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 - jsh

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Support / Re: Players ARE CHEATING!
« on: 20 July 2017, 01:35:45 am »
http://dominion.lauxnet.com/scavenger/?user=IceHot&num_results=10

Please go here and tell us which game the 'cheating' happened in so we can figure out what happened. Odds are, the player had duration coin from the previous turn or coin tokens.

Edit: Found it. Game 5299852

Your opponent had 5 coin tokens saved from Candlestick Maker. No cheating there!

2
Support / Re: Abusive players
« on: 19 July 2017, 11:45:12 pm »
How do we report someone or PM a moderator? The slow person is striking again, now under the name "StefAllowsSlowPlay". I blocked him so I won't have to encounter him under that name again but I'd like to know how to report/PM a moderator.

Thanks!

Simply blacklist the player. Stef is monitoring the blacklists several times a day, and so far it's been quite simple to find these users. You can report them with a private message if you wish, but it's not necessary.

3
Feature Requests / Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
« on: 26 June 2017, 05:47:45 am »
How about simplifying it even further?  There must be a few cards that are widely disliked.  Donald is probably in the best position to determine which ones - have him pick 3 of them.  Then in the matching screen add a criteria of "play with banned cards" so that people who really want to play with them will get matched with others that want them also, and no one else will have to see them again.

I doubt this would affect ratings because we would all have the same choice to make: a simple yes or no to a fixed set of cards.

I suggest banning Possession and Rebuild.  Those are the only two I really dislike, but I'd be happy with the above proposal whether it banned those cards or not.

Why do this when people could just select the ones they don't like? The mechanism is already partway there with Familiar Cards. It seems simpler and more player-friendly. I don't think anyone could "game" this feature in any meaningful way.

I thought the primary argument against allowing people to ban cards was that the rankings would lose some of their accuracy.  By only allowing a single, common set of cards to be banned you greatly reduce that possibility.  If it turns out that there is a significant advantage to playing with the banned cards, or without them, then we'll all know it and those that care can play with the better option.

On the other hand, maybe choosing which cards to ban will become a meta-strategy that deserves to be part of the ranking system.

If it's only 4 or 5 cards (as has been suggested) they can block, any inaccuracy is likely negligible, as the game has hundreds of cards. Like, what advantage are they gaining? Making it hard for a certain strategy to come up? There are just so few cards that have no analogues, and even if something unique is getting the shaft, is there really any harm? After all, Possession is the most hated card. At worst, someone could block, for instance, all coin token cards and remove that element from their games, but I doubt every single person would ban all of those cards.

I can see the argument "everyone should be playing by the same rules down to the letter" if the competition is super serious, but I feel like we are here strictly to have fun at the moment, and this feature would make the game more fun for people. Even if that becomes an issue, serious tournaments could always be run without the banlist. At any rate, I feel like I'm basically just repeating Donald's posts, and I generally trust him, so if it's good enough for him it's good enough for me. (that's just my 2 cents)

4
Feature Requests / Re: Ban n Cards in Rated Games
« on: 26 June 2017, 05:25:35 am »
How about simplifying it even further?  There must be a few cards that are widely disliked.  Donald is probably in the best position to determine which ones - have him pick 3 of them.  Then in the matching screen add a criteria of "play with banned cards" so that people who really want to play with them will get matched with others that want them also, and no one else will have to see them again.

I doubt this would affect ratings because we would all have the same choice to make: a simple yes or no to a fixed set of cards.

I suggest banning Possession and Rebuild.  Those are the only two I really dislike, but I'd be happy with the above proposal whether it banned those cards or not.

Why do this when people could just select the ones they don't like? The mechanism is already partway there with Familiar Cards. It seems simpler and more player-friendly. I don't think anyone could "game" this feature in any meaningful way.

5
General Discussion / Re: Abusive Behavior In-Game
« on: 18 June 2017, 03:35:57 am »
His language was bad, but I don't blame him for being upset by your arbitrary undo rules.

6
General Discussion / Re: Undoing
« on: 10 June 2017, 11:35:34 pm »
I find it pathetic when players request multiple undos to change strategy, especially when those players are around level 60. I was quite perplexed that a player first forged 2 bishops to get a province, then played 2 cards, only to request multiple undos, to use bishop on the forge.
Maybe there should be a limit on what undos can do.

I think it's okay to request multiple undos in a row as long as new information hasn't been revealed. To be fair, the interface is not ideal for undos that involve multiple-click cards. Not everyone knows how to use /undo x either. The plan is probably to make some undos allowed and some require confirmation. Stuff like what you're mentioning would then still be possible without annoying the other player.

With that said, you can always blacklist those players.

7
I think you might have misunderstood.

When a player starts a new account they are rank 20 correct?

So if someone is ranked 60 and then start a new account they will start at rank 20 and be playing other low ranked players for a while till they get their personal rank back up to 60.

This is a twink player.

I don't know enough of how the ranking system works so I don't know how fast or how many games this person would have to play to get back to their old rank of 60.

There is no incentive to do this, and to be honest it isn't even actually a problem. So what if there are smurf accounts? Nobody is earning anything. The only function of rankings at the moment is better matchmaking, so people restarting at Level 20 are just setting themselves up to play with all the slow players at the low levels and wasting their time. Not to mention if they subscribed they are just wasting money. That is on them, not the system.

I checked out the top 50 to see if your fear of smurf accounts is founded. 41 of the people there I recognize either from the MF/Goko days or even as far back as isotropic. It's pretty natural for players who have been playing online that long to be good at the game. 1 is a confirmed smurf account (surprise, it has over 400 games, so your fixation on that number is meaningless) which doesn't even show up on the official leaderboard, so it doesn't seem like an issue. The rest, sure, I don't know them, but I have no reason to believe they are smurf accounts. Not saying I'm the best judge, but considering I recognize 41/50 users and I'm just one guy, it seems like we're okay here at the moment.


Out of the top 50, the only account I'm actually skeptical about besides the known smurf is aaaasn, who only has 4 games, but maybe he's just luser's good friend.

8
You might be interested in the currently running Dominion League:

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?board=60.0

9
Card Bugs / Re: Prince stops working after a few hands.
« on: 01 June 2017, 05:14:06 am »
Both of these are cards that are dangerous to play with Prince.

You probably topdecked your Walled Village, as per its effect. When you do this, it leaves play and thus leaves the Prince alone in play.

Duration cards don't work well with Prince at all. They get split up when it lingers in play for the duration effect.

And now you know!

10
General Discussion / Re: Impatient winner without sportsmanship
« on: 20 May 2017, 03:43:20 am »
You can click the lightning bolt icon after a game to blacklist players (or add them to your blacklist manually in the Friends tab).

There are several trolls that use the site and say similar things to what you just described to nearly every player they play against. They aren't being bad sports; they are just trying to get a rise out of people.

11
General Discussion / Re: What is a "good" rating?
« on: 19 May 2017, 04:49:41 pm »

12
General Discussion / Re: What is a "good" rating?
« on: 19 May 2017, 04:32:34 am »
This is pretty eye opening. I know that I make a handful of either mistakes, or moments of indecision where I have to make an educated guess, because I am not sure what to do. Sometimes this is because I am playing with a card or two that is new to me. (I only recently began playing with expansion cards.) So I get what you guys are saying.

It also seems to me that after the first opening strategies, the mid-game is the place where you can really screw up. I often will make a mistake there I regret - or just make a play I didn't realize would harm me. I expect 50+ players do not do that.

The most common mistakes I see are at endgame! Can't count the number of times I have seen a player throw away a shot at victory by leaving a pile low or buying bad Provinces.

13
General Discussion / Re: What is a "good" rating?
« on: 19 May 2017, 04:03:15 am »
Ouch, my ego! I could see from your perspective, a 20-40 player is the same. At my level, there's a pretty big difference between the two. Most players I see in the 20s have little idea about strategy, they buy a lot of random actions, they don't try to thin their deck (or do it soon enough). They buy provinces too soon, etc. Where players in the 40s seem to know the game pretty well, and can play outside the core set as well.

It's interesting to get different perspectives.

I've seen what you are observing, I just haven't noticed players in the 20 range being that different from those in the 40. Sometimes I'll see a player at 47 totally ignore a key card, trashing, etc. On the other hand, I have played pretty close games against people in the 20 range. I suspect this is partially because the client starts new players at 20 and everyone is working their way up.

14
General Discussion / Re: What is a "good" rating?
« on: 19 May 2017, 03:54:18 am »
From my perspective (as a mid 60s level player), I don't really feel challenged by most players below 50 or so, and when I lose to players at those levels 80% of the time it's because of bad draws or turn advantage, but there's a lot of variation on both sides and obviously strings of bad or good luck can make someone's rating be off. Right now there doesn't seem to be a huge difference between a player in the 40s or 20s, at least from my perspective. So I guess a quick tier list for me would be like:

Dominion Experts: 60+, maybe more like 58+
Really strong players: 55-60
Above average to great players: 50-54
Too much variance to tell: 49 and below.

15
General Discussion / Re: Rude player warning
« on: 04 May 2017, 10:23:29 pm »
Edit by Stef: removed this post, because public name & shame is not something I believe in.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4