Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  All

Author Topic: Dominion Online set selection  (Read 36503 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12848
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Dominion Online set selection
« Reply #75 on: March 25, 2014, 12:52:41 pm »
+4

with this logic you could also allow players to play tetris instead of dominion if both choose to, cause, you know, both players have the same experience, so it's fair. the point is that, if player A and B have lots of cards banned, players C and D don't and they play A vs B and C vs D, then you have different players having significantly different experiences and yet are both placed on the same leaderbord, as are the tetris guys.
It's already allowed, you can play Tetris and the one with the lower score resigns the game of Dominion.

EDIT: And this was probably very unfair, too. Me and yed totally had an unfair advantage because we didn't follow the official rules of Dominion and starve to death.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 02:37:48 pm by Awaclus »
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

SCSN

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2227
  • Respect: +7140
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Online set selection
« Reply #76 on: March 25, 2014, 01:40:20 pm »
+1

No one in their right mind is going to buy all sets and then put 150 cards on their ban list, and certainly not enough people to affect the integrity of the leaderboard in any way whatsoever. Focus on plausible real-world scenarios, not on abstract and remote hypotheticals that will never in a million years materialize; we're not at a Philosophy faculty, after all :D

uh, why? I mean, in the end it depends on the interface. If you have to drag&drop every card manually, then yes, few people will ban out more than, let's say 20. But if you do it differently, I don't see any reason why splitting 200/5 makes any more sense than splitting 100/100. Saying "I'll play these 200 cards a little bit more often than these 5" isn't any more logical than saying "I prefer this half of all cards over this one". You're going to see the all of the cards anway, it's not like you're just throwing away half of the product you bought. I definitely wasn't trying to theorize stuff that will never happen, i thought it was a legit problem. But, maybe it's not. It also matters how you present the list, people will be less inclined to put half of their cards on it if it reads "ban list"

I just don't see why it's a problem. Well, you certainly don't want arbitrarily long lists for the "if ANY player banned this" condition, but even in the most extreme case of "if EACH player banned this", i.e. two players who each want to play the same exact kingdom over and over again, I don't see why this shouldn't count towards the leaderboard: to the extent that their relative performance is not an accurate reflection of their relative dominion skills, the player who's skill is being underestimated in this match-up simply has no incentive for playing it in pro mode.

The best argument against an arbitrarily long ban list is a purely practical one: because it's unfair in the ANY mode you have to work with seperate lists for the ANY and EACH mode (or introduce a way to truncate the EACH list), which is inelegant and will confuse quite alot of people, and because almost everyone's needs are adequately met by a single limited ban list, that is the way to go.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Online set selection
« Reply #77 on: March 25, 2014, 02:19:30 pm »
+1

What might the options be? Default *'d for when no-one cares.
- 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]
- *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
-- 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]

I would strongly prefer that my bolded "don't care" be the default. If "full random" is the default, I will be able to find approximately zero games if I click on either "random from two available expansions" or "random recommended set" using automatch. I'm operating under the assumption that once automatch is implemented, pretty much everyone will use it, and most of the people who care about the settings are not going to switch to anything other than "full random". Anybody who does will find zero games and will switch to full random and then the next such person will also find zero games, etc. So yeah, at that point why even have anything but full random.

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.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 02:35:56 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Online set selection
« Reply #78 on: March 25, 2014, 03:37:50 pm »
+1

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.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Online set selection
« Reply #79 on: March 25, 2014, 03:48:00 pm »
0

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."
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Online set selection
« Reply #80 on: March 25, 2014, 03:54:06 pm »
+1

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.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Online set selection
« Reply #81 on: March 25, 2014, 03:55:31 pm »
0

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."

And the boards are fully randomized from available cards (rather than being randomized some other way, etc.). That's important to some people, although I am not one of them. I'd be fine with "5 each from 2 sets" being ranked for pro games.

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.

Understood. Apologies for not comprehending the distinction between "default" and "default".  :)
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 03:56:35 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

DG

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4074
  • Respect: +2624
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Online set selection
« Reply #82 on: March 25, 2014, 03:55:39 pm »
+1

Quote
Each player has the ability to "turn off" any and all non-Base Set cards that he has purchased

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.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Online set selection
« Reply #83 on: March 25, 2014, 04:01:43 pm »
0

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.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Online set selection
« Reply #84 on: March 25, 2014, 04:07:01 pm »
0

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.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Online set selection
« Reply #85 on: March 25, 2014, 04:20:15 pm »
0

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.

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.

I'm not sure how these two fit together, or with automatch in general.

• 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.

• 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"?

EDIT: Nevermind. After going back and rereading this post, I think I get it. So you'd only be specifying parameters like "5 Seaside, 5 Prosperity" if you specifically chose to host a game, rather than just hitting "match me". Obviously you are not being matched with other hosts, which is fine. Chances are good that joiners far outnumber hosts.

I suppose that if someone is specifically hosting a game and it has a card on your hate list, you won't get automatched to that table and it either won't appear for you or it'll have a warning box like I mentioned.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 04:38:38 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Online set selection
« Reply #86 on: March 25, 2014, 04:43:42 pm »
+1

• 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.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 04:49:34 pm by Donald X. »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Online set selection
« Reply #87 on: March 25, 2014, 04:48:32 pm »
+1

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.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Online set selection
« Reply #88 on: March 25, 2014, 09:06:50 pm »
0

Now that I think I have a better understanding of the proposed system, here are some thoughts along the lines of perhaps simplifying the number of checkboxes, etc. There are effectively these four ways to create a board:

• Random: Full random from all cards.
• Classic: Randomly pick 2 sets and then randomly pick half the cards from each, adding promos proportionally.
• Suggested: Randomly pick a "Suggested Set of 10".
• Manual: Manually create a board.

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

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.

Then we have to ask, which types of games qualify for Pro and which can only be Casual? Certainly "Random" type games qualify for Pro. Personally I wouldn't mind if "Classic" games could also be Pro, but I'm not going to kick and scream if that doesn't happen. 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).
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 11:03:21 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Online set selection
« Reply #89 on: March 25, 2014, 09:52:26 pm »
0

If the kingdom was generated from all of the cards owned by all players involved rather than just the host, I would have no problem joining almost any 2p pro game. I guess this would be more troublesome for casual/unrated if the kingdom is supposed to be generated before the game starts.
I find it hard to believe they will ever want to be more generous than the already friendly "play with all the cards the host bought."
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.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Online set selection
« Reply #90 on: March 25, 2014, 10:50:08 pm »
0

If the kingdom was generated from all of the cards owned by all players involved rather than just the host, I would have no problem joining almost any 2p pro game. I guess this would be more troublesome for casual/unrated if the kingdom is supposed to be generated before the game starts.
I find it hard to believe they will ever want to be more generous than the already friendly "play with all the cards the host bought."
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.

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.

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:

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.

Option 3 is a non-starter. It basically guarantees that nobody who bought cards will use automatch. I like Option 2. It eliminates an option field and rewards those who bought the cards by guaranteeing that they're not put into Base Set only games.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Online set selection
« Reply #91 on: March 26, 2014, 01:45:03 am »
+1

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.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Online set selection
« Reply #92 on: March 26, 2014, 01:52:44 am »
0

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.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Online set selection
« Reply #93 on: March 26, 2014, 02:03:34 am »
0

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.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Online set selection
« Reply #94 on: March 26, 2014, 03:37:21 am »
0

with this logic you could also allow players to play tetris instead of dominion if both choose to, cause, you know, both players have the same experience, so it's fair. the point is that, if player A and B have lots of cards banned, players C and D don't and they play A vs B and C vs D, then you have different players having significantly different experiences and yet are both placed on the same leaderbord, as are the tetris guys.
It's already allowed, you can play Tetris and the one with the lower score resigns the game of Dominion.

To interject with trivia, MtG Tournament floor rules ban subgames like this explicitly
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Online set selection
« Reply #95 on: March 26, 2014, 10:34:26 am »
0

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."

I am sympathetic to this, having myself entered and systematically played all the recommended sets of 10 on Dominion Online. In my opinion, though, "trap" is a spectrum, with something like a KC/Masq pin simply being at the most egregious end. If some guy is choosing to repeatedly play the same set of 10 cards hundreds of times, even if it's a suggested set, I'd say maybe those games shouldn't be rated.

But I'm not going to push too hard on this point. The less meaningful the Casual rating is, the less I'll care about it, which means more good times for me. So, huzzah!

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.

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.

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?

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.).

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

I think this is a more reasonable list:

Default *'d for when no-one cares; "don't care" is the actual default selection.
• 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)
• maximum opponent quit% (*100)
• find opponents from friend-list only (Yes/*No)
• 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

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]
« Last Edit: March 26, 2014, 11:27:44 am by LastFootnote »
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Online set selection
« Reply #96 on: March 26, 2014, 11:32:53 am »
0

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.

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).
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Online set selection
« Reply #97 on: March 26, 2014, 05:28:22 pm »
0

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.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Online set selection
« Reply #98 on: March 26, 2014, 05:43:20 pm »
+1

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.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Dominion Online set selection
« Reply #99 on: March 26, 2014, 06:24:35 pm »
+1

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 think we mostly agree. I was aiming for "if you manually create the board, it's automatically an unrated game" because that's very easy to remember and understand. So by that qualifier, your example would have to be unrated because you had to host a table to make it happen, rather than choosing one of the three "random" game styles. If I understand you, what you want is more flexible. Your "manually created" games can still be rated, but only if the number of actually selected cards is at or below the opponent's threshold AND you didn't see the randomly-chosen cards before the game started. Or maybe just that second part and you just don't get matched with players who have a low enough threshold. I don't see that as ideal, especially if the threshold is 1, because then you maybe create a board with 2 or more specific cards and wait and wonder why nobody is being matched to your game.

Again, I'm pushing for simplicity here and your proposed method seems complex to me.

Part of my bias is also that I don't see unrated games as being such a penalty. "Oh, I created this custom set and why can't I play a rated game with it?" Man, cry me a river. It's not like being unrated magically sucks all the fun you would have had out of the game. People buy physical Dominion sets and manage to have plenty of fun playing those despite the fact that they aren't climbing up or down a leaderboard.

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.

Sure, I wasn't suggesting dividing the sets into their different Goko pieces. We are in agreement there.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that repeatedly playing the same (perfectly valid, non-trap) board a hundred times [is/is not] OK to rate. If you don't see a problem with it, I don't think I'm going to convince you.

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.

Yes, there was a misunderstanding there. You should obviously be able to make any game unrated.

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.

Right, but again, that means that players who pick more than 1 are just waiting around, wondering why nobody is joining their game.

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.

Let me be more clear. What I'm suggesting is the abolishment of "minimum # of sets" setting and that players are matched without taking that variable into consideration at all. If you bought all the sets, well then all the games you play will have access to all the cards because the player with more cards hosts. If you bought nothing, sometimes you get matched to someone with bought cards, sometimes not. If two people have bought cards and one set of cards is not a subset of the other, maybe randomize who hosts weighted by who has more cards. That way even if you have, say, 6 of the expansions, you will occasionally be matched with someone who has the one you don't have, but not everything.

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.

I agree that 4 is a better default maximum than 6.

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.

Is that what most people will prefer? I think it's probably a huge pain in the neck to manually modify your settings as your rating goes up/down. Having it automatically slide so that you're playing opponents about at your skill level is arguably the most of the point of having a rating, and I'm not sure why anybody would prefer the manual system.

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.

Sure, sure. The idea was that you click on "Manually created table" and it brings you to the table-creation window and you make your table and then you are hosting. You say tomato, I say tomato. If that option shouldn't even be on this screen, cool.

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.

The question is, do you want to enforce seeing cards with approximately equal frequency? If not, great. You can just pick two expansions randomly and you'll see each Hinterlands card about half as often as each Alchemy card, and each Dark Ages card with even less frequency, etc.

Say all you have access to is Base Set and Cornucopia. It is mathematically impossible to see your Base Set cards as often as your Cornucopia cards if you insist that your games are half Base and half Cornucopia. If you add Alchemy, then you can do it by having half your games Base/Cornucopia and half Base/Alchemy. You will never play an Alchemy/Cornucopia set, though.

Even when the number of sets you own gets larger, the math for choosing exactly two expansions and still seeing your cards with about equal frequency is nontrivial. Like seriously, take out a pencil and paper and try to generalize it. I gave up and I have a B.A. in Mathematics.

Conversely, if you allow occasional games of 10 cards from one normal-sized or large set, the math is trivially easy. See my slips-of-paper-in-a-hat method from earlier in this thread.

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

I don't care how the hate-list stuff turns out. Or rather, if the hate-list is limited to 3 cards as you initially proposed, I can live with that.

EDIT: Sorry, misunderstood. You meant how I took it off of the list of options. Yeah, either the hate list should apply to Pro or it shouldn't. Period. I don't care which way it goes. Obviously it should apply to Casual games or what's the point? Having a setting of "Union of hated cards/Intersection of hated cards" is just another needless option that complicates the automatch interface and makes it harder to find games.

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.

I understand that it's a feature. I had assumed that the feature was primarily there for groups of people who knew each other in real life to jump online and play with the cards without everybody needing to buy them. If it was actually intended to (also) enable about half the random-match players to not buy into the system, well color me surprised.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2014, 06:35:56 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  All
 

Page created in 0.073 seconds with 21 queries.