Topics

My opponent in the game #141797409 on tokyo last evening (US central time) was unable to play a Bounty Hunter using Captain's ability.  The problem was fixed neither by his logging out and logging in again, nor by undoing the play of the Captain and playing it again anew after having logged out and back in.

In the middle of a game I reloaded the page due to some issues that seemed connection related, then after waiting for it to load again, finally clicked on "Cancel and Resign".  This resulted in a flash of a screen with my username and those of my erstwhile opponents, and "Ready", "Spectate" and "Leave Table" buttons, then the same "Cancel and Resign" screen.  Whenever I log in to dominion.games, regardless of what browser or device I use, I get the "Cancel and Resign" screen and clicking on the button gives the same result.

It seems to be something wrong with my account on the dominion.games server, not a problem with cookies or settings on my end, as the problem is browser and device independent.  Please fix it.  I'm paying for a subscription and cannot play because of it.  Very annoying.   

In Game #99903785, twice after my opponents played a Fool, the graphic from the last resolved of the three Boons remained on my screen the rest of the game.  You could move them aside, but the more recent of them kept moving back to the center of the screen. Very annoying.

I'm running Firefox on a Mac with OS 10.14.  Everything seemed fine since the update until a game ended and the OK button wouldn't respond.  I reloaded the site and now can't log in because the log in button does nothing.  All the other buttons work, I can change to full-screen or change the language on the log-in page, but I can't log in.

Surely it would not be that hard to have the bots always discard from exile any non-ruin actions, treasures producing more than 1 coin, and night cards stranded there when given the opportunity to do so.

I just finished a 3-player in which the third human bugged out early and by the end, Lord R. had at least seven gold and a silver in exile, having bought them when a Gatekeeper was in play.

Is there a ways to have boons and hexes stop displaying once they resolve (or the player choses not to take use the boon), rather than having to click to get rid of the display?

It's especially annoying when someone plays Fool and runs through the three quickly.  It would be better to see them briefly than have the first one frozen on the screen until the viewing player clicks.  Similarly if someone throws two hexes in quick succession (say by playing two Werewolves in their Night phase).

I think this is a feature request.  If what I'm describing is supposed to be happening already, then it's a bug report instead, affecting Firefox 75.0 running in MacOS 10.14.6.

The matching algorithm seems to have been updated, and the update isn't an improvement.  Until the past few days if I joined the 3-player queue only and there were eight more so people in it (counting # in queue minus # looking for practice games, since I'm only looking for a rated game) I'd match in a minute or two.  Lately even with ten or more by that count, I haven't been matching after even a five or ten minute wait.

The 2-player queue seems slower, too, but not as drastically as the 3-player.  If there was a change, change it back, please.

Game #29721226 resulted when I had won a game (with the same number or a different one, I don't know -- it was gone when the problem arose -- against the same opponents GoGators1983 and XQPN).  Instead of giving the usual end game sequence, when I bought the last Province, the game simply restarted with the exact same kingdom.  XQPN seems to have wandered off when I appeared to have won and to get out of it we made him resign, but he should not be punished for resigning a 3-player, as the game shouldn't have existed at all.  Also, I'd rather like the win I was seemingly robbed of by the erroneous restart if it wasn't credited properly.

user Megas_Droungarios

As it is now, a player can resign a 3-player game at the cost of having their 3-player ranking hurt more than an ordinary loss to their two opponents would.

There are circumstances where it would be nice to have the ability to suggest to one of your opponents that you both resign and cede the game to the other player -- in which case it would seem reasonable for this to count as an ordinary loss to that player.  Two come to mind, one applies in a game I'm currently player as I type this:  one player has an insurmountable lead.  It would be nice to be able to give him the game and move on to another since the current one isn't that much fun for the other two of us.  The other is cases in which one player has to leave (real life getting in the way of games...) and one of the others is hopelessly trailing.

In a similar vein, perhaps if a player in a three-player resigns when they have more victory points than their two opponents combined, perhaps the punishment should be lighter, since that's obviously real life interfering, rather than bad sportsmanship.

As it is now, a 3 or 4 player game in which one player has such a dominating lead that the outcome is not in question must be played out, unless one of the losing players is willing to take a draconian hit to his/her ranking and resign.  If I was playing with friends with physical cards at my dining room table, the players who are behind could say, one to the other, "Shall we just quit and let him/her have it and start another one (or pack up)?" and if they agreed, either the group could start a new game or go home.

I'd suggest letting the player who is in second place propose resignation and if the player in last place agrees, the game ends with the same effect on rankings as if it had been played out with the leaving player winning, while if the player in last place does not, the game continues.  Of course, bugging out for a rankings hit should still be an option.  For the vanishingly rare 4 player game the player in second place would need agreement from those in third and fourth place.

I just had a game end because my opponent's baby started crying.  After a little bit he resigned, but it would have been nice to be able to continue, by having the "make ---- resign?" notice have an option other than "yes".  Mostly for circumstances where a player has posted a reason for taking a long time to play his/her turn, it would be very good to have an option to set a (possibly shorter) timer by saying "not yet" to the "make ---- resign?" notice.

Could a criterion for "deep enough in" be implemented after which resigning a 3-player game lets the bot finish for you, but doesn't deprive the other players of their game for rankings purposes?

I've often been annoyed by, say 10, 12, 18 turns in a player resigning from an obviously lost position and a game I would have won turning into an unrated game.  I just saw the most obnoxious version of this deprive one of my opponents of a win:  he'd played better than the other two of us (and had a bit of luck), and was literally in his last turn, when my other opponent resigned and turned the game unrated, depriving him of his win.  I hope at very least the resigning player gets a loss so this isn't a way to game the 3-player rankings.

Some criterion like resignations after 10 turns, or after a pile is empty, or after there are fewer than 6 provinces (or colonies) remaining lets a bot finish for the resigning player, but keeps the game rated, would be most welcomed.

(It would be better to do this if the bots play ability was ramped up a little -- recently in a bot match I had Lord Rattington play a Legionary and not reveal a gold, then play a gold in the buy phase, I'm mean the bots are supposed to be artificially "intelligent"...)

...the rank shown on the Leaderboard.

In a recent game I set aside a Crossroads as the card whose abilities and types Inheritance was to give my Estates.  It did not.  The Crossroads text appeared on my Estates, but playing one as the first Crossroads played in a turn did not give my three actions.  This ruined a turn (in which one action in my hand would have drawn more cards and another thrown a curse).  My opponent's Inheritance-enhanced Estates functioned correctly as Merchants.

This should be fixed.  (And it would be nice to have the loss expunged from my record.)