Messages

This is exactly what I'm looking for, but now you're reporting on what the console says when you visit the forum.
I want to know what the console says when you're trying to play the game.

I confirm that the player should gain a Curse if they have no card to reveal.

ok will be fixed in the next release.

I'm really hopeless w/ tech stuff, what is a javascript console? Well, where do I find it at least, no way I'd understand.

In chrome the shortcut for the console is ctrl-shift-i (or command instead of ctrl if you're on a mac).

I saw the solution in the Frequently Encountered Problems thread, but I have no idea what it means. What ports? My laptop says turning off Windows Firewall isn't recommended and that didn't do anything anyways. I've restarted my laptop, and refreshed the page many times. It just started doing this today, I didn't change anything since yesterday so this is weird.

Also, the Discord Channel for Interactive Chat mentioned in the Interactive Support thread won't load for me, that's why I'm asking here. Someone please help, Dominion is pretty much my favorite thing!

I'd like to help you but it's quite hard on a forum... it usually comes down to doing several steps of questions & answers, and what could be 5 minutes on discord may turn into a week on a forum.

Any chance your not-connecting-to-discord and not-connecting-to-the-game are related?
Did anything change in your internet connection / modem / browser since yesterday?

Maybe you can describe in a bit more detail what is happening or what you see? What does "can't connect to server" mean? Can you load the page, but then it doesn't connect to the metaserver? Or can you connect to the metaserver but not to a gameserver? Can you tell me what it says on your javascript console?

I would record it as a win for each remaining player over the resigning player, and for the two remaining players, not record a result.

Yes this is very close to what I implemented on our dev server now. Only the original game was rated, the continuation is not. The original game only produces 2 results instead of the planned 3. The difference is that I count these wins for a bit more then just a regular win. Normal wins are counted as (1 0), ties counted as (0.5 0.5), and the plan now is to count these 3P-resignation-wins as (1.5 -0.5).

That will imply that in 3P resigning is worse for your ranking then losing, which is fine with me, and the two remaining players are both a bit compensated because they were deprived of the opportunity to score 2 wins in that game.

It's been 6 months now, any ETA on the android app?

No, sorry, we're not working on apps at the moment.
I'd love to be able to that but at the moment there is too much work / not enough people.

And I count to 5 but that's a detail.

I may be the only one who thinks that Woodcutter > Harbinger, but I'm prepared to die on that hill.

In every set of cards something has to be the worst, and I think among the new 2E cards it's clearly Harbinger. Every time I look at it I think "this could be useful" and somehow it almost never is. But it still beats Woodcutter by a landslide.

This is very unlikely to happen.

Way too much fuzz with security / taxes / legal concerns.

Also it's against what I'm trying to achieve. dominion.games is about fun, and although gambling can be fun it also has a dark side I don't want to be involved with.

You could off course make personal bets, just don't expect the system to facilitate it in any way.

If you want to bet on a personal match against me, I'd certainly be willing to take it :)

Hmm, you haven't gained them yet. Pilgrimage details are a little confusing.

according to the rules this should happen:
1. you select 3 cards.
2. 3 times: choose which of the cards to gain next.

This is one of the cases where I didn't implement it exactly according to the rules (after asking Donald permission to do so). In the client, you are not free to choose the order after selecting the cards, instead you use the order of the selecting. In theory you could come up with a weird edgecase where you want to let the order of the last two depend on what happens after gaining the first, and the you can't do that online.

Anyway, what remains is that you first pick all the cards before any gaining happens. The client doesn't even send the information about the first pick to the server until all picks are made. If you really did forget, you could reload the page and you'd start over again at the first pick.

I think the problem here is that I didn't explain my proposal properly.
I'll try again with words and examples instead of formulas.

I get to make a list, my list would be 1. Possession 2. Swindler 3. Kings Court
I don't do anything else.

The effect would be that on every table I play I force the table setting to be "respect 3 cards", because I didn't change the default. Every game I play will have these 3 cards banned. If my opponent also cared to make a list, the top 3 of that list would also be banned.

That's all there is to it to people that don't like to read on.

---

Some people may want to say "3 is not enough" or "3 is too many". Well, they are free to express that opinion in their personal settings. If they get to play an opponent who agrees with them, we will use the shorter/longer list.

This is my proposal:


We all get to make a list of disliked cards in the client. You can make it as long as you want.

Tables get a new setting. Respected number of disliked cards. By default it's 3.

Players also get a new setting: preferred number of respected disliked cards.
If one player has >3 and the other <3, it will stay at 3.
If both have it set to some number >3, the lowest one becomes the table setting.
If both have it set to some number <3, the highest one becomes the table setting.

Hi kumarpr228,


To me, it seems like you have made some assumptions that aren't entirely correct about the rating system. This comes at no surprise at all, I wouldn't dare say I fully understand the rating system even though I implemented it.

Your assumption is that you are significantly punished for your early losses, because there is no reset. This would be true if the rating system is based on win/loss ratio. Suppose we'd just put the player with the highest winrate on top, then you would probably never be able to overcome those experimental games in your early career.

However, the whole point of the complexity behind the rating system is to deal with this. And it seems to be doing a very good job at it too. Suppose the #1 and #1000 both play on a daily basis and decide to swap accounts - two weeks later that #1000 account would be on top of the leaderboard.


What I'm trying to say is this: you are suggesting a different system (with the seasons) because it has some properties (not being punished for old results) while in essence the current system already has those properties, it's just a bit hard to see exactly how/why.

There is one thing we can all agree on: the current situation is horrible. Declaring the player that has the most points at the resignation time the winner makes no sense.

The other thing we probably agree on is... it's complicated.

So let's try to do this: we spend the next 48 hours of discussing a practical solution, then get that implemented asap, and leave the discussion for perfect solutions for later.


Two things I want solved:
1) a better solution for the rating results when someone resigns in 3P.
2) stop, or at least significantly decrease - the number of resignations in 3P.

For 1) we've had some sensible suggestions already. Adams suggestion is certainly easy to implement; replacing with a bot is probably also doable but not clear it's preferable yet (also given current state of the bots).

For 2) I'd like to hear some more thoughts.
One suggestion is to put up a huge warning sign when you try to resign in 3P. "This will destroy the game for your opponents! do you really want to resign a 3 player game? It's considered bad sportsmanship". Personally I agree with those sentences, but wouldn't want to put them into the client unless it's already the opinion of a large percentage of the community.

In addition to warning signs we could keep track of all 3P games people play, and the percentage of games they resign. In the matchmaker add another option "max 3P resign % of opponents" and let people choose for themselves what they consider acceptable.

A final thought that is "for later": When I play IRL I would never resign in 3P. But what does happen is that when one of my opponents is clearly far ahead, I suggest to the other that we both resign and go on with the next game. We could consider such an option in the digital version, or would it cause more harm then good?

ok I found a bug & fixed it. It wasn't specifically related to the rematching, but it still seems to have been the cause here.

If you had max_unfamiliar_cards set to 0, the first card selected could still be any card you owned instead of just cards you were familiar with.

[Version 1.2.6.2]

Version 1.2.6.2

• Fix importing accounts (using link in transfer emails)

Version 1.2.6.3

• automatch-advanced: added a line to make clear max/min ratings are relative