Messages

http://dominion.lauxnet.com/leaderboard/

has the top 1000 / full leaderboard, as well as information on the games of individual players. (only 2-person rated games)

Giving 1.5 approximately means that both players won the game, i.e. there's no 2nd place for ranking purposes. This is "paid" for by the resigning player who gets -0.5 for resigning instead of 0, when playing it out.

(More strictly speaking, it gives you an average win. So your opponent resigning makes you only worse off, if you were about to win AND you were the underdog amongst the two remaining players.)

I think it doesn't matter for the other players, whether I resign because of not bothering to play it out, internet connection problems, or personal life. If you know that your internet connection is fragile, you shouldn't start a 3p game with random people.

I like Stef's suggestion. The complexity would only show up for users of advanced settings.

For me it refers to players that are experienced at a game and choose to make a new account so they can play lesser skilled players and get a higher rank/reward.

That is not a good strategy to rise in the leaderboard: how much you gain depends on the strength of your opponent (and your own strength). The weaker the opponent, the less you gain.

Only if you have a very steep learning curve and/or don't play many games, your preferred new account would come out higher at the end of the month than playing on with your existent.

The reason that the log copies weirdly (apparently only on Firefox) is that <div> HTML tags are used instead of <span>s to tag the various pieces of text like card names within the log. <div>s naturally create a line break before and after them, so Firefox is dutifully inserting those breaks in the copied text. Chrome, OTOH, seems to take applied CSS styles (like display:inline that is probably used on those tags) into account, so you don't see line breaks there. The proper fix would be for Shuffle iT to replace those <div>s with <span>s.

Bringing that up again, even though it should be in the bug forum. That seems like an easy fix that would allow copying logs also from Firefox (Windows) in a nice way.

markus, your third bullet is probably way too harsh. :) Maybe make that if you get 3 resignations in a 48-hour period, you may not play 3p in the rest of those 48 hours? It may still be a bad idea altogether. Incidentally, how often are people forced to resign right now? I have all sorts of connection issues but I always manage to reconnect without problems.

Numbers were suggestive.  ;) I'm not playing 3P games, but I can see that it is really annoying if the game just ends half way. If you start a 3P game with strangers, you should commit to almost certainly being able to finish it / be willing to play it out even if you have lost.
I'm not sure which troubles with the client Adam has in mind, but it has never happened to me that I couldn't reconnect to a game that was still running. (I do sometimes have to reconnect.) But even if it was the case that for someone say 1/3 of games can't be finished due to the client's problem. Wouldn't it be better to sort those people out and not make additional players miserable? (in addition to fixing the cause of the problem, but I don't think these problems even exist)

Regarding the relative placement of the players and bot, I don't really know how the algorithm works.
But maybe you could secretly rank the bot, and if and only if the bot beats you, count that as a loss relative to the bot. Anyway, when was the last time somebody in contention resigned on you? It won't be very common.

A bot that replaces a resigned player should always come last in the end, i.e. you win against the resigned player and the relative position with the 3rd player matters, but not where the bot ends up.

That's a bit off topic, but I've suggested in the past that there should be rated bot games. The main leaderboard could still exclude those games. Even if the bot is bad, it's useful to know that the win rate has improved from 70% to 80%. That kind of feedback is missing for people that don't play rated games. Rating the bot shouldn't be difficult, such that once you have different bots a comparable bot can be chosen.

I think the ideal solution would be:
Player A resigns. B and C get a window with three choices:
Resign as second place
Void the remaining game
Play it out with a bot.

If either one resigns, we have a clean result that everybody agrees upon. If both void, we have a clean result that everybody agrees upon. If either player wants to play it out, then they should do so, and that game should be ranked, in the interest of the leading player.
If both resign, uh, they all unlock Saboteur as an easter egg, and you count that as a void.

I agree with that. (I would still discourage resigning, unless there's unanimous agreement upon ranks.)

In the short run, I think you want to have all 3:

1) Notify players that they should complete multiplayer games, because resigning ends the game for everyone.

2) Punish the rating after resigning, in case people care about that.

3) Remove them from the standard settings automatch after the third resignation. Delete one such strike after say 20 finished games or 2 weeks.

I don't see the point of dividing the player base into "permanently ranked" and "temporarily ranked" games. I would rather implement some tournaments that don't have to be organized externally.

What would be easy, however, is to calculate an additional leaderboard using the same rated games but only of the current month. The outcome at the end of the month would be quite similar for the above reasons. In the early days of a month it would be more swingy of course.

An important purpose of ratings is being able to find equal matches. So I don't see a point in completely resetting the leaderboard.

Note that already now you lose levels on a daily basis if you don't play / play less than before: in your case, it would be 0.12 levels after one day, and 2.7 levels after a month. So you can't stay on the top without playing.

Also, if you play more with the same average results, you will get a higher level already. Somebody that only plays 1-2 games per day will be 2 levels below you with the same average result.

If you become a better player, your rating will adjust quickly in the current system. (Implicit assumption of the parameters is that one third of players should win/lose at least 2.5 levels per month.)
For example, if you improve from 50% to 60% win rate against the same opponents, you should gain 3 levels. In the current rating system, you'll gain 1.5 levels after 10 days (60 games) and 2.5 levels after 1 month (180 games), even without resetting the leaderboard.

The most likely outcome when you reconnect to the lobby is that your opponent resigned, which caused you to reconnect in the first place. As I understand, you need to be connected to a different server to get the end of game screen. If you lose connection to that during the game, you won't see it when the game ends to the standard reasons or resignation.

The best place to check what happened in a rated 2 player game is http://dominion.lauxnet.com/scavenger/?user=kumarpr229

This is a form of win trading, no? (I'm not super-clear on this terminology, maybe I have it wrong) This kind of thing can happen in 2P games as well -- there are ways to try and game the system no matter what and I assume it's up to the admins to remove these people from the leaderboard on a case-by-case basis.

With 2P you can help someone else only by sacrificing your own rating. If it's up to you to decide by resigning whether P2 and P3 tie or someone wins, it's more problematic I guess.

I think that for now you could count the loss due to resignation (in 3P) twice, i.e. instead of having a result between P2 and P3 they both get another win against the resigning player. That should discourage resigning, if you make the players aware of the punishment.

"Later" you could have a system in which players agree on an order for the game's outcome: everyone can suggest 1.-2.-3. (or ties) and if everyone accepts the game ends.

Not counting the other pair(s) results can be problematic as well: for example, people might resign when they're last and see that the active player has the win in hand. If you don't count the result between first and second then the player who was about to win, will not be amused. Even less so, if the 3rd and the 2nd are friends and it might seem that the 3rd does a favour to the 2nd.

In my opinion, the best solution would be to replace the resigned player with a bot of comparable strength, and give the other players the option to agree on ending the game. (which you might call a tie, but count as non existent for rating purposes) So if a plaer resigns early in the game, the other players might agree to tie. If someone thinks to be ahead, they can insist on a bot replacement (or on the other player to resign as well).

Der erste Vorbote war mit Prinz (aus Schwarzmarkt) gespielt. Das gibt die extra Aktion um nach Thronsaal-Ratsversammlung weiterzuspielen.

(no bug as Harbinger was Princed)

Interesting, not loading correctly is a different bug - maybe Scheme was in the Black Market deck?

Just to make sure again, it was only a log issue. I got the extra Actions and Buys correctly.
So you could reproduce it by creating a Kingdom with e.g. Tactician, Pathfinding and Royal Carriage. But my hunch is that the log just always says "+1 Buy, +1 Action" with Tactician, without even checking whether there have been more as those are (nice) edge cases.

At the beginning of the turn, it always says "+1 Buy, +1 Action and draws...ALL CARDS" for an activated Tactician, even if there's been more than one activated (in my case +Card on Tactician and Royal Carriage):

Turn 17 - markus
m starts their turn.
m gets +1 Buy, +1 Action and draws 2 Coppers, 2 Silvers, 2 Provinces, a Mill, a Disciple, 2 Giants, a Lost City, a Royal Carriage, a Teacher and 2 Black Markets (Tactician).

Game 3670179