Messages

At the very least, I would want one piece of information in the undo request: whether or not any new information was revealed since before the action was taken that they want to undo.

"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.

This is the only "OK" way to have resignation in a 3P game in my book. I've done it a couple of times IRL and it only makes sense when every player agrees to it. It also only makes sense when each player agrees on a placement for each player.

I'd say it's an important thing to have online, but if I'm being realistic, I just don't see that ever actually happening. There are certainly more important things to do.

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.

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.

As much as DXV tried to design politics out of Dominion, it's still there. This kind of thing can be done while operating within the rules of the game without even resigning. There's really no way around that and I assume that's why the 3P leaderboard is separate from the 2P leaderboard.

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.

"a bot of comparable strength" doesn't currently exist, and I doubt it can ever exist. I haven't thought about whether your suggestion is best in theory, but I know it's not going to be practical :-(

AdamH's proposal seems to me very sensible and probably the best possible option under the circumstances.

I agree with you! :-D

but my method does assume that the leaderboard uses this type of "matchup" system to do ratings and doesn't so something else. If there's some other method of putting the results of 3P games onto a leaderboard that Shuffleit uses, I'm not able to make an intelligent comment on that.

I assume that in a 3P game, there are three "matchups" taking place: A vs. B, B vs. C, and A vs. C. Each "matchup" is given a result based on final placement in the game, so if it goes:

first place: A
second place: B
third place: C

...then A wins both of her matchups and B wins his matchup against C.

Let's say C resigns. There aren't really ways to try and evaluate the A vs. B matchup. Each one will be flawed -- this includes just letting the game go as a 2P game, or subbing in a bot for the resigned player. These are all good options for fun, but in terms of a result on the leaderboard that has any integrity, that just can't happen unless C finishes out the game.

The only result I can think of that would be fair is to have C lose both of his matchups, and have the A vs. B matchup not exist -- not a tie, but have it not even count for anything.

I have Tournament off of my familiar cards list. I pressed the bot game button for "1 Bot" and played a game, I rematched that bot and Tournament was one of the cards.

The settings for the table were that familiar cards should be respected, and I double-checked that tournament was not one of my familiar cards.

The known bugs list hasn't been updated in over a month, so who knows if the devs are recording what shows up here...

I play a Scavenger, and after discarding my deck (or not), each card in my discard pile is the same. The decision for which card to topdeck is made for me, but the window displaying my discard pile is still left up until I click something.

It occurs to me that this is on purpose, since I may want some time to view my discard pile, but this interface is confusing and not good -- I can't see all of the stuff that the window is covering up, and when that window is in my face, it makes me think I have to do something with it (I have to do something with the window every other time the window is in my face, but in this case I should just continue playing).

Much better would be to either print the contents of my discard pile in the log (only visible to me and spectators, of course) or you could also just pop up a button that lets me view the contents of my discard pile if I want to -- something more passive that doesn't make me think there's a bug. Or maybe make the window go away if I click it. Or maybe make the window look different than other windows. Any or all of these would make the interface much better.

The best solution, though, is to not have this decision automatically made for me, or at least make me check an option that isn't the default in order to get this interface. Really, the software would be much, much better if the whole automatically making decisions for people when there's only one legal option thing was turned off altogether; but that's not going to happen. If there's a special case for this situation in the code that makes the window show up, then it should be easy enough to make people click on the card they want and then make the window go away in all cases, which is just a better interface in every situation.

I'm not going to comment on what I think the quality of F.DS and its advice is. Suffice it to say that I want to talk about and improve my strategy and I do NOT want to be on that board.

...but regardless of whether or not F.DS exists, it seems people are going to talk about strategy here too. People talk about strategy other places on the internet as well (reddit, BGG, YouTube/Twitch, etc.) and the existence of F.DS doesn't mean that they shouldn't.

At the end of the day it's up to the people running this forum whether or not they want to allow strategy discussion here. It seems that they probably do, and if that's what they decide, then of course there should probably be a separate board for it.

As for Artisan vs. Gold, well that depends on so much that it's really hard to talk about. The broad strokes have been painted here and I feel like more detailed discussion isn't useful without a kingdom in front of us to talk about.

I don't remember if the gain was mandatory when there was still a Prize in the pile and also a Duchy in the pile.

I had the misfortune of playing a Tournament game today and I noticed that the prize/Duchy gain for Tournament is not mandatory. if I reveal a Province I should be required to gain something.

I don't have a problem with this at all.  Isotropic showed you the cards before the game started and gave you an option to decline the game.  The way they did it made a lot of sense.  Please give us this back.

@mrfiat: The problem with this is that as soon as someone sees a card he doesn't like to play against in the Kingdom (like Possession, a curse giver, Goons, some engine,...) he can simply opt out of that game with no penalty.

I understand you would be fine with something like that and I would as well, if it is done from time to time and in moderation. But this is also the reason why ranked games will not take into account "familiar cards": The possibility that someone games the system by simply finding a Kingdom he is very good at and then only marks those cards as familiar (which results in him playing only that Kingdom for ranked games) is deemed to big.

This kind of thing is fine for casual games, but for the pro leaderboard, which is supposed to be taken seriously as a measure of player skill, this kind of thing won't fly. That's the distinction here.

OK that seems reasonable, then I amend my suggestion to include an ability to detect the case where only basic treasures are involved. Aaaaand that's not ever going to happen. OK, redacted.

I'm at a table with a human opponent. I ready, and then they leave. I'm now the only person at the table, and my status is still ready. At this point, I believe my status should be automatically changed to not ready (whenever I'm the only person at a table, my status should always be not ready).

If I add bots to the table, they are Bot Ready -- I have to un-ready, then re-ready in order to play, which is confusing.

when I play a Storyteller, it prompts me to play treasures. When I click on them, they go into play one at a time. The interface would be nicer if it was similar to Chapel, where I click on them, decide what I want to do, then confirm; I also get the option to undo and I don't have to sit through animations for this.