Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Ban n Cards in Rated Games  (Read 901 times)

Offline jsh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
« Reply #30 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)

Offline Bianary

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
« Reply #31 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:
  • Cards being removed from tavern mats (Such as Royal Carriage)
  • Cards being left on tavern mats (Such as wine merchant)
  • Coins you earned on your turn being spent by the opponent possessing you
  • 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.

Offline Jacob Marley

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
« Reply #32 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.

Offline Bianary

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
« Reply #33 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?)

Offline WhiteRabbit1981

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
« Reply #34 on: 10 July 2017, 01:14:56 PM »
+1

I have read all the above. Your argumentation made me change my mind!