Messages

[While you have this in play]

The "protect me from an attack" part of Lighthouse will not work when you have it inherited.

Lighthouse reads, in part (under the dividing line):

While you have this in play, when another player plays an Attack card, it doesn't affect you.

Notice the bold part, it only works when it is in play. If you have inherited Lighthouse and play an Estate, you have the Estate in play, not the Lighthouse. Due to the Fall 2019 errata, the Estate no longer takes on the abilities of the Lighthouse (as it used to do before), but "only" becomes an Action card that plays the set aside Lighthouse (the relevant part of Inheritance reads)

During your turns, Estates are also Actions with "Play the card with your Estate token, leaving it there."

So again, the (new since 2019) situation is that you have an Estate in play and a Lighthouse set aside, so Lighthouse does not protect you from your opponent's attacks, because its condition is not met  :(

Done!

Thanks for the report. This looks like a relatively rare problem when the bot has played Plaza, has no more Actions in hand but Villagers.

Done!

Done (for both acounts).

I'd hope that all those "stupid" mistakes of the bot could get corrected, but I have to confess my hopes aren't high.

AFAIK the bot AI is not any kind of AI that gets thrown around nowadays since machine learning took off and beats world class go players. It is very, very simple (no, much more simple than you think).  This allows it to be fast with potentially hundreds of games going on at the same time where it needs to act, but it will make lots of plays that are "boneheaded stupid". It would (likely) needed a much bigger effort to remove theses, than adding a few lines of code here and there.

The bots bid, you can see that by bidding low like 4 debt as a test. I think it will be some number between 8-12, IIRC. But you are right, it isn't logged  :(

Done!

I was talking about 2P games (which I didn't mention, so my bad).

If you resign in 3P+ game, you loose more rating than if you just came last. That's because you effectively destroy the way for the remaing players to have a meaningful result between them, as the game can't be finished. So this is intended to discourage resigning in rated 3P games.

Doing something like this was on the agenda, but it was never implemented. I'm not sure if technical difficulties arose, or if it just fall by the wayside.

does it matter in rated games how many vp you win by? or is the ranking only based on win/lose

It's probably only the latter, the amount of VP's often doesn't resemble how close a match was.

That's right. VP totals (and maybe turns taken) determine the rank each player has in the game, and that alone is used to determine how much the result will change your rating. So for example resinging wheh you are hopelessly behind will not be any worse for your rating than loosing by 1 VP.

Done!

Done!

The rule is that if some players have the same number of points when the game ends, and they have taken a different amount of (non-extra) turns, the ones with the fewer turns taken are placed ahead of the others.

For 2 player base games (no extra turns) that means if the game ends after a turn of the player who went first, they have taken one more turn than their opponent. If the points are tied, the other player is the winner.

I assume that happened to you (you were the player who went first, and you ended the game one point tie).

If on the other hand both player have taken the same number of turns, the game is really considered a tie.

Done!