MArcomage

Not ideal. I assume you cannot affet this due to the database infrastructure or whatever, but now i have 50+ open games that are using cards that i would no longer have in my deck after this patch. I do not have as much interest in these games since my deck is all screwed up from the patch. If possible, patched cards should not affect games in progress.

True, however that would require a complex version system for card database which we currently don't have. Until such feature is implemented, I recommend not opening so many games right before the update. Updates are usually announced weeks before deployment.

It seems to be something we all learn from experience. I, for one, let my games wrap up before updates happen. Though I did get caught with midgame changes to my Unliving deck last time around.

So, what's the big deal? You'll lose a game or two....

dimitris wrote:
So, what's the big deal? You'll lose a game or two....

Please read the OP before snarkily replying.

I am not concerned at all with losing a few games because of an update, it affects all decks equally, in theory.

My issue, as I plainly stated, was that it is a nuisance to have your cards in past games now changed. Each update several of my cards in my main deck become inefficent enough to warrant their removal. I have 50 open games as I'm one of the most prolific players on here. So yeah, its more annoying for me than most of you, since I have 50 open games which use a "lame duck" deck. It's quite tedious to get through these games that i care much less about since they were somewhat arbitrarily and against my wishes edited by a third party (update).

When you start a game with someone, you are using your deck as it was at the time that game started. If you edit your deck after you start a game, it doesn't affect that past started game. But updates do. Updates break the tacit agreement that each player is using their deck designed specifically for play at the time the game was started.

In the grand scheme of things though, it matters very little. If it is not technically feasible to alleviate this issue, I'll just have to anticipate future updates more. I don't really care at all.

Do you understand now, pea-brain?

Glizorkulblorkul, I didn't view his question as an affront to you, especially since you apparently agree that it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. It's out of line for you to openly insult him in response as you did on your last line.

The fact that you keep 50 games open is your problem. Why do you keep mentioning that? What shall we do about it?
You might have a game open from 2011... somewhere in between this period an update eventually would happen.

I think you're forgetting that updates affect both players - granted not always equally.

It's also easy to see what cards are likely to be affected and when those cards are likely affected. You can adjust when you start games and what cards you play in your deck.

dimitris wrote:
The fact that you keep 50 games open is your problem. Why do you keep mentioning that? What shall we do about it?
You might have a game open from 2011... somewhere in between this period an update eventually would happen.

Games are abandoned after a fixed period of time passes in which one of the players does not play a turn. So it is not possible to have games open from 2011.

I talked about my "50 games" to illustrate my acceptance of the fact that i am more affected by this nuisance than other players might be. I enjoy playing many games with many different players, when those games are using the deck i specifically created, at least.

jbryant3 wrote:
I think you're forgetting that updates affect both players - granted not always equally.

It's also easy to see what cards are likely to be affected and when those cards are likely affected. You can adjust when you start games and what cards you play in your deck.

I mentioned in my orignal post that I realize updates, in theory, will affect each players deck equally. Of course there is variance involved.

I am obviously aware that i can adjust when i start games and what cards i play in my deck.

I have nary visited the news page. I shall begin to visit it more frequetly to alleviate this issue.

DPsycho wrote:
Glizorkulblorkul, I didn't view his question as an affront to you, especially since you apparently agree that it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. It's out of line for you to openly insult him in response as you did on your last line.

It was clear that his asinine response was an affront, and that he wanted a piece of me. My original message was respectful, polite, and cogent. His response was fruitless, contrarion, argumentative, and based on somethine that I'd never written.

I will dominate my foes on the Arcomage battlefield or off of it.

This thread has ran its course, in my opinion.

Glizorkulblorkul wrote:
doned after a fixed period of time passes in which one of the players does not play a turn. So it is not possible to have games open from 2011.

Actually, it is possible. If you're playing an opponent who only checks in on the weekend to check on his games, the game will never time out because there is never a 30 day period without a turn being taken. This isn't usual, of course, but it's possible.

Games can run long when the two players are in different time zones. I've had games go only two turns a day when I and the opponent have opposite day and night.

@Glizorkulblorkul

I understand your frustration, but despite that I would like to ask you to simply adjust the number of open games before the update. I did some analysis of the version system:

- game data storage would increase, because for every card we would have to store version in addition to ID (which doubles the size of card data in a game)

- we would have to keep a separate copy of entire card and keyword database for each version (we could only support "previous" version, but that would also double the size of card and keyword database)

- debugging and quick fixing would be a mess (card related bugs would have to have the version of each component reported which is unlikely in most cases)

=> I think overall such feature would destabilize the game environment and it's simply not worth the effort - it would cause more trouble than it's worth

DPsycho wrote:

Glizorkulblorkul wrote:
doned after a fixed period of time passes in which one of the players does not play a turn. So it is not possible to have games open from 2011.

Actually, it is possible. If you're playing an opponent who only checks in on the weekend to check on his games, the game will never time out because there is never a 30 day period without a turn being taken. This isn't usual, of course, but it's possible.

To be more precise we have a system for such situations. It's true that after 3 weeks of opponent's inactivity you can abort the game (both players' score will not be effected), however if your opponent is active, but simply refuses to make his move for more than 3 weeks, you will have the option to finish the game (which will give you one victory point and your opponent will gain one loss point).

Of course if he makes one move per 3 weeks, he will be able to prolong the game, but eventually the game will finish (it's impossible to have a game indefinitely).

I agree, it's too much work, and it's not so bad as it is now. There's certain fun factor to it too.