Login  |  Register

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - AdamH

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20
1
Dominion Online Championship 2017 / Re: Rules Discussions
« on: 01 September 2017, 03:43:05 PM »
Oh that's neat.

I have no further comments on the rules.

2
Dominion Online Championship 2017 / Re: Rules Discussions
« on: 01 September 2017, 03:17:38 PM »
What do you mean by replay mode? I don't think there is a replay mode currently. Im not 100% certain of the technicalities used, but I think there will be a way that only the streamers can join the spectator mode.

The only way I know of to allow certain people to spectate a game and exclude all others is using the "friends only" spectator mode. So a player would have to clear off their friends list and add only the moderators or streamers or whoever. I don't think this is reasonable to ask of people.

If there is some other way, I'm not aware of it.

The replay mode I'm referring to would be where people take a game number, then I think you can just click through each of the decisions made -- I guess you could do that one stream. I am not as familiar with this feature, but it seems like the only thing you could really do if you wanted to cast a tournament game after-the-fact. It doesn't seem that great, since you'd have to keep the results quiet until that stream/video was released for there to be any suspense at all, but there is some upside. If some guy is taking a long time to think, you don't have to wait for it, you can just have the commentators say whatever they want to say and then move on when they're done. You could also rewind if needed.

3
Dominion Online Championship 2017 / Re: Rules Discussions
« on: 01 September 2017, 02:12:21 PM »
Excellent. I think section 8 is very much improved. For this tournament it seems that the plan is to have matches streamed on replay mode, then?

Also, I assume there are no officially "tournament-sanctioned" commentators, since there is no mention of that in the rules?

4
Dominion Online Championship 2017 / Re: Rules Discussions
« on: 01 September 2017, 02:35:47 AM »
There was a League Championship match, and it was announced beforehand that Donald X in pair with someone else will be commenting.
That "someone else" turned out to be not Adam.
That is the issue.

This is a pretty inaccurate description of the issue.

But that's not particularly relevant to the fact that the rule should be made more specific.

5
Dominion Online Championship 2017 / Re: Rules Discussions
« on: 31 August 2017, 07:23:07 PM »
Moderators will decide about the commentators. If a player is unable or unwilling to have their match streamed or commentated by the selected commentator, they forfeit the match.

If the moderators want the authority to make people forfeit matches, it's pretty good practice to do it as objectively and transparently as possible. You don't want to get into the situation where this was the rule, we get to the QFs and the mods decide "OK we're having AdamH do the commentary" and all of a sudden people would rather forfeit the match. It could easily be seen as a move done by those dastardly evil mods -- "MWAHAHAHAHHAHHH I want Joebob to lose the tournament and I know he hates Adam, so I can make him forfeit by telling him Adam will commentate!!!!!" when it could have all been prevented by just listing all of the commentators before the tournament started. If I was a mod, I would want that rule to be written before the tournament starts so that I could just point at the rule and everyone's life is easier (except for people who join the tournament without reading the rules first. There's no helping them by making better rules, sadly).
It seems likely that commentators will be top players who have been eliminated from the tournament; thus it's not possible to specify them in advance?

I am just posting to say though, that if you are in a Magic: The Gathering Pro Tour, and make the quarterfinals, the match will be filmed, and there will be commentary, and you will have no say in any of that. And they have had players eliminated in earlier rounds do commentary, thus not possibly specifying them ahead of time. And that has all worked out, no-one ever forfeits to avoid that.

I of all people don't mind being filmed, but I think it would be a good idea to explicitly state it in the rules if the organizers want to be able to kick someone out of the tournament for any reason, especially if they necessarily have to make a deep run to get there and there might be higher scrutiny.

One idea is to have a pool of people to choose from, and only choose people who have been eliminated so far.

But yeah in Magic, do they really have people who played in the tournament commentate? I thought that with any competition of that kind of scale they would have dedicated commentators. It would seem weird to me but I'm not educated on the issue.

But as for this specific tournament, yes the commentary situation is a significant concern of mine. It comes from the fact that the TO and other people I suspect are involved in the tournament (organizers, but actually not any of the moderators, which is a big deal) have had a significant issue in the past related to commentary. Given that that's happened, regardless of my personal feelings about it, it seems like a smart idea to at least say something more specific in the rules to prevent a similar situation from getting bad in future tournaments that they run, like this one.

That plus the rule as currently worded gives this particular power to the organizers, and not the moderators, which seems like an oversight.

6
Dominion Online Championship 2017 / Re: Rules Discussions
« on: 31 August 2017, 06:27:16 PM »
Does this help?

If the rules actually said this, or if the organizer posted this, it would help. There are other interpretations of the original rules as written, though. I could go through and point out places where it could be different but that doesn't seem necessary (if you want it though, I'll do it).

I think that none of it is "obvious common sense" so if you're trying to say I don't have common sense or that I'm missing something obvious, then I would just respond by saying that I think you should think about it a bit more. It's very possible for this to not get talked about, and then someone makes the quarterfinals, finds out they have to have their match streamed or else they forfeit, is not OK with that for whatever reason, and it turns out they've not only wasted their time playing in the tournament, but beaten other people who no longer have a shot at the money, when the best course of action would have been for the rules to have been clearer and have them not enter the tournament in the first place. By the current wording of the rules, everything is fine if they just stream all of their matches themselves from their own perspective, for example.

So yes, there is a need for an organizer to explicitly state these kinds of things, because there are multiple interpretations.

As for some of your interpretations, a couple of them have actual issues:

The matches will be streamed in spectator mode

This is in direct conflict with

8.1 Spectator mode should be turned off unless both players agree to allow spectators.

so which one do you go with? At the very least you have to explicitly state somewhere that you're overriding section 8.1, but that rule was in place for a reason: if a player is worried about their opponent seeing their hand somehow, 8.1 protects them, so without the ability to only allow certain people to spectate games (other than the friends list, which is not going to work here), there's a conflict here.

One way to resolve the conflict would be to have the match streamed after it is over using the replay feature.


Moderators will decide about the commentators. If a player is unable or unwilling to have their match streamed or commentated by the selected commentator, they forfeit the match.

If the moderators want the authority to make people forfeit matches, it's pretty good practice to do it as objectively and transparently as possible. You don't want to get into the situation where this was the rule, we get to the QFs and the mods decide "OK we're having AdamH do the commentary" and all of a sudden people would rather forfeit the match. It could easily be seen as a move done by those dastardly evil mods -- "MWAHAHAHAHHAHHH I want Joebob to lose the tournament and I know he hates Adam, so I can make him forfeit by telling him Adam will commentate!!!!!" when it could have all been prevented by just listing all of the commentators before the tournament started. If I was a mod, I would want that rule to be written before the tournament starts so that I could just point at the rule and everyone's life is easier (except for people who join the tournament without reading the rules first. There's no helping them by making better rules, sadly).

7
Dominion Online Championship 2017 / Re: Rules Discussions
« on: 31 August 2017, 05:14:59 PM »
It's a little baffling to me that you seem to be arguing that it's better to turn people away from the tournament than it is to write a better rule set.

Not at all. I certainly agree that it is better to have good rules beforehand. But it seemed to me that it might be impossible to write rules which could be acceptable for you personally so I suggested the only remaining solution.

I think I see what happened here. I said this:

I don't want to get to the quarterfinals of the tournament, then find out that I'm forced to have my match open to spectators, streamed with no delay by an unknown "third party" who could be anyone, commentated upon by people who have said inappropriate things to/about me in the past, or removed from the tournament because I'm unwilling to play a match at 3AM or something.

and I said it in first person. While many of the things I've brought up about the rules are concerns for me personally, I'm certainly not suggesting that the rules be changed because of what I want. I'm suggesting they be changed because the rules will be better as a result.

I want this version of online Dominion to succeed, and so I want this tournament to succeed. Having good rules will increase the chances of that. I may or may not play in the tournament but I don't think that should have anything to do with which rules are changed.

PPE: looks like I'm kinda-sorta ninja's by Cave-o-sapien.

8
Card Bugs / Re: Young Witch - opponent doesn't seem to gain curses!
« on: 30 August 2017, 07:12:52 PM »
The game log displays nothing if a Bane card is revealed. It shows a line saying a Curse is gained if not.

Obviously this is unclear, especially given the lack of an animation or visual cue of any kind whenever a bane card is revealed. There should 100% be a line in the game log saying that a Bane card is revealed whenever that happens.

I think, though, that the right thing is happening with regard to Curses being gained when they "should" be, by the game rules. Unfortunately, that means that this goes lower in the priority for what the devs will work on (which is something that I disagree with, but it's the reality of the situation).

9
Dominion Online Championship 2017 / Re: Rules Discussions
« on: 29 August 2017, 06:21:48 PM »
Luckily, there is an easy solution to avoid all this: just don't play in the tournament at all.

Not playing is what I'll do if the rules aren't to my satisfaction. On the other hand, I like money and the rules are close enough to being good enough for me that I thought I'd bring this stuff up. Even drsteelhammer said himself in this thread that some of section 8 still wasn't decided yet. I think all of the suggestions I've actually made are good changes to the rules, and I think a lot of the questions I've asked are things that deserved clarification.

It's a little baffling to me that you seem to be arguing that it's better to turn people away from the tournament than it is to write a better rule set. I thought the whole point of this tournament was to draw people in and get them to buy subscriptions so more people would be the main goal.

In my experience running a total of 8 Dominion tournaments in my life, I've found it's really helpful to write the rules before the tournament starts, and have the rules be really good. The benefit is that when these situations come up (as is likely to happen given an entry pool this large), it's transparent and clear that the people in charge aren't putting personal bias into their decision because the decision was made before we knew which people were involved. It's a much better situation for everyone involved, but most of all, the organizers themselves!

I will play for fun and I trust in the organizers to do their best, so I accept all their rulings in advance.
(Maybe that's actually something which could be added to the rules: "All decisions of organizers are final and cannot be appealed.")

There are people here using the terms "organizers" and "moderators" -- I want to make sure I'm clearly defining who I'm talking about when I use these words. If this is not what other people mean, then please correct me.

Organizers/TO - drsteelhammer
Moderators - Deadlock39 and irrationalE (whatever is on the list at the bottom of this post)

There is a statement in the rules to the effect of what you said about the moderators

Quote
11.2 If there is a conflict, please contact your moderator, who will have the final say on the issue.

And I trust the moderators. On the other hand, I do not trust drsteelhammer. I'm not going to get into the details but the way the rules are written, drsteelhammer doesn't actually have any authority other than the fact that he writes the rules (which is a good thing, both for my personal preference, plus it's good practice). If he writes rules that are good enough for me then I'll join, and in a way I'm helping him because if he writes rules that are good enough for me, I'd say they're probably good enough for anyone -- that way he ends up with the best rules! Everyone wins!

On the other hand, changing the rules after the tournament starts is a huge no-no for me, so having vague rules that give the organizer authority to make "judgment calls" is not something I'm OK with (this is the moderators' job), particularly when I don't trust the judgment of the organizer. With well-written rules, though, this situation should not come up.

With regard to streaming/spectating in particular, it's a sensitive subject to me so while it may not seem important to everyone, the contents of section 8 of the rules are extremely important to me. In fact, whether or not I participate in the tournament hinges on what those are, because everything else out there seems good enough.

10
Interface Issues / Golem action order
« on: 29 August 2017, 02:19:29 PM »
I play a Golem, I reveal two actions, I now get to choose what order to play them in.

Currently, the window that comes up has a "first" and "last" text above it, and then I can drag the cards under the right text to decide which one to play first. This "drag and drop" window has a lot of issues in general so it should probably be used sparingly, but it's far from the best interface for this decision. It would be much easier to just display a picture of both cards and have the user click on the one they want to play first.

11
Dominion Online Championship 2017 / Re: Rules Discussions
« on: 29 August 2017, 01:59:35 PM »
Is there any update to Section 8 of the rules? There's about two weeks left until signups are closed and I don't think that section is acceptable as it stands; it hasn't been addressed since my initial post.

Specifically, it should be clear what 8.3 and 8.4 actually mean:

8.3 Some games may be streamed by third parties.

This rule as currently worded doesn't actually say much, except that it goes against the recommendation set forth in 8.1, so it really needs to be something different.

Who are the third parties? Will spectator mode be used as the perspective for this stream? How do we reconcile that with rule 8.1 (does the software support only adding certain people as spectators outside of the friends list)? Will there be a delay? Will there be commentary (and if yes there are about a billion questions related to commentary which should be addressed)? If I were writing the rules I would put in a provision that people can't stream or spectate matches unless authorized by all players and a tournament moderator in the case where a match will be streamed, and I wouldn't want anyone but a moderator streaming the match so that I know all of the proper precautions are being taken.

8.4 From Quarterfinals onwards, every match will be streamed. Organizers may influence the scheduling to ensure no overlaps.

"Organizers" should definitely be "moderators" at the very least. Most of the questions that apply to 8.3 apply to this as well, but in addition:

Will it be required to have matches streamed at this point? What will happen if a player is unable or unwilling to have their match spectated/streamed? What, if any, are valid reasons for a player to refuse to have their match streamed? If a player wants to stream the match themselves, is that acceptable? What about taking video and uploading it later (after the match result has been confirmed)? If a player does not want to have their match commentated at all, or by specific people, is this a valid reason? What kind of influence will the organizers/moderators have on scheduling the match? Is there a possibility that after successfully scheduling several matches, a player is removed from the tournament because they are not flexible enough to schedule a match with unknown people?

I don't want to get to the quarterfinals of the tournament, then find out that I'm forced to have my match open to spectators, streamed with no delay by an unknown "third party" who could be anyone, commentated upon by people who have said inappropriate things to/about me in the past, or removed from the tournament because I'm unwilling to play a match at 3AM or something.

12
Feature Requests / Re: Version 1.2.13 - The log at the end of the game
« on: 26 August 2017, 08:11:51 PM »
Yes, deck contents is nice to have.
Yes, end-screen log is nice to have.

Being able to know what happens on your opponent's last turn is not nice to have, it's an essential part of the game. Because of a flaw in the implementation where this is not shown, we need the end-screen log as an inferior substitute. Now even that substitute is gone. That's the serious part. And Stef doesn't even bother to reply to this thread saying when this will be fixed.
I think it's reasonable to want this fixed, and unreasonable to get hysterical about it.

I am replying though to say that any time Stef spends reading the forums or reassuring people with posts is time not spent actually working on the program. In fact I propose that Stef only check in on the forums once a week, and only post announcements. Any emergency will I'm sure be communicated to him one way or another.

This seems like a good idea as long as there is someone actually taking feedback from people reporting bugs and stuff. As it currently stands, it doesn't seem like that is happening anyways.

13
General Discussion / Re: Dominion: Nocturne
« on: 16 August 2017, 06:53:31 PM »
People have different things they care about for software, I can totally see how DXV would want to mostly play games against bots and how other players wouldn't. I care a lot more about certain animations and displays and other things that would help me keep track of my opponent's turn. Everyone's wants are valid here and the software should do all of those things.

It would have been nice to have them all done by release but that didn't happen, so now the devs have to prioritize them.

Obviously they should prioritize the things I want above everything else. Sure, DXV can have his stuff after all of my stuff is working perfectly.

(in case it is not obvious, I'm not serious about that last part, unless the devs suddenly want to do that I guess)

14
General Discussion / Re: Starting player
« on: 16 August 2017, 03:20:14 PM »
All of the ideas here besides mine seem fine, I think I was being misunderstood here, though:

But I'd be OK if the higher-rated player went second in the first of a series of games, but if these two people have played each other in the last, say, 24 hours, then you can go do the rule of the winner goes second in the next game. I feel like that captures the spirit of wanting to even things out while preserving fun for everyone involved.
Aha:

If none of the players have played today, highest ranked player goes last. If any have played, pick a random non-bot player who has played today, and if they won their last game they go last, otherwise first.

For two player games this works out as:
- if neither have played it's by rank, hooray, the most interesting game
- if just one has played, we go by their last game from today - they have the experience of going first if they lost or last if they won (and the other player can't have that experience, since they haven't played yet today)
- if both have played and they both won or both lost, it's random
- if both have played and one won and the other lost, the player who lost goes first and the player who won goes second, regardless of who we randomly picked. Both players feel like they are getting their deserved slot.

I was referring to previous matchups only between the players in that game when I made my suggestion. So for example, let's say that you and I are playing a 2P game. We've both played against other people today but that doesn't matter since it's been over 24 hours since we played each other last.

Your idea seemed good too, I just don't know if I was clear about mine.

...in my opinion, though, for rated games anything other than completely random start player can possibly lead to abuse, so the upside of "more interesting games" seems less important than preserving the integrity of rated games.

15
Other Bugs / Rated games against bots
« on: 15 August 2017, 07:43:48 PM »
I had 16 rated games, at least that's what it says when I go to the leaderboard tab. I'm allowed to start a game with a bot and check a box to have that game be rated. I play the game and complete the game. it's been over 48 hours since then, but the leaderboard tab still says I have 16 rated games.

If rated games against bots aren't going to show up on the leaderboard, then I shouldn't be allowed to play them -- it should just uncheck the box by default if I'm up against bots. If I check the box and start a game with those settings, I should have those settings.

I'm not sure what the intended behavior here is, but what is there now is inconsistent so it should be changed.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20