Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11  All

Author Topic: Features Thread  (Read 107420 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1762
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
  • Respect: +2017
    • View Profile
Re: Features Thread
« Reply #100 on: April 09, 2015, 08:05:26 pm »
0

While I agree it's not a high priority, I feel like being able to manipulate how kingdoms are picked is something that would take a relatively small amount of time to implement but have a high reward for those who will use it.
Logged

GeoLib

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 965
  • Respect: +1265
    • View Profile
Re: Features Thread
« Reply #101 on: April 09, 2015, 08:36:15 pm »
+2

While I agree it's not a high priority, I feel like being able to manipulate how kingdoms are picked is something that would take a relatively small amount of time to implement but have a high reward for those who will use it.

But is also a very contentious issue for ranked games.
Logged
"All advice is awful"
 —Count Grishnakh

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1762
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
  • Respect: +2017
    • View Profile
Re: Features Thread
« Reply #102 on: April 09, 2015, 08:45:09 pm »
0

While I agree it's not a high priority, I feel like being able to manipulate how kingdoms are picked is something that would take a relatively small amount of time to implement but have a high reward for those who will use it.

But is also a very contentious issue for ranked games.

Some options would be contentious (banning cards etc), while for example, choosing the number of sets or which sets to use from the ones you have shouldn't be an issue, since you have such options anyway by simply not purchasing sets.
Logged

Watno

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Shuffle iT Username: Watno
  • Respect: +2982
    • View Profile
Re: Features Thread
« Reply #103 on: April 09, 2015, 09:14:37 pm »
0

I think all sets should be required for (pro-)rated games, so if someone doesn't have all of them, they can only play rated games with soemone who does (if the sharing model stays the same).
Logged

JW

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 968
  • Shuffle iT Username: JW
  • Respect: +1781
    • View Profile
Re: Features Thread
« Reply #104 on: April 09, 2015, 09:22:22 pm »
+2

I think all sets should be required for (pro-)rated games, so if someone doesn't have all of them, they can only play rated games with soemone who does (if the sharing model stays the same).

This is not going to be implemented because it reduces the incentive to buy the first set.

In the current setup, it would be good if you could see how many sets someone had when they hosted a pro game in the lobbies. Any automatch feature should let you specify a minimum number of sets to match with someone as in the current Salvager feature. Salvager makes the person with more cards the host, so if you own all the cards, you'll get to play games with all the cards. With those features in place, I'd see no reason to require all sets for pro games.
Logged

theblankman

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 461
  • Respect: +383
    • View Profile
Re: Features Thread
« Reply #105 on: April 10, 2015, 03:14:32 pm »
0

This is not a high priority, but it would sometimes be nice to have an option to “cancel game” if all players agreed, which didn't have any impact on players’ ratings. This could be used to avoid what all players agree is an awful board, or to resolve a stalemate (e.g., involving Possession). To avoid repeated pestering, it could be that if I offer to cancel the game and you decline, I can't offer again until you have done so.

I don't think "cancel kingdom" will happen.  I was one of the people to pitch it in older threads, Donald X came out strongly against it with simple examples of how one could use it to game ratings, and I eventually got convinced he was right and stopped talking about it.  Similar things went down with some of the other veto-like proposals, and other ideas for giving players partial control over rated kingdoms.  Pretty much anything allows some amount of ratings-gaming, so there's no perfect solution, and I think DXV has already decided which of the imperfect ones to recommend to MF. 

For a rated-but-kingdom-controlled format, I do have an idea that might get around the ratings-gaming issues, but it gets around them by turning kingdom selection into a metagame deliberately, which makes it so different from the current pro that if it were ever implemented it would probably warrant a separate leaderboard.  Inspired by MtG draft tournaments, you could have a "drafted kingdom" format, where players take turns adding a card until the kingdom is complete, and then play that kingdom.  I don't now if this would even be fun, let alone whether MF ought to implement it, it's just something that occurred to me at some point during all those other threads. 
Logged
it's a shame that full-random is the de facto standard

theblankman

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 461
  • Respect: +383
    • View Profile
Re: Features Thread
« Reply #106 on: April 10, 2015, 03:24:29 pm »
+4

Exposing the client source code or the server API would be really nice.  However great a job you guys do on the UI, there will be plenty of potential customers who want something more or different, and plenty of other folks who will cheerfully oblige them if you make your platform accessible.

Incidentally, I see some requests for Salvager features in this thread.  Please don't conclude from those requests that people really want Salvager's UI quirks.

People are asking for Automatch or Autokick because they're better than the horror of with Goko's ill-conceived and half-finished UI.  But Automatch and Autokick are crap compared to a seek graph or even a simple seek command and formula-based challenge system like ICC has.

This!  People have been asking for the letter of what Salvager does, I've even said "don't lose features from Salvager without replacing them," but the "without replacing them" part is important.  If you want to use a published matching algorithm that works better than what's been done with Salvager that's great.  Or use an alternative to whatever other feature Salvager provides.  Just don't summarily drop the things Salvager added. 

And I'm glad to have someone else here advocating for an accessible/extensible platform, hi Andrew!  Relatively few of us would be directly impacted by that (the folks who would code to it), but there's a big potential for indirect benefit through many people using what others create. 
Logged
it's a shame that full-random is the de facto standard

JW

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 968
  • Shuffle iT Username: JW
  • Respect: +1781
    • View Profile
Re: Features Thread
« Reply #107 on: April 10, 2015, 05:47:17 pm »
0

I don't think "cancel kingdom" will happen.  I was one of the people to pitch it in older threads, Donald X came out strongly against it with simple examples of how one could use it to game ratings, and I eventually got convinced he was right and stopped talking about it.  Similar things went down with some of the other veto-like proposals, and other ideas for giving players partial control over rated kingdoms.  Pretty much anything allows some amount of ratings-gaming, so there's no perfect solution, and I think DXV has already decided which of the imperfect ones to recommend to MF.

Donald articulated the potential complaints with a veto mode but concluded that a veto mode based on the intersection of all players’ choices is “very friendly” and "If pros mostly liked it then for sure I would have it there."

The basic complaint is: suppose that a not-so-strong player vetoes a card that makes it easier for him to beat strong players. If a strong player vetoes it, the strong player gains a ranking advantage relative to other strong players who don't veto it.

Suppose we get a board where a simple IGG rush is the only viable option. We might both say "this looks awful" and make a gentleman's agreement that neither of us gains IGG. Or we could use the "cancel Kingdom" button, if it exists. Or if there was a veto mode based on the intersection of ban lists, we might have both vetoed IGG in the first place. A player who is much stronger benefits in the rankings from any of these options, including the gentleman's agreement.

But there are cards that much reduce the skill factor and thus in a sense hinder high-level competitive play. IGG and to a somewhat lesser extend Swindler ruin many otherwise interesting kingdoms. And it is already possible to use a mutually agreed upon banlist, as long as you're fine with playing with 9 cards: you can just make a gentleman's agreement not to buy a certain card. I've done so on multiple occasions against another good player in IGG games, and I'd much like this process to be automated.

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."

It still seems like some pros would actually hate the intersection, would feel like other pros either had an unfair advantage over them in games they weren't in (if they didn't hate-list stuff) or else like they weren't getting to play with all the cards (if they did). So uh dunno there. ...

The intersection is very friendly. If pros mostly liked it then for sure I would have it there. Again there are the noted potential problems. I don't know how many pros care that much but obv. a nonzero number.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2015, 09:26:32 pm by JW »
Logged

Beyond Awesome

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2941
  • Shuffle iT Username: Beyond Awesome
  • Respect: +2466
    • View Profile
Re: Features Thread
« Reply #108 on: April 11, 2015, 08:24:29 am »
0

I'm not a fan of any veto mode.

The earlier suggestion of Dominion draft sounds fun, but man, I can't see MF implementing that anytime soon. I'd rather they get Adventures up. It would be fun though if say we are given 30 or so random kingdom cards and we take turns deciding which ones to have. Maybe there could be a separate draft of like 6 events and we each pick one from the six. Anyway, this is something much better for an irl tournament, but it would be fun.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Features Thread
« Reply #109 on: April 12, 2015, 12:22:17 am »
0

Can we just allow the kingdom selection methods to be very external and sandboxy and ask for several leaderboards?  Default leaderboard is when kingdom selection is the way it is now.  Then you have a koala leaderboard, a giraffe leaderboard, and a zebra leaderboard, and all of those only consist of games where the kingdom was handpicked, but that can have a significance people decide upon later.  koala might mean that it's fully random but people are gentlemanning out of IGG and stuff, giraffe might mean an isotropish veto mode was used in an external app, zebra might just mean it was a game for dominion league and hey lets see if the ratings come out different when people are playing mega serious.  Dingo might mean LastFootnote style kingdoms and crocodile might mean drafted kingdoms.  Then you don't have to ask MF to implement any of the kingdom selection methods or the system of verifying a certain kingdom selection method was used, all they have to do is instantiate several other leaderboards in addition to the default one, which shouldn't be that much harder than instantiating the default one. 

The game would only count for a certain auxillary leaderboard if both players agree that the game meets the requirements of that leaderboard.  So when some guy makes custom trap boards and asks people to play with him all game, that never makes it onto Dingo board because other players will either be like "wtf does Dingo leaderboard mean" or "I read on f.ds Dingo board is for such and such kingdom selection method, I don't trust you that that was how this kingdom was selected."

Well, anyway, it's just an idea I had.  And I think stuff that requires minimal amounts of work from MF is a good thing.
Logged

theblankman

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 461
  • Respect: +383
    • View Profile
Re: Features Thread
« Reply #110 on: April 12, 2015, 02:17:44 am »
0

The question is how many leaderboards provided by MF would be enough?  I think the way to do what you want would be to tie the leaderboards to the third-party apps that provide the "stuff" for that leaderboard (kingdoms generated by specific rules, alternate ranking algorithms like isotropish, etc).  And for that all we need from MF is an accessible platform to write our own code against, which also opens up other good possibilities. 
Logged
it's a shame that full-random is the de facto standard

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Features Thread
« Reply #111 on: April 12, 2015, 02:18:49 pm »
0

The question is how many leaderboards provided by MF would be enough?  I think the way to do what you want would be to tie the leaderboards to the third-party apps that provide the "stuff" for that leaderboard (kingdoms generated by specific rules, alternate ranking algorithms like isotropish, etc).  And for that all we need from MF is an accessible platform to write our own code against, which also opens up other good possibilities.
100.  A leaderboard is just a bunch of strings for player names and a bunch of numerical values, it shouldn't take up much space. 
I'm all for an accessible platform for us to write our own code against, and stuff, but if even providing that interface is too much work for Making Fun then manual opt-in leaderboards would be nice. 
Logged

theblankman

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 461
  • Respect: +383
    • View Profile
Re: Features Thread
« Reply #112 on: April 12, 2015, 06:47:31 pm »
0

100.  A leaderboard is just a bunch of strings for player names and a bunch of numerical values, it shouldn't take up much space. 

I'm not sure where the arbitrary number came from, but in any case there's also the question of enforcing what any given leaderboard means...
other players will either be like "wtf does Dingo leaderboard mean" or "I read on f.ds Dingo board is for such and such kingdom selection method, I don't trust you that that was how this kingdom was selected."
I don't think that will prove sufficient.  I think it's at least as likely, probably more, that players who aren't active on f.ds will say, "whatever, let's play." 

I'm all for an accessible platform for us to write our own code against, and stuff, but if even providing that interface is too much work for Making Fun then manual opt-in leaderboards would be nice.

Providing that interface is probably less work than making opt-in leaderboards.  Opt-in leaderboards would be a new feature, but the client-server interface has to exist no matter what.  There is one now, it's not documented but the first Salvager devs figured out quite a bit of it by experiment.  There will be a new one with the new version, so most of what's needed is for MF to release some documentation about it, which they may well create for internal use anyway.
Logged
it's a shame that full-random is the de facto standard

Beyond Awesome

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2941
  • Shuffle iT Username: Beyond Awesome
  • Respect: +2466
    • View Profile
Re: Features Thread
« Reply #113 on: April 12, 2015, 08:17:05 pm »
+7

Why so many leader boards? I think one is all we need.
Logged

Slyfox

  • Coppersmith
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 47
  • Respect: +78
    • View Profile
Re: Features Thread
« Reply #114 on: April 15, 2015, 01:09:34 am »
+4

Two suggestions:

Have an extensive private beta with lots of folks from these boards, and don't release it until it is feature parity with the existing online system. Especially with how badly the original Goko rolled out, profitable Online Dominion probably really can't survive another botched launch.

Keep the existing Online Dominion up even after the new one is released. Let players "vote with their feet" to move over to the new system once they think it is better. If nobody is moving, then the new implementation isn't ready yet. Shutting down the current one prematurely would likely annoy current customers, and it is the current customers that are going to help spread the word of a new mobile release.
Logged

theblankman

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 461
  • Respect: +383
    • View Profile
Re: Features Thread
« Reply #115 on: April 15, 2015, 02:13:30 am »
+1

Why so many leader boards? I think one is all we need.
Agreed.  Any alternatives (like isotropish or whatever else) should be hosted by a third party (like isotrophish on gokosalvager).  But of course that means you need a platform that third parties can build on (like we kinda-sorta have now). 
Logged
it's a shame that full-random is the de facto standard

DavidTheDavid

  • Dominion Online Staff
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
  • Respect: +210
    • View Profile
Re: Features Thread
« Reply #116 on: April 15, 2015, 10:31:50 pm »
+11

Thanks once more. Still reading these. More importantly, I've pointed the people that actually matter to the thread.   :)
Logged

Drab Emordnilap

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1832
  • Shuffle iT Username: Drab Emordnilap
  • Luther Bell Hendricks V
  • Respect: +1886
    • View Profile
Re: Features Thread
« Reply #117 on: April 16, 2015, 01:17:04 am »
+6

Thanks once more. Still reading these. More importantly, I've pointed the people that actually matter to the thread.   :)

You should post for them/have them post questions here. Dialogue is way better than throwing ideas at a wall. :)
Logged

Beyond Awesome

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2941
  • Shuffle iT Username: Beyond Awesome
  • Respect: +2466
    • View Profile
Re: Features Thread
« Reply #118 on: April 16, 2015, 08:33:37 am »
0

Thanks once more. Still reading these. More importantly, I've pointed the people that actually matter to the thread.   :)

You should post for them/have them post questions here. Dialogue is way better than throwing ideas at a wall. :)

This! If they want clarification on any matters, this is a good spot to post. Anyway, I'm glad they're reading this.
Logged

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8172
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Let me tell you a secret...
  • Respect: +9625
    • View Profile
Re: Features Thread
« Reply #119 on: April 16, 2015, 10:41:03 am »
+2

Thanks once more. Still reading these. More importantly, I've pointed the people that actually matter to the thread.   :)

You should post for them/have them post questions here. Dialogue is way better than throwing ideas at a wall. :)

This! If they want clarification on any matters, this is a good spot to post. Anyway, I'm glad they're reading this.

I would also point them to the Rules Questions section on here or to our wiki; there are quite a few arcana in Dominion rules that most casual players won't care about, but that hardcore players most certainly will.  For instance, while Dominion Online currently does give players the option to choose in which order to resolve start-of-turn effects (essentially from Durations and Prince), it does not give the player the option to choose to resolve Throne Room'd plays of the same card separately, which Donald X recently ruled players are able to do.  If I have a Prince'd Workshop and a Throne Room'd Wharf waiting for me at the start of my turn, I should be able to choose to draw 2 cards from one Wharf play, then gain something from Workshop, then draw 2 more cards from the other Wharf play.

Basically, anything under "other rules clarifications" on a card's wiki page should be taken into account.
Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

Rubby

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 170
  • Respect: +324
    • View Profile
Re: Features Thread
« Reply #120 on: April 16, 2015, 11:09:39 am »
+14

MF developers shouldn't have to pore over the Rules Questions board or the Wiki; there should just be a dedicated forum for bug reports.

In any case, right now I think we're a lot more concerned with essential Salvager features being implemented than edge cases where you care about the order of a Princed Workshop and a Throned Wharf.
Logged

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8172
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Let me tell you a secret...
  • Respect: +9625
    • View Profile
Re: Features Thread
« Reply #121 on: April 16, 2015, 11:37:19 am »
+4

MF developers shouldn't have to pore over the Rules Questions board or the Wiki; there should just be a dedicated forum for bug reports.

In any case, right now I think we're a lot more concerned with essential Salvager features being implemented than edge cases where you care about the order of a Princed Workshop and a Throned Wharf.

The referenced example was a Throned Merchant Ship and a Princed Storyteller.  The order there is actually extremely important, and it's better to have that groundwork laid out than have to try to fix it later.

I'd rather have MF paying attention and being proactive than waiting for tetchy players to complain after an incorrect rules implementation causes them to lose a tournament game.
Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

iguanaiguana

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 600
  • Shuffle iT Username: iguana iguana
  • Respect: +1044
    • View Profile
Re: Features Thread
« Reply #122 on: April 16, 2015, 12:31:02 pm »
0

Throned merchant ship and princed storyteller is absolutely an edge case. On top of needing a minimum of five cards to work, with only some replaceable by only a few more alternatives, that kind of play is almost never going to be a good strategy on a board with all those power cards together. Imean, you are talking about a hypothetical kingdom that has powerful durations, highway/bridge, throne/kc, and prince, but where the only thing you've got going on is princing a storyteller so that you can use some (but not all) of your throned duration money to draw cards. Don't divorce hypothetical speculation about cards from the realities of playing the game. Edit: my apologies for derailing the topic, I just emphatically do not think that this sort of thing is worth the developers' time.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2015, 12:33:34 pm by iguanaiguana »
Logged
Point iguana. Not that points really matter with a result, but still.
Igu is town or trying the hardest he ever has as scum.

-Stef-

  • 2012 & 2016 DS Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1574
  • Respect: +4419
    • View Profile
Re: Features Thread
« Reply #123 on: April 16, 2015, 12:46:54 pm »
+3

Throned merchant ship and princed storyteller is absolutely an edge case...

How about a throned amulet and a guide? That probably already feels a lot less edge-case-y, requiring only 3 cards and something that can very well be the best strategy. And when we get all the Adventures cards there will be a lot more situations like this.
Logged
Join the Dominion League!

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25671
    • View Profile
Re: Features Thread
« Reply #124 on: April 16, 2015, 12:54:49 pm »
+2

Throned merchant ship and princed storyteller is absolutely an edge case...

How about a throned amulet and a guide? That probably already feels a lot less edge-case-y, requiring only 3 cards and something that can very well be the best strategy. And when we get all the Adventures cards there will be a lot more situations like this.
Yes, it's not going to be such a rare thing, and will absolutely matter that they get it right. And fortunately that will be easy for them; odds are it will happen just due to letting you order start-of-turn effects, with no special attention paid to Throne Room.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11  All
 

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 21 queries.