Messages

Second and third place matter for rating purposes. So people would have to agree on that as well.
It could be:
1) Last player offers to resign.
2) Second player can accept second place --> game ends

I agree all the trailing players need to agree to freeze the rank order in the game by ending, but I think having the second-place player propose joint-resignation would be a superior protocol.

I see the site owners don't regard this proposal seriously enough to comment on the feasibility or desirability.

Plainly you're right.  I really wish they would take the proposal seriously.  Twice now in as many weeks, I've been in 3-player games in which it was absolutely clear for the last ten rounds at least who would be in first, who would be in second, and who would come in last, but there's no way to end it and go on to the next game without someone taking the punishment for resigning.
Usually this is in a game where the winning player's turns are interminable because s/he found a clever combo the others didn't notice, so it makes having to play it out all the more tedious.

A lot of the discussion on this thread was completely moot vis-a-vis the proposal, since it was about the mechanics of a single player resigning.  That's not how this would be implemented:  it would need to be one of the trailing players pushing a new button to offer ending the game with the current ranking of players as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and the other trailing player pushing a new button to accept and cause the joint-resignation.  No single player would resign ending the game. 

Yes, it would take a little bit of programming, but nothing on the scale of what's already been done.  I think it would encourage more multi-player play.

Many players have zero interest in watching the opponent's "victory lap".

It has no effect on rating.

Except in 3-player games, where as I understand it, the resigning player is penalized more severely than for a normal loss to the same opponents, but the winner gets no benefit to his/her ranting.  I've had an opponent in 3-player resign during his extra turn from Fleet.  Absolutely maddening to not get the win.

Same issue here, too.

Perhaps the interface should be reprogrammed to make the player receiving the undo request and not responding the one who gets timed out, rather than the player whose turn it is.  Or if that's too radical to void the game entirely rather than giving the player who got no response a loss.

I seriouisly doubt that any change took place, usually that's announced in a small post.

Also, you can't that easly determine the number of players waiting for a rated 3 player game, because the #looking for practice games also includes those looking for 2-player practice games.

Did you maybe loose or win much in recent days? That may have affected your rating and drove either your 'usual opponents' out of your accepected range or vice versa.

I'm aware of being able to view the queue counts (that's how I observed that when # waiting for 3-player minus # wanting practice game is 8 or more I used to get matched quickly, but don't match now even when that count is over 10).  And no, my rating has not changed drastically -- as usual it's hovering in the mid-to-upper 50's on the 3-player board.

When playing Dominion in real life with cards it never happened someone asked to go back some step.

I have folks want a mulligan on some action in friendly games face-to-face with actual cards.  But there's another issue:  the GUI isn't part of the game of Dominion.  It's easy to click accidentally on some part of the screen, or to have the cursor not quite where you thought it was and thus click on the wrong thing when you meant to click (even playing on a Mac or PC -- how anyone plays on a phone is beyond me).

It might be nice as an option.  The one problem is that sometimes the delay in a player's turns are caused by connection issues.  It's not as if players have control of the sequence of routers handling their internet connection to the dominion.games server, and it would be maddening to have a connection glitch count against your time.

The matching algorithm seems to have been updated, and the update isn't an improvement.  Until the past few days if I joined the 3-player queue only and there were eight more so people in it (counting # in queue minus # looking for practice games, since I'm only looking for a rated game) I'd match in a minute or two.  Lately even with ten or more by that count, I haven't been matching after even a five or ten minute wait.

The 2-player queue seems slower, too, but not as drastically as the 3-player.  If there was a change, change it back, please.

Second and third place matter for rating purposes. So people would have to agree on that as well.
It could be:
1) Last player offers to resign.
2) Second player can accept second place --> game ends

I agree all the trailing players need to agree to freeze the rank order in the game by ending, but I think having the second-place player propose joint-resignation would be a superior protocol.

I see the site owners don't regard this proposal seriously enough to comment on the feasibility or desirability.

I can report the same behavior.  He miscalculated how long to take between click and I got to force a resignation, but he deliberately played very slowly and trash-talked in German the whole game.

... I wish Shuffle iT would take the measures that pretty much every other game of this sort takes:

(1) Institute a clock.
(2) Allow players to mute their opponents.

There is a clock -- if a player takes too long, their opponent(s) are offered a chance to force a resignation.  The problem with making it shorter in duration is that a lot of time slow play is really due to a suboptimal internet connection or to what I like to call "real life getting in the way of playing games" (e.g. a phone call, delivery to the door, the smoke alarm going off because the toast burnt,...)  Allowing players to mute their opponents would seem grand when you run into a trash-talker, but being pinged by your opponent is sometimes necessary when you yourself are involuntarily playing slow.

I played a three-player with Muhaahaa as one of the three once.  Same thing, trash-talked the whole time.  Lost pitifully.  Besides reporting him, I hope you thrashed him.

What do you expect from someone who took as a screen name the original name of Morgoth, the Great Enemy, of whom Sauron of Mordor was but a servant? ;D

Why?

So, some games are short.  The 3-pile rule is absolutely integral to strategy in 3- and 4-player games, where attention to it, especially if there are curses and/or ruins, provides an advantage over the inattentive, letting one seize a victory early.

Game #29721226 resulted when I had won a game (with the same number or a different one, I don't know -- it was gone when the problem arose -- against the same opponents GoGators1983 and XQPN).  Instead of giving the usual end game sequence, when I bought the last Province, the game simply restarted with the exact same kingdom.  XQPN seems to have wandered off when I appeared to have won and to get out of it we made him resign, but he should not be punished for resigning a 3-player, as the game shouldn't have existed at all.  Also, I'd rather like the win I was seemingly robbed of by the erroneous restart if it wasn't credited properly.

user Megas_Droungarios