Jump to content

nopunin10did

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

nopunin10did last won the day on September 21 2015

nopunin10did had the most liked content!

About nopunin10did

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    North Carolina
  1. nopunin10did

    AI commits DEFCON suicide by CIA

    When people are reporting what clearly is a rules or AI issue, and not a graphics/loading issue, could you please have your community manager not post this same boilerplate? And instead post something semi-useful? A new graphics card isn't going to prevent the AI from making a suicidal move.
  2. nopunin10did

    Bug: Late war scenario win condition

    Just played a Late War Scenario game as the USSR, playing against the computer as the US. The US had ~12 points or thereabouts and played WARGAMES as an event and won. In a normal game, that's intended, but it isn't supposed to work that way in the Late War Scenario. Per the rulebook: "After Turn 10 final scoring or if US plays WARGAMES event, US must have 20+ VP or Soviet player wins." Because of how WARGAMES requires you to hand over points as part of the event, it means that for all intents and purposes, only the Soviet player may use the event to win the Scenario. I would have the team look at the Late War Scenario in general, also making sure the AI knows these rules.
  3. This isn't something I've been able to test, but I just wanted to see if it's on your radar. If someone plays the Baking Field, which mandates that grain from it be baked during the harvest, how does it handle the scenario in which a baking improvement has been removed? For instance, the Madonna Statue improvement can remove other improvements. Use Case: Player builds a Fireplace. Player builds a Baking Field. Player plants grain on the Baking Field. Player builds a Madonna Statue, removing the Fireplace and some other improvement, but keeping the Baking Field. Harvest time comes. Grain comes from field, but player has no apparatus for baking bread. What would the rules be in this case? Convert the grain into one food? Does the app properly handle it, or does it lock up?
  4. Last night, I was playing Agricola offline against an AI opponent. I built the Seasonal Plants improvement. I had two fields in my farmyard. On turn 14, I did a Sow action, placing a vegetable on one field and a grain on the other. After confirming that I was planting these fields, I was given a screen with a little "+1" token in the bottom right. My understanding is that this was the interface for the Seasonal Plants, and that it would let me choose which field to plan to. However, as I dragged the +1 token, neither of my fields lit up. I was unable to attach the +1 to either the grain or vegetable field.
  5. Platform: iPhone 5S OS: 8.4.1 With the recent update now installed, dragging my family members to their designated places on the board has become much more difficult. The area of the screen that's considered the sides is apparently much wider, so the app thinks I'm scrolling down just as I start to drag the piece out of the corner. There's now very little part of the screen that won't cause the whole board to move. It takes a ton of work to aim the targeted spot exactly in the center of the screen to drop the piece onto it. Please fix this.
  6. In 4-5 player games in which the Corn Profiteer is in play, there's a special phase that comes up to allow opponents to offer to purchase a Grain from the Profiteer's player for 2 food. However, during this special phase*, if you have less than 2 food in your inventory, the game's interface won't allow you to make the offer. This is an incorrect implementation, as normal play would allow a player to cook an animal or vegetable in order to pay the 2 food. Because of this, the occupation is considerably more powerful than normal during a harvest phase. We need to be able to conditionally make new food dependent only if the offer is accepted. Let's say Alice, Bob, Charlie, and Diane are playing. Charlie uses the Corn Profiteer, and Alice and Bob each offer to buy the grain from Charlie. Neither Alice nor Bob has any food tokens, but they each have other resources that they can convert to food. Alice will cook a vegetable, and Bob will cook a pig with his fireplace. Charlie accepts Bob's offer. Bob cooks the pig, gains 2 food tokens, then gives them to Charlie. Alice's vegetable is left alone. I can imagine that this creates a really awful use case. I'd suggest that, instead of checking purely for food in stock, check what resources the player can make into food using improvements (or the 1:1 conversion for grain/veggies); this would probably be a similar search algorithm to what the AI uses. Offers: If a player has 2+ food in stock, allow them to offer or decline as normal. If a player can make the 2 food, but doesn't have it in stock, let them still make the offer. You may want to make a warning pop up in this case. If a player can't make the 2 food, just automatically decline for them. When the Profiteer's player selects an offer: For players with food in stock, just automatically handle the trade. For players that don't have it in stock, but can make the food, control passes to the offering player. Allow them to cook like normal. They must make 2+ food before they can confirm their move. I believe this covers all the bases. Alternatives: Remove the card. Make a digital-only rules text change to this card, so that it's clearer how this implementation works, then enable cooking during the offer screen. New card text: "You can convert 1 grain to 3 food at any time. Any other player can prevent this by buying the grain from you for 2 food tokens. If more than one player wants to buy, you choose one of them. Players that want to buy the grain must have at least 2 food tokens available. All cooking or converting must be done prior to making the offer." *I'm not sure if this special phase defect occurs during normal turns, but the no-cooking issue is definitely a problem during the Harvest phase, especially if I've already fed my family and bred my animals.
  7. nopunin10did

    Multiplayer: Handling Forfeit Opponents

    I've had the Agricola AI be a pretty worthy opponent pretty often. The weird thing is that if I play multiple "Master" opponents, at least 1-2 of them will completely screw themselves up early on and play poorly the rest of the game. There's usually at least one that makes me work for the win, though.
  8. My wife recently encountered what I believe may be a defect with the Feeding Pellets implementation in Agricola for iOS. During the harvest after round 9 in a four-player game, she started out with 1 Sheep. She had pasture-space to hold more (at least 3 I believe). She also had plenty of food to feed her family that turn already in stock. First in the field phase, she received a vegetable. During the feeding phase, she used Feeding Pellets to swap one vegetable for one more sheep. She saw that she had two sheep in the pasture and confirmed. Immediately after that, she was back to only 1 sheep, though the vegetable was still gone. She was expecting to have 2 sheep become 3 sheep during the breeding phase, but the sheep she'd traded for via Feeding Pellets had disappeared. I can provide screennames of all the players in this game, if you have someone that wants to check the game log in the database to confirm, though I imagine it'd be best if I emailed or PM'd the correct admin directly. If it matters: 1) She's using an iPhone 5S with the latest OS updates. 2) She got the vegetable from a field she planted with Hobby Farmer.
  9. nopunin10did

    Bread or Meat?

    Meat is far more often the better option. However, occasionally it makes sense to go all-in on baking in the early turns. Usually this is in a 4-5 player game where everyone else is heavily competing over the animals and cooking improvements. I once had the wild luck in a 2-player game of being able to combo Straw-Thatched Roof with Wet Nurse, along with one of the 2x5 ovens (and a few other goodies). I had a super-slow start, but went from 2 to 5 family members in turn 8 and was able to easily support them. Won the game with a score of 53 over 41.
  10. Is there any way to make the online multiplayer implementation of this game use the AI for players who have forfeited due to time? To my knowledge, just playing nothing, which is what a forfeited opponent will do after dropping, isn't a legal move. It kinda screws up the balance of the game. Someone who's in the right place at the right time when someone drops can take advantage of a board that provides either too many resources or too many other options. My specs would be this: If you're the only Human player left when all others have forfeited, you still win automatically. If you forfeit (voluntarily or by time), your rank score will still reflect having lost to the remaining human players. If you forfeit, an AI takes over your game. I'm thinking the "amateur" AI would be sufficient, though that could even be randomly picked. Humans that lose to an AI receive no change to their rank score (for that player). Humans that win to an AI still receive rank score based on the original human player's rank (like it is today). In a game that ends with multiple humans and AI players, at the end, the highest Human score will still get a "win" in their win/loss record, regardless of other changes. Basically, I don't want the introduction of AI opponents in online multiplayer to screw up rankings and statistics, but it would be nice to have valid moves being played on the forfeited player's behalf. A two-player game on a 5-player board introduces some real problems.
  11. In Multiplayer iOS Agricola, it's hard to find the happy medium between playing all the time and playing asynchronously over a long period. One of the most aggravating things I've found over the past few days is that I keep having to eat the hours when I'm asleep. Maybe I just go to bed before other people, but I feel like I'm being set up to forfeit. In one game, I started with 24 hours, and because I ended up being the first to sleep for two nights in a row, I'm down to 4. My opponents have 18 and 9. Hypothetically, one opponent could just wait until the middle of the night, do their turn, then pass play to me for the rest of the night. And ouila, I've automatically lost without any opportunity to make a change. My suggestion: Let us designate a period (either 6 or possibly 8 hours) each day that would be personal "free" hours. During a person's "free" hours, the chess clock doesn't run down for them. This would be an individual setting that would be locked-in per game (so that you couldn't change it mid-game). That way, it won't feel so risky just to go to sleep. Accordingly, the actual "chess" clock time could be reduced to something like a 16-hour game. And no, setting the game timer to 7 days or more does /not/ already solve this issue. If I'm consistently the first one to sleep, then I'm still consistently the one taking the hit on the timer when bedtime rolls around.
×