Print

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

[Awaclus]

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.

[blueblimp]

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?

[Donald X.]

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."

[AdamH]

Something we can do to help.

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.

[theright555J]

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? 

[drsteelhammer]

Something we can do to help.

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?

[AdamH]

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.

[AdamH]

?

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."

[pst]

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.

[AdamH]

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.

[Witherweaver]

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?

[-Stef-]

Adam, the key solution to your problem is:

vacation

[theright555J]

Am I missing something?

I don't think so.

[GendoIkari]

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.

[microman]

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

[iguanaiguana]

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.

[GendoIkari]

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?

[Dingan]

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.

[ravi]

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.

[-Stef-]

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.

[Witherweaver]

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?

[Dingan]

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..

[Witherweaver]

I think it works correctly for Black Market, at least. 

[Voltaire]

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.

[Witherweaver]

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?