Topics

Game 11465814 on tokyo, which I am in right now. I have to wait for up to several minutes each time i click in the client or write something in the chat. Apparently it's not the same for my opponent. I tried reconnecting several times, also in another browser, and it's the same thing.

Today I had a Necromancer in hand, wondering whether to play it, since I had other terminals and 1 action left. But the only way for me to know what's available in the trash, seems to be to scroll through the log and check what I already used. It's pretty awkward, especially since I can't even see the log and the trash at the same time.

Of course the face-down cards in the trash are still open information, so the best would probably be to mark the used cards somehow.

I just played a game with Wall, game 9336830. Unfortunately it can't be loaded because of an "internal error", maybe related to the bug.

I can't find this among the known bugs.

During the game, Wall was clearly influencing the point trackers, since gaining a card resulted in a 1 point reduction. But on my last turn, my score was something like 5 VP, before gaining a Province and ending the game. My opponent had something like 5 VP. Definitely neither of us had 0. But in the end screen scoring, my opponent had -3 and I had 0. Both had exactly 33 cards, giving -18 VP from Wall. I had 3 Provinces, so my score of 0 is correct. I assume his score was correct too, he had probably 2 Provinces and a Duchy. So the problem was the point counter during the game, it was somehow not counting enough minus points for Wall.

Ok, I've now been looking at Band of Misfits interactions, and I found a bug. It concerns Throne + Band of Misfits.

TL;DR: TR + BoM is implemented so that TR plays BoM directly twice, instead of playing the chosen card the 2nd time. This results in too many cards being played, and "+" tokens on BoM triggering too many times.

Mostly things work correctly:

BoM as X counts as two played actions, because BoM plays X. I checked this by playing immediately Conspirator after.

TR + BoM as X will play X twice. (This functionally works, but is implemented incorrectly, so the amount of cards played is wrong and it will be wrong with "+" tokens. More below.)

TR + BoM as Embargo: Embargo is trashed, and you get to choose another card since BoM is not in play.

TR + BoM as Duration: TR will stay in play with the BoM (correct, since TR plays the Duration directly the 2nd time).

TR + BoM as Embargo, then as Duration: TR does not stay in play, because TR never played a Duration directly. Also tested with KC instead of TR.


Here's the bug:

Throne Room + BoM as X:
Here's how this is supposed to work: The 2nd time, TR doesn't play BoM, it plays X instead. This is because BoM isn't BoM anymore in play, it's X. What seems to happen instead, is that the BoM has the name "X", but it actually doesn't have the play ability of X, but rather the play ability of BoM, except it doesn't let you choose the card. This can be seen in the log too:

j plays a Throne Room.
    j plays a Band of Misfits.
        j plays a Caravan. [BoM plays itself as a Caravan]
    j plays a Caravan again. [Not really Caravan, but a quasi-BoM with the name "Caravan"]
        j plays a Caravan. [BoM plays itself as a Caravan]

Here Caravan seems to be played 3 times, but actually is only played twice. With Champion in play, we can count the Action cards being played. We started with 1, and ended with 7 Actions. First TR uses 1. Then TR adds 1, BoM adds 1, Caravan adds 2, BoM/"Caravan" adds 1 (not 2!), then Caravan adds 2 again. The correct number should be 6. (This could matter with Diadem.)

I placed the +1 Coin token on BoM:

TR + BoM as X should just give the bonus once, because BoM is only placed once. As I said above, TR should play X the 2nd time, not BoM.

j plays a Throne Room.
    j plays a Band of Misfits.
        j gets +1 Coin (from Training)
        j plays a Chapel.
    j plays a Chapel again. [quasi-BoM with the name "Chapel"]
        j gets +1 Coin (from Training)
        j plays a Chapel.

Here we end up with 1 more Coin that we should. (Like above we also end up with 1 more Action than we should, from Champion.)

It seems to be a fundamental mistake in the implementation of BoM that it's not really treated as the chosen card. Of course it can't really be treated 100% as the chosen card in the program, because then it would not be possible to retain the BoM graphic, and even worse, it would not ever revert to BoM. So somehow it has to have a property of being BoM "underneath". But functionally (until it leaves play) it should not be BoM, and that's not happening.

I decided to check some weird Inheritance interactions, and to not always be a guy who complains about bugs, I'm happy to report that all seems to be implemented correctly:

If you trash an Inherited Estate with Transmute, it's not yours when Transmute checks its types, so you only get a Gold.

When you gain an Inherited Estate with Ironworks and then trash it with Watchtower, it's not yours when Ironworks checks its types, so you only draw a card. If you have your Estate token on Fortress, the trashed Estate returns to your hand, becoming yours again, so in that case you draw a card and get +1 Action.

With your Estate token on Embargo, playing Throne Room + Estate only works once. I assume it's correct for all cards that trash themselves.

With your Estate token on Grand Market, you're able to buy an Estate even with Copper in Play.

Stonemason overpay doesn't let you gain Estates. I assume it's correct for all cards that gain Action cards.

Not checked: Trashing an Estate with Transmute while Possessed. Since it gets set aside, it's supposed to be yours again when checked by Transmute.

When you gain several cards and play Monestary, the interface makes you choose all cards before trashing them. The correct way is that each is trashed in turn, so that any when-trash ability (like drawing cards from Overgrown Estate, Cultist, Rats) happens in between. See here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17897.0

I'm now in a rated 4-player game because 3 people joined my table. I had searched for 2-pl games as I always do. Can this game be deleted, or do I have to finish this game to not get a ratings hit?

I don't known nothin' about this kind of tournament structure. I understand the elimination part: If you lose a match, you're out of the tournament. It's the seeding I don't understand I guess.

"All players will be seeded based on the 2 Player Shuffle iT leaderboard."

Does this mean that my first match will be against somebody on my level? So high-level players will never play against low-level players?

"If the first round does not have a full bracket (e.g. exactly 256 or 512 players) the highest seeded players will receive byes in the first round 1, with a full bracket beginning in the second round."

What are "highest seeded players"? A bye in this case is an automatic win?

Thanks.

When player A wins, isn't player B supposed to start the next game? It doesn't work like that now.

I read the message and I thought great, everything sounds fantastic. Well, except... "Slow playing" is defined a little vaguely and I hope nobody reads it and thinks it means just playing slower than they would like...

Ok, I started playing, and sure enough, on my third game (of course when it looked like I was going to win) my opponent starting complaining that I was too slow. The last turn I had drawn my deck and there was Pligrimage, so I had used a minute or two to think. Before then I had played at the same speed as my opponent. They referred to the message about "slow playing", said that I surely always played like this, and was going to blacklist me.

Of course I already sometimes encounter these kinds of people, but I think the vagueness in the message will legitimize their thinking (for them). I don't know if there is anything to be done about this, but is it possible to be more clear about what "slow playing" actually means?

Every day the phi value increases, making your rating lower.

"φ is your deviation, which starts at 2 and will go down whenever results come in and go up when they don't."

Actually that doesn't seem to be accurate, as it actually goes up no matter what, right? In fact, it doesn't matter if you play, how many games you play, or what the results are - phi goes up the same amount, am I right?

I noticed when I was on vacation (not playing) that the level drop every day is pretty huge. I just wonder about the justification for this. Today I had 2 victories and 1 loss, and according to Dominion Scavenger, my mu is going up from 1.4758 to 1.4838. But since my phi is going up more, my rating will go down. The penalty for not playing a big number of games every day seems a bit steep.

I mean, I'm planning to limit my Dominion gaming to 3 times a day for a while now. Let's say I do this forever. Even if I were to win as much as the best player and get the highest mu, my phi will keep increasing every day. So of course assuming that my mu will level off (at the highest value of all players), I will actually steadily drop in rating. Or does the phi ever stop increasing?

After the leaderboard was launched, it seems everybody was reset to level 20. I asked about this before:
http://forum.shuffleit.nl/index.php?topic=1710.msg6089
but nobody answered.

Ever since then, I have been playing with significantly worse players (with automatch). In the beginning I rose, but for a while I've been stuck around level 53-55, maybe rising one level some days. I have played maybe 50-80 games in total. Yesterday I actually dropped a level, because I lost 2 games (one due to computer crash) and tied one game because I didn't notice 3-pile, out of maybe 10 games played. Usually I lose 1 out of 10 maybe. Is rising in level supposed to be that slow?

Most games I see very novice play - no strat or bad strat, and only lose because of the normal luck factor. It's getting a bit boring.

I can only assume the top rated players have been playing hundreds of games already since the lauch? Or was not everybody reset to 20? Hoping for a reply this time!

Yesterday was the second day I played after the leaderboard was launched. I noticed I was suddenly playing against significantly worse players. (The first day, I think I just played one game and didn't think about it.) So I saw that there is a leaderboard now and my level is 27.

1) Since I was much higher on Isotropish, I assume that all players were reset to level 20. I haven't been able to find any mention of this. Why not just keep the levels from Isotropish, which you had already been using for matching?

2) I assume that the red/green number next to an up/down triangle is the shift in level since yesterday? Yesterday my level was 27 (for sure) and the number was +7 (I think). I played some games. Today the level is still 27 and the number is still +7. I guess this means the ratings haven't been updated. My timezone is currently UTC -5 (Mexico CDT time), so if the last update was midnight UTC, that was 19:00 here. I definitely played all my games earlier than that. Did the leaderboard skip an update, or is there a bug with my account, or am I way off here?

It's getting annoying to have to argue with people when I deny their undo request. I mentioned it before. Quoting myself:

Undo should never even be allowed when you've gotten new information, such as after drawing a card. Maybe it could be a setting that both players have to agree on before the game, but having this is as the default setting is crazy. I have players getting annoyed at me because I don't grant them undo in these cases. Add to that the fact that the log is missing some performed actions, so that sometimes it looks like they want to undo a card draw, but it's actually a legitimate undo request.

I just had a game where my opponent played Avanto, drew 3 cards, and then requested undo. Of course I denied it. Playing Avanto without a Sauna in hand is a gamble, it's part of the game. If people expect to be able to undo that, it breaks the game. He was annoyed of course, and I had to explain my position.

Later I clicked "play all treasures" by mistake, I wanted to play Silver first to be able to trash. This is the situation where Undo is needed. But he denied it to make us "even". We then argued about this. He claimed that he had had Avanto and Sauna in hand earlier and it was a simple misclick. I said I was sorry, but I couldn't know that. I did believe him, but granting that undo would be harmful to the game.

After the game, I looked in the log, and he had actually lied during our discussion. He did not have a Sauna. He wanted to undo because he had taken a gamble that didn't pay off. This is what the current undo functionality fosters.

Fixing this is not the highest priority, but I think it's something that should be fixed pretty soon, certainly before any new functionality. (Of course the developers won't agree with that. They want to develop nice-to-have stuff like language support before stuff that breaks the game.)

I see no reason why resigning should be available unless it's your turn. That was how it was implemented on Isotropic and I can't remember anybody ever questioning it. I can't remember how it was implemented on Goko/MF.

Resigning should of course be possible, but I see no reason why you can't wait until your turn to do it. The biggest problem is the following: It seems it's becoming more and more common to resign in the last turn if your opponent is winning, often just a few seconds before the game is finished anyway. I think it's common courtesy to let the winner finish their last turn. The other side of that is that the winner should do it in a timely manner; but in a game of usually 25 to 50 turns in a two player game (counting each player's turns), one more turn of normal length (or actually whatever is left of that turn at the point when you feel like hitting the "resign" button) hardly matters in terms of time, and doesn't give you the right to cut it short. It's usually just poor sportsmanship and/or annoyance.

As for resigning mid-game, the same applies in terms of time: Waiting half-a-turn more before resigning does not make a difference for you. Although I've gotten used to it, it doesn't always feel nice to be interrupted in the middle of your play. The main reason is the resigning just before you're about to lose though.

There is a drawback to incomplete games in general. You never get to see how your strategy worked in the endgame, or how your opponent's strategy worked. You never get to learn how to *play* your strategy in the endgame. Your opponent just assumed (rightly or wrongly) that you would play it well and win, but you never got to try and see how it worked out in the end, or how close the game would have been. Dominion isn't just played to determine a winner and a loser, but to actually try, you know, playing the kingdoms - against your opponent of course. That said, I get that it's no fun to continue playing when you feel like you have no chance, especially if it's early in the game already, or there's no end in sight. As it gets close to ending, I feel like it's good sportsmanship to see it through - but you can't regulate that: either there is a resign button or there isn't. But there is one easy fix to avoid people resigning during the last turn of their opponent: Making the resign button available only on your turn.

I've asked this before when I've made a bug report, but nobody has bothered to answer. I've also seen other people ask it.

I see that many bug reports state a game number and something like "in frankfurt". How do I find this info?

I played a game where my opponent by mistake set aside a Duration (Amulet) with Prince.

First of all, how do you see the game number or something, so I can refer to the game here?

Anyway, he did that turn 13, and turn 14 Prince played Amulet and nothing more happened according to the log. Turn 15 Amulet had its next-turn effect, and in Clean-up that turn (before card draw) "Prince loses track of Amulet (it moved)" according to the log.

Now, as far as the actual outcome, everything seems to be correct. But the implementation of either lose-track or Prince or both is wrong, at least according to how it was reported in the log.

What is supposed to happen is that Prince never loses track of Amulet. The start-of-turn ability on Prince is cancelled at the moment Amulet is not discarded at the end of turn 14. Since Prince never plays it again after that turn, there is no when-discard ability either: The when-discard ability ("set it aside again") only happens on a turn when the Amulet is played. On turn 14 there is a when-discard ability in effect, but it never triggers since the Amulet is not discarded. On turn 15 there is no when-discard ability in effect.

It kind of looks like the implementation is that the when-discard ability is checked whenever the Amulet is discarded for the rest of the game (and then it fails because of lose-track). It's hard to say, because turn 15 is the last turn where that happens in this game. But if so, it would in any case be very wrong: Prince somehow checks its when-discard ability when the Amulet is discarded, finding that it doesn't trigger because the Amulet is lost track of, but then how can Prince even know that it's that very Amulet in the first place? (If there were several Amulets in the deck, the player could not know which of them it is and so neither could the Prince.)

The correct way would be: Since Prince never played the card on turn 15 (or any turns following) it's actually not tracking the Amulet anymore. Prince stops doing anything either at the end of turn 14 (because it fails to set aside the Amulet then) or alternatively at the start of turn 15 (because it hasn't set aside the Amulet).

I have no idea if this mistake could result in anything wrong happening in any card interactions. But at least the log is reporting it incorrectly according to the wording on Prince.

Played a game today with Black Market, but I don't know if that was the problem. I played Black Market, chose "don't play treasures" (I think), and then the only two active areas were the revealed BM cards that I could afford. I couldn't click anywhere else. Not even Undo worked. I don't know if clicking those cards would have worded either. Instead I closed the browser window. When I logged in again, it was stuck on "reconnecting" for a long time, until I gave up.

[j reveals a Gold, a Silver, a Cutpurse, a Bridge Troll, 2 Provinces and a Copper.]

I just played two games in a row where the log lists cards when revealing that the player doesn't even own.
The first was for Shanty Town.
The second was for Hunting Party - against player Emeric.
I think the first game was also against Emeric.

I think maybe that the logs were actually correct during the game, but that they get screwed up after the game.

The start of the 2nd game:

Turn 1 - jeebus
j plays 4 Coppers.
j buys and gains a Cutpurse.
j draws 3 Coppers and 2 Estates.

Turn 1 - Emeric
E plays 3 Coppers.
E buys and gains an Urchin.
E draws 4 Coppers and an Estate.

Turn 2 - jeebus
j plays 3 Coppers.
j buys and gains an Urchin.
j shuffles their deck.
j draws 3 Coppers, an Estate and a Cutpurse.

Turn 2 - Emeric
E plays 4 Coppers.
E buys and gains a Cutpurse.
E shuffles their deck.
E draws 3 Coppers, an Estate and an Urchin.

Turn 3 - jeebus
j plays a Cutpurse.
E discards a Copper.
j plays 3 Coppers.
j buys and gains a Hunting Party.
j draws 2 Coppers, 2 Estates and an Urchin.

Turn 3 - Emeric
E plays an Urchin.
E draws a Copper.
j discards an Estate.
E plays 3 Coppers.
E buys and gains an Urchin.
E draws 3 Coppers and 2 Estates.

Turn 4 - jeebus
j plays an Urchin.
j draws a Copper.
E discards an Estate.
j plays 3 Coppers.
j buys and gains an Urchin.
j shuffles their deck.
j draws 3 Coppers and 2 Estates.

Turn 4 - Emeric
E plays 3 Coppers.
E buys and gains an Urchin.
E shuffles their deck.
E draws a Copper, 2 Estates, a Cutpurse and an Urchin.

Turn 5 - jeebus
j plays 3 Coppers.
j buys and gains a Silver.
j draws 3 Coppers, an Estate and a Hunting Party.

Turn 5 - Emeric
E plays an Urchin.
E draws a Copper.
j discards an Estate.
E plays a Cutpurse.
E trashes an Urchin.
E gains a Mercenary.
j discards a Copper.
E plays 2 Coppers.
E buys and gains a Silver.
E draws 3 Coppers, an Estate and an Urchin.

Turn 6 - jeebus
j plays a Hunting Party.
j draws an Urchin.
j reveals a Gold, a Silver, a Cutpurse, a Bridge Troll, 2 Provinces and a Copper.
j puts a Cutpurse into their hand.
j discards a Copper.

My opponent needed to react on my turn. After a while (the timeout I assume), I got a message that he left the table. I then had to finish my turn. Then it was his turn, and I had to wait for the timeout again, before I got the prompt to make him resign. I assume this is not the intended procedure when someone leaves?