Print

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

[dondon151]

That would depend on the rules for the competitive environment.  Dominion has no rules for tournaments or any structure beyond a single game (with the exception of the rule that the loser goes first next game).  It is certainly not impossible to create a league or tournament structure where a "tie" is counted as a win for both players -- depending on the structure there may be no actual difference between a tie and a double-win, but it might make a difference.

For what it's worth, in the World Masters tournament, players who tied did not earn as many "points" as players who won outright.

[eHalcyon]

My main grievance with Goko is that it's not pro friendly at all, in any way.

• The rating system is bad
• The UI is bad, mistakes are easily made
• There are still bugs with certain cards
• The lobby is horrible, making it next to impossible to find a good match
• There is no "same starting hands" requirement or something similar
• There is no point tracker, this makes it unfair for those who don't have a browser add-on
• They don't understand basic math
• Having players with different card sets makes the ratings hard to justify

Whenever I play at Goko, I just feel out of place. I always think "this site isn't meant for me", but out of some sense of loyalty I keep playing Dominion there because it's the only place I can. I don't think this will last though, at some point I'll have had enough and finally learn Innovation.

FWIW, if you are matched against someone with a point counter extension, you can use it as well, via chat. Or you can outright turn it off.

Unless you are worried about random people making their own versions that don't do that for others.

[loppo]

For what it's worth, in the World Masters tournament, players who tied did not earn as many "points" as players who won outright.

Well if people tied at the worlds they got exactly the amount of points that werde at stake. so if you tie the first place, you 2 were 1st and 2nd in this match. Since you tied you get to share the points for first and second place equaly (5+3)/2=4 points each. Same goes for 2nd+3rd (3+1)/2=2

[Kirian]

For what it's worth, in the World Masters tournament, players who tied did not earn as many "points" as players who won outright.

Well if people tied at the worlds they got exactly the amount of points that werde at stake. so if you tie the first place, you 2 were 1st and 2nd in this match. Since you tied you get to share the points for first and second place equaly (5+3)/2=4 points each. Same goes for 2nd+3rd (3+1)/2=2

So in the official tournament, they treated a tie like a tie.  Who would have guessed?

[yudantaiteki]

That would depend on the rules for the competitive environment.  Dominion has no rules for tournaments or any structure beyond a single game (with the exception of the rule that the loser goes first next game).  It is certainly not impossible to create a league or tournament structure where a "tie" is counted as a win for both players -- depending on the structure there may be no actual difference between a tie and a double-win, but it might make a difference.

For what it's worth, in the World Masters tournament, players who tied did not earn as many "points" as players who won outright.

I'm sure most, if not all, tournaments would do that.  But there wouldn't be anything wrong with counting it as a double win either.  I'm not sure why Kirian is treating this like we're insulting his mother by saying that it would be OK for someone to treat the tie as a double win.

[Stealth Tomato]

That would depend on the rules for the competitive environment.  Dominion has no rules for tournaments or any structure beyond a single game (with the exception of the rule that the loser goes first next game).  It is certainly not impossible to create a league or tournament structure where a "tie" is counted as a win for both players -- depending on the structure there may be no actual difference between a tie and a double-win, but it might make a difference.

For what it's worth, in the World Masters tournament, players who tied did not earn as many "points" as players who won outright.

I'm sure most, if not all, tournaments would do that.  But there wouldn't be anything wrong with counting it as a double win either.  I'm not sure why Kirian is treating this like we're insulting his mother by saying that it would be OK for someone to treat the tie as a double win.

It's relatively frustrating when someone stalls a conversation with a simple definitional butchering.

When you and your opponent have the same outcome, you can call it shared victory, happy exciting win time, or fizzlewobblebramblesnorklefizzpants, but regardless of what you call it, it will still be a tie. The first sentence of the Wiki page on ties is "To draw or tie is to finish a competition with identical or inconclusive results." If both players have the same result, it's a tie. That simple.

[yudantaiteki]

But this isn't meaningless "definitional butchering" -- the point of the discussion is what a rating system should do with the situation that the Dominion rules call a "shared victory".  You and Kirian believe that a "shared victory" equals a "tie", others think the words should be interpreted literally as a win for both players.  It does matter for a rating system or tournament structure so it's not just a meaningless semantic debate.

[Stealth Tomato]

But this isn't meaningless "definitional butchering" -- the point of the discussion is what a rating system should do with the situation that the Dominion rules call a "shared victory".  You and Kirian believe that a "shared victory" equals a "tie", others think the words should be interpreted literally as a win for both players.  It does matter for a rating system or tournament structure so it's not just a meaningless semantic debate.

Yes, and this second interpretation is definitionally incorrect, so the conversation should be over.

[Watno]

That would depend on the rules for the competitive environment.  Dominion has no rules for tournaments or any structure beyond a single game (with the exception of the rule that the loser goes first next game).  It is certainly not impossible to create a league or tournament structure where a "tie" is counted as a win for both players -- depending on the structure there may be no actual difference between a tie and a double-win, but it might make a difference.

For what it's worth, in the World Masters tournament, players who tied did not earn as many "points" as players who won outright.

I'm sure most, if not all, tournaments would do that.  But there wouldn't be anything wrong with counting it as a double win either.  I'm not sure why Kirian is treating this like we're insulting his mother by saying that it would be OK for someone to treat the tie as a double win.

I'm pretty sure there would be a problem with that. It would disincentivize winning.

[yudantaiteki]

But this isn't meaningless "definitional butchering" -- the point of the discussion is what a rating system should do with the situation that the Dominion rules call a "shared victory".  You and Kirian believe that a "shared victory" equals a "tie", others think the words should be interpreted literally as a win for both players.  It does matter for a rating system or tournament structure so it's not just a meaningless semantic debate.

Yes, and this second interpretation is definitionally incorrect, so the conversation should be over.

You're good at Internet debates.

[eHalcyon]

But this isn't meaningless "definitional butchering" -- the point of the discussion is what a rating system should do with the situation that the Dominion rules call a "shared victory".  You and Kirian believe that a "shared victory" equals a "tie", others think the words should be interpreted literally as a win for both players.  It does matter for a rating system or tournament structure so it's not just a meaningless semantic debate.

It's not a good topic for debate because treating them as two victories would wreak havoc on a ranking system, and it's unlikely to be useful for a tournament structure either.

[ashersky]

But this isn't meaningless "definitional butchering" -- the point of the discussion is what a rating system should do with the situation that the Dominion rules call a "shared victory".  You and Kirian believe that a "shared victory" equals a "tie", others think the words should be interpreted literally as a win for both players.  It does matter for a rating system or tournament structure so it's not just a meaningless semantic debate.

It's not a good topic for debate because treating them as two victories would wreak havoc on a ranking system, and it's unlikely to be useful for a tournament structure either.

But two victories in a rating system is different than two victories in a tournament because the eating system can take it into consideration by writing it into the formula, somehow.  Computers can do cool maths.

Tournaments set their own criteria.  If to win I need to win three games against Kirian out of five, counting a tie as "a tie" breaks the system.  You've made it unfair to us by saying, oh well, now win three of four.  And if we tie game 5?

Instead, we can say first to win three games, regardless of games played.  But that incentivizes ties even more, because you can string the round out forever if you are skilled enough.  I am sure WW could force me to tie 50 games in a row, if he so desired--or I could throw the games to get out of the endless spiral.

Obviously I'm exaggerating.  But if we're looking at this from all angles, we can take into consideration anything we want.

I don't care what tourney rules are.  Tournaments are impossibly inconsistent anyway.  Rating systems built on computers don't have to be.  It's a global shared system that doesn't suffer from IRL inconsistencies.  So fine tune it to perfection.  So DXV, the only higher authority, laid down his Command that a game that ends in a very specific way is a victory for both(all) parties.

Maybe this is RSP fodder at this point?  Either follow His Word, or don't.  Pay the consequences as they come, but I don't want to tempt Dominion fate.  If you want to approach the Altar, and be a Dominion Cultist, you've got to be ready to make some self-sacrifices.

[Watno]

Think of it this way: If you share an apple with someone else, is that as good as having the whole apple for yourself?
Why should victories be different then apples?

[ashersky]

Think of it this way: If you share an apple with someone else, is that as good as having the whole apple for yourself?
Why should victories be different then apples?

Is having half an apple to eat the same as starving?  Or is it still eating?

[ragingduckd]

Think of it this way: If you share an apple with someone else, is that as good as having the whole apple for yourself?
Why should victories be different then apples?

Sex?

[Watno]

Think of it this way: If you share an apple with someone else, is that as good as having the whole apple for yourself?
Why should victories be different then apples?

Is having half an apple to eat the same as starving?  Or is it still eating?

No, but this neither what is happening on Goko, nor what anyone is saying it should be. (with victories)

[ashersky]

Think of it this way: If you share an apple with someone else, is that as good as having the whole apple for yourself?
Why should victories be different then apples?

Is having half an apple to eat the same as starving?  Or is it still eating?

No, but this neither what is happening on Goko, nor what anyone is saying it should be. (with victories)

Isn't it?  Ties result in a drop in ranking for the better player, right?  So...

Currently

Regular wins and losses:
Apple = win = eating = not dying of starvation
No Apple = loss = not eating = dying of starvation

Ties if you are better than your opponent:
Half an apple = "tie" = sorry, you have half, but can't eat it = dying of starvation

Ties if you are worse than your opponent:
Half an apple = "tie" = congrats, you have half an apple, but it's magic, so you'll feel like you ate a whole apple = not dying of starvation

In the "shared victory > tie" utopia:

The better players have eaten more apples, so they are in better shape.  Worse players are malnourished.

Ties if you are better than your opponent:
Half an apple = "shared victory" = you only got half an apple, but that's better than starving; plus, you are in good shape since you eat a lot of apples, so you don't feel the ill effects of only having half an apple today, even though you don't gain as much nutrition as you normally do = not starving to death

Ties if you are worse than your opponent:
Half an apple = "shared victory" = you only got half an apple, but that's better than you usually get, and way better than starving; plus, given your malnourished state, that half an apple actually does a lot for you = not starving to death


In both cases, wins and losses result in survival or death.  But in utopia, both competitors survive with a shared victory.  In real life (goko), the better player actually dies with a tie.  That seems extreme to me.

[Mic Qsenoch]

Everybody just step away from this last post, this a clear case of DO NOT ENGAGE.

[ashersky]

Everybody just step away from this last post, this a clear case of DO NOT ENGAGE.

We could just call it a tie.

[StrongRhino]

Everybody just step away from this last post, this a clear case of DO NOT ENGAGE.

We could just call it a tie.

Ahem...
Don't you mean a shared victory?

[eHalcyon]

Everybody just step away from this last post, this a clear case of DO NOT ENGAGE.

We could just call it a tie.

I will ignore MQ's advice and try it one more time.

You are still ignoring the fact that counting ties as victories in a rating system will break the system.  If both players win and both ratings increase, then two players that repeatedly tie will have their ratings artificially inflated, rendering ranking utterly meaningless.

If you think it is wrong that the better player would lose points from a tie, then the best you could do is to do nothing to his rating.

[Stealth Tomato]

But this isn't meaningless "definitional butchering" -- the point of the discussion is what a rating system should do with the situation that the Dominion rules call a "shared victory".  You and Kirian believe that a "shared victory" equals a "tie", others think the words should be interpreted literally as a win for both players.  It does matter for a rating system or tournament structure so it's not just a meaningless semantic debate.

Yes, and this second interpretation is definitionally incorrect, so the conversation should be over.

You're good at Internet debates.

Yes.

[ashersky]

If you think it is wrong that the better player would lose points from a tie, then the best you could do is to do nothing to his rating.

I think this could be fair.

You are still ignoring the fact that counting ties as victories in a rating system will break the system.  If both players win and both ratings increase, then two players that repeatedly tie will have their ratings artificially inflated, rendering ranking utterly meaningless.

I understand your grander point that you can game the system via tying on purpose.  But you can game the system in a lot of ways, as we've seen on both iso and goko.

Clearly, I'm not a programmer.  But is it not possible to build in safeguards?  Or diminishing returns for ties against the same player?  There are diminishing returns on beating up on one player for a long run of games, since the amount of rating you gain is reduced as that player's is reduced as well.

My last point, which is my first point: I'm not saying count ties as victories.  I'm arguing that there are no ties.  Like baseball, there are three true outcomes in Dominion: win, loss, shared victory/tie (depending on what you believe); each with a value separate from the others.  This argument is over what that third outcome is, and means.  And I think it's unfair to equate a shared victory with a lower level player with losing.

Here's a quote from the Base rulebook:

The game ends at the end of any player’s turn when either:
1) the Supply pile of Province cards is empty or
2) any 3 Supply piles are empty.

Each player puts all of his cards into his Deck and counts the victory points on all the cards he has.

The player with the most victory points wins. If the highest scores are tied at the end of the game, the tied player who has had the fewest turns wins the game. If the tied players have had the same number of turns, they rejoice in their shared victory.

We're debating what that last line means.  I will note, DXV never explicitly mentions a loser, but the existence of a victor presupposes it, so we accept that "the player without the most victory points loses."  So what does a "shared victory" mean?  To me, and this is subjective, it sounds like they all win.

[Stealth Tomato]

I'd also like to note that on Isotropic, a draw against a lower-ranked player reduced your rank. Nobody complained about this, presumably because (1) we understood that that's a thing that should happen, and (2) Iso only updated scores at end-of-day.

A draw against an inferior player is a negative result, because you are expected to win. It's that simple. This should not be incentive to avoid ties against inferior players, or to attempt to gain a tie against superior players. A tie is always better than a loss and worse than a win, and your job as a player is to maximize your result, whether that's turning a loss into a win, a loss into a tie, or a tie into a win.

[WanderingWinder]

All I'm going to say is that I have apparently broken the rules an awful lot by failing to rejoice.