Show Posts

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

Messages - Marlene H.

Pages: 1 2 [3]
Siberia the card game / Re: Siberia Deck Makeup
« on: 18/05/20, 04:21pm »
Thanks!  I had wondered this before as well.

FYI, I believe Stuart's message refers to all cards in the game.  The 5 investor, 8 seller, and 10 worker cards are the ones you use to show which investors, sellers, and workers you currently have in play.

I don't quite understand this.  It almost makes sense to me.  But the counting seems inconsistent.

Yes, it is possible to have to have 5 investors and 8 sellers in play.  But it's only possible to have 5, not 10 workers in play.

Or if you are saying it took 10 workers to fill up the 5 worker spots, then to be consistent it would have to read:
10 investors, 16 sellers, 10 workers. 
But you can't really go by that option because any of them could be used as wild cards.  So you might not have played 10 workers to fill up the 5 worker spots.  Same for any of the others.

Can you clarify this for me?

Siberia the card game / Re: Siberia Deck Makeup
« on: 17/05/20, 05:51pm »
These numbers don't seem to have any relevance:
 10 worker cards
    8 seller cards
    5 investor cards

I played a game in training, keeping careful count of every human card I saw (either that I drew or that I saw the bot discard), during the first pass through the draw pile.  I got the following results:

19 workers seen
20 salesmen seen
18 investors seen

Given that my opponent bot probably did not show me all of his cards, I'm guessing that the count on the action cards are equal.

In other words:
20 workers
20 salesmen
20 investors

Siberia the card game / Re: Siberia Deck Makeup
« on: 17/05/20, 03:31pm »
Nope, looks like I'm wrong, too.

I just started a game.  From what I can see, there are:

 36 resource cards
But, there are a total of 60 cards between the opponent, myself and the draw pile.   These 60 cards can be either workers, sellers or investors. 

So maybe the numbers by the human cards are simply the proportion of each within the 60.
Very confusing.

That would make it something like
26 workers
21 salesmen
13 investors
60 total human (or action) type cards

Siberia the card game / Re: Siberia Deck Makeup
« on: 17/05/20, 03:02pm »
G'day.  Well, apparently, the actual card game has a distribution as follows:

    60 action cards
    36 resource cards
    10 worker cards
    8 seller cards
    5 investor cards
    1 direction card

Total: 120 cards

But you say that there are only 60 cards in the deck?  I'd presume that it'd be half those quantities, but then you can't have 2.5 investor cards.  Or is it a 60-card deck per player?  Also, if there are five resources, as you say, then there also must be some uneven distribution of them, as obviously 5 doesn't go into 36 exactly, but I've no idea about any of it, sorry.  I hope that this might go at least some of the way to helping you though.



Stuart, you misunderstand the distribution.   There are 60 total cards in the deck.  You list refers to 60 action cards as if they are a separate category.  But they are not.  Your list should look like:

60 action cards with the following distribution:
    36 resource cards
    10 worker cards
    8 seller cards
    5 investor cards
    1 direction card

(Though it would probably more correct to say that there are 59 action cards and 1 direction card, because you can't do anything with the "direction card".  Or maybe there are 60 action cards PLUS the direction card.  On the computer I can't really tell if this thing is a card, or simply a marker on the board.)

I hope this clarifies the count and distribution.  (Though, in all honesty, I have not counted out these cards myself.  So though I find this same distribution listed when I google the question of Siberia Card, deck distribution.  I have not confirmed this is accurate.  Somehow 5 investor cards seems a bit low.  I'm pretty sure I've had games that started with a lot of investor cards allowing me to tag 3 or 4 of the spots without having to resort to a wild card build by using 2 other cards.)

Now I'm really curious.  I'm not sure we can see enough of the opponents cards as they are played to get a good idea of if these numbers are correct.  Maybe that helpful little screen we can pop up to see the remaining vs played cards would clarify it.

Happy Meeple community / Re: Daily quest not resetting?
« on: 27/10/19, 03:30am »
I see the same thing.   No new daily quest.

It looks like it was lag. 
I just finished my 3rd win, and when coming out of that game, it said Quest completed, and it now showed the correct 3/3 wins. 

In this game I made sure to choose a different opponent.  I don't know if that affected it, or if an Admin saw my post, checked my results and corrected it.  But whatever it was, it's now correct.

(I considered deleting my original post, but decided to leave it up, just in case there is some subtle internal error, that others who are playing repeatedly against the same opponent run into also.  I just usually grab Verboten unless we are instructed to find different opponents.)

Today's Daily Quest reads:

Win 3 matches
Play mode: Training
Opponent's Rating: 1450

I just won my second game that met all of the criteria listed.  But I was not credited for this second win.

Is there some hidden criteria, such as they must be different opponents?  If so, then that criteria should be listed also.

Or is this just some kind of lag or bug, where it simply hasn't updated, and will do so later?  (I've never seen this happen on crediting a quest objective, though I have seen a delay in posting the updated score for the Daily Quest ranking.)

I'd like to know if I'm simply missing something, or if it's an error on your end that can be corrected.

Thanks for your time and attention.

Though it appears the 'break' may be removed....and selfishly i'd like to see it gone...A winning streak is a streak of 'winning'...not losing, not draw-ing - but winning.  This is why it is called a "Winning Streak".  Uninterrupted.
It isn't called a "Not losing streak".  That simply stinks of another smelly give in:  Participation Trophies.

I have to disagree with an Undefeated Streak being considered a participation trophy. 

To me, your attempt to use semantics  (calling it a Not losing streak instead of the more dignified Undefeated streak) seems to be grasping at straws to make your point.  The respect given to an Undefeated streak was around long before anyone invented the idea of the participation trophy.    I don't know when the idea started, but in the chess world it was considered remarkable at least as far back as the 1920's.

To receive a participation trophy all you have to do, is to show up for a single game.  To be undefeated you have to play well enough that no one is able to beat you.

Interesting...  leche = milk in Spanish and I always thought it was a play on words as  a baby drinks milk and thus it would be a "baby bot"

and here I always thought of it as a mama bot 
(because mama's make the leche, and probably because of of the world famous La Leche League)

Iffix, I'd like to propose a workaround for you.

Though you can't completely shut off the ranking system, there already exists a method of play that largely ignores it.

Play training games instead of online games.  You could create a new account such as Iffixreboot, or Iffixreborn - or any other name that catches your fancy and play only training games. 

Win or loose, training games do not affect your ratings.  They also cost less to play than online games cost.  Now, after a few weeks, or a month, I don't remember which, your "rating" would begin to loose 5 points,  If this decay bothered you, you could again create a new account.  You could do this every 3 or 4 weeks - however much time it takes til the decay would kick in.  In this way you could play whichever games you enjoy and not have to bother with the ranking system.

I don't know if there is a way to delete an old account.  Admin would know better than I do.  But if it's possible to delete an old account, you could possibly do that and even keep you current name.

In any event, if you do enjoy the site and the lovely games this could be a way for you to play in a way that gives you pleasure and avoids the part that "has sucked all of the joy" out of your gaming experience.

Good luck in whatever you choose.   :D

Happy Meeple community / Disturbing message
« on: 10/04/19, 07:15pm »
I just had an unpleasant experience.  I logged in through the regular log in (not the facebook - don't have facebook).  After about a minute, maybe more, the page had not finished loading.  So I refreshed the page.

This, now, fully loaded the page.  Ok, so now all is good.  I began to decide which game to choose.  Suddenly, another page replaced the the main menu.  It read:


This page was stopped when you opened Happy Meeple in another window.
Please don't open multiple windows!
Happy Meeple login page "

This was disturbing on two counts.
1. I no longer had a window in which to play.
2. I was being scolded for something I didn't do. 

The angry, and falsely accusatory tone of this message is really unpleasant.  I think you could at least remove the exclamation mark at the end of Please don't open multiple windows!.  But a complete rewording of the message, so that it does not immediately presume "guilt", would be much better.

Thank you for your time and your understanding.

Happy Meeple community / Re: Watch Friends Play
« on: 19/03/19, 07:44pm »
I would find it useful to be able to watch replays.
I think it could be very instructive to be able to watch a number of games played by top people in their bracket.
We could probably all pick up a few pointers.   ;D

Tips, polls, updates / Re: Magic Potion extra power?
« on: 10/03/19, 08:42am »
I think you'd have to make the free or reduced cost play for the opponent optional, to be decided by the person with the magic potion who opens the game.  Some people prefer to play against bots.  For these people, the fact that MP reduces the time until you can play with a bot is a nice bonus, but making it cheaper for human opponents would be a disincentive.

I find it very difficult to distinguish the blue from the green markers that we move around the board.  This is more of a problem at night than during bright daylight.  But at night, it's brutal.

Pages: 1 2 [3]