Print

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

[Donald X.]

If two other people reroll a board they both didn't want to play, which gained an advantage over the other?  They're still gonna do their best to beat each other on whatever board they eventually play, right?  Since the board they do play is still random, the reroll doesn't change the probability of either of them winning, at least not in a way they can control.  So it doesn't change the expected effect of that game on the overall ratings, and therefore has no expected effect on my rating.

If they reroll swingy games, the better player gained an advantage over the worse player. The reroll changes the probability of the better player winning, in a controllable way. The board they do play isn't random anymore; it's random excluding swingy boards (similarly we could exclude boards until there was a village or no attacks or whatever we wanted, if you aren't seeing how nonrandom this is). The worse player should of course have not agreed to the reroll, but the worse player may also think he's the better player, or may just be being friendly. Even if the better player in this scenario only sometimes finds an opponent interested in getting rid of swingy boards or being friendly, still, that guy loses fewer games to worse players on swingy boards than someone who decides to never veto.

This is not a problem I personally have. The problem for me is players being unhappy. People will be unhappy no matter what; some systems will cause more or less general unhappiness. We offer unrated games; rated games should cater to people who care about rating, and those people tend to not want the system to be game-able.

[theblankman]

If they reroll swingy games, the better player gained an advantage over the worse player.

I'd say the better player kept the advantage they already had.  And if you're concerned about ratings, isn't that what you want, even if you're the lower-rated (ostensibly worse) player?  The competitive streak in me doesn't want a win over Stef or MicQ because I hit a streak of Cultists first, or they hit $2P on a Familiar board; I want to improve to the point where I can actually outplay those folks.  But maybe that just makes me a person who should go play deterministic games.

[Donald X.]

I'd say the better player kept the advantage they already had.  And if you're concerned about ratings, isn't that what you want, even if you're the lower-rated (ostensibly worse) player?  The competitive streak in me doesn't want a win over Stef or MicQ because I hit a streak of Cultists first, or they hit $2P on a Familiar board; I want to improve to the point where I can actually outplay those folks.  But maybe that just makes me a person who should go play deterministic games.

The good players who use the system to avoid swingy games are given a ratings boost over the good players who don't, that has nothing to do with how they played in games and everything to do with what games they veto'd. The ratings aren't supposed to be rating The Game of Vetoing Sets of 10; they are supposed to be rating Dominion.

You don't need to feel this way. Of course you like your proposal. Some people will love/hate whatever, etc. etc.

[blueblimp]

The ratings aren't supposed to be rating The Game of Vetoing Sets of 10; they are supposed to be rating Dominion.

I know that you know this (duh) but: the rulebook is explicit that any method to pick a kingdom is permitted. For that reason, I don't think rules adherence is a legit argument against having a veto mode.

[pacovf]

The ratings aren't supposed to be rating The Game of Vetoing Sets of 10; they are supposed to be rating Dominion.

I know that you know this (duh) but: the rulebook is explicit that any method to pick a kingdom is permitted. For that reason, I don't think rules adherence is a legit argument against having a veto mode.

Edge Case Level: correcting Donald.

[LastFootnote]

The ratings aren't supposed to be rating The Game of Vetoing Sets of 10; they are supposed to be rating Dominion.

I know that you know this (duh) but: the rulebook is explicit that any method to pick a kingdom is permitted. For that reason, I don't think rules adherence is a legit argument against having a veto mode.

Donald's text you quoted says nothing about the rules or adherence to them. He said, quite rightly, that the ratings are supposed to be rating Dominion, not rating Dominion AND a crappy little metagame that you play before every match. Man, you know what system I want? I want to have five Kingdoms presented to me, and then my opponent and I play a game of checkers. The winner gets to pick which Kingdom we play. Why won't Making Fun implement that, huh?

[theblankman]

The ratings aren't supposed to be rating The Game of Vetoing Sets of 10; they are supposed to be rating Dominion.

Except they actually are rating Dominion With Random Sets Of 10.  That seems to be the "canonical" form of online Dominion among competitive players right now, I guess I'm just not sure why it should be. 

You don't need to feel this way. Of course you like your proposal. Some people will love/hate whatever, etc. etc.

Well yes, but I also like your proposal.  What I don't like so much is the status quo, I'd rather play with a hate list than random sets of 10. 

BTW I've used my proposal in two league matches so far, and it's gone about like I expected/hoped.  In 12 games with two opponents, I've had one mutually agreed reroll.  It was Dame Anna on top of the Knight pile, no other trasher, so first to get her has a huge advantage.  Adam Horton told me he had a 5/2, offered the reroll and I accepted (basically he gave up a free win to play a more competitive game, very cool of him).  I would've accepted even if he didn't tell me about his 5/2, thinking we're both about to open Silver/Silver and that shuffle would just determine the game. 

I'm gonna keep offering this in league play to get an idea how competitive players feel about it, and how much rerolling actually happens in a setting like that.  Even if it's never added to Pro, it's always an options for things like Unrated league matches, and so far it seems to be a decent one. 

[Donald X.]

The ratings aren't supposed to be rating The Game of Vetoing Sets of 10; they are supposed to be rating Dominion.

I know that you know this (duh) but: the rulebook is explicit that any method to pick a kingdom is permitted. For that reason, I don't think rules adherence is a legit argument against having a veto mode.

Why you think I'm talking about adhering to the rulebook is a mystery.

For casual games, players should be allowed to pick the 10 cards however they want, and they can and do, both irl and online. But we were talking about rated games. The Dominion rulebook does not cover this. We considered including tournament rules, but Jay felt at the time that he'd never be running tournaments himself, so we didn't. We did not consider putting in rules for rating systems for online games.

[blueblimp]

The ratings aren't supposed to be rating The Game of Vetoing Sets of 10; they are supposed to be rating Dominion.

I know that you know this (duh) but: the rulebook is explicit that any method to pick a kingdom is permitted. For that reason, I don't think rules adherence is a legit argument against having a veto mode.

Why you think I'm talking about adhering to the rulebook is a mystery.

I misread, sorry. I was thinking of the argument that sometimes gets trotted out that playing Dominion in a uniformly-random kingdom is somehow "more real" than playing it in a non-uniformly-random kingdom. I agree that strategic use of veto is lame.

[Donald X.]

That seems to be the "canonical" form of online Dominion among competitive players right now, I guess I'm just not sure why it should be. 

Well it's straightforward. It should work the way that's preferred by the people who care about ratings. I don't have a lot of data there really; you mostly hear from the vocal people.

Even if it's never added to Pro, it's always an options for things like Unrated league matches, and so far it seems to be a decent one.

I have no problem with it for casual, although it's not exactly adding a feature there now, since you can just say, let's play a different one, and quit. But when the matchmaking interface is improved, it might need to be a feature if you want to reroll but be paired with the same person again.

[theblankman]

Well it's straightforward. It should work the way that's preferred by the people who care about ratings. I don't have a lot of data there really; you mostly hear from the vocal people.

The vocal ones around here seem split on full random vs veto vs hate list to me; I know at least myself and LastFootnote are on record in the "not full random" camp.  The Salvager thread has scattered requests for iso-style veto, with plenty of debate following each one.  Obviously Salvager can't add that to Pro games, but I think there's even been a debate about if Salvager made veto available, should those games count toward Isotropish rating? 

Anyway I finally found a quote for my signature

it's a shame that full-random is the de facto standard

[Donald X.]

Anyway I finally found a quote for my signature

it's a shame that full-random is the de facto standard

What LF prefers is 5 from one set, 5 from another (I think with some tweak to allow promos to appear). My proposal included that as a mode, and allowed those games to be rated.

[LastFootnote]

What LF prefers is 5 from one set, 5 from another (I think with some tweak to allow promos to appear).

Guilty.

[theblankman]

Who chooses the sets in a rated game with that format?  Unless they're chosen at random that feels at least as game-able as anything else that's been discussed, maybe more so.  One can pick sets with which they're most familiar, deliberately pick sets with more or fewer swingy cards, etc. 

[Donald X.]

Who chooses the sets in a rated game with that format?  Unless they're chosen at random that feels at least as game-able as anything else that's been discussed, maybe more so.  One can pick sets with which they're most familiar, deliberately pick sets with more or fewer swingy cards, etc.

You can also choose to not buy expansions with swingy cards. We can't stop that.

[theblankman]

You can also choose to not buy expansions with swingy cards. We can't stop that.

That sounds like an argument in favor of giving players who did buy everything some kind of influence over a rated board.  If you can't stop a certain type of system-gaming, at least let everyone else do something to counteract/balance that.  Is that one of the reasons for the two-set mode? 

BTW does that mode include displaying which sets are in the mix before a match is accepted?  Not knowing that always bugged me about the current lobbies.  I don't join games unless the host says what's playing in the title, cause I prefer not to accidentally play base only. 

[SpinBlack]

Or we could just bring back Isotropic instead of attempting to reinvent the wheel - which has not been done even remotely competently compared to the first time.

[Donald X.]

You can also choose to not buy expansions with swingy cards. We can't stop that.

That sounds like an argument in favor of giving players who did buy everything some kind of influence over a rated board.  If you can't stop a certain type of system-gaming, at least let everyone else do something to counteract/balance that.  Is that one of the reasons for the two-set mode? 

BTW does that mode include displaying which sets are in the mix before a match is accepted?  Not knowing that always bugged me about the current lobbies.  I don't join games unless the host says what's playing in the title, cause I prefer not to accidentally play base only.

You will just endlessly have things to say/ask here, and that's fine, but I can't keep being the guy answering / counterarguing, I have like stuff to do - work, play, staring into space. It kept seeming like it wouldn't keep going but here it is. We'll see what MakingFun does when they do it, and argue with them for what we want when we do.

[theblankman]

You will just endlessly have things to say/ask here, and that's fine, but I can't keep being the guy answering / counterarguing, I have like stuff to do

Of course I will.  Dialogue with the designer of a game I like is a privilege, why wouldn't I take advantage as long as you're willing?  Thanks for your time. 

[blueblimp]

Or we could just bring back Isotropic instead of attempting to reinvent the wheel - which has not been done even remotely competently compared to the first time.

Goko kingdom selection is actually (IMO) better than isotropic! On isotropic, you could either play blind-with-veto, or non-blind-no-veto, but not blind-no-veto. Because isotropic's veto was unilateral, the end result is that you wouldn't get to play many games with unpopular cards.