Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - ravi

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
Game Reports / Re: Swindler/Big Money vs Weird Procession tricks
« on: February 10, 2016, 11:10:43 am »
I'm not sure why you swindled one of your opponent's estates into a embargo.

I think at that point I didn't quite get what my opponent was doing and I thought he had too many terminals so I thought putting an embargo in there would be pretty much a dead card for him and then he would have one less point.

As a big money deck I think you can play this with only two counterfeits, two swindlers, and possibly add a catacombs.

Hmm. So you think I should have bought silver over swindler 3? I don't think there was much swindler collision but I never thought about a catacombs so that would have changed that up.

You said a lot of positive and negative things about his deck. Do you think something could have been played to beat the big money strategy though?

Game Reports / Swindler/Big Money vs Weird Procession tricks
« on: February 10, 2016, 10:08:55 am »
Supply: Embargo, Develop, Masterpiece, Swindler, Procession, Scavenger, Catacombs, Counterfeit, Graverobber, Saboteur, Copper, Silver, Gold, Estate, Duchy, Province, Curse


No villages, no + action even, but there was Procession, Graverobber and Develop, which can all do some really weird tricks.

I went Swindler big money and thought that what my opponent was doing was really random and unfocussed but it did surprisingly okay against what I had. They used Procession, Graverobbers, Rogues and Sabs to attack my deck and I thought that would never work.  I did end up winning but it was much closer than I thought and maybe there is a better strategy on this board than just Swindler + Big Money with Counterfeit trashing.

PS, Late game I bought Gold on 6 and 7 sometimes and was thinking about buying an overpaid masterpiece instead but thought that getting my Swindlers to hit was more advantageous.  In the end I converted a couple of his Curses into Coppers with Swindler but I am pretty sure the likelihood of that happening was pretty low.

Anyways, what are your thoughts on this board and how my opponent and I played it?

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Storage solutions with Empires
« on: February 02, 2016, 05:44:42 am »
Everything for me fits in the Big Box: I think that Empires should still fit as well. I simply used regular paper for the dividers. They are a bit flimsy but still do the trick. I think if you used a bit tougher paper it would still work. I am very careful when carrying that thing around though, not sure how long it will hold up but it has lasted since September fairy well including lugging it to a game night at someone else's place.

Dominion League / Re: Season 12 - Results
« on: January 24, 2016, 05:09:40 pm »
Ravi Vasudevan 4 - 2 unmineable

Dominion League / Re: Season 12 - Results
« on: January 24, 2016, 07:53:12 am »
Ravi Vasudevan 3 - 3 andrewzom

Dominion League / Re: Season 12 - Results
« on: January 18, 2016, 04:39:22 pm »
Ravi 4 - 2 AdrianHealy

Dominion League / Re: Season 12 - Results
« on: January 17, 2016, 10:32:11 am »
Ravi Vasudevan 5 - 1 Sunmaster14

Goko Dominion Online / Re: MAKiNG MORE FUN: Mod for Dominion Online 2.0
« on: December 27, 2015, 10:29:49 pm »
And for the people wondering: I currently have it set to switch to the new system once you have 10 or more uniques in hand and to switch back once you have 6 or less (to prevent endlessly flipping back-and-forth around the threshold).

Don't know if it is possible to make this customizable or not, but there are already some difficulties reading on my laptop screen at 7 uniques.  I would actually just prefer to have your version always on because I don't really see any advantage to seeing the fanned out version. Only thing I can think of is that I may forget which knight is which so I'd want to see the text on the card and it is impossible to see that from the board.

Looking forward to the next release.

This is a bigger request and may not be possible but I'd love for the ability to decide which autoplays are opt-in and which are opt-out. Maybe you need a settings thing on the intro screen like Salvager had.

Another option may be to have the autoplay menu open up at the beginning of a game where there are autoplay options available so I am aware of them and just leave the defaults the way they are.

I played a bunch of games on the iPad app and it worlked great for me. Better than using goko on a browser (readable log and I can chat) . As I have no interest in offline play and I don't get ads because I bought the sets I have 0 problems (except maybe that I can't use MMF on it) . Too bad the vast majority of people care about the offline play. I'd much rather they work on Adventures than that but I'm guessing they are going to focus efforts on that now with all the bad reviews they are getting

Man 0.44.2e looks like it's going to be pretty amazing from the little teaser gifs you are posting. Any idea when you'll be releasing it for us peasants?

Dominion League / Re: Season 11 - Results
« on: November 17, 2015, 03:44:33 pm »
Ravi Vasudevan 4 - 2 trinadianese


Feature request: type #a(utoplay) to get a list of all the autoplay options typed out in the chat with brief descriptions

I'll consider this once I figure out how to write to the chat locally, as I don't want opponents to be spammed with this info.

Maybe you can write it to the log in case you can't find a way to write to the local chat

Feature request 2: for all pertinent cards have the autoplay options given at the top of the log.

Example if Young Witch, Moat, Alchemist, Urchin are on the board have something like "Bane, Moat and Alchemist Autoplays are on. Urchin Autoplay is off"

Just saw that #a is alchemist, so it would have to be something else.

Bug with 0.44.2d (not sure if this happened before) on Mac.

Was testing autoplay and had Urchin, Young Witch, Witch, Moat, Militia, Upgrade and Menagerie as bane (not sure if all of this is pertinent)

Whenever I played Militia after an Urchin (not sure if it happened with other cards) after I had turned on #u, the Menagerie image would pop up on the screen like I had clicked it (happened multiple times).
Feature request: type #a(utoplay) to get a list of all the autoplay options typed out in the chat with brief descriptions

Keep up the good work, it's awesome!

Dominion League / Re: Season 11 - Results
« on: November 14, 2015, 02:46:33 pm »
E2: Ravi Vasudevan 4 - unmineable 2

Tried installing the Mac version and it wouldn't let me log in. Reset the old dll and it worked fine again. With the MMF dll the sign in box came up where I could enter my credentials but then clicking sign in did nothing.

Do you see a MMF folder under /Users/userName? If you do and it contains the file jsonlog.txt, please post the content here or send it to me via pm.

Don't see any folder like that in my username folder

Dominion League / Re: Season 11 - Results
« on: November 10, 2015, 02:05:27 pm »
E2: Ravi Vasudevan 5 - 1 Sunmaster14

Tried installing the Mac version and it wouldn't let me log in. Reset the old dll and it worked fine again. With the MMF dll the sign in box came up where I could enter my credentials but then clicking sign in did nothing.

At no point did we ever give them the information they needed to reproduce this problem. I think it's not unfair to assume that they did some testing on this option before they pushed it out and it worked for them, so there's some issue that they didn't see. We've told them it isn't working for us, but if they aren't able to replicate that behavior, they will have a tough time fixing it.
I strongly suspect they cannot fail to reproduce the problem, and that it will be obvious that it doesn't work and what's wrong from the most fleeting of glances at the code. Now that won't be enough; they need a better set of matchmaking options, with new buttons and things. But the bug with that option, man, it's not the kind of bug you labor over.

Just because DXV says "case closed" doesn't mean they have what they need from us. Yeah maybe they can figure it out but if my assumption is true (I hope it isn't) then they could still potentially benefit from having some actual data beyond "MQ started a game with a guy whose rating was too far off. It's broken. Fix it lol."
Hey, they also got 2 logs.


Again it is really unlikely they need anything beyond "this feature doesn't work, and, in case you hadn't done this math, it's making the game worse for players of all skill levels."

My issue with this (and why I think it is valuable to still collect data when you feel things are being matched improperly), is that there are 3 possible problems with the matching (which are probably ALL occurring)

1. The matching doesn't work as intended - We are still getting matched with people who are more than 1000 below our rating even though we specify that we don't want that.

2. The ratings are bad - Getting 1000 below our rating is meaningless so using this as a metric is no good unless we actually have a proper rating algorithm.

3. The matching works, the ratings are fine, but using 1000 is just a poor line to draw for automatching - Everything works okay, but we still get matched with huge disparities in level because 3000 is WAY worse than 4000 which is way worse than 5000, etc.

If 1 is true, then it is easy for them to fix. If we find out that 1 is false and it has to be a combination of 2 or 3 then they need to fix those things rather than focus on trying to find a bug in the matching.

In my dream scenario they would make sure that the automatch works (fixing 1) switch to Isotropish (fixing 2) and allow for a custom range of rankings that you allow to be automatched to (fixing 3). My personal priority is to allow customization first and then think about changing the ranking algorithm. Just telling them "the automatch doesn't work" may not be enough for them to understand this, but if we gathered data to show them maybe they would be more willing to make the changes.

Alright, that's great news, didn't follow every single thread about this issue, but let's hope they make something better with it. Just saw yesterday the frustration Adam felt and thought that if this data was needed then it could be done in a better way than gathering data through forum responses.

It may still be good to get some data in case they feel like it is working even though it isn't, so I'll just leave this here for anyone who wants to contribute anyways. It may also show how the Isotropish rating is better than the MF rating which may convince them to switch (we can dream right?).

So I think what Adam was trying to do was actually a good thing and really trying to solve the problem, however, using forum responses to gather data is really difficult.  I made a simple form that I think is a much better way to get this data and you can reply to this thread with your comments about the form, about the automatch problem or even about otters if you want.

Data collection form
Form Results

I have made the Isotropish stuff optional, but I think that data can really help if you take the time to check there.  Not sure if anyone will use this for real, but thought I would try to help Adam out with what he was trying to do. I realize it is near impossible to get the ranking of your opponent, so you can leave that blank if you can't find it. Hopefully the MakingFun people can tell from the gamelog if the two players are properly ranked or not.

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.

Dominion League / Re: Season 11 - Signups
« on: October 27, 2015, 10:08:02 am »
I'll join

Username: Ravi Vasudevan
Timezone: Europe/Amsterdam

Goko Level was around 20, MF level is 26

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

Page created in 0.043 seconds with 18 queries.