Banlist Discussion!

[Tisaac]

Let me see if I can find some middle ground here. I am a highly ranked competitive player and I understand the desire to have an as close to level playing field as possible for matches. I also understand that this site is here for players of all skill levels and competitive temperaments. I hope that we can all agree that we are here to have fun. I am relatively new to this site but my sense is, judging simply from its name, that the arena seasons are this site's centerpiece. Any banlist that we generate will almost certainly apply to the arena seasons and therefore affect players of all skill levels.
I worry that we competitive players are pinpointing certain cards for banning more because we don't like losing to them than because they make the game less fun. Over time we will all have a chance to draft them and therefore, in the long run, the playing field will be more or less level. Less competitive or less skilled players will also be able to enjoys them and over time learn to use them more powerfully. If data show that one or a small number of cards are markedly more powerful than others I won't argue against banning them. However, we now stand at the point of having already banned four cards with considerable campaigning for further bans. I find it interesting that, according to Lumin's post, PA has banned only three cards from the entire ABCD card pool.

Arena is only for competitive players. Less competitive players can still play with any cards they want.

[msclark]

There's also a difference, I think, between balancing the card pool for Arena and balancing it for a single competitive match - say a Championship Final or somesuch. In Arena you might play dozens of games against a huge variety of standards of player. You'll play with and against all the cards multiple times and the luck should mostly even out. I don't think the ban list will impact the Arena standings a great deal by the end of it. Get rid of the cards that make the game less fun, for sure, but perhaps keep a lighter touch with the powerful cards.

But for a one-off game, or short series of games, with something more important than Arena Elo at stake, having a stricter banlist seems much more appropriate. You want those to come down to player skill, not whether or not your opponent opened Assistant Tiller.

Maybe there should be an option for a custom banlist?

[Tisaac]

Maybe there should be an option for a custom banlist?

Nope, not doable. Closest possible is a defined game option made for a specific event such as a World championship or something like this. But it needs to be hardcoded.

[Ranior]

I find it interesting that, according to Lumin's post, PA has banned only three cards from the entire ABCD card pool.

Just on this topic, it's important to realize that revised edition never really has taken much hold over on play-agricola and it is rarely played. Even when it does get played, it often is in a different meta/format because they'll mix revised edition cards with original edition cards. There's not a lot of games within the realm of what we're specifically playing. I suspect many of these cards have already been played hundreds of times more than they have been played on play-Agricola, the number of games and users is wildly different. On top of that, there are a few forums posts arguing many more cards should have got on the banlist, but because the format is rarely played AND because play-agricola allows users to set up custom decks/banlists for their games, there isn't much of a need for a consensus community banlist. Essentially my point is that whatever number play-agricola has is pretty meaningless as they don't have a community playing this card set, nor do they have to do the sort of community consensus banlist we have to on this site. That number should have no bearing on what we decide to do. (I'd also note that as players played more and more of even the player created decks G4 and G5 and now others, the play-agricola users tend to slowly add things to the banlist as they play with them and discover what has aberrant win percentages and players figure how to use and abuse certain cards.)

I don't agree with the idea that we should just let things even out over the course of a long arena season. The whole question of banning a card for being too strong is essentially if it helps win matches at an aberrant amount (or take 2nds) compared to the rest of the pool of cards. Of course there is always going to be a strongest card, but the strongest card should be only incrementally better than the other strongest cards. We should see a nice distribution. The whole argument against something like Braggart is that it would help win an abnormal number of games and be a strong outlier to that distribution.

I am quite confident at this point that Begging Student does the same. It just wins and takes 2nd very frequently based on what I can tell.

I highly suspect that Big Country still falls in the same category.

I'm fairly suspicious that Assistant Tiller does too in the current card pool. This one is the hardest for me to really get a feeling on. I don't have a worry about it long term (one reason play-agricola would never have banned this card is because they play with a much wider card pool so the day laborer combos are nowhere near as prevalent). This current card set is heavy with day laborer combos which is where I think Assistant Tiller is probably too strong at the moment in our specific meta and can be removed from a banlist if/when we add additional decks. Until then, I still personally suspect that it has an aberrant win percentage.

Even with removing these cards there still are tons of strong strategies and cards. Things like Grocer, Childless, and Wood Hut Extender will remain very powerful, but they fall in a much more reasonable position of the strength distribution with many of the other strongest cards quite close to them. There will still be a very wide and varied and interesting meta existing, with tons of fun cards and strategies viable.

[Almicantarat]

Be aware that PWR calculation for ABCD deck computed by Lumin is WRONG.

The total amount of ABCD deck cards is 215 and and the normalization factor should be 64/215 (7--->8 draft mode as in arena) which is 1/3.36 and not 1/7 which is the value he used.

Moreover PWG parameter is completely non sense. That parameter can be computed easily by a child in an elementary school and it doesn't mean anything since it DOES NOT take in account the correlations among the cards. I don't know what's Lumin's job but mine is statistics.

Pleas Lumin confirm that you realized your mistakes.

Now you can continue taliking about the bans, the topic you liked the most.

[Wonderboat]

I find it interesting that, according to Lumin's post, PA has banned only three cards from the entire ABCD card pool.

Just on this topic, it's important to realize that revised edition never really has taken much hold over on play-agricola and it is rarely played. Even when it does get played, it often is in a different meta/format because they'll mix revised edition cards with original edition cards. There's not a lot of games within the realm of what we're specifically playing. I suspect many of these cards have already been played hundreds of times more than they have been played on play-Agricola, the number of games and users is wildly different. On top of that, there are a few forums posts arguing many more cards should have got on the banlist, but because the format is rarely played AND because play-agricola allows users to set up custom decks/banlists for their games, there isn't much of a need for a consensus community banlist. Essentially my point is that whatever number play-agricola has is pretty meaningless as they don't have a community playing this card set, nor do they have to do the sort of community consensus banlist we have to on this site. That number should have no bearing on what we decide to do. (I'd also note that as players played more and more of even the player created decks G4 and G5 and now others, the play-agricola users tend to slowly add things to the banlist as they play with them and discover what has aberrant win percentages and players figure how to use and abuse certain cards.)

I don't agree with the idea that we should just let things even out over the course of a long arena season. The whole question of banning a card for being too strong is essentially if it helps win matches at an aberrant amount (or take 2nds) compared to the rest of the pool of cards. Of course there is always going to be a strongest card, but the strongest card should be only incrementally better than the other strongest cards. We should see a nice distribution. The whole argument against something like Braggart is that it would help win an abnormal number of games and be a strong outlier to that distribution.

I am quite confident at this point that Begging Student does the same. It just wins and takes 2nd very frequently based on what I can tell.

I highly suspect that Big Country still falls in the same category.

I'm fairly suspicious that Assistant Tiller does too in the current card pool. This one is the hardest for me to really get a feeling on. I don't have a worry about it long term (one reason play-agricola would never have banned this card is because they play with a much wider card pool so the day laborer combos are nowhere near as prevalent). This current card set is heavy with day laborer combos which is where I think Assistant Tiller is probably too strong at the moment in our specific meta and can be removed from a banlist if/when we add additional decks. Until then, I still personally suspect that it has an aberrant win percentage.

Even with removing these cards there still are tons of strong strategies and cards. Things like Grocer, Childless, and Wood Hut Extender will remain very powerful, but they fall in a much more reasonable position of the strength distribution with many of the other strongest cards quite close to them. There will still be a very wide and varied and interesting meta existing, with tons of fun cards and strategies viable.

I agree with all you wrote here, Ranior.

[torvaldur_makan]

Begging Student: The preliminary data we have suggests this card is powerful, but in my experience in Arena this card simply provides way too much value for so little cost. It's a very fun card to play with, but getting up to 6 actions at the cost of a beggar is just ridiculous. You can play this card with very strange occupations and still score very highly due to its raw efficiency. Add in that this card combos with occ cards, and that it enables you to play minors which normally have a high prerequisite, it's too much value to be printed on a single card. As a thought exercise, I think if this card gave 2 beggars it would still be one of the top occs. At 3 it would still be playable.

I agree with everything you said.

Furthermore, the strength of Begging Student is the surprise effect. Opponents always have to account for Begging Student to play room discounters (especially strong in the first harvest) or something that gives them immediate food, that allows them to take actions that they otherwise wouldn't afford to before a harvest.

[watershipdown]

If people doesn't want to ban Big Country because it is too strong, I will say we should ban it because its annoying to play against.

[Smoo]

For me, begging student is the only one i'd wouldn't be sad to see gone. There's no synergy required to make the card work beyond 'playable occs' and there's no counter play to it.

[alocirga]

I would like to see statistics of cards at the end of this arena season before jumping to conclusions about banning any additional cards. To me this seems pragmatic and fair. That being said, I highly suspect begging student needs to go.