Messages

I just hit this exact same bug again. Game #118628022, turn 16, bot plays Weaver and freezes.

Can we get this fixed please?



For that matter, can we get the entire class of "bot freezes on X" fixed?

If nothing else, programming the bot to literally never play cards that are known to get it stuck would be a start.

Hard-coding "always take 2 silver" would be slightly better.

But it's been 6 months since I opened this thread, the website has seen multiple updates in that time, and known bugs like this are still freezing the AI?

Game #108388409 turn 13, bot uses a villager, plays Weaver, and freezes without gaining anything

After chaining Avanto into Sauna, there was no option to call Royal Carriage on Avanto.

In game #102941960, I played Royal Carriage, then Avanto, and chained a Sauna. There was an option to call Royal Carriage on Sauna, but there was no "continue" button so I could not call Royal Carriage on Avanto.

The new interface on dominion.games causes my computer fan to spin up fast and loud. I only played one game so far, and my laptop sounded like a jet engine. I assume that means it is using substantial energy and processing power.

The old interface never did that for me. Could you please make the site more energy efficient, or at least provide an option for lower power usage?

[resigning]

This is already dpne for 3P games. The resigning player (even if they expilicitely resign) is considered to have lost 1.5 games vs. the other 2 remaining players.

I am strongly opposed to this.

Some of my worst experiences with Dominion online have been a direct result of this rule.

I have been in 3-player games where I know I can't win, indeed I know I am guaranteed to finish in last place.

But I also know that if I resign it will hurt my Elo more than playing it out.

So I stay, and play, and it is boring, and the game is a slog, and it drags on and on.

And it doesn't just waste my time, it also wastes the other players' time, and ruins the game for them as well.

Because I'm not just passing my turn, no, I'm still playing, but now instead of playing to win, I'm playing to end the game as fast as possible.

So I end up spoiling the match between the other 2 players, because I just want it to be over.

And this is all, 100%, the direct consequence of the rule that punishes me for resigning.

As I understand, the sole and express purpose of that rule is to discourage people from resigning, and that is exactly what it does in these games.

The problem is, that resigning would be the best outcome for everyone involved. It would be best for me, because I know I have lost, so I wouldn't have to waste my time playing a lost game.

And it would be better for the other players in the game, because they wouldn't have to waste time while I play out my turns, and they would also be able to play out the game as intended instead of having me end the game as soon as I possibly can, thus spoiling it for them.

That rule, which punishes players for resigning, is the single source of my worst experiences with the game.

Please remove it, and make resigning exactly and identically equivalent to coming in last place among the remaining players.

Thank you.

For 2 player games, maybe this can be done too, in case the player was made to resign by their opponent due to the 4 minute timeout. I'll bring this up with the dev.

The 4-minute timeout isn't per se the problem. The real problem is players who stall for 3+ minutes at every action, but never for 4 minutes so they can't be forced to resign.

Perhaps an option could be added for a "chess timer" configured by the host of the table.

I just played a game where I put a Border Guard under Prince. I gained the Horn, and then on my next turn I noticed that my Prince no longer had anything under it.

The Horn had topdecked the Border Guard that was under my Prince.

To make matters even more annoying, I had played other Border Guards normally that turn, and was expecting one of *those* to be topdecked. Not the one under Prince.

Every player always is supposed to see the endgame screen. If that didn't happen, that is a bug.

What's the best place to report such a bug? I've actually had it happen a few times over the past several months.

Note that since some time, you can blacklist a player (or spectator) already during the game:

[...]

If you want to blacklist a person right now during the game, you can click the lightning symbol to do that immediately. If it's a spectator, they are kicked from the table. If it's a player, their chat is muted. Of course, you can also add somebody to your friend list, by clicking on the heart icon.

Oh nice, thanks!

I just finished a game where my opponent started by stalling, then played slowly, then spoke disrespectfully, before they finally resigned.

That's all well and good, and I was intending to dislike the player at the endgame screen.

But when the game ended and I clicked the okay button that usually takes me to the endgame screen, I was instead returned directly to the main menu.

I never saw the endgame screen.

This meant I could not dislike the player directly from the endgame screen, I couldn't see the player's name anymore to enter it manually in my blacklist, and I couldn't find the game id number either.

I don't know what caused this situation, but I find it problematic that I was unable to view the endgame screen after the game ended.

I would like to request that every player should always get to see the endgame screen for games they play.

I just finished a game of Dominion, and at the end game screen I clicked "Ready". After waiting a while, my opponent had not clicked "Ready", so I clicked "Leave Table".

This took me out of the end game screen and brought me back to the main screen.

However, immediately upon the main screen appearing, it went directly to the "Loading Game" screen. But no game loaded.

So I tried refreshing the webpage, and it took to me the "Reconnecting..." screen, where the only available button is "Cancel & Resign".

None of that should have happened. I left the table, I was back at the main screen, I did not join another game.

Game #37215204, DannyTheD is repeatedly stalling for minutes at a time doing absolutely nothing.

I was just playing a Menagerie Preview game against a bot. The game ID is 36468748.

On my last turn, I played many Throne Rooms and many Kilns. At various points in the turn, the game froze for a long time. I didn't check a clock, but it was easily 10 or 15 seconds each. At one point I switched to another browser window for a while, and when I switched back it was still frozen.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect the game might be having trouble handling multiple stacked Kiln and Throne Room triggers.

I just played against juntiac, and they consistently played extremely slowly, taking minutes to choose whenever I played Duchess. At the end of the game, they disconnected and timed out while my Duchess was waiting for their response.

The crux of my argument is not so much that the player could have made exactly the same choices as the bot, but rather that the player *no longer has a preference* what moves they make.

The player accepts they are going to lose, and does not want to waste time, energy, and thought on which specific losing plays to make. They do not care, because they are going to lose.

Thus, the resigning player essentially *delegates* to the bot, saying "Pick for me, I do not care what moves are made because I accept that I am going to lose."

[doable]

The point of a ratings system is to find who is better in a particular game configuration, and putting a bot in place of a human player in a 3-player game is just not doing that. In 3+ player Dominion, the strategies of a player are much more influenced by those of their oppoenents. If the bot takes over, that means a different strategy and (for most purposes), an inferior one.

There is a reason you can't play rated 2-player games vs. a bot. The bot does a small number of strategies well, but often does questionable things, bad things or even boneheaded things. The bot im most cases simply can't replace a player that was playing anything else than big money with draw support.

Sure, it's doable to continue the game with a bot and use the relative placement of the human players as a standin for their placement in the 3-player game, but, in Stef's opinion, not desireable.

That line of reasoning is not convincing to me.

At the point when a player chooses to resign, they are signifying that they accept a loss. They are no longer trying to win. Therefore, any strategy they had beforehand, when they still thought they could win, is irrelevant. They are now in a losing position, and they can make any plays whatsoever without changing that.

If the player were prohibited from resigning—or disincentivized due to an additional penalty for resigning beyond just finishing last—then they would continue to play, but there is no reason to expect them to play well.

The player in question has already decided they will not win—indeed, they have decided that they will finish last. They could make any arbitrary plays instead of resigning. They could intentionally cause a pileout when one player or another has the VP lead, or set things up so that another specific player would have a winning play. They could, essentially, play kingmaker.

And, as mentioned earlier, the player who wants to resign could also stay and make the exact same plays as a bot would, with no additional penalty beyond just finishing in last place. They could make whatever suboptimal choices they want, even to the point of intentionally affecting the outcome between the other two players, and they would only receive the standard rating-loss from finishing last.

So I see no downside to letting them resign, letting them accept last place, and letting the remainder of the game play out that much faster. If nothing else, the bot will finish its turn much faster than a human, and if the entire outcome of the game is obvious, then the remaining players can themselves resign in reverse order of score, letting everyone finish the non-competitive game quickly and move on to a new one.

• • •

Which brings up a secondary point. Resigning should not remove a player from the table, only from the game. They should still be part of the same table as a spectator, so that if everyone want to play again with the same players, they are already there. That is especially amenable to the "everyone resign in reverse order" resolution to a foregone game.

The main problem is once one player has resigned, there is no game anymore.

This is objectively, factually, observably false. When one player resigns, there is still a game. That game involves 2 players and a bot.

Continuing with a bot in place is no good

"no good" for what purpose?

For determining that both of the remaining players finished ahead of the one who resigned? It is perfectly good for that.

For seeing which of the two remaining players finishes with a higher score than the other? It is also perfectly good for that.

Yes, the bot will probably make *different* play choices than the player who resigned, but the bot's plays will still be legal. In particular the player who resigned *could have* stayed and made exactly the same plays as the bot did.

Playing the remainder of the game with 2 players and a bot is a perfectly valid option.

and you can't suddenly make it a 2-player game.

But you *can* make it a game with 2 players and a bot, because that is what it already is.

When one player resigns from a 3-player game, the game immediately becomes one with 2 players and a bot. This is simply a fact.

So there has to be a mechanism that works while the game is still going on.

I described just such a mechanism earlier. While the game is still going on, if one player resigns, that player finishes in last place.

The game continues with the players who did not resign, and a bot to replace the one who did. Note that at this point this game is, indeed, "still going on".

So I don't see options other than one player resigns, and if we are in a 3+ player game, all the other players also get a message if they want to resign. After each player has made their choice, the games is ended.

If one player still wanted to play, they place first, the other players are ordered somehow, it is debatable if they all place last or all placed second or order based on their points total.

I already provided another option, which I believe you have in fact seen.

I see no benefit to forcing the game to end immediately as soon as one player resigns. That sounds actively antagonistic toward the enjoyment of the remaining players.

Resigning should mean exactly what it sounds like. When a player resigns, they lose. They come in last place. All the remaining players finish ahead of the player who resigned.

It really is, it really can be, it really *should be*, that simple.

Resigning means the player who resigned, loses. That's it.