Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

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.

4701

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.

« on: March 26, 2014, 06:15:21 pm »

Donald, what does a typical playtesting session run by you look like?

(Do you explain to playtesters what you are looking for before playing or just let them play? Do you have playtesters fill out a detailed "Donald X. Exit Survey" after, or have them verbally give you their playing impressions?)

IRL I would deal out 5 cards from the set being tested, and 5 from some other set (sometimes a different ratio for small sets). Sometimes instead it would be all 10 from the set being tested. After each game I would replace just 4 cards, rotating which slots changed. Sometimes a particular card would need testing and I'd just make sure that was out. Sometimes a particular card would need changing and I'd say "this game this costs $6" (usually marked with dice) or sometimes, with experienced players only, "this game let's try some new thing I haven't printed out yet, it's a treasure costing $5 so we'll use Venture to represent it."

Online we would typically play, 5 cards from the new set, 5 random cards from all sets. Sometimes a card would need focused testing and it might be, this card plus 9 random cards. There was even more focused testing; Crossroads, Margrave, and 8 cards from Hinterlands. We tested recommended sets.

Sometimes you would be limited as to what you bought. This game, these two players can't buy this card, these two players have to buy it (some players are awful at having to buy something so I leaned towards that slot). Maybe we decide after the opening split in case the card costs $4 and someone has $5/$2. I've specifically tested openings; okay you get $5/$2 and open Soothsayer.

It's possible we sit there chatting about the game afterwards, or just move on to the next one. I ask people what they think. I say what I think. For online players, there was a forum, and we would talk about whatever there was to talk about, and sometimes I would say, could everyone say a few words about every card. We would post game results and say a few words; lots of games happened that I wasn't in.

With new players I am often just looking at, what did they ask questions about; what has to go in the FAQ, what should be reworded. What did they enjoy.

4702

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Dominion Online set selection

« on: March 26, 2014, 05:43:20 pm »

I guess I see an automatch where you get to specify this as a step beyond the current setup. Right now those who haven't bought sets have to hunt and try to snipe games that have all cards, maybe moving from lobby to lobby in order to find such games. With automatch, all they have to do is select "Minimum # of expansions = 14", sit back, and wait for a game. It's just like they shelled out the $45 themselves, except it just takes them slightly longer to find a game. That, to me, is a significant step toward enabling freeloaders beyond what is currently possible (without the extension).

Well I haven't had the experience myself, at all, ever. And haven't been on in a couple weeks. My memory is I would look at the tables in whatever room I was in and there would always be someone saying "all cards 4000+ VP on" or whatever. It didn't look hard to get in those games, provided you had the rating. I guess if you didn't have the rating it might be harder, fewer people saying "all cards come one come all."

Making Fun is bound to care about making money. They might perceive an advantage to not having "minimum # of expansions."

The system was set up specifically to make freeloading possible, specifically to let you pick what games to join, to not buy expansions, to play with the expansions of the host. It may be that as things have played out it's less kind to freeloaders than expected - specifically, people saying things like "4000+" rather than playing with anyone. It may be that Making Fun has a different philosophy here than Goko. But as set up, the idea was that you could buy zilch, go into the lobby, and get into a game with someone who had expansions. It's a feature, not a bug.

4703

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Dominion Online set selection

« on: March 26, 2014, 05:28:22 pm »

Likewise, if the host can see and/or alter the specific cards, that's manually creating the board. And if the board is manually created, that game is never rated. That should solve the issues. If somebody is playing the same board again and again just to beat people up with King's Court/Masquerade or whatever, his opponents can just resign with no repercussions (and then blacklist that person).

This does not sound good. I just got Guilds, I want to play with Guilds. Man that doesn't mean I want to play unrated games. Manual creation is only an issue if I can pick specific cards (or see the cards thus effectively getting to pick them), not if I can merely pick the expansions.

I think you misread my intent. In my proposal, you may still choose expansions when playing in "Classic" mode (equal cards from up to 2 sets), just not individual cards. I even say that later in the same post:

I think forcing specific expansions (but not cards) in "Classic" mode is probably fine to be ranked (but should almost certainly not qualify as Pro games).

I'm not sure how much more clear I could have been. I DO think that you shouldn't be able to force more than half the cards to be from a set that only has 13 or fewer cards. Like if you buy Alchemy or Vandals and Vermin and can then force all 10 cards to be picked from that set in a ranked, Casual game, you have effectively manually created a table. Especially if you can adjust your "Hate List" to include the 2 or 3 cards from that set you don't want, whittling it down to 10 exact cards.

You said "And if the board is manually created, that game is never rated." Manually created to me includes saying "I want 3 cards from Seaside, 3 from Prosperity, 4 from Dark Ages." I want to allow that game to be rated. Probably you agree and we are now just being ultra-clear.

I am not so worried about trying to game the system by buying small/half-sets and then requiring them. I mean I picked those cards, not them. If you can ban 3 cards from Cornucopia and force all-Cornucopia then yes you did pick the 10 cards. At first it sounds bad but then it's like, what am I even doing there that's offensive? It's a loophole but I don't see what to be scared of.

I wouldn't have "this slot is from this half of Seaside" etc., just "Seaside." Obv. you may have only bought half but I am so not worried about people only buying half of Prosperity in order to trick people into playing Goons games or whatever. And in the end there (hypothetically) are blocked player lists.

By "simplicity", I mean removing options so that the resulting interface isn't an intimidating bundle of controls. I think your idea of "Maximum number of selected cards by host" which defaults to 1 is needlessly complex. Even if it's always 1 and you can't change it, where do you communicate to your users why it ranks games with 1 chosen card, but not 2?

Well that's what I would have thought "simplicity" meant, but I didn't see how what you were saying cut options. You have a baby to take care of, you pick unrated, it's exclusive of any other concerns and (to maximally please such a person) should be an option separate from other things. For sure I shouldn't have to to finagle it - force a card so that I get my unrated game.

Anyway I was thinking you were talking about not needing the "unrated" button rather than the "number of cards" thing. The point to "max selected cards" is that I may not want to play games where the host picked the cards. To be friendly to people who want to do fun things and aren't hurting anyone, I put the default at 1 rather than 0.

Likewise, I don't see the point of splitting Pro/Casual and Ranked/Unranked into two axes. It looks nice on the surface, but who is playing unranked Pro games? The reason to play Pro is that it's ranked on the Pro leaderboard. You should be able to play Casual and Unrated games that would qualify for Pro anyway (hidden cards, etc.).

Well the question remains, what does pro mean. If it's all about ranking then sure you don't need unranked pro games.

Finally, I imagine most players are going to want "Minimum number of expansions" set to the maximum if given the option.

Again I am trying to be friendly. Maybe the game is promoted and there is an influx of non-hardcore-players and none of them have sets. They sit there not getting matched because they didn't change the default. A pro logs on, sits there unmatched because the other people don't have a high enough rating, then another pro logs on and they get matched. The defaults matter the most for people with no experience, right? People who are used to the system just change the default to what they want.

• pro / *casual / unrated (with the ability to select any combination of these)
• minimum/maximum number of players (*2/6)
• maximum rating difference (*∞) (minimum of something reasonable, like 100)
• card selection type [if casual or to the degree this is part of pro]
  -- *random from available sets
  -- random from up to two available sets plus promos (with ability to choose expansions for either or both halves in Casual)
  -- random recommended set doable with available expansions
  -- manually created table
  -- don't care

Having it be pro/casual/unrated is fine. So far "which leaderboard to use" is what defines them, although again we have this issue of, maybe people don't want hate-lists on pro.

I think the default maximum number of players should be well 4-6 (though we technically support 6 I don't play with 6 personally, and you can then argue, how great is 5, especially if you aren't in person, chatting and stuff). Serious players will immediately change it to 2 and that's fine; I'm not stopping them. Again let's be friendly to the people who are like oh I want to play multiplayer.

Maximum rating difference means you can't just say "man I want to play someone good even though I don't have that rating yet." It gets you out of "now I have to update my settings because my rating went up" but I prefer the flexibility of specifying a value rather than a difference.

You have "manually created table." I'm never picking that without actually hosting; "someone out there, pick some cards, I'm here!" Instead it would need to be like, mark the ones you are okay with. Then, "Manually created table" does not specify enough; I am okay with "you picked the expansions, this time one from each expansion plus two random;" I just don't want you to have picked out the specific cards. They are different things.

You say "up to" two available sets. I would just make it two. It's the one special mode that says "here's something that's not pure random but which we think has special merit, try it out." That thing, for me, is 5 cards from each of two sets (then making an exception for promos because people will have them and not want to never see them). It's fun playing with 10 cards from one set and well the system allows that, you host a game and pick that. It doesn't need to be part of this.

You didn't list the hate-list stuff. Maybe you are thinking it's automatically one way or another depending on pro/casual, dunno.

4704

Game Reports / Re: challenge

« on: March 26, 2014, 03:07:19 am »

I have another challenge. Much harder. Does anyone have a log of them winning a game without any cards left in their deck?

I've posted a link to a log where at one point the eventual winner had no cards (due to KC/Masq). The link is dead now though. You can read the story at http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=76.0.

4705

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Dominion Online set selection

« on: March 26, 2014, 02:03:34 am »

For what it's worth, I don't see how using the cards the joiner has is that much more generous. As somebody who has all the cards, I'm reluctant to join a game except through Salvager's automatch, because darnit I want to play with the cards I bought. The primary benefit to using the joiner's cards is to help people who did spend money, because it gives us more flexibility.

Yes for sure you want to play with the cards from whoever has more cards. If you have the same number of expansions but different cards, there are two main cases I see (also there is every other case):

- You each bought one expansion but not the same one. I guess it probably doesn't matter much here and I don't know what MF thinks about it. I guess a question is, if the game were more popular with casual players, how many expansions would they be buying. There might be a surplus of people now that have everything, and in a future without that, combining my Seaside with your Prosperity is doing more to keep me happy without buying Prosperity.

- You have different promos. You beat those adventures because you wanted that promo, but you didn't beat them all because you didn't need every promo. You would like to host to have access to your promo. Uh, ugh, I dunno. The promos want to retain their specialness but maybe you do have to combine them.

4706

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Dominion Online set selection

« on: March 26, 2014, 01:52:44 am »

This brings up another point. When two players that choose "Match Me" (instead of specifically hosting a table) and they're matched together, how does the game determine which player hosts? Unless it always defaults to the player with the most cards, I really doubt serious players are ever going to use automatch.

For sure I would pick the player with more expansions (between two people who are not manually hosting); if I buy everything then of course I want to always have that. In specific cases where this isn't what someone wants (e.g. they don't have all the expansions but have promos and want to play them), there's manual hosting.

Of course, "Minimum # of expansions" is one of the suggested settings, but I honestly don't know if Making Fun will want to have that option. It basically just enables freeloaders by letting them only be matched with players who have bought cards. I see two possible solutions:

The current system lets one player provide the expansions. That right there is what enables freeloaders. They are specifically enabled. That wasn't Making Fun's idea and maybe they will decide they don't like it, I dunno, but it seems like a fine set-up to me.

1) You cannot set "Minimum # of expansions" higher than the number you personally own.
2) You cannot set "Minimum # of expansions" at all and the host defaults to the player who owns the most cards.
3) You cannot set "Minimum # of expansions" at all and the host is chosen randomly.

Right now everyone sets minimum # of expansions by choosing what games to join. That's where that comes from, I listed the things people are already doing. I wouldn't volunteer to give up ground here.

4707

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Dominion Online set selection

« on: March 26, 2014, 01:45:03 am »

For simplicity's sake, I'd argue that choosing a specific Suggested Set of 10 is effectively manually creating a board.

I would put "specific suggested set" on the "they didn't pick the cards" side, because it's sufficiently innocent. I want to be able to block "they picked the cards, could be a trap" and not have that block "they want to try all the recommended sets and next up is this one."

Likewise, if the host can see and/or alter the specific cards, that's manually creating the board. And if the board is manually created, that game is never rated. That should solve the issues. If somebody is playing the same board again and again just to beat people up with King's Court/Masquerade or whatever, his opponents can just resign with no repercussions (and then blacklist that person).

This does not sound good. I just got Guilds, I want to play with Guilds. Man that doesn't mean I want to play unrated games. Manual creation is only an issue if I can pick specific cards (or see the cards thus effectively getting to pick them), not if I can merely pick the expansions.

Again, for simplicity, I suggest that if even one card is forced by the table's host, that should also be an unranked game. Being able to practice with a card is great, but there are reasons why both you and your opponents would not want such games to be ranked.

I guess I don't see how this is "for simplicity," but it might be fine to automatically not rank games with a selected card. I'm not sure how much it gets you, I mean okay it makes me less excited to KC/Masq people. I still want to be able to choose to play other games unrated.

4708

Rules Questions / Re: Overgrown estate + market square

« on: March 26, 2014, 01:33:43 am »

The general rule is, for any "when x happens, do y," y happens directly *after* x happens. I would apply this to all games that don't specify otherwise (Magic: The Gathering is a significant exception). For example: "When you pass Go, collect $200." When do you collect $200? Directly *after* passing Go.

4709

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.

« on: March 25, 2014, 07:22:42 pm »

I have three questions:
1. What do you think about Scout, Chancellor, Secret Chamber,and the other 'worst' cards in Dominion?
2. Why did you name Harem 'Harem?' Did anybody ever question why it was called that?

I would replace/improve duds if I were making those sets today. They don't really sink the game though - people buy Scout, it sounds like it could come in handy. Having things you learn are bad can contribute gameplay and good times; it's certainly not strictly bad. But ideally the weakest cards are sometimes good, to improve the game for experienced players. It's fun to sometimes win the game with a weak card and well there should only be a few of those cards and they should only be so weak.

Secret Chamber is a special case on that list in that it confuses people. In this case the card isn't worth the confusion.

I originally referred to the game as Castle Builder. The cards were things in castles. Harems are such a thing. So I had a Harem card. I personally have questioned why it's called that, repeatedly, but it's not something that came up while working on the set, and it's not something people send in letters about.

4710

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Dominion Online set selection

« on: March 25, 2014, 04:48:32 pm »

Look at the rest of it, I also missed "allow pre-seen card list," and let's call "pick a recommended set" a match for "random recommended set," yes they may be practicing it I know. You have to agree to "pick opponent" so I think "pick starting player" is folded into that agreement window.

You know, I am folding "pre-seen card list" into "maximum number of selected cards by host." If they can see the list and reject it, they have in some sense picked all of the cards.

Warnings make sense in one scenario, which is where I specifically invite you to play and I don't match your criteria. Put that stuff in the invite window.

4711

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Dominion Online set selection

« on: March 25, 2014, 04:43:42 pm »

• Let's say somebody creates a table using "5 Seaside, 5 Prosperity". First of all, that implies that either automatch still uses the host/join dichotomy OR that players will sometimes not use automatch to find games once automatch is a thing. Otherwise I don't see how you're matching two different players, one of which says, "5 Seaside, 5 Prosperity" and the other of which says, "10 Dark Ages". Or anything else for that matter. Pretty much you can only match people who "don't care" with each other or with people who are specifying restrictions.

In that long post where I outlined a hypothetical thing, being as specific as "5 Seaside 5 Prosperity" fell into the "special options for hosting" section. If you pick that, you are hosting; people can get matched up with you, but not other people who are hosting.

I see, the "card selection type" options doesn't factor in that aspect of the "special options for hosting" section. There's a "maximum number of selected cards," but no "maximum number of slots limited by expansion." Let's call it "Allow host to pick expansions;" I bet once you are willing to let them force one slot to be Seaside, you are cool with all of it. So this option does nothing if two non-special-hosting people are matched, but lets you match people who host games and pick expansions. Default to yes.

Looking at the rest of it, I also missed "allow pre-seen card list," and let's call "pick a recommended set" a match for "random recommended set," yes they may be practicing it I know. You have to agree to "pick opponent" so I think "pick starting player" is folded into that agreement window.

• Let's say that one player creates a table that has Tournament in it. Maybe they're playing a recommended set of 10 or something. How does that interact with another player's hate list? Does that player just not see that table? Is there a little box that says, "WARNING! This table has cards you hate"?

You aren't picking a table anymore, there is no list of tables unless that's fun just to look at. So you just don't get matched with someone who required Tournament.

4712

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.

« on: March 25, 2014, 04:24:33 pm »

Say you make another full expansion, what sorts of ideas will you explore with that? (Sorry if this has been asked already)
I'd be interested to know if you ever had any ideas for an entirely new type of card along the way (sort of like how Duration cards were a new kind of action card in Seaside when it came out), and if you were to make another full expansion, would you try making a new type of action card?
(sorry this is rather weirdly worded)

Probably it's best to keep any new things a secret! I guess I can say, a new expansion would explore my best ideas, the ones that seemed good. That sort of idea.

Having a new frame makes something more exciting than it is, I learned this from Magic. Duration cards didn't need a frame or type, and didn't always have it; they got the frame to make it easier to remember not to discard them, and the type because that's the way frames work in Dominion, they correspond to types. When-gain could have had a new frame; it would have been very mildly helpful and I bet some players would have liked it. It wasn't on the table because of Mint.

To the degree that "duration" is a new type, sure, any new expansion could have something like that. I would also consider revisiting duration cards themselves; the people excited by a 9th Dominion expansion would probably be happy to hear it had new duration cards.

4713

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Dominion Online set selection

« on: March 25, 2014, 04:07:01 pm »

For casuals it's really important to turn off base set cards. You buy an expansion because you have seen enough of the base set and want something new. All you get generated are witch+chapel kingdoms that you don't want to see again. Casual players should be able to exclude base set. When they buy their last expansion they should be able to turn off most of their other expansions just so they get a chance to play with their new cards instead of relying on a 1/15 chance for just one of those cards to show.

This is largely covered by how you pick the set of 10 (hypothetically). I can say "gimme 5 Seaside 5 Prosperity." Then I don't get any base set. And I can click "let me see the list first" and reject one I don't like the looks of. I didn't list an option for "this card slot is from anything but this expansion;" I'm not sure that's getting us much.

4714

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Dominion Online set selection

« on: March 25, 2014, 04:01:43 pm »

As far as banlists go, here is my suggestion.

• Each player has the ability to "turn off" any and all non-Base Set cards that he has purchased, making him effectively not own those cards for the purposes of his games. He can do this in his "My Cards" page or equivalent.
• When a player plays a non-Adventure single-player game, the cards he has turned off will never appear.
• When players are matched together, their available card pool is the union of all their purchased cards that are not turned off. So if one player has turned off e.g. Rebuild but another in the game hasn't, Rebuild could still be in that game. Only if all players have a card turned off (or unbought) will it never show up.

This is of course different from the current table-hosting setup, where the host's cards are always the ones used. It seems like a sensical, elegant solution to me that more or less mirrors IRL games where different players might own different sets. I don't think it will impact sales much, if any, since most players either buy all cards or none.

I don't think that's ground Making Fun will give up. It's certainly not a battle I'd pick; ask them yourself if you want.

The initial impetus for this discussion was someone hating Tournament. He didn't just hate it when the other guy also hated it; he always hated it. I think whatever hate-list system there is for casual should handle that; then that system should transition neatly to the system for pro if there is one.

4715

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Dominion Online set selection

« on: March 25, 2014, 03:54:06 pm »

If two players have "don't care" for Card Selection Type, it's fine if it defaults to full random. Cool. But it would be nice if "don't care" was the uh initial default so that I (and others) can choose something besides "full random" and actually find a match.

Yes; the * marks the default for when no-one cares, like I said. If we both pick "don't care" for card selection, the cards still need to be selected somehow; in that situation they will be selected randomly from all available cards. I would have the default choice be "don't care" for everything listing "don't care" as an option (don't care if it's pro/casual, rated/unrated, how the cards are picked); then within that there's what you'll get if we all don't care.

Yes some of the items on that list had no "don't care" and so * was marking both a default choice and also what you'd get if you didn't care.

4716

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Dominion Online set selection

« on: March 25, 2014, 03:48:00 pm »

It would be unfair because I could ban cards that I'm bad at. If only cards that both players are bad at are being banned, it's not unfair.

Despite not being one of the people who don't like the neo-veto mode concept, I am going to try to sum up the complaint against it.

If there's neo-veto-mode for pro games:

1. ...and you don't use it, you may perceive yourself to be at a disadvantage relative to players who do use it. They never have to face down turn one Mountebank and you sometimes do (in games that aren't vs. them), and so on. Note that it's not important whether or not you actually have a disadvantage, only that you perceive yourself to have a disadvantage.

2. ...and you use it to avoid feeling at a disadvantage, you may instead feel like you are missing out on playing with cards you'd otherwise enjoy playing with.

3. ...whether you use it or not, you may personally feel that this makes the leaderboard less meaningful.

My suspicion however is that if we have neo-veto-mode only for casual games, many players will say, add this to pro games plz. Again there is the question, what is "pro" supposed to mean anyway. Currently it means "you don't see the cards before the game, and there's a different leaderboard."

4717

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.

« on: March 24, 2014, 08:07:47 pm »

Dang, dude. I think that topic has been beaten to death. I just appreciate Donald explaining if Coin token Reactions were on the list of ideas. I'm guessing if Guilds had been a full-sized set, those Coin token Reactions would have been tested.

I certainly would have tried some kind of reaction for a full set. People like reactions. But space was limited and variations on "it's like Horse Traders but you get a coin token" didn't wow me enough to make it to the table.

4718

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.

« on: March 24, 2014, 08:05:05 pm »

To quote you from earlier:

Similar to the above -- do you ever look at fan cards?  If so, do you have a favourite?

I don't usually look at them, because 1) I don't want people feeling like I'm taking their ideas, which probably I had years ago, not because I am amazing but because the obvious ideas are obvious and I had a big head start; and 2) the cards that aren't in sets already are usually awful, nonstop things I wouldn't do that are boring and redundant or else obviously bad for the game in some way, and if it's not obvious then I already tried them and found out the hard way. At best they are things I'm already doing; none of it is good reading.

However you have stated here that there are ideas like reactions that give coin tokens which you didn't even try. You also make this statement about fan cards without ever having seen any.

Now that you have released everything (except the promo card this year), will you take a look at fan cards?

In fact you are quoting me saying "I don't usually look at them," which is not the same as "I never do;" I go on in that post to specifically look at some; and at the end of that post I cite two favorite fan cards. So, you are way off there.

Here I am specifically not committing to there never being more expansions, so that's a clean sweep for you: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=73.0

4719

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Dominion Online set selection

« on: March 24, 2014, 07:56:21 pm »

I am not sure what you are showing me here except a fairly interesting* kingdom worth playing a few times and an opponent who has no idea how to play with or against Goons. Maybe roy let it go 3 turns too long because he enjoys racking up those Goons points in a game he was essentially playing solitaire? This is hardly an egregious abuse. 

He is showing you someone who played the same set of 10 over and over with different opponents - further in the thread you'll see http://gokologs.drunkensailor.org/logsearch?p1name=roy+rogers&p1score=any&p2name=&startdate=08%2F05%2F2012&enddate=02%2F18%2F2014&supply=Nobles&nonsupply=&rating=any&pcount=any&colony=any&bot=false&shelters=any&guest=false&minturns=&maxturns=&quit=false&resign=any&submitted=true&offset=0

I think obv. that player was trying to get high Goons scores; I am not so sure he was trying to prey on people. He may just really enjoy Goons.

4720

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Dominion Online set selection

« on: March 24, 2014, 07:53:19 pm »

I'm having trouble visualizing how this will work. Do people still create their own tables with automatch, or does automatch create the game for them? If people create tables, how does automatch decide whose table to use? Or is there a dichotomy between automatch hosts and automatch joiners and you choose which to be?

I think we should talk about this before (or concurrently with) talking about being able to play hidden sets of 10 in casual, etc. As it stands I can't really formulate opinions about that stuff without knowing the framework.

Someone is hosting a game. That's part of the premise currently; they host a game and you play with their cards. I was imagining that that would stay true, but uh that's worth thinking about, why would it. There are people who want to play, they have the things they care about (I want a 3-player pro game), why not just match them up? Having a host however is tied to "and you play with their cards." And you want to be able to host in order to do specific things, I want to play this particular set of 10. So okay for the moment let's say, there is a host.

So there are two sets of information - preferences for games, which might change from moment to moment - I want a 3-player pro game - and more specific stuff you get to pick when hosting - let's play these specific 10.

You either host a game or click "match me." If you host you pick whatever's in the hosting-specific set of information and the game is generated and you wait to see if someone joins it. If you click "match me" it looks for a game matching your requirements and adds you to it if it finds one. Obv. if you are tired of waiting for joiners/matches you can switch.

Aha, wait. If you click "match me" it can also just match you with another person who clicked "match me." I mean we have good defaults for the additional hosting-based information. I am thinking "hosting" only makes sense for special stuff.

So it's like this (in this imagined plan that follows, ugh). You pick a set of things you want out of your game, you click ready. You can just get matched vs. someone that matches. Or you can be more specific as a special thing, in which case you host a game and people can get matched to it.

The existing list of unstarted/started games has like no value here. If you want a 4-player game and only 3 have joined, you want to see that, but that's it. I guess if you are having trouble getting matched you want to see what people are asking for, although that could be a chart, I mean they will be vanishing as you look at them.

What might the options be? Default *'d for when no-one cares; "don't care" is the actual default selection.
- pro / *casual / don't care
- *rated / unrated / don't care
- minimum number of expansions (*0)
- minimum number of players (*2)
- maximum number of players (*6)
- minimum rating for opponents (*0)
- maximum rating for opponents (*max)
- maximum opponent quit% (*100)
- find opponents from friend-list only
- maximum number of selected cards by host (*1) [if casual or relevant to pro]
- let host pick expansions (*yes) [if casual or relevant to pro]
- *exclude cards we all hate-list / exclude cards any of us hate-list [if casual or this is also part of pro]
- card selection type [if casual or to the degree this is part of pro]
-- *random from available expansions [incl. main set obv.]
-- random from two available expansions plus promos (counting expansions as published, not half-sets)
-- random recommended set doable with available expansions [including one hand-picked by a host]
-- don't care

Special options for hosting:
- ability to request particular opponents (for people who just want to play together)
- pick expansion for particular slot
- pick card for particular slot
- pick a recommended set
- visible card list [if casual]
- pick starting player [when also picking particular opponents]

edit: had too many asterisks and a missing don't care
edit: added "let host pick expansions;" let chosen recommended set match random one

4721

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Dominion Online set selection

« on: March 24, 2014, 05:22:15 pm »

What I said was that over half the games are Pro. It's more like 30% to 40% are Casual, by my estimation. And maybe half of those casual games are Base-only.

I see, I misread it. Well 30% is still enough to feel like "worries about rigged games" aren't destroying casual (although obv. if there's something good to do there it should be done).

I think for casual it's obvious that you should be able to ban cards, rather than wait and see the set of 10 (and also should be able to wait and see the set of 10). Being able to hide the set of 10 (from yourself and everyone) (and matchmake based on that) addresses rigged games concerns, although I don't know how much that really helps. I can believe it helps enough to be worth a checkbox.

For pro mode it's all about perception. If most people wanted the proposed vetoing then I would go for it, there will always be some people who don't like whatever you've done. If some people use it and some don't, you can (as proposed) opt out and only play games without it, so the issues are 1) you opt in because you perceive that it's advantageous, even though you hate it, and 2) you opt out but hate feeling like it puts you at a disadvantage. How much of a disadvantage it would actually amount to isn't really relevant; what matters is how much you hate it vs. how much joy is produced the other way. And well how much those things matter when everything is added up, I mean you can argue that increasing net joy at some point doesn't matter as much as reducing net hate.

4722

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.

« on: March 24, 2014, 05:05:41 pm »

I was a bit surprised that Guilds didn't have a Reaction that you could discard for Coin tokens. Normally you can't have reactions that give money, but tokens seemed like an elegant way to do that. Then again, maybe discarding a card for 2 Coin tokens is too strong and I can't see any other number working out.

Anyhow, did you ever consider a Reaction for Guilds? The outtakes don't list one.

Yes, coin token reactions are on the ideas list in four similar forms - reaction gets you a coin token (probably Horse Traders style), reaction either gets you a coin token or lets you pay one to moat, reaction gets you both coin token and moating, action makes coin tokens and reaction lets you pay coin token to moat. I don't think I ever tried them. I don't think I tried any reactions for Guilds but there are others in the file.

4723

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.

« on: March 24, 2014, 04:54:32 pm »

Qvist draws up rankings for all the cards every year, do you ever look at those rankings, and have you ever created your own rankings?

I posted in one of the threads, which is to say, yes I have looked at those rankings. I have not ranked all the cards myself.

4724

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Dominion Online set selection

« on: March 24, 2014, 03:23:22 pm »

I really need some clarification here. Is there really a perception that people are attempting to game the kingdom when playing casual??? In the last year and a half I have NEVER come across a kingdom where I thought someone set it up for the express purpose of exploiting some secret combo or evil pin.

LastFootnote said half the games were casual, which does make it sound like this isn't actually much of an issue. Still if hiding the card list is sometimes acceptable and means you don't need to worry about a fix, it seems easy to offer.

I hadn't considered not having time to look at the list. And with automated matchmaking you aren't looking at it at all. If there's a box for "no fixed games plz" then no-one will be playing against innocent people who want to play with Develop a bunch. It could be that the recommended sets were built-in and pre-approved, you could pick one card with no flags, but checking the box would stop you from matching people who picked two cards. And uh as before maybe you can say "5 from Seaside" and man that's no fix.

I guess I think there is use for a casual ranking for matchmaking, but it's never going to be perfect.

I think the matchmaking issue kills the idea of just not rating casual games. That probably also reduces unrated games to a footnote though, see what I did there. You could have people rate themselves for casual matchmaking, or have a quiz, but odds are everyone is happier with people having a ranking from playing games.

4725

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Dominion Online set selection

« on: March 24, 2014, 03:11:48 pm »

- i don't see why veto/ban decisions have to be so concrete for a pro mode. we are using computers, we can do fancy things like probabilities. you could do something like give users X% points to distribute among cards, with that percent reducing the probability of seeing that card in a kingdom. if you want to burn it all to stop 2 cards from showing cool. if you want to just bias it against say alchemy cards then hey that's fine too. to me that allows you to achieve most of your enjoyment without adding in metagames or deviating too far from the full random model of competitive games.

It's great to have computers do fancy secret tricksy things. It's not so great to have an interface with lots of options you aren't using.