Messages

in

in

When I right click to adjust treasure hunter autoplay, I can't click any of the buttons for some reason. All of the other autoplays in the page line are editable.

See eg 8971287

heron 4-2 Diggaro

D went first first game

#7641790 D
#7642245 h
#7642506 h
#7643055 D
#7643537 h
# 7643881 h

heron 4-1 achmedsender

#7483775 h
#7484166 h
#7484396 a
#7484932 h
#7485239 h

See also http://forum.shuffleit.nl/index.php?topic=2076.0

heron 4-0 luliin
7214922
7215440
7215750
7216199

Is there any protocol for what we should do if we get into a stalemate with possession/donate?

If you set max events/landmarks to 0, it is still possible (and quite common) to get 1 event or landmark. See eg game 5985620.
It is easy to reproduce.

If you set max events/landmarks to 1, and min to 0, it may be the case that you always get 1 rather than 0. I cannot be certain, but I tried it about 20 times and always got a event or landmark.

I'm with drsteelhammer on this. It's already a disadvantage to be the second player in the 7th match, why don't we try to give them a slight leg up? And possibly save some time while we're at it? The rules of dominion aren't sacred or anything; if everyone agrees to play a different way that's fine. Of course in this situation not everyone agrees, so that's a bit of an issue, and while we can't really tell how everyone feels because most people aren't commenting, right now it seems we are reasonably divided on the issue.

The only convincing argument against the current rule that I could think of is if it were common for there to be kingdoms where it was much easier to tie than win. I don't think that is common at all though.

I can see where Adam is coming from though. His argument of "we should follow the rules of the game" makes plenty of sense, but I think Adam and I just prioritized our values differently.

Regarding two players agreeing on a different tiebreaker: I don't really have a problem with it, but maybe someone would try to complain if they do this and lose because of it, so make sure to document the agreement.

Although I usually agree with things Donald says, his tiebreaker suggestions make no sense to me. I could be misunderstanding something or being dumb though.

1. fewest turns over the match
Suppose that both players fight to the end in all of their matches, and every end the game if it would cause them to lose (which is an even better idea than usual with this tiebreaker). Then the only way for this tiebreaker to come into effect is if 2 ties occur when it player A started the game, and 0 ties when player B started; or 3 and 1 (to understand this, consider: If there are no ties, the number of games player A wins when player B starts is equal to the number of games that player B wins when player A starts). In which case, the player who tied a lot when they went second will win the tiebreak. So... this is a really convoluted variant of the current rule, which usually won't even come into effect, and randomly punishes people who don't understand the rule and resign during their turn.

2. most wins over the tournament, not counting game 7
This doesn't really work since each match ends at 3.5. People who tied once and got a score of 3.5 instead of 4 are randomly punished.
I guess you can go with least losses instead, which works sort of well. Benefits the better seeded player.

3. highest rated player wins
I mean ok I guess. This would be kind of disheartening to the lower rated player though, and punishes good players who don't play online a lot (like Adam, it seems?)
I mean they are already hurt by the seeding so maybe that's ok but idk.

So uh those are my thoughts. Option 1 seems bad unless I made a math mistake, which is possible; options 2 and 3 help the higher seeded player which I don't really like.

In