Messages

Ingix,
Thanks so much.  The site forgot to program in a spinning clock (or whatever), to show that the "show me my results) feature was actual slowly being processed.  And the site forgot to, alternately, write "Hey, this may take 30-120 seconds to process."

So, the previous times I had tried (and given up), it probably would have worked, if I had known to just sit there for long enough.

I doubt I was the only person to give up after 15-30 seconds, so your information was very much appreciated, and was really helpful!

Cave,
How does one get that linked site to work?  I have played many ranked games, but when I put in my username (santamonica811), I get no results.

What am I doing wrong?

Cave,
Is your point that you would like to see an extra minute added to the time (via the snooze button), or, that you would like to see, essentially, an "only one minute left b/f DQ" warning, and that--with this--you'd be fine leaving it at its current length of time?  I would not mind that second choice at all, with an auditory signal as well.

From my perspective, in 99% of cases; there is no reason to not move for more than 2 minutes AND also not write a 10 second note in chat, explaining the reason for the delay.  Well, actually, I can think of lots of reasons (kid suddenly throws up on the rug, cat knocks over a vase, wife/husband sets dinner on fire accidentally), but for all of those (ie, situations where you need to run away from the computer and not write a short note), my thought is that it's fine to accept a DQ...part of the trade-off for having a wife/kid/pet/vase in my life!  :-)

[The one glaring exception to all the above is when technical problems on the site or on your end make it impossible to make a move.  Not sure of a solution for that issue--other than lengthening the time to make a move, and I'd hate that.]

Hey, maybe that could be an option we could adjust?  There would be some minimum amount of time (say, 2 minutes, or whatever) that players would always have.  But in "Options/Settings," players who like to move through games quickly could pick settings that would only match them with similar "<2 minutes" players.  Others could pick a setting of 4 minutes, or 6 minutes, or even unlimited time, and there would be the option to filter potential opponents.

Jeebus,
I might cut the other guy some slack.  While I--of course--have no idea what actually happened in your game, isn't it possible that this was the 3rd game today where that guy had been (from his perspective) slow-played by other players?  And he could have said something in chat, but instead kept quiet (some would say: polite) and waited for the full time-period and only then did DQ you.  That seems pretty possible to me.  In other words, I would not impute bad motives to someone I do not know, unless some other factor(s) suggests this.

I'll point out that 4-5 minutes is an INCREDIBLY long time to think about a single move.  I could possibly see taking that long if you are playing a game with several cards that are new to you...but then we'd be taking a long time in the very beginning of the game (and presumably we would have sent a text like "Sorry--there are new cards for me.  I'll need a few minutes to read their text" to let the other person know why there's such a long delay.).

I know that just because I can't think of a kingdom where I would take more than a minute or two to make a move at the end of the game, that does not mean that no such kingdom exists.  But we can use your experience as a teachable moment...if we find ourselves taking more than a minute or two; we really should take 15 seconds out of our turn to send off a quick chat message: "Sorry about the delay, making a hard decision; will be just another minute."

Just a suggestion.  :-)

Thanks for the thoughtful response.  I am not a programmer, but I do know many of them...and many of them play Dominion.  Right now, there is a function that says, "If you have more than 8 coins, then buy a Prov.  If you have between 5-7, then buy Dutchy."  If someone can program that instruction, it does not seem to be too difficult to add, "If you have 14+, buy Dominate and not Prov."

But maybe we're wrong.  Of course it's possible that adding this is actually much more complicated than it seems on the surface.

What would be really helpful, of course, is if the Powers That Be would give feedback, so that loyal players (ie, the ones who reliably put money back into this site) would at least know what is going on.
"We're aware of the issue, but it's way down on our list of priorities."
"We did not know of this; thanks for the heads-up; it'll be fixed by mid-June."
"We're aware of this, but it's such a small problem that we're not going to take up valuable time fixing it.

And so on.  There have been tons of posts on this issue (on being kept informed) in the past, so no need to belabor this point...when we players are kept in the loop, we feel respected and valued.  If we are not...well, then we don't feel respected and valued.  And each individual company will come to different conclusions regarding the importance of that factor.

(Not sure which forum this belongs in, since it's not, technically-speaking, an AI bug.)

Game 14494483, Oregon.  Lord Rat, turn 11.

He had 14 coins, but bought only the Prov, rather than getting the ton of extra points via Dominate.  And that was the difference in the game.  I do not want to win that way.

It should be a very easy programming fix to put in the command for Lord Rat, "Buy Dominate if you have 14+ coins."  There may be edge cases where one would not do that (eg, if you have extra buys, you might be aiming for Dukes/Dutchies).  But if you're gonna have a hard-and-fast rule, it should be the one that makes sense 99.82% of the time, and not the 0.18% of the time, yes??? 

I can't think of a single case where one would buy a Prov with your one buy, rather than getting that same Prov via Dominate, when you have enough money for either option.

Or, just take out Dominate in games with Lord Rat...it's just too big of an advantage if the computer programming has crippled LR's ability to make the best buy in that game.

It's something that has been suggested several times.  I certainly would not mind it as an option...but based on the two sites' inaction to date, I think you are not gonna get it.  (At the best; I would guess that it is way down on the list of things to implement.)

Excellent suggestion!!!

Cave,
I certainly respect your different perspective, and I'd never try to convince someone "Hey, you should feel aggrieved about something you're currently happy about!"   ;D

I totally agree with you that, if one wanted to ensure that Dominion online continues for many years, having an ongoing revenue stream makes this much more likely.

My opinion is informed by me buying the "lifetime" subscription at the old site just a (relatively) short while before the old site went out of business.  If I had bought this subscription several years earlier, then I'd probably feel I got fair value for my money.  But I didn't, so I don't...if that makes any sense.  :)

Obviously, I feel like this site is a decent value, or I would not continue to give it my money.  But Donald X got some percentage of my money at the old site, and he obviously had the ability (when negotiating his deal with Shuffle) to insist that "legacy" lifetime subscriptions be honored.  He chose not to do this, and that was entirely within his rights.  But a lot of us felt some resentment about this decision, and it is--of course--entirely within our rights to remind people of this.  I got the free year, and that is certainly not nothing.  But it was definitely not (IMO) a "fair" offer. 

I strongly support your right to argue that I'm wrong to feel this way, or to point out other factors that I've overlooked or failed to mention.  Having an open forum, where people are free to vigorously (but politely) disagree is a sign of health, and will not--I hope--be seen as a sign of weakness in our new Dominion home.  I'm quite positive about how this site has implemented the game, and I'm pleased that they are making some efforts (albeit at a glacial pace, often) to address bugs or suggested changes).

I do not claim to speak for the majority of older players...I have no idea what each individual person is thinking or feeling, of course.  But I doubt I am the only person who has some lingering resentment about how the move to the new site was handled.  It's not a big deal for me.  It's not even a small deal for me.  But it's not "no problem at all" for me, either.  :-)

Ingix,
Okay, thanks.  I guess I am not understanding why I went into the "Familiar Cards" tab and selected and deselected specific cards...I had thought that was to specifically address the OP's request--that you can get a random deck of cards, but still ensure that certain cards will *not* be part of that kingdom.

Ability to edit the random card selection pool so certain cards don't show up when allowing random cards

I'm pretty sure this is already in place.

Permanent ownership of sets

Almost no one on this site will disagree with you.  It's a bit of a ripoff as it is.  But it's the only game in town, so they are able to take advantage of that situation.  Ah well.  I am surprised that they decided to not have two tiers...here's the cost for one year of use of Expansion X.  And for twice that cost, you have a lifetime of access to that expansion--AS LONG AS we own the online rights to the game, of course.


Save setup function that lets you name and easily set up the same table in the future
A ton of people have been asking for this, for months and months.  I have no doubt that they are actively working to implement this...I cannot imagine that it's too difficult to code this feature into the game.

Customize game rules to do things like add more platinum, turn off the 3 pile end game trigger, have more card piles, etc.

Those are interesting ideas.  My guess is that some would be fairly easy to code it, and others would be pretty difficult.  I think it would be a good idea for the site operators to run a poll: What extra features like this are people most interested in?  My guess is that the site's response to this request would possibly be: Hey, those rule deviations--like Free Parking Money in Monopoly--are great, and perfect for games in real life, with your friends.  But, given the complexity of programming them, our resources are better directed at fixing the actual bugs, and at Making Lord Rat play better!!!  :-)

[and]

Also (speaking as a person who hates the Possession card), you--obviously--had to buy a Potion card and had to have it in hand when you played your Black Market card...plus having 6 coins, of course.  Were there other Potion cards in the kingdom?  If not, it's pretty rare for a player to waste an early turn spending 4 coins on a Potion card that may end up being relatively worthless [eg Transmute].  So, I don't think it's the worst thing in the world to have Possession in a Black Market supply.  If you get it early in the game, then the game is probably over for me.  But if you can't get it till quite late in the game, then you've wasted more opportunity costs than you've gained.  (This example is one reason why I like the change in rules, so that we cannot see which cards are in the BM supply...knowing that Possession is in BM would completely change the game strategy for pretty much all players, I am guessing.)

(Of course, if I've bought a Masquerade and Possession does turn up, then I'm probably screwed, even if I am way ahead.  I lost one game where my possessed Masquerade passed 2 Colonies to my opponent late in the game, and turned a blowout for me into a blowout for my opponent.  I still remember that game [grumble grumble])    :-)

sudhish86
I see your point.  Are you a player who does not also play IRL (in real life) Dominion games?  I will not speak for others on this site, but this is my perspective, when people ask for an Undo: Are they asking to correct a mistake where, IRL, that mistake would not have occurred?  If so, then I grant the Undo.  *Even if* they have received new information.

For example, earlier in the thread someone mentioned "Lost in the Woods," where you can get a boon at the beginning of your turn by discarding one card.  They way the online game is set up, it is very easy to accidentally select a card in your hand to play, only to see it discarded for Lost Woods.  IRL, that sort of mistake just would not happen.  So, I grant that Undo, *even though* the other player has now seen what the boon will be.  It's just not that big of a deal for me (although I don't blame other players who would do differently in that situation).  And if I granted such an Undo, I would also put a comment in the chat, to the effect of, "No problem to give the Undo.  But only one of those per game."  And I'd make sure I add a 'smiley face', to keep things light and friendly.

[Note:  This has never happened to me.  But if the other player was dashing through her turn AND also repeatedly complaining that I was playing way too slow, I suspect that I would be much more likely to deny an Undo request that was due to her playing too quickly.]  :-)

If you give the game number, it will be much easier for people to investigate and for them to attempt to replicate.

JW,
Sure.  That makes a lot of logical sense.