Messages

You can't ban all the slow-rollers.  If the ability to slow-roll is there, there will always be slow-rollers at a certain frequency.  You can try to ban them but keep in mind, these people have hours and hours to spend slow-rolling, so they can just as easily make a new account and slow-roll again.  Don't underestimate a troll's persistence.

The problem isn't the slow-rollers.  It's the ability to slow-roll.

There's no disclaimer within the game UI that says slow-rolling isn't allowed.  Therefore it is well within the rules.  Posting on the forum that it is a ban-able offense doesn't count if the vast majority of players never visit the forum.

Thanks for the link, I read the whole thread.  You are approaching the situation from an idealogical perspective which I respect, but we really need to be more pragmatic.

The current compromise between allowing players to abuse the clock and allowing enough time for perfect decision making is extremely out of whack.  Allowing a 5 hour game with base set cards alone is simply unacceptable.  And you think it's not generous enough?  Do we need days so we can hand write algorithms and return with our next action?

I do concede that certain kingdoms will probably require more time to play properly (on a competitive level) than I would like to allow for an all-purpose rated match.  But again, there has to be a compromise.  A blacklist is not an elegant solution, on the contrary it's quite blunt and dodges the problem altogether.  So does banning people for playing within the rules of the game.  Let that sink in a bit.  Slow-rolling is playing within the rules of the game.  I can't see how that is acceptable.  Nor do I see how a ban is justified.  There has to be a compromise.  There were a lot of good ideas on that other thread and we can re-litigate those if need be. 

Of course the clock should be customizable for pre-made games so that tournament players can have all the time they need.  The clock need only apply to matched and rated games.

One more point...

An entire thesis could be written on the optimal play for any given kingdom.  That's what makes dominion a beautiful game.  Which by an idealog's logic would imply that we need infinite time otherwise we are limiting the player's potential.  This of course would result in many games being resolved by who can leave their browser open longest... 

Every kingdom is extremely complicated and ungodly lengths of time taken could be justified in making what others would consider simple decisions.  To put it in words more elegant than mine, "AIN'T NOBODY GOT TIME FO DAT"

Can we keep the thread on the topic of blacklist abuse?  Or maybe a moderator can split this into 2 separate threads?

Where can I report people that are rude and slow play on purpose when losing.  I'm spending an hour on a game with user Garicup.  He was mad because I would not allow him to undo a move.  Undo is optional.  He is being very rude as well.

Slow playing is still playing within the rules, unfortunate as that is.  This is an issue with game design and allowing too much time per turn.  5 minutes +5 seconds per action taken would drastically improve the slow-playing situation.

Abusive chat on the otherhand should definitely be reportable/ban worthy.  Also an ignore chat function would be nice to mitigate this.

I don't think anyone takes the leaderboard seriously enough that sacrificing this much fun is worth it.

I don't see how separating custom tournament games and rematches from the leaderboard rating sacrifices fun.  Could you elaborate?

I've never really cared about the leaderboard. I think that implementing all of the cards correctly, without bugs, and displaying all of the relevant information to the user, and all of the other stuff I constantly complain about, would have a more significant impact on how legitimate the leaderboard is than what's being discussed here.

Point taken.  I think that people who are in the competitive scene and play regularly with the best of the best are less likely to care much about the leaderboard because they are so often measured that they have a pretty good sense of where they stand on the totem pole.  I'm not making any assumptions about you, but I care quite a bit about the leaderboard because it's the only measure I have for myself as to how good of a player I am.  I'm not part of any leagues or tournaments (yet) and I'm new to the forum.  So from my perspective, a shaky leaderboard disincentivizes me from being competitive.  I do agree with your point that there are other glaring issues that are more pertinent, but the blacklist is imminent, hence the recent discussion.

I included a quote.

No it doesn't mean people are obliged to stop smoking.

No you don't need my permission.

And yes, this thread has become pointless.  Mods can we lock it please? :-X

On the contrary.  Games in a league or part of a tournament setting should not be rated for the same reasons I already stated.  I disagree that this a completely stupid idea.  Take a look at any other widely popular game with a rating system.  Starcraft for example, has a rating system that matches you with opponents of near equal rating.  Any custom games (including tournaments) are not rated.  I don't think this makes Blizzard completely stupid, quite the opposite.

The logic here implies that games also should not be rated if you set them up directly with friends. I would expect that the percentage of games set up directly with friends or rematch games that are legitimate (versus intentionally thrown to game the rating system) is greater than 99.9%.

Yes, I believe custom games should not be rated either.  Only games that are set up by the matching system.  While I agree that .1% is not a big number of people abusing the system, it doesn't take many rotten apples to spoil the barrel because those are the names you will always see at the top of the board.  Again, the more power the players have to define their opponent pool, the less meaningful the boards become.

ShuffleIT seems to have hit on the correct solution to this potential issue: "While it's possible to beat up dummy accounts in order to game the leaderboard, this is not a good idea if you're interested in the longevity of your account." http://forum.shuffleit.nl/index.php?topic=1679.msg5888#msg5888

This is indeed the correct response, I agree.  I just wonder if it is all teeth and no bite? There's not even an option to report, how can we expect account bans when there is no /report functionality? Have there been any account bans yet?

Players are already highly segregated based on what times they play (mainly due to different time zones). I expect this far outweighs any effects of the blacklist. And I don't think that people playing Dominion all over the world is a concern for the leaderboard, so this doesn't seem like a concern either.

Good point, and something I forgot to bring up.  Separate leader boards for different regions/timezones would be ideal. I'm just not sure if the playerbase is large enough to support it.  So yes, people playing all over the world is a concern (of mine) for the leaderboard.

Thanks for that explanation, well said.  You're arguing that a perfect matching system with rewards perfectly proportional to the risk of losing is impervious to abuse.  And I agree completely based on your explanation.  I would also argue that the more control you give the player as to who they play against, the less meaningful the leaderboard becomes in general.  Blacklisting effectively limits the player pool.  If my player pool has 10 players and yours has 10 completely different players, should we both be rated on the same leaderboard?  I think that would be a good case for 2 separate leaderboards.  Granted this will likely never happen, but the more blacklisting that goes on, the closer we approach that scenario.

What about the case of a person who blacklists everyone who takes longer than 1 minute for their first turn?  What if it becomes common practice to share blacklists thus alienating players and reducing their opponent pool unbeknownst to them?

One more point about the rematch option since I think it is relevant to this conversation.  I believe rematch games should NOT be rated.  It enables win-trading (intentionally losing to your friend over and over to boost their rating) which is just another way to game the leaderboard.  The only games that should be rated are those that the matching system sets up.

This is getting a little off topic.  We're not talking about the rematch functionality but rather the matching system's persistence in matching you to the same person over and over (if I'm understanding correctly).  IE - find game > resign > find game > same person, resign > find game > same person, resign... etc

why the ratings system is doing a poor job of predicting the outcome of certain games.

Doesn't this have something to do with the game design itself?  It's quite likely that a lower rated player can win just by luck alone (go first, draw 5/2 with witch chapel on the board for example).

If that were to be fixed, the potential for abuse would go away.

I don't see how improving the rating system's performance would eliminate blacklist abuse unless I'm missing something.  Could you elaborate?

I'm much more interested in playing against opponents I enjoy playing with than with the precise accuracy of the leaderboard, and I assume many users are the same way.

I think you make a very valid point here. What's the point of playing?  To have fun.  But what is the point of a leaderboard?  To provide accurate information that allows players to see how they stack up against others.  If the information isn't accurate (ie open to abuse) then I don't see a point of having a leaderboard.  Inevitably there will be people who rise to the top by abusing the system which discourages people from trying to be competitive in the first place. 

I do think both concerns can be addressed however.  If the ability to troll people were mitigated to a greater extent, we wouldn't need the blacklist. 

Are you high? Who said anyone was obligated to do anything, or suggested that they should be?

You did.

When does this perceived obligation for a rematch end?
After someone wins two in a row? Best of 5? Best of some sufficiently large odd number?

yes

Decency, elegance, courtesy... these are not qualities that are expressed by offering everyone a rematch; and certainly not by holding others to such a standard.

Of course the blacklist can be abused in this way and in others as well.  This is why most popular online multiplayer games don't allow it, but offer instead /report and /ignore features.  I understand people want a blacklist so they can avoid trolls, but the problem isn't the trolls.  The problem is the game design that allows trolls to be so effective with slow-rolling and no option for ignoring their chat. 

This is off topic, but if less time were allowed per turn (5 minutes +10 seconds per action taken for example) slow rolling would be less of an issue and the calls for a blacklist would diminish.

This of course is only relevant if the goal is to actually have a meaningful leader board which I assume is the case.

The notion that one is obligated to offer a rematch, whether they won or lost, is absolutely ridiculous.  This should be obvious to any rational person.  Sorry if this offends anyone.

[Allow less time and implement /ignore and /report.]

1)  Allow less time and implement /ignore and /report. I believe the issue with slow rolling is extremely obnoxious and more of a design flaw than an issue with abusive players.  If the game is vulnerable to abuse, players will abuse it unless it is fixed.  4 minutes per action is waaaay too much time allowed.  How about 5 minutes per turn with 5 seconds added to the clock per action?  This would prevent much of the slow rolling but still provide plenty of extra time to allow people to chain out their engines.

2)  I don't believe in a blacklist option.  Look at at other competitive online multiplayer games such as Blizzard's Overwatch and Starcraft.  You can't blacklist people.  You can choose to /ignore their chat and you can /report them.  If they get many consecutive reports, they get warnings/bans.  Allowing a blacklist just gives the player the power to choose who they play against which helps them game the leaderboard, not good.  The blacklist issue stems from the slow-rolling abuse as well as abusive chat, both of which could be addressed by #1 above.  If you don't appreciate someone's behavior, simply type "ignored and reported" and disable chat.  It will be the end of the conversation and you will have done your part in making sure justice is served.  Of course the other side of the coin is moderators have to be on top of managing reports and dealing out warnings/bans.

3)  Rematch is great but it shouldn't be rated. The only games that should be rated are games that the matching system sets up.  Players should have no power to choose their opponents in rated games, otherwise the system is vulnerable to abuse such as win-trading (I match with a friend's alternate account and we purposefully spam multiple games to boost our ratings).

Thanks for reading!