Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

451

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Bot "Pro" Games Effect Leaderboard

« on: September 24, 2014, 07:15:49 am »

Is there evidence that this Canton Pilots Association did select specific kingdoms regularly?

No, it's very unlikely that he did, because he misplayed most of his games.

I don't think he'd get to level 47 (and a μ slightly higher than Stef's) by misplaying most of his games?!
That said, I also didn't see a pattern of specific kingdoms in his last bot games.

Not against real players, but against bots, you can misplay and win inspite of it (or even because of it). Take a look at the game I linked, it's one of the worst but not the only one. Seriously, an opponent buying nothing but Silvers, Golds and green cards could beat him in that game with some decent luck, and it is not a small oversight even a top player could do sometimes, it's going for Philosopher's Stone when there's a fast big money strategy with support in the kingdom.

Agreed about this game; but usually (in the absence of PS ;-)) the (non-serf) bots play better than pure BM. Banker Bot would probably have played Butcher BM on that very board. And CPA must have had something like a 99% win rate against bots to get this high a rating. You don't get that by regularly playing as bad as BM.
However, CPA is only at #132 on Goko's Pro leaderboard; so maybe there's something wrong with Isotropish's rating here?

Edit: From the log search, it seems CPA only won ~90% of his games against bots (which is still the win rate of Rebuild BM against pure BM, so you can't expect much better against decent opponents). Still, you shouldn't be able to reach the top 5 with that performance, I think...

452

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Bot "Pro" Games Effect Leaderboard

« on: September 24, 2014, 06:00:09 am »

Is there evidence that this Canton Pilots Association did select specific kingdoms regularly?

No, it's very unlikely that he did, because he misplayed most of his games.

I don't think he'd get to level 47 (and a μ slightly higher than Stef's) by misplaying most of his games?!
That said, I also didn't see a pattern of specific kingdoms in his last bot games.

453

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Bot "Pro" Games Effect Leaderboard

« on: September 23, 2014, 11:12:31 am »

I'm not sure what the issue is.

Well IMO the purpose of the Goko bots is not to provide a competitive experience but rather to provide a quick and easy way to play a game with no commitment. If quitting vs bots distorts the quality of matchmaking with human players, that's a problem.

I don't know of _any_ game where the built-in convenience AIs are counted on the leaderboard. I think there are some games where AIs play for competitive rating (Go?), but in those cases, the AIs are being developed as competitive AIs, which is a totally different situation.

As I said, I understand (and agree with) the request in the context of the new "Play Bots" button, which is the convenience aspect (wanting to quit out of a quick bot game). I don't think I'll agree if people are accused of gaming the system by playing bots if they are just playing random kingdoms against the bots. As long as it's easy to make a quick Casual game against the bots (i.e. the old "Play Bots" button), I don't see any reason to not include Pro bot games in the leaderboard.

Agreed. The problem is the possibility of choosing kingdoms for Pro games, which for whatever reason has only existed since the "Play bots" button was changed to Pro games recently. (But when I used it, the game didn't seem to count for Isotropish, only for Goko's rating.)
Is there evidence that this Canton Pilots Association did select specific kingdoms regularly?

454

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Gain a Peddler

« on: September 18, 2014, 10:11:20 am »

(Note that I'm only talking in terms of the card's power level, not what makes the game most fun. I do enjoy the "insane" games that $2 Chapel allows for.)

and this is the answer to your question, as i said before, you should never balance cards for powerlevel, but always for what makes the game most fun. if the cards stack, this is often the same/similar, but in case of chapel, it's two very different things.

In principle that's right, but the problem is that everyone has a different opinion of what is fun; many players  hate(d) Chapel for being overpowered. Donald usually tries to make cards both balanced and fun; Chapel is the only intentional exception, I think.
And my discussion with Awaclus was about card strength, not fun games. Obviously Chapel is much more fun at $2 than his "anti-Chapel" would be, although they have a similar power level.

455

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Gain a Peddler

« on: September 18, 2014, 08:58:05 am »

No, it can't.

Since you rarely want more than one Chapel, it's fine making it cost $2 so that both players can grab it if they want.
The only problem with it costing $2 is that you can pair it with a strong $5 like Mountebank.

Maybe it would have been better at $3 so one guy opens Silver/Chapel and the other opens Mountebank/- and they both could have a decent chance.

I agree that Chapel is fine at $2 (or $3) for the reasons you state, but that doesn't mean it couldn't work at other costs. Why can't it cost $5? Forge costs $7 and is not that much stronger. Usually when you open e.g. Chapel/Witch and they collide, you prefer playing Chapel, implying that it's actually stronger than Witch even when ignoring costs. You could argue that Chapel is too strong to cost $5 (giving too much of an advantage to a 2/5 opening), but that would rather speak for a $6 cost than a lower one. And the $2 cost already gives a massive advantage to a 2/5 opening, as you say.

(Note that I'm only talking in terms of the card's power level, not what makes the game most fun. I do enjoy the "insane" games that $2 Chapel allows for.)

456

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Gain a Peddler

« on: September 18, 2014, 07:02:01 am »

Probably, yes.  It's clearly weaker than Sea Hag, and the difference between $1 and $4 doesn't matter much since you usually won't buy more than two. A Witch with only a +1 card bonus would certainly work at $3 in terms of card balance; its only problem is the ugly slog games it could cause.

It's weaker than Sea Hag, but it's not that much weaker than Sea Hag. Sometimes Hag just discards an Estate or a Curse, and then it's basically the same thing. A Witch with only a +1 card bonus is almost equal to Sea Hag in terms of power — Sea Hag replaces one random card in your opponent's next hand with a Curse and one random card in your current hand with itself, the +1 Card Witch doesn't. Sea Hag is less good with Thrones, but sometimes causes an unwanted reshuffle, and if it skips over a good card for your opponent, he loses it that shuffle, but for you it's just slightly delayed. So it's maybe slightly worse than Sea Hag, but certainly not enough to justify being $3 when Young Witch is more significantly worse than Sea Hag and still powerful at $4.

Compared to Sea Hag, the +1 Card Witch has the disadvantage of replacing itself with a terminally drawn card, while not hurting the opponent's hand. I don't see it as clearly worse than Young Witch - you usually have one or two bad cards to discard in the early game, and buying a Bane is often not worth it in 2p. But Young Witch would probably also work at $3; I think it'd still be weaker at $3 than the original Witch is at $5, and usually weaker than Ambassador.
I'd rather compare this with Masquerade, which is essentially an anti-"+1 Card Witch" since it also keeps your hand at the same size (when trashing) and "removes" one junk card out of every player's deck when compared to playing +1 Card Witch instead. Masqerade does this as long as one has a trash target (which is usually about as long as a Witch still has curses to give), and doesn't become dead afterwards, but is still a vanilla Moat with the potential to annoy opponents. So I'd say +1 Card Witch is slightly weaker than Masquerade, which does cost $3.

Trashing is cheaper than junking anyway. Dealing out 4 Curses by discarding your hand for $2 would be stupidly powerful.

Right. But arguably Chapel is "stupidly powerful" itself, it could easily cost $5...

457

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Gain a Peddler

« on: September 18, 2014, 06:52:01 am »

What do you think of my Reaction version? I've put some thought in there - if you really want, here is the extra pile version of it:

Kontor (Action-Reaction) $5
Gain a Pedlar from the Pedlar pile. Play it.
____________________________
When a player plays a Pedlar, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, put it on the Pedlar pile.

Pedlar (Action) 0*
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
(This is not in the Supply.)

The first thing I wanted to say is "You've mis-spelled Peddler"   Is "Pedlar" an actual word?

Buying this card would effectively force your opponents to reciprocate, since otherwise you get the whole Pedlar pile without risk of losing them. This need not be a bad thing, but it also seems very strong to me, since being a Peddler/Pedlar at play is much better than +2 cards. Now it practically becomes a Grand Market upon second play, and even better afterwards, unless you lose the Pedlars again.

458

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Gain a Peddler

« on: September 18, 2014, 06:44:42 am »

Probably, yes.  It's clearly weaker than Sea Hag, and the difference between $1 and $4 doesn't matter much since you usually won't buy more than two. A Witch with only a +1 card bonus would certainly work at $3 in terms of card balance; its only problem is the ugly slog games it could cause.

It's weaker than Sea Hag, but it's not that much weaker than Sea Hag. Sometimes Hag just discards an Estate or a Curse, and then it's basically the same thing. A Witch with only a +1 card bonus is almost equal to Sea Hag in terms of power — Sea Hag replaces one random card in your opponent's next hand with a Curse and one random card in your current hand with itself, the +1 Card Witch doesn't. Sea Hag is less good with Thrones, but sometimes causes an unwanted reshuffle, and if it skips over a good card for your opponent, he loses it that shuffle, but for you it's just slightly delayed. So it's maybe slightly worse than Sea Hag, but certainly not enough to justify being $3 when Young Witch is more significantly worse than Sea Hag and still powerful at $4.

Compared to Sea Hag, the +1 Card Witch has the disadvantage of replacing itself with a terminally drawn card, while not hurting the opponent's hand. I don't see it as clearly worse than Young Witch - you usually have one or two bad cards to discard in the early game, and buying a Bane is often not worth it in 2p. But Young Witch would probably also work at $3; I think it'd still be weaker at $3 than the original Witch is at $5, and usually weaker than Ambassador.
I'd rather compare this with Masquerade, which is essentially an anti-"+1 Card Witch" since it also keeps your hand at the same size (when trashing) and "removes" one junk card out of every player's deck when compared to playing +1 Card Witch instead. Masqerade does this as long as one has a trash target (which is usually about as long as a Witch still has curses to give), and doesn't become dead afterwards, but is still a vanilla Moat with the potential to annoy opponents. So I'd say +1 Card Witch is slightly weaker than Masquerade, which does cost $3.

459

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Goko Dominion Salvager Discussion

« on: September 17, 2014, 08:06:58 am »

Nice work, but I would prefer the "End turn" button to be moved only in situations where you would usually/often not want to click it (i.e. when you have enough coins left for a card better than Copper). Similarly, I'd prefer the "End Actions" button to appear at its usual place e.g. if you only have a Necropolis left. Or alternatively, always put these buttons in the side bar, but keep the original buttons in place when there's little risk of misclick.

I wouldn't. It's more convenient to always have the buttons in the same place.

I would agree if that place was in the play area close to their original place. But I find it annoying to have to click a button on the side bar every second turn, which also doesn't look like the original button.
One more nitpick: I would prefer the buttons not to be visible (or clearly distinguished) when you can't click them - sometimes I want to end my turn with Actions left, but clicking "End turn" doesn't do anything yet.

460

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Goko Dominion Salvager Discussion

« on: September 17, 2014, 06:07:57 am »

Ever hit "End Turn" when you didn't mean to? I've just submitted a pull request for a feature that might be able to help you out:

Great work!  I just accepted the pull request and deployed as v2.5.4.6 for beta users.

Nice work, but I would prefer the "End turn" button to be moved only in situations where you would usually/often not want to click it (i.e. when you have enough coins left for a card better than Copper). Similarly, I'd prefer the "End Actions" button to appear at its usual place e.g. if you only have a Necropolis left. Or alternatively, always put these buttons in the side bar, but keep the original buttons in place when there's little risk of misclick.

Also, if you're re-creating the buttons anyway, you might fix Goko's mistake and rename "End turn": It should properly read "End buy phase", since cleanup effects like Herbalist or Alchemist only happen after you click it.

461

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Gain a Peddler

« on: September 16, 2014, 12:32:14 pm »

Technically, it uses the existing rule that cards can be gained from outside the supply by specifying their origin - "gain a Peddler from the Peddler pile" should work the same way as "gain a Madman from the Madman pile" when Peddler isn't in the supply.

I'm aware of that. the post that my post was directed to did not include the "from the XX pile" part. and to address this also, I think it's even worse, because it requires you to have another expansion. I don't have a single card in my expansion that even references a card that's not in its own set or in the base set, much less require you to have it, and LF also doesn't have a single one in his.

The post you quoted did use the "from the Peddler pile" wording in the explicit card suggested, as does the OP; it was only missing in the "colloquial" discussion of potential other cards.
Referencing other expansions is a problem in official expansions (and therefore never done), but you can just declare this as a "Prosperity fan card" instead of a Dominion fan card... 

462

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Gain a Peddler

« on: September 16, 2014, 12:14:33 pm »

while it doesn't need any new rules.

if you don't add any  new rules, this card is useless on the majority of boards, because there is no peddler to gain. it does need new rules.

Technically, it uses the existing rule that cards can be gained from outside the supply by specifying their origin - "gain a Peddler from the Peddler pile" should work the same way as "gain a Madman from the Madman pile" when Peddler isn't in the supply.

Personally, I have not much love for additional non-kingdom piles like those in Dark Ages (EDIT: and like LastFootnote suggested). I think it is much easier to use an existing kingdom card that is really simple - maybe the concept could also work with "gain Laboratory"; or "gain Smithy" on a Necropolis card; or "gain a $5 card that is randomly chosen during setup". There are some interesting things possible with this concept while it doesn't need any new rules. Of course the effect is less powerful when that specific card is in the supply as well. But this should be fixable, see my last post. Then there are two ways to gain Peddlers, either by this card or by cheap +buys. The interaction with Tfb might be silly, but still fun, I think.

Now I noticed that Donald's cards that gain a specific non-supply card either trash themselves (Hermit, Urchin) or let the other card put itself back on its pile (Madman, Spoils).
I also noticed that this phrase is pretty bad: "In games using this, when you trash a Peddler, put it on the Peddler pile." VP engine with this and Bishop, you know...

Yes, this could be worse than Bishop-Fortress. If you don't return trashed Peddlers to their pile, your "+2 cards" version would probably work at $5, since it becomes "dead" (or rather, Moat-ish) quickly when contested, just like Witch. But even just two "good" plays give you almost a (retarded) Grand Market (or two $8 TfB targets), in addition to the weak card draw.

463

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Gain a Peddler

« on: September 16, 2014, 12:00:22 pm »

Usually adding +2 cards to a terminal card is enough to increase a card price by about $4 (Moat vs. Hunting Grounds)

That's just wrong. Moat vs. Hunting Grounds is a next-to-useless terminal you don't even want in your deck in most situations vs. one of the most powerful +card cards for engines. Is Ruined Library a card that people actually buy for $0? inb4 someone says yes and posts a log in which they did that and won because of it Would you say that a terminal "Each other player gains a Curse" is balanced at $1?

Probably, yes.  It's clearly weaker than Sea Hag, and the difference between $1 and $4 doesn't matter much since you usually won't buy more than two. A Witch with only a +1 card bonus would certainly work at $3 in terms of card balance; its only problem is the ugly slog games it could cause.
Of course you don't buy Ruined Library, because it actively hurts your deck, and only costs $0 because there are no negative price points.

If you consider Moat to be so much weaker than HG at their respective price points, adding +2 Cards should cause an even higher cost increase than $4 to be balanced. But HG is only at an average position among $6+ cards in Qvist's card ranking, while Moat is below average among the $2 cards but far from the worst. Not every board is an engine, after all. And Moat's non-vanilla bonus is not that much stronger than HG's, I think.
You can also compare HG with Smithy, a strongish $4 card, which is probably the better comparison because price increases between $0 and $4 matter much less than going from $4- to $5+.

Cantrips do indeed hurt terminal card draw; I did say it could work at $5 in the absence of TfB, in spite of being better than Mine. But with TfB you get a $8's worth out of every Kontor play, in addition to playing the Peddler when it doesn't collide with TfB, and you won't have a deck full of cantrips because you keep trashing the Peddlers.

464

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Gain a Peddler

« on: September 16, 2014, 10:09:19 am »

well, I just wouldn't do more with the card than the thought experiment.

Why not? At least I'd like to try fixing it.

The comparison to Mine is a very good point. The cantrip version is too strong.

The limit of 10 Peddlers is the reason for the on-trash effect. Okay, trashing isn't always available.

My brainstorm ideas to get around the problem:
- Add some way to put Peddlers back to their pile.
- Gaining a Peddler is only one choice, so that Kontor can be useful when Peddlers are empty.
- You choose between different $ cantrips (Oasis, Peddler, Market).

Kontor (Action) $5
+2 Cards
Gain a Peddler from the Peddler pile.
_______________________
In games using this, when you trash a Peddler, put it on the Peddler pile.

This is still far stronger than Mine as long as the Peddlers last; +2 Cards is much better than +$1. If you ignore Peddler trashing for benefit, this is about as strong as Mine would be in Colony games if it was guaranteed to always collide with a Gold. In games without trashers, it might work as a strong $5 since the Peddlers will likely run out quickly due to several Kontors getting bought. But with TfB to recycle the Peddlers, this is far too strong, probably far better than Grand Market.
You can also compare Kontor with Workshop, since Peddler is as strong as a $4 card: Kontor draws two additional cards and combos with TfB, in exchange for non-flexibility. Usually adding +2 cards to a terminal card is enough to increase a card price by about $4 (Moat vs. Hunting Grounds). t with +1 Kontor could be balanced with only +1 Card...

465

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Update 28 August 2014

« on: September 15, 2014, 02:41:08 pm »

Normally you get 15 coins for a win, 10 for a tie.  Perhaps it was graded as a tie for some strange reason? When you tie, it still says "you're the winner".

No, you only get 10 coins for a win against a bot (I think you get 15 coins only for wins against human opponents).
A tie would explain the rating loss, though I'd expect it to be even more than 30 points then.

I am now confident it was due to increased uncertainty after not playing for several days that carried the loss. Evidently displayed rating only changes when you play a game while true rating changes daily . Thus if you don't play for a few days a dozen or more point loss (30 here) will be incorporated into your next game.

Yes, but according to Gokosalvager (http://gokosalvager.com/logsearch?p1name=Andrew+Iannaccone&p1score=any&p2name=&startdate=08%2F05%2F2012&enddate=09%2F15%2F2014&supply=&nonsupply=&rating=pro&pcount=2&colony=any&bot=any&shelters=any&guest=false&minturns=&maxturns=&quit=any&resign=any&limit=20&submitted=true&offset=20), he played another Pro game only hours before...

466

Dominion League / Re: to Black Market or not to Black Market

« on: September 15, 2014, 07:59:32 am »

To quote an appropriate reply from that old thread:

Are we talking about Black Market, or Isotropic Black Market?

If you take the card literally, the BM deck contains one card of every kingdom not in play, i.e. almost 200 cards for someone who has all expansions, which makes fishing for specific cards impossible. With only 25 cards and the deck content being public knowledge, it becomes much more plannable. So which do you consider the standard way of playing BM? (Which method does Goko use, by the way?)

467

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Update 28 August 2014

« on: September 13, 2014, 04:42:32 pm »

Guys, I'm really sorry.  My earlier post about the changes to the rating system was completely wrong.  I had a sneaky Python bug that left the code running without visible errors, but which produced all the wrong numbers.

I have no reason to think the rating system has changed.  The rating changes I'm getting still jive with Goko Pro as I described it back in April.  As for my -30 game against Serf Bot, I still have no idea how that happened.

(Better Q, why aren't they paying you, but I think that's a different discussion ).

Maybe this is why.

I thought it was a requirement for employment at Goko to make mistakes? 

Normally you get 15 coins for a win, 10 for a tie.  Perhaps it was graded as a tie for some strange reason? When you tie, it still says "you're the winner".

No, you only get 10 coins for a win against a bot (I think you get 15 coins only for wins against human opponents).
A tie would explain the rating loss, though I'd expect it to be even more than 30 points then.

468

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Prince on Goko

« on: September 12, 2014, 09:39:44 am »

Sorry for the digression, but does log search work for everyone else? When searching with my player name, it doesn't find any games I played since New Year's Day; but funnily, some appear when searching for my opponent's name...

I can find my own games but not yours.  Have you changed your goko username since New Year's?  If so, that's probably the reason.  If not, post in the Salvager thread about the issue and AI will probably look into it.

No, I've never changed my username. I'll post there, then...

469

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Update 28 August 2014

« on: September 11, 2014, 12:04:02 pm »

...

I see, that's too bad. Maybe they've increased rating changes for a while to get rid of the adventure rating bug's aftermath?

470

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Prince on Goko

« on: September 11, 2014, 11:52:18 am »

Edit: How do I do that thing where all the cards are graphically displayed?

You find the game here and click on "Kingdom".

Sorry for the digression, but does log search work for everyone else? When searching with my player name, it doesn't find any games I played since New Year's Day; but funnily, some appear when searching for my opponent's name...

471

Simulation / Re: Challenge: Rock/Paper/Scissors

« on: September 11, 2014, 11:45:08 am »

In general the pin strategy should usually beat a money mountebank deck if played well, which as soulnet pointed out above means the resulting strategies don't reflect any actual strategic ambiguity in this kingdom.

With Chapel added to the kingdom, yes. But if you disallow it (and any other strong pin support like Monument), there's still a RPS situation unless you can improve the pin strategy substantially.

I don't know if I could improve the programming of the pin but I expect that on a board of quarry, masquerade, goons, mountebank and KC, someone like SCSN could win most of the games with the pin against All the Mountebanks. Get a number of masquerades, at least two quarries, don't pass curses so you can block MB, then get KCs, thin your deck drastically, add Goons and win.

That's not unlikely, but SCSN might also win against an average pin player by playing Mountebanks, adding some support from Masq and other cards. That's why NMF allowed suboptimal strategies.

In case a perfectly implemented QuarryPin does beat Multi-Mountebank, we may still get a board strategically ambiguous also to humans by disallowing Quarry as well...

472

Simulation / Re: Challenge: Rock/Paper/Scissors

« on: September 11, 2014, 11:22:59 am »

You can't get a second Masq. I've tried it, and you have to get rid of it somehow. So, you pass it to Beggar Gardens, who plays it, and kills the Pin.

Adding Monument seems to help a lot, you can outscale the Gardens before the 3 pile happens.
Wins something like 95% against B/G that always reveals, but I can't test enough cause Dominate keeps crashing. Loses 80% against All The Mountebanks.

Current version, with no Chapel, fixed KC/Masq priority over KC/Goons, Monument added.
[...]

If you want to make it optimal, the bot should also buy Quarries if he doesn't have a Goons yet - I've seen a game log where the bot trashed itself down to KC, KC, Masq, never acquiring a Goons. (The game went on for 20,000 turns (!) without ever reaching a pin.)
Also, I don't see why one would try and end the game by buying Golds first - these would help the opponent thanks to Masq. Better to buy VP cards and Curses to three-pile instead.

In general the pin strategy should usually beat a money mountebank deck if played well, which as soulnet pointed out above means the resulting strategies don't reflect any actual strategic ambiguity in this kingdom.

With Chapel added to the kingdom, yes. But if you disallow it (and any other strong pin support like Monument), there's still a RPS situation unless you can improve the pin strategy substantially.

473

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Goko's Rating System, Part 2: Reverse Engineering

« on: September 11, 2014, 08:19:44 am »

I also hope that AI will still get around to posting "Part 3". I'm not quite certain if Goko's ranking (minus the bugs) is worse than Isotropish's; Isotropish uses an extremely high initial uncertainty, making the board very conservative wrt new players...

A couple-hundred games tends to drop a new player into the normal uncertainty range.  For example, here are the top active players with fewer than 300 games. 

Yeah, I'm one of them.   I would prefer to see "normal" uncertainties after only a few dozen games, not hundreds. This way a relatively new player could have a rating closely corresponding to his (often changing) skill, and not just have an "automatic" rating increase for playing lots of games until he reaches a hundred games.  (TrueSkill does account for changing skills by increasing the uncertainty slightly after each game; and a new online player may well be a veteran RL player.) As a starting value for new players, probably something in the middle between Isotropish's leaderboard level -75 and Goko's 1,000 rating would be best...

IMO, Isotropish's bigger weakness is how long it takes to figure out that a veteran player is improving, rather than just having a lucky streak.  More on this shortly... I really am going to post part 3.  I've been sitting on a near-finished version for quite a while.

There's no need to fine-tune it endlessly before posting; there's an edit button after all .  I'd really like to read even a half-finished analysis; if necessary, you could also split part 3 in two and post only the first half now...

474

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Update 28 August 2014

« on: September 11, 2014, 07:11:24 am »

I've seen the no bots thing many, many times before the update and have seen it work properly many times since the update.  I can't answer your why questions, as I have no inside knowledge.

Now the bots are back. Thanks anyway!

Play vs. Bots now uses the Pro rating system, which is used for fair games. If you want to play bots under the Casual system, you still can by creating a table with the casual system and inviting a bot.

Hmm... so the bad news that now I have to actually play out the game when I want to test a feature. 

Why? Can't you resign games any more?

The other bad news is that I lose 30 points even for a win:



I'm pretty sure this shouldn't be possible unless someone at Goko has been messing with their TS parameters.  And they'd have to be pretty insane parameter at that.  Is this just a bug?

I thought you were the one who created a rating predictor for Goko's rating system, so you should be able to check.   (Well, more or less, since the bots' ratings change rapidly...)
If you played Serf Bot, it's quite likely that you'd lose points for a win due to an increased uncertainty; against other bots, it's less likely but not impossible if you have very low uncertainty.

Edit: I forgot, Goko was "perverting" the rating system to "hide" any point losses after a win. So have they just returned to unmodified TrueSkill now, or have they also changed their TrueSkill parameters for the worse?
(There's really more important things for them to do, like removing the pro rating inflations due to the recent adventure games bug. Or finally getting rid of the lobbies...  )

475

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Goko rating

« on: September 10, 2014, 01:08:17 pm »

Adventures have been fixed - they no longer count as pro games.

New Adventure games, yes. But ratings are still inflated due to past Adventure games, AFAICS.