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 - Polk5440

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Card Bugs / Taxman
« on: 19 September 2017, 01:54:13 AM »
Taxman did not reveal opponent's hand when Treasure (Silver) was absent.

Dominion Online Championship 2017 / Re: Rules Discussions
« on: 13 September 2017, 06:18:47 AM »

Dominion Online Championship 2017 / Re: Rules Discussions
« on: 12 September 2017, 05:31:55 PM »
10.1 If you disconnect during a game, use the reconnect feature. If your opponent is disconnected, do not make use of the "make resign" feature. This will not be counted as winning the game.

11.2 Keep in mind that in a competitive situation such as this tournament, players take a long time to consider a play. Do not make use of the "make resign" feature if your opponent is thinking.

This is just asking for trouble. If we're not supposed to use the "make resign" button, there should be a tournament mode (see my earlier post) that turns this off.

10.2 If the disconnect takes an extended amount of time, write down the game number and reload the game (latest decision) at a later date.

Where are there instructions on how to do this?

10.3 If reloading the game fails, complete the remaining games of the match first. If no player has reached 3.5 points after completing the remaining games, contact your moderator about the lost game.

How do we contact our moderator?


Also, if my opponent and I speak different languages, how do we schedule matches, ask opponents to explain themselves, or otherwise interact if it's not built into the client? It seems like this tournament is multi-lingual and there is no requirement to conduct everything in English.

Dominion Online Championship 2017 / Re: HTTPS for the forum
« on: 23 August 2017, 06:56:00 PM »

Dominion Online Championship 2017 / Re: Rules Discussions
« on: 23 August 2017, 06:51:26 PM »
I agree with Adam the tournament rules as originally written left something to be desired.

I was under the impression there was going to be a "tournament mode" or some such equivalent in the client that would essentially force adherence to most rules before an official tournament with actual prize money is offered. The f.ds rules plus moderator discretion is fine for a for-fun tournament with no actual monetary prize. Doing something with stakes that way is risky. 

In any case, this is not happening, so I would suggest (in addition to the rules thread) having instructions that outline WITH PICTURES IN CLIENT how to set up a tournament game and how to contact your opponent for matches. Where do I click? What options do I need to turn on/off?

Why is this important? The tournament currently assumes very detailed reading and 100% familiarity with everything in the most recent version of the client and a 20 game min does not ensure this. I've played hundreds of games and I still don't know exactly how to implement everything the rules ask of me without fishing around for a while. Having important instructions like "turn off spectator mode" buried in walls of rules text and further not telling me how to do this is risky. Some participants may not be fully aware of how politely agreeing to certain things ("Do you mind if I have spectator mode on?" "Sure!") could be abused or even that they should/should not be doing certain things.

So, in short, more direct guidance and more guardrails to prevent problems would be helpful!

Connection Problems / Game Frozen
« on: 19 July 2017, 09:08:30 PM »
#5293041 on tokyo.

Been frozen for 15 minutes after granting an undo request from my opponent. We both tried disconnecting and reconnecting. I am still in the game, showing his turn, but I am not being prompted to force him to resign.

Interface Issues / Re: incredibly small card windows
« on: 21 June 2017, 03:02:47 PM »
I agree with Ingex. It does not seem to be a resolution only issue.

General Discussion / Re: 3P ratings when one player resigns?
« on: 07 June 2017, 07:05:06 PM »
I would record it as a win for each remaining player over the resigning player, and for the two remaining players, not record a result.

Yes this is very close to what I implemented on our dev server now. Only the original game was rated, the continuation is not. The original game only produces 2 results instead of the planned 3. The difference is that I count these wins for a bit more then just a regular win. Normal wins are counted as (1 0), ties counted as (0.5 0.5), and the plan now is to count these 3P-resignation-wins as (1.5 -0.5).

That will imply that in 3P resigning is worse for your ranking then losing, which is fine with me, and the two remaining players are both a bit compensated because they were deprived of the opportunity to score 2 wins in that game.

Nice. I like the idea.

And giving 1.5 points to people is effectively the same thing as option (2) in my previous post (counting the remaining result as a tie for the players who didn't resign), unless I'm misunderstanding. I won't go into the list of reasons that I think that's not a good idea.

I think it's different, but it depends on how the rating recalculation is actually done. A tie between two people of different skill would bring their rankings closer together. Here, there is no calculation done between those two people.

(Unless I am misunderstanding)

General Discussion / Re: 3P ratings when one player resigns?
« on: 06 June 2017, 08:16:32 PM »
"tl;dr": We don't include bot games on the 2P leaderboard -- what are the reasons for that, and why should they be different than 3P games?
Agreed. Bots are extra-exploitable opponents, so they shouldn't be ranked, so we still shouldn't rank them in multiplayer.

For the joy of finishing out the game, the best option if someone drops is to replace them with a bot. The bot may decide the game between the other two players due to its decisions; there's no avoiding that, it's in the nature of 3-player games. You could have the player drop out completely - or have a bot that just passed - but that's not finishing a 3-player game, that's playing a 3-player game that turned into a messed-up 2-player game. I have played that game! Having a different player (in this case a bot) take over is better.

Replacing with a bot is the solution I would most prefer, as well.

Regarding ratings, I can absolutely see an argument for allowing the complete game outcome after replacement with a bot count. Currently, the bot is very likely to buy Provinces/points when able pushing the game to a conclusion. It's not unreasonable to expect far behind players in multiplayer games to do this to speed things along, too. Would ignoring the final outcome of games with resignations that are finished with a bot give better rankings than not counting it? I don't think that's an obvious "yes", at all.

Feature Requests / Re: SFX Volume
« on: 12 May 2017, 06:13:58 PM »
Seconded. Ideally, this would be implemented along with optional background music in client.

Card Bugs / Re: Possession and Haunted Castle
« on: 11 May 2017, 07:27:13 PM »
Ah, because the Possession turn is really my opponent's turn and he did not gain the card; I gained it instead?

General Discussion / Re: Leaderboard
« on: 11 May 2017, 07:15:42 PM »
Nice job, markus! Very interesting.

The first chart in the middle row is the most important one to me. It's what I would look at first when evaluating whether the rating system is doing a good job. It kind of supports this idea that it's risky for a strong player to play against someone rated too much lower because the strong player is more likely to lose than predicted.

I think you have presented some pretty strong evidence that some tweaks are needed.

Card Bugs / Possession and Haunted Castle
« on: 11 May 2017, 03:52:06 AM »
I was Possessing my opponent. On the Possession turn, I bought Haunted Castle. I was not forced to place two cards on the deck from my normal hand. There was no top decking effect at all.

Game #3501373.

General Discussion / Re: Leaderboard
« on: 27 April 2017, 02:01:38 AM »
I analyzed the full leaderboard at Scavenger (http://dominion.lauxnet.com/leaderboard/) and I noticed that the initial phi=2 seems to be chosen too high....

Therefore, I’d suggest to lower the parameter to phi=1 for new players and also to cap phi there....

After a couple of months, it would actually be possible to estimate the parameters for initial phi, sigma, and tau, that give the best results in predicting game outcomes....

My preferred way would be to use expected win probabilities and let players set a range. The advantage would be that a certain winning probability is more understandable for the layman than some level difference.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4