Print

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

[LastFootnote]

Here's my plea for you not to implement identical starting hands. First of all, do not say, "Oh, it's just an option that you can turn off." We now know that the SheCantSayNos of the world will simply blacklist those that don't use the feature. So either you're further fragmenting the player base OR you're effectively mandating identical starting hands, depending on how popular it is. And this is a "feature" that the game's designer intentionally avoided when designing the game.

Really, I see this request as the top players not being satisfied with winning as much as they already do. They want the game to be more "skill-based" and less "luck-based" so that the better player wins even more often. While this might be nice for single-elimination tournaments, it's completely unnecessary when playing on a ladder/leaderboard where luck is going to balance out over time anyhow. If it doesn't, then that's an issue with the ranking system, not the game.

Here are some reasons that identical starting hands are just straight-up undesirable.

It exacerbates first-player advantage. In addition to being able to respond to the first player's purchases, another advantage you have as second player is that the first player doesn't know your split when making his first buy. Once this feature is implemented, the first player knows exactly what second player has in hand and doesn't have to account for as many possibilities.

It makes mirror games more common. Say what you will about asymmetrical opening hands, but at least they encourage players to pursue different decks. Few games are less fun than when both players build the same deck and the results come down to luck and/or first-player advantage.

[pingpongsam]

My avatar disappeared and any attempt to replace it is met with "failed to transmit file". version 2.5.1.3 in Firefox

[ragingduckd]

My avatar disappeared and any attempt to replace it is met with "failed to transmit file". version 2.5.1.3 in Firefox

Please upgrade to v2.5.1.4 and try again.  Post the JS log if the "failed to transmit" still happens.

[SCSN]

We now know that the SheCantSayNos of the world will simply blacklist those that don't use the feature.

I dislike identical starting hands as much as you do, so if you're giving me an unsollicited role in one of your stories, at least try to make it somewhat true to character. I'd be happy to play the charming villain that kidnaps the hero's soulmate out of his helpless hands, if that one is still available.

That said, I still disagree with your rant. Within the limits of the law, I firmly believe that people should be free to do whatever they want, even if what they'll end up doing is something I dislike. When the choice is between less or more freedom, I'll always be in favor of the latter.

[LastFootnote]

We now know that the SheCantSayNos of the world will simply blacklist those that don't use the feature.

I dislike identical starting hands as much as you do, so if you're giving me an unsollicited role in one of your stories, at least try to make it somewhat true to character. I'd be happy to play the charming villain that kidnaps the hero's soulmate out of his helpless hands, if that one is still available.

The role I'm casting you in is that of a person who will abuse the blacklist simply to avoid playing games that he does not consider optimal. The specific feature is immaterial.

[Awaclus]

abuse the blacklist simply to avoid playing games that he does not consider optimal

Isn't that what the blacklist is for?

[theblankman]

This is a really cool idea.  I assume that by "ruin," you actually mean "shelters."  But yes, it should be entirely possible to skip 2 turns each until the desired starting hands arise.

Yes, I always get those backwards for some reason   Original post edited.  Also I thought about it a little more and realized every starting hand card starts with a different letter so the code for a hand could be something like "#CCCEE" for three copper and two estates; "#CCHNO" for two copper, Hovel, Necropolis, Overgrown Estate, and so forth.  Pretty minimal chat spam during startup. 

So if this is possible, the next question is: Would it be a ton of work and/or more work than it's worth?  Javascript is not my primary language at all, but I might be able to help a bit toward making it happen.  At the very least, I'm happy to volunteer as a tester. 

This is not a problem. You simply take starting hand of the first player and rerun two turns until both players end up with that hand. Needs more redraws, but fixes the distribution. If animations are set to very fast while redrawing, even inj unlucky cases this should not take very long and, as this time is taken before the first turn, it can be put to good use anyway as both players analyze the kingdom.

Good point, that fixes the distribution, but if the first player has $5 or $2 we're talking about expected-reshuffles > 100.  Not sure about 3/4 openings with specific shelter distributions.  Fast animation helps, and I guess if Salvager can hit any UI widget for you, then it could speed up the animation during the protocol, and reset to whatever you had when it's finished.  I think the limiting factor isn't necessarily animation though, it could be the chat communication and of course, any connection or goko lag  

But I have a hunch that the ending condition, i.e. just identical hands vs hands identical to what player 1 started with, would be a relatively small part of the code.  So it might be reasonable to implement the proper-distribution method, do some performance tests, and if it's unacceptably slow, fall back on the other way and consider it better than nothing. 

Awesome! And, instead of only working when both players have this option selected, we can put it in the automatch parameters! That way players won't have to blacklist those who have the option turned off.

There's some room for options here.  I wasn't necessarily thinking that you want to limit automatches to only other players who have the option turned on.  #vpon and #vpoff don't currently work that way, to my knowledge... maybe they do and I'm just not setting up my games to make it happen, but I put #vpon in the title and still get vpoff games with silverspawn   Anyway there can be no "locked on" variation of this feature (as there is with putting #vpon in your game title), because it requires voluntary action from both players.  There's even the possibility that someone without Salvager could chat back a "false accept," make you skip a turn, and then play normally, but for the most part I think this community is better than that.  And if it did happen to me, whoever did it would be immediately blacklisted. 

[LastFootnote]

abuse the blacklist simply to avoid playing games that he does not consider optimal

Isn't that what the blacklist is for?

I believe the blacklist was originally intended for people who were being jackasses to you. Slow-playing you, verbally assaulting you, and the like. When you start using the blacklist on people just because they set #vpoff, I consider that abuse. Just my opinion.

[AndrewisFTTW]

Hi. I agree with LastFootnote here. I prefer #vpon but I have no problem if people don't want it. Besides, you have a log right there and nobody's stopping you from taking notes anyway. I think the system in place now is fair.

[SCSN]

We now know that the SheCantSayNos of the world will simply blacklist those that don't use the feature.

I dislike identical starting hands as much as you do, so if you're giving me an unsollicited role in one of your stories, at least try to make it somewhat true to character. I'd be happy to play the charming villain that kidnaps the hero's soulmate out of his helpless hands, if that one is still available.

The role I'm casting you in is that of a person who will abuse the blacklist simply to avoid playing games that he does not consider optimal.

That's still a role I refuse to play. If you replace "optimal" with "enjoyable" you have some chances to entice me. If I cared more about winning than about facing an enjoyable challenge, I'd be crushing Serf bot all day long.

abuse the blacklist simply to avoid playing games that he does not consider optimal

Isn't that what the blacklist is for?

I expect the next thing he'll accuse me of is abusing villages to play more terminals.

[Awaclus]

abuse the blacklist simply to avoid playing games that he does not consider optimal

Isn't that what the blacklist is for?

I believe the blacklist was originally intended for people who were being jackasses to you. Slow-playing you, verbally assaulting you, and the like. When you start using the blacklist on people just because they set #vpoff, I consider that abuse. Just my opinion.

I thought it was intended for people who you didn't want to play against.

[LastFootnote]

abuse the blacklist simply to avoid playing games that he does not consider optimal

Isn't that what the blacklist is for?

I believe the blacklist was originally intended for people who were being jackasses to you. Slow-playing you, verbally assaulting you, and the like. When you start using the blacklist on people just because they set #vpoff, I consider that abuse. Just my opinion.

I thought it was intended for people who you didn't want to play against.

Could be. I may have made some faulty assumptions. That seems like a weird thing to allow for an automatch on Pro games, though.

[AndrewisFTTW]

abuse the blacklist simply to avoid playing games that he does not consider optimal

Isn't that what the blacklist is for?

I believe the blacklist was originally intended for people who were being jackasses to you. Slow-playing you, verbally assaulting you, and the like. When you start using the blacklist on people just because they set #vpoff, I consider that abuse. Just my opinion.

I thought it was intended for people who you didn't want to play against.

Specific people. What if I didn't want to play against anyone who owned Alchemy? Or anyone who owned BM? Or anyone who eats hamburgers?

[GeoLib]

I like this option a lot for tournament settings, but I think making it possible in pro games is problematic from a leaderboard-purity perspective. I'm weakly in the "leaderboard should be exactly one type of dominion" camp and having this option available for pro games would certainly damage that aspect.

[ragingduckd]

Yes, I always get those backwards for some reason   Original post edited.  Also I thought about it a little more and realized every starting hand card starts with a different letter so the code for a hand could be something like "#CCCEE" for three copper and two estates; "#CCHNO" for two copper, Hovel, Necropolis, Overgrown Estate, and so forth.  Pretty minimal chat spam during startup.

I'd use my server for this communication instead.  No spam and no opportunity for fraud.

So if this is possible, the next question is: Would it be a ton of work and/or more work than it's worth?  Javascript is not my primary language at all, but I might be able to help a bit toward making it happen.  At the very least, I'm happy to volunteer as a tester.

All the infrastructure is in place, but it'd take some time.  And yes, it'd definitely need testing.

[hsiale]

I thought it was intended for people who you didn't want to play against.

Could be. I may have made some faulty assumptions. That seems like a weird thing to allow for an automatch on Pro games, though.

Is it weird as well that you are given choice of playing or not against a given opponent when creating a Pro game manually instead of getting a random opponent and having to play against him or lose points?

[ragingduckd]

abuse the blacklist simply to avoid playing games that he does not consider optimal

Isn't that what the blacklist is for?

I believe the blacklist was originally intended for people who were being jackasses to you. Slow-playing you, verbally assaulting you, and the like. When you start using the blacklist on people just because they set #vpoff, I consider that abuse. Just my opinion.

I thought it was intended for people who you didn't want to play against.

Could be. I may have made some faulty assumptions. That seems like a weird thing to allow for an automatch on Pro games, though.

There really isn't any blacklist "abuse" going on.  For that matter, there's just not that much blacklisting going on.

Right now, the 10% setting catches just 9 people, the only ones who have been blacklisted 3 or more times.  I won't say who they are, but I assure you that they're on there for being jackasses, not for having unpopular vp counter preferences.

[Polk5440]

What about statistics? -- I am assuming that councilroom eventually will work with Goko logs. Reshuffling to get the same hand could mess up stats on number of turns per game.

If games become too different with too many options, pro leaderboard integrity and matchmaking quality could be at risk. These are the two top reasons why "more freedom" could be bad in this context for everyone. I am not saying it is, but it's not obvious.

Just like with the kingdom generator, these features could be restricted to casual or unranked games, if they exist at all.

[jsh357]

What about statistics? -- I am assuming that councilroom eventually will work with Goko logs. Reshuffling to get the same hand could mess up stats on number of turns per game.

If games become too different with too many options, pro leaderboard integrity and matchmaking quality could be at risk. These are the two top reasons why "more freedom" could be bad in this context for everyone. I am not saying it is, but it's not obvious.

Just like with the kingdom generator, these features could be restricted to casual or unranked games, if they exist at all.

I'd think if councilroom were ever going to work with Goko logs, someone would have rigged it up already (or made some progress).  I doubt anyone is working on it, though maybe they're just being quiet.  Would love to see it again, and even code it myself, but I don't have servers and can't really justify the time investment at the moment.

[greatexpectations]

I'm weakly in the "leaderboard should be exactly one type of dominion" camp and having this option available for pro games would certainly damage that aspect.

it's a nice idea but the discussion of starting hands / point counters from a competitive perspective is (to me) kind of silly until everyone has the same access to all of the same expansions.

[soulnet]

I think the discussion about option A or B being bad for the leaderboard or in general is moot in here. It should be directed to Goko/MakingFun instead, for allowing you to use different sets of expansions and choose who you play with in the board. The extension, currently and with the proposed options, would just automate some deterministic decisions.

[LastFootnote]

I think the discussion about option A or B being bad for the leaderboard or in general is moot in here. It should be directed to Goko/MakingFun instead, for allowing you to use different sets of expansions and choose who you play with in the board. The extension, currently and with the proposed options, would just automate some deterministic decisions.

One could argue that just because you can do things doesn't mean that those things should be made easier. I lieu of using a VP counter, I could go back through the entire game log and calculate the score whenever I needed to. That doesn't necessarily mean that a VP counter should be created in order to make it easier for me.

Likewise I could manually blacklist people who turn off the VP counter or don't want to play with identical starting hands. That doesn't mean automatch should include parameters to make that easy.

"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.

[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. 

[LastFootnote]

"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.

[greatexpectations]

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.