Print

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

[JW]

"These people are going to cheat anyway, so let's enable them" doesn't sound very compelling to me. The fact that it's so tedious to do these things manually is a significant deterrent to doing them. For example, if a VP counter had never been implemented, I'm guessing (guessing!) that SheCantSayNo would still be playing Dominion Online and would probably not be making a habit of reading through the log every game in order to tally the score. He'd just be better at point counting.

Is reading through the log to tally the points cheating? Given the existence of a log for online play, reading through the log does not seem like cheating. Having a log of at least the most recent turn is highly beneficial for online play, and like many other aspects of online play it is necessarily different from playing with physical cards.

As a consequence online play involves different skills. For example, in playing with physical cards, I have never accidentally trashed a Province with Hermit due to a misclick.

[Kirian]

"These people are going to cheat anyway, so let's enable them" doesn't sound very compelling to me. The fact that it's so tedious to do these things manually is a significant deterrent to doing them. For example, if a VP counter had never been implemented, I'm guessing (guessing!) that SheCantSayNo would still be playing Dominion Online and would probably not be making a habit of reading through the log every game in order to tally the score. He'd just be better at point counting.

Playing with slightly different rules on mutual agreement is not cheating. If a VP counter had been implemented as part of the rules for the physical game, I'm guessing (guessing!) that you would still be playing Dominion and would probably not be making a habit of trying to tally the score in your head instead. You'd just be worse at point counting. 

So true! I think people should be able to play by whatever variants they want. But it seems weird to me that these variant games are ranked on the same Pro leaderboard as people who are actually playing Dominion for realsies.

EDIT: As an example, looking at the Pro leaderboard, you might think that SheCantSayNo is one of the best Dominion players around. In reality, he is simply one of the best players of a variant game where a computer keeps track of the score for him.

Dude, LFN, that's a bit out of bounds.

[theory]

i really don't think this is the thread for beating dead horses. and even if it were, i would prefer to see a case stated without personal jabs.

Yeah, I mean, come on.  People played with identical starting hands on Isotropic too and no one claimed that -Stef- was only good at a Dominion variant.  You make fine points but you don't have to be so confrontational.

[Holger]

"These people are going to cheat anyway, so let's enable them" doesn't sound very compelling to me. The fact that it's so tedious to do these things manually is a significant deterrent to doing them. For example, if a VP counter had never been implemented, I'm guessing (guessing!) that SheCantSayNo would still be playing Dominion Online and would probably not be making a habit of reading through the log every game in order to tally the score. He'd just be better at point counting.

Playing with slightly different rules on mutual agreement is not cheating. If a VP counter had been implemented as part of the rules for the physical game, I'm guessing (guessing!) that you would still be playing Dominion and would probably not be making a habit of trying to tally the score in your head instead. You'd just be worse at point counting. 

So true! I think people should be able to play by whatever variants they want. But it seems weird to me that these variant games are ranked on the same Pro leaderboard as people who are actually playing Dominion for realsies.

As discussed before (and pointed out by JW), "playing Dominion for realsies" in your narrow definition is not possible on Goko, due to the existence of a complete game log, the missing starting-player rule,  the risk of fatal misclicks, the explicit pause for playing reactions etc. So like all of us, you're also just playing a Dominion variant on Dominion Online.

[LastFootnote]

Is reading through the log to tally the points cheating? Given the existence of a log for online play, reading through the log does not seem like cheating. Having a log of at least the most recent turn is highly beneficial for online play, and like many other aspects of online play it is necessarily different from playing with physical cards.

I think the most compelling arguments in favor of always allowing the VP counter in online play are:
A) Goko's interface allows access to the entire game log, rather than just each player's last turn. This means that players can go back and tally points manually anyway, so why not automate that. This could of course be fixed by Making Fun's programmers if they so chose.

B) Players can be manually keeping track of points on paper anyway. There's no means of accountability there, so why not even the playing field by having a point counter.

As a consequence online play involves different skills. For example, in playing with physical cards, I have never accidentally trashed a Province with Hermit due to a misclick.

True, true. But overall, I think an online implementation should stay as close as possible to the physical game.

i really don't think this is the thread for beating dead horses. and even if it were, i would prefer to see a case stated without personal jabs.

Sorry, I'll stop calling out specific SheCantSayNos in my examples. I admit that I've been overreacting since I found out that he was using the blacklist to ban opponents based on #vp preferences. There's been a lot of snideness on both sides. So again, apologies.

As for beating a dead horse, I see this "equal starting hands" issue that was just raised as being more or less equivalent to the "VP counter" issue. Had it not been suggested, I would not be talking about either issue right now.

Here's the way I see it:

• It's fine to have a [VP counter/identical starting hands] when both players agree to use them, regardless of whether the games are unrated, casual, or pro.
• It's fine for players to cherry-pick opponents that also want to use these variants in casual games.
• It's very odd to allow/enable players to cherry-pick opponents who want to use these variants in pro games.

If PlayerA wants to use a VP counter in games where his opponent agrees, cool. What he's essentially doing is eschewing a certain skill that the game values. So when he goes up against PlayerB who doesn't using the VP counter, he's at a disadvantage since he's chosen not to develop that skill. That's fine. Players should be able to handicap themselves.

But if he can easily decline matches with PlayerB such that he can eschew that skill without penalty, then suddenly the leaderboard is ranking two completely different types of players side by side as if they were playing the same game. That's weird. It's as if a website that allowed you to play both Chess and Checkers online ranked all those games on the same leaderboard.

As another example, I prefer to play games with cards from 2 sets at a time, rather than full random. But I am not lobbying for those games to count against the pro leaderboard. And that isn't even a variant! That's within the rules of the game. But in order for the pro leaderboard to be meaningful, it's optimal if all players are actually playing the same game.

"But this is moot because players can already kick whoever they want from their tables, even without automatch," I hear you cry. But once MakingFun gets in gear, it's quite probable that their native automatch will be the only way to play pro games.

[LastFootnote]

Dude, LFN, that's a bit out of bounds.

Yeah, I mean, come on.  People played with identical starting hands on Isotropic too and no one claimed that -Stef- was only good at a Dominion variant.  You make fine points but you don't have to be so confrontational.

Yeah, you guys are right. Sorry. There's no doubt that even when deprived of a point counter, SheCantSayNo would still be a world-class player. I'll try to be less personal when illustrating my points.

EDIT: One other thing about the VP counter specifically. I think a reasonable solution would be to always turn the VP counter on for everybody when playing Pro games. Again, there's no way to stop people from keeping score on paper, etc. But this requires MakingFun to implement its own point counter so that EVERY player has access to it.

[Watno]

I think the most compelling arguments in favor of always allowing the VP counter in online play are:
A) Goko's interface allows access to the entire game log, rather than just each player's last turn. This means that players can go back and tally points manually anyway, so why not automate that. This could of course be fixed by Making Fun's programmers if they so chose.

B) Players can be manually keeping track of points on paper anyway. There's no means of accountability there, so why not even the playing field by having a point counter.

I rather think it's
C) Lots of people prefer playing with a VP counter.

[Donald X.]

I think "identical starting hands" gives you a worse game. I encourage people to play whatever variants they want; if you are playing identical starting hands irl I do not mind.

However I think it's a poor feature for Online Dominion. It makes the game worse... and removes some luck. If it's an option, some good players will play with it simply because it's advantageous to... and have less fun. I would rather some people were having less fun due to being denied a variant than have other people have less fun due to feeling like they had to play the variant.

And well as always Dominion has plenty of skill-testing. I am not so sympathetic to the people who can't stand that particular bit of luck; you already have endless opportunities to win via skill.

It could be fine I guess for unrated games; it could be an option on the "host special game" screen, and force the game to be unrated if you choose it. Someone wanting to run a tournament with identical starting hands could then do so without having to restart games repeatedly or whatever. As it stands such a feature would be a long way off.

I don't like identical starting hands as a Salvager option, because I think in the long run either Online Dominion will die or it will have all the features Salvager currently has, and if it's the latter then it won't be great that Salvager has this one remaining feature that OD will not be getting. OnDo? Maybe Salvager will find more things to do by then, dunno.

[Donald X.]

I rather think it's
C) Lots of people prefer playing with a VP counter.

Yes, that's what it comes down to.

[SCSN]

Yeah, you guys are right. Sorry. There's no doubt that even when deprived of a point counter, SheCantSayNo would still be a world-class player. I'll try to be less personal when illustrating my points.

I accept and appreciate your apology, but I do want to make it clear that the next time you decide to post something like this:

EDIT: As an example, looking at the Pro leaderboard, you might think that SheCantSayNo is one of the best Dominion players around. In reality, he is simply one of the best players of a variant game where a computer keeps track of the score for him.

I expect you to accept a prop bet that allows you both to show how much I suck at this "pure" Dominion game and to make a healthy profit doing so.

You're free to disagree as fiercely with me as you want and I'm happy to wear as badges of honour whatever names you'd like to call me, but when you start questioning my personal integrity by implying that my high-rank is solely due to me gaming the system by using a point counter, I really do expect you to back up your slander.

[Robz888]

With full respect to everyone else, especially Donald X, I strongly prefer identical starting hands. (Of course, I even more strongly prefer my own variant, which is that every player may organize his own starting 10 cards in whatever way he wants.)

I don't expect my variant to ever be offered, but I would like if identical starting hands was offered... I think that a solid majority of average and above average players prefer it (but I could be wrong about that).

[ragingduckd]

With full respect to everyone else, especially Donald X, I strongly prefer identical starting hands. (Of course, I even more strongly prefer my own variant, which is that every player may organize his own starting 10 cards in whatever way he wants.)

I don't expect my variant to ever be offered, but I would like if identical starting hands was offered... I think that a solid majority of average and above average players prefer it (but I could be wrong about that).

Let's find out!

[ashersky]

I really think you need a "don't care" option in that poll.  Because that's what I wanted to to tick.

[ragingduckd]

I really think you need a "don't care" option in that poll.  Because that's what I wanted to to tick.

I added it, then reconsidered and removed it.  You're trying to answer the question I'm deliberately trying not to ask.

[LastFootnote]

Yeah, you guys are right. Sorry. There's no doubt that even when deprived of a point counter, SheCantSayNo would still be a world-class player. I'll try to be less personal when illustrating my points.

I accept and appreciate your apology, but I do want to make it clear that the next time you decide to post something like this:

EDIT: As an example, looking at the Pro leaderboard, you might think that SheCantSayNo is one of the best Dominion players around. In reality, he is simply one of the best players of a variant game where a computer keeps track of the score for him.

I expect you to accept a prop bet that allows you both to show how much I suck at this "pure" Dominion game and to make a healthy profit doing so.

You're free to disagree as fiercely with me as you want and I'm happy to wear as badges of honour whatever names you'd like to call me, but when you start questioning my personal integrity by implying that my high-rank is solely due to me gaming the system by using a point counter, I really do expect you to back up your slander.

Again, apologies. If it makes a difference, even when I wrote it, I knew, and you knew, and everybody knew that you were the better player with or without the point counter. So let's take those games as read and say that I owe you a nickel. Get on over to the Twin Cities whenever you want to collect.

Thanks for accepting my apology.

With full respect to everyone else, especially Donald X, I strongly prefer identical starting hands. (Of course, I even more strongly prefer my own variant, which is that every player may organize his own starting 10 cards in whatever way he wants.)

I don't expect my variant to ever be offered, but I would like if identical starting hands was offered... I think that a solid majority of average and above average players prefer it (but I could be wrong about that).

Well, even if a solid majority of above-average players wants it, is that a good reason to add it? Better players will win more often against worse players, but that won't actually change their relative ranks. And it's nice that the worse player gets to win sometimes due to luck. It gives them a bit of incentive to keep playing and improving. Losing all the time isn't much fun.

[LastFootnote]

I think the poll is asking the wrong question. Right now it's asking, "Would you use an 'identical starting hands' option?" But as Donald points out, if the option is offered, some players may use it because it increases their chance to win, even if they enjoy the game less.

However I think it's a poor feature for Online Dominion. It makes the game worse... and removes some luck. If it's an option, some good players will play with it simply because it's advantageous to... and have less fun. I would rather some people were having less fun due to being denied a variant than have other people have less fun due to feeling like they had to play the variant.

I think the question you should be asking is, "Would you like to see an 'identical starting hands' option implemented?"

/nitpick

[Mic Qsenoch]

For what it's worth, I don't like identical starting hands (it's ok in tournaments). So I don't think it's correct to describe the camps as high skill vs. low skill players. I enjoy winning with "unfavorable" splits, and heck, I like crushing people with favorable ones as well. If I'm lost because of a bad split, I can usually tell pretty early, resign, and move on to the next game.

I don't even think that identical starting hands will make more skilled players win more often. One thing that separates the strong from weaker players is the ability to better exploit favorable shuffle luck to put games out of reach. This applies in Turns 1/2 as much as any other.

Maybe this is something that could be checked with all the game records.

[florrat]

I think the question you should be asking is, "Would you like to see an 'identical starting hands' option implemented?"

I think that's also the wrong question. I don't want to ever use an identical starting hands option, but I don't care whether the 'identical starting hands' option will be implemented. Still, I think AI wants to view my opinion as a "no" to his question.

[/double nitpick]

[ragingduckd]

I think the question you should be asking is, "Would you like to see an 'identical starting hands' option implemented?"

No, I'm asking this question deliberately.  I'm not interested in one person's opinion about what another person ought to be allowed to do.

Most people like the VP counter.  Some prefer to play without it, but I'm not going to take the counter away just to increase the player pool for them.  Neither would I ban Connect-4 to make more people play Checkers.

I'll implement this if a lot of people want it for themselves.  And I'd probably fold if Donald or MF explicitly asked me to.  That's all.

[LastFootnote]

I think the question you should be asking is, "Would you like to see an 'identical starting hands' option implemented?"

No, I'm asking this question deliberately.  I'm not interested in one person's opinion about what another person ought to be allowed to do.

Most people like the VP counter.  Some prefer to play without it, but I'm not going to take the counter away just to increase the player pool for them.  Neither would I ban Connect-4 to make more people play Checkers.

I'll implement this if a lot of people want it for themselves.  And I'd probably fold if Donald or MF explicitly asked me to.  That's all.

But…"a lot of people" is purely subjective. And if you only care about the raw number of "Often/Alway" votes instead of the ratio, the poll doesn't even need a "Rarely/Never" option.

Am I wrong in thinking the poll is a bit of a sham? It seems like you already plan to implement this feature. If not, what's the cutoff here? How many people have to vote "Often/Always" in order for you to do it?

[theblankman]

Well, even if a solid majority of above-average players wants it, is that a good reason to add it? Better players will win more often against worse players, but that won't actually change their relative ranks. And it's nice that the worse player gets to win sometimes due to luck. It gives them a bit of incentive to keep playing and improving. Losing all the time isn't much fun.

To me, this feature isn't about making the better player win more often in cases of a significant skill disparity, it's more about cases where both players involved want to test their skill to the absolute greatest extent possible.  Donald X says this makes a less fun game, and across the entire player base he's probably right, but for many who frequent these boards, "test of skill" is sometimes our personal definition of fun. 

So I think if Salvager offers the option, then it will have to be something both players consent to, and perhaps it shouldn't be a thing on which to base automatching.  I hope that even if Salvager does offer it, it does not become any kind of de facto standard.  If Making Fun ever offers it natively, then I'd be happy with the restriction Donald X suggested: forcing the game to be unrated when it's enabled, because it really is something that gives you that "tournament feel." 

But here's the thing: The "tournament feel" game is what I come to online Dominion for.  When I want a more casual, just-for-fun game, I've got the physical cards on my shelf, and RL friends to invite over, and we'll socialize and drink some beers while we play.  Online, in pro mode, the fun is in testing myself.  It's fun for me to feel the achievement of beating someone like Stef or SheCantSayNo or WanderingWinder (or even just making it hard for them to beat me), but only if I think I really played somewhere near their level that day.  If I just pulled the 5/2 on a random board where Rebuild/Estate happens to dominate, then even though I won, I wasted my shot at those players, so to speak. 

I'm not sure if others have the same reasons as me, but that's why I proposed the feature, why I'll vote for it to be implemented, and why I hope it mainly sees use in tournaments and among above-average players when they play against each other.  (For the record, I'd guess that I'm an above-average player, but still very far from players like the ones I mentioned in the previous paragraph.) 

[ashersky]

Isn't controlling who goes first in a game more important that identical starting hands?  Can Salvager fix that?

[Robz888]

Isn't controlling who goes first in a game more important that identical starting hands?  Can Salvager fix that?

I don't see how someone could be against identical starting hands but in favor of last loser goes first. (Well, other than, the rules of Dominion call for one and not the other. And yeah, okay, I can accept that explanation.)

But otherwise, aren't all the arguments the same for both? Like, McQ says he enjoys winning from "unfavorable splits." I assume he also enjoys winning from second position, then?

Personally, I would rather go first/second the correct amount of times, and also always have identical starting splits.

[Robz888]

Well, even if a solid majority of above-average players wants it, is that a good reason to add it? Better players will win more often against worse players, but that won't actually change their relative ranks. And it's nice that the worse player gets to win sometimes due to luck. It gives them a bit of incentive to keep playing and improving. Losing all the time isn't much fun.

I don't think it's nice that the worse player gets to win sometimes due to luck. I mean it's also not that horrible, but I would rather not have it than have it. (And bad players will still win due to luck, it will just be a bit less frequent, if you implement identical starting hands.)

[Robz888]

And, I hope it's clear, I do not care that much. I recognize that the version I advocate is a variant, and hey, it also looks like it's the minority preference based on the poll (which truly does baffle me, but there you go). Dominion is enjoyable to me either way.