Print

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

[Graystripe77]

Obviously you need skill to level up. But I am curious as to any other means of improving your level. For me, I have a system of what number player games I play when. Does anyone else have any tips or tricks to reach your skill ceiling faster?

[guided]

Play whatever games are most fun for you against whatever opponents are most fun for you to play, whenever you feel like playing them. Is what I say. But I find it more fun to play Dominion than to metagame the leaderboard

[danshep]

Once you're doing anything to game the leaderboard system, you've made your own ranking meaningless. Just play the game and let your level reflect your skill.

The only thing that I do is not play as a logged-in user if I think I'm likely to be distracted or need to abandon games (because I'm at work at lunch / preparing dinner / etc), because I want my rank to not be adversely affected then. If you don't want 3/4 player games to factor into your skill, don't play those while logged in. Otherwise, just play.

[Graystripe77]

Well, i can see this is probably going to turn into a 'just play' thread. Oh well...

[guided]

Well, i can see this is probably going to turn into a 'just play' thread. Oh well...

I would like the rating system to reflect players' actual skill as much as possible, so if your desire is for this thread to spread knowledge about how to pervert the ratings so that they are less accurate, then I sincerely hope your desire is thwarted.

[Graystripe77]

no, i meant for this thread to be about, ah..  dang. Alright, ignore this thread, it was stupid to even consider it.

[Nimmy]

Easy. You can do the exact same strategy 79 times out of 84 games to become level 40+

[Mean Mr Mustard]

The same general guidelines professional gamblers use apply here, I think.  Never play when you are tired or distracted.  If you start to tilt and play badly take a break, etc.

[Kirian]

Easy. You can do the exact same strategy 79 times out of 84 games to become level 40+

Are you suggesting the BM or BM/Singlet is likely to win against most players?  I suspect this is incorrect.

[Graystripe77]

The same general guidelines professional gamblers use apply here, I think.  Never play when you are tired or distracted.  If you start to tilt and play badly take a break, etc.

This was the kind of response i was looking for.

[Davio]

No, the correct response is: Don't take it too seriously.

The ranking is there to provide players with some guideline to find players of their own ability to actually enjoy the game. Players may find a challenge in playing higher ranked opponents or want to give lower ranked players an opportunity to learn something.

I find myself being disappointed if my ranking is lower than the previous day, but I try to not let it consume me, it's still a game after all and being first gives you nothing more than bragging rights.

With professional poker players, playing while focussed can mean the difference between a profit of $1000 and a loss of $1000.

[Captain_Frisk]

Easy. You can do the exact same strategy 79 times out of 84 games to become level 40+

Are you suggesting the BM or BM/Singlet is likely to win against most players?  I suspect this is incorrect.

I'm pretty sure they are talking about Paralyzed here. See the current leaderboard.

[painted_cow]

It is really sad to see such players dilute the leaderboard.

Didnt HornyToad do like the same?

The only way to avoid this would be a real ladder system where you can only hit a play button and get matched automatically without possibility to refuse, play fake opponents, or play the same sets over and over...

[Graystripe77]

Well, i just looked up Paralyzed's page.............. idiot.

[ackack]

The only way to avoid this would be a real ladder system where you can only hit a play button and get matched automatically without possibility to refuse, play fake opponents, or play the same sets over and over...

Not sure if Doug wants to set this up, but like a lot of other people I'd be very pleased to see such a thing.

[Lazer]

One small way to optimize your level is to not make a habit of playing only 1-2 games each day.  The uncertainty in your skill is increased every day that you play at least one game.  That uncertainty is increased by sigma0/100 = 0.25 (assuming sigma0 = 25, since starting players have 25 +/-25).

So, if you play one game per day for four days, with all four games ending in a tie (or 2 wins and 2 losses against players near your level), your uncertainty would increase by one.  As a result, your leaderboard level would drop by about one.  Note: I am ignoring the negligible reduction in uncertainty resulting from playing four games.

This effect is minimal if you play many games each day, but potentially significant if, for example, you play one game per day during lunch.

[Graystripe77]

One small way to optimize your level is to not make a habit of playing only 1-2 games each day.  The uncertainty in your skill is increased every day that you play at least one game.  That uncertainty is increased by sigma0/100 = 0.25 (assuming sigma0 = 25, since starting players have 25 +/-25).

So, if you play one game per day for four days, with all four games ending in a tie (or 2 wins and 2 losses against players near your level), your uncertainty would increase by one.  As a result, your leaderboard level would drop by about one.  Note: I am ignoring the negligible reduction in uncertainty resulting from playing four games.

This effect is minimal if you play many games each day, but potentially significant if, for example, you play one game per day during lunch.

Well, that shouldn't be a problem, i play 10-50 games a day

[greatexpectations]

my thoughts on the issue...
- play regularly. helps keep your dominion skillz sharp. when i play less my level seems to drop fast.
- play fast opponents.  i don't know about the rest of you guys, but i zone out against slow players or against players with ridiculous engines and/or slow turns. that is when i pop open some other tabs and i lose more games.
- keep your style fresh and don't over rely on good cards (or bad ones). i think we all have our favorite cards, and i think we tend to use them even if it might not be prudent. i like (and probably overuse) shanty towns and islands, and i will play a garden strategy every single time i see them. i think it is more fun (and challenging) but it probably doesn't help in the rankings.
- talk to other players. you can get a sense of their styles and both offer critiques and be critiqued. i've definitely gotten tips from other players before.
- watch other players turns. this goes back a bit to my second comment. you can learn a lot about the game and your opponent by watching them play their turn.  what their strategy is, nifty card combos, when they start greening, etc.  i will never forget the first time i saw someone run a goons engine and then watchtower-trash all the extra copper buys. ditto watchtower/talisman/treasure map.
- take breaks.  this one might just apply to me, but i tend to lose in streaks. i get frustrated and play "just one more" to end on a win and my play gets really lazy.

[DG]

One small way to optimize your level is to not make a habit of playing only 1-2 games each day.  The uncertainty in your skill is increased every day that you play at least one game.

That's probably why my uncertainty is so high. All my poor play can be explained away as just uncertainty.

[Kirian]

Easy. You can do the exact same strategy 79 times out of 84 games to become level 40+

Are you suggesting the BM or BM/Singlet is likely to win against most players?  I suspect this is incorrect.

I'm pretty sure they are talking about Paralyzed here. See the current leaderboard.

Ah, I see now.... wow, what an asshole.

[Kirian]

One small way to optimize your level is to not make a habit of playing only 1-2 games each day.  The uncertainty in your skill is increased every day that you play at least one game.  That uncertainty is increased by sigma0/100 = 0.25 (assuming sigma0 = 25, since starting players have 25 +/-25).

So, if you play one game per day for four days, with all four games ending in a tie (or 2 wins and 2 losses against players near your level), your uncertainty would increase by one.  As a result, your leaderboard level would drop by about one.  Note: I am ignoring the negligible reduction in uncertainty resulting from playing four games.

This effect is minimal if you play many games each day, but potentially significant if, for example, you play one game per day during lunch.

Um... citation on that?  The TrueSkill page Dougz links to doesn't mention that, and his indication is that he uses that directly.

It would certainly explain my high uncertainty, though.

[ackack]

It's in the FAQ somewhere. The original method increased your uncertainty by a little bit each game, but that method had a threshold past which you cannot cross that was still pretty high (12, iirc, for the choice of uncertainty gain.) So he switched to a lump sum per day. Your uncertainty will definitely be pretty high if you only play a couple of games a day.

edit: On that note, I'd love to see an option to sort leaderboard by the best estimate of skill instead of by level.

[Lazer]

Um... citation on that?  The TrueSkill page Dougz links to doesn't mention that, and his indication is that he uses that directly.

It is on the Isotropic FAQ page, "Leaderboard" section.

[Kirian]

Um... citation on that?  The TrueSkill page Dougz links to doesn't mention that, and his indication is that he uses that directly.

It is on the Isotropic FAQ page, "Leaderboard" section.

Huh... I totally missed the change in February.  My bad.  Kind of a weird way of doing it though.

[chwhite]

Someone called "Facepalm" just challenged me with the same sort of trick Paralyzed has been pulling, except with Militia instead of Goons.  I declined.

Just wanted to warn folks.

[Graystripe77]

Someone called "Facepalm" just challenged me with the same sort of trick Paralyzed has been pulling, except with Militia instead of Goons.  I declined.

Just wanted to warn folks.

Same thing here, same dude

[ackack]

Haha, I was watching a friend of mine play earlier and he got matched by Facepalm and accepted thinking it was an automatch. I was embarrassed, after the fact, that I hadn't caught that it was clearly a KC-Militia-Masq setup.

[dougz]

Starting with tonight's update, games that have cards forced (or prohibited) via the "require card(s)" box will no longer count towards the leaderboard.

[chwhite]

Starting with tonight's update, games that have cards forced (or prohibited) via the "require card(s)" box will no longer count towards the leaderboard.

Wow.  I think something needed to be done but maybe this is a bit much?  I kinda feel that people who just go, say, "!Possession" shouldn't have to have their games stricken like these set-up artists.

[WanderingWinder]

Presumably that's what the veto system is for, though whether that's what you'll get... well, I think this too is gameable. There's not going to be a perfect solution from all sides.

[biopower]

Presumably that's what the veto system is for, though whether that's what you'll get... well, I think this too is gameable. There's not going to be a perfect solution from all sides.

At the very least it's much less gameable than what Paralyzed (who incidentally, is now Level 50 and #1) has been doing.

[chwhite]

Presumably that's what the veto system is for, though whether that's what you'll get... well, I think this too is gameable. There's not going to be a perfect solution from all sides.

I'd be in favor of games which have a certain small number of prohibitions (exactly what that number is is kinda fuzzy, maybe you can prohibit 3 things) to stay on the leaderboard.

OTOH, it would probably be best to not count any games with requirements that aren't "Colony/Platinum".

[guided]

First off, let me say that leaderboard distortions have never bothered me overmuch, and I wouldn't have complained had Doug chosen to make no changes at all. That said, if we are going to try to remove distortions from the leaderboard, I think certain things are quite clear:

Requiring Colony should definitely not count. It is a huge win-rate advantage to only playing Colony games, get really good at them, and play lots of them against opposition who are not Colony specialists. Back before requirements were displayed to your opponent, almost all of the top slots on the leaderboard were Colony specialists (based on their Popular Buys data)

As far as allowing some small number of prohibitions, well, I don't see why anyone who wants to prohibit even one card they're not good at should feel entitled to have their mildly-rigged games rated equally with completely un-rigged games. If you need some prohibitions to have fun playing, by all means, make some prohibitions and have fun! But if you genuinely want to compare your skill with others via mathematical ratings, then leave your prohibitions at the door, because rigged games make mathematical comparisons meaningless.

Removing games with any requirements/prohibitions from the ratings is basically the minimum requirement for producing meaningful ratings. A big step in the right direction, here. Better still would be to have a "rated game" type that only reveals the board after all players have accepted the game, and only count those games. But that's a bit more implementation work, of course.

[ackack]

Removing games with any requirements/prohibitions from the ratings is basically the minimum requirement for producing meaningful ratings. A big step in the right direction, here. Better still would be to have a "rated game" type that only reveals the board after all players have accepted the game, and only count those games. But that's a bit more implementation work, of course.

Seems like a very small step from the veto system, at this point, so maybe that can happen in the future. I'm not completely sold on the veto system yet - it seems likely to effectively remove certain cards from the game universe - but I do appreciate that Doug is trying some different things to address the issues people have. And I agree that removing restricted games from the leaderboard is a huge step forward.

[Kirian]

Removing games with any requirements/prohibitions from the ratings is basically the minimum requirement for producing meaningful ratings. A big step in the right direction, here. Better still would be to have a "rated game" type that only reveals the board after all players have accepted the game, and only count those games. But that's a bit more implementation work, of course.

Hrm, I think that first makes the assumption that all cards are "equal" on some level, which of course we know they're not.  It's not unreasonable to ask:  if you were to run a tournament, are there any cards you would prohibit from all tables?  In my opinion, Possession would be on that list, but I guess others might feel differently.  I do agree what you're speaking of would be a step in the right direction though.

[guided]

Hrm, I think that first makes the assumption that all cards are "equal" on some level

I assume no equality beyond the entirely obvious fact that they're all official Dominion cards. Unless you can get Donald to publicly disown some of them, or get an overwhelming consensus among the entire competitive community that some of them are totally unsuitable for competitive play, the only reasonable baseline is that all official cards are included.

Possession is a card a lot of people don't like. If you think it's unsuitable for competition... well, I'll just say I disagree. I don't like Swindler's variance-inducing ways, but I wouldn't for an instant presume to strike it from rated games for the whole community (nor from a tournament I was organizing).

[chwhite]

First off, let me say that leaderboard distortions have never bothered me overmuch, and I wouldn't have complained had Doug chosen to make no changes at all. That said, if we are going to try to remove distortions from the leaderboard, I think certain things are quite clear:

Requiring Colony should definitely not count. It is a huge win-rate advantage to only playing Colony games, get really good at them, and play lots of them against opposition who are not Colony specialists. Back before requirements were displayed to your opponent, almost all of the top slots on the leaderboard were Colony specialists (based on their Popular Buys data)

As far as allowing some small number of prohibitions, well, I don't see why anyone who wants to prohibit even one card they're not good at should feel entitled to have their mildly-rigged games rated equally with completely un-rigged games. If you need some prohibitions to have fun playing, by all means, make some prohibitions and have fun! But if you genuinely want to compare your skill with others via mathematical ratings, then leave your prohibitions at the door, because rigged games make mathematical comparisons meaningless.

Removing games with any requirements/prohibitions from the ratings is basically the minimum requirement for producing meaningful ratings. A big step in the right direction, here. Better still would be to have a "rated game" type that only reveals the board after all players have accepted the game, and only count those games. But that's a bit more implementation work, of course.

I think one thing that's getting lost in the shuffle is that the leaderboard isn't just for bragging rights at the top: it's also useful for players of all skill levels to find opponents of similar skill.  Many of the players who do things like ban Possession and Tournament and Pirate Ship etc. are mid-level players for whom the level is more a useful signaling device to find enjoyable opponents.  And I fear that eliminating all games with constraints could screw them over.

Good point on Colony/Platinum, which I did not know: I knew that a lot of top players required Colony/Plat, but I thought it was a simple matter of finding the longer game more strategic and enjoyable, and hadn't considered the extent to which it could be gaming the system as well.

FWIW, I never play with constraints, though I'll accept challenges with constraints as long as they're not obvious setups. 

Also, re: the veto system, I agree that it can be gamed too.  I've played like eight games on the veto system now, and there's  one card I've rejected every time I've seen it, at least three times so far.  It's Duke     .  Probably not what you were expecting.

[Reyk]

Starting with tonight's update, games that have cards forced (or prohibited) via the "require card(s)" box will no longer count towards the leaderboard.

Well done, dougz! Thx for all the great work!

[Reyk]

I've played like eight games on the veto system now, and there's  one card I've rejected every time I've seen it, at least three times so far.  It's Duke     .  Probably not what you were expecting.

Really? For me all the additional victory cards change the dynamics in an interesting way. Duke is no exception. These WanderingWinder games starting Copper/Horse Traders/Duchy are great stuff! And would be one reason for me not to always play with Colony/Platinum.

[guided]

I'm really bad at Duke games. But I don't reject them

[jonts26]

If there's one card I might unequivocally veto, it's probably ambassador. Those games are so boring.

[DG]

If there's one card I might unequivocally veto, it's probably ambassador. Those games are so boring.

They can actually be very interesting but they just take too long to pan out.

[guided]

If there's one card I might unequivocally veto, it's probably ambassador. Those games are so boring.

As an example of why I oppose rated games with even single-card prohibitions, an initial draft of one of my posts specifically mentioned that I don't want "!Ambassador" games counting in the same ratings that are being used to judge my own performance Some people don't like those games and are bad at them, but I do like them and I'm good at them.

[greatexpectations]

i love that the new veto mode binds you into playing a game with an opponent without seeing the cards. i really don't like that the mode allows the two cards to be vetoed.  just seems to me to be too much control by the players in shaping the game they want to play. 

i think that the veto mode is just going to serve to remove all of the interesting cards and attacks from the game. i am not sure if the data is logged anywhere, but i would bet that the cards that are always being vetoed are the attacks, gardens/dukes, and higher variance cards like tournament/kings court.

[jonts26]

Oh I agree that a proper ratings system would require pure random of all the cards, and I wouldn't suggest otherwise. Vetoing Ambassador is simply an issue of enjoyment for me.

[jonts26]

i love that the new veto mode binds you into playing a game with an opponent without seeing the cards. i really don't like that the mode allows the two cards to be vetoed.  just seems to me to be too much control by the players in shaping the game they want to play. 

I'm not sure veto mode will skew card selections that much more than simply refusing to play a set that has card X in it, as I'm sure many people do. And really, is it a problem that people are allowed to shape the game to play it in the way that gives them the most enjoyment? Certainly, as far as a rating system goes this is a bad idea, but simply playing the game the way you like is fine too.

[ackack]

I'm not sure veto mode will skew card selections that much more than simply refusing to play a set that has card X in it, as I'm sure many people do.

Oh, I think it definitely will. greatexpectations examples are quite good - you might not object to playing with a particular card, but given that you must veto one of 12 cards in the set, ones that make the game more luck dependent (Familiar, Ambassador, King's Court) or slow (Sea Hag, Ambassador, etc.) seem substantially more likely to be vetoed.

[guided]

OK, just read the FAQ on what Veto mode is... and I definitely won't be using it! at least not most of the time. Some of my favorite cards (like Sea Hag and Ambassador) are likely to be vetoed. I might never end up playing a game with Possession again, and Possession games can sometimes be the most interesting games in all of Dominion! As others have pointed out, even a single veto can drastically reduce the chances of playing nasty-but-interesting games in general. Relying on veto will atrophy your skill at those sorts of games I think

It will probably have some effect on the ratings - if I used it I would veto Treasure Map, Swindler, Mountebank, and certain other high-variance cards on sight and probably improve my win rate against lower-ranked opponents significantly - but not in a way that can be used to maliciously game the leaderboard. I definitely like that you're locked in to playing a game before you see the pre-veto board.

[Dave970]

Hrm, I think that first makes the assumption that all cards are "equal" on some level

I assume no equality beyond the entirely obvious fact that they're all official Dominion cards. Unless you can get Donald to publicly disown some of them, or get an overwhelming consensus among the entire competitive community that some of them are totally unsuitable for competitive play, the only reasonable baseline is that all official cards are included.

Possession is a card a lot of people don't like. If you think it's unsuitable for competition... well, I'll just say I disagree. I don't like Swindler's variance-inducing ways, but I wouldn't for an instant presume to strike it from rated games for the whole community (nor from a tournament I was organizing).

I do not prohibit cards when I play, but one use I can see for banning certain cards in a setting like a tournament is the average length of time it takes to play the given card.  Some turns are just really boring to sit through and, as was mentioned in the "Pet Peeves" thread, lead me to tab out to other windows and lose any interest or concentration on the current game.  Of course, it's not always a given card's fault... some people have massive actions/cards chains that draw their entire deck every turn, but they don't realize that they never bought any gold, and they continue to perpetuate their chain with their buy.

[guided]

I wouldn't play in a tournament where the director banned cards in an attempt to shorten games. There's no small, targeted way to do that, and any blunt hammer you try ("Let's ban all Villages!") is either not going to work or it's going to create a competitive situation that is unrecognizable to people who know how to play the actual game of Dominion.

[chwhite]

I don't actually hate Duke all that much, though yeah it is a card I'm not that good with.  One of the times I rejected it was obviously a bad Duke board and all the other cards looked like they'd interact in interesting ways; another time Horse Traders was on there and I thought the obvious combo would make for a boring game.

Basically, I wanted to explicitly avoid the situation where everyone's just always vetoing cards like Familiar.  Now that "random" is an option I expect to use it most of the time instead.

[guided]

I didn't get the impression RANDOM forced the other player to veto a random card, though? Or is that really how it works? I mean, what I'd personally use is a mode that offers no vetoes and no possibility of declining after seeing the board.

[Dave970]

I wouldn't play in a tournament where the director banned cards in an attempt to shorten games. There's no small, targeted way to do that, and any blunt hammer you try ("Let's ban all Villages!") is either not going to work or it's going to create a competitive situation that is unrecognizable to people who know how to play the actual game of Dominion.

Wasn't necessarily making the case for banning cards, just saying I could see a use for it.  I enjoy playing with any card, any time, but I would hardly think a tournament that banned, say, Possession would make the game unrecognizeable as Dominion.

[guided]

I would hardly think a tournament that banned, say, Possession would make the game unrecognizeable as Dominion.

Did I say that?

Banning only Possession, if the goal is to avoid long games, is in the "not going to work" category, not the "unrecognizable" category.

[Dave970]

I would hardly think a tournament that banned, say, Possession would make the game unrecognizeable as Dominion.

Did I say that?

Banning only Possession, if the goal is to avoid long games, is in the "not going to work" category, not the "unrecognizable" category.

It's in your quote, referring to villages not possession specifically.  Which I think was facetious, anyway, just to make a point.  Regardless, we're on the same side of this... I want to play with all the cards.  I was only saying that I could see a reason for banning some notorious cards, whether they lengthen tournament time, or time spent on isotropic.  It would be, and is, our choice to not join such games.

[Geronimoo]

Starting with tonight's update, games that have cards forced (or prohibited) via the "require card(s)" box will no longer count towards the leaderboard.

Will the leaderboard be updated retroactively? If not, expect Paralyzed to never leave the #1 spot...

[Mean Mr Mustard]

Your name disappears after a time of inactivity, so unless he plays some eligible games won't he go?  And if he does play eligible games, I doubt he has the skill to keep his spot.

[guided]

Man, it'd be fun to see a retroactive update... since I'd probably move up a lot of places

[Jimmmmm]

Man, it'd be fun to see a retroactive update... since I'd probably move up a lot of places

Excellent idea!

I've been agreeing with pretty much everything you've said on this thread. The unpopular cards (Ambassador, Sea Hag, Possession etc) seem to be cards that significantly change any game they are in, and the huge variance from game to game is probably the best thing about Dominion. I actually really like most of the unpopular cards. I don't mind a longer game, and although it can be a pain to be at the receiving end of some cards, particularly Possession (in fact, today I had my Tactician turn possessed  ), it can be equally fun to inflict that pain.

I think Dominion at its purest and best is 10 totally random cards, and that is how I play almost all of my games. I don't mind veto mode, but often I'll be sitting there thinking "Please don't veto that card! It's so much fun!"

[Taco Lobster]

Stupid question - what exactly has Paralyzed been doing?  Always playing the same board, which he has mastered?

[Brando Commando]

Stupid question - what exactly has Paralyzed been doing?  Always playing the same board, which he has mastered?

Yup. http://councilroom.com/search_result?p1_name=Paralyzed

[guided]

Stupid question - what exactly has Paralyzed been doing?  Always playing the same board, which he has mastered?

Yes. The KC/KC/Goons/Masquerade pin.

Games with requirements don't count for the leaderboard anymore though, as of a couple weeks ago.

[Reyk]

Starting with tonight's update, games that have cards forced (or prohibited) via the "require card(s)" box will no longer count towards the leaderboard.

Will the leaderboard be updated retroactively? If not, expect Paralyzed to never leave the #1 spot...

Your name disappears after a time of inactivity, so unless he plays some eligible games won't he go?  And if he does play eligible games, I doubt he has the skill to keep his spot.

He probably will stay there until the official version is out and isotropic goes down.
What he - i. e. this account - currently does is playing one game per week for instance against his brother in mind Horny Toad (wouldn't be surprised if they know each other quite well).

Here is an recent effort against a level 0 player where he risked to play without card restrictions:
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20110916-232712-5ec9aaf4.html

[rod-]

That game log actually made me lol.
Another mining village? Hahahaha.
I suppose it's possible he was playing for the oscarthegrouch achievement...

[Cave-o-sapien]

Here is an recent effort against a level 0 player where he risked to play without card restrictions:
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20110916-232712-5ec9aaf4.html

This warms the cockles of my heart.

[ChaosRed]

I only play 2 or 3 games a day, (which apparently is NOT good for my level). And while I don't care about my level, I do check it every day out of curiosity. I am more interested in learning how to play a board right, reviewing a game and cringing at my mistakes along the way.

I need to "get over" silver, as I often wind up with 9 or more in my deck, it's a big hurdle...and I generally rarely buy more than 3 action cards all game.

[Reyk]

Starting with tonight's update, games that have cards forced (or prohibited) via the "require card(s)" box will no longer count towards the leaderboard.

Will the leaderboard be updated retroactively? If not, expect Paralyzed to never leave the #1 spot...

Your name disappears after a time of inactivity, so unless he plays some eligible games won't he go?  And if he does play eligible games, I doubt he has the skill to keep his spot.

He probably will stay there until the official version is out and isotropic goes down.
What he - i. e. this account - currently does is playing one game per week for instance against his brother in mind Horny Toad (wouldn't be surprised if they know each other quite well).

Here is an recent effort against a level 0 player where he risked to play without card restrictions:
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20110916-232712-5ec9aaf4.html

To be continued - here is the last game he played to stay on the leaderboard:

http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20111014-005352-a43ec438.html

I except him to play one such a game every week against Horny Toad and he already doesn't even try to hide the fact, that the game is a fake. I think it would be a good solution to filter out these two accounts from the leaderboard forever.

I realize that another good solution would be to simply ignore him, alas ... it's not so easy ;-)

[DG]

He's found two ways of manipulating the ranking system. I'm sure there are more. If you banned the login then he'd still be able to use another method to get himself to the top, if he wanted. He doesn't seem to have realised that using his time and effort to cheat a ranking system just marks him out as an idiot.

[DStu]

He's found two ways of manipulating the ranking system. I'm sure there are more. If you banned the login then he'd still be able to use another method to get himself to the top, if he wanted. He doesn't seem to have realised that using his time and effort to cheat a ranking system just marks him out as an idiot.

As probably the worst cases of manipulation are gone, I think it will be difficult to come so high so easy again. But I don't really care, obviously it's easy to ignore the top of the leaderboard if you are far away...

[guided]

I realize that another good solution would be to simply ignore him, alas ... it's not so easy ;-)

I find it exactly so easy as that, actually!

[ChaosRed]

I hope I don't come across as too judgmental, but what kind of a ragged ego would ever engineer such a thing? It's like buying a trophy from a store and hanging it on your mantle at work. I mean, we all have battered and bruised self-esteem at times, but this has got to take the cake.

Wow.

Weird.

[Jeebus]

I'm pretty sure Paralyzed and Horny Toad are the same person. Each of those accounts have been playing the same setup.

Just one comment about banning cards in a tournament. It's pretty common for tournament holders to select the cards for each game, thereby effectively "banning" all the cards that weren't selected. Is this not really Dominion? In fact, in the World Championship at Essen, Donald had personally selected the cards for each of the six rounds. (Possession was one of the "banned" cards! )

[guided]

Just one comment about banning cards in a tournament. It's pretty common for tournament holders to select the cards for each game, thereby effectively "banning" all the cards that weren't selected. Is this not really Dominion? In fact, in the World Championship at Essen, Donald had personally selected the cards for each of the six rounds. (Possession was one of the "banned" cards! )

There are very few people I would trust to compile sets of 10 that will provide a better competitive landscape than random draws. Certainly I'm not such a person! There have been local tournaments around where I live with pre-compiled Kingdoms, and without exception I've seen them and thought the organizers did a terrible job of it But as long as the goal of pre-compiled sets is to create an interesting competitive landscape, the person compiling them is good at it, and (critically) the sets are not revealed until the players sit down to play them, that's probably OK.

[Thisisnotasmile]

According to the base game rulebook:

For the first game, we recommend using
the following 10 Kingdom cards: Cellar,
Market, Militia, Mine, Moat, Remodel,
Smithy, Village, Woodcutter, and
Workshop. At the end of the rules, we list
more suggestions for sets of 10 Kingdom
cards. Return Kingdom cards not chosen
for the game to the box.
In later games, players can choose the 10
Kingdom cards using any method they
agree on.

Thus, it IS really Dominion. The example given for a method to choose Kingdom Cards is by using the randomizers. It is just an example though. By the rules you can choose your set up however you want.

[guided]

Has anyone been saying that compiled Kingdoms are not Dominion? I certainly don't recall ever making that argument, myself. What constitutes "Dominion" and what constitutes a suitable method for compiling a fair and accurate set of rankings (or organizing a fair tournament) are different questions, though.

[Thisisnotasmile]

Sorry. We posted at the same time. My post was in response to this:

I'm pretty sure Paralyzed and Horny Toad are the same person. Each of those accounts have been playing the same setup.

Just one comment about banning cards in a tournament. It's pretty common for tournament holders to select the cards for each game, thereby effectively "banning" all the cards that weren't selected. Is this not really Dominion? In fact, in the World Championship at Essen, Donald had personally selected the cards for each of the six rounds. (Possession was one of the "banned" cards! )

[guided]

Heh, word

[theory]

As a lawyer, this raises serious due process issues and etc., but as a Dominion player, I really wish dougz would just delete Paralyzed and every single one of his games from the server.

[fellowmartian]

You have to ask: what is the leaderboard for? I'd see it as:

1) A bit of fun vanity, or a challenge -- see how high you can go.
2) A way to find reasonable opponents of a similar skill level.
3) A way to measure your own progress.

For all of these, it seems to me that the only way that they work is with a completely level playing field. I applaud the decision to not count games with card restrictions.

If you want to prioritise enjoyment above skill comparison, and for you card restrictions do this, then fine. Carry on restricting, and don't get counted for the leaderboard. Make your choice, either blanket, or for a given game/period.

What this does throw into sharper relief, though, are those people who constantly refuse games on automatch. If you have card restrictions, use them and challenge, or use veto mode. Otherwise you're just trying to have your cake and eat it.

I'd be happy to hear a case I haven't considered for putting automatch on and then refusing games, but until I do, I think I'll be refusing further games myself from anyone who switches on automatch and then refuses a game (it's also kind of annoying when there are few people in the room and you keep getting matched with someone who keeps refusing).

Ps. I don't see Paralyzed there now. Has dougz dealt with it?

[theory]

I assume he has just fallen off the leaderboard due to not playing recently, but every so often he signs on and beats down a dummy opponent to reappear on top.

[WanderingWinder]

You have to ask: what is the leaderboard for? I'd see it as:

1) A bit of fun vanity, or a challenge -- see how high you can go.
2) A way to find reasonable opponents of a similar skill level.
3) A way to measure your own progress.

For all of these, it seems to me that the only way that they work is with a completely level playing field. I applaud the decision to not count games with card restrictions.

If you want to prioritise enjoyment above skill comparison, and for you card restrictions do this, then fine. Carry on restricting, and don't get counted for the leaderboard. Make your choice, either blanket, or for a given game/period.

What this does throw into sharper relief, though, are those people who constantly refuse games on automatch. If you have card restrictions, use them and challenge, or use veto mode. Otherwise you're just trying to have your cake and eat it.

I'd be happy to hear a case I haven't considered for putting automatch on and then refusing games, but until I do, I think I'll be refusing further games myself from anyone who switches on automatch and then refuses a game (it's also kind of annoying when there are few people in the room and you keep getting matched with someone who keeps refusing).

Ps. I don't see Paralyzed there now. Has dougz dealt with it?

I refuse games on automatch when:
I don't actually want to be on automatch and have to leave (there's occasionally a bug where it thinks I'm on, but I'm not).
And more importantly, when someone has rejected an automatch game with me, I'm very likely to refuse all games that come up with them, because they're distorting the random, at least until I've played another game and come back to the lobby, at which point I may well have forgotten.

[mathguy]

I assume he has just fallen off the leaderboard due to not playing recently, but every so often he signs on and beats down a dummy opponent to reappear on top.

So if I understand correctly, the issue that people have with Paralyzed is that he constantly plays with (Constraint(s) used: required: Bishop, Colony, Goons, Island, King's Court, Laboratory, Masquerade, Mint, Peddler, Platinum, Tactician, Vault.), right? He is really good at playing that board and other people are not.

He does end up playing (and beating) some fairly skilled opponents:
WHARF 2 THA BRIDGE   http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20110823-213223-555cc70d.html,
Jimmmmm   http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20110829-232902-662b95e7.html,
chwhite  http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20110825-231821-d6848add.html.

I don't like the idea of only playing one board over and over, but if he proposes a game and someone accepts, then they have decided on the board in a mutually acceptable way. This is perfectly within the rules.

Is this it, or is there some other more nefarious stuff happening? (Like starting fake accounts, exploiting bugs, etc.)

[chwhite]

The game Paralyzed played against me actually did not have his usual KC-Masq pin, if you'll look closer.  I should have declined it anyway.

[theory]

Paralyzed rose to his rating by repeatedly playing a particular KC-Goons-Masq pin board.  I think it's unfair to your opponents to repeatedly play the same set, and although you should never accept custom set games, people were too charitable in their assumptions, and may not have realized that there were particular sets with (literally) unbeatable strategies.

Now that custom set games no longer count towards one's rating, he has started playing games against a dummy account so he can stay on top and not disappear for inactivity.  See, e.g., this game:

--- HornyToad's turn 32 ---
HornyToad draws 5 cards and gets +1 action and +1 buy from the Tactician.
HornyToad plays a Fishing Village.
... getting +2 actions and +$1.
HornyToad plays 5 Golds, 2 Silvers, and 2 Coppers.
HornyToad buys a Silver.
HornyToad buys a Silver.
(HornyToad draws: a Silver, 3 Golds, and a Smithy.)

[Buggz]

That I find amazingly pathetic. I wonder how much time he has spent doing this.

[mith]

I refuse games on automatch when:
...
And more importantly, when someone has rejected an automatch game with me, I'm very likely to refuse all games that come up with them, because they're distorting the random, at least until I've played another game and come back to the lobby, at which point I may well have forgotten.

I do this as well. I don't mind playing with veto, but if we're going to play with a random set of 10, I want it to actually be random.

[rrenaud]

I refuse games on automatch when:
...
And more importantly, when someone has rejected an automatch game with me, I'm very likely to refuse all games that come up with them, because they're distorting the random, at least until I've played another game and come back to the lobby, at which point I may well have forgotten.

I do this as well. I don't mind playing with veto, but if we're going to play with a random set of 10, I want it to actually be random.

If you want uniform random, you are screwed.

Imagine player X vetos all possesion games. 

Automatch suggests you play with X.  Most of the time, there won't be a possession, and you'll play it.

But then when possession is listed, X rejects, and you refuse to play with X again.  But you still have a biased sample.  You are playing less than the expected number of possession games.

[mith]

Sure, we're only limiting the bias by some small amount, not eliminating it entirely. I'm not *that* bothered about it.

[fellowmartian]

I refuse games on automatch when:
I don't actually want to be on automatch and have to leave (there's occasionally a bug where it thinks I'm on, but I'm not).
And more importantly, when someone has rejected an automatch game with me, I'm very likely to refuse all games that come up with them, because they're distorting the random, at least until I've played another game and come back to the lobby, at which point I may well have forgotten.

The first of those sounds fair enough, but it'll mean you won't worry too much if I refuse you. The second is pretty much what I've been doing often, and think I'll do all the time from now on, myself.

[ackack]

For me one of the few silver linings of the eventual commercial version is the possibility that true random automatch (no veto, if you get automatched you do not have the option to decline, etc.) might exist and become the basis for at least one set of ratings.

[rrenaud]

I personally would be a big fan of a supply blind, no veto mode.  Yay unbiased supply set.

But I guess everyone has their different pet features they'd like from iso.

[WanderingWinder]

I personally would be a big fan of a supply blind, no veto mode.  Yay unbiased supply set.

But I guess everyone has their different pet features they'd like from iso.

I'd like this too, and I realize that my 'solution' is still going to get me biased sets (as will veto mode), but you play the hand that's dealt you, and with as awesome as Isotropic is, I don't really have a huge concern about it.

[octopus]

+1 on supply blind no veto.  Also I'd like separate 2p, 3p, and 4p rankings.

[tlloyd]

I refuse games on automatch when:
I don't actually want to be on automatch and have to leave (there's occasionally a bug where it thinks I'm on, but I'm not).
And more importantly, when someone has rejected an automatch game with me, I'm very likely to refuse all games that come up with them, because they're distorting the random, at least until I've played another game and come back to the lobby, at which point I may well have forgotten.

How do you know the other guy didn't need to leave?  On that note, how do you know he's not just responding to your declining back when you had to leave?! It's a bit paradoxical...

Automatch suggest that WW1 and WW2 play a game.
WW1 accepts, but WW2 declines, because he didn't really mean to be on Automatch.

Automatch suggests they play again, and WW2 accepts, but WW1 declines, since WW2 was distorting the random.

Automatch suggests they play again. WW1 has forgotten that WW2 was distorting the random, so he accepts. But WW2 now declines, because WW1 was distorting the random.
 

[DG]

If people couldn't decline matches then they would just time them out, which is worse. You can't penalize people for timing out matches since everyone needs to go afk occasionally and the lobby is the ideal place to do it.

[WanderingWinder]

I refuse games on automatch when:
I don't actually want to be on automatch and have to leave (there's occasionally a bug where it thinks I'm on, but I'm not).
And more importantly, when someone has rejected an automatch game with me, I'm very likely to refuse all games that come up with them, because they're distorting the random, at least until I've played another game and come back to the lobby, at which point I may well have forgotten.

How do you know the other guy didn't need to leave?  On that note, how do you know he's not just responding to your declining back when you had to leave?! It's a bit paradoxical...

Automatch suggest that WW1 and WW2 play a game.
WW1 accepts, but WW2 declines, because he didn't really mean to be on Automatch.

Automatch suggests they play again, and WW2 accepts, but WW1 declines, since WW2 was distorting the random.

Automatch suggests they play again. WW1 has forgotten that WW2 was distorting the random, so he accepts. But WW2 now declines, because WW1 was distorting the random.
 

Because if they had to leave, they would have left. Or at any rate, they aren't missing anything because they're not going to accept any game...Man, I'm not saying they're bad people or something for declining, or that I'm going to hold it against them even 10 minutes later. Just for the very next game. And if they have to leave, they won't mind, because they have to leave. One of us is missing something here, because your question confuses me.

[tlloyd]

It wasn't meant at all as a criticism. I just enjoyed the logical paradox.

[WanderingWinder]

It wasn't meant at all as a criticism. I just enjoyed the logical paradox.

Yeah, but my point is that there isn't a logical paradox at all...

[tlloyd]

It wasn't meant at all as a criticism. I just enjoyed the logical paradox.

Yeah, but my point is that there isn't a logical paradox at all...

But you are asserting that your reasons for declining are legitimate, on the premise that the other guy's reasons are not. But if his reasons are legit (say, for instance, he has the same reasons as you), then your reason for quitting is no longer legit. I'm no philosopher, but that's either a paradox or a vicious cycle...

[WanderingWinder]

It wasn't meant at all as a criticism. I just enjoyed the logical paradox.

Yeah, but my point is that there isn't a logical paradox at all...

But you are asserting that your reasons for declining are legitimate, on the premise that the other guy's reasons are not. But if his reasons are legit (say, for instance, he has the same reasons as you), then your reason for quitting is no longer legit. I'm no philosopher, but that's either a paradox or a vicious cycle...

Not at all, because I'm not actually asserting that his reasons are not legitimate; they're only illegit (in my view) if the reason for him declining is for reasons of not liking the kingdom. So the only reasons I can think of for someone declining other than that are because they are leaving (in which case they're either not in automatch anymore or soon won't be anyway), because they want to play one with one of their friends or someone in particular (again, not in automatch anymore), or because for whatever reason they don't want to play specifically (in which case they won't mind me declining).

[tlloyd]

This is so unimportant it's silly, but I think you're still missing my point. Say you decline a game with me because you need to leave, following your "rule 1." I, not knowing your reason for declining, might feel justified in declining future games with you on the basis of "rule 2." But once I invoke rule 2 against you, you will (not knowing my reason for declining) feel justified invoking rule 2 against me -- even if by that point I have forgotten your past misconduct () and am willing to play with you.  I'm not suggesting you should act otherwise; I'm just noting the potential for an absurd result.

[WanderingWinder]

This is so unimportant it's silly, but I think you're still missing my point. Say you decline a game with me because you need to leave, following your "rule 1." I, not knowing your reason for declining, might feel justified in declining future games with you on the basis of "rule 2." But once I invoke rule 2 against you, you will (not knowing my reason for declining) feel justified invoking rule 2 against me -- even if by that point I have forgotten your past misconduct () and am willing to play with you.  I'm not suggesting you should act otherwise; I'm just noting the potential for an absurd result.

Ah, but this is the reason why I don't invoke rule 2 against someone after I've gotten into another game in the interim, until they decline another one.