50-ish and not able to adapt to a TAX game is probably one of the reasons why i will never make it Top20. And it is also the reason why i should not be allowed to ban it!


Sidenote: I like Chess, but i dont like the knight because it moves so akwardly.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: Donald X. on 02 June 2017, 04:04:39 PM
So, this proposal would lock me out from playing with something like 90% of the playerbase.
I'm not sure what you mean, but to be clear, matching wouldn't change at all; you just wouldn't have Possession show up when matched against someone who ban-listed it.

Sidenote: I like Chess, but i dont like the knight because it moves so akwardly.
You buy Scrabble. Turns out you don't like it. So you don't play it. Hooray, the system works.

You buy Alchemy. You don't like Possession. You don't have to play with it. You aren't all "I rue the day I bought Alchemy because now I have to play with Possession sometimes." You just don't play with that card you don't like.

You're playing online. Oops here's Possession. Ha ha, take that, customer.

It makes no sense to make people play with cards they don't like. Yes other people will then see those cards less often... exactly like in real life, where Joe speaks up and says "oh no I don't want to play with Possession, man, let's replace that one" and no-one says "suck it up Joe, besides we hate you."

isotropic had veto mode, where you would deal up 12 cards and then each player would veto one. I think that was bad, and that people came around there, did not end up liking it. Every game it would be, well there's one attack, I guess I ban that. The overall effect was like banning lots of cards; they could only show up if paired with worse cards. This isn't that. With veto mode maybe you'd be vetoing Militia for this game; you didn't put it on your 5-card ban list though.

Again I think the only concern with a 5-card ban list is gaming the system, and at 5 cards it's not a concern. The cards you don't get to see because so many people hate them, man, maybe I shouldn't have made those cards.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: WhiteRabbit1981 on 02 June 2017, 05:24:57 PM
I understood that i can only be matched against players who have the same "dislikes" as i have. Of curse it makes more sense if possession would just not appear in the kingdom, i got that wrong.

I still love possession games, so thanks a lot that you made that card. I even liked it more in its 1st Edition style because of some interesting variants with VP-point gainers (you triple posses me? play all my bishops-fortresses). Then again, i just had a really great game with possession and capital where not paying back debt protected from successfull possessions.
Cutting out that special card everyone else hates would indeed make the game less enjoyable for me, because i would miss those strange interactive plays. And thats the reason i dont want a card-ban system and vote against it.

I understand noone should be forced to play something they dont like. If a game starts and pre-turn 1 my opponent chats something like "lets ban rebuild to avoid the mirror and have a more interesting game", i always agree. Of course, if i chat "lets ignore TAX and Wolf Den" it wouldnt affect the game too much  :o

In RL-games, we like to ban "shuffle-heavy" cards like Hunting Party or Scrying Pool. In online games, i would rather ban click-heavy spam cards like Moat in a Minion game.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: AdamH on 02 June 2017, 06:42:13 PM
I think banning cards you don't like is great for fun. I also think that the entire reason we have the pro leaderboard is because you can already do this in casual games. Adding this feature would completely defeat the purpose of rated games.

Even allowing one card to be banned in rated games would leave the pro leaderboard open to abuse, and I think this is largely due to the fact that so few people are playing at the moment: if I'm playing lots of rated games, there's a high chance I'll match against the same person over and over, so in between games I can go ban a card that I know they're good with (or much better than me with).

The pro leaderboard already has enough problems, and I think this exacerbates it for next to no benefit, since you can already play without the cards you dislike in unrated games.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: Donald X. on 02 June 2017, 07:30:49 PM
Cutting out that special card everyone else hates would indeed make the game less enjoyable for me, because i would miss those strange interactive plays. And thats the reason i dont want a card-ban system and vote against it.
Well I mean. Sounds selfish! I don't need to pander to that.

For me, there are so many cards that didn't make it out, that someone might have loved. Maybe you would have loved the card that played all the attack cards from your deck. I killed it before you even got to try it. You still get to play with Possession IRL, or when the other player doesn't ban it. Count your blessings!

In the long run, if people couldn't agree on some ban list system and yet there was a card that most people hated, I would just have Stef ban it period. No joke!
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: Donald X. on 02 June 2017, 07:33:32 PM
I think banning cards you don't like is great for fun. I also think that the entire reason we have the pro leaderboard is because you can already do this in casual games. Adding this feature would completely defeat the purpose of rated games.
In fact, and I cannot stress this enough, the entire purpose of rated games is fun. They're for people to enjoy, and that's it. You don't get fed better because you do well on the leaderboard! You don't get a better chair.

Even allowing one card to be banned in rated games would leave the pro leaderboard open to abuse, and I think this is largely due to the fact that so few people are playing at the moment: if I'm playing lots of rated games, there's a high chance I'll match against the same person over and over, so in between games I can go ban a card that I know they're good with (or much better than me with).
I am just so not seeing it.

The pro leaderboard already has enough problems, and I think this exacerbates it for next to no benefit, since you can already play without the cards you dislike in unrated games.
The benefit is not being forced to play with cards you hate if you want the joy of being ranked. It seems straightforward to me.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: Cave-O-Sapien on 02 June 2017, 07:57:42 PM
Cutting out that special card everyone else hates would indeed make the game less enjoyable for me, because i would miss those strange interactive plays. And thats the reason i dont want a card-ban system and vote against it.

I'd argue that when Possession does show up under such a system it's more likely to be appreciated by both players, leading to more of the interesting Possession games you like.

Think about why you hate cards. My top-2 ban cards are "Wolf Den" and "Tax". I hate playing those, because they alter my playstyle too much. Being level 50-ish and not able to adapt to a TAX game is probably one of the reasons why i will never make it Top20. And it is also the reason why i should not be allowed to ban it!

This, to me, is the most compelling counter-argument to the ban proposal.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: tracer on 02 June 2017, 11:08:14 PM
Use of 3-5 cards is not the difference between a level 50 and a top 20 player.

Never seeing Possession again would make my life much more pleasant than never playing Dominion again, which is what I feel like would be a fine option after most of my games containing it.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: SkyHard on 02 June 2017, 11:35:07 PM
I don't think I would put possession on my 5 baned card list. There are worse cards I don't enjoy playing with.
Rebuild would probably be on it: most of the time a boring game.
Wall and Torturer: the former because I hate it. The later because it often is frustrating to all but one of the players.
And probably Scrying Pool: I don't really get it and it is annoying if a Moat is in play.
I'll leave the last one open for future use. With a small tendancy toward Gladiator.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: Cave-O-Sapien on 03 June 2017, 12:36:53 AM
And probably Scrying Pool: I don't really get it and it is annoying if a Moat is in play.

Scrying Pool is definitely in mine. It's slow and annoying. I'd probably include Advisor for similar reasons.

But the nice thing about this list is that it's dynamic! You're not ripping up the cards forever.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: Stef on 03 June 2017, 02:08:33 AM
This is my proposal:


We all get to make a list of disliked cards in the client. You can make it as long as you want.

Tables get a new setting. Respected number of disliked cards. By default it's 3.

Players also get a new setting: preferred number of respected disliked cards.
If one player has >3 and the other <3, it will stay at 3.
If both have it set to some number >3, the lowest one becomes the table setting.
If both have it set to some number <3, the highest one becomes the table setting.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: JW on 03 June 2017, 06:29:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: Accatitippi on 03 June 2017, 10:58:46 AM
This is my proposal:


We all get to make a list of disliked cards in the client. You can make it as long as you want.

Tables get a new setting. Respected number of disliked cards. By default it's 3.

Players also get a new setting: preferred number of respected disliked cards.
If one player has >3 and the other <3, it will stay at 3.
If both have it set to some number >3, the lowest one becomes the table setting.
If both have it set to some number <3, the highest one becomes the table setting.

I see what you're getting at, but it seems very complex - the sort of thing that you need a faq about somewhere.
I think the main concern that needs to be addressed is that you want to be able to turn it off for some tournament matchups. But that can be as simple as a checkbox in the table setup page.

And maybe also as a player preference: "I'm fine playing with my disliked cards". If both players have checked that, dislikes are ignored.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: WhiteRabbit1981 on 03 June 2017, 12:16:07 PM
About sounding selfish: That was intended. I did even put "me" in bold letters  8)

Stef, why make it that complex? There is already a point "banned cards" in the table. Just make an "add card" button there. That way, if I enter a table and see possession is banned, I can just leave - or vice versa.
Of course that would not work with automatch, but only with new tables. Imho thats a good compromise between the "whole game or nothing" and the "only fun cards" players.

I see the point that you should not force ppl to play scrabble if they dont like the game. But then, when two ppl commit to have fun with a game together they can as good stay in the rules of the game. One example, and that did seriously happen to me: One of my opponents got really pissed at me when I played a swindler and changed one of his coppers into a curse. I explained him in the chat that this was totally in the rules and is the intention of the swindler card. He got even more angry and explained me in all seriousness that I did not understand the social aspect of playing together and having fun together, that giving out curses with any card other than a witch is totally anti-social and that I did not get the true meaning of the swindler card.
This mindset given, do we need an option "allow swindled curses yes/no" ? Donald, how many ppl have to ask about that option before you consider it?
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: Donald X. on 03 June 2017, 03:56:27 PM
This is my proposal:
This seems really confusing for what you get. I am not sure what you get actually, that you don't get from just letting everyone ban N cards.

Anyone who doesn't want to ban cards doesn't need to ban any. Then the number of banned cards in their games will be the number their opponent picked, up to the limit. So, that functionality is already there?
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: Donald X. on 03 June 2017, 04:09:14 PM
About sounding selfish: That was intended. I did even put "me" in bold letters  8)
I don't know why you wanted to sound selfish, but okay. I still don't pander to it.

This mindset given, do we need an option "allow swindled curses yes/no" ? Donald, how many ppl have to ask about that option before you consider it?
In fact I care so much about people getting to have the fun they want to have that with enough anti-Swindler sentiment I would be banning Swindler there for them. I wouldn't change the functionality because that's confusing, though I could make some new card that did Swindler's thing without Cursing, for those fans, if they were ubiquitous and everything else came together for it. And I mean. Did you like Saboteur? I'm sure someone out there liked Saboteur. It isn't there though; I replaced it (it would have been with a variation on Saboteur, but I didn't come up with a good one). So we have already run this experiment. I did take out the hated card. Look at that.

You don't need Swindler to exist for the game to be Dominion. You don't need whatever card for it to be Dominion. This is a point that may be a lot more visible to me than to other people, given my vantage point; Possession is just like all these other cards that some people hated that weren't published, except that it got published. Not having Possession just doesn't mean much to me; it's like not having that Village that Spied every time you played an attack, or whatever other thing you don't actually have. Possession made it to cardboard, but not because it had some magical amount of deserving to exist that the other cards didn't. The data has piled up since Alchemy came out; I wouldn't make Possession today, but have stopped short of dropping it from Alchemy, because to be friendly we would need to sell the replacement separately for people who already bought Alchemy.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: Stef on 03 June 2017, 04:17:19 PM
I think the problem here is that I didn't explain my proposal properly.
I'll try again with words and examples instead of formulas.

I get to make a list, my list would be 1. Possession 2. Swindler 3. Kings Court
I don't do anything else.

The effect would be that on every table I play I force the table setting to be "respect 3 cards", because I didn't change the default. Every game I play will have these 3 cards banned. If my opponent also cared to make a list, the top 3 of that list would also be banned.

That's all there is to it to people that don't like to read on.

---

Some people may want to say "3 is not enough" or "3 is too many". Well, they are free to express that opinion in their personal settings. If they get to play an opponent who agrees with them, we will use the shorter/longer list.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: Donald X. on 03 June 2017, 07:19:09 PM
Some people may want to say "3 is not enough" or "3 is too many". Well, they are free to express that opinion in their personal settings. If they get to play an opponent who agrees with them, we will use the shorter/longer list.
To me "preferred number of respected disliked cards" just seems like extra complexity that isn't getting us much. People who think N is too many can just not ban cards; they are getting the same experience without the extra setting, since their opponent can still ban N. People who think N is not enough, well I disagree with them, I think if you ban more cards eventually you are gaming the system and we want to avoid people feeling like the system is being gamed, even in games they aren't playing. You know, two other people think sure ban 30 cards, and play against each other, and you are missing out because you didn't do that, and you don't want to do it because it's less fun and yet hate that their games count as fair games. And it's not like anyone actually hates 30 cards and yet still plays Dominion.

So I would make N say 5, and then it's so simple, you can ban 5 cards. We can always see, do people say "I hate that I can't ban 10 cards" or what. And this is just to make rated games more fun, there is always whatever you want in unrated games.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: markus on 04 June 2017, 01:07:49 AM
I like Stef's suggestion. The complexity would only show up for users of advanced settings.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on 04 June 2017, 07:05:16 AM
I would be very happy and play the game more if we could ban 3-5 cards in rated games.

This could seriously make a difference in whether I re-subscribe for next year. It can be very hard to find another player who wants to play unrated. When I do, I don't know if they're anywhere near my skill level.

I thought the point of a rating was so a player could be matched with another player who is close to their skill level. I don't see how banning a few cards would be a problem.

Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: Rast on 24 June 2017, 09:07:00 PM
How about this:

* On the first of each month, ban a small (3-10) list of cards from all rated games.
* The size of the list and the particular cards banned would change each month.
* The ban list would be chosen by DonaldX each month based on whatever criteria or theme he favors at the time.  If some months he's too busy to make a list, Stef would do it.
* As a matter of policy, no card would be banned in consecutive months.
* The ban list could be hard (card never appears) or soft (card only appears 20% as often as normal cards.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: Donald X. on 25 June 2017, 06:14:28 AM
How about this:

* On the first of each month, ban a small (3-10) list of cards from all rated games.
* The size of the list and the particular cards banned would change each month.
* The ban list would be chosen by DonaldX each month based on whatever criteria or theme he favors at the time.  If some months he's too busy to make a list, Stef would do it.
* As a matter of policy, no card would be banned in consecutive months.
* The ban list could be hard (card never appears) or soft (card only appears 20% as often as normal cards.
I am not seeing the beauty of this plan. If someone hates Possession, they don't magically unhate it for alternating month-long periods. They'd be happier never seeing it.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: scottc on 26 June 2017, 05:11:51 AM
How about simplifying it even further?  There must be a few cards that are widely disliked.  Donald is probably in the best position to determine which ones - have him pick 3 of them.  Then in the matching screen add a criteria of "play with banned cards" so that people who really want to play with them will get matched with others that want them also, and no one else will have to see them again.

I doubt this would affect ratings because we would all have the same choice to make: a simple yes or no to a fixed set of cards.

I suggest banning Possession and Rebuild.  Those are the only two I really dislike, but I'd be happy with the above proposal whether it banned those cards or not.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: jsh on 26 June 2017, 05:25:35 AM
How about simplifying it even further?  There must be a few cards that are widely disliked.  Donald is probably in the best position to determine which ones - have him pick 3 of them.  Then in the matching screen add a criteria of "play with banned cards" so that people who really want to play with them will get matched with others that want them also, and no one else will have to see them again.

I doubt this would affect ratings because we would all have the same choice to make: a simple yes or no to a fixed set of cards.

I suggest banning Possession and Rebuild.  Those are the only two I really dislike, but I'd be happy with the above proposal whether it banned those cards or not.

Why do this when people could just select the ones they don't like? The mechanism is already partway there with Familiar Cards. It seems simpler and more player-friendly. I don't think anyone could "game" this feature in any meaningful way.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: scottc on 26 June 2017, 05:33:31 AM
How about simplifying it even further?  There must be a few cards that are widely disliked.  Donald is probably in the best position to determine which ones - have him pick 3 of them.  Then in the matching screen add a criteria of "play with banned cards" so that people who really want to play with them will get matched with others that want them also, and no one else will have to see them again.

I doubt this would affect ratings because we would all have the same choice to make: a simple yes or no to a fixed set of cards.

I suggest banning Possession and Rebuild.  Those are the only two I really dislike, but I'd be happy with the above proposal whether it banned those cards or not.

Why do this when people could just select the ones they don't like? The mechanism is already partway there with Familiar Cards. It seems simpler and more player-friendly. I don't think anyone could "game" this feature in any meaningful way.

I thought the primary argument against allowing people to ban cards was that the rankings would lose some of their accuracy.  By only allowing a single, common set of cards to be banned you greatly reduce that possibility.  If it turns out that there is a significant advantage to playing with the banned cards, or without them, then we'll all know it and those that care can play with the better option.

On the other hand, maybe choosing which cards to ban will become a meta-strategy that deserves to be part of the ranking system.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: jsh on 26 June 2017, 05:47:45 AM
How about simplifying it even further?  There must be a few cards that are widely disliked.  Donald is probably in the best position to determine which ones - have him pick 3 of them.  Then in the matching screen add a criteria of "play with banned cards" so that people who really want to play with them will get matched with others that want them also, and no one else will have to see them again.

I doubt this would affect ratings because we would all have the same choice to make: a simple yes or no to a fixed set of cards.

I suggest banning Possession and Rebuild.  Those are the only two I really dislike, but I'd be happy with the above proposal whether it banned those cards or not.

Why do this when people could just select the ones they don't like? The mechanism is already partway there with Familiar Cards. It seems simpler and more player-friendly. I don't think anyone could "game" this feature in any meaningful way.

I thought the primary argument against allowing people to ban cards was that the rankings would lose some of their accuracy.  By only allowing a single, common set of cards to be banned you greatly reduce that possibility.  If it turns out that there is a significant advantage to playing with the banned cards, or without them, then we'll all know it and those that care can play with the better option.

On the other hand, maybe choosing which cards to ban will become a meta-strategy that deserves to be part of the ranking system.

If it's only 4 or 5 cards (as has been suggested) they can block, any inaccuracy is likely negligible, as the game has hundreds of cards. Like, what advantage are they gaining? Making it hard for a certain strategy to come up? There are just so few cards that have no analogues, and even if something unique is getting the shaft, is there really any harm? After all, Possession is the most hated card. At worst, someone could block, for instance, all coin token cards and remove that element from their games, but I doubt every single person would ban all of those cards.

I can see the argument "everyone should be playing by the same rules down to the letter" if the competition is super serious, but I feel like we are here strictly to have fun at the moment, and this feature would make the game more fun for people. Even if that becomes an issue, serious tournaments could always be run without the banlist. At any rate, I feel like I'm basically just repeating Donald's posts, and I generally trust him, so if it's good enough for him it's good enough for me. (that's just my 2 cents)
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: Bianary on 09 July 2017, 11:09:00 PM
I understood that i can only be matched against players who have the same "dislikes" as i have. Of curse it makes more sense if possession would just not appear in the kingdom, i got that wrong.

I still love possession games, so thanks a lot that you made that card. I even liked it more in its 1st Edition style because of some interesting variants with VP-point gainers (you triple posses me? play all my bishops-fortresses). Then again, i just had a really great game with possession and capital where not paying back debt protected from successfull possessions.
Cutting out that special card everyone else hates would indeed make the game less enjoyable for me, because i would miss those strange interactive plays. And thats the reason i dont want a card-ban system and vote against it.

I understand noone should be forced to play something they dont like. If a game starts and pre-turn 1 my opponent chats something like "lets ban rebuild to avoid the mirror and have a more interesting game", i always agree. Of course, if i chat "lets ignore TAX and Wolf Den" it wouldnt affect the game too much  :o

In RL-games, we like to ban "shuffle-heavy" cards like Hunting Party or Scrying Pool. In online games, i would rather ban click-heavy spam cards like Moat in a Minion game.
The problem with possession isn't fun things like apprentice on colonies, it's the way it doesn't restore the new mechanics:

There were a few cards that were impacted before (eg native village) but the number of destructive interactions has gone up so they happen a lot more frequently when possession is available.  So while it's kinda fun in certain decks, it's just frustrating in so many more now.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: Jacob Marley on 09 July 2017, 11:32:35 PM
I understood that i can only be matched against players who have the same "dislikes" as i have. Of curse it makes more sense if possession would just not appear in the kingdom, i got that wrong.

I still love possession games, so thanks a lot that you made that card. I even liked it more in its 1st Edition style because of some interesting variants with VP-point gainers (you triple posses me? play all my bishops-fortresses). Then again, i just had a really great game with possession and capital where not paying back debt protected from successfull possessions.
Cutting out that special card everyone else hates would indeed make the game less enjoyable for me, because i would miss those strange interactive plays. And thats the reason i dont want a card-ban system and vote against it.

I understand noone should be forced to play something they dont like. If a game starts and pre-turn 1 my opponent chats something like "lets ban rebuild to avoid the mirror and have a more interesting game", i always agree. Of course, if i chat "lets ignore TAX and Wolf Den" it wouldnt affect the game too much  :o

In RL-games, we like to ban "shuffle-heavy" cards like Hunting Party or Scrying Pool. In online games, i would rather ban click-heavy spam cards like Moat in a Minion game.
The problem with possession isn't fun things like apprentice on colonies, it's the way it doesn't restore the new mechanics:
  • Cards being removed from tavern mats (Such as Royal Carriage)
  • Cards being left on tavern mats (Such as wine merchant)
  • Coins earned on your turn being spent
  • Prince (I prince'd an opponent's Embargo once.
  • Journey Tokens
  • +Buy/+Card/Trash/etc. tokens

There were a few cards that were impacted before (eg native village) but the number of destructive interactions has gone up so they happen a lot more frequently when possession is available.  So while it's kinda fun in certain decks, it's just frustrating in so many more now.

You hit the nail on the head.  The fundamental problem with Possession is that it does not (and cannot) have the "attack" type, but over time it has become a de facto attack.  When it was introduced, this was not the case, except in the interaction with Masquerade, but now so many new mechanics have been added that Possession broken in the sense that it cannot be an attack because it does affect all other players, and cannot be a non-attack because it is allowed to act as an attack with the new interactions.

So, in my opinion, Possession should be removed entirely from the game.  There is no fixing it.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: Bianary on 10 July 2017, 01:59:39 AM
I understood that i can only be matched against players who have the same "dislikes" as i have. Of curse it makes more sense if possession would just not appear in the kingdom, i got that wrong.

I still love possession games, so thanks a lot that you made that card. I even liked it more in its 1st Edition style because of some interesting variants with VP-point gainers (you triple posses me? play all my bishops-fortresses). Then again, i just had a really great game with possession and capital where not paying back debt protected from successfull possessions.
Cutting out that special card everyone else hates would indeed make the game less enjoyable for me, because i would miss those strange interactive plays. And thats the reason i dont want a card-ban system and vote against it.

I understand noone should be forced to play something they dont like. If a game starts and pre-turn 1 my opponent chats something like "lets ban rebuild to avoid the mirror and have a more interesting game", i always agree. Of course, if i chat "lets ignore TAX and Wolf Den" it wouldnt affect the game too much  :o

In RL-games, we like to ban "shuffle-heavy" cards like Hunting Party or Scrying Pool. In online games, i would rather ban click-heavy spam cards like Moat in a Minion game.
The problem with possession isn't fun things like apprentice on colonies, it's the way it doesn't restore the new mechanics:
  • Cards being removed from tavern mats (Such as Royal Carriage)
  • Cards being left on tavern mats (Such as wine merchant)
  • Coins earned on your turn being spent
  • Prince (I prince'd an opponent's Embargo once.
  • Journey Tokens
  • +Buy/+Card/Trash/etc. tokens

There were a few cards that were impacted before (eg native village) but the number of destructive interactions has gone up so they happen a lot more frequently when possession is available.  So while it's kinda fun in certain decks, it's just frustrating in so many more now.

You hit the nail on the head.  The fundamental problem with Possession is that it does not (and cannot) have the "attack" type, but over time it has become a de facto attack.  When it was introduced, this was not the case, except in the interaction with Masquerade, but now so many new mechanics have been added that Possession broken in the sense that it cannot be an attack because it does affect all other players, and cannot be a non-attack because it is allowed to act as an attack with the new interactions.

So, in my opinion, Possession should be removed entirely from the game.  There is no fixing it.
I think you could fix it, but it would need a new, wordy clause: Cards may not be set aside or moved on or off of mats, and any tokens owned by the other player are ignored while possessed.

So if you put a -card or -coin token on them then possessed, you'd not suffer those drawbacks.  You also couldn't set aside Prince, turn over journey tokens, or spend coins that the other player had.

This would limit it back down to lower than the damage it could do before (Since you couldn't screw with their native village mat anymore, either) while not weakening it in most use cases.  Unfortunately, it's way too many words to fit on the card so would have to be an off-card errata (Maybe noted on the card to go read that?)
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: WhiteRabbit1981 on 10 July 2017, 01:14:56 PM
+1

I have read all the above. Your argumentation made me change my mind!
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: Chris Martin on 08 November 2017, 02:09:22 AM
Is this going to be implemented, does anyone know? Having to so frequently see the handful of cards that ruin my game experience is the main thing stopping me from playing more.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: jsh on 08 November 2017, 02:53:43 AM
It
Is this going to be implemented, does anyone know? Having to so frequently see the handful of cards that ruin my game experience is the main thing stopping me from playing more.

It is. Right now, Stef is busy working out some mandatory stuff for the final Nocturne release, but the ban n cards feature is already somewhat in-the-works.

Incidentally, today a release came out that banned Possession in rated games as a "Preview." Eventually, you'll be able to select the cards you actually want banned.
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: LibraryAdventurer on 08 November 2017, 05:43:25 AM
It
Is this going to be implemented, does anyone know? Having to so frequently see the handful of cards that ruin my game experience is the main thing stopping me from playing more.

It is. Right now, Stef is busy working out some mandatory stuff for the final Nocturne release, but the ban n cards feature is already somewhat in-the-works.
Yay!
Title: Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
Post by: Chris Martin on 08 November 2017, 07:21:41 PM
It is. Right now, Stef is busy working out some mandatory stuff for the final Nocturne release, but the ban n cards feature is already somewhat in-the-works.

Incidentally, today a release came out that banned Possession in rated games as a "Preview." Eventually, you'll be able to select the cards you actually want banned.
Wonderful! Thank you :)