Print

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

[Tombolo]

I can understand once if there's just a board you find revolting, but if you're going to decline a match multiple times, why are you in automatch?

[kn1tt3r]

Mostly I think declines are due to two reasons:
1. The opponent's rank is too high
2. They don't like the board

If someone declines multiple times, I suppose it's almost always reason 1.

I very rarely decline automatches, and if I do so it's mostly because I prefer a more casual match against a non-top-tier opponent, or I don't have much time and the board contains s.th. like Colony, Ambassador, Goons etc...

[mgallop]

Personally, if someone declines an automatch with me because they don't like the board I will decline all subsequent automatches with that person. Every once in a while I will decline an automatch based on the board (mostly if its a torturer board and I just played one, or something like that, or if I only have a limited time and it looks like an unpleasant slog). Anyway, thats my own not particularly good justification for doing it.

[jonts26]

Personally, if someone declines an automatch with me because they don't like the board I will decline all subsequent automatches with that person. Every once in a while I will decline an automatch based on the board (mostly if its a torturer board and I just played one, or something like that, or if I only have a limited time and it looks like an unpleasant slog). Anyway, thats my own not particularly good justification for doing it.

Well at least it's not a double standard ...

[DStu]

1. The opponent's rank is too high

-> don't play "any registered"

2. They don't like the board

->play veto

[Morgrim7]

I will only decline if my opponent's level is too low, or if the kingdom contains a card I hate. If my opponent's level is above 30, I will accept no matter what.

[Reyk]

1. The opponent's rank is too high

-> don't play "any registered"

2. They don't like the board

->play veto

This will not happen as Iso is going down soon, but here is an explanation:

After a long break your rank will be down several levels, say level 30. If you want do play top players anyway you have to choose something like "+/- 20". But you do not want to play level 10. So, in my case I would like to have an option "+ 20" instead of "+/- 20"

And yes ocassionally I will decline because of Fishing village/torturer. But I don't like veto at all because
a) people often take tons of time for their veto decision (I' ll do this within seconds - just to rule out cards I don't like; not to think about best winning chances as second player etc.)
b) people very often/almost always veto Duke, Possession (yes, I like both cards a lot)

[popsofctown]

Played Duke vs. Possession the very game before reading this post .  nonveto

[verikt]

Last couple of days I keep accepting and getting told I declined by timing out. The lag is really screwing things up.
But for a more general answer, say you're at 35 and want to play people from 33-39. So you check automatch +5 and you keep getting lvl 30s. One of the fastest ways to lose points is to keep playing the bottom edge of your level and lose every so often. And it's impossible not to, there's always shuffle luck.

[kn1tt3r]

1. The opponent's rank is too high

-> don't play "any registered"

2. They don't like the board

->play veto

This will not happen as Iso is going down soon, but here is an explanation:

After a long break your rank will be down several levels, say level 30. If you want do play top players anyway you have to choose something like "+/- 20". But you do not want to play level 10. So, in my case I would like to have an option "+ 20" instead of "+/- 20"

And yes ocassionally I will decline because of Fishing village/torturer. But I don't like veto at all because
a) people often take tons of time for their veto decision (I' ll do this within seconds - just to rule out cards I don't like; not to think about best winning chances as second player etc.)
b) people very often/almost always veto Duke, Possession (yes, I like both cards a lot)

Or for my case, I'm like 43 at the moment, and when I don't want to play Marin or Stef right now, because I'm more in a casual mood (or ... ahem ... at work), there is no possibility to set this previously.

It would be better if it was something like "Level from ___ to ___", but now there is just no way to avoid declining if you don't wanna play a similar ranked opponent.

As for the veto thing, I agree with Reyk - I don't like veto because it limits the bandwidth of possible boards and strategies by some distinct cards that many people just don't like to play with.

[pst]

It would be better if it was something like "Level from ___ to ___", but now there is just no way to avoid declining if you don't wanna play a similar ranked opponent.

I would like  ☐ Decline because of too high ranking  ☐ Decline because of too low ranking  ☐ Decline  with options that would change your settings while declining. Even though people have mentioned other situations I think most of the declining is done by people who haven't set any limits at all because of neglect or they don't know about it, and this way they will probably set some limits this way.

[Grujah]

I sometimes decline too low ranking. I am mid 20s and usually put +/- 15.
I decline if they declined against me first. If it is because of the set, they should play veto. I don't like veto.

I never look at the board before accepting. I actually hate that it is shown, cause other people do. 
Thats why there are days when out of 10 games I get 6 Tournament games and I get sick of them, but, whatchagonnado.

[Eevee]

The reason I play veto is to avoid familiar, and the ridiculous 1st turn advantage cards. Its bad enough to go 2nd, no need to add something like governor or tournament to the equation.

[carstimon]

Mostly I don't decline.  I think the times I do:
1.  I've just played a ton of games and wan't a really relaxed one, and I see one that won't be relaxed
2.  It's a game against an unregistered or low level opponent where I'm just going to make them suffer.  ( pass them 6 curses with ambassador on the 10th turn or something)

[jsh357]

1.  I've just played a ton of games and wan't a really relaxed one, and I see one that won't be relaxed

This is the main reason I ever reject a match, though it's more to do with me having a long day and being mentally drained usually than having played a lot of games. 

People declining me over and over does annoy, but I would think if it's because of my level (33) that people 20 below it would have just changed the filter.  I worry if I did something to offend them sometimes.

[Kirian]

The only times I decline is if someone has declined me.  I'll then decline them multiple times until I or they get matched with someone else.

[blueblimp]

The only times I decline is if someone has declined me.  I'll then decline them multiple times until I or they get matched with someone else.

I sometimes do this. I'll also decline players who annoy me, or occasionally players who I remember play very slowly.

I imagine I sometimes get declined because of "Auto Count" status, but I don't know how common this is.

[popsofctown]

The reason I play veto is to avoid familiar, and the ridiculous 1st turn advantage cards. Its bad enough to go 2nd, no need to add something like governor or tournament to the equation.

I wish such things should be vetoed before players know who is going first.  When I play veto I end up destroying interesting kingdoms to augment/diminish player order advantage.

Familiar though, that card.  28% mistrials, and not an interesting enough card to be worth the trouble.

[Grujah]

The only times I decline is if someone has declined me.  I'll then decline them multiple times until I or they get matched with someone else.

I sometimes do this. I'll also decline players who annoy me, or occasionally players who I remember play very slowly.

I imagine I sometimes get declined because of "Auto Count" status, but I don't know how common this is.

I don't look at their name in lobby when auto-match suggest somebody, so I don't reject based on this.

[RisingJaguar]

The reason I play veto is to avoid familiar, and the ridiculous 1st turn advantage cards. Its bad enough to go 2nd, no need to add something like governor or tournament to the equation.

I wish such things should be vetoed before players know who is going first.  When I play veto I end up destroying interesting kingdoms to augment/diminish player order advantage.

Familiar though, that card.  28% mistrials, and not an interesting enough card to be worth the trouble.

This (Vetoing cards that help the first player, which usually are the crucial power cards) is not a fun way to play.  Your rank can not mean that much more than getting the most interesting matches.  I would almost always aim for the counting houses, chancellors, thieves of the group (unless they look more useful than another card) so both players can have as many options as possible.  Now if you hate cards like possession and want to veto it because it makes the game less 'fun' (it doesn't really, it actually adds a whole new dimension that both players need to consider), then that I can understand better.  However I play dominion for fun, I would want to have the most fun kingdoms I could play if I play veto mode. 

If it is a random kingdom, I just accept unless I forget to put the +/- 20 rank on.

[Eevee]

The reason I play veto is to avoid familiar, and the ridiculous 1st turn advantage cards. Its bad enough to go 2nd, no need to add something like governor or tournament to the equation.

I wish such things should be vetoed before players know who is going first.  When I play veto I end up destroying interesting kingdoms to augment/diminish player order advantage.

Familiar though, that card.  28% mistrials, and not an interesting enough card to be worth the trouble.

This is not a fun way to play.  Your rank can not mean that much more than getting the most interesting matches.  I would almost always aim for the counting houses, chancellors, thieves of the group (unless they look more useful than another card) so both players can have as many options as possible.  Now if you hate cards like possession and want to veto it because it makes the game less 'fun' (it doesn't really, it actually adds a whole new dimension that both players need to consider), then that I can understand better.  However I play dominion for fun, I would want to have the most fun kingdoms I could play if I play veto mode. 

If it is a random kingdom, I just accept unless I forget to put the +/- 20 rank on.

I dont find playing governor boards from 2nd player particularly enjoyable.

I dont do it just to maximize my rank. If I did, I would probably never end my sessions on a loss, etc etc. I just find veto an interesting competitive tool, and usually try to veto stuff I feel hurt my chances at winning. + If I dont feel like playing a minion mirror, hunting party stack or a curse game, I can veto those cards out.

[Brando Commando]

I would like  ☐ Decline because of too high ranking  ☐ Decline because of too low ranking  ☐ Decline  with options that would change your settings while declining. Even though people have mentioned other situations I think most of the declining is done by people who haven't set any limits at all because of neglect or they don't know about it, and this way they will probably set some limits this way.

I think this isn't really in the spirit of the system. The +/- X system of matching that Isotropic uses is like a way of saying, "Sure you can play someone X levels above you, but only if you're willing to get matched with someone X levels below you."

Obviously, some amount of cherry picking is unavoidable -- people can always just decline matches with lower-ranked players -- but we all lose if everybody refuses to play people more than (say) 3 levels below them all the time.

[pst]

I would like  ☐ Decline because of too high ranking  ☐ Decline because of too low ranking  ☐ Decline  with options that would change your settings while declining. Even though people have mentioned other situations I think most of the declining is done by people who haven't set any limits at all because of neglect or they don't know about it, and this way they will probably set some limits this way.

I think this isn't really in the spirit of the system. The +/- X system of matching that Isotropic uses is like a way of saying, "Sure you can play someone X levels above you, but only if you're willing to get matched with someone X levels below you."

Obviously, some amount of cherry picking is unavoidable -- people can always just decline matches with lower-ranked players -- but we all lose if everybody refuses to play people more than (say) 3 levels below them all the time.

Obviously no one is forced to play anyone they don't want to play, regardless of reason. If no one wanted to play people more than (say) 3 levels below them all the time we would have a problem, but that's obviously not the case. Being again and again matched with people who will decline you is just boring, and you're better of not being matched with them.

But the point of my suggestion is not really that you should be able to set any interval, but that might be easier to get people to state their preferences when declining, than beforehand. That could be used with a system that won't allow non-centered limits, with a "☐ Decline because rating too far away from my own" if you prefer that.

[pst]

Here's a reason I have for declining automatches that hasn't been mentioned yet.
I'm in the mood for multiplayer Dominion and haven't ticked the 2-player box. Only 2 people say yes to a suggested matchup. Then the system suggests we 2 should play, despite of me (at least) having said I don't want to play 2-player.

[Varsinor]

Another possible reason to decline an automatch: Isotropic has a stupid incentive for declining auto-rematches after you have won against someone.