Messages

1

Tips, polls, updates / Re: 2-game ratings? Do you care?

« on: 09/12/22, 11:14pm »

I am guessing that 2-game rankings were removed some time ago but I like the fact that there are still rankings for "best 3 games" and "all games".  It was the former that first motivated me to expand beyond the games I already played well.  However, because some games seem to have much higher (absolute) ratings than others, I might have preferred to see overall rankings based on relative position/rank (e.g. 1st + 2nd + 7th = 10, where low is better) rather than average rating.

2

HexRoller / Re: HexRoller lost connection scored as 0

« on: 30/07/21, 12:29am »

I was wondering how other games handle this issue and discovered the following in old Raging Bulls post...

(...)

Regarding your suggestion, we thought about it, but the problem is exactly the one you mention. We cannot be certain that current score is a minimum number of points. It is possible that the score will be reduced with more moves. We try to standardise everything and I am afraid there is no way to be fair with everyone without complexifying the code overly (and increasing the development time and the likely of a bug). Our next game will have the same issue too.

So the only thing we can realistically really do is consider an unfinished game as equivalent to the worst possible performance (which is 1000 for Raging Bulls).

Always finish your games is the main advice here.

If the same strategy (assigning the worst possible performance) was used for HexRoller, it would explain my zero (0) though, with HexRoller, there is less opportunity to reduce one's score in future moves.  Regardless, providing a way to override a really bad result (i.e. by resuming the game from point of interruption -- and perhaps only before another game is started) would still be my preferred solution.

3

HexRoller / HexRoller lost connection scored as 0

« on: 29/07/21, 11:36pm »

I had finished 4 of 6 HexRoller turns when my connection was unexpectedly lost and the game ended.  When I was able to reconnect, I found that the match had been scored as a zero (0), dropping my rating by 30 points.  This seems a bit extreme.  I realize that there is probably no way to prove that an interruption was accidental and we do not want to reward people for deliberately abandoning games but I would have expected SOME credit for the score I had accumulated to that point.  Better yet, if HexRoller is an untimed, single-player game, it would be nice to be able to resume the game at the point of interruption.  FYI, there is no "final" screenshot to share but a replay of the match is available and shows that, at the end of turn 4, I had 32 points.

From the game before: https://www.happymeeple.com/upload/game/game_5232169_148498.jpg
From the game after: https://www.happymeeple.com/upload/game/game_5232204_148498.jpg

From the game in question:
Date   7/29/2021 4:58:09 PM
Game   HexRoller
(1)   Tim B. (2107)   0 pts
(2)   (0)   0 pts
Screenshots taken by Tim B.

4

HexRoller / Re: HexRoller strategies

« on: 26/04/21, 07:14pm »

Mike A., you find a player (e.g. from rankings), click to open their profile, scroll down to list of played games, filter by game (if necessary), and find the match you want to see.  The camera icon reveals the final board position; the arrow icon provides a turn-by-turn replay.

5

HexRoller / HexRoller strategies

« on: 26/04/21, 05:43am »

I have 68 rated games under my belt and my rating is finally over 2100 (currently 2102, good enough for #1 overall) but I feel like my game has stagnated.  I find myself using essentially 2 strategies -- one for the bigger board and one for the smaller.  By this, I mean that I have settled on a generally-achievable configuration (and sequence of priorities) for each of the maps and playing the game consists primarily of trying to manage the differences between the numbers I expect to get and the ones that are actually rolled.  So it came as some surprise to me when I decided to replay a few of the games from other highly-ranked players and found significant differences in the way that they attacked the same-sized boards.  It left me wondering whether, like me, most of you have a target layout in mind for each board and, if so, how much of my relative success is due to a better target, better management, or simply better luck.

To preserve the learning experience for newer players, I am going to avoid describing my configurations/priorities in this post (and suggest that others do the same) but those who are interested in this topic are invited to check out some of my recent games and/or point me to representative games of their own.

6

Cartographers / Re: Cartographers Tournament!

« on: 26/04/21, 04:33am »

Bad timing for me but I like the idea -- I will try to catch the next one.

7

Cartographers / Re: Best Great City

« on: 11/12/20, 10:51pm »

78 is possible like I suspected, and relies on blocking but not covering one of the ruin spaces.

Well done!  I obviously missed the "blocking but not covering" option.

8

Cartographers / Re: Best Great City

« on: 08/12/20, 06:42am »

Carl, I have not tried placing the shapes on map but I agree with your conclusion that the maximum number of red squares that can be placed in Spring is 19, using 0+1+2+2+2=7 time for the 5 cards with red and 1 (or 2, if drawn last) time for a card with no red.  With no wasteland, the total for Summer would be the same.  In the first two seasons, if the non-red shape is used to cover a ruin (and the rest of the ruins are covered with red shapes), the maximum number of red squares for Fall increases to 20, provided the non-red card is drawn after a ruin, allowing it to be used for a single red square.  However, in Winter, I believe that the maximum is again 19 red squares (from the five red cards), as replacing any of the non-zero-time red cards with a non-red card would result in fewer red squares.  Hence, my conclusion is that the theoretical max for Great City with a board with no wasteland (and 121-5-20=96 vacant squares that are not adjacent to mountains) is 19+19+20+19=77 red squares.

On the wastelands map (with 121-7-5-19=90 vacant squares that are not adjacent to mountains), I believe that the max is still 19+19+20+19=77 red squares because, although it is possible to cover 2 of the ruins squares with the same long red shape, a non-red card still has to be used (in both Spring and Summer) to cover the ruins that are adjacent to mountains.

In both cases, for simulation purposes, I would suggest that the non-red shape be the 2-square green shape (instead of the 2-square yellow one), since it can "block" 2 sides of the same mountain without any additional waste.

9

Cartographers / Re: Best Broken Road?

« on: 08/12/20, 05:00am »

I got my first 10 today (with Broken Road as D).  I had a decent chance at 11 but the cards didn't fall my way.  Ironically, though, my proudest part was early decision to build neighboring cities in Spring for Shieldgate (A), then merge them (in Summer) and build a new second city for final scoring.

10

Cartographers / Re: Wall of shame

« on: 18/11/20, 09:12pm »

More than once, I am afraid.  Slow learner, apparently.

11

HexRoller / HexRoller under construction?

« on: 11/11/20, 10:15pm »

Is HexRoller under construction?  Its overview, rules, and ranking pages seem to point to Hanamikoji pages.

12

Cartographers / Two issues with Cartographers replays

« on: 08/11/20, 04:29am »

I love the replay feature -- particularly the ability to step through what others have done -- but there are a couple of things that struck me as odd.  My apologies if these have already been reported.

The first item involves player ratings.  Sometimes the ratings are reversed, i.e. the rating listed for Player 1 was that of Player 2 and vice-versa.  Note: this is not always the case but I can look for some examples if need be.  It may be more common when Player 2 is listed above Player 1.

The second item involves the tile options for observed player's opponent.  While observing Player 1, the card that was drawn had shapes that Player 1 could not place, so Player 1 was instead presented with the single-square options.  However, when I clicked the button to look at Player 2's board, the choices shown at the top were still the single-square options, despite the fact that Player 2 had room to place one of the original shapes (and would, in fact, do so).  Out of curiosity, I went back and replayed the game from the other perspective (that of Player 2).  Here, the roles were reversed but the effect was similar: the screen for Player 1 showed only the original shapes (the ones from which Player 2 was choosing) despite none of them being playable by Player 1.  Is this behavior unique to replays or does it also occur during the live game?  I would have thought it more helpful to only see the options that are appropriate to the displayed board.