Messages

16

Tips, polls, updates / Re: Have your say on daily quests!

« on: 20/11/16, 05:09am »

Hi Guest,

Some quests will not require you to play online so the minimum rating will most of the time not be an issue as you can go to training mode to find a suitable opponent.

But in this very case, you are right, it will be a bit difficult for you if you are below 1400 and only get low-rated bots.

Your best hope is to ask other players if they want to play with you. I consider this part of the quest. If quests are too easy, then they are boring. I am sure that some players will be happy to help you. So just give a shout and ask for help!

You also may want to know that the traffic is higher in the evening (around 7-8pm UK time). So that's your best chance to find opponents.

The minimum rating is there to ensure that the daily quest is not too easy. For some games and some players winning against low-rated players is too easy.

And if one quest is really too difficult, there is always the next one: tomorrow.

Looking at the figures, yesterday's quest was a success. You seemed to like it.

Finally, I am looking for ways to make daily quests even more interesting. For example, what about giving away one or two days of Magic Potion every 10 completed daily quests or something like that? Any other idea?

Nicolas.

Well, this quest has gotten even worse than when it first came out.  I finally got my rating back above 1400, but now you've raised the requirement to the opponent must be 1600 or above. 

Mike had suggested  to play people instead of bots.  But with my rating down in the 1400's there is a disincentive for anyone who wants to complete the quest to play with me.  If they win, they make no progress on their own quest, because my rating is too low. 

Nicholas mentioned playing between 7 and 8 UK time.  That is 2-3 in the afternoon my time - middle of the work day.  In my time zone, there are only 13 people listed as being 1600 or above.  In the USA South (also my time zone) there are 14 people.   So a total of 27 who would qualify from my time zone, IF they are still active. No way to tell if any of them are still active players.

As already mentioned, any of them who might be available have a disincentive to play with someone below 1600. 

Then, of course, I'd have to be able to find multiple people in my time zone, who are willing to play someone below 1600, in spite of the disincentive, because it's not likely I would win 3 games in a row against pretty strong players.  So far I haven't even been able to find 3 willing to play, let alone finding enough willing opponents that I'd be able to come up with 3 wins out of the pool.

In short, I think when you chose beating a high minimum score in a game for a daily quest, I think it would be better to offer this quest for several different games, or to allow it to be played in training mode where you can choose the level of your opponent.  (Though, for LC the highest bot I've unlocked is 1596, so it just misses qualifying)  I have a score above 1600 in 3 of the games - Siberia, Level X and Keltis Card.  I have no difficulty finding opponents on the days those games are part of the quest. 

But to require 3 wins, on line, with only one game choice, must exclude quite a few people simply because they can not find enough qualifying opponents.

17

Tips, polls, updates / Teams?

« on: 01/11/16, 05:40pm »

In the update thread it said:

Update of the database allowing us to guess player's best team according to IP.

I can't begin to figure out what you mean by teams.  I've never played on a team here, or even seen an opportunity to do so.

what are they?

18

Tips, polls, updates / Re: Have your say on daily quests!

« on: 14/10/16, 02:21am »

That might work.  But it presumes you can find enough people available to play the number of games you'd need to play, during the time you have available to play. 

Bots are always available on short notice.



Also, I find it odd, that I win against the higher ranked bots more often than I win against the lower ranked bots. 

(Note:  I think the previous statement is true, but I'm not 100% sure.  I base it on the fact that when I play the training games, I almost always choose the highest ranked bot I can play.  Currently that is Botanist at 1582.  I haven't unlocked Verboten at 1657 yet.  When playing on line, I get stuck with Ghbost (1334) or Zombot (1392).


In any event, I win more of the training games (vs 1582 bot) more often than the online games against the 1334 or 1392 bot.

19

Tips, polls, updates / Re: Have your say on daily quests!

« on: 13/10/16, 07:19pm »

I have a comment, and a question, about today's quest.   

One of the criteria says your opponent has to have a score of 1400 (or I guess better than 1400 is also acceptable).  Another criteria states you must play in on line mode.  Well, I've been on a tremendous losing streak in LC for the past couple of months.  As a result, when I play in on line mode, I am often given an opponent with a score below 1400.    If I play in training mode, I can chose to play a higher ranked opponent.  But when playing on line, I don't have a choice.

So does this mean that anyone who has a personal score (or rank, don't know which term is appropriate here) of under 1400 will not be able to do the quest today?

20

Rankings, meeples and achievements / Re: Current Streak Across The Board

« on: 19/09/16, 10:00am »

"The only incentives to play, should be the enjoyment a person gets from playing a game, or possibly socializing in a game."

Uhhhh, you're trying to dictate what should be enjoyable for players?! I'm simply suggesting options for players because I understand there are different strokes for different folks.

No, I'm rather against the idea of dictating what should be enjoyable.  I mis-spoke.  It would have been better if I had said...

The incentive(s) to play a game is the enjoyment a person gets from playing a game, or  possibly the socializing in a game.   

Your previous post gave the impression that if a person had gotten all of their meeples, there was no longer any incentive to play a game.

Also, there's something I think you're missing. When people get all the meeples in a game now, there's no incentive to play it ever again.

You would be right, of course, if the person did not enjoy the game, but had only been playing because of some external incentive to play in spite of getting no pleasure from it. 

But I question the value of encouraging people to use their leisure time to do something they don't enjoy.  Over the long haul, I think they would begin to associate unpleasant feelings with the site, which would likely cause them to look elsewhere for enjoyment.   

So my point was I think it's better for a site to not try to control what games a person chooses to play, but rather to simply observe which games seem to produce the most enjoyment for the greatest number of people, and to over time, remove games that are not well liked, and try others.

My position is actually the opposite of trying to dictate people's choices.

21

Rankings, meeples and achievements / Re: Current Streak Across The Board

« on: 19/09/16, 03:23am »

I don't understand. The Super Meeple suggested doesn't really add anything. Either people want meeples already so they play to get them or they don't.

People might want Meeples, but they can get them from playing their favorite game(s).  A Super Meeple, particularly if it awarded a gold bonus equal to all of the previous meeples of that rank (or even half of the total bonus for a rank).

Some examples:

White Meeples
single white meeple = 20 gold
there are 7 games, if all white meeples are earned, a person would earn 140 gold total for earning all of them.  At the time they earned the last white meeple, they would get both the 20 gold from that one, Plus they would now earn a white Super Meeple and get another 140 gold.  (or 70 gold for the Super Meeple if it was decided half the total was a better amount)

Yellow single Meeple = 30 gold
Yellow Super Meeple = either 210 gold, or 105 gold

Gold single Meeple = 40 gold
Gold Super Meeple = 280 gold or 140 gold

Green single Meeple = 50 gold
Green Super Meeple = 350 or 175 gold

...

Black single Meeple = 100 gold
Black Super Meeple = 700 gold or 350 gold.

Actually, anticipating the Black Super Meeples might be a good argument for only granting half to total for the lower colors.  When entering the Blacks, things would begin to change.  The first two Black Super Meeples (blank and 1 dot) would continue to earn only half the total.  But now they would begin to graduate. 
Two dot Black Super Meeple earns - 420 gold (60% of the total)
Three dot Black Super Meeple earns - 490 gold (70%)
Four dot Black Super Meeple = 560 gold (80%)
Five dot Black Super Meeple = 630 gold (90%)
Six dot Black Super Meeple = 700 gold (100%)

In any event, the large gold bonuses from the Super Meeples (compared to the amount earned for a single meeple) would probably encourage people to expand their focus beyond their favorite games, to include all of the games offered, because that is the only way they could earn Super Meeples.


Now having said all of that, I have to voice a completely opposite point of view when responding to the second part of your post.

Also, there's something I think you're missing. When people get all the meeples in a game now, there's no incentive to play it ever again. For example, I will probably never play Finito again after I get my final Meeple. I would think giving people an extra reason to play ALL games would be a good thing for the site. You disagree. Alright. No harm.

The only incentive to play (and the strongest incentive to play) is simply because the game is fun to play.  The meta game(s) might actually interfere with this important reason that people play.

So an opposite point of view might be...


1.  There should be no meta game, no meeples, no kings favors (except possibly for people who wanted to play the map game with the houses).

2. The site should not try to "encourage/control" people to play any particular game.  Rather they should just watch to see which are the most popular.  If a game were very unpopular, maybe they would get rid of it and introduce a new game.

BUT they would probably also have to get rid of the concept of food to play games unless you have a subscription, because the more expensive games might be played less simply because people don't want to spend that much food on a game.  So the cost of the games might very well be influencing people's "choices" and giving a distorted idea of popularity.


So my answer to your no incentive to play (a game) is...

Great!  That's wonderful!

The only incentives to play, should be the enjoyment a person gets from playing a game, or possibly socializing in a game.  The meta game we now have might actually destroy some of the sociability, because both people are trying to "progress" in the meta game and their opponent is an obstacle to that larger goal, rather than a potential new friend.

22

Rankings, meeples and achievements / Re: Current Streak Across The Board

« on: 18/09/16, 02:39pm »

I think there is an idea in there with a bit of tweaking.  But I don't quite like that format because trying to get the achievements could block people from being able to play their own favorite games for quite a while after the 1 or 2 wins in each.

Because a person would have to play a game til they won it 3 times (or how ever many they were going for), then stop playing that game.  Say Finito was the first game they chose.  They play until they get their 3 wins in a row, and then stop playing that until they collect three in a row for each of the other games.

Next they would have to play Lost Cities until they won it 3 times and then stop.  etc etc etc. until they had three wins in each of the games.  They could be blocked from playing their favorite game(s), sometimes for quite a while if they hit a snag in one or two of the games where they couldn't get the consecutive wins.

So I think they might give up on the other games and just go back to their favorites.  On the other hand, I think it could encourage venturing out into other games, if there were a kind of Super Meeple award.  You would earn a super meeple each time you managed to get a meeple of the same level for all of the games.  Just as you only earn a new meeple one time, you would only be able to earn a super meeple one time.

And maybe whoever managed to earn all of the black 6 meeples would get a Super Duper Meeple!  lol

23

World, castle, market... / Re: Lifespan

« on: 28/08/16, 07:36am »

Wow!  Thanks so much.  (for the potion)


... and yes, I finally have a couple of written warnings.  I think they are for my last two expirations because nothing appears to be in danger currently.  and thank you for fixing this.  These warnings are much more visible than having to frequently check the map and click each road or granary!

24

World, castle, market... / Re: Lifespan

« on: 27/08/16, 02:49am »

Another granary expired with no written warning.

Are you back from vacation yet?  (hope it was a good one  )

25

World, castle, market... / House Question

« on: 04/08/16, 09:59pm »

I just got my 80th Meeple.  Along with it, I got a message saying that I had earned a new house and should immediately go to the world to customize it.  I clicked the available world button in the message.  I expected to arrive on the map with a house to place.  But this did not happen.  I don't really know how many houses I had before, so I couldn't tell if the game had automatically placed the new house for me.  I rather doubt this is the case, because I've never seen the game do this.  It's always given me what ever item it was, and asked me to place it.  So I tend to think I did not get a new house.

Once you are back from holiday, can you check into this, or give me a better understanding of how this works?

26

World, castle, market... / Re: Lifespan

« on: 02/08/16, 08:13am »

Thank you. 


I was beginning to think you had all been kidnapped by Andrew.  ( ) He hasn't been active in chat for a while either. 

27

World, castle, market... / Re: Lifespan

« on: 31/07/16, 11:46pm »

My grainary finally completely collapsed, and I still have not gotten a written warning about this.

also, it appears all of the admin have disappeared.  I haven't had a response here, nor seen one in chat for several days.

is everyone on vacation?

28

World, castle, market... / Re: Lifespan

« on: 30/07/16, 06:52am »

That grainary now has a couple of large holes in the roof indicating much increased decay.  But I still can't find a message about it any place.    I'm pretty sure I'm not getting any written warnings.

29

World, castle, market... / Re: Lifespan

« on: 29/07/16, 08:28am »

One of my grainaries is beginning to decay.  The roof has gotten ragged.  But I can't find any message about it in the Daily Meeple.  I really would like to find out where to look. 

Much appreciate any help.

30

World, castle, market... / Re: Lifespan

« on: 28/07/16, 08:08am »

I do look at it.  I read it every time something new is posted.  But I've never seen a warning.  What part of the DM has this info?