Messages

I've experienced the same issue upon rematching with a bot.

game #3819257 on tokyo.

Turn 15 - Lord Rattington
L starts their turn.
L shuffles their deck.
L draws 3 cards (Haunted Woods).
L plays a Junk Dealer.
L trashes a Copper.
L plays a Junk Dealer.
L trashes a Fortune Teller.
L plays a Junk Dealer.
L trashes a Province.
L buys and gains a Silver.
L shuffles their deck.
L draws 5 cards.

Turn 18 - Lord Rattington
L plays a Remake.
L trashes 2 Provinces.
L shuffles their deck.
L draws a card.

Game #3725014 on oregon.

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.

Here's ShuffleIT's take:

* I strongly dislike "public name & shame". Please don't do it. For now it will just stay with "strongly dislike", but once we manage to build the options that allow you to avoid certain players in game, we'll actually start removing/redacting those posts. If you have a problem with a specific user, send a PM to one of the moderators.

* "Playing slow" and "Slowplaying" are fundamentally different things. The first may be related to being unfamiliar with cards, thorough analysis or just a general slower pace. While this can cause annoyance and thus be a problem, the solution will be a bit complicated. We will introduce the option to play timed games at some point. Until that day, please try to be friendly to each other and keep in mind that your opponent is probably not doing this by choice.

Slowplaying is about intentionally delaying your plays, waiting minutes between playing coppers, in the hopes that your opponent resigns or gets annoyed. This I consider a mental illness, and we will simply not tolerate it. As soon as I'm convinced you're doing this, you're banned.

Taking into consideration the perceived benefit / ease of implementation ratio:
Missing the most, May:
1) Buttons to silence chat from an opponent, and to report users.
2) Visual displays of -Card/Coin tokens and Duration attacks.
3) Display bottom card in Empires split-card piles.
4) Remove "pretend to think" (on Gladiator, not sure what else has it) - when autoplay features are implemented later, add it as an option that can be toggled on.
5) Create official FAQ based on great unofficial FAQ by Chris (http://forum.shuffleit.nl/index.php?topic=1100.0), link to it in the client instead, and keep it updated for new releases.

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.

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%.

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

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.

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.

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).

The rating system takes into account that the lower rated player is expected to win a certain percentage of games.

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?

Whether you rise or fall in the ratings depends on how you do compared to the rating system's expectations.

Note that you don't rise in level merely for winning, you have to perform above the rating's system's expectation.

Using purely hypothetical examples, if the rating system thinks that a player 15 levels higher than another one wins, say, 95% of the time, when the higher rated player actually wins 85% of the time, then the higher rated player would have reasons to avoid that matchup. If the rating system thinks that a player 15 levels higher than another one wins 85% of the time, when the higher rated player actually wins 95% of the time, then the lower rated player would have reasons to avoid that matchup. If the system is basically accurate, then no one has reason to avoid the matchup.

Anyone who argues the blacklist should be removed because of the potential to abuse it to alter ratings should also provide a description of why the ratings system is doing a poor job of predicting the outcome of certain games. If that were to be fixed, the potential for abuse would go away. 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.

At the very least in the meantime, I'll update this in the next two days - I have a flight on Wednesday which should give me plenty of time to flesh this out. Sorry about the slowness in doing that.

You shouldn't apologize at all. We should be thanking you for all of the hard work you've put into this! You recognized a need for a FAQ and filled it. At a minimum ShuffleIT should be collaborating with you to make sure that as new releases come out, this FAQ stays updated even if you are busy. 

If the rankings were badly mis-estimating the win probabilities for players with substantially different rankings, there might be a way to game the rankings system as you describe. But if you never take the risk of playing against anyone better than you, this will stifle your ability to improve. 

I left the game active overnight and signed out. Amazingly, when I signed back in Overlord no longer shows as a Victory card!

activeGame.state.activeBehaviourChanges returns an empty array.

I don't think any of the previous few games had Inheritance.

Game #2698793 on oregon.

Overlord shows as green in my hand, and says "Victory - Action."

Obelisk is not on the board, nor is any Action - Victory card. That said, Overlord does not currently count as any victory points. Bureaucrat is present but the bot did not buy it so unfortunately I can't say whether it would be hit by it.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=17150.msg687201#msg687201

"So I was playing online the other day and played a replace with a trader in my hand. I trashed a copper to gain an estate, then used trader to gain a silver instead. My opponent still got a curse (though they trashed it with watchtower so it made very little actual difference to the game) and I can't remember if the silver was topdecked."

This appears to be a bug; Replace shouldn't give out a Curse in this instance.

Taking into consideration the perceived benefit / ease of implementation ratio:

1) Notification that it is my turn to act. Ping sound (if desired). Browser tab flash.
2) Visual displays of -Card/Coin tokens and Duration attacks.
3) Display bottom card in Empires split-card piles.
4) Remove "pretend to think" (on Gladiator, not sure what else has it) - when autoplay features are implemented later, add it as an option that can be toggled on.

I recall that in previous statements the developers have said that the ratings decline will be very small and much smaller than on the previous Making Fun / Goko platform. So I do not think this will be a concern.