Messages

The wait for expansion option doesn't seem to do anything.

Find a game will get you rated games. The game will not respect opponents familiar card settings (or your own).
- "Equal opponent" means someone whose level differs at most 15 levels from yours (approximately)
- "Any opponent" means someone whose level differs at most ~60 levels from yours.
- "Wait for expansions" accepts any opponent that has a subscription to at least half the expansions.

But where is that "Wait for expansion"? I only have the first two options!

1. Turn/action notification sounds and messages
2. Make game playable without the log
3. I still find it annoying like hell, that the treasures are played one by one. Sure, sometimes they need to be played one after another (e.g. with Sauna), but then the order does count too (and if I really want to play all my treasures it should play them all and then trigger the possible actions - or just ignore them).

Thanks for the notification sound! BTW it's not working with Lord Ratington (not too important though).

I know instant updating is less accurate and more spiky than batch updating, but it's also more satisfying.  Can we just instant update every game and let people's rank spike up and down?

Either that, or at least show the played game since last update.

I would definitely support ranked play with Bots, at the moment and in the foreseeable future with a separate leaderboard.

Same here.

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.

1. Turn/action notification sounds and messages
2. Make game playable without the log
3. I still find it annoying like hell, that the treasures are played one by one. Sure, sometimes they need to be played one after another (e.g. with Sauna), but then the order does count too (and if I really want to play all my treasures it should play them all and then trigger the possible actions - or just ignore them).

[behavior]

Finally, I think that calling someone by name (savage, jerk, a** and whatnot) is not justified in any way by a refused undo request.

Uuuhhh...never said that I called him anything like that while we were playing.  If I really wanted to pick a fight, I would have ID'ed this person by name to the whole community.  However, I've chosen not to do for the sake of not getting into a flame-war / "name calling" battle.  Perhaps as an additional clarification: I found this person's behavior "jerk-like".  Doesn't mean he's a jerk as a person, just we see differently on this issue.  For all I know, he might be a really nice guy IRL :)

My appologies, I did not mean you. I did get these responses to a neutral "I don't play with undo. Sorry." (in most cases I was way behind and it did not make any difference in the end)

First of all, there is no obligation to allow undos (At least I hope there isn't - what would be the point of asking then?).
Secondly, why do some people think that the undo must be granted and that it is a crime not to grant it? If he does grant it, that's cool. If not it is his right to do so (whatever his reasons).
Finally, I think that calling someone by name (savage, jerk, a** and whatnot) is not justified in any way by a refused undo request.

Blacklists should solve this issue.

The lack of a button on other players' turns would not cause players to wait longer than they would have liked; it would cause them to close the tab. It's just strictly negative.

Sure, that could happen too. But as I learned through this thread, they would punish themselves by having to wait for significantly more time. So I would think (maybe after a certain period of people realizing this) this behavior would not be very common. But I acknowledge that it could happen more than currently. Both of these things (having to wait longer, closing the tab) are negative. I don't know what you mean with "strictly negative", unless you're saying that what I outlined in the OP is 0% of a problem. Well, it isn't, since some people, me included, regard it as more than that.

If your opponent closes the tab instead of resigning, YOU will have to wait (or resign). The opponent will probably not care and come back at a much later time and only you will feel the consequences.

I cannot fathom how a first turn would ever require four minutes

It all depends on how deep you think. Think about chess (or go), if you only think ahead one half movement, you won't ever think more than a few seconds or minutes. However, if you think ahead many turns, you will take much longer. (For Dominion, I haven't gotten that far. I only play more or less intuitively and thus quite fast).

I'm not sure of what the reason for that is

I know at least one reason why I sometimes do play slow: the other guy has a mega long engine and I do not get any notification when it is my play. Yes, I could stare at his play, but I don't. It is not that entertaining.

keeping score was against the rules (because the rules don't explicitly allow it, it isn't allowed)

You only mean automatically, right? If I keep score by remembering everything (which I can't, but some people probably can) it cannot be forbidden, can it?

You are in fact allowed to remember things.

Thank you! :-)

Why not keep it simple? Someone is ugly/always wins/plays too fast, you just hit the button and never get matched with this person again.

I would at least like to have a third option: match me less often (i.e. only if no other matches possible).

keeping score was against the rules (because the rules don't explicitly allow it, it isn't allowed)

You only mean automatically, right? If I keep score by remembering everything (which I can't, but some people probably can) it cannot be forbidden, can it?

Reducing the amount of players matched to me can be a good thing. I personally prefer to wait longer than to be matched against someone fast and not enjoying the game (i.e. hating it and losing way more time that way)