Print

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

[olneyce]

Not a big deal, but just wondering what people think:

I tend to play Dominion a lot when I'm doing other things.  Grading papers, reading, etc.  I use Dominion as a 10 minute break here or there during the day.  Because of this, I often play a game and then just sit in the lobby for a while until I come back to play another.

I have a lot of games proposed against me.  Often from folks like WanderingWinder who want a game against the highest-ranked person available.  But often from other folks, too.  I always accept proposed games when I'm ready to play a game, and always decline if I notice that it was proposed and I'm not ready to play.  But when I don't have the Isotropic window open, I'm sure I miss a lot of the challenges.  Is it bad form to sit in the lobby indefinitely and time out on these proposed games?  Is it bad form to sit in the lobby and decline games when I'm not in the mood to play? 

I should probably just close the window and only re-open when I want to play, right?  The only thing there that I feel slightly bad about is that it will disproportionately give me first-player advantage, by closing the session after wins fairly regularly.

[WanderingWinder]

Not a big deal, but just wondering what people think:

I tend to play Dominion a lot when I'm doing other things.  Grading papers, reading, etc.  I use Dominion as a 10 minute break here or there during the day.  Because of this, I often play a game and then just sit in the lobby for a while until I come back to play another.

I have a lot of games proposed against me.  Often from folks like WanderingWinder who want a game against the highest-ranked person available.  But often from other folks, too.  I always accept proposed games when I'm ready to play a game, and always decline if I notice that it was proposed and I'm not ready to play.  But when I don't have the Isotropic window open, I'm sure I miss a lot of the challenges.  Is it bad form to sit in the lobby indefinitely and time out on these proposed games?  Is it bad form to sit in the lobby and decline games when I'm not in the mood to play? 

I should probably just close the window and only re-open when I want to play, right?  The only thing there that I feel slightly bad about is that it will disproportionately give me first-player advantage, by closing the session after wins fairly regularly.

It cannot give you any more first player advantage than you'd get by not closing the window.

[olneyce]

It cannot give you any more first player advantage than you'd get by not closing the window.

Oh, interesting.  I thought the two pools were (won last game) and (lost last game + new session), but the new session folks go in with the winners?

[WanderingWinder]

It cannot give you any more first player advantage than you'd get by not closing the window.

Oh, interesting.  I thought the two pools were (won last game) and (lost last game + new session), but the new session folks go in with the winners?

Right. Otherwise the system would be exceedingly easy to game.

[HiveMindEmulator]

You can also set your status to "afk" or something like that, so people know not to propose games to you.

[Varsinor]

It cannot give you any more first player advantage than you'd get by not closing the window.

Oh, interesting.  I thought the two pools were (won last game) and (lost last game + new session), but the new session folks go in with the winners?

Are you guys saying that player order in a game is not random but dependent on if one won in one's last game?

I am shocked and think this is absolutely wrong if true! (Umm... wrong if true... well, you know what I mean... )
Player order most definitely should be random in my opinion!

How exactly does it work?

[Thisisnotasmile]

How is play order determined on Isotropic? Why does it seem like I am second player more often than first player? - Isotropic attempts to incorporate the official ruling (Page 6 of the game rules) when determining turn order.  If you have just won a game you will typically go last, and if you have just lost a game you will go first.  Exceptions to this are dependent on the players entering and leaving the lobby.  Input from dougz about the implementation can be found here, and recent forum discussion on the subject can be found here.

[Varsinor]

Thanks for the information. I think this is a terrible implementation for numerous reasons. Maybe I'll take the time to open a new thread listing these reasons sometime...

[GendoIkari]

Thanks for the information. I think this is a terrible implementation for numerous reasons. Maybe I'll take the time to open a new thread listing these reasons sometime...

I think it's the closest thing to the actual official rule that when multiple games are played, the loser of the last game goes first in the next game. Dominion has a first-player advantage, and the rules attempt to balance out multiple games by giving that advantage to the person who lost the last game.

[pingpongsam]

If I'm not actively playing I close the window.

That said if I propose a game and it gets ignored I figure the person thinks I'm beneath them and a fool to propose a game.
That said, I just play auto-match always because no one really wants to answer proposals anyway.

And all that said,
I really despise people who have auto-match toggled on who are afk. WTF is up with that?

[WanderingWinder]

Thanks for the information. I think this is a terrible implementation for numerous reasons. Maybe I'll take the time to open a new thread listing these reasons sometime...

Seeing as it's basically the official rule, I'm not sure what else you want. If you're saying that you think the official rule is not the best, I agree. But what are you going to do.

[popsofctown]

Thanks for the information. I think this is a terrible implementation for numerous reasons. Maybe I'll take the time to open a new thread listing these reasons sometime...

I think it's the closest thing to the actual official rule that when multiple games are played, the loser of the last game goes first in the next game. Dominion has a first-player advantage, and the rules attempt to balance out multiple games by giving that advantage to the person who lost the last game.

Isn't the official rule only pertaining to consecutive games with an identical set of players?  If I beat a level 3 friend and go to play olneyce who just lost to WanderingWinder, it's kind of, arbitrary at best, that olneyce goes first. 
But it's no big deal and all.

[HiveMindEmulator]

Thanks for the information. I think this is a terrible implementation for numerous reasons. Maybe I'll take the time to open a new thread listing these reasons sometime...

Seeing as it's basically the official rule, I'm not sure what else you want. If you're saying that you think the official rule is not the best, I agree. But what are you going to do.

I think completely random would be better. It's impossible for someone to game that. As is, you could potentially pick kingdoms and opponents based on knowledge of a bias in probability of seating order. The official rule is for repeatedly playing with the same group of people. Trying to apply it to any other situation doesn't really make sense.

[Axxle]

How is play order determined on Isotropic? Why does it seem like I am second player more often than first player? - Isotropic attempts to incorporate the official ruling (Page 6 of the game rules) when determining turn order.  If you have just won a game you will typically go last, and if you have just lost a game you will go first.  Exceptions to this are dependent on the players entering and leaving the lobby.  Input from dougz about the implementation can be found here, and recent forum discussion on the subject can be found here.

I just had a thought, does losing a unranked game count for determining turn order in ranked games? That's easy to game.

[WanderingWinder]

How is play order determined on Isotropic? Why does it seem like I am second player more often than first player? - Isotropic attempts to incorporate the official ruling (Page 6 of the game rules) when determining turn order.  If you have just won a game you will typically go last, and if you have just lost a game you will go first.  Exceptions to this are dependent on the players entering and leaving the lobby.  Input from dougz about the implementation can be found here, and recent forum discussion on the subject can be found here.

I just had a thought, does losing a unranked game count for determining turn order in ranked games? That's easy to game.

It IS easy to game. And now everyone has had this thought. Good job!

[verikt]

I'm in the lobby pretty often while browsing other windows. Even with automatch it can take a couple of minutes to get a game if you check +-5. Sometimes I just don't hear the beep of challenged game over the other noise in the house.

[Captain_Frisk]

It IS easy to game. And now everyone has had this thought. Good job!

I'm sure he's not the first.  That said, it would be very visible in your councilroom game history if you were doing this, and you can't even cheat and change your name between games... because that would be logging out.

[Varsinor]

The official rule is for repeatedly playing with the same group of people. Trying to apply it to any other situation doesn't really make sense.

Exactly. On the internet with continuously changing opponents, it not only doesn't make any sense IMO, it is bad because it provides completely wrong incentives.
The worst one is that you get penalized when you accept a rematch with a nice opponent after winning.
Or that you get penalized when you don't have the time to continue after a loss.

Another factor that hasn't been mentioned in the linked threads if I haven't missed it is that it "breaks" the TrueSkill system.
The TrueSkill system already penalizes you exactly as much as it "thinks" is appropriate if you play a worse opponent - you have many ranking points to loose and few to gain. If you get further penalized against a low level opponent who is much more likely to have lost the last game, there is an incentive to only play against the opponents with the best winning quota you can find (which need not necessarily be the opponents with the highest level). Which sucks considering the fact that without this incentive, the TrueSkill system is elegantly designed so that it shouldn't matter which opponents you play (assuming they are neither over- nor underranked compared to their skill of course).

[Varsinor]

That said, it would be very visible in your councilroom game history if you were doing this

Not if you only do it before important games. For instance league/tournament games.
I regard this as a massive and totally unncessary problem for anyone organizing a competitive tournament.

[Captain_Frisk]

The official rule is for repeatedly playing with the same group of people. Trying to apply it to any other situation doesn't really make sense.

Exactly. On the internet with continuously changing opponents, it not only doesn't make any sense IMO, it is bad because it provides completely wrong incentives.
The worst one is that you get penalized when you accept a rematch with a nice opponent after winning.
Or that you get penalized when you don't have the time to continue after a loss.

Another factor that hasn't been mentioned in the linked threads if I haven't missed it is that it "breaks" the TrueSkill system.
The TrueSkill system already penalizes you exactly as much as it "thinks" is appropriate if you play a worse opponent - you have many ranking points to loose and few to gain. If you get further penalized against a low level opponent who is much more likely to have lost the last game, there is an incentive to only play against the opponents with the best winning quota you can find (which need not necessarily be the opponents with the highest level). Which sucks considering the fact that without this incentive, the TrueSkill system is elegantly designed so that it shouldn't matter which opponents you play (assuming they are neither over- nor underranked compared to their skill of course).

I HATE HATE HATE 2nd player disadvantage as much as anyone here... but I think i figured out how many potential games  the isotropic rule had cost me in my lifetime... and it was something like 40... which is a drop in the bucket.

The end result of this rule is that people who are a little less experienced will get the benefits of 1st player play slightly more often.  Those of us on the other end of the curve who are "hurt" buy it... are already loyal customers.  Take a deep breath, shake off that bad governor / chapel beat, and get back out there and play another game.

[WanderingWinder]

The official rule is for repeatedly playing with the same group of people. Trying to apply it to any other situation doesn't really make sense.

Exactly. On the internet with continuously changing opponents, it not only doesn't make any sense IMO, it is bad because it provides completely wrong incentives.
The worst one is that you get penalized when you accept a rematch with a nice opponent after winning.
Or that you get penalized when you don't have the time to continue after a loss.

Another factor that hasn't been mentioned in the linked threads if I haven't missed it is that it "breaks" the TrueSkill system.
The TrueSkill system already penalizes you exactly as much as it "thinks" is appropriate if you play a worse opponent - you have many ranking points to loose and few to gain. If you get further penalized against a low level opponent who is much more likely to have lost the last game, there is an incentive to only play against the opponents with the best winning quota you can find (which need not necessarily be the opponents with the highest level). Which sucks considering the fact that without this incentive, the TrueSkill system is elegantly designed so that it shouldn't matter which opponents you play (assuming they are neither over- nor underranked compared to their skill of course).

I HATE HATE HATE 2nd player disadvantage as much as anyone here... but I think i figured out how many potential games  the isotropic rule had cost me in my lifetime... and it was something like 40... which is a drop in the bucket.

The end result of this rule is that people who are a little less experienced will get the benefits of 1st player play slightly more often.  Those of us on the other end of the curve who are "hurt" buy it... are already loyal customers.  Take a deep breath, shake off that bad governor / chapel beat, and get back out there and play another game.

Yeah. Based off quick calculations, if you take my percentages as 'true' percentages, and with a bit of rounding error, it's cost me 97 games. Out of 10,678. Compared to if 50% of my games were p1 and 50% p2.