More disliked/ banned cards

[rtotaleXVIII]

I enjoy Dominion Online, but the game contains too many poorly balanced/ annoying cards that I don't want in my games. The current allowance of banned/ disliked cards is not sufficient to correct this problem. Would it be possible to increase the banned and disliked categories, at least for games against the bots, if not for PVP matches?

[Mic Qsenoch]

Against the bots, you can use the "Familiar Cards" option to further restrict the card pool. Just choose which cards you're willing to play with in the "Familiar Cards" tab, then create a table and click "Advanced Settings" and enable "Respect Familiar cards".

I believe "Unrated" matchmaking also respects familiar cards.

[Timaaah]

Totally agree.   Sometimes you just need a break from a card for a while.

[epp]

I just wanted to bump this thread. I genuinely appreciate that we can ban/dislike cards at all - that's a huge plus!  But allowing more than 5 seems like both a simple and reasonable thing to do, given how many total cards there are in Dominion.  Realistically, I would be satisfied if I could ban ~15 cards, but ideally there would be no limit.

[Ingix]

I guess for unrated games that might be an option.

The "fear" when allowing more banned cards in rated games is that some players might game the system, and ban whole classes of cards, like junk attacks or discard attacks or Villages or cost reducers or whatever kind of  kingdom they are bad at.

[epp]

Yeah, I hear that and I can see why you wouldn't want to make it unlimited (e.g. a player could surreptitiously craft exactly the kingdom they want to play every time).  While I can't definitively speak to how abusable upping the limit would be, it could make the game much more fun for many and it certainly feels like it shouldn't impact the ladder too much.

A player who really wanted to ban their worst cards would have a bit of a chicken and egg problem - how do they know they're their worst cards unless they play with them consistently?  What if, after improving more, other cards would actually be their worst cards?  I suspect a player trying to micro-optimize like that is wasting their time and trying to prevent it is a similar waste.  The overwhelming majority of players just want to put the cards they hate there and move on.  Plus I'd be surprised if there was meaningful variance in per-card winrates at the top of the ladder - those players tend to be super good at everything (and also less concerned about specific cards because they understand the general principles).  But if all the best players want to ban, for example, the swingiest cards, all that means is the ladder ratings end up being more accurate faster, which isn't a bad thing.