Print

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

[Donald X.]

So do you know (and can you share) anything about MF's plans for the client?

I think they are basically going to do everything that everyone would say they ought to, which obv. should include everything goko salvager does (unless it does some weird thing I don't know about). The short term goal is not to have problems, such as the lag thing which they are sure is a bug rather than anything to do with the amount of communication; the long term goal is to have a product capable of attracting enough players to actually make money (and, to attract those players).

I have been promised the fixed campaigns as I pitched them in the relatively short term. Again, I recommend not grinding for promos if you haven't yet. I certainly expect matchmaking and things you might find at a competent site, like a friends list and blocked list. I okay'd a VP counter for when that time comes. I expect achievements eventually.

I have no timetable, and they wouldn't want to share that anyway, in case problems came up. I have no idea what will happen with the other games Goko had done and the many other games Goko was planning to do.

[WanderingWinder]

Re: There's no skill in games where early luck deals very different start hands:
There's definitely LOTS of skill here. I think a big part of why top players are top players is that they play much better from behind (and weaker players don't slam the door as well as they should). This is just one of many examples of games I win where I had no business in being competitive. On the other hand, there's no denying that this kind of thing can even out percentages, effectively increasing the percentage of the game which is luck vs skill. Which, though Donald may not have a problem with, some people really do. Ultimately, though, to me, the problem I have with identical starting hands is that it is so inelegant - the opening split doesn't have so disproportionately more impact than first shuffle split or whatever, and you have this very artificial-feeling constraint. Because you can't have the same kind of mechanics you do without having some kind of luck at some point. It is a structural part of the game. So this is part of why I really support resignation rights - if you really feel that far behind, just resign. And if that happens so often for you, play a different game.

As for all the other stuff, one thing I don't want is a very splintered ruleset. Some people playing veto, some playing full random, some playing with partial ban cards - all of this is worse to me than any one of those options individually. I feel similarly actually about the ban mode - we are all playing slightly different variations. Of course, the thing isn't set up how I'd like now anyway, what with different set ownership being a bigger determination right now, as well as counting 2 player, 3 player, 4 player, etc. all on the same rating pool  But in any case, the big thing is, what is this supposed to be? And the problem is that people don't agree. And who should decide what it is is equally unclear. Donald is talking a lot about "well, but you shouldn't be able to game the system that's the only point of pro mode" (I use quotes here, but I'm actually paraphrasing - hopefully this is clear; and I will definitely change that if Donald feels it's a misrepresentation of his position). But the thing is, not everyone agrees that this is what pro mode is about. And moreover, there's REALLY no agreement on what's considered 'gaming' of the system. I basically see no qualitative difference between the suggestions are getting floated about, veto mode, and selective set buying/promo earning, at least in terms of system-gaming. And as authoritative as his tone is, I don't see why Donald's opinion would be the one that gets all the clout here. It matters, for sure. But I don't see why it should more than Stef's or Theory's or the OP here, or really anyone else. And I don't see why theirs counts more than his or each other's either.

[Watno]

I wouldn't be a fan of a small list of cards a player can ban, but wouldn't oppose such a thing either.

Regarding "same opening splits", I really don't see the point of adding it for laddr play where luck will ultimately even out. I'd be ok with using it in tournament series of limited length.

Would there be a problem to disallowing players that don't own all sets from hosting pro games? That would prevent gaming the system in this way.

[Awaclus]

Would there be a problem to disallowing players that don't own all sets from hosting pro games?

Yes, there most certainly would. I have bought two sets and they would be useless for me if I was suddenly disallowed from hosting pro games.

[Watno]

You could still host casual games and I don't think anything that is significantly different from a randomly generated kingdom from all cards should count towards the pro leaderboard (because playing good in another environment is a different skillset)

[Donald X.]

As for all the other stuff, one thing I don't want is a very splintered ruleset. Some people playing veto, some playing full random, some playing with partial ban cards - all of this is worse to me than any one of those options individually. I feel similarly actually about the ban mode - we are all playing slightly different variations.

I agree that there shouldn't be too many options - I don't want it to be, I required these five things and can't find someone who matches. I don't want it to be, let's try this game, ugh lots of options. I have no issue with the game being slightly different due to different banned cards - man, the ten kingdom cards are different each time. The game should provide options that people really want; then those people will be happier. Unless they want stuff that won't actually make them happy, see I am trying to think of all the angles.

Of course, the thing isn't set up how I'd like now anyway, what with different set ownership being a bigger determination right now, as well as counting 2 player, 3 player, 4 player, etc. all on the same rating pool 

It makes sense to have separate leaderboards by number of players, since obv. it's harder to win with more players and hey you play differently too. There's nothing I can do about some people not owning all the cards, we will have to live with whatever that means.

But the thing is, not everyone agrees that this is what pro mode is about.

Well, if you care what pro mode means, speak up, say what it should mean. In the end it will be whatever it is, whether people agreed on the way there or not. Be the change you want to see in pro mode.

And moreover, there's REALLY no agreement on what's considered 'gaming' of the system. I basically see no qualitative difference between the suggestions are getting floated about, veto mode, and selective set buying/promo earning, at least in terms of system-gaming.

Gaming the system is getting an advantage outside of playing better, that other people don't like. If not buying Black Market gives you an advantage, that's fine because so far no-one cares. If playing endless games of King's Court / Masquerade gives you an advantage, that's an issue because people care.

And as authoritative as his tone is, I don't see why Donald's opinion would be the one that gets all the clout here. It matters, for sure. But I don't see why it should more than Stef's or Theory's or the OP here, or really anyone else. And I don't see why theirs counts more than his or each other's either.

Well my opinion counts in that I can say "Making Fun guys, this is what to do, really," and have a decent chance of seeing that happen. You try it, see how it works for you. So I mean, if you can't convince me that "thing Donald X. doesn't like" is the way to go, I won't be pushing for it; I am human.

But I am here trying to hear what people want, talking to get stuff talked about. The system doesn't need to be maximally fun for me personally. Of course the most competitive players aren't the be-all end-all either.

[Donald X.]

Would there be a problem to disallowing players that don't own all sets from hosting pro games? That would prevent gaming the system in this way.

While we would like to encourage people to buy all of the sets, we also don't want to discourage them from buying the first set they buy. So this has no chance. And gaming the system that way isn't an issue as far as I can see, so hooray, living with that is not so bad.

[ragingduckd]

But the thing is, not everyone agrees that this is what pro mode is about.

Well, if you care what pro mode means, speak up, say what it should mean. In the end it will be whatever it is, whether people agreed on the way there or not. Be the change you want to see in pro mode.

I'd like to see Pro mode implement TrueSkill faithfully, without all the tweaks that Goko added.  There's no point in worrying about people gaming the system with veto-mode tricks while the underlying system remains as volatile and as easily gamed as it is right now.

PS: I already am the change I want to see.

[blueblimp]

Of course the most competitive players aren't the be-all end-all either.

I'd actually go farther and say that competitive players are irrelevant. I mean, there are what, probably less than 100 competitive online Dominion players. I forget how much buying all sets costs, but it's something like $40. So that's about $4000 there. Let's say a developer costs $80k per year (which is actually low for the silicon valley area). So competitive players can fund like 3 weeks of one developer's time, which is almost nothing.

Competitive players can sometimes help popularize a game but it's questionable how much primarily-online Dominion players actually can do this, given that watching streamed Dominion is not really a thing that many people do.

One thing competitive players do have going for them is that they are more willing to put up with problems in implementation than more casual players. For example, I may be annoyed by lag on Goko, but I'm still going to keep playing because I like Dominion. Casual players may just give up and move on to some other game. So what competitive players complain about can sometimes be an indicator of what will drive casual players away entirely.

All of this is obvious but I felt it's worth saying anyway since this board is skewed in the competitive direction.

[Kirian]

Of course the most competitive players aren't the be-all end-all either.

I'd actually go farther and say that competitive players are irrelevant. I mean, there are what, probably less than 100 competitive online Dominion players...

The current round of GokoDom started with 128 and a few alternates.  We still have over 100 people after three rounds.  I dare say that "willing to sign up for and play three rounds of a major organized tournament" is probably a higher cutoff than "competitive" is, so I think you underestimate how many competitive players there are.

[WanderingWinder]

But the thing is, not everyone agrees that this is what pro mode is about.

Well, if you care what pro mode means, speak up, say what it should mean. In the end it will be whatever it is, whether people agreed on the way there or not. Be the change you want to see in pro mode.

You presume I want change at all.
Ok, I do, but not so much as you think. I want there to be separate pools for different numbers of players, not because it's harder to win or whatever (I mean, that is something your rating system has to adjust for, for sure, but this also requires some determination of is 2nd better than 3rd or are you just trying to win, and all that stuff), but precisely because you play differently. You play a lot differently, really. Well, and then the king-making which exists, despite the intention of making things apolitical (and hey, it could be a LOT worse, don't get me wrong; generally you can't prevent kingmaking without the thing just being solitaire).
Okay, there's more, but it has to come after the next thing.

And moreover, there's REALLY no agreement on what's considered 'gaming' of the system. I basically see no qualitative difference between the suggestions are getting floated about, veto mode, and selective set buying/promo earning, at least in terms of system-gaming.

Gaming the system is getting an advantage outside of playing better, that other people don't like. If not buying Black Market gives you an advantage, that's fine because so far no-one cares. If playing endless games of King's Court / Masquerade gives you an advantage, that's an issue because people care.

This is just not true. People do care. I certainly care, and I'm not the only one. This came up a couple years ago, when some of the top players were having huge percentages of games with Colonies on them. It's a skew. It's definitely a skew that's available right now, too - buy only prosperity, you can get 50% of games you host to have colonies on them. That makes a big difference to the game. I mean, you can play all-base and get much different kinds of games. I definitely care.

I mean, there are a few cards I wouldn't play with, but I'm never for mandating that, or giving people the ability for that. This banned list business is the same veto-mode gaming of the system to me. It's not just about people setting up KC-Masq pins all the time - yeah, that's gaming, but people don't really do that, either. Oh yeah, there's the one guy who does it for a little while, then people learn to ignore him pretty fast. But the gaming is more about maneuvering some kind of meta-game to skew how often you play with whatever cards. I'm for full random here, more or less like it is now. Any kind of targeted banning allows for meta-game manipulation to happen, so I stick with full random - it is the most testing of the full range of skills, forces you to be well-rounded, etc. And it gives the diversity of games. And having mixed standards pollutes your ability to rank people accurately - they can only rank you on the games you play, so if Bob and Tim play under different conditions because of these banning shenanigans, it really limits our ability to know their relative strengths, because we aren't measuring their strengths at the same thing.

On the other hand, I think the main reason that people settled on this as the standard way of doing things is, well partly for reasons I get into a little here, but more for "You have to draw a line somewhere, where is good?" and the only real place that doesn't seem entirely arbitrary or tied-to-a-specific-person is this.

And as authoritative as his tone is, I don't see why Donald's opinion would be the one that gets all the clout here. It matters, for sure. But I don't see why it should more than Stef's or Theory's or the OP here, or really anyone else. And I don't see why theirs counts more than his or each other's either.

Well my opinion counts in that I can say "Making Fun guys, this is what to do, really," and have a decent chance of seeing that happen. You try it, see how it works for you. So I mean, if you can't convince me that "thing Donald X. doesn't like" is the way to go, I won't be pushing for it; I am human.

I mean this is precisely the issue I have though. Not that I expect you particularly to advocate for things you don't like (though really, you playing a lot online? Why does it matter to you? But this isn't important - if you feel like it matters to you, then it matters to you). But they listen to you (or maybe the won't, but this is working premise). Way disproportionately to anyone else. This boils down to a "You made the game" argument (not that this is what's going through your mind, but it has to be true - THE reason they're listening to you is you made the game). And I'm thoroughly unconvinced that this makes you a good person to shape the landscape of these kinds of organizational details. I mean, I dunno, maybe you're great at it. But like, the Magic Pro Tour isn't organized by Richard Garfield, and great as he is at a lot of things, I think it's probably better that it isn't. And so it dismays me that you can just say "that isn't happening for sure" to some idea like iso-veto mode, because you just shouldn't have that authority. I mean, I don't like veto mode either, so it's really not a content issue there, it's a process one. If a big majority of the community wanted exactly that, I think that should be listened to, despite you not liking it, despite me not liking it, whatever. The game is for the players. And of course they want to make money.

I fully understand they're not listening to me - they haven't really shown any signs of listening to almost anyone, really, and they haven't responded in about 4 weeks to me asking them about making videos of playing the game - yeah, I've given up on that happening. So I don't really see much point in trying - there's really no point in spending however much time on this if the response will be nothing. Not acceptance. Not denial. Not even a vague, "Oh that's interesting, we'll look at it/think about it," and who knows when or even if they actually will. Just nothing. So I'm not sure what your point with that was, other than "See, I have power and you don't," which was already pretty obvious. If you'll notice, my question wasn't about that - it was what SHOULD be happening. I'm very interested in shoulds.

But I am here trying to hear what people want, talking to get stuff talked about. The system doesn't need to be maximally fun for me personally. Of course the most competitive players aren't the be-all end-all either.

The game isn't a be-all and end-all. But if you're talking about the segment of their interface specifically marked as PRO, I don't understand why the voice you want to be heard isn't the Competitive Players' voice. I mean, you have other sections for people who aren't so competitive. Or I guess you can say you don't have any section for competitive players. If they want to do that, I guess that's their prerogative. I don't know what you expect people to do with that. "You guys aren't everything" - I mean, sure, nobody said we were. But if you're asking for our opinions, that's what you should expect.

[greatexpectations]

I'd actually go farther and say that competitive players are irrelevant.

here are some numbers from the final isotropic leaderboard. while im sure a few competitive players had alternate accounts, there are also some accounts that would have fallen off for inactivity.

games played - number of different players to hit that total
>50 - 5309
>100 - 4918
>500 - 3383
>1000 - 2331
>2000 - 1170
>5000 - 181
>8000 - 23

it's far from scientific, but id wager that someone who played over 1000 games (no matter the timespan) on an unofficial implementation is probably a "competitive" player. and for me at least, 2300 is not an irrelevant portion of the market. i am sure a good chunk of that number has moved on and doesn't play much on goko, but i would argue that a high quality product could bring back that number and then some.

i would also guess that there is the potential for them to generate some continuous income from those on the "very serious" end of the spectrum. a regular tournament format with a low cost of entry (say $3-$5) and some interesting prizes could probably earn back the development costs pretty quickly and could be a way to generate interest for potential customers.

[silverspawn]

And I'm thoroughly unconvinced that this makes you a good person to shape the landscape of these kinds of organizational details. I mean, I dunno, maybe you're great at it. But like, the Magic Pro Tour isn't organized by Richard Garfield, and great as he is at a lot of things, I think it's probably better that it isn't. And so it dismays me that you can just say "that isn't happening for sure" to some idea like iso-veto mode, because you just shouldn't have that authority. I mean, I don't like veto mode either, so it's really not a content issue there, it's a process one. If a big majority of the community wanted exactly that, I think that should be listened to, despite you not liking it, despite me not liking it, whatever. The game is for the players. And of course they want to make money.

This... I don't want to be offensive, but I don't get the reasoning behind posting this. Just tell me, why does it matter whether or not Donald X is best suited for having authority? Why does it have even the slightest bit of relevance? Really, there is one thing we should be doing right now, and that's trying to make the best out of the things we have, and what we have is the guy who created the game, someone who actually has a chance to make stuff happen, asking us about our opinions. And I don't want to be all fanboying like: "oh that's so great and selfless," even though it kind of is, but it just doesn't matter if it's a good thing that he has authority, because he does, and whether or not he would also have it in an ideal world has zero impact on our current situation. Just what actual, real improvement are you trying to cause with this post?

And besides all that

But I am here trying to hear what people want, talking to get stuff talked about.

I mean, what the fuck man, what would you have him do? Don't bother trying to do anything because he shouldn't even be in charge? You must disagree on his approach in some way, otherwise your posts lose any bit of purpose.

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but I really feel like you're not trying to accomplish anything, you're just trying to prove a point.

[WanderingWinder]

This... I don't want to be offensive...

...I mean, what the fuck man...

Sure. 

but I don't get the reasoning behind posting this. Just tell me, why does it matter whether or not Donald X is best suited for having authority? Why does it have even the slightest bit of relevance? Really, there is one thing we should be doing right now, and that's trying to make the best out of the things we have, and what we have is the guy who created the game, someone who actually has a chance to make stuff happen, asking us about our opinions. And I don't want to be all fanboying like: "oh that's so great and selfless," even though it kind of is, but it just doesn't matter if it's a good thing that he has authority, because he does, and whether or not he would also have it in an ideal world has zero impact on our current situation. Just what actual, real improvement are you trying to cause with this post?

Basically my point is that he shouldn't be some kind of players' representative to MF. He has his perspective, and that's fine. But the players have their perspective, too, and it's a different one. I mean, if he were actually just relaying "all these guys think this", that's vaguely okay (though really you want someone in the group as the representative, or things aren't ever going to get through exactly straight - through no fault of the representative). But even that isn't what's going on, in a couple ways. First, I seriously don't think that you're going to get a very representative sampling of what people think in the middle of some random "I hate this card" thread, of which there have been dozens and can easily get ignored. Not to mention that you're not going to get very many people supporting the status quo super vocally, because it's the status quo, and so people don't feel they need to say anything, not to mention that people aren't going to be saying so much anyway after having so long of Goko being unresponsive. Second, and more importantly, he isn't actually asking us for what we think and relaying what is said; he's putting forward what *he* thinks is best, and asking us for input o maybe help him form some ideas. But he's ultimately the one shaping everything, and basically already his own ideas, feelings, biases. Which is all perfectly natural, I wouldn't expect him to not have those.

As for why I talk about "should", you should always try to do what you should do, tautologically, so I think should is always an important thing to be worried about. I'm certainly not talking just about some ideal world - I am talking about "shoulds" within the context of what is possible. This isn't unicorns fairies.

And besides all that

But I am here trying to hear what people want, talking to get stuff talked about.

I mean, what the fuck man, what would you have him do? Don't bother trying to do anything because he shouldn't even be in charge? You must disagree on his approach in some way, otherwise your posts lose any bit of purpose.

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but I really feel like you're not trying to accomplish anything, you're just trying to prove a point.

I don't see how I'm making a point any more than you are, or than Donald is really. I'm trying to get people thinking and talking about this whole thing, just as he says he's trying to get people talking about the system. Yeah, I'm coming from a different perspective. But I'm definitely trying to accomplish something, whether you can see it or not. More importantly, I don't see what's wrong with making a point...

In any case, there are lots of examples of him imposing himself over different ideas and such. Not always, but lots of cases (all following boldings mine):

This idea to ban cards from consideration in generating the Kingdom seems like a great implementation of an optional "veto mode."

For example, the host of a pro game might choose whether the Kingdom will be generated according to "veto mode" (and this is a visible characteristic of the game). If so, each player's list of (up to) three cards won't be included in the Kingdom. Then a tournament's rules might require no veto mode, for example.

I'm not sure it would even to need to be an option, or that it causes issues with tournaments. For sure if it doesn't cause issues it should be allowed in tournaments.

The most extreme way to game the system is probably to not buy any expansions, and ban say Witch, Chapel, and Gardens. Then practice that mix a lot. I dunno, I'm not scared of that guy.

I could imagine a more complicated veto mode along the lines of what you're describing here as follows: the host of a game can activate Veto Mode (X cards), where X can't be greater than, for example, the number of sets they own. Then each player has a list of potentially banned cards and it takes the first X from that list as the banned cards.

Well for sure "less complicated" is better.

Someone who really likes a commonly banned card (let's follow this thread and suppose it is Tournament) might not want to play veto mode because that card will never show up.

I don't imagine anything will reach saturation point, but you can just force a card in casual (let's say if you try to join that game and have banned that card, it alerts you).

I'm not a fan of veto mode. But, allowing pre-banned cards sounds okay. But, to be honest, I would rather there be an outright ban list that the majority agree on and not banned just because people hate playing the card but ban the card because the card actually causes to many unbalanced games like Tournament, for instance.

There is no chance of a global banned list.

Would there be a problem to disallowing players that don't own all sets from hosting pro games? That would prevent gaming the system in this way.

While we would like to encourage people to buy all of the sets, we also don't want to discourage them from buying the first set they buy. So this has no chance. And gaming the system that way isn't an issue as far as I can see, so hooray, living with that is not so bad.

[WanderingWinder]

I'd like to make clear that, while I am saying I don't think that Donald should be the guy with any influence talking to the MF people, I don't mean that as an insult to him in any way. I certainly don't think that I should be that guy either, for what it's worth.

[Ozle]

Agreed,it clearly should be me

I shall begin writing amlist of demands.

First up, humourous noises like whizzes and pops when you buy or play certain cards.

[ragingduckd]

First up, humourous noises like whizzes and pops when you buy or play certain cards.

Done.  Humorous whizzes and pops will be implemented in the next release of Salvager.  There will be an option to disable it, but only with Ozle's permission.

[Beyond Awesome]

But the thing is, not everyone agrees that this is what pro mode is about.

Well, if you care what pro mode means, speak up, say what it should mean. In the end it will be whatever it is, whether people agreed on the way there or not. Be the change you want to see in pro mode.

You presume I want change at all.
Ok, I do, but not so much as you think. I want there to be separate pools for different numbers of players, not because it's harder to win or whatever (I mean, that is something your rating system has to adjust for, for sure, but this also requires some determination of is 2nd better than 3rd or are you just trying to win, and all that stuff), but precisely because you play differently. You play a lot differently, really. Well, and then the king-making which exists, despite the intention of making things apolitical (and hey, it could be a LOT worse, don't get me wrong; generally you can't prevent kingmaking without the thing just being solitaire).
Okay, there's more, but it has to come after the next thing.

And moreover, there's REALLY no agreement on what's considered 'gaming' of the system. I basically see no qualitative difference between the suggestions are getting floated about, veto mode, and selective set buying/promo earning, at least in terms of system-gaming.

Gaming the system is getting an advantage outside of playing better, that other people don't like. If not buying Black Market gives you an advantage, that's fine because so far no-one cares. If playing endless games of King's Court / Masquerade gives you an advantage, that's an issue because people care.

This is just not true. People do care. I certainly care, and I'm not the only one. This came up a couple years ago, when some of the top players were having huge percentages of games with Colonies on them. It's a skew. It's definitely a skew that's available right now, too - buy only prosperity, you can get 50% of games you host to have colonies on them. That makes a big difference to the game. I mean, you can play all-base and get much different kinds of games. I definitely care.

I mean, there are a few cards I wouldn't play with, but I'm never for mandating that, or giving people the ability for that. This banned list business is the same veto-mode gaming of the system to me. It's not just about people setting up KC-Masq pins all the time - yeah, that's gaming, but people don't really do that, either. Oh yeah, there's the one guy who does it for a little while, then people learn to ignore him pretty fast. But the gaming is more about maneuvering some kind of meta-game to skew how often you play with whatever cards. I'm for full random here, more or less like it is now. Any kind of targeted banning allows for meta-game manipulation to happen, so I stick with full random - it is the most testing of the full range of skills, forces you to be well-rounded, etc. And it gives the diversity of games. And having mixed standards pollutes your ability to rank people accurately - they can only rank you on the games you play, so if Bob and Tim play under different conditions because of these banning shenanigans, it really limits our ability to know their relative strengths, because we aren't measuring their strengths at the same thing.

On the other hand, I think the main reason that people settled on this as the standard way of doing things is, well partly for reasons I get into a little here, but more for "You have to draw a line somewhere, where is good?" and the only real place that doesn't seem entirely arbitrary or tied-to-a-specific-person is this.

And as authoritative as his tone is, I don't see why Donald's opinion would be the one that gets all the clout here. It matters, for sure. But I don't see why it should more than Stef's or Theory's or the OP here, or really anyone else. And I don't see why theirs counts more than his or each other's either.

Well my opinion counts in that I can say "Making Fun guys, this is what to do, really," and have a decent chance of seeing that happen. You try it, see how it works for you. So I mean, if you can't convince me that "thing Donald X. doesn't like" is the way to go, I won't be pushing for it; I am human.

I mean this is precisely the issue I have though. Not that I expect you particularly to advocate for things you don't like (though really, you playing a lot online? Why does it matter to you? But this isn't important - if you feel like it matters to you, then it matters to you). But they listen to you (or maybe the won't, but this is working premise). Way disproportionately to anyone else. This boils down to a "You made the game" argument (not that this is what's going through your mind, but it has to be true - THE reason they're listening to you is you made the game). And I'm thoroughly unconvinced that this makes you a good person to shape the landscape of these kinds of organizational details. I mean, I dunno, maybe you're great at it. But like, the Magic Pro Tour isn't organized by Richard Garfield, and great as he is at a lot of things, I think it's probably better that it isn't. And so it dismays me that you can just say "that isn't happening for sure" to some idea like iso-veto mode, because you just shouldn't have that authority. I mean, I don't like veto mode either, so it's really not a content issue there, it's a process one. If a big majority of the community wanted exactly that, I think that should be listened to, despite you not liking it, despite me not liking it, whatever. The game is for the players. And of course they want to make money.

I fully understand they're not listening to me - they haven't really shown any signs of listening to almost anyone, really, and they haven't responded in about 4 weeks to me asking them about making videos of playing the game - yeah, I've given up on that happening. So I don't really see much point in trying - there's really no point in spending however much time on this if the response will be nothing. Not acceptance. Not denial. Not even a vague, "Oh that's interesting, we'll look at it/think about it," and who knows when or even if they actually will. Just nothing. So I'm not sure what your point with that was, other than "See, I have power and you don't," which was already pretty obvious. If you'll notice, my question wasn't about that - it was what SHOULD be happening. I'm very interested in shoulds.

But I am here trying to hear what people want, talking to get stuff talked about. The system doesn't need to be maximally fun for me personally. Of course the most competitive players aren't the be-all end-all either.

The game isn't a be-all and end-all. But if you're talking about the segment of their interface specifically marked as PRO, I don't understand why the voice you want to be heard isn't the Competitive Players' voice. I mean, you have other sections for people who aren't so competitive. Or I guess you can say you don't have any section for competitive players. If they want to do that, I guess that's their prerogative. I don't know what you expect people to do with that. "You guys aren't everything" - I mean, sure, nobody said we were. But if you're asking for our opinions, that's what you should expect.

I agree with everything you have said here.

[Donald X.]

Well, if you care what pro mode means, speak up, say what it should mean. In the end it will be whatever it is, whether people agreed on the way there or not. Be the change you want to see in pro mode.

You presume I want change at all.
Ok, I do, but not so much as you think.

Man, I am not trying to speculate as to exactly how much change you want. I say "if you care" right there, as if I am carefully accounting for the possibility that you don't. Did you miss that? Do you just like being contrary?

Gaming the system is getting an advantage outside of playing better, that other people don't like. If not buying Black Market gives you an advantage, that's fine because so far no-one cares. If playing endless games of King's Court / Masquerade gives you an advantage, that's an issue because people care.

This is just not true. People do care. I certainly care, and I'm not the only one. This came up a couple years ago, when some of the top players were having huge percentages of games with Colonies on them. It's a skew. It's definitely a skew that's available right now, too - buy only prosperity, you can get 50% of games you host to have colonies on them. That makes a big difference to the game. I mean, you can play all-base and get much different kinds of games. I definitely care.

Well prior to this moment I have never heard of someone caring about whether or not someone else bought Black Market.

I will move on from that starting point. It is not feasible to account for whether or not people own Black Market. It's not fixable. Perhaps the worst case is buying Prosperity and getting Colony more; I see no solution. Perhaps someone will offer one up.

This banned list business is the same veto-mode gaming of the system to me.

It seems way different to me; if we veto two cards out of twelve every game, lots of cards are getting banned all the time that would rarely be banned the "pick three for all games" way.

I'm for full random here, more or less like it is now.

I was asking for opinions and hooray you got to yours.

And having mixed standards pollutes your ability to rank people accurately - they can only rank you on the games you play, so if Bob and Tim play under different conditions because of these banning shenanigans, it really limits our ability to know their relative strengths, because we aren't measuring their strengths at the same thing.

Here's a thing. Many people are surprised when they learn the tiebreaker rule. They have not been paying attention at all to the fact that some players got more turns. It's invisible to them. Are those people considering that someone got an unfair advantage on the leaderboard from banning Mountebank? They so aren't. And perception is everything here.

This boils down to a "You made the game" argument (not that this is what's going through your mind, but it has to be true - THE reason they're listening to you is you made the game). And I'm thoroughly unconvinced that this makes you a good person to shape the landscape of these kinds of organizational details.

Suck it up! Suck it up WanderingWinder, that's what I have to say to you. Slurp slurp, I have not stressed this enough.

I think it's important in situations like this to take a step back, take a break, breathe. I have done so. While carefully considering what exactly I wanted to say. It still looks like that.

Here's something interesting. If you weren't just trying to show how entitled you feel and how you didn't come here to make friends, if you were approaching this like a game, the make online Dominion better game, which you intend to win, then you would see that in fact if I wasn't in this ridiculous position of having control over this thing I made, as if, then whoever was next in line would care far less about what players want. In fact first there were people who would have given you farmville; then the people who got the job also wanted to give you farmville.

There was more to your post but who cares! I am done with you. If you have something to say, say it someone else.

Let me know if you are sick of me already guys; how dare I try to help, amirite? If you guys think I can't stomach someone saying how much I suck then I don't know what to tell you; they say it all the time at BGG and I have no problems there. But man I have better things to do with my time, who doesn't.

[Donald X.]

I agree with everything you have said here.

Noted!

[Donald X.]

I think I figured it out. When I go on BGG, and someone says, "I hate Dominion, Donald X. sucks," man, you can't please everyone. When I say, "I am too busy playtesting to play games that aren't mine," and someone says, "wow he sucks," man, that's ridiculous, it takes all kinds, it's not like I'm having a conversation even. I'd like to be liked but it never bothers me much.

But when someone says "help" and I say "maybe I can get that fixed" and someone else says "wow it sucks that you have that power," man, I just want them to have an itch they can never scratch, a rash that won't go away, a cough they really should see a doctor about.

[Alexmf]

I really don't know how the discussion heated up like that, definitely unnecessary. Calm down.

Since it was asked for opinions, I just want to briefly add mine: In Pro Mode, full random should be played and nothing else.

[Kirian]

I was going to try to stay out of this, but, WW, just...

Seriously, Donald comes back after a year's hiatus and... this is how he gets treated?  I have to echo Silverspawn, but without the claim that I'm not trying to be offensive:

What. The. Fuck. WW?  Fine, you're interested in "should" rather that what is true, because, I don't know, you think you're an ethicist philosopher and want to argue the is-ought thing that I see people bring up online in various arenas, but come on, save that shit for RPS.  Here's a couple of "should" ideas for you:

(1) People should generally try to treat others with respect, and
(2) What someone isn't doing that, others should call them on the carpet for it.  So that's what I'm doing, and I'm going to go ahead and skip number (1) but at least own up to doing it rather than hiding behind some sort of wishy-washy "oh, I just meant that things should be this way" bullshit.

Are you really going to suggest, to his face, that Donald shouldn't have a power that (1) he doesn't have to use and (2) he's willing to use in ways you might want him to after being persuaded.  Because maybe what you should do is try to make persuasive arguments in favor of your position instead of bashing the guy discussing your opinions.  What the fuck, man?

For all the bitching I did about the decline of Iso and the ascendance of Funsockets/Goko/Making Fun over the course of the last, what, three years, and I think if I'm entitled to nothing else I'm entitled to the position of "loudest bitcher about Goko", I've never felt it necessary to suggest that Donald was in any position other than that of messenger.  I tossed a lot of guff at Jay, at RGG, at FunSockets, and at a number of forum members, but I will eat my hat if you can find an instance where I blamed Donald for this stuff.  He has done nothing but try to pass messages from us to Goko or us to Dougz or us to Jay and vice versa.  Even when those messages were about boycotts.

Stop.  Killing.  The.  Messenger.

Donald... Thank you for being willing to interact with us, answer questions, give your opinions, pass ideas on to Making Fun, and so on.   I will completely understand if you disappear from this forum again, and just go do what you do best which is designing games.  I've half a mind to leave myself.

[WanderingWinder]

So people seem to be really upset, and I'm uh, not? So let me try to say this in the simplest way I can.

I'm a competitive player. This is a community of competitive players. I have a view that it would be nice if there were a scene for competitive Dominion, and I think that's shared.

Donald has his view of the way things should be. That's a fine view, I don't have a problem with him having it. It is a different view, though, than the competitive one.

He created the game, and so he's definitely THE guy you want to go to if you have questions about design or history, and one of the best for the process of development/publishing (maybe Jay would be better, but whatever, Donald is good). He's not a competitive player though. You ask designers about design issues, you ask players about play issues.

I don't have any ill will to Donald, for sure. I don't think he's the guy to represent competitive players' views, because I don't think he agrees with them, and it's not generally reasonable to expect or ask people to represent positions they disagree with.

[WanderingWinder]

I was going to try to stay out of this, but, WW, just...

Seriously, Donald comes back after a year's hiatus and... this is how he gets treated?  I have to echo Silverspawn, but without the claim that I'm not trying to be offensive:

What. The. Fuck. WW?  Fine, you're interested in "should" rather that what is true,

There's no dichotomy between what should be and what is true. Like, I assume you mean what should be and what is - well what is the point of having any discussion but to try to have some kind of impact on changing the way things are to be closer than they should be, within the bounds of what is possible? No seriously, why do you have discussions? A should be issue is how this started, yeah? Isn't Donald asking people how the pro mode should be, in terms of meta-rules?

because, I don't know, you think you're an ethicist philosopher and want to argue the is-ought thing that I see people bring up online in various arenas, but come on, save that shit for RPS.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "the is-ought thing", but what I am talking about is what should be (again, given the constraints of what is possible) - and I entirely fail to see how this should ever be a non-permitted subject. I don't WANT to be anywhere you can't discuss that.

Here's a couple of "should" ideas for you:

(1) People should generally try to treat others with respect, and
(2) What someone isn't doing that, others should call them on the carpet for it.  So that's what I'm doing, and I'm going to go ahead and skip number (1) but at least own up to doing it rather than hiding behind some sort of wishy-washy "oh, I just meant that things should be this way" bullshit.

I agree with 1. I actually disagree with 2, at least in such stark terms, but whatever, I don't have such a problem with it. I do have a problem with you claiming that 1 is important and then immediately ignoring it - it's grossly inconsistent, and makes it seem like you don't actually hold 1 to be important at all.

Are you really going to suggest, to his face, that Donald shouldn't have a power that (1) he doesn't have to use and (2) he's willing to use in ways you might want him to after being persuaded.

Yes. Isn't that what I just did? My point isn't at all about what is good for me. If person Z has power and shouldn't, I'm going to have problems with it regardless of whether (s)he is using it to my benefit. I'm not interested in what is good for me, I'm interested in what is right (which, when it comes down to it, is best for everyone, me included). I don't understand what is crazy about this.

Because maybe what you should do is try to make persuasive arguments in favor of your position

My position is that he shouldn't be representing the competitive community. I am trying to make persuasive arguments in favor of that position.

instead of bashing the guy discussing your opinions.  What the fuck, man?

I don't think I am bashing Donald. I mean, you talk like I'm disrespecting him, and I guess that saying he shouldn't be guy to represent the competitive viewpoint is disrespecting him, in the sense that if I respected him to the extent that I thought he were supremely qualified to do absolutely everything, I wouldn't say this. This is a pretty weird standard, though. Is it disrespecting Mother Theresa to say I don't think she should be in control of Scientific Research in trying to refine the Standard Model of particle physics? I seriously fail to see what I've done to disrespect him other than say he shouldn't be the guy, and I fail to see why "you shouldn't be the guy" is so absurdly offensive, particularly when at the same time I am saying that I shouldn't be the guy either. It's really not intended to be a slight on him.

For all the bitching I did about the decline of Iso and the ascendance of Funsockets/Goko/Making Fun over the course of the last, what, three years, and I think if I'm entitled to nothing else I'm entitled to the position of "loudest bitcher about Goko", I've never felt it necessary to suggest that Donald was in any position other than that of messenger.  I tossed a lot of guff at Jay, at RGG, at FunSockets, and at a number of forum members, but I will eat my hat if you can find an instance where I blamed Donald for this stuff.  He has done nothing but try to pass messages from us to Goko or us to Dougz or us to Jay and vice versa.  Even when those messages were about boycotts.

Stop.  Killing.  The.  Messenger.

Again, I fail to see how I'm killing him. Quite frankly, I don't understand how the whole boycott business wasn't way more out there than this, but whatever. Yeah, he's the messenger - this is my entire problem. Why should he be the messenger?