Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion Online at Shuffle iT => Dominion General Discussion => Goko Dominion Online => Topic started by: pst on October 19, 2015, 06:55:25 am
-
This is about the downloaded clients, not about the web version.
If you don't use Playdominion, please pick the main reason that you don't. If you would have continued to used the previous version if it was available please pick the reason why. If you use Playdominion, please pick what you think would benefit your playing there the most.
I have intentionally not included "cards are too expensive" as an option, since if you think so it's so hard to compare to the others. Presupposed in the question is that you want to play Dominion online with no owned cards or with the cards you do own, and that there is something in the implementation that makes you not play or not play as much (or as happy) as you'd do otherwise.
November 4 2015: Poll locked, because 2.0.43 is no longer the latest version.
-
The robots are so good they scare me away
Definitely this.
-
The robots are so good they scare me away
Definitely this.
(http://robitswhynot.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ea6f5d36271e4f69fa1541ff1d2efec624225c5239f2d0a9511516674e49b80c.jpg)
-
I voted "I have difficulties finding suitable opponents with the matchmaking". I'm constantly getting matched with total droolers, like this guy who opened Silver/Potion on a Mountebank board with Possession being the sole Alchemy card. By the time he bought his first copy (for 9+P) I had a 6-0 Province lead, and when I was about to end the game a few turns later there was this slight hesitation of "should I prolong it just to give him the opportunity to play his Possession at least once?", but no, enough with this crap already. It could be argued that maximizing your win chances against terrible opposition is a skill of its own, but it's not one that's particularly enjoyable to cultivate.
And then there are a ton of things that aren't even listed in this poll: the barely readable font of the log that scales horribly and is illegible on streams, the still awfully positioned chat that instead of randomly popping up over your hand now gives an almost invisible notification, the rematch window disabling the chat, the button placement, the coin- and other tokens still being hidden beneath this horrible tray, this tray being even less responsive and far more erratic in its behavior than it was on Goko, the... shall I go on? I shall not.
I really hope they go bankrupt if not today, then at least tomorrow, but seeing that they've just started branching out into the highly profitable business of selling fake passports (http://forum.makingfun.com/showthread.php?7956-Purchase-Passports-visas-driver-s-license-ID-cards), visa's (http://forum.makingfun.com/showthread.php?7957-Passports-buying-visas-driving-licenses-identity-cards-etc-%28paul_ericson75-yahoo-com%29) and driving licenses (http://forum.makingfun.com/showthread.php?7955-Passports-buying-visas-driving-licenses-identity-cards-etc-%28paul_ericson75-yahoo-com%29), we're likely stuck with them for the foreseeable future.
-
I voted "I have difficulties finding suitable opponents with the matchmaking". I'm constantly getting matched with total droolers, like this guy who opened Silver/Potion on a Mountebank board with Possession being the sole Alchemy card. By the time he bought his first copy (for 9+P) I had a 6-0 Province lead, and when I was about to end the game a few turns later there was this slight hesitation of "should I prolong it just to give him the opportunity to play his Possession at least once?", but no, enough with this crap already. It could be argued that maximizing your win chances against terrible opposition is a skill of its own, but it's not one that's particularly enjoyable to cultivate.
And then there are a ton of things that aren't even listed in this poll: the barely readable font of the log that scales horribly and is illegible on streams, the still awfully positioned chat that instead of randomly popping up over your hand now gives an almost invisible notification, the rematch window disabling the chat, the button placement, the coin- and other tokens still being hidden beneath this horrible tray, this tray being even less responsive and far more erratic in its behavior than it was on Goko, the... shall I go on? I shall not.
I really hope they go bankrupt if not today, then at least tomorrow, but seeing that they've just started branching out into the highly profitable business of selling fake passports (http://forum.makingfun.com/showthread.php?7956-Purchase-Passports-visas-driver-s-license-ID-cards), visa's (http://forum.makingfun.com/showthread.php?7957-Passports-buying-visas-driving-licenses-identity-cards-etc-%28paul_ericson75-yahoo-com%29) and driving licenses (http://forum.makingfun.com/showthread.php?7955-Passports-buying-visas-driving-licenses-identity-cards-etc-%28paul_ericson75-yahoo-com%29), we're likely stuck with them for the foreseeable future.
No no no, they sell real ones too!
I'm certain that the product I get if I ask for a "real" one is a totally different result than if I ask for a "fake" one.
Seriously though, can they go bankrupt? What other irons do they have in the fire or not?
-
And then there are a ton of things that aren't even listed in this poll: the barely readable font of the log that scales horribly and is illegible on streams, the still awfully positioned chat that instead of randomly popping up over your hand now gives an almost invisible notification, the rematch window disabling the chat, the button placement, the coin- and other tokens still being hidden beneath this horrible tray, this tray being even less responsive and far more erratic in its behavior than it was on Goko, the... shall I go on? I shall not.
I can add more options if needed, but these are not things that you would put higher than the thing you voted on, right? Maybe the graphics/animation answer should be extended so it's clearly about the whole look of it, including fonts and layout?
I am also irritated by that Rematch window thing by the way. When I'm about to decline a rematch suggestion I often want to explain why first, for example. But a detail like that would never "win" this poll in my opinion.
-
How about can't access in any shape or form. Online won't work. Download causes computer to crash. Completely unstable platform.
I have no idea what problems exist within the game itself because I have yet to actually play a game on the version. That is a major problem.
{never had a problem getting onto Goko aside from global shutdowns}
-
The matchmaking is so bad, I've almost exclusively played with the new client while either half-asleep or very drunk, and my Iso level is 10 higher than it was on the old client.
Everything else is at least passable albeit pretty annoying, but the matchmaking is horrendous.
-
I also have a really hard time picking just one.
Sometimes when I see something or get something in my hands I'm genuinely impressed.
Every detail makes sense, you just know that whoever made it put a lot of love in the product.
With Goko/MF it's exactly the opposite. Whatever they do, they always find some way to screw it up.
Sure the functionality meets the basic needs, but you know they never used it much themselves, nor did they have a good feeling for the people that were going to.
Whoever works on it probably wishes he was doing something else.
-
the coin- and other tokens still being hidden beneath this horrible tray, this tray being even less responsive and far more erratic in its behavior than it was on Goko
This is the biggest problem. I can see the difficulty for games with large numbers of players, but it would be nice to see all the game information at once for two player games.
I'd also like a 3200x1800 resolution option so that I don't get so much anti-aliasing, but this is the firstest of first world Dominon problems.
-
Uh, dragging cards? Why would you not change that interface? Watchtower, Cartographer, anything with choosing card locations.
Moving choice buttons (e.g., Hamlet) away from phase ending buttons.
Also, Scheme. If you have a huge string of Actions, it's not easy to tell what the Actions are. You can click on a card and try not to select it, but the control is subtle and sometimes it just gets chosen. Some sort of mouseover letting you know what the card is would be helpful. (A "ghost" card appearing on the right, where the selected card would go, would work.)
-
Most of the time it does not load at all. Also, the player level matching is very poor. It has brought down my standards so much to the point that I was pleased earlier that I was able to complete 3 games without it crashing....very unstable.
-
I can be forced into playing games with/without the point counter against my will
Out of interest: can you ever be forced into playing a game with the point counter against your will? I thought if a player who prefers "with" gets matched against one who prefers "without", the game will be played without, or is it actually random?
-
How about "with a big enough hand, I can't tell which cards are whicb, and can't click on them to find out?"
But I'm with Stef on this one. It's like going to a pizza place, hoping for a good deluxe pizza, but they tell you they only have cheese pizza, and when it comes to your table, it's lukewarm, unsliced, and made with barbecue sauce and cheddar cheese.
What you have is technically pizza, and will be filling and perhaps as nutritious as pizza normally is... but no one wants to eat it.
And then someone says "Man, I miss that old shack with the homemade pizza, the place looked like crap and was a hole in the wall, but damn the pizza was good."
-
How about "with a big enough hand, I can't tell which cards are whicb, and can't click on them to find out?"
But I'm with Stef on this one. It's like going to a pizza place, hoping for a good deluxe pizza, but they tell you they only have cheese pizza, and when it comes to your table, it's lukewarm, unsliced, and made with barbecue sauce and cheddar cheese.
What you have is technically pizza, and will be filling and perhaps as nutritious as pizza normally is... but no one wants to eat it.
And then someone says "Man, I miss that old shack with the homemade pizza, the place looked like crap and was a hole in the wall, but damn the pizza was good."
Wait, Making Fun makes pizza now?
-
No number of turns tie breaker. My opponent first and took the last turn and the game was scored a tie.
-
No number of turns tie breaker. My opponent first and took the last turn and the game was scored a tie.
That's not always true. It sometimes handles them correctly.
-
Stef brings up a very poignant point (I think that's what the word poignant means, I have only read it in books) about the developers' inexperience playing Dominion. The low overall quality is bad. But the lack of love is kind of different from that. You can feel from every corner, as the sum total of all the little design choices along the way, that the creator has not played much Dominion. I almost don't want to point at one aspect for fear of giving the illusion that there are only countably many ways of feeling that the creator has not played much Dominion, but clicking cards to put them back onto your deck one at a time is just not something anyone has ever done ever with the physical game. You might not feel that one is so bad. But there's like 999 details I could pick out, and 999 details you can pick out, and we might disagree about some of them, but I think anyone who plays physical Dominion a good bit then plays with this product would not be willing the take a 20$ bet on even money the designer played over 150 games.
The knowledge that the person writing the code has never broken and will never break past isotropic level 10 and possibly hates Dominion makes complaints about the product have an "us" versus "them" feel. Every flaw feels like negligent disregard instead of honest failures. The proportion of necessary features of design choices granted from the getgo makes it feel like the desire for a reasonable Dominion client must be foreign, alien, and bizarre to those tasked with providing one, and you feel like you have to explain yourself as a strange alien race, for the human developers certainly can't understand why we eat Helium sandwiches or why a preference on whether memorization is a core game mechanic or not is a big deal.
-
Stef brings up a very poignant point (I think that's what the word poignant means, I have only read it in books) about the developers' inexperience playing Dominion. The low overall quality is bad. But the lack of love is kind of different from that. You can feel from every corner, as the sum total of all the little design choices along the way, that the creator has not played much Dominion. I almost don't want to point at one aspect for fear of giving the illusion that there are only countably many ways of feeling that the creator has not played much Dominion, but clicking cards to put them back onto your deck one at a time is just not something anyone has ever done ever with the physical game. You might not feel that one is so bad. But there's like 999 details I could pick out, and 999 details you can pick out, and we might disagree about some of them, but I think anyone who plays physical Dominion a good bit then plays with this product would not be willing the take a 20$ bet on even money the designer played over 150 games.
The knowledge that the person writing the code has never broken and will never break past isotropic level 10 and possibly hates Dominion makes complaints about the product have an "us" versus "them" feel. Every flaw feels like negligent disregard instead of honest failures. The proportion of necessary features of design choices granted from the getgo makes it feel like the desire for a reasonable Dominion client must be foreign, alien, and bizarre to those tasked with providing one, and you feel like you have to explain yourself as a strange alien race, for the human developers certainly can't understand why we eat Helium sandwiches or why a preference on whether memorization is a core game mechanic or not is a big deal.
I would not go this far. Jeff, at least, seems to clearly be at least a competent Dominion player. As for clicking cards to put them back on top of your deck - how the hell else would you implement this? I seem to remember checkboxes on isotropic, but this has a rather different GUI.
-
I think a much more constructive approach is to point out that a good team could be Level 0 Iso players and code a great Dominion game, just by understanding player feedback and being good at their jobs. Obviously it's great if the designers love and are skilled at the game, but I honestly don't think that's necessary. Being a good programmer is the skill required to code a good Dominion game.
Every flaw feels like negligent disregard instead of honest failures. The proportion of necessary features of design choices granted from the getgo makes it feel like the desire for a reasonable Dominion client must be foreign, alien, and bizarre to those tasked with providing one, and you feel like you have to explain yourself as a strange alien race, for the human developers certainly can't understand why we eat Helium sandwiches or why a preference on whether memorization is a core game mechanic or not is a big deal.
-
Stef brings up a very poignant point (I think that's what the word poignant means, I have only read it in books) about the developers' inexperience playing Dominion. The low overall quality is bad. But the lack of love is kind of different from that. You can feel from every corner, as the sum total of all the little design choices along the way, that the creator has not played much Dominion. I almost don't want to point at one aspect for fear of giving the illusion that there are only countably many ways of feeling that the creator has not played much Dominion, but clicking cards to put them back onto your deck one at a time is just not something anyone has ever done ever with the physical game. You might not feel that one is so bad. But there's like 999 details I could pick out, and 999 details you can pick out, and we might disagree about some of them, but I think anyone who plays physical Dominion a good bit then plays with this product would not be willing the take a 20$ bet on even money the designer played over 150 games.
The knowledge that the person writing the code has never broken and will never break past isotropic level 10 and possibly hates Dominion makes complaints about the product have an "us" versus "them" feel. Every flaw feels like negligent disregard instead of honest failures. The proportion of necessary features of design choices granted from the getgo makes it feel like the desire for a reasonable Dominion client must be foreign, alien, and bizarre to those tasked with providing one, and you feel like you have to explain yourself as a strange alien race, for the human developers certainly can't understand why we eat Helium sandwiches or why a preference on whether memorization is a core game mechanic or not is a big deal.
I would not go this far. Jeff, at least, seems to clearly be at least a competent Dominion player. As for clicking cards to put them back on top of your deck - how the hell else would you implement this? I seem to remember checkboxes on isotropic, but this has a rather different GUI.
My understanding is that Jeff has touched about two lines of code, if that.
Isotropic had you drag the cards into an ordering, not use checkboxes. Dragging images works just as well as dragging words, if not better.
-
I think a much more constructive approach is to point out that a good team could be Level 0 Iso players and code a great Dominion game, just by understanding player feedback and being good at their jobs. Obviously it's great if the designers love and are skilled at the game, but I honestly don't think that's necessary. Being a good programmer is the skill required to code a good Dominion game.
Every flaw feels like negligent disregard instead of honest failures. The proportion of necessary features of design choices granted from the getgo makes it feel like the desire for a reasonable Dominion client must be foreign, alien, and bizarre to those tasked with providing one, and you feel like you have to explain yourself as a strange alien race, for the human developers certainly can't understand why we eat Helium sandwiches or why a preference on whether memorization is a core game mechanic or not is a big deal.
There's a phase of software development that was discussed in my college courses called "elicitation", where you talk with the client a lot, and find out things he expects from the experience that he didn't think he would have to tell you he expects from the experience. It's important for going beyond the base requirements you first get.
If they spent the right kind of time and effort in that phase getting all the details about what an experience playing online dominion should be like and actually taking it to heart, I agree it would be interchangeable with actually playing the game themselves. It would be the same stuff, second hand instead of firsthand. It doesn't seem they really went that route either though
-
Well I can agree with you there, for sure.
-
How about "with a big enough hand, I can't tell which cards are whicb, and can't click on them to find out?"
But I'm with Stef on this one. It's like going to a pizza place, hoping for a good deluxe pizza, but they tell you they only have cheese pizza, and when it comes to your table, it's lukewarm, unsliced, and made with barbecue sauce and cheddar cheese.
What you have is technically pizza, and will be filling and perhaps as nutritious as pizza normally is... but no one wants to eat it.
And then someone says "Man, I miss that old shack with the homemade pizza, the place looked like crap and was a hole in the wall, but damn the pizza was good."
Wait, Making Fun makes pizza now?
Yes, but you don't want to eat it.
-
My understanding is that most of us want less dragging, not more.
-
I think a much more constructive approach is to point out that a good team could be Level 0 Iso players and code a great Dominion game, just by understanding player feedback and being good at their jobs. Obviously it's great if the designers love and are skilled at the game, but I honestly don't think that's necessary. Being a good programmer is the skill required to code a good Dominion game.
Every flaw feels like negligent disregard instead of honest failures. The proportion of necessary features of design choices granted from the getgo makes it feel like the desire for a reasonable Dominion client must be foreign, alien, and bizarre to those tasked with providing one, and you feel like you have to explain yourself as a strange alien race, for the human developers certainly can't understand why we eat Helium sandwiches or why a preference on whether memorization is a core game mechanic or not is a big deal.
There's a phase of software development that was discussed in my college courses called "elicitation", where you talk with the client a lot, and find out things he expects from the experience that he didn't think he would have to tell you he expects from the experience. It's important for going beyond the base requirements you first get.
If they spent the right kind of time and effort in that phase getting all the details about what an experience playing online dominion should be like and actually taking it to heart, I agree it would be interchangeable with actually playing the game themselves. It would be the same stuff, second hand instead of firsthand. It doesn't seem they really went that route either though
Iso still has this kind of drag-and-drop-then-confirm interface for Innovation. It works well enough.
-
I think you quoted the wrong post, markusin.
I can't remember any use of drag and drop in Innovation, actually. What card causes it? Returning multiple cards happens one at a time instead of drag and drop, but it kinda has to so that the game can handle "Homer" correctly.
-
Besides all the other stuff, it seems like the program is still greedy regarding system ressources. On my new mid class notebook (new core i5, 8GB RAM) while streaming, my OBS told me that the CPU would be at 100%. And although I could still play and apparently the stream was working, I don't think that should be neccessary for this kind of game...
-
God, it is f'ing awful when you play a lot of cards, especially with scheme. You really can't see what's on the board. :( :(
And, many of the opponents play really slow. :( :(
-
I hadn't tried the MF client in ages so I gave it a try! I only played one game but it didn't use point counter even though I said I'd prefer it to be on. So I guess that is my vote then since otherwise it worked ok.
-
God, it is f'ing awful when you play a lot of cards, especially with scheme. You really can't see what's on the board. :( :(
And, many of the opponents play really slow. :( :(
So here's a real thing, and not just related to Scheme. If I click-and-hold on a card to do something (select it to play or for some other purpose), I should be able to return the card to its original place without it being selected (from on-play board like Scheme or from your hand). This is necessary because, (1) you may not be able to see the card (Scheme, big hand, etc.) so you need to click it to check what it is, (2) you might change your mind or suddenly realize you didn't want to do that, (3) you might have clicked the wrong thing by mistake.
Currently, if the card moved a small amount away from its original position, it gets selected, so there's a really small "move it back" area that is easy to miss.
-
I don't think I can really pick one thing. I don't play online Dominion; I haven't much since the Iso days. But the problems I had with Goko that made me not play it are all still around from what I've seen in the new one, along with some new ones:
1. Dragging. There's no excuse for having dragging cards around be a way to say where you want them to go.
2. Screen re-sizing and resolution stuff. Ok so we had this discussion before; some people like full-screen. Well my play style, and general computer usage style, doesn't work with what they offer. I want to be able to drag the corner of my window to change the size of the window, like you can with pretty much every other window that runs under Windows! I don't want to go to the settings and pick a specific size that I'm then stuck using until I'm not in a game.
3. Reconnecting. Even a good program would crash sometimes. There's no reason whatsoever for any server-based implementation of a game to not automatically reconnect you if your computer reboots or your app crashes. Obviously with some sort of timeout. Ok, so my Temporum client doesn't have anything like this. Because it's 100% client-side. But the server-side version that I was working on with someone else? It reconnected you. Without any extra effort in making it do so; it just worked.
4. General slowness. This applies to the speed to start a game, play a game, etc. In Iso you could find, start, and finish a 2 player game extremely quickly. On a powerful board with a strong engine, it could be less than 5 minutes. On the new version, it just takes way too long to play a single game. This is partly due to the matchmaking system, partly due to load times, partly due to animations and such.
I'm sure there's more, but those are the big ones for me.
-
God, it is f'ing awful when you play a lot of cards, especially with scheme. You really can't see what's on the board. :( :(
And, many of the opponents play really slow. :( :(
So here's a real thing, and not just related to Scheme. If I click-and-hold on a card to do something (select it to play or for some other purpose), I should be able to return the card to its original place without it being selected (from on-play board like Scheme or from your hand). This is necessary because, (1) you may not be able to see the card (Scheme, big hand, etc.) so you need to click it to check what it is, (2) you might change your mind or suddenly realize you didn't want to do that, (3) you might have clicked the wrong thing by mistake.
Currently, if the card moved a small amount away from its original position, it gets selected, so there's a really small "move it back" area that is easy to miss.
Actually I should probably just report this Scheme/selection issue on their forums. It's not really "the main problem" but rather just something I noticed that could be improved.
-
4. General slowness. This applies to the speed to start a game, play a game, etc. In Iso you could find, start, and finish a 2 player game extremely quickly. On a powerful board with a strong engine, it could be less than 5 minutes. On the new version, it just takes way too long to play a single game. This is partly due to the matchmaking system, partly due to load times, partly due to animations and such.
I'm sure there's more, but those are the big ones for me.
This was probably my most major bone of contention in the early days. Even if I could find a match quickly, it might take ten or twenty minutes to play through even a simple engine game. I found it far, far too slow, to the point where half a dozen other similar games offered a more engaging experience, albeit of not such a good game. From watching streams and dropping in for the odd guest game, this hasn't improved enough to make it worth my time.
The other major thing that's missing is security concerns. I've seen enough that worries me both from Goko and from FunSockets and from Making Fun in respect to security that I don't really trust them with a name and password, let alone any form of payment details. That may be irrational and paranoid, but it's a fairly major player in my decisionmaking.
The whol idea that they had to maintain feature parity with Goko was also a MAJOR turnoff when the programmers changed. Goko's features were pretty much the antithesis of what I wanted out of an online version of Dominion, and it was just painful to watch people gamely struggling to replicate such IMO awful design.
-
Having had the chance to play on Isotropic again after playing on Goko, I have to say that it took me longer to get through a game on Iso. This is mostly because I had to go through the logs to figure out what my opponent's turn looked like, since the counters weren't updated. Other than that, yeah if I was playing solitaire games by myself without thinking too much then I could get it done quicker, yes.
But the main reason my games in particular have gotten longer is because one of the things that's helped me get better at Dominion is knowing when to stop and think about how you can play your turns better, or buy the right cards. My clicks per second has a higher peak on a minimal interface, but other than that, I don't think the design of the client is to be blamed for "general slowness."
Lag is something totally different, being held up by animations is yet another thing, but those aren't "general slowness". It's very easy to just assume that RAWR THIS IS TOO SLOW FOR ME BLAME GOKO, but I really don't think that's constructive or even correct.
-
Yeah, I don't really see slowness as an issue anymore on Making Fun's version. With a fast opponent, we can easily knock out a game in 5 to 10 minutes, and that's with my animation speed slider in the middle. Sometimes I'll be up against a really slow opponent, but that's always a risk and I really don't mind it. For those that do mind it, hopefully it'll be less of an issue once ratings stabilize and/or the matchmaking gets fixed.
-
I get lag in between villages sometimes, seems to be latency.
-
Yeah, I don't really see slowness as an issue anymore on Making Fun's version. With a fast opponent, we can easily knock out a game in 5 to 10 minutes, and that's with my animation speed slider in the middle. Sometimes I'll be up against a really slow opponent, but that's always a risk and I really don't mind it. For those that do mind it, hopefully it'll be less of an issue once ratings stabilize and/or the matchmaking gets fixed.
It's still ridiculously slow to watch a Bot resolve Hunting Party at maximal speed. I really don't need to see all the revealed cards every time.
Edit: Or Golem. I mean, I just don't want to see my opponents deck flop out in front of me *every* turn.
Also, selecting cards for Scheme. I just don't need to see those. Many times I can't do anything strategically about it, and when I need to, that's why there is a log.
-
Yeah, I don't really see slowness as an issue anymore on Making Fun's version. With a fast opponent, we can easily knock out a game in 5 to 10 minutes, and that's with my animation speed slider in the middle. Sometimes I'll be up against a really slow opponent, but that's always a risk and I really don't mind it. For those that do mind it, hopefully it'll be less of an issue once ratings stabilize and/or the matchmaking gets fixed.
It's still ridiculously slow to watch a Bot resolve Hunting Party at maximal speed. I really don't need to see all the revealed cards every time.
It's no worse than Goko, though. Like, it used to be awful, but now it's not awful? That's how I see it anyway.
-
It's worse than Goko because it's.. choppier? Laggier? I mean, it was bad on Goko, and it's bad, and a little bit worse on maximum speed, here.
-
It's worse than Goko because it's.. choppier? Laggier? I mean, it was bad on Goko, and it's bad, and a little bit worse on maximum speed, here.
I guess I can't tell the difference on medium speed. I'm willing to believe it's worse on the fastest setting.
-
It's still ridiculously slow to watch a Bot resolve Hunting Party at maximal speed. I really don't need to see all the revealed cards every time.
Edit: Or Golem. I mean, I just don't want to see my opponents deck flop out in front of me *every* turn.
I'm going to stream now to demonstrate the speed patch and how gameplay looks like without those silly reveal animations.
-
I think you quoted the wrong post, markusin.
I can't remember any use of drag and drop in Innovation, actually. What card causes it? Returning multiple cards happens one at a time instead of drag and drop, but it kinda has to so that the game can handle "Homer" correctly.
Oh jeez uh yeah I must have quoted the wrong post. It must have been Iso Dominion that had the drag-and-drop interface for some cards then.
-
It's still ridiculously slow to watch a Bot resolve Hunting Party at maximal speed. I really don't need to see all the revealed cards every time.
Edit: Or Golem. I mean, I just don't want to see my opponents deck flop out in front of me *every* turn.
I'm going to stream now to demonstrate the speed patch and how gameplay looks like without those silly reveal animations.
It looks much, much better.
-
I think you quoted the wrong post, markusin.
I can't remember any use of drag and drop in Innovation, actually. What card causes it? Returning multiple cards happens one at a time instead of drag and drop, but it kinda has to so that the game can handle "Homer" correctly.
Oh jeez uh yeah I must have quoted the wrong post. It must have been Iso Dominion that had the drag-and-drop interface for some cards then.
Iso had drag-and-drop for Stash. I think that's all. You could play Iso on mobile devices, and the fact that the devices didn't support drag-and-drop on the Web was not too big an impediment.
I think when choosing an order of cards on your deck, you would click on the cards, it would give them numbers in order, and you'd confirm. Something like that could be done in a more graphical way: have the cards move into a staging area -- ideally one where the top and not-so-top of your deck are visually clear -- then confirm.
Drag and drop should also be available because people will intuitively do that, and because it would be the convenient way to rearrange the order before confirming. But choosing an order by clicking should be the priority.
(Why am I not addressing this to Making Fun? Because it wouldn't help anything and I'm probably not playing Making Fun for a good long time. This is more of a theoretical design.)
-
Yeah, I don't really see slowness as an issue anymore on Making Fun's version. With a fast opponent, we can easily knock out a game in 5 to 10 minutes, and that's with my animation speed slider in the middle. Sometimes I'll be up against a really slow opponent, but that's always a risk and I really don't mind it. For those that do mind it, hopefully it'll be less of an issue once ratings stabilize and/or the matchmaking gets fixed.
It's still ridiculously slow to watch a Bot resolve Hunting Party at maximal speed. I really don't need to see all the revealed cards every time.
Edit: Or Golem. I mean, I just don't want to see my opponents deck flop out in front of me *every* turn.
Also, selecting cards for Scheme. I just don't need to see those. Many times I can't do anything strategically about it, and when I need to, that's why there is a log.
Can you be more specific about what you don't like about this animation? What version of the software are you using? What animation setting? I suppose a video is too much to ask?
-
Yeah, I don't really see slowness as an issue anymore on Making Fun's version. With a fast opponent, we can easily knock out a game in 5 to 10 minutes, and that's with my animation speed slider in the middle. Sometimes I'll be up against a really slow opponent, but that's always a risk and I really don't mind it. For those that do mind it, hopefully it'll be less of an issue once ratings stabilize and/or the matchmaking gets fixed.
It's still ridiculously slow to watch a Bot resolve Hunting Party at maximal speed. I really don't need to see all the revealed cards every time.
Edit: Or Golem. I mean, I just don't want to see my opponents deck flop out in front of me *every* turn.
Also, selecting cards for Scheme. I just don't need to see those. Many times I can't do anything strategically about it, and when I need to, that's why there is a log.
Can you be more specific about what you don't like about this animation? What version of the software are you using? What animation setting? I suppose a video is too much to ask?
I don't like that I see the cards my opponent reveals with Hunting Party, Golem, etc., or chooses with, e.g., Scheme. They pop up in the "reveal" space and it pauses the entire game while I see a bunch of (in many cases, not useful) information. I should be able to request this information if I want it, not have to sit through the process.
This is at the highest animation speed with minimal visual effects.
-
Yeah, I don't really see slowness as an issue anymore on Making Fun's version. With a fast opponent, we can easily knock out a game in 5 to 10 minutes, and that's with my animation speed slider in the middle. Sometimes I'll be up against a really slow opponent, but that's always a risk and I really don't mind it. For those that do mind it, hopefully it'll be less of an issue once ratings stabilize and/or the matchmaking gets fixed.
It's still ridiculously slow to watch a Bot resolve Hunting Party at maximal speed. I really don't need to see all the revealed cards every time.
Edit: Or Golem. I mean, I just don't want to see my opponents deck flop out in front of me *every* turn.
Also, selecting cards for Scheme. I just don't need to see those. Many times I can't do anything strategically about it, and when I need to, that's why there is a log.
Can you be more specific about what you don't like about this animation? What version of the software are you using? What animation setting? I suppose a video is too much to ask?
I don't like that I see the cards my opponent reveals with Hunting Party, Golem, etc., or chooses with, e.g., Scheme. They pop up in the "reveal" space and it pauses the entire game while I see a bunch of (in many cases, not useful) information. I should be able to request this information if I want it, not have to sit through the process.
This is at the highest animation speed with minimal visual effects.
See, I get that these reveals slow down gameplay, but to me, they're relevant information. I want to know what cards HP and Golem skipped, and I'd prefer to see it fly in front of my face, rather than have to glance over at the log.
-
Yeah, I don't really see slowness as an issue anymore on Making Fun's version. With a fast opponent, we can easily knock out a game in 5 to 10 minutes, and that's with my animation speed slider in the middle. Sometimes I'll be up against a really slow opponent, but that's always a risk and I really don't mind it. For those that do mind it, hopefully it'll be less of an issue once ratings stabilize and/or the matchmaking gets fixed.
It's still ridiculously slow to watch a Bot resolve Hunting Party at maximal speed. I really don't need to see all the revealed cards every time.
Edit: Or Golem. I mean, I just don't want to see my opponents deck flop out in front of me *every* turn.
Also, selecting cards for Scheme. I just don't need to see those. Many times I can't do anything strategically about it, and when I need to, that's why there is a log.
Can you be more specific about what you don't like about this animation? What version of the software are you using? What animation setting? I suppose a video is too much to ask?
I don't like that I see the cards my opponent reveals with Hunting Party, Golem, etc., or chooses with, e.g., Scheme. They pop up in the "reveal" space and it pauses the entire game while I see a bunch of (in many cases, not useful) information. I should be able to request this information if I want it, not have to sit through the process.
This is at the highest animation speed with minimal visual effects.
See, I get that these reveals slow down gameplay, but to me, they're relevant information. I want to know what cards HP and Golem skipped, and I'd prefer to see it fly in front of my face, rather than have to glance over at the log.
Well, I'd say make it optional. I agree that sometimes you want to know, definitely. But I think many cases you can't actually do much with this information. Maybe you always want to know anyway, so make it a setting.
-
The main problem for me is that I can't get the damn thing to run. I downloaded the new client yesterday and it won't stop segfaulting when starting up. Has anyone been able to get it running on Linux?
-
Well, I'd say make it optional. I agree that sometimes you want to know, definitely. But I think many cases you can't actually do much with this information. Maybe you always want to know anyway, so make it a setting.
I happened to have just requested (http://forum.makingfun.com/showthread.php?7977-Small-Bug-Feature-Requests&p=41084&viewfull=1#post41084) exactly this.
The main problem for me is that I can't get the damn thing to run. I downloaded the new client yesterday and it won't stop segfaulting when starting up. Has anyone been able to get it running on Linux?
yed is running it in Linux, at least the previous version, not sure about the current one.
-
I don't like that I see the cards my opponent reveals with Hunting Party, Golem, etc., or chooses with, e.g., Scheme. They pop up in the "reveal" space and it pauses the entire game while I see a bunch of (in many cases, not useful) information. I should be able to request this information if I want it, not have to sit through the process.
This is at the highest animation speed with minimal visual effects.
So you're saying at the highest speed it's still too slow for you? I was under the impression that putting it on the highest speed was effectively skipping it (like the "very fast" animations on Goko). I will take a closer look tonight with a timer but you're much more likely to get it so that the highest speed is super-fast than otherwise.
If I can understand precisely what you want (maybe I already can but I won't be able to dig into this until tomorrow), I know the developers are actively seeking that feedback from me.
On an unrelated note, it's probably time to cash in on the value of this poll: it wouldn't surprise me if MF prioritized the number one answer of this poll (and then once it's fixed we make another poll, or tell them about second place?) which is currently that we can't get matchups that we like.
What do we know about the MF rating system? Have we figured out if this is a problem with the rating system and/or the matchmaking system? The feedback as I understand it is "the people I'm playing with are n00bs. Look at all of these n00b plays! LOL!" and that's not exactly something we can go to MF with and have them know what to do. Are we able to see the ratings of these people (and ourselves) that are used in the calculations?
If we can zero in on what the problem here is, it's much more likely to get better in the near future.
-
I don't like that I see the cards my opponent reveals with Hunting Party, Golem, etc., or chooses with, e.g., Scheme. They pop up in the "reveal" space and it pauses the entire game while I see a bunch of (in many cases, not useful) information. I should be able to request this information if I want it, not have to sit through the process.
This is at the highest animation speed with minimal visual effects.
So you're saying at the highest speed it's still too slow for you? I was under the impression that putting it on the highest speed was effectively skipping it (like the "very fast" animations on Goko). I will take a closer look tonight with a timer but you're much more likely to get it so that the highest speed is super-fast than otherwise.
If I can understand precisely what you want (maybe I already can but I won't be able to dig into this until tomorrow), I know the developers are actively seeking that feedback from me.
On an unrelated note, it's probably time to cash in on the value of this poll: it wouldn't surprise me if MF prioritized the number one answer of this poll (and then once it's fixed we make another poll, or tell them about second place?) which is currently that we can't get matchups that we like.
What do we know about the MF rating system? Have we figured out if this is a problem with the rating system and/or the matchmaking system? The feedback as I understand it is "the people I'm playing with are n00bs. Look at all of these n00b plays! LOL!" and that's not exactly something we can go to MF with and have them know what to do. Are we able to see the ratings of these people (and ourselves) that are used in the calculations?
If we can zero in on what the problem here is, it's much more likely to get better in the near future.
I can give my impression but I may be wrong.
In this version, I dont think you can actually see your MF rating anywhere? So you get matched with someone the computer thinks is at your skill level but you dont actually know what their rating is compared to yours and it goes straight to the game without giving you a choice to accept or decline the match.
Trying to challenge a player you know is complicated by the fact that there is no way to tell who is currently online. Any number of things could help here: a friends list that shows if friends are on, a comprehensive list of all players online, even a challenge room where you can go to make yourself available to being challenged.
No one really seems to know what it means when you select the option to only play people with 1000 or less below your rating but it doesn't seem to mean all that much. That option should be adjustable so that you can control who you end up playing on seek mode more finely.
Edit: my experience is limited to a few dozen games on the web alpha so others may have more experience with this than me.
-
I don't like that I see the cards my opponent reveals with Hunting Party, Golem, etc., or chooses with, e.g., Scheme. They pop up in the "reveal" space and it pauses the entire game while I see a bunch of (in many cases, not useful) information. I should be able to request this information if I want it, not have to sit through the process.
This is at the highest animation speed with minimal visual effects.
So you're saying at the highest speed it's still too slow for you? I was under the impression that putting it on the highest speed was effectively skipping it (like the "very fast" animations on Goko). I will take a closer look tonight with a timer but you're much more likely to get it so that the highest speed is super-fast than otherwise.
If I can understand precisely what you want (maybe I already can but I won't be able to dig into this until tomorrow), I know the developers are actively seeking that feedback from me.
On an unrelated note, it's probably time to cash in on the value of this poll: it wouldn't surprise me if MF prioritized the number one answer of this poll (and then once it's fixed we make another poll, or tell them about second place?) which is currently that we can't get matchups that we like.
What do we know about the MF rating system? Have we figured out if this is a problem with the rating system and/or the matchmaking system? The feedback as I understand it is "the people I'm playing with are n00bs. Look at all of these n00b plays! LOL!" and that's not exactly something we can go to MF with and have them know what to do. Are we able to see the ratings of these people (and ourselves) that are used in the calculations?
If we can zero in on what the problem here is, it's much more likely to get better in the near future.
I don't know why I'm telling you this, but...
Andrew wrote some (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10869.0) excellent posts (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10884.0) about the goko rating system and what's wrong with it. It bottles down to the fact that they have the basics right but with some very badly tuned parameters.
The main mistake in tuning their parameters is that the decay is way too high.
The other major mistakes they make are a) claiming it's very complicated instead of just explaining it and b) including bot games.
I'm sure that if MF is actually interested in doing it right they can get the exact parameters isotropish is using completely for free.
-
I don't like that I see the cards my opponent reveals with Hunting Party, Golem, etc., or chooses with, e.g., Scheme. They pop up in the "reveal" space and it pauses the entire game while I see a bunch of (in many cases, not useful) information. I should be able to request this information if I want it, not have to sit through the process.
This is at the highest animation speed with minimal visual effects.
So you're saying at the highest speed it's still too slow for you? I was under the impression that putting it on the highest speed was effectively skipping it (like the "very fast" animations on Goko). I will take a closer look tonight with a timer but you're much more likely to get it so that the highest speed is super-fast than otherwise.
It's too slow because it's, like, choppy pauses. Just try* (playing against a bot) with Hunting Party, Golem and look at all the animation you simply don't need. I mean there is the argument that you want that information, but if you do you probably aren't playing on fastest speed anyway. On fastest speed, it's just visual noise and actually slowing things down.
If I can understand precisely what you want (maybe I already can but I won't be able to dig into this until tomorrow), I know the developers are actively seeking that feedback from me.
SCSN's post pretty much nailed it.
*Edit: Try at maximal speed.
-
I doubt that they are just copying the goko ratings and that some minor flaw they have is causing the phenomenon. It took me way fewer games to reach 5000 on Goko than it did on MF, and I presume that's because I'm not gaining many rating points when the system is matching me up against 3K rated players.
I dunno, then again, wackness intensity of Goko's ratings is pretty high, I went from like 4100 to 5300 or something ridiculous like that losing a tournament set to Mic after a hiatus.
-
On an unrelated note, it's probably time to cash in on the value of this poll: it wouldn't surprise me if MF prioritized the number one answer of this poll (and then once it's fixed we make another poll, or tell them about second place?) which is currently that we can't get matchups that we like.
What do we know about the MF rating system? Have we figured out if this is a problem with the rating system and/or the matchmaking system? The feedback as I understand it is "the people I'm playing with are n00bs. Look at all of these n00b plays! LOL!" and that's not exactly something we can go to MF with and have them know what to do. Are we able to see the ratings of these people (and ourselves) that are used in the calculations?
If we can zero in on what the problem here is, it's much more likely to get better in the near future.
From what I understand the rating system is pretty much the same as Goko's. People are getting "paired with n00bs" because of 2 reasons:
1. They had their ratings dropped because MF ported the ratings over a long time ago and everyone degraded. Therefore right now the ratings are comparable with n00bs. This will fix itself with some time.
2. The options to choose a game are severely limited.
We all know there are problems with the rating system (as Stef posted) and that is why many at f.ds prefer Isotropish ratings. However, right now the only option to preselect your opponent by rating is to restrict by 1000 points below your current rating. This is far too big of a margin, in that I think there is a huge difference between a 3000 and a 4000 level player even if things sort themselves out (not sure how this scales when you get to 5000 and 6000 as I am usually in the low 4000 level).
So what MF can do is make a better matching system with more options. Why not just manually allow people to select their restrictions. Instead of 1000 below being the only option, just let them insert a lower and upper limit if they choose? Then the seeking can wait until someone in that range is seeking a game with their own range including the next player.
Also instead of "Prefer VP Counters" just say "VP counter on" "VP counter off" and "No preference".
If options like this existed I think most of the issues of finding proper matches would go away.
Finally, there has to be a way to see who is online. Maybe someone you had a great game with is online and you want to challenge them, I can't imagine why they make all of that invisible.
TLDR - Bulletpointed requests that will fix matching
- Allow users to put in a range of ratings they will allow in their seeked games rather than just "above 1000 below my rating"
- Switch "Prefer VP Counters" to "VP on", "VP off" and "No Preference"
- Have a list of current players online (those in a game and those not in a game, and with their ranking) so challenging players who are friends or look like good opponents is easier
- (They won't go for this but we can dream) - Use Isotropish ratings additionally and allow people to demand level from there
- Before starting a game allow the user to accept the game and see the opponent and their rating (this may muck things up, but it may help as well.)
-
We don't have any idea if the rating restriction is working at all because you can't see the ratings of both players (unless you read through the leaderboard for your opponent). Many people believe the restrictions aren't working properly. But we can't demonstrate it or give any more information about the problem other than "we're getting matched with really bad players" because the client isn't giving anybody more information to pin down the problem.
-
If it's helpful, another way to phrase the problem, is "players are stablizing at winrates that are very far from 50% while using the matchmaker"
-
We don't have any idea if the rating restriction is working at all because you can't see the ratings of both players (unless you read through the leaderboard for your opponent). Many people believe the restrictions aren't working properly. But we can't demonstrate it or give any more information about the problem other than "we're getting matched with really bad players" because the client isn't giving anybody more information to pin down the problem.
This is part of what I was trying to get at with my post. Since Mic is a high level player I'm completely willing to let him get all of the upvotes for pointing this out, but the matter stands that this is probably the biggest issue-within-the-issue right now.
-
This may seem like a stupid question, but does anyone else occasionally wonder if their opponent is a bot or a human? Let's say you check the wrong box during matchmaking, is there any way to definitively know during your match that your opponent is human or AI?
(I await your Turing test jokes)
-
This may seem like a stupid question, but does anyone else occasionally wonder if their opponent is a bot or a human? Let's say you check the wrong box during matchmaking, is there any way to definitively know during your match that your opponent is human or AI?
(I await your Turing test jokes)
Check the log after Turn 1. Bots have "Bot" at the end of their name.
-
This may seem like a stupid question, but does anyone else occasionally wonder if their opponent is a bot or a human? Let's say you check the wrong box during matchmaking, is there any way to definitively know during your match that your opponent is human or AI?
(I await your Turing test jokes)
Check the log after Turn 1. Bots have "Bot" at the end of their name.
That's easy. Thanks!
-
This may seem like a stupid question, but does anyone else occasionally wonder if their opponent is a bot or a human? Let's say you check the wrong box during matchmaking, is there any way to definitively know during your match that your opponent is human or AI?
(I await your Turing test jokes)
Check the log after Turn 1. Bots have "Bot" at the end of their name.
I'm creating an alt account called "Ymyosl Bot"
-
This may seem like a stupid question, but does anyone else occasionally wonder if their opponent is a bot or a human? Let's say you check the wrong box during matchmaking, is there any way to definitively know during your match that your opponent is human or AI?
(I await your Turing test jokes)
Check the log after Turn 1. Bots have "Bot" at the end of their name.
I'm creating an alt account called "Ymyosl Bot"
Do it. Dooooooo it.
-
I think that partly this thread has become yet another thread about how bad everything is, and with some bad feelings, which we have enought of anyway, and certainly wasn't my intention. I thought it would be interesting to see what the main obstacles are for people using Playdominion now, partly to see if I my own feelings about this were substantiated by others, and partly because the results could be interesting nevertheless, maybe to set priorities.
This is of course only priorities from us, and not from players at large. I think it might be too easy to forget that people here aren't typical players, and that Makingfun now probably have their hands full with customer support for more typical customers, now that Goko is no more. (There were lots of players there the last days.)
Looking at the poll after 80 has answered it we can see that some have problems using it at all, but that is not the case for most respondents. Most of us can use it, and the main complaint is not anything in the gameplay as such, but in what kind of games we are getting into.
Most votes are for not getting "suitable" opponents with the matchmaking, and in the comments (and in other threads) it is seen that this is about good players who think it is beneath them to have to play with beginners, and there have been several examples of exactly how stupid moves their opponents have made. I feel more for the beginners who have had to play against condescending experts, but they are mostly not on this forum. What can be done? The rating system can get better; there can be better settings about who you want to play; ratings can be more visible so experts who haven't reached their true rating yet can see that and how it changes.
Second most votes is about my problem, which I hoped would be number one, in a nice poll which I could then show to Making Fun, "see, it's actually very easy to fix that which bugs most of those forum people". Now it's not really so, but still I'm certainly now alone.
Please make it possible for me to play only with point counter! My main complaint with Goko Salvager was that I couldn't activate automatch together with setting up my own #vpon table, because then I could be transported off from my nice table to a dreaded #vpoff table. With Playdominion it's much worse. Now I actually have to play vpoff fairly often, often probably against people who don't care about the setting, but there is no way to say that. OK, so it's not the number one on the poll, but it is still high up and easy to do something about.
The common theme of these top complaints is that we are forced to play games we don't want to play (or resign). That is actually a general problem, and I think it's unfortunate that Playdominion just starts an automatch game instead of asking searchers if that's what they want to play. I don't think the system has to know why I want to play some people and not some. Just note my wishes (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12862.msg476800#msg476800) and don't immediately make me play the same person again. This now happens on Makingfun a lot. After a game someone proposes a rematch. You answer No for whatever reason and then try to get a new game, and get paired with the very person you just said No to.
I can certainly think of other things I would prefer differently, but I think that top priority should be to not "force" us into games we don't want to play with changes as suggested above, of which one of the most important and the easiest one to implement is to extend point counter settings to on/off/don't-care with the last one being the default.
-
I think this is as good a place as any to chime in and say I've just recently installed the latest client on both my Windows laptop and my Mac and I'm very happy with the current product.
This is the first time since the early, early days of Goko that I've played Dominion online against human opponents.
This is also the first time I've felt like financially supporting this product. I bought my first expansion last night. A few months ago that's not something I would've considered.
-
in the comments (and in other threads) it is seen that this is about good players who think it is beneath them to have to play with beginners, and there have been several examples of exactly how stupid moves their opponents have made. I feel more for the beginners who have had to play against condescending experts
The only thing condescending here is this text of yours. Not liking to play against poor players has nothing to do with thinking it's "beneath us" or some such nonsense, it's just not much fun for anyone if there is a big skill gap in every single game you play.
I don't see why you think poor players are beginners either; most players just plateau at a fairly low level because they don't care about improving their game.
-
Most votes are for not getting "suitable" opponents with the matchmaking, and in the comments (and in other threads) it is seen that this is about good players who think it is beneath them to have to play with beginners, and there have been several examples of exactly how stupid moves their opponents have made. I feel more for the beginners who have had to play against condescending experts, but they are mostly not on this forum.
I wouldn't really say that it's beneath me to have to play with beginners. I play against beginners when they're my friends that I want to introduce to the game, or friends that have already been introduced to Dominion but aren't very good at it. I would play against a random newbie who asked me to help him get better at the game or something like that, too, it just basically never happens. And I super don't think that a lot of other good players think of new players as some sort of lower lifeforms not worthy of their time either; for example, players like Ela and Hugo have pretty much always had pro players watching their streams and giving them advice even back when they were a lot newer than they are now, usually people get replies when they post their games in the Help forum, etc. That's not exactly what I would call condescending.
However, it really is super not fun to get matched against a random newbie on MF. It takes the fun out of the game when the answer to every difficult decision I have to make is "it doesn't matter, I'm going to win anyway". I personally only care about winning or losing during the game and stop caring as soon as the game is over, but I can also see how it's far less rewarding to win easy games for the people that do care, and losing games where shuffle luck plays an enormous role in your loss is something from which you're going to have a hard time learning anything.
-
in the comments (and in other threads) it is seen that this is about good players who think it is beneath them to have to play with beginners, and there have been several examples of exactly how stupid moves their opponents have made. I feel more for the beginners who have had to play against condescending experts
The only thing condescending here is this text of yours. Not liking to play against poor players has nothing to do with thinking it's "beneath us" or some such nonsense, it's just not much fun for anyone if there is a big skill gap in every single game you play.
I'm gonna disagree with SCSN here (big shock, I know). I don't see anything condescending about what pst said.
I also think that threads where the top players are making fun of the plays their opponents are making comes off pretty poorly. It makes them/us look elitist and I don't think that's what is intended.
-
I haven't used the new client much but the main problem seems to be that they have taken the existing interface and are fixing problems incrementally, rather than designing a better interface that intrinsically solves the problems. It will be worse from a maintenance point of view as well and they will pay the costs later. I don't know if it is true that they outsourced the coding to another company but if they did it seems a mistake not to have their own designer in charge of the UI with clear ideas for usability. As an example - I find myself trying to remember the cards as I draw them since I'll be unable to read their names later once the hand gets large - that's a problem created by people who don't actually understand playing the game.
-
in the comments (and in other threads) it is seen that this is about good players who think it is beneath them to have to play with beginners, and there have been several examples of exactly how stupid moves their opponents have made. I feel more for the beginners who have had to play against condescending experts
The only thing condescending here is this text of yours. Not liking to play against poor players has nothing to do with thinking it's "beneath us" or some such nonsense, it's just not much fun for anyone if there is a big skill gap in every single game you play.
I'm gonna disagree with SCSN here (big shock, I know). I don't see anything condescending about what pst said.
I also think that threads where the top players are making fun of the plays their opponents are making comes off pretty poorly. It makes them/us look elitist and I don't think that's what is intended.
I think you're really misreading our intent when we make threads like that. The issue isn't that the opponent bought a turn 1 Spy. It's not trivially super obvious why turn 1 Spy is bad for a player who is new to Dominion. The butt of the joke is the matchmaking that put a iso 25+ player into the same game as that when they checked "compatible rating".
If we were trying to shame people we would quote the username of the player involved.
-
in the comments (and in other threads) it is seen that this is about good players who think it is beneath them to have to play with beginners, and there have been several examples of exactly how stupid moves their opponents have made. I feel more for the beginners who have had to play against condescending experts
The only thing condescending here is this text of yours. Not liking to play against poor players has nothing to do with thinking it's "beneath us" or some such nonsense, it's just not much fun for anyone if there is a big skill gap in every single game you play.
I'm gonna disagree with SCSN here (big shock, I know). I don't see anything condescending about what pst said.
I also think that threads where the top players are making fun of the plays their opponents are making comes off pretty poorly. It makes them/us look elitist and I don't think that's what is intended.
I think you're really misreading our intent when we make threads like that. The issue isn't that the opponent bought a turn 1 Spy. It's not trivially super obvious why turn 1 Spy is bad for a player who is new to Dominion. The butt of the joke is the matchmaking that put a iso 25+ player into the same game as that when they checked "compatible rating".
If we were trying to shame people we would quote the username of the player involved.
I don't think I'm misunderstanding the intent at all. I think many people are unaware of how it can come across, which was the whole point of my post.
-
Oooh
-
players like Ela and Hugo have pretty much always had pro players watching their streams
More hearts in these threads:
<3 <3 <3
-
in the comments (and in other threads) it is seen that this is about good players who think it is beneath them to have to play with beginners, and there have been several examples of exactly how stupid moves their opponents have made. I feel more for the beginners who have had to play against condescending experts
The only thing condescending here is this text of yours. Not liking to play against poor players has nothing to do with thinking it's "beneath us" or some such nonsense, it's just not much fun for anyone if there is a big skill gap in every single game you play.
I'm gonna disagree with SCSN here (big shock, I know). I don't see anything condescending about what pst said.
I also think that threads where the top players are making fun of the plays their opponents are making comes off pretty poorly. It makes them/us look elitist and I don't think that's what is intended.
I think you're really misreading our intent when we make threads like that. The issue isn't that the opponent bought a turn 1 Spy. It's not trivially super obvious why turn 1 Spy is bad for a player who is new to Dominion. The butt of the joke is the matchmaking that put a iso 25+ player into the same game as that when they checked "compatible rating".
If we were trying to shame people we would quote the username of the player involved.
I don't think I'm misunderstanding the intent at all. I think many people are unaware of how it can come across, which was the whole point of my post.
Agreed with you here. The thing is, to make the point of "matching against similar ranked opponents doesn't seem to be working correctly", one could easy simply say that based on the stuff they've seen their opponent do, they're pretty sure it's not working right. There's no reason here to mention any of the specific bad moves they are making. While I'm sure that the intent wasn't negative or elitist; it could easily be read that way.
-
I really don't see how "I know matchmaking is awful because my opponent played awfully last game I matched up" and "I know matchmaking is awful because my opponent opened Scout, which is awful, last game I matched up" have different levels of toxicity. But I'm open to hearing an explanation that convinces me there's a difference.
-
I really don't see how "I know matchmaking is awful because my opponent played awfully last game I matched up" and "I know matchmaking is awful because my opponent opened Scout, which is awful, last game I matched up" have different levels of toxicity. But I'm open to hearing an explanation that convinces me there's a difference.
Basically, to someone who doesn't know your intentions already, the latter can sound like it's making fun of the opponent, the former less so. At least I'd imagine it would come across that way to the person who is being talked about if he/she were to read it.
-
In activities (games, sports, even something academic, whatever), I think "bad" and "inexperienced" should be treated differently. Yes, if you are inexperienced you are "bad" compared to someone else with experience and skill, but not necessarily "bad" compared with the level you should be at if you were experienced. I think of "bad" as more of a case where your skill level is low but your exposure time is high. Like you've been playing for years but haven't improved past the stage of making basic mistakes; i.e., you haven't learned anything. Inexperienced just means you may still yet improve, but you haven't had the time/exposure to get to a higher level.
Now I know it's a bit of an issue of not hurting feelings and people shouldn't be so sensitive, but, hey, being told you suck sucks. It can discourage people that have the potential to become good from becoming good. Some people, though, may have a thick skin and realize that they only suck because they don't know enough and resolve to improve. Others may just get discouraged and quit.
It's probably not a big step to just use different language for this. Just saying "beginner" or "inexperienced" instead of "bad" or "awful" is an improvement, I think.* In my experience, non-native English speakers (and specifically European) tend to be more blunt with these kinds of criticisms. I'm not certain if it's because of different nuances in connotation of the words or because it's more of a cultural norm.
*Though when someone begins to act superior and condescending to others without the skill to back it up, then all politesse is off and they are, indeed, bad :)
-
In activities (games, sports, even something academic, whatever), I think "bad" and "inexperienced" should be treated differently. Yes, if you are inexperienced you are "bad" compared to someone else with experience and skill, but not necessarily "bad" compared with the level you should be at if you were experienced. I think of "bad" as more of a case where your skill level is low but your exposure time is high. Like you've been playing for years but haven't improved past the stage of making basic mistakes; i.e., you haven't learned anything. Inexperienced just means you may still yet improve, but you haven't had the time/exposure to get to a higher level.
Now I know it's a bit of an issue of not hurting feelings and people shouldn't be so sensitive, but, hey, being told you suck sucks. It can discourage people that have the potential to become good from becoming good. Some people, though, may have a thick skin and realize that they only suck because they don't know enough and resolve to improve. Others may just get discouraged and quit.
It's probably not a big step to just use different language for this. Just saying "beginner" or "inexperienced" instead of "bad" or "awful" is an improvement, I think.* In my experience, non-native English speakers (and specifically European) tend to be more blunt with these kinds of criticisms. I'm not certain if it's because of different nuances in connotation of the words or because it's more of a cultural norm.
*Though when someone begins to act superior and condescending to others without the skill to back it up, then all politesse is off and they are, indeed, bad :)
While I somewhat agree with this, I also think that SCSN's point is correct; especially in a game like Dominion, people can play a lot, but still play casually. You could have hundreds or even thousands of games of Dominion under your belt, but that doesn't mean that you are working hard to improve your game, visiting forums on Dominion strategy, watching streams to see how good players play, etc. There's plenty of people who simply won't ever be a higher rank; not because they're "bad", but because they're just more casual.
-
Yeah, I agree, there's another level---"casual"---but I still think that's not the same as "bad", because they're not actually making it a goal to be among the top players. This is true for all activities, even sports.
-
Yeah, I agree, there's another level---"casual"---but I still think that's not the same as "bad", because they're not actually making it a goal to be among the top players. This is true for all activities, even sports.
This is true, which is why I think meeting matchmaking complaints with "Playing people who are much better than you is the best way to get better at the game. Cherish these moments <3" is not necessarily any more helpful for attracting casual players to the new client than complaining about their poor play is.
-
Yeah, I agree, there's another level---"casual"---but I still think that's not the same as "bad", because they're not actually making it a goal to be among the top players. This is true for all activities, even sports.
This is true, which is why I think meeting matchmaking complaints with "Playing people who are much better than you is the best way to get better at the game. Cherish these moments <3" is not necessarily any more helpful for attracting casual players to the new client than complaining about their poor play is.
Well it's slightly better, because it's not as negative and those casual players may indeed decide they want to be more serious and competitive. It also has an ASCII heart. But, yes, I see your point.
-
In activities (games, sports, even something academic, whatever), I think "bad" and "inexperienced" should be treated differently. Yes, if you are inexperienced you are "bad" compared to someone else with experience and skill, but not necessarily "bad" compared with the level you should be at if you were experienced.
You could argue that a large part of being "good" at Dominion is being experienced enough to know the relative strengths of cards and card-combinations.
For example, I've got a lot of experiencing playing Dominion with all the sets that were out on Isotropic. After Isotropic shut down, my play with the newer sets has been limited to face-to-face games, so if you put me in a game with lots of Guilds/Dark Ages cards I'm less likely to do as well as I would otherwise.
-
The problem is that the players are not given the choice. We can debate whether it's right or wrong, offensive or inoffensive, blah blah blah, for skilled players to avoid less skilled players or not. But regardless, the fact that we are not given the choice to play any given person is what is most annoying. I usually prefer playing people that are near my skill. But I like getting the crap kicked out of me by the Stefs amd MQs sometimes. And yes I like beating up on noobs every once in a while. But what I don't like right now is that I can't choose which of these things to do, or at least I don't know which one I'm getting in to beforehand.
-
I mean, if we got desperate, we could go to the chat and ask for high ranking players to challenge us. Honor system for that, I guess.
-
The problem is that the players are not given the choice.
Exactly. I think the system shouldn't care what our criteria are. Playing should be fun and players themselves will be the best judges of if a proposed game seems to be fun.
I'm sorry about my unkind words about some remarks about players who aren't very good. I really think some of those remarks were out of the line, but it was totally wrong of me to bring that up so it could steal focus in my last posting here.
-
You have to make fun of error reports like these don't you.
An attempt was made to use an object that is not, or is no longer, usable
-
I can certainly think of other things I would prefer differently, but I think that top priority should be to not "force" us into games we don't want to play with changes as suggested above, of which one of the most important and the easiest one to implement is to extend point counter settings to on/off/don't-care with the last one being the default.
While I like playing with the VP counter, I think that the default should be "off" not "don't care". "Don't care" may be confusing to beginners and the game was meant to be played without a VP Counter right?
-
While I like playing with the VP counter, I think that the default should be "off" not "don't care". "Don't care" may be confusing to beginners and the game was meant to be played without a VP Counter right?
Why would it be confusing to beginners? No preference should be the default, since that way you'll get into a game sooner and a beginner is probably more likely to care about that.
-
Uh, dragging cards? Why would you not change that interface? Watchtower, Cartographer, anything with choosing card locations.
After playing a dozen or so games with Watchtower, this is at the top of my list. It's almost enough to make me not do Goons/Watchtower.
It's an awful design choice made more baffling considering someone went out of their way to implement it. The simpler design of two buttons is superior in every way.
As for matchmaking, it seems like the user should be given more control over how long of a wait is acceptable before (apparently) abandoning the user's matchmaking criteria.
-
Uh, dragging cards? Why would you not change that interface? Watchtower, Cartographer, anything with choosing card locations.
After playing a dozen or so games with Watchtower, this is at the top of my list. It's almost enough to make me not do Goons/Watchtower.
It's an awful design choice made more baffling considering someone went out of their way to implement it. The simpler design of two buttons is superior in every way.
I recently top-decked a Curse with Watchtower because I double-clicked it. Obviously, the game should have known where I wanted it to go~
-
Uh, dragging cards? Why would you not change that interface? Watchtower, Cartographer, anything with choosing card locations.
After playing a dozen or so games with Watchtower, this is at the top of my list. It's almost enough to make me not do Goons/Watchtower.
It's an awful design choice made more baffling considering someone went out of their way to implement it. The simpler design of two buttons is superior in every way.
I recently top-decked a Curse with Watchtower because I double-clicked it. Obviously, the game should have known where I wanted it to go~
After tiring of dragging I noticed that the highlight around the gained card was red. "Aha," I thought. "I can just click on this and it will be trashed."
Nope. Apparently in this context, a red border means "put it on top of my deck". Because of course it does.
-
Uh, dragging cards? Why would you not change that interface? Watchtower, Cartographer, anything with choosing card locations.
After playing a dozen or so games with Watchtower, this is at the top of my list. It's almost enough to make me not do Goons/Watchtower.
It's an awful design choice made more baffling considering someone went out of their way to implement it. The simpler design of two buttons is superior in every way.
As for matchmaking, it seems like the user should be given more control over how long of a wait is acceptable before (apparently) abandoning the user's matchmaking criteria.
I've gotten ridiculously inferior opponents after 1 second queue times. I'm pretty sure that's not what's going on.
-
I can certainly think of other things I would prefer differently, but I think that top priority should be to not "force" us into games we don't want to play with changes as suggested above, of which one of the most important and the easiest one to implement is to extend point counter settings to on/off/don't-care with the last one being the default.
While I like playing with the VP counter, I think that the default should be "off" not "don't care". "Don't care" may be confusing to beginners and the game was meant to be played without a VP Counter right?
Polls on this forum show that a strong majority of f.ds players prefer to play with a VP counter. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10867.0) (I think there was a similar poll that showed most players don't like to play with full deck tracking, but I couldn't find that one.) So for people who haven't expressed an opinion, I think it's a bad guess to assume they are in the minority that prefer playing without a VP counter (or for that matter, among the apparently non-existent subset of players who refuse to play unless the VP counter is off).
-
On my mac, I have no way to exit fullscreen mode or do anything else with my computer when playing. If my wifi connection drops out, I can't attempt a reconnect because I'm stuck in the game.
-
Uh, dragging cards? Why would you not change that interface? Watchtower, Cartographer, anything with choosing card locations.
After playing a dozen or so games with Watchtower, this is at the top of my list. It's almost enough to make me not do Goons/Watchtower.
It's an awful design choice made more baffling considering someone went out of their way to implement it. The simpler design of two buttons is superior in every way.
As for matchmaking, it seems like the user should be given more control over how long of a wait is acceptable before (apparently) abandoning the user's matchmaking criteria.
I've gotten ridiculously inferior opponents after 1 second queue times. I'm pretty sure that's not what's going on.
I'm just grasping for some explanation. I can see someone making the decision that a poorly matched game is better than waiting for a game. Maybe it's just ranking potential matches and always giving you the "best" one. In other words, it never returns an empty list of "potential" matches.
-
On my mac, I have no way to exit fullscreen mode or do anything else with my computer when playing.
This is a known issue that got introduced in 2.0.35 (or thereabouts). I have no idea why it's taking so long to fix.
-
How about can't access in any shape or form. Online won't work. Download causes computer to crash. Completely unstable platform.
I have no idea what problems exist within the game itself because I have yet to actually play a game on the version. That is a major problem.
{never had a problem getting onto Goko aside from global shutdowns}
Was able to get into a game by leaving browser open for 15 minutes that it took web application to load. From there played two games against a bot. Third one froze and crashed with a string of error codes. Haven't been able to reload again despite leaving browser open and not doing anything else for 30 minutes multiple times. Tried to download again but again it crashed my laptop. Won't be doing that again. Won't be trying to play again until I hear platform is at least as stable as goko's was
-
On my mac, I have no way to exit fullscreen mode or do anything else with my computer when playing. If my wifi connection drops out, I can't attempt a reconnect because I'm stuck in the game.
+1 for username
-
The VP counter options should be: only on, prefer on, prefer off, only off (or, prefer on/off, require preference/don't). I would default to prefer off. "Prefer off" would match you against absolutely anyone available - it's only a preference - but would pair you with an only-off or prefer-off when possible. A mix of prefers with no onlies would result in off.
I continue to prefer a giant red X over the card as the way to show what will be trashed (or Ambassador'd), rather than a border I'm not paying attention to.
-
The VP counter options should be: only on, prefer on, prefer off, only off (or, prefer on/off, require preference/don't). I would default to prefer off. "Prefer off" would match you against absolutely anyone available - it's only a preference - but would pair you with an only-off or prefer-off when possible. A mix of prefers with no onlies would result in off.
I expect what would happen is most people would be using the default. If that's "prefer off", then if you select "prefer on" then you're mostly going to be playing without the point counter just because your opponents will mostly be running default settings. That means if you actually want to play with the point counter, you'll need to select "only on". So "prefer on" would be semi-useless if "prefer off" is default.
-
The VP counter options should be: only on, prefer on, prefer off, only off (or, prefer on/off, require preference/don't). I would default to prefer off. "Prefer off" would match you against absolutely anyone available - it's only a preference - but would pair you with an only-off or prefer-off when possible. A mix of prefers with no onlies would result in off.
I really like this. My only change would be that if a "prefer off" and a "prefer on" played, it would randomly choose whether it's on or off.
-
The VP counter options should be: only on, prefer on, prefer off, only off (or, prefer on/off, require preference/don't). I would default to prefer off. "Prefer off" would match you against absolutely anyone available - it's only a preference - but would pair you with an only-off or prefer-off when possible. A mix of prefers with no onlies would result in off.
I expect what would happen is most people would be using the default. If that's "prefer off", then if you select "prefer on" then you're mostly going to be playing without the point counter just because your opponents will mostly be running default settings. That means if you actually want to play with the point counter, you'll need to select "only on". So "prefer on" would be semi-useless if "prefer off" is default.
That's why I think the choices can more simply be on, off or no preference. A lot of people here think that no preference should be the default, but since most people use the default and may not even get a vp counter they may get confused as to why there is this green circle with the score sometimes and not others. Therefore, I still think off should be the default.
-
The VP counter options should be: only on, prefer on, prefer off, only off (or, prefer on/off, require preference/don't). I would default to prefer off. "Prefer off" would match you against absolutely anyone available - it's only a preference - but would pair you with an only-off or prefer-off when possible. A mix of prefers with no onlies would result in off.
I expect what would happen is most people would be using the default. If that's "prefer off", then if you select "prefer on" then you're mostly going to be playing without the point counter just because your opponents will mostly be running default settings. That means if you actually want to play with the point counter, you'll need to select "only on". So "prefer on" would be semi-useless if "prefer off" is default.
I don't think "prefer on" would be useless, but whatever; Dominion, the game Dominion, has no point counter. If people tend to have no point counter in online Dominion, that's good, that's the game as intended. The point counter is there to be friendly to people who want it. If you can force it on or off then everyone who cares is happy, and no-one is harmed by having a "prefer on" option available.
-
The VP counter options should be: only on, prefer on, prefer off, only off (or, prefer on/off, require preference/don't). I would default to prefer off. "Prefer off" would match you against absolutely anyone available - it's only a preference - but would pair you with an only-off or prefer-off when possible. A mix of prefers with no onlies would result in off.
I expect what would happen is most people would be using the default. If that's "prefer off", then if you select "prefer on" then you're mostly going to be playing without the point counter just because your opponents will mostly be running default settings. That means if you actually want to play with the point counter, you'll need to select "only on". So "prefer on" would be semi-useless if "prefer off" is default.
I really don't understand the point of your post, it sounds like your post suggests that all of these options be available except for "prefer on". But after "prefer off", "only off", and "only on" are coded, it is trivial to code "prefer on", so there is no benefit to not providing it.
-
The VP counter options should be: only on, prefer on, prefer off, only off (or, prefer on/off, require preference/don't).
How about a slider?
what you would explain: utmost left = require off, middle = don't care, utmost right = require on.
what you would not explain: utmost left = -1.0, middle = 0.0, utmost right = 1.0
if the sum of the two preferences > 0, you play with the point counter on, if it's <=0 you play with it off.
increase likelihood of a match if the absolute difference is lower, and don't match if that difference is 2.0
exactly in the middle would be a fine default setting.
Edit: my preferred UI would be like this:
A sentence on the left, with a a slider next to it on the right.
The sentence starts with "Point counter: don't care" and the slider in the middle.
If you move the slider to the right, the sentence changes to "Point counter: prefer on, but off is ok" and than into "prefer on", and than "strongly prefer on" until ultimately it becomes "require on".
-
The VP counter options should be: only on, prefer on, prefer off, only off (or, prefer on/off, require preference/don't).
How about a slider?
what you would explain: utmost left = require off, middle = don't care, utmost right = require on.
what you would not explain: utmost left = -1.0, middle = 0.0, utmost right = 1.0
if the sum of the two preferences > 0, you play with the point counter on, if it's <=0 you play with it off.
increase likelihood of a match if the absolute difference is lower, and don't match if that difference is 2.0
exactly in the middle would be a fine default setting.
Edit: my preferred UI would be like this:
A sentence on the left, with a a slider next to it on the right.
The sentence starts with "Point counter: don't care" and the slider in the middle.
If you move the slider to the right, the sentence changes to "Point counter: prefer on, but off is ok" and than into "prefer on", and than "strongly prefer on" until ultimately it becomes "require on".
If we were working with a high calibur developer, I'd say, that's kinda cool, maybe a bit much, but I surely won't complain if that gets implemented.
With our current developer, I would say, please please do not ask for something like this and give the extra opportunities to bug the code in implementation.
Currently "require only -1000+" and "prefer -1000+" are not working, without a slider.
-
I agree that the slider thing is much too sensible. I envision something like this:
We use the aforementioned 5 options, but instead of utilizing a slider or a series of checkboxes, each option will be represented by some colored symbol on an otherwise blank Dominion card. These cards will then be placed face-down, side-by-side in randomized order. The user can now pick any one card of his liking (select the card, press "Done", then answer "Yes" for confirmation), upon which his preference will be proudly revealed by a fancy animation.
If for whatever reason the user isn't entirely happy with his own choice, we offer him a second chance in the form of a "Reshuffle" button, which will reshuffle all cards and allow him to start the selection process anew, now with all animation lengths doubled as he's evidently enjoying them so much.
-
I agree that the slider thing is much too sensible. I envision something like this:
We use the aforementioned 5 options, but instead of utilizing a slider or a series of checkboxes, each option will be represented by some colored symbol on an otherwise blank Dominion card. These cards will then be placed face-down, side-by-side in randomized order. The user can now pick any one card of his liking (select the card, press "Done", then answer "Yes" for confirmation), upon which his preference will be proudly revealed by a fancy animation.
If for whatever reason the user isn't entirely happy with his own choice, we offer him a second chance in the form of a "Reshuffle" button, which will reshuffle all cards and allow him to start the selection process anew, now with all animation lengths doubled as he's evidently enjoying them so much.
Obviously you should have to drag them one by one onto either your preference deck, or your "don't want" discard. Obviously those two should be so close that you might make a mistake. Then you can't undo your action if you miss.
-
The VP counter options should be: only on, prefer on, prefer off, only off (or, prefer on/off, require preference/don't).
How about a slider?
what you would explain: utmost left = require off, middle = don't care, utmost right = require on.
what you would not explain: utmost left = -1.0, middle = 0.0, utmost right = 1.0
if the sum of the two preferences > 0, you play with the point counter on, if it's <=0 you play with it off.
increase likelihood of a match if the absolute difference is lower, and don't match if that difference is 2.0
exactly in the middle would be a fine default setting.
Edit: my preferred UI would be like this:
A sentence on the left, with a a slider next to it on the right.
The sentence starts with "Point counter: don't care" and the slider in the middle.
If you move the slider to the right, the sentence changes to "Point counter: prefer on, but off is ok" and than into "prefer on", and than "strongly prefer on" until ultimately it becomes "require on".
If we were working with a high calibur developer, I'd say, that's kinda cool, maybe a bit much, but I surely won't complain if that gets implemented.
With our current developer, I would say, please please do not ask for something like this and give the extra opportunities to bug the code in implementation.
Currently "require only -1000+" and "prefer -1000+" are not working, without a slider.
While I fear you're right and they won't manage to implement this, the reality is.... that slider is a lot easier to code than the 5 checkboxes.
Instead of dealing with 25 possible scenarios you now have to sum two floats and see how the result compares to 0.
-
Don't make them checkboxes. Make them radio buttons. You either need it, prefer, don't prefer it, or need not it. Or don't care. 5 options. There should be no mixing.
-
Don't make them checkboxes. Make them radio buttons. You either need it, prefer, don't prefer it, or need not it. Or don't care. 5 options. There should be no mixing.
Sorry I should have written radio buttons indeed. Somehow I tend to mix up those words, while the concepts are quite different.
But the 25 was because you get those 5 buttons and so does your opponent.
With 5 checkboxes you alone would have 2^5 = 32 options.
(and 10 of those 25 are actually symmetrical)
-
Slider > drop-down menu > radio buttons
-
The VP counter options should be: only on, prefer on, prefer off, only off (or, prefer on/off, require preference/don't).
How about a slider?
what you would explain: utmost left = require off, middle = don't care, utmost right = require on.
what you would not explain: utmost left = -1.0, middle = 0.0, utmost right = 1.0
if the sum of the two preferences > 0, you play with the point counter on, if it's <=0 you play with it off.
increase likelihood of a match if the absolute difference is lower, and don't match if that difference is 2.0
exactly in the middle would be a fine default setting.
Edit: my preferred UI would be like this:
A sentence on the left, with a a slider next to it on the right.
The sentence starts with "Point counter: don't care" and the slider in the middle.
If you move the slider to the right, the sentence changes to "Point counter: prefer on, but off is ok" and than into "prefer on", and than "strongly prefer on" until ultimately it becomes "require on".
If we were working with a high calibur developer, I'd say, that's kinda cool, maybe a bit much, but I surely won't complain if that gets implemented.
With our current developer, I would say, please please do not ask for something like this and give the extra opportunities to bug the code in implementation.
Currently "require only -1000+" and "prefer -1000+" are not working, without a slider.
While I fear you're right and they won't manage to implement this, the reality is.... that slider is a lot easier to code than the 5 checkboxes.
Instead of dealing with 25 possible scenarios you now have to sum two floats and see how the result compares to 0.
There's no way the slider is easier. You can assign integer values to the radio buttons (only on = 2, on = 1, no preference = 0 , -1 off, only off = -2) and get the same "add stuff and compare the result to 0", without having to deal with floats.
Although 25 possible scenarios is even simpler, conceptually, it's just tedious, and cavemannish, the kind of thing that's easy to trust someone with.
-
Am I the only one who things a slider is going to be confusingly opaque to most users?
-
You're not, I was trying to allude to it a bit earlier.
-
The VP counter options should be: only on, prefer on, prefer off, only off (or, prefer on/off, require preference/don't). I would default to prefer off. "Prefer off" would match you against absolutely anyone available - it's only a preference - but would pair you with an only-off or prefer-off when possible. A mix of prefers with no onlies would result in off.
I expect what would happen is most people would be using the default. If that's "prefer off", then if you select "prefer on" then you're mostly going to be playing without the point counter just because your opponents will mostly be running default settings. That means if you actually want to play with the point counter, you'll need to select "only on". So "prefer on" would be semi-useless if "prefer off" is default.
I don't think "prefer on" would be useless, but whatever; Dominion, the game Dominion, has no point counter. If people tend to have no point counter in online Dominion, that's good, that's the game as intended. The point counter is there to be friendly to people who want it. If you can force it on or off then everyone who cares is happy, and no-one is harmed by having a "prefer on" option available.
I tentatively agree with blueblimp. I think the "prefer on" setting is going to mostly do nothing. It would only matter when two "prefer on" players played against each other, and my hunch is that most VP-counter diehards will have their setting on "only on".
If I had my druthers, the options would be On/Off/Don't Care, with the default at Don't Care. Any players can be matched up. Remember that there can be more than 2 players.
If there are any "Off"s in the group, the counter is off.
Otherwise, if there are any "On"s in the group, the counter is on.
Otherwise, the counter is off.
In addition to having fewer checkboxes, this has the advantages of not segmenting the player base and not further complicating the matchmaking algorithms.
-
Am I the only one who things a slider is going to be confusingly opaque to most users?
To me in fact it sounds super intuitive, far more intuitive than anything with buttons.
There is a sentence on your screen that says "point counter: don't care".
There is a slider next to it. If you play with the slider, the sentence changes.
What is there not to get?
Sure, you may not get the formula behind the matchmaking and decisions on eventually putting the point counter on/off (although anyone should be able to grab 'sum') but who cares? You can tell the system what you want, and the system does what you want it to.
If I had my druthers, the options would be On/Off/Don't Care, with the default at Don't Care. Any players can be matched up. Remember that there can be more than 2 players.
Hmm, more than 2 players is a very good point, but probably only in favor of representing players' preferences with a float. You simply sum 3 floats in stead of 2.
-
Hmm, more than 2 players is a very good point, but probably only in favor of representing players' preferences with a float. You simply sum 3 floats in stead of 2.
At that point, "Require On" and "Require Off" no longer do what they say. If I require on, two other players requiring off can overrule me. And vice versa, of course.
EDIT: Oh, I see. Don't match when the difference is 2.0. Well like I said, I'm not sure more complex matchmaking is a good idea, for multiple reasons.
-
If I had my druthers, the options would be On/Off/Don't Care, with the default at Don't Care. Any players can be matched up. Remember that there can be more than 2 players.
If there are any "Off"s in the group, the counter is off.
Otherwise, if there are any "On"s in the group, the counter is on.
Otherwise, the counter is off.
In addition to having fewer checkboxes, this has the advantages of not segmenting the player base and not further complicating the matchmaking algorithms.
You can match any mix of Require On and prefer whatevers, or Require Off and prefer whatevers, but cannot match Require On with Require Off. "I picked On but it isn't on" would be extremely unpopular among people who pick On; it is like taunting them with the option they want but not actually giving it to them. If the game or their stance is so unpopular that they can't be matched, they can always give up and change their choice to get a game in (or go find something else to do).
If the game is not unpopular then the matchmaking should not be hard.
-
In addition to having fewer checkboxes, this has the advantages of not segmenting the player base and not further complicating the matchmaking algorithms.
Not letting me force VP counter on? When I and others quit Dominion, the player base will be "segmented" into those who have quit and those who enjoy Concentration.
-
The VP counter options should be: only on, prefer on, prefer off, only off (or, prefer on/off, require preference/don't).
How about a slider?
what you would explain: utmost left = require off, middle = don't care, utmost right = require on.
what you would not explain: utmost left = -1.0, middle = 0.0, utmost right = 1.0
if the sum of the two preferences > 0, you play with the point counter on, if it's <=0 you play with it off.
increase likelihood of a match if the absolute difference is lower, and don't match if that difference is 2.0
exactly in the middle would be a fine default setting.
Edit: my preferred UI would be like this:
A sentence on the left, with a a slider next to it on the right.
The sentence starts with "Point counter: don't care" and the slider in the middle.
If you move the slider to the right, the sentence changes to "Point counter: prefer on, but off is ok" and than into "prefer on", and than "strongly prefer on" until ultimately it becomes "require on".
I want a slider with much more precision... as you move from left to right, the odds that your game will have a point counter increase incrementally. At least 100 possible stopping points along the slider, each corresponding to the percentage change that you'll get the point counter. Good luck coding it.
-
I want a slider with much more precision... as you move from left to right, the odds that your game will have a point counter increase incrementally. At least 100 possible stopping points along the slider, each corresponding to the percentage change that you'll get the point counter. Good luck coding it.
This is exactly what I am suggesting. You can have a million stopping points on the slider if you want. The all represent a float between -1 and +1.
They just don't all come up with a new sentence, probably 7 different sentences is plenty.
It's always nice when someone wishes you luck, but apparently you think this is hard to code. What step exactly would you consider hard?
1) creating a slider with a million positions, reading it's value as a float between -1 and +1.
2) computing the absolute difference between two floats, to feed to your already required fitness function for matchmaking
3) computing the sum of two floats and comparing it to zero, to decide if the point counter is on or off.
-
Am I the only one who things a slider is going to be confusingly opaque to most users?
There should definitely be an option to turn the slider on and off. Maybe also "prefer on" and "prefer off". While we're at it, I have a great new suggestion...
-
Am I the only one who things a slider is going to be confusingly opaque to most users?
There should definitely be an option to turn the slider on and off. Maybe also "prefer on" and "prefer off". While we're at it, I have a great new suggestion...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP4qdefD2To
-
In addition to having fewer checkboxes, this has the advantages of not segmenting the player base and not further complicating the matchmaking algorithms.
Not letting me force VP counter on? When I and others quit Dominion, the player base will be "segmented" into those who have quit and those who enjoy Concentration.
I doubt that the number of players who quit over this (occasionally having to play without a VP counter) would be large. And any new players wouldn't know any different.
-
I want a slider with much more precision... as you move from left to right, the odds that your game will have a point counter increase incrementally. At least 100 possible stopping points along the slider, each corresponding to the percentage change that you'll get the point counter. Good luck coding it.
This is exactly what I am suggesting. You can have a million stopping points on the slider if you want. The all represent a float between -1 and +1.
They just don't all come up with a new sentence, probably 7 different sentences is plenty.
It's always nice when someone wishes you luck, but apparently you think this is hard to code. What step exactly would you consider hard?
1) creating a slider with a million positions, reading it's value as a float between -1 and +1.
2) computing the absolute difference between two floats, to feed to your already required fitness function for matchmaking
3) computing the sum of two floats and comparing it to zero, to decide if the point counter is on or off.
I thought you were suggesting a slider with only 3 stops on it; left center and right.
-
Am I the only one who things a slider is going to be confusingly opaque to most users?
There should definitely be an option to turn the slider on and off. Maybe also "prefer on" and "prefer off". While we're at it, I have a great new suggestion...
[Goo Goo Dolls video]
Fun fact... you know the baby covered in goo on the cover of the album "A Boy Named Goo"? He was one of my best friends in college. He went by the nickname "Goo".
-
In addition to having fewer checkboxes, this has the advantages of not segmenting the player base and not further complicating the matchmaking algorithms.
Not letting me force VP counter on? When I and others quit Dominion, the player base will be "segmented" into those who have quit and those who enjoy Concentration.
I doubt that the number of players who quit over this (occasionally having to play without a VP counter) would be large. And any new players wouldn't know any different.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. There are a number of things that can incrementally affect player experience positively or negatively, when they add up, they can lead to quitting. Some of those things can't be controlled, this can.
"This specific thing, by itself, will not cause outright quitting" is only a useful argument when it's something whose impact is tightly localized to players who are highly invested. It's valid when they changed the camera rules in a way that annoys players who travel across the country to attend magic tournaments, and it's valid when they release lowbrow champions in league that the pro tier players don't enjoy playing with. Indeed, "AdamH won't quit over Black Market, therefore, AdamH's rage is not a point against a "prefer black market" button" would be valid since he in particular is super invested, and a lot of the people in this thread are invested enough that they won't quit over a point counter. I wish I could say myself included, but I'm already dividing my time between Dominion and other things, and am only even here because posting in forums is something I can do while I'm at work, and the f.ds forums are way less shitty than forums for pretty much any other game thing. There's definitely a lot of people who prefer the point counter, and some of them aren't super veterans, and they are incrementally more likely to leave the game if the vpoff is forced on people to try to consolidate the userbase.
-
Am I the only one who things a slider is going to be confusingly opaque to most users?
There should definitely be an option to turn the slider on and off. Maybe also "prefer on" and "prefer off". While we're at it, I have a great new suggestion...
[Goo Goo Dolls video]
Fun fact... you know the baby covered in goo on the cover of the album "A Boy Named Goo"? He was one of my best friends in college. He went by the nickname "Goo".
Just make sure you don't tell no one his name.
-
Am I the only one who things a slider is going to be confusingly opaque to most users?
There should definitely be an option to turn the slider on and off. Maybe also "prefer on" and "prefer off". While we're at it, I have a great new suggestion...
[Goo Goo Dolls video]
Fun fact... you know the baby covered in goo on the cover of the album "A Boy Named Goo"? He was one of my best friends in college. He went by the nickname "Goo".
Just make sure you don't tell no one his name.
The Goo Goo Dolls were liars. They promise not to tell no one his name, and then they go and announce it right in the title of the album.
-
The Goo Goo Dolls were liars. They promise not to tell no one his name, and then they go and announce it right in the title of the album.
Well, evidently, it was only a nickname!
-
In addition to having fewer checkboxes, this has the advantages of not segmenting the player base and not further complicating the matchmaking algorithms.
Not letting me force VP counter on? When I and others quit Dominion, the player base will be "segmented" into those who have quit and those who enjoy Concentration.
I doubt that the number of players who quit over this (occasionally having to play without a VP counter) would be large. And any new players wouldn't know any different.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. There are a number of things that can incrementally affect player experience positively or negatively, when they add up, they can lead to quitting. Some of those things can't be controlled, this can.
"This specific thing, by itself, will not cause outright quitting" is only a useful argument when it's something whose impact is tightly localized to players who are highly invested. It's valid when they changed the camera rules in a way that annoys players who travel across the country to attend magic tournaments, and it's valid when they release lowbrow champions in league that the pro tier players don't enjoy playing with. Indeed, "AdamH won't quit over Black Market, therefore, AdamH's rage is not a point against a "prefer black market" button" would be valid since he in particular is super invested, and a lot of the people in this thread are invested enough that they won't quit over a point counter. I wish I could say myself included, but I'm already dividing my time between Dominion and other things, and am only even here because posting in forums is something I can do while I'm at work, and the f.ds forums are way less shitty than forums for pretty much any other game thing. There's definitely a lot of people who prefer the point counter, and some of them aren't super veterans, and they are incrementally more likely to leave the game if the vpoff is forced on people to try to consolidate the userbase.
From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!
But seriously, it's flabbergasting that you would quit playing a game altogether if a tiny percentage of your games didn't have the VP counter. I mean who's the one dealing in absolutes here?
-
Am I the only one who things a slider is going to be confusingly opaque to most users?
There should definitely be an option to turn the slider on and off. Maybe also "prefer on" and "prefer off". While we're at it, I have a great new suggestion...
[Goo Goo Dolls video]
Fun fact... you know the baby covered in goo on the cover of the album "A Boy Named Goo"? He was one of my best friends in college. He went by the nickname "Goo".
Also, as I understand it, that song is about an abortion. And Goko was an abortion. Making Fun is slowly turning into one. That's three.
Half Life 3 confirmed!
-
In addition to having fewer checkboxes, this has the advantages of not segmenting the player base and not further complicating the matchmaking algorithms.
Not letting me force VP counter on? When I and others quit Dominion, the player base will be "segmented" into those who have quit and those who enjoy Concentration.
I doubt that the number of players who quit over this (occasionally having to play without a VP counter) would be large. And any new players wouldn't know any different.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. There are a number of things that can incrementally affect player experience positively or negatively, when they add up, they can lead to quitting. Some of those things can't be controlled, this can.
"This specific thing, by itself, will not cause outright quitting" is only a useful argument when it's something whose impact is tightly localized to players who are highly invested. It's valid when they changed the camera rules in a way that annoys players who travel across the country to attend magic tournaments, and it's valid when they release lowbrow champions in league that the pro tier players don't enjoy playing with. Indeed, "AdamH won't quit over Black Market, therefore, AdamH's rage is not a point against a "prefer black market" button" would be valid since he in particular is super invested, and a lot of the people in this thread are invested enough that they won't quit over a point counter. I wish I could say myself included, but I'm already dividing my time between Dominion and other things, and am only even here because posting in forums is something I can do while I'm at work, and the f.ds forums are way less shitty than forums for pretty much any other game thing. There's definitely a lot of people who prefer the point counter, and some of them aren't super veterans, and they are incrementally more likely to leave the game if the vpoff is forced on people to try to consolidate the userbase.
From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!
But seriously, it's flabbergasting that you would quit playing a game altogether if a tiny percentage of your games didn't have the VP counter. I mean who's the one dealing in absolutes here?
What you were proposing could have like a quarter of games without the VP counter.
It wouldn't be an outright decision to quit the game based on that specific fact. My enjoyment of Dominion might just drop to the point where it easier for me to decide to quit every game but League or quit every game but Hearthstone or one of the other games that I've thought of devoting all my time to in order to master. How their enjoyment compares to Dominion, for me, depends on the point counter.
-
I want a slider with much more precision... as you move from left to right, the odds that your game will have a point counter increase incrementally. At least 100 possible stopping points along the slider, each corresponding to the percentage change that you'll get the point counter. Good luck coding it.
This is exactly what I am suggesting. You can have a million stopping points on the slider if you want. The all represent a float between -1 and +1.
They just don't all come up with a new sentence, probably 7 different sentences is plenty.
It's always nice when someone wishes you luck, but apparently you think this is hard to code. What step exactly would you consider hard?
1) creating a slider with a million positions, reading it's value as a float between -1 and +1.
2) computing the absolute difference between two floats, to feed to your already required fitness function for matchmaking
3) computing the sum of two floats and comparing it to zero, to decide if the point counter is on or off.
Oh right, for the bottom half of your post. What's hard (actually impossible) is in making the percentages actually line up with what you ask. By what I was (jokingly) suggesting, putting it in the middle would mean that you should expect half of your games to have the point counter. Putting it 3/4 of the way to the right would mean that 3/4 of your games should have the point counter. This is obviously impossible, because it depends on how many other players choose what settings.
If all other players choose 10%, then you will never get the point counter if you choose less than 90%.
If half of the other players choose 50% and half choose 0%; then if you choose 99%, you'll end up with half of your games having the point counter, not 99% of your games having the point counter.
-
I guess I think the potential confusion of having a million options otuweighs the marginal benefit of those options. How many people are actually going to put the slider at something other than –1, 0, or 1?
-
I doubt that the number of players who quit over this (occasionally having to play without a VP counter) would be large. And any new players wouldn't know any different.
Don't guess, view the results instead!
For 20% of those taking the poll this is their main reason for not using Playdominion, or for using it less than they would otherwise, or for not being as happy as they would be otherwise when using it.
-
I doubt that the number of players who quit over this (occasionally having to play without a VP counter) would be large. And any new players wouldn't know any different.
Don't guess, view the results instead!
For 20% of those taking the poll this is their main reason for not using Playdominion, or for using it less than they would otherwise, or for not being as happy as they would be otherwise when using it.
Sure. 20% of f.DS users who cared enough to take the poll. There are of course lots of Making Fun users who aren't also f.DS users.
-
I would have taken the poll, but the selections weren't sliders.
-
I doubt that the number of players who quit over this (occasionally having to play without a VP counter) would be large. And any new players wouldn't know any different.
Don't guess, view the results instead!
For 20% of those taking the poll this is their main reason for not using Playdominion, or for using it less than they would otherwise, or for not being as happy as they would be otherwise when using it.
This isn't quite right... the poll doesn't ask just for the reason that they don't play, or play less than they would. It says:
"If you use Playdominion, please pick what you think would benefit your playing there the most."
So it's quite possible that most of the people who picked the VP counter option play just as much as they would otherwise, they just wish that that particular thing would be changed.
*Edit* Sorry, missed your last "or". But the point remains; you don't know how many people fit into which of those 3 categories.
-
I would have taken the poll, but the selections weren't sliders.
I think the entire game needs to be re-done using nothing but sliders as the interface. When you have to play a card, you use a slider to scroll through the options of cards to play, then when set the slider into place, that card is played. Same goes for choosing a card to buy, etc.
-
Sure. 20% of f.DS users who cared enough to take the poll. There are of course lots of Making Fun users who aren't also f.DS users.
Even if we acknowledge that there are people who disagree, it doesn't mean we should start pre-including a compromise solution in our own wishes because then it's going to be a compromise between that compromise and the other side demanding that they get exactly what they want.
-
Sure. 20% of f.DS users who cared enough to take the poll. There are of course lots of Making Fun users who aren't also f.DS users.
Even if we acknowledge that there are people who disagree, it doesn't mean we should start pre-including a compromise solution in our own wishes because then it's going to be a compromise between that compromise and the other side demanding that they get exactly what they want.
Who's "the other side"? They sound like jerks.
-
The VP counter options should be: only on, prefer on, prefer off, only off (or, prefer on/off, require preference/don't). I would default to prefer off. "Prefer off" would match you against absolutely anyone available - it's only a preference - but would pair you with an only-off or prefer-off when possible. A mix of prefers with no onlies would result in off.
I expect what would happen is most people would be using the default. If that's "prefer off", then if you select "prefer on" then you're mostly going to be playing without the point counter just because your opponents will mostly be running default settings. That means if you actually want to play with the point counter, you'll need to select "only on". So "prefer on" would be semi-useless if "prefer off" is default.
I don't think "prefer on" would be useless, but whatever; Dominion, the game Dominion, has no point counter. If people tend to have no point counter in online Dominion, that's good, that's the game as intended. The point counter is there to be friendly to people who want it. If you can force it on or off then everyone who cares is happy, and no-one is harmed by having a "prefer on" option available.
I wasn't clear in my previous post, but I was trying to compare to a 3 option solution. My argument is that the proposed 4-option solution effectively works the same as the 3-option solution.
In my opinion, the canonical 3 option solution is for the options to be: yes, no, don't care. The default is "don't care". Players whose choices for "yes" and "no" differ won't be matched with each other. If I remember correctly, this is what isotropic used, where if two "don't care"s were matched it was random whether they had counter on or off. But let's say that if two "don't care"s are matched, that the counter is off, for sake of discussion.
Pros:
- Everybody who cares always plays with the setting they want.
- Everybody who doesn't care or keeps the default can be matched into a game with anybody (making their matchmaking better/faster, hopefully).
- All players, no matter what choice they made, can be matched with players using the default option.
Cons:
- People who have a mild preference for yes must select "yes" or most of their games will be non-counter, but then they can't be matched with people who dislike the counter so strongly that they select "no".
Now, my view is that the con is so mild that it's not worth worrying about. If there are a decent number of players using the client, there will be enough people using the default option that matchmaking can still be fast-ish even if "yes" players can't be matched with "no" players.
But let's say we want to try to fix the con. Does the proposed 4 option solution fix it? I argue that it doesn't.
As proposed, the 4 options are require yes, prefer yes, prefer off, require off. The default is "prefer off", and if two "prefer" players are matched, then the counter is off.
Now, imagine you are a player that prefers counter on but are willing to sometimes play without the counter. You might try selecting "prefer yes". If you do, every time you are matched with a player who didn't change the default selection, you will play without counter. In general, most people don't change default options; let's say 80% stay on default without considering alternatives and 20% make a decision about the option (which could be to stay with "prefer off"). Then as the player who selected "prefer yes", you will play <20% of your games with the point counter.
As the player who prefers to play with counter, if you are playing <20% of your games without counter, you are not happy. I'd expect most such players to switch to "require yes". After all, you can still be matched with everybody except those who chose "require off", and if you believe the poll then <1% of players would choose "require off" (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10867.0).
If every player follows the same thought process, then we end up where players pick one of "require yes", "prefer off", "require off". If those are the only options in use, it's exactly equivalent to the 3-option "yes", "don't care", "no" system. Given a choice between two systems which have the same effect, I'd pick the system with fewer options for simplicity.
If you go to a 5-option system ("require yes", "prefer yes", "don't care", "prefer no", "require no"), with "don't care" the default, then it does give more meaningful choices than the 3-option system. Is it worth the complication of having more options? I don't know. My guess is it's not worth it.
In addition to having fewer checkboxes, this has the advantages of not segmenting the player base and not further complicating the matchmaking algorithms.
Not letting me force VP counter on? When I and others quit Dominion, the player base will be "segmented" into those who have quit and those who enjoy Concentration.
I doubt that the number of players who quit over this (occasionally having to play without a VP counter) would be large. And any new players wouldn't know any different.
Well, according to the poll (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10867.0), 13% of f.ds members say they only play with the VP counter on. If you think it's okay to kick those people off the service, well, consider an alternative of having the point counter on for every game with no choice to do otherwise. You'd drive off the people who voted "I only play with it off". How many of those are there? Zero. 95 people voted, and of those 0 refuse to ever play with the counter. Plus, instead of having to do convoluted matchmaking systems, it's super simple, you just always play with it on.
I respect the arguments that it should be possible to play without the point counter (not least because the game's designer considers that the canonical way to play), but if I worked at MF and in charge of making UI decisions, the decision would be a no-brainer. 85% of people who bother to vote either don't care or prefer the counter on. Having it on is a dealbreaker to 0% of the people. Although this is a poll on a hardcore community, it's safe to assume that the non-hardcore would mostly fall into the "don't care" camp. Why would I spend development resources on making counter-off an option when so many other things about the service don't work? It would go to the "do this sometime later maybe" category of tasks.
-
Well, according to the poll (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10867.0), 13% of f.ds members say they only play with the VP counter on. If you think it's okay to kick those people off the service, well, consider an alternative of having the point counter on for every game with no choice to do otherwise. You'd drive off the people who voted "I only play with it off". How many of those are there? Zero. 95 people voted, and of those 0 refuse to ever play with the counter. Plus, instead of having to do convoluted matchmaking systems, it's super simple, you just always play with it on.
I respect the arguments that it should be possible to play without the point counter (not least because the game's designer considers that the canonical way to play), but if I worked at MF and in charge of making UI decisions, the decision would be a no-brainer. 85% of people who bother to vote either don't care or prefer the counter on. Having it on is a dealbreaker to 0% of the people. Although this is a poll on a hardcore community, it's safe to assume that the non-hardcore would mostly fall into the "don't care" camp. Why would I spend development resources on making counter-off an option when so many other things about the service don't work? It would go to the "do this sometime later maybe" category of tasks.
Again, that is an f.DS poll and does not necessarily reflect the views of most players.
-
I don't think "prefer on" would be useless, but whatever; Dominion, the game Dominion, has no point counter. If people tend to have no point counter in online Dominion, that's good, that's the game as intended. The point counter is there to be friendly to people who want it. If you can force it on or off then everyone who cares is happy, and no-one is harmed by having a "prefer on" option available.
I wasn't clear in my previous post, but I was trying to compare to a 3 option solution. My argument is that the proposed 4-option solution effectively works the same as the 3-option solution.
In my opinion, the canonical 3 option solution is for the options to be: yes, no, don't care. The default is "don't care". Players whose choices for "yes" and "no" differ won't be matched with each other. If I remember correctly, this is what isotropic used, where if two "don't care"s were matched it was random whether they had counter on or off. But let's say that if two "don't care"s are matched, that the counter is off, for sake of discussion.
Pros:
- Everybody who cares always plays with the setting they want.
- Everybody who doesn't care or keeps the default can be matched into a game with anybody (making their matchmaking better/faster, hopefully).
- All players, no matter what choice they made, can be matched with players using the default option.
Cons:
- People who have a mild preference for yes must select "yes" or most of their games will be non-counter, but then they can't be matched with people who dislike the counter so strongly that they select "no".
As I see it, all your Pros also apply to Donald's proposal.
1. Always on / off work the same as in your solution
2. People who don't care stick with "prefer on/off" and they still can be matched with anybody
3. Since default would be some "prefer" ("off" probably) it's still the same.
Additional Cons:
- You should have some bias as the default option. Dominion was designed w/o counter, so the bias should lean to that.
- Most people do have a preferences, but maybe not strong ones. I don't think there are many players who are absoultely neutral on that matter
- For two "don't care"s matched against each other, a coin flip would need to happen, even if both players were actually leaning to the same option.
- Without "prefer"s there is no way for you to give a preference, but still can be matched to anybody.
-
Again, that is an f.DS poll and does not necessarily reflect the views of most players.
But your introspection which led you to "doubt that the number of players who quit over this (occasionally having to play without a VP counter) would be large", that somehow better reflects the views of most players?
I haven't quit, but I surely don't play as much as I would like, especially not against humans, as the bots are the only ones I can count on not to force me to play something I don't want to play. It is of course not "occasionally" by the way, but about most games.
-
As I see it, all your Pros also apply to Donald's proposal.
1. Always on / off work the same as in your solution
2. People who don't care stick with "prefer on/off" and they still can be matched with anybody
3. Since default would be some "prefer" ("off" probably) it's still the same.
Additional Cons:
- You should have some bias as the default option. Dominion was designed w/o counter, so the bias should lean to that.
- Most people do have a preferences, but maybe not strong ones. I don't think there are many players who are absoultely neutral on that matter
- For two "don't care"s matched against each other, a coin flip would need to happen, even if both players were actually leaning to the same option.
- Without "prefer"s there is no way for you to give a preference, but still can be matched to anybody.
When both players pick "don't care" it would default to off, but otherwise yes, and thanks for having this conversation so that I don't have to.
The entire downside of allowing "prefer on/off" is that it takes more space on the screen where you get to pick it. It doesn't need to pay off very often for me to be happy with that sacrifice.
-
The entire downside of allowing "prefer on/off" is that it takes more space on the screen where you get to pick it.
Which is not an issue with sliders and drop-down menus.
-
As I see it, all your Pros also apply to Donald's proposal.
That was (half of) my point. 3-option and 4-option do the same thing. The other half of my point was that if you want to do better than 3 option, you need 5 options.
Additional Cons:
- You should have some bias as the default option. Dominion was designed w/o counter, so the bias should lean to that.
Both 3 option and 5 option have bias, as I described them, because to break preference ties, the counter becomes off. For example, two "don't care"s have the counter off.
- Most people do have a preferences, but maybe not strong ones. I don't think there are many players who are absoultely neutral on that matter
I don't even understand what this means. Are you philosophically objecting to having an option named "don't care"? OK then, call if "prefer off" instead if you like, everything works the same way.
- For two "don't care"s matched against each other, a coin flip would need to happen, even if both players were actually leaning to the same option.
No, because as I stated in my previous post, if two "don't care"s are matched, the counter would be off.
- Without "prefer"s there is no way for you to give a preference, but still can be matched to anybody.
OK, if you believe this is a significant problem, then use 5 options. Using 4 options does not solve this problem.
I don't know if I'm just not being clear or what. It seems so obvious to me that if you were to select "prefer on" and played 80%+ of your games without point counter, nearly everyone would switch to "require on" in that situation. Am I just wrong about that? Are there a significant number of people who prefer playing with point counter but would be happy if they only use it in <20% of their games?
-
As I see it, all your Pros also apply to Donald's proposal.
That was (half of) my point. 3-option and 4-option do the same thing. The other half of my point was that if you want to do better than 3 option, you need 5 options.
Additional Cons:
- You should have some bias as the default option. Dominion was designed w/o counter, so the bias should lean to that.
Both 3 option and 5 option have bias, as I described them, because to break preference ties, the counter becomes off. For example, two "don't care"s have the counter off.
- Most people do have a preferences, but maybe not strong ones. I don't think there are many players who are absoultely neutral on that matter
I don't even understand what this means. Are you philosophically objecting to having an option named "don't care"? OK then, call if "prefer off" instead if you like, everything works the same way.
- For two "don't care"s matched against each other, a coin flip would need to happen, even if both players were actually leaning to the same option.
No, because as I stated in my previous post, if two "don't care"s are matched, the counter would be off.
- Without "prefer"s there is no way for you to give a preference, but still can be matched to anybody.
OK, if you believe this is a significant problem, then use 5 options. Using 4 options does not solve this problem.
I don't know if I'm just not being clear or what. It seems so obvious to me that if you were to select "prefer on" and played 80%+ of your games without point counter, nearly everyone would switch to "require on" in that situation. Am I just wrong about that? Are there a significant number of people who prefer playing with point counter but would be happy if they only use it in <20% of their games?
Yes, possibly you are not being clear. Five options are not needed. If your fifth option is "don't care," it's not needed. Bias towards "off" is a desired feature, not a problem. The people who hate "off" simply pick "require on."
-
Something we can do to help. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14101.0)
If there are any comments about this, if you think it's awful, please let's talk about it here. Right now we have questions that need answered before anything can be done, so let's put our heads together and get those answers.
-
Right now we have questions that need answered before anything can be done
Linguistic nuance in bold. People here in central PA talk like this all the time, and I had never heard speech like that when firmly planted on the east coast. Is this also an Ohio thing? :)
-
Something we can do to help. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14101.0)
If there are any comments about this, if you think it's awful, please let's talk about it here. Right now we have questions that need answered before anything can be done, so let's put our heads together and get those answers.
Isn't MF supposed to have that data already?
-
Isn't MF supposed to have that data already?
My goal right now is to translate the sentiment here of "we don't feel like this system is working" into "these are the things about the system we don't like."
MF has lots of tickets on file to go and review things and improve them, which is what this currently is. If we can do a little bit of the legwork and come to them and say "this is exactly what the problem is, and it's important to a bunch of people" it will become a much easier problem for them, and jump up higher on their list of priorities.
If you think they should do it themselves because it's their problem, well I guess you aren't wrong. But me, I want to do everything I can to help, and I think others around here feel close enough to that to contribute what they can.
Right now we have questions that need answered before anything can be done
Linguistic nuance in bold. People here in central PA talk like this all the time, and I had never heard speech like that when firmly planted on the east coast. Is this also an Ohio thing? :)
I don't know the answer to that question, but I have heard Ohioans brag that they can tell what part of Ohio you're from by your accent. Whatever that means.
-
?
My post was as helpful as it can be.
Your post is actively harmful because it is located in the wrong thread. How am I supposed to believe you meant well when I asked for one thing above all others and you just ignore it?
Opponent's ratings can't be found but I provided the next best thing: experience on iso-based data correlated to my MF rating change.
Unfortunately, this means absolutely nothing. This will not help MF narrow down whether the problem is with their leaderboard or something else. I like that you're trying to help, but this is not useful for the particular purpose at hand in this thread.
Maybe should try gaining this data yourself first before requesting others to do the same and bashing my well-meaning post.
I will, but my data alone is not enough...
My goal right now is to translate the sentiment here of "we don't feel like this system is working" into "these are the things about the system we don't like."
-
Your post is actively harmful because it is located in the wrong thread. ...
Speaking of that, can you please take this somewhere else than in "my" thread? This thread is about what bugs us most in the latest version of Playdominion. Relevant comments include options that ought to be added to the poll, our reasons for choosing as we did in the poll, etc.
-
You didn't have a problem with three pages of people trolling you about sliders, but you have a problem with someone actually trying to take what you've done and make into something helpful?
OK then. Fine. People will just post wherever they want anyways. I'm done with all of this anyways. So much for trying to help.
-
I feel like the discussion went like this:
If you play on MF, use automatch, and get paired with somebody who you feel doesn't meet the criteria of your search, please post the following information about that game (as much of this as you can come up with):
- The automatch criteria you used
- Your MF name
- Your rating on the MF leaderboard
- Your opponent's MF name
- Your opponent's rating on the MF leaderboard
getting the ratings before the game is ideal, but you might have to check the leaderboard after the game is over to get this info. The important thing is that both ratings are collected at the same time and we know when they were collected.
- Game log
Reply:
You can't find your opponent's rating unless you have the patience to scroll through literary hundreds of pages of that thing they call their leaderboard and read through thousands of names.
So you asked to people to list the opponent's rating as part of the data, and he was saying that information is not readily available.
Am I missing something?
-
Adam, the key solution to your problem is:
vacation
-
Am I missing something?
I don't think so.
-
I feel like the discussion went like this:
If you play on MF, use automatch, and get paired with somebody who you feel doesn't meet the criteria of your search, please post the following information about that game (as much of this as you can come up with):
- The automatch criteria you used
- Your MF name
- Your rating on the MF leaderboard
- Your opponent's MF name
- Your opponent's rating on the MF leaderboard
getting the ratings before the game is ideal, but you might have to check the leaderboard after the game is over to get this info. The important thing is that both ratings are collected at the same time and we know when they were collected.
- Game log
Reply:
You can't find your opponent's rating unless you have the patience to scroll through literary hundreds of pages of that thing they call their leaderboard and read through thousands of names.
So you asked to people to list the opponent's rating as part of the data, and he was saying that information is not readily available.
Am I missing something?
Seems to me like a simple miscommunication/misunderstanding. Adam's intent/wishes was that there would not be a single reply to his thread that was not just a list of the data he was requesting. This was what he meant by asking all discussion to be kept in the other thread. But his request was taken instead as a request to stay on topic, to not argue about other stuff, etc. So from the second perspective, it's perfectly ok to respond with a helpful comment with some other data, and an explanation of why the requested data cannot be provided. But from Adam's perspective, that reply, and the ones following it, were simply flat-out ignoring his stated wishes.
-
Also, to add to add to that. Adam is one of the few people on f.ds that I think Making Fun is still listening to and actively asking for feedback from. So... it might not be a bad idea to listen to what he says, especially if we want online dominion to be something we can continue to enjoy for years to come. Just my take on that
-
Adam,
maybe you should make two new threads?
Something we can do to actually help: DATA COLLECTION
Something we can do to actually help: DISCUSSION
This is a very strange place for me to be posting this particular suggestion, but, so it goes.
-
This is also the first time I'm learning that MF doesn't allow you to see your opponent's rating during or after a game. This seems terrible to me. Whether I win or lose a game, I want to know if it was against an opponent who was ranked above or below me. There's a big difference between how I feel about beating an opponent who's much better than I am, and beating an opponent who's new to the game. How am I supposed to know how to feel without being able to know my opponent's rank?
-
I just noticed another bug, I think. No log or screenshot though. I played a Highway to make everything cost 1 less. I bought a Sir Bailey for $4. Then, during that same buy phase, the underlying Sir Martin still cost $4, not $3. Is this a bug? I guess I'm not sure what the rule here is.
-
As I see it, all your Pros also apply to Donald's proposal.
That was (half of) my point. 3-option and 4-option do the same thing. The other half of my point was that if you want to do better than 3 option, you need 5 options.
Additional Cons:
- You should have some bias as the default option. Dominion was designed w/o counter, so the bias should lean to that.
Both 3 option and 5 option have bias, as I described them, because to break preference ties, the counter becomes off. For example, two "don't care"s have the counter off.
- Most people do have a preferences, but maybe not strong ones. I don't think there are many players who are absoultely neutral on that matter
I don't even understand what this means. Are you philosophically objecting to having an option named "don't care"? OK then, call if "prefer off" instead if you like, everything works the same way.
- For two "don't care"s matched against each other, a coin flip would need to happen, even if both players were actually leaning to the same option.
No, because as I stated in my previous post, if two "don't care"s are matched, the counter would be off.
- Without "prefer"s there is no way for you to give a preference, but still can be matched to anybody.
OK, if you believe this is a significant problem, then use 5 options. Using 4 options does not solve this problem.
I don't know if I'm just not being clear or what. It seems so obvious to me that if you were to select "prefer on" and played 80%+ of your games without point counter, nearly everyone would switch to "require on" in that situation. Am I just wrong about that? Are there a significant number of people who prefer playing with point counter but would be happy if they only use it in <20% of their games?
Yes, possibly you are not being clear. Five options are not needed. If your fifth option is "don't care," it's not needed. Bias towards "off" is a desired feature, not a problem. The people who hate "off" simply pick "require on."
I think that the issue is that your system can cause a lot of frustration for people who put "prefer on". If I had no idea about defaults and all that, I would think that the outcome of selecting "prefer on" would be that most of my games will have the vp counter. However, since most people just stick to the default, what will actually happen is that most of my games will be with the vp counter off. Therefore changing a single "don't care" option to a "prefer on" and "prefer off" option could easily be frustrating for a person who selects "prefer on" when they will expect to play mostly games with it on and they will, in reality, play most games with it off.
This is enough for me to think that a 3 option of "on","off" or "no preference" is much better because it is very clear to the user what they are selecting and the outcome is very clear. I guarantee that if you have the 4-option system with "prefer x" you will get people complaining that the auto-match system doesn't work (even if it works perfectly) because they have "prefer on" selected and barely ever play with a point counter.
-
I just noticed another bug, I think. No log or screenshot though. I played a Highway to make everything cost 1 less. I bought a Sir Bailey for $4. Then, during that same buy phase, the underlying Sir Martin still cost $4, not $3. Is this a bug? I guess I'm not sure what the rule here is.
don't worry, I reported that bug five months ago. I'm sure they're on it.
-
I just noticed another bug, I think. No log or screenshot though. I played a Highway to make everything cost 1 less. I bought a Sir Bailey for $4. Then, during that same buy phase, the underlying Sir Martin still cost $4, not $3. Is this a bug? I guess I'm not sure what the rule here is.
don't worry, I reported that bug five months ago. I'm sure they're on it.
Interesting. Do you think they reset the price of every card in the pile from N to N-1, where N is the cost of the top card in the pile?
-
I just noticed another bug, I think. No log or screenshot though. I played a Highway to make everything cost 1 less. I bought a Sir Bailey for $4. Then, during that same buy phase, the underlying Sir Martin still cost $4, not $3. Is this a bug? I guess I'm not sure what the rule here is.
don't worry, I reported that bug five months ago. I'm sure they're on it.
Interesting. Do you think they reset the price of every card in the pile from N to N-1, where N is the cost of the top card in the pile?
Maybe. That's what I thought. But I didn't try doing it for 2 $5 Knights. Would be funny if those both cost $4, which would support this theory.
I don't even want to speculate how the Black Market cards would be handled..
-
I think it works correctly for Black Market, at least.
-
You didn't have a problem with three pages of people trolling you about sliders, but you have a problem with someone actually trying to take what you've done and make into something helpful?
99% sure pst's post has an implied /s tag.
-
You didn't have a problem with three pages of people trolling you about sliders, but you have a problem with someone actually trying to take what you've done and make into something helpful?
99% sure pst's post has an implied /s tag.
/s for slider?
-
I don't know how people can expect the automatch to be any good at this point. They took ratings from Goko from several months ago and allowed them to decay while people weren't playing the new version yet, and much less games have been played on the new version obviously because it hasn't been around for very long. Maybe you could request that they revert back to the ratings which were first taken from Goko before they started to decay? Still, after that the automatch isn't going to be that good for awhile because there are a lot of people on the new version who haven't played many games on it yet. I imagine those who hadn't paid for cards on the old version wouldn't have much motivation to keep the same username and get their rating transferred to the new version.
In any case being able to have fun playing with those of another skill level is in itself a useful skill.
I really think keeping their program from overheating people's computers is a more important problem for them to fix. Then again, my computer is rather vulnerable to overheating, so while I'm afraid to play dominion on it right now, I know it isn't a problem for everyone.
-
I don't know how people can expect the automatch to be any good at this point. They took ratings from Goko from several months ago and allowed them to decay while people weren't playing the new version yet, and much less games have been played on the new version obviously because it hasn't been around for very long. Maybe you could request that they revert back to the ratings which were first taken from Goko before they started to decay? Still, after that the automatch isn't going to be that good for awhile because there are a lot of people on the new version who haven't played many games on it yet. I imagine those who hadn't paid for cards on the old version wouldn't have much motivation to keep the same username and get their rating transferred to the new version.
In any case being able to have fun playing with those of another skill level is in itself a useful skill.
I really think keeping their program from overheating people's computers is a more important problem for them to fix. Then again, my computer is rather vulnerable to overheating, so while I'm afraid to play dominion on it right now, I know it isn't a problem for everyone.
i haven't even installed it b/c of all the people complaining about overheating.
-
Another issue I just realized that wasn't included in this poll is that logs aren't available until the next day. I wonder if they have plans to change this. It is pretty inconvenient to wait until the next day to pull a log if you want to discuss it.
-
Another issue I just realized that wasn't included in this poll is that logs aren't available until the next day. I wonder if they have plans to change this. It is pretty inconvenient to wait until the next day to pull a log if you want to discuss it.
If that's the main problem someone had with the client, I think they'd be highly satisfied with it overall.
-
Another issue I just realized that wasn't included in this poll is that logs aren't available until the next day. I wonder if they have plans to change this. It is pretty inconvenient to wait until the next day to pull a log if you want to discuss it.
The game logs are actually available immediately. On the game results screen click the icon on the lower right that looks like a bulleted list to see the in-game log. The "On The Web" button will take you to the full log.
-
Something I just realized isn't in the poll: I can't see all the cards in my hand at times. Has that been discussed elsewhere?
-
Something I just realized isn't in the poll: I can't see all the cards in my hand at times. Has that been discussed elsewhere?
It has come up a number of times. Obv. it's nuts but I would still fix matchmaking ahead of it.
There was one thread about, okay I am playing the Dark Ages campaigns and my hand has Hovel and I can't read it and don't know what it does and hey there is nothing in this program that will show me it.
-
Something I just realized isn't in the poll: I can't see all the cards in my hand at times. Has that been discussed elsewhere?
I've said I think there should be a hover image when you mouseover a card for selection. Same problem choosing in play cards (e.g., Scheme)
-
I think that the issue is that your system can cause a lot of frustration for people who put "prefer on". If I had no idea about defaults and all that, I would think that the outcome of selecting "prefer on" would be that most of my games will have the vp counter. However, since most people just stick to the default, what will actually happen is that most of my games will be with the vp counter off. Therefore changing a single "don't care" option to a "prefer on" and "prefer off" option could easily be frustrating for a person who selects "prefer on" when they will expect to play mostly games with it on and they will, in reality, play most games with it off.
This is enough for me to think that a 3 option of "on","off" or "no preference" is much better because it is very clear to the user what they are selecting and the outcome is very clear. I guarantee that if you have the 4-option system with "prefer x" you will get people complaining that the auto-match system doesn't work (even if it works perfectly) because they have "prefer on" selected and barely ever play with a point counter.
Thanks, that was a much better explanation than I managed. :)
-
Something I just realized isn't in the poll: I can't see all the cards in my hand at times. Has that been discussed elsewhere?
I've said I think there should be a hover image when you mouseover a card for selection. Same problem choosing in play cards (e.g., Scheme)
This is really, really, really needed, especially with Scheme when you have no f'ing clue what cards are what.
-
I don't know how people can expect the automatch to be any good at this point. They took ratings from Goko from several months ago and allowed them to decay while people weren't playing the new version yet, and much less games have been played on the new version obviously because it hasn't been around for very long. Maybe you could request that they revert back to the ratings which were first taken from Goko before they started to decay? Still, after that the automatch isn't going to be that good for awhile because there are a lot of people on the new version who haven't played many games on it yet. I imagine those who hadn't paid for cards on the old version wouldn't have much motivation to keep the same username and get their rating transferred to the new version.
In any case being able to have fun playing with those of another skill level is in itself a useful skill.
I really think keeping their program from overheating people's computers is a more important problem for them to fix. Then again, my computer is rather vulnerable to overheating, so while I'm afraid to play dominion on it right now, I know it isn't a problem for everyone.
So much this. Get the platform to a stable point where those who want to play and pay (or those who have already paid can get what they paid for) before worrying about esthetics. I couldn't care less about the auto match arguments when I and many others can't even access the program to play with anyone regardless of skill level.
In my opinion all MF resources should be geared toward making the program stable and useable without worrying about overheating and crashing.
-
I don't know how people can expect the automatch to be any good at this point. They took ratings from Goko from several months ago and allowed them to decay while people weren't playing the new version yet, and much less games have been played on the new version obviously because it hasn't been around for very long. Maybe you could request that they revert back to the ratings which were first taken from Goko before they started to decay? Still, after that the automatch isn't going to be that good for awhile because there are a lot of people on the new version who haven't played many games on it yet. I imagine those who hadn't paid for cards on the old version wouldn't have much motivation to keep the same username and get their rating transferred to the new version.
In any case being able to have fun playing with those of another skill level is in itself a useful skill.
I really think keeping their program from overheating people's computers is a more important problem for them to fix. Then again, my computer is rather vulnerable to overheating, so while I'm afraid to play dominion on it right now, I know it isn't a problem for everyone.
So much this. Get the platform to a stable point where those who want to play and pay (or those who have already paid can get what they paid for) before worrying about esthetics. I couldn't care less about the auto match arguments when I and many others can't even access the program to play with anyone regardless of skill level.
In my opinion all MF resources should be geared toward making the program stable and useable without worrying about overheating and crashing.
I sent them a message about this, and they told me that it should not be happening anymore and to uninstall and reinstall the program. That worked for me.
-
I don't know how people can expect the automatch to be any good at this point. They took ratings from Goko from several months ago and allowed them to decay while people weren't playing the new version yet, and much less games have been played on the new version obviously because it hasn't been around for very long. Maybe you could request that they revert back to the ratings which were first taken from Goko before they started to decay? Still, after that the automatch isn't going to be that good for awhile because there are a lot of people on the new version who haven't played many games on it yet. I imagine those who hadn't paid for cards on the old version wouldn't have much motivation to keep the same username and get their rating transferred to the new version.
In any case being able to have fun playing with those of another skill level is in itself a useful skill.
I really think keeping their program from overheating people's computers is a more important problem for them to fix. Then again, my computer is rather vulnerable to overheating, so while I'm afraid to play dominion on it right now, I know it isn't a problem for everyone.
So much this. Get the platform to a stable point where those who want to play and pay (or those who have already paid can get what they paid for) before worrying about esthetics. I couldn't care less about the auto match arguments when I and many others can't even access the program to play with anyone regardless of skill level.
In my opinion all MF resources should be geared toward making the program stable and useable without worrying about overheating and crashing.
I sent them a message about this, and they told me that it should not be happening anymore and to uninstall and reinstall the program. That worked for me.
When was this? Last time I tried an uninstall/reinstall was about 3 days ago. And it failed miserably.
-
I don't know how people can expect the automatch to be any good at this point. They took ratings from Goko from several months ago and allowed them to decay while people weren't playing the new version yet, and much less games have been played on the new version obviously because it hasn't been around for very long. Maybe you could request that they revert back to the ratings which were first taken from Goko before they started to decay? Still, after that the automatch isn't going to be that good for awhile because there are a lot of people on the new version who haven't played many games on it yet. I imagine those who hadn't paid for cards on the old version wouldn't have much motivation to keep the same username and get their rating transferred to the new version.
In any case being able to have fun playing with those of another skill level is in itself a useful skill.
I really think keeping their program from overheating people's computers is a more important problem for them to fix. Then again, my computer is rather vulnerable to overheating, so while I'm afraid to play dominion on it right now, I know it isn't a problem for everyone.
So much this. Get the platform to a stable point where those who want to play and pay (or those who have already paid can get what they paid for) before worrying about esthetics. I couldn't care less about the auto match arguments when I and many others can't even access the program to play with anyone regardless of skill level.
In my opinion all MF resources should be geared toward making the program stable and useable without worrying about overheating and crashing.
Good ol good of the many vs. the rights of the few conundrum. Far more people are affected by lack of automatch since most people can use the program, but obviously not using the program at all is more severe.
As for Library Adventurers belief that ratings still need time to stabilize, he is just misguided/underinformed. Anyone who has made an isotropic alt and stabilized in like 3 days coming up from absolute 0 can tell you that accurate ratings don't need as long as fine wine to mature and become useful.
-
The option "never more than 1000 below my rating" allows matchings with people more than 1000 rating points below your current rating.
Unless anyone wants to argue that MF's software contains a self-learning AI, this won't change even if you let it ripe a million years.
-
I don't see why this is a subjective thing or "something that will get better with time". It's just broken. It says "never more than 1000 below my rating" and it consistently violates that rule. It's a bug. It's easy to demonstrate. We've found several examples. It shouldn't take a massive community effort to find dozens more. If the developers need more examples it is trivial for them to find the examples. It should be trivial to fix this problem. They just need to fix it. It's quite simple.
-
The option "never more than 1000 below my rating" allows matchings with people more than 1000 rating points below your current rating.
Unless anyone wants to argue that MF's software contains a self-learning AI, this won't change even if you let it ripe a million years.
It's working as intended! The algorithm never matches you with anyone more than (1000 below your rating). Hence it only matches you with players with a rating less than (YourRating – 1000). If you want tougher opponents, maybe don't use the option that specifically matches you against weak players!
-
The option "never more than 1000 below my rating" allows matchings with people more than 1000 rating points below your current rating.
Unless anyone wants to argue that MF's software contains a self-learning AI, this won't change even if you let it ripe a million years.
It's working as intended! The algorithm never matches you with anyone more than (1000 below your rating). Hence it only matches you with players with a rating less than (YourRating – 1000). If you want tougher opponents, maybe don't use the option that specifically matches you against weak players!
Is this Lastfootnote making an unhelpful sarcastic joke in the middle of an already confusing conversation? I believe I may be losing touch with reality here...
Whatever it is, I'm gunna upvote it. I fully support people stepping out of character.
-
Yeah it was a little out of character for him so I had to reread and make sure it was a joke.
-
Maybe it means that it will never match you with more than 1000 people whose rating is below your rating. So once you play 1000 of these games, you'll always match with higher-level players.
-
The option "never more than 1000 below my rating" allows matchings with people more than 1000 rating points below your current rating.
Unless anyone wants to argue that MF's software contains a self-learning AI, this won't change even if you let it ripe a million years.
It's working as intended! The algorithm never matches you with anyone more than (1000 below your rating). Hence it only matches you with players with a rating less than (YourRating – 1000). If you want tougher opponents, maybe don't use the option that specifically matches you against weak players!
Is this Lastfootnote making an unhelpful sarcastic joke in the middle of an already confusing conversation? I believe I may be losing touch with reality here...
Whatever it is, I'm gunna upvote it. I fully support people stepping out of character.
It's…sort of a joke? I mean obviously it's not actually working as intended, but the requirement could easily be misread by a developer who didn't understand the intent of the feature.
-
I've suggested that is the case before, but I think that makes even less sense because then two people who selected the option could never be matched with each other.
-
The option "never more than 1000 below my rating" allows matchings with people more than 1000 rating points below your current rating.
Unless anyone wants to argue that MF's software contains a self-learning AI, this won't change even if you let it ripe a million years.
It's working as intended! The algorithm never matches you with anyone more than (1000 below your rating). Hence it only matches you with players with a rating less than (YourRating – 1000). If you want tougher opponents, maybe don't use the option that specifically matches you against weak players!
Is this Lastfootnote making an unhelpful sarcastic joke in the middle of an already confusing conversation? I believe I may be losing touch with reality here...
Whatever it is, I'm gunna upvote it. I fully support people stepping out of character.
It's…sort of a joke? I mean obviously it's not actually working as intended, but the requirement could easily be misread by a developer who didn't understand the intent of the feature.
I have randomly matched with 2.718 while having the box checked, and others have experienced randomly receiving a proper match with the box checked. It's been ruled out that the feature was actually implemented that way, and implemented correctly.
You can convert it to 100% joke if you like.
-
The option "never more than 1000 below my rating" allows matchings with people more than 1000 rating points below your current rating.
Unless anyone wants to argue that MF's software contains a self-learning AI, this won't change even if you let it ripe a million years.
It's working as intended! The algorithm never matches you with anyone more than (1000 below your rating). Hence it only matches you with players with a rating less than (YourRating – 1000). If you want tougher opponents, maybe don't use the option that specifically matches you against weak players!
Is this Lastfootnote making an unhelpful sarcastic joke in the middle of an already confusing conversation? I believe I may be losing touch with reality here...
Whatever it is, I'm gunna upvote it. I fully support people stepping out of character.
It's…sort of a joke? I mean obviously it's not actually working as intended, but the requirement could easily be misread by a developer who didn't understand the intent of the feature.
I have randomly matched with 2.718 while having the box checked, and others have experienced randomly receiving a proper match with the box checked. It's been ruled out that the feature was actually implemented that way, and implemented correctly.
You can convert it to 100% joke if you like.
At this point most people who have posted anything about this topic can pretty safely convert their post into a JPEG of three otters that look like they're waving at the viewer.
EDIT: Except, obviously, Witherweaver, who would have difficulty doing that.
-
It's…sort of a joke? I mean obviously it's not actually working as intended, but the requirement could easily be misread by a developer who didn't understand the intent of the feature.
Especially if the developer speaks a different language and works in a different country from the person writing the requirements.
-
It's…sort of a joke? I mean obviously it's not actually working as intended, but the requirement could easily be misread by a developer who didn't understand the intent of the feature.
Especially if the developer speaks a different language and works in a different country from the person writing the requirements.
I don't know if that's true, but I know that possession is consistently misspelled in the code for just such a reason.
-
From the v2.0.44 release notes:
- Fixed: "Report a Problem" does nothing (1718, 1827)
Oh, so that's what's been wrong for all these months. Hear that, Stef? Reporting a problem is now supposed to do something!
-
Best release notes ever.
-
Best release notes ever.
You have to commend MF for their transparency on that one. The patch notes have good news though, claiming to have fixed the matchmaking issues with the ranking and adding a super-high speed mode.
-
Best release notes ever.
You have to commend MF for their transparency on that one. The patch notes have good news though, claiming to have fixed the matchmaking issues with the ranking and adding a super-high speed mode.
And it even has a brand new trick where games are totally (http://forum.makingfun.com/showthread.php?8076-Freeze-after-upgrading-today) unplayable (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14100.msg536811#msg536811)!
-
and now they just said they're rolling it back to .43
i guess that's better than just ignoring it, at least!
-
and now they just said they're rolling it back to .43
i guess that's better than just ignoring it, at least!
Where did they say that?
-
and now they just said they're rolling it back to .43
i guess that's better than just ignoring it, at least!
Where did they say that?
the game itself had a popup message that said that a little while ago
-
Best release notes ever.
You have to commend MF for their transparency on that one. The patch notes have good news though, claiming to have fixed the matchmaking issues with the ranking and adding a super-high speed mode.
And it even has a brand new trick where games are totally (http://forum.makingfun.com/showthread.php?8076-Freeze-after-upgrading-today) unplayable (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14100.msg536811#msg536811)!
That's, uh, disappointing. I'm still hopeful that they'll get this client up to par, but that time might come later than I was hoping if they keep getting held back by fatal bugs like this every few releases to sort through.
-
Are they going to actually fix matchmaking so it tries to find you the best game it can, or are they just going to make sure games with players more than 1000 below your rating are refused? I mean, I guess that latter is better than nothing.
-
Sounds like the classical Friday evening deployment to me.
-
Are they going to actually fix matchmaking so it tries to find you the best game it can
That will certainly be their plan, since I will pester them about it if they don't do it. More specifically they need multiple ways to filter out opponents - rating range, games played, quit %, blocked list.
-
pointer!!! it is too big. i keep remodel cards, that i don't want...
plus everything else, they've said before me
-
After reading this thread, I feel fortunate that I have found little to no problems with the current client. Previously, on Goko, it would crash on loading preventing me from ever playing. Thus, this new client is a welcome sight as I can quickly hop into a game (as you can see I'm not a very good player)
However, there is one issue I have with the client that I have not seen brought up is that the client doesn't seem to be meant for the computer, for instance, the lack of settings. It would be understandable on a tablet not to have a volume slider and the like, but it would really be desirable to have one here.
-
Sometimes I get an error on client startup about being unable to initialize DirectX. Restarting computer seems to fix it. Anyone encountered this before?
-
Good ol good of the many vs. the rights of the few conundrum. Far more people are affected by lack of automatch since most people can use the program, but obviously not using the program at all is more severe.
Except that isn't the case here. According to the poll above more people are affected by not being able to play on the new platform, but are divided out between different reasons, than any other group:
13 - uses too much of my resources (so can play, but is harmful to computer to do so)
9 - I can't use it on my preferred platform (sure this might include tablets and iphones, but still fits)
11 - its too unstable
so 33 total compared to 17 that have issues with the point counter being on/off and 30 for the matchmaking.
So this isn't a situation of a handful people not being able to access the game. It is a situation of 33 out of 95 surveyed not being able to play the game. This should be the biggest priority for MF! And maybe it is, but right now it doesn't look like it or feel like it.
I mean I haven't dug into their published fixes and actually seen what they are dong. But each time a new version has been released (including the most recent one) I have tried it and not found success so obviously if they are doing anything at all it isn't working. And any time spent on any other issue when this major one isn't being addressed is wasted. Get everyone (ok maybe 95% is good?) access to the game and then start addressing cosmetic and upgrade features.
-
Good ol good of the many vs. the rights of the few conundrum. Far more people are affected by lack of automatch since most people can use the program, but obviously not using the program at all is more severe.
Except that isn't the case here. According to the poll above more people are affected by not being able to play on the new platform, but are divided out between different reasons, than any other group:
13 - uses too much of my resources (so can play, but is harmful to computer to do so)
9 - I can't use it on my preferred platform (sure this might include tablets and iphones, but still fits)
11 - its too unstable
so 33 total compared to 17 that have issues with the point counter being on/off and 30 for the matchmaking.
So this isn't a situation of a handful people not being able to access the game. It is a situation of 33 out of 95 surveyed not being able to play the game. This should be the biggest priority for MF! And maybe it is, but right now it doesn't look like it or feel like it.
I mean I haven't dug into their published fixes and actually seen what they are dong. But each time a new version has been released (including the most recent one) I have tried it and not found success so obviously if they are doing anything at all it isn't working. And any time spent on any other issue when this major one isn't being addressed is wasted. Get everyone (ok maybe 95% is good?) access to the game and then start addressing cosmetic and upgrade features.
I think response bias heavily favors the people that can't run the software, here, where people who are annoyed by the matchmaking don't make an account or click the thread to complain about that as much as the people who used to play on Goko and now can't play at all definitely want their voice heard in the poll. But you are of course totally free to say, "no, I don't think so".
I certainly would agree that more than 5% are having issues and that is more than enough reason to prioritize stability though.
-
I just realized that resolving Masterpiece is going to be horrible when you have a Duplicate on your Tavern mat.
-
I continue to prefer a giant red X over the card as the way to show what will be trashed (or Ambassador'd), rather than a border I'm not paying attention to.
This is my top request, too.
I know it was just my own fault, but I would have loved to play the actions that I inadvertently trashed yesterday with a Jack and a Golem'ed Chapel...
-
I continue to prefer a giant red X over the card as the way to show what will be trashed (or Ambassador'd), rather than a border I'm not paying attention to.
This is my top request, too.
I know it was just my own fault, but I would have loved to play the actions that I inadvertently trashed yesterday with a Jack and a Golem'ed Chapel...
If they're going to use a colored border, would it be too much to ask that the colors have consistent meaning? (see: Watchtower)
-
I think, that the option "Never more than 1000 below my rating" is working with 2.0.43 now. It was probably fixed on the server side when broken 2.0.44 was released.
-
While playing MF Dominion a few nights ago, my computer suddenly powered off. From that point on my computer would not boot at all - turned out to be corrupted graphics card driver files. Uninstalling and reinstalling those did nothing. Tried several other fixes. In the end I wiped my computer clean and reinstalled my OS.
I guess those flashing colors and 2d cards were a bit too much for my 3 year old computer...
-
While playing MF Dominion a few nights ago, my computer suddenly powered off. From that point on my computer would not boot at all - turned out to be corrupted graphics card driver files. Uninstalling and reinstalling those did nothing. Tried several other fixes. In the end I wiped my computer clean and reinstalled my OS.
I guess those flashing colors and 2d cards were a bit too much for my 3 year old computer...
Which OS?
-
Which OS?
Windows 7
-
I've locked the voting now, since v2.0.43 is no longer the latest version and there's a risk that some new votes would be cast regarding the newer versions instead and make it unclear what the result represents.
-
I've locked the voting now, since v2.0.43 is no longer the latest version and there's a risk that some new votes would be cast regarding the newer versions instead and make it unclear what the result represents.
[/quote
Maybe put out a poll as to what people want now. They seem to have made matchmaking better, I think. Although, it seems bots still count for pro points, and if you win serf bots 9 times in a row you are the best Dominion player in the world, but hey.
-
I've locked the voting now, since v2.0.43 is no longer the latest version and there's a risk that some new votes would be cast regarding the newer versions instead and make it unclear what the result represents.
Maybe put out a poll as to what people want now. They seem to have made matchmaking better, I think. Although, it seems bots still count for pro points, and if you win serf bots 9 times in a row you are the best Dominion player in the world, but hey.
I think you've got your quote tags a bit messed up. :)
I don't see why bots should be excluded from the ranking system, as long as the matchmaking and ranking algorithms are robust, and working well together.
In my opinion what happened there is because:
a) Serfbot is severely overrated due to (for some reason) being matched against new players only. I play almost exclusively bots, and I never get matched with serfbot outside Campaigns, so some sort of filter is in place there. I don't know if the guy requested to play Serfbot or if those games were random matches. If he requested it, those games should never count for any kind of serious leaderboard.
b) the ranking system might be too responsive.
-
My biggest beef now is not being able to see the cards with a big hand. I had over 30 cards in my hand during a game today and literally had no idea what to play. Had to guess based on numbers of copies of cards in my deck, and I could have lost if I accidentally played a terminal.
-
Sitting here at my computer after a league match as my fan attempts to cool my entire apartment it seems. A+ for effort, Mr. Fan, F to MF. I actually don't know if I've ever posted I have this issue over there, so I guess I'll try saying so at the MF forums...
-
Sitting here at my computer after a league match as my fan attempts to cool my entire apartment it seems. A+ for effort, Mr. Fan, F to MF. I actually don't know if I've ever posted I have this issue over there, so I guess I'll try saying so at the MF forums...
But at least it didn't delete entire folders on your hard drive, right?
I dare say that's now the biggest problem. That and the fact that some people literally can no longer play.
-
a relatively minor gripe, but today I was playing a menagerie engine and every time it revealed my hand, the cards ended up in a different order... So there were several close misclick calls
-
a relatively minor gripe, but today I was playing a menagerie engine and every time it revealed my hand, the cards ended up in a different order... So there were several close misclick calls
There was some game where I trashed a silver instead of a copper and was completely confused how it happened. If the game is unexpectedly reordering cards in hand, that would explain it, along with retaining the old artwork that makes all treasures the same color. (As a side note, I had almost forgotten that isotropic made the treasures different colors.)
-
(As a side note, I had almost forgotten that isotropic made the treasures different colors.)
I would settle for the an implementation of the 'base cards' treasures/victories that I had to pay for, which I almost certainly would because the vast majority of the time differentiating is easy or makes no difference, but when it is difficult and relevant, its obnoxious.
-
a relatively minor gripe, but today I was playing a menagerie engine and every time it revealed my hand, the cards ended up in a different order... So there were several close misclick calls
So, this must be why I have accidentally trashed cards a few times and felt confused about the whole thing. Damn. I must have had somewhere close to 3 to 5 misclicks as far as trashing Provinces and whatnot.
-
a relatively minor gripe, but today I was playing a menagerie engine and every time it revealed my hand, the cards ended up in a different order... So there were several close misclick calls
So, this must be why I have accidentally trashed cards a few times and felt confused about the whole thing. Damn. I must have had somewhere close to 3 to 5 misclicks as far as trashing Provinces and whatnot.
I believe I submitted a request to address this back in the early days of the Goko beta.
-
a relatively minor gripe, but today I was playing a menagerie engine and every time it revealed my hand, the cards ended up in a different order... So there were several close misclick calls
So, this must be why I have accidentally trashed cards a few times and felt confused about the whole thing. Damn. I must have had somewhere close to 3 to 5 misclicks as far as trashing Provinces and whatnot.
I believe I submitted a request to address this back in the early days of the Goko beta.
I might have too, can't quite remember. I'm continually surprised that they haven't sold the Base Card art yet, since it's pretty much free money.
-
I'm continually surprised that they haven't sold the Base Card art yet, since it's pretty much free money.
Free money perhaps, but it might take months to implement it, and I'd much rather they work on actual problems.
-
I'm continually surprised that they haven't sold the Base Card art yet, since it's pretty much free money.
it might take months to implement it
It's great to see you have your optimism back.
-
I'm continually surprised that they haven't sold the Base Card art yet, since it's pretty much free money.
it might take months to implement it
It's great to see you have your optimism back.
It might speed up the process if they also add cool animations.
-
Selling the base card art before finishing Adventures so they can sell that is kind of like eating dessert first.
That reminds me, they still haven't implemented Adventures, hahaha..
-
[Maybe put out a poll as to what people want now. They seem to have made matchmaking better, I think. Although, it seems bots still count for pro points, and if you win serf bots 9 times in a row you are the best Dominion player in the world, but hey.
Thanks to everyone who answered my poll! I've made a followup poll right now (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14223.0) and am curious how different it will be. (I have personally a new answer this time at least.)