Menu

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.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Jacob Marley

#61
What used to happen to me before I bought my subscription was that I would get in a base only game and my opponent would quit because he wanted all expansions (not a familiar cards issue, I had already set all cards as familiar).  I'd click automatch again and get the same player who would immediately quit again.  Obviously once I got my subscription this was no longer an issue, but I think that this experience supports the OP's position.  Probably the automatch system should try for some period of time (say 5-10 seconds) to match you with different players then if no suitable match can be found, rematch the same players.

I also agree that for good match, at the least players should be able to select the range of levels they want to be matched against.
#62
General Discussion / Re: Rematching
02 May 2017, 06:18:01 PM
Fine, if that's what you want to do, you will, in all likelihood, only play me once.  I have a very busy schedule and am often only able to play one game at a time, win or lose.  It's not meant as disrespect for you, just the reality for me.
#63
General Discussion / Re: Impressive achievement
24 April 2017, 11:32:31 PM
Thanks for the well though-out response.  This is the kind of specific feedback that can help improve the product.  However, while I agree with some of the points you raise, I disagree with this one:

Quote from: knadles on 22 April 2017, 12:37:20 AM

3) The hand of cards should look like a hand of cards, NOT stacks with a notification number. This rule can be negated when the hand reaches a certain unwieldy size. Visual cues are important. "The stack" is not a good visual cue. Again, I'm sure this was designed with a phone in mind, but the grownups have real computers.


The reason I like the current implementation of stacks, is that in makes for more ergonomic play.  For example, assume I have a hand of Chapel, 4x Curse (has happened irl).  Under the current implementation, my move is made thus:

Move mouse over chapel, click
Move mouse over curses, click 4 times

As opposed to your preferred method:
Move mouse over chapel, click
Move mouse over curse 1, click
Move mouse over curse 2, click
Move mouse over curse 3, click
Move mouse over curse 4, click
   
Regards
#64
General Discussion / Re: Impressive achievement
21 April 2017, 10:36:33 PM
Donald X once said something to the effect that "if this implementation doesn't work out, we will probably give up on online Dominion" so if playing online is something you want, you are best served by offering specific constructive advice on what you want to see changed to make it usable for you, rather than just mean-spirited insults.

If you don't really care about playing on-line anymore, then try to find something better to do with your time then spending it on mean-spirited insults...
#65
General Discussion / Re: Obvious Blacklist Abuse
21 April 2017, 10:30:50 PM
This would only be a problem insomuch as it allows people to game the leaderboard, by trying to get easier wins.  Otherwise, it is only limiting the pool of players they can play against.  The problem with gaming the leaderboard, is that it should be hard to climb the leaderboard if all you are playing are low rated players.  I don't know enough about Glicko 2 to tell how much of a problem there is.  At this point I don't think there need to be limits, but if time goes on and it seems that there are a lot of players high in the leaderboard who are only playing low ranked players, then maybe revisit the question.
#66
I just ignore comments like that.
#67
Feature Requests / Re: Practice vs Rated Games
10 April 2017, 06:49:36 PM
Quote from: tufftaeh on 09 April 2017, 06:44:26 PM
@TheSeal: Ah, I understand now. You would like inexperienced players to be encouraged to unrated ("practise") games so you have a better chance of "equal" opponents playing faster.

...

So a personal setting for "playing speed" would help you more, I think. You could set this to "fast", and inexperienced players (or players who like to think a bit more) could set it to "normal" or even "slow". That setting would then be considered in the matching process, possibly with a weight defined by the player as well.

The problem with such a setting is enforcement.  Without some form of play clock*, these settings are ultimately meaningless, except to "legitimize" players complaining in chat when their opponent doesn't play fast enough for their taste.  Even if you are matched with others who have the same settings, there is nothing to say they have to play as fast as you want.  Frankly, with some complex kingdoms, even top players will take a significant amount of time at the beginning, and critical points during the game, to work out strategy.

Really, I don't think there is a true solution to this problem.  Some people will simply play slower that others want, and at the end of the day, as long as it is no deliberate slow-rolling, we just have to live with that dynamic.

*And we have had that discussion at great length without consensus on how to do it.
#68
That could have been a mistake or carelessness, not intent to troll you.
#69
General Discussion / Re: Leaderboard
05 April 2017, 08:07:27 PM
I feel that bot games should never be part of the PvP leaderboard.  A separate leaderboard for bot games would be ok, but I personally would have no use for it.
#70
Fortunately, Stef has stated that personal blacklists are next on his to-do list.  I hope this includes a reporting button that flags the game for the Dev's/Mod's attention so that action can be taken against the offender as appropriate.
#71
Quote from: SkyHard on 04 April 2017, 04:08:40 PM
Quote from: serakfalcon on 04 April 2017, 03:54:19 PM
Quote from: Donald X. on 04 April 2017, 01:45:25 AM
Quote from: jeebus on 03 April 2017, 04:08:12 PM
Quote from: jeebus on 03 March 2017, 06:11:45 PM
As far as switching to AI... Sounds like a lot more work to implement. And it's still going to foster the bad form of resigning a few seconds before the game is over. If I was about to buy the last Province, it doesn't really make a difference if I do it against a bot. I'll still feel like I was subjected to a rage quit or at least an annoyed gesture. Switching to bot makes more sense if someone resigns earlier in the game. But of course, since the bot will probably be terrible at playing the other player's deck, it's not really going to tell me much about how the game would have played out.
Switching to AI is what's going to happen though! After a period however long in which it works like it does now. Stef said it sounded good and then I said it was the move and your argument sure hasn't swayed me.

If I can offer my 2 cents, I think it would be nice to have the option to end the game immediately or replace the player with an AI. I'm not sure if that's what you are assuming or whether you expect that the game will be forced to be played to the end, except with an AI replacing one of the players.

You can't force anyone to finish a game ;)
And yes, I would like that option.

Furthermore, you should be able in your personal settings to select
1. Always replace resigning player with AI
2. Always ask whether to replace resigning player with AI
3. Never replace resigning player with AI

Personally, when my opponent resigns, I just am glad for the win and move on.

This of course is for 2p.  for 3+, replacing resigning players should be automatic until there is only one human left at the table at which point they can decide whether to take the win or continue playing.
#72
1. Easily readable game logs similar to Goko Salvager
2. searchable list of games you have played
#73
Feature Requests / Re: Kid mode
31 March 2017, 10:20:14 PM
Quote from: squirezucco on 31 March 2017, 08:58:21 PM
That was a nice story, but my kids (13, 12, and 10) are all better than I am at Dominion. What I need is a dad-safe version.

Stef, can you work on graying out all the shiny distracting cards that prevent me from building a good deck? For example, Watchtower is such a neat card and I don't care if I need to reach 5 treasures to get a Mountebank and I don't care that silver/silver is a better opening to get 5 because I *like* Watchtower and it's fun and I'm sure it won't interfere with me reaching 5 in turn 3 or 4; plus I'll just trash all the curses and coppers because I will have a Watchtower anyway and it's going to be great and now why is my deck a slog again but my opponent is running a smooth engine?

Anyway, can you work on that?

But if he has mountebank, you do need that watchtower...
#74
General Discussion / Rating Declining
31 March 2017, 07:39:05 PM
I'm glad the ratings system is now up.  My main area of concern is the ratings decline due to inactivity.  In general, I agree with having this be part of the ratings system, my concerns are related to the actual mechanics.  My situation is that I don't play nearly as much as some others due to family/work demands.  Certainly I don't play every day, and I can expect stretches of inactivity due to family life/vacations etc where I could go several weeks with no activity.   This happened to me with MF as well and I often went back to zero rating because of it.

My proposal is two-fold.  First, there should be a grace period of maybe a week where ratings do not decline due to inactivity.  Secondly, there should be a floor (maybe level 20?) that you cannot fall below due to inactivity, only loses.  That way, if I'm gone for several months, I don't have to go back to the start every time I'm away for a while.
#75
I'd add that a visual queue would be nice, like turning the border of the text box in the middle of the screen red when I have to do something.  I don't play with sound on, and often miss that I need to do something.