Messages

Adjourning would really only matter if you can reliably reschedule the game with that player, which means open communication.  In most situations, I imagine that if they are not back within, say 10 minutes or so, you will never get to finish that game.  Abandoning without recording a win/lose is certainly an option.

I'm not against the idea of suspending a game (which I think is a better term than adjourning), I think it can be useful when friends play each other, I just see it as having very limited applications, and doesn't really solve the problem you are describing.

For me, I'd always allow my opponent to resign.  Basically, if they don't want to play that game any more, for whatever reason, they should be allowed to resign.  No good can ever come from forcing someone to continue playing if they want to go.

Basically, it is your right to resign, at any time, for any reason.  If your opponent has a problem with that, it is just that, their problem.  Not yours.

So I guess I don't really see this as necessary.  IF you want to ask in chat if they object to you resigning, go ahead.  It's a nice thing to do, but I'm against any feature that even implies that players have a duty to keep playing even when they no longer want to.

[me]

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 have seen plenty of games that don't have much synergy.  Mainly all or mostly terminals with no villages.  But yes, in many (even most kingdoms) there is synergy somewhere.

This is more a feature request than a bug.  I know it is a bit abrupt, but the assumption is that people would rather start a new game than watch the bot play it's winning turn.  Perhaps a switchable option?

I'm generally ok with refusing undo's on new information, but even then it can be ok in some instances.  For example, recently my opponent played a fortress to draw one card, then requested an undo because he and forgotten to call his Transmogrify.  I'm very sympathetic to this as I frequently forget to call reserves, and it was clear to me he wouldn't change his plan for the turn based on the card he revealed. 

I am however, sympathetic to Sisif's complaint.  I feel that undo is ok as misclick protection or UI mistakes, but I don't really like people going back mid turn to alter their strategy.  In his place I think that I would ask what he is wanting and if he explains that he wants to totally change his plan for the turn, I'd probably refuse.

Ok, thanks, didn't notice that.

Game 4349137:  I had 2 estates in hand, one copper on the draw pile and 1 duchy in discard.  I played Rebuild, and the game went straight to the buy phase, not letting me rebuild the Duchy into a Province.  I didn't get a chance to select a victory card to skip.

Thanks

IMGHO (G=genuinely), Harbinger is a better card to have in the active, general card pool, but Woodcutter is a better card to have in the intro set. I think a lot of the base cards teach valuable lessons about how the game works. In the case of Woodcutter, you have to ask "is this better than a Silver?" and "how valuable is an extra buy?". Those are great questions for newbies to consider. But considering that the proportion of Dominion newbies among all players has likely never been lower, the utility of such "teaching cards" is also at an all-time low.

I don't agree that the lesson of the value of +buy requires a card like woodcutter.  I learned (and sometimes relearn) the value of a buy when I find myself generating, say 13 coins and wishing that I could get a power 5 along with my province, or having to pay 6 for an Herbalist which is the only available buy in the kingdom and knowing that I really need double province.

The point is any relatively cheap +buy card can teach that lesson.  As for is it better than silver, again, you don't need woodcutter.  Any cost 3 (or cost 4 in some cases) can teach the same lesson.  Woodcutter is not something I personally miss at all.

I also like this idea.  I personally have 2 cards I would ban.

While I'm not against a strategy sub-forum, I will point out that f.ds has years worth of strategy discussions already in place, so it seems a bit like recreating the wheel here.  Going to f.ds will give you so much more than this site for a very long time. 

If you don't think a separate account on f.ds is worthwhile, you can always browse without joining.  If you don't want to even visit another site, well, that is just laziness.

Consider that at least 16 of the top 20 on the leader board (last time I checked) are active members of f.ds, and you can see why if you want to improve at strategy, you want to be on that board.

I'm pretty much in the high 40's and lately have tended to play opponents in the low to mid 40s.  They are not bad players, and certainly don't just buy random cards, but I still see a lot of what I consider fairly elementary mistakes.  Not thinning enough (or at all), overloading terminals, missing key cards, etc.  I don't play much, and if I did, I might crack level 50 (I've been close a few times), but I see a big jump in skill there, and while I have a pretty good record against under 50 players, I lose most often when I play 50+.

I'm with Adam, problem users should be reported and reviewed by Mods.  If needed, warnings/bans/etc can be imposed on the problem users, otherwise the pairing system should not be messed with.

Blacklists help for individual players, repeat offenders should be banned from multiplayer by the Mods/Admins.  Additionally, for rated games I'd like the ability to resign a game that features abusive play and report that game.  It would then be evaluated by a Mod and if the complaint is legit, the game would not affect the ratings.  That way players can feel free to quit on a slow-roller and not have their rating drop, while at the same time denying the slow-roller a ratings increase.

I think that these users should be reported, yes. I do not think that the method of reporting these players should be public.

I personally don't like the idea of group blacklists (though I understand some people do and there's nothing to stop them from making and using those blacklists), but I especially don't like the idea of a group blacklist that's supported officially in any way. Posting about it on these forums seems over the line to me.

This topic has been discussed many times in many places. I'm not gonna take the time to look it up right now but if desired I can do that (I also can't promise that I'll be quick about it, sorry :-( )

Where can I report people that are rude and slow play on purpose when losing.  I'm spending an hour on a game with user Garicup.  He was mad because I would not allow him to undo a move.  Undo is optional.  He is being very rude as well.

Sending a PM Stef on these forums is the preferred method of reporting stuff like this (I think).

Hear, Hear!  +1