Print

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

[Thisisnotasmile]

Sorry. We posted at the same time. My post was in response to this:

I'm pretty sure Paralyzed and Horny Toad are the same person. Each of those accounts have been playing the same setup.

Just one comment about banning cards in a tournament. It's pretty common for tournament holders to select the cards for each game, thereby effectively "banning" all the cards that weren't selected. Is this not really Dominion? In fact, in the World Championship at Essen, Donald had personally selected the cards for each of the six rounds. (Possession was one of the "banned" cards! )

[guided]

Heh, word

[theory]

As a lawyer, this raises serious due process issues and etc., but as a Dominion player, I really wish dougz would just delete Paralyzed and every single one of his games from the server.

[fellowmartian]

You have to ask: what is the leaderboard for? I'd see it as:

1) A bit of fun vanity, or a challenge -- see how high you can go.
2) A way to find reasonable opponents of a similar skill level.
3) A way to measure your own progress.

For all of these, it seems to me that the only way that they work is with a completely level playing field. I applaud the decision to not count games with card restrictions.

If you want to prioritise enjoyment above skill comparison, and for you card restrictions do this, then fine. Carry on restricting, and don't get counted for the leaderboard. Make your choice, either blanket, or for a given game/period.

What this does throw into sharper relief, though, are those people who constantly refuse games on automatch. If you have card restrictions, use them and challenge, or use veto mode. Otherwise you're just trying to have your cake and eat it.

I'd be happy to hear a case I haven't considered for putting automatch on and then refusing games, but until I do, I think I'll be refusing further games myself from anyone who switches on automatch and then refuses a game (it's also kind of annoying when there are few people in the room and you keep getting matched with someone who keeps refusing).

Ps. I don't see Paralyzed there now. Has dougz dealt with it?

[theory]

I assume he has just fallen off the leaderboard due to not playing recently, but every so often he signs on and beats down a dummy opponent to reappear on top.

[WanderingWinder]

You have to ask: what is the leaderboard for? I'd see it as:

1) A bit of fun vanity, or a challenge -- see how high you can go.
2) A way to find reasonable opponents of a similar skill level.
3) A way to measure your own progress.

For all of these, it seems to me that the only way that they work is with a completely level playing field. I applaud the decision to not count games with card restrictions.

If you want to prioritise enjoyment above skill comparison, and for you card restrictions do this, then fine. Carry on restricting, and don't get counted for the leaderboard. Make your choice, either blanket, or for a given game/period.

What this does throw into sharper relief, though, are those people who constantly refuse games on automatch. If you have card restrictions, use them and challenge, or use veto mode. Otherwise you're just trying to have your cake and eat it.

I'd be happy to hear a case I haven't considered for putting automatch on and then refusing games, but until I do, I think I'll be refusing further games myself from anyone who switches on automatch and then refuses a game (it's also kind of annoying when there are few people in the room and you keep getting matched with someone who keeps refusing).

Ps. I don't see Paralyzed there now. Has dougz dealt with it?

I refuse games on automatch when:
I don't actually want to be on automatch and have to leave (there's occasionally a bug where it thinks I'm on, but I'm not).
And more importantly, when someone has rejected an automatch game with me, I'm very likely to refuse all games that come up with them, because they're distorting the random, at least until I've played another game and come back to the lobby, at which point I may well have forgotten.

[mathguy]

I assume he has just fallen off the leaderboard due to not playing recently, but every so often he signs on and beats down a dummy opponent to reappear on top.

So if I understand correctly, the issue that people have with Paralyzed is that he constantly plays with (Constraint(s) used: required: Bishop, Colony, Goons, Island, King's Court, Laboratory, Masquerade, Mint, Peddler, Platinum, Tactician, Vault.), right? He is really good at playing that board and other people are not.

He does end up playing (and beating) some fairly skilled opponents:
WHARF 2 THA BRIDGE   http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20110823-213223-555cc70d.html,
Jimmmmm   http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20110829-232902-662b95e7.html,
chwhite  http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20110825-231821-d6848add.html.

I don't like the idea of only playing one board over and over, but if he proposes a game and someone accepts, then they have decided on the board in a mutually acceptable way. This is perfectly within the rules.

Is this it, or is there some other more nefarious stuff happening? (Like starting fake accounts, exploiting bugs, etc.)

[chwhite]

The game Paralyzed played against me actually did not have his usual KC-Masq pin, if you'll look closer.  I should have declined it anyway.

[theory]

Paralyzed rose to his rating by repeatedly playing a particular KC-Goons-Masq pin board.  I think it's unfair to your opponents to repeatedly play the same set, and although you should never accept custom set games, people were too charitable in their assumptions, and may not have realized that there were particular sets with (literally) unbeatable strategies.

Now that custom set games no longer count towards one's rating, he has started playing games against a dummy account so he can stay on top and not disappear for inactivity.  See, e.g., this game:

--- HornyToad's turn 32 ---
HornyToad draws 5 cards and gets +1 action and +1 buy from the Tactician.
HornyToad plays a Fishing Village.
... getting +2 actions and +$1.
HornyToad plays 5 Golds, 2 Silvers, and 2 Coppers.
HornyToad buys a Silver.
HornyToad buys a Silver.
(HornyToad draws: a Silver, 3 Golds, and a Smithy.)

[Buggz]

That I find amazingly pathetic. I wonder how much time he has spent doing this.

[mith]

I refuse games on automatch when:
...
And more importantly, when someone has rejected an automatch game with me, I'm very likely to refuse all games that come up with them, because they're distorting the random, at least until I've played another game and come back to the lobby, at which point I may well have forgotten.

I do this as well. I don't mind playing with veto, but if we're going to play with a random set of 10, I want it to actually be random.

[rrenaud]

I refuse games on automatch when:
...
And more importantly, when someone has rejected an automatch game with me, I'm very likely to refuse all games that come up with them, because they're distorting the random, at least until I've played another game and come back to the lobby, at which point I may well have forgotten.

I do this as well. I don't mind playing with veto, but if we're going to play with a random set of 10, I want it to actually be random.

If you want uniform random, you are screwed.

Imagine player X vetos all possesion games. 

Automatch suggests you play with X.  Most of the time, there won't be a possession, and you'll play it.

But then when possession is listed, X rejects, and you refuse to play with X again.  But you still have a biased sample.  You are playing less than the expected number of possession games.

[mith]

Sure, we're only limiting the bias by some small amount, not eliminating it entirely. I'm not *that* bothered about it.

[fellowmartian]

I refuse games on automatch when:
I don't actually want to be on automatch and have to leave (there's occasionally a bug where it thinks I'm on, but I'm not).
And more importantly, when someone has rejected an automatch game with me, I'm very likely to refuse all games that come up with them, because they're distorting the random, at least until I've played another game and come back to the lobby, at which point I may well have forgotten.

The first of those sounds fair enough, but it'll mean you won't worry too much if I refuse you. The second is pretty much what I've been doing often, and think I'll do all the time from now on, myself.

[ackack]

For me one of the few silver linings of the eventual commercial version is the possibility that true random automatch (no veto, if you get automatched you do not have the option to decline, etc.) might exist and become the basis for at least one set of ratings.

[rrenaud]

I personally would be a big fan of a supply blind, no veto mode.  Yay unbiased supply set.

But I guess everyone has their different pet features they'd like from iso.

[WanderingWinder]

I personally would be a big fan of a supply blind, no veto mode.  Yay unbiased supply set.

But I guess everyone has their different pet features they'd like from iso.

I'd like this too, and I realize that my 'solution' is still going to get me biased sets (as will veto mode), but you play the hand that's dealt you, and with as awesome as Isotropic is, I don't really have a huge concern about it.

[octopus]

+1 on supply blind no veto.  Also I'd like separate 2p, 3p, and 4p rankings.

[tlloyd]

I refuse games on automatch when:
I don't actually want to be on automatch and have to leave (there's occasionally a bug where it thinks I'm on, but I'm not).
And more importantly, when someone has rejected an automatch game with me, I'm very likely to refuse all games that come up with them, because they're distorting the random, at least until I've played another game and come back to the lobby, at which point I may well have forgotten.

How do you know the other guy didn't need to leave?  On that note, how do you know he's not just responding to your declining back when you had to leave?! It's a bit paradoxical...

Automatch suggest that WW1 and WW2 play a game.
WW1 accepts, but WW2 declines, because he didn't really mean to be on Automatch.

Automatch suggests they play again, and WW2 accepts, but WW1 declines, since WW2 was distorting the random.

Automatch suggests they play again. WW1 has forgotten that WW2 was distorting the random, so he accepts. But WW2 now declines, because WW1 was distorting the random.
 

[DG]

If people couldn't decline matches then they would just time them out, which is worse. You can't penalize people for timing out matches since everyone needs to go afk occasionally and the lobby is the ideal place to do it.

[WanderingWinder]

I refuse games on automatch when:
I don't actually want to be on automatch and have to leave (there's occasionally a bug where it thinks I'm on, but I'm not).
And more importantly, when someone has rejected an automatch game with me, I'm very likely to refuse all games that come up with them, because they're distorting the random, at least until I've played another game and come back to the lobby, at which point I may well have forgotten.

How do you know the other guy didn't need to leave?  On that note, how do you know he's not just responding to your declining back when you had to leave?! It's a bit paradoxical...

Automatch suggest that WW1 and WW2 play a game.
WW1 accepts, but WW2 declines, because he didn't really mean to be on Automatch.

Automatch suggests they play again, and WW2 accepts, but WW1 declines, since WW2 was distorting the random.

Automatch suggests they play again. WW1 has forgotten that WW2 was distorting the random, so he accepts. But WW2 now declines, because WW1 was distorting the random.
 

Because if they had to leave, they would have left. Or at any rate, they aren't missing anything because they're not going to accept any game...Man, I'm not saying they're bad people or something for declining, or that I'm going to hold it against them even 10 minutes later. Just for the very next game. And if they have to leave, they won't mind, because they have to leave. One of us is missing something here, because your question confuses me.

[tlloyd]

It wasn't meant at all as a criticism. I just enjoyed the logical paradox.

[WanderingWinder]

It wasn't meant at all as a criticism. I just enjoyed the logical paradox.

Yeah, but my point is that there isn't a logical paradox at all...

[tlloyd]

It wasn't meant at all as a criticism. I just enjoyed the logical paradox.

Yeah, but my point is that there isn't a logical paradox at all...

But you are asserting that your reasons for declining are legitimate, on the premise that the other guy's reasons are not. But if his reasons are legit (say, for instance, he has the same reasons as you), then your reason for quitting is no longer legit. I'm no philosopher, but that's either a paradox or a vicious cycle...

[WanderingWinder]

It wasn't meant at all as a criticism. I just enjoyed the logical paradox.

Yeah, but my point is that there isn't a logical paradox at all...

But you are asserting that your reasons for declining are legitimate, on the premise that the other guy's reasons are not. But if his reasons are legit (say, for instance, he has the same reasons as you), then your reason for quitting is no longer legit. I'm no philosopher, but that's either a paradox or a vicious cycle...

Not at all, because I'm not actually asserting that his reasons are not legitimate; they're only illegit (in my view) if the reason for him declining is for reasons of not liking the kingdom. So the only reasons I can think of for someone declining other than that are because they are leaving (in which case they're either not in automatch anymore or soon won't be anyway), because they want to play one with one of their friends or someone in particular (again, not in automatch anymore), or because for whatever reason they don't want to play specifically (in which case they won't mind me declining).