Messages

I see how I phrased this ambiguously. I meant when people are disconnected, not when they are still inside the game. As said: I have never seen someone come back after more man 60s disconnect. And at that point I'll just sit there waiting instead of being able to join a new game.

No, speed of returning when disconnected is often an internet issue, and it would be unfair (esp. in 3-player games where resignations are punished more severely in rankings-terms than ordinary losses) to shorten the time limit when the "away time" is not under the player's control.

As it is now, a player can resign a 3-player game at the cost of having their 3-player ranking hurt more than an ordinary loss to their two opponents would.

There are circumstances where it would be nice to have the ability to suggest to one of your opponents that you both resign and cede the game to the other player -- in which case it would seem reasonable for this to count as an ordinary loss to that player.  Two come to mind, one applies in a game I'm currently player as I type this:  one player has an insurmountable lead.  It would be nice to be able to give him the game and move on to another since the current one isn't that much fun for the other two of us.  The other is cases in which one player has to leave (real life getting in the way of games...) and one of the others is hopelessly trailing.

In a similar vein, perhaps if a player in a three-player resigns when they have more victory points than their two opponents combined, perhaps the punishment should be lighter, since that's obviously real life interfering, rather than bad sportsmanship.

As it is now, a 3 or 4 player game in which one player has such a dominating lead that the outcome is not in question must be played out, unless one of the losing players is willing to take a draconian hit to his/her ranking and resign.  If I was playing with friends with physical cards at my dining room table, the players who are behind could say, one to the other, "Shall we just quit and let him/her have it and start another one (or pack up)?" and if they agreed, either the group could start a new game or go home.

I'd suggest letting the player who is in second place propose resignation and if the player in last place agrees, the game ends with the same effect on rankings as if it had been played out with the leaving player winning, while if the player in last place does not, the game continues.  Of course, bugging out for a rankings hit should still be an option.  For the vanishingly rare 4 player game the player in second place would need agreement from those in third and fourth place.

I just had a game end because my opponent's baby started crying.  After a little bit he resigned, but it would have been nice to be able to continue, by having the "make ---- resign?" notice have an option other than "yes".  Mostly for circumstances where a player has posted a reason for taking a long time to play his/her turn, it would be very good to have an option to set a (possibly shorter) timer by saying "not yet" to the "make ---- resign?" notice.

My user name is (drum roll please....) Megas_Droungarios .  (Funny how it's the same as my user name in the forum...)


1. An offline client, allowing you to play campaigns against bots

That would be fun, and nice while traveling, but isn't that important to me.  Playing against other human beings is one of the charms of the site.

2. A bot with a setting for different play styles

That would be nice in the context of 1, and might make the denouements of three player games after a resignation more satisfying.

3. A strong bot.

Would be good, or at least a bot that doesn't do really stupid things like continue the all-money strategy in the face of a Bandit Fort.

4. Options for timed games

I'm not sure that really works with real-world internet connections.  Most slow play has to do with bad connections, and a timed game would just be worthless unless all players had internet connections of a quality not commercially available at least here in the American heartland (maybe in South Korea it would work...).

5. Options for undo settings

This would be a boon, since the point is to play Dominion in a virtual environment, not a different game with the computer interface as part of the "rules".

6. Online mini-tournaments; the option to easily create one for you & your friends.

Good for me.

7. Option to invite specific players to your table

That would be nice.  My son has an account, and it would be good to have an easy way of playing him (he's in another city, so my physical cards don't help.)

8. More translations (to what language?)

I'm happy with English, but expanding the universe of players by opening the game up to people in countries where none of the current languages are common would be good for all (though it might necessitate your acquiring more server capacity).  How about Chinese? Spanish? Arabic? Korean?

9. Better animations when cards are gained/bought/played/...

Would be cool, but hardly a priority.

10. Better visualization of split piles, Archive/Crypt contents, Prince targets, ...

Yes.  And it would be nice to be able to read the bottom card of split piles before they become available to buy.

10. Option to hide the log

Okay, but only if the buttons that appear at the bottom of the log are all replaced with graphics buttons in the play area in the way "autoplay treasures" or the options for cards with multiple functions to choose from (e.g. Counts or Stewards) are displayed.  The little text buttons at the bottom of the log are the worst design feature of the present implementation.

11. Android app (or just improved compatibility?)

Wouldn't use (despite having an Android phone)

12. iPhone app (or just improved compatibility?)

Wouldn't use.

13. Downloadable game logs

Wouldn't use.

14. Improved moderation (dealing with chat abuse, slowplayers, ...)

After the jerk who played under the name "Slow Play is Allowed" was bounced by the current moderation system, I haven't notice any problems with either issue, so this hardly seems a priority.

15. Tutorial on how to play Dominion

Another one I wouldn't use, but which would be good for expanding the universe of players.

16. Tutorial on how to play dominion online.

Ditto.

The Other I voted for is a criterion for "deep enough in" for three player games that lets a player resign and the game finish with a bot, but remain rated.

I'm suggesting 10 turns complete or a pile gone or only 6 provinces (or colonies) remaining.  The site owners and programmers might want something else if they think that's either too lax or too hard to program.

No, Undo needs to be a feature of the online version:  the possibility of misclicking in a computer interface is not part of the game design, at least for those of us who love the game played face-to-face with physical cards.  (With very rare exceptions -- a player who is walloping me and does something really stupid, or an opponent who was a jerk and denied an innocuous undo request of mine early game -- I always grant undo requests for actions that didn't reveal information that would otherwise be unknown to the player.)

Could a criterion for "deep enough in" be implemented after which resigning a 3-player game lets the bot finish for you, but doesn't deprive the other players of their game for rankings purposes?

I've often been annoyed by, say 10, 12, 18 turns in a player resigning from an obviously lost position and a game I would have won turning into an unrated game.  I just saw the most obnoxious version of this deprive one of my opponents of a win:  he'd played better than the other two of us (and had a bit of luck), and was literally in his last turn, when my other opponent resigned and turned the game unrated, depriving him of his win.  I hope at very least the resigning player gets a loss so this isn't a way to game the 3-player rankings.

Some criterion like resignations after 10 turns, or after a pile is empty, or after there are fewer than 6 provinces (or colonies) remaining lets a bot finish for the resigning player, but keeps the game rated, would be most welcomed.

(It would be better to do this if the bots play ability was ramped up a little -- recently in a bot match I had Lord Rattington play a Legionary and not reveal a gold, then play a gold in the buy phase, I'm mean the bots are supposed to be artificially "intelligent"...)

...the rank shown on the Leaderboard.

This isn't a bug.

See here:

If Estate inherits Crossroads, then playing an Estate can't give you +3 Actions because it's not "the first time you played a Crossroads this turn". But if you play an Estate and then a Crossroads, you do get the +3 Actions from the Crossroads, since it is the first time you've played a Crossroads.

http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Inheritance

Okay if that's how the designer interprets his rules.  That interpretation, however, violates the plain English meaning of the description of the effect of Inheritance.

In a recent game I set aside a Crossroads as the card whose abilities and types Inheritance was to give my Estates.  It did not.  The Crossroads text appeared on my Estates, but playing one as the first Crossroads played in a turn did not give my three actions.  This ruined a turn (in which one action in my hand would have drawn more cards and another thrown a curse).  My opponent's Inheritance-enhanced Estates functioned correctly as Merchants.

This should be fixed.  (And it would be nice to have the loss expunged from my record.)

Wait till other players are present before clicking ready. Games currently start when all human players present are ready and the empty slots are filled with bots.

Thanks.

Is there a sticky somewhere in the forum that actually explains the matching interface, or do we just get to wander around in it until we figure out what all the buttons do?  (The game interface is fine.)

As I only play on a laptop, I have no issues with mobile platform issues.  I do think at very least there should be a sticky here in the forum explaining how the new interface works, or better still, a tutorial with good explanations reachable directly from the interface page. 

And can't they program Inheritance?  It was a great event.

Is there a way to set up a table and wait for a human player, rather than having Lord Rattington jump in the moment you declare yourself "Ready"?

I mean it's amusing to come up with sets for which LR's programming is suboptimal so you can beat "him", but I'd rather have a human opponent play when I make an interesting set.