Print

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

[pst]

New version out. Relase notes.

Most changes are made regarding the Campaigns, with special rules designed by Donald X. for some parts. (They are not described in text yet though, so will be surprising.)

[funkdoc]

i didn't try the previous update, but this doesn't seem to slow down my computer much anymore!  that and the deck-counting bug have been my biggest hangups

[Awaclus]

that and the deck-counting bug have been my biggest hangups

I assume the deck-counting bug is still there?

[SCSN]

Largely rhetorical question that's all but devoid of the tiniest measure of genuine hope: are the animations fixed (i.e. gone) yet?

[werothegreat]

Largely rhetorical question that's all but devoid of the tiniest measure of genuine hope: are the animations fixed (i.e. gone) yet?

Nope.

[Kirian]

Largely rhetorical question that's all but devoid of the tiniest measure of genuine hope: are the animations fixed (i.e. gone) yet?

Nope.

Well, at least I don't need to go download it.

[LastFootnote]

Yes, my computer seems to be having an easier time, too! It still heats up a bit, I can't hear the fans going nuts. It's possible that's just because I'm in a noisier environment right now; I'll test again later.

The animations are getting better. I played through a good portion of the Guilds campaign and enjoyed it! But there's still an artificial delay between most actions. Please get rid of it! If people want to see what's happening as it happens (like me), they can simply slow down the animations a bit. Right now any effect that reveals cards is tortuously slow.

[werothegreat]

Yes, my computer seems to be having an easier time, too! It still heats up a bit, I can't hear the fans going nuts. It's possible that's just because I'm in a noisier environment right now; I'll test again later.

The animations are getting better. I played through a good portion of the Guilds campaign and enjoyed it! But there's still an artificial delay between most actions. Please get rid of it! If people want to see what's happening as it happens (like me), they can simply slow down the animations a bit. Right now any effect that reveals cards is tortuously slow.

The big things remaining for me are

* animations should not cover important things
* deck counter bug

Once those are fixed, I will be perfectly happy playing 2.0.  Well, not perfectly happy, but it'll be tolerable.

[markusin]

I'm quite happy that they're improving the campaign. Sure, it's not worth it if the multiplayer has to suffer because of it (dem animations), but I'm going to assume those issues will be dealt with before the Beta period is finished.

[pst]

Most changes are made regarding the Campaigns, with special rules designed by Donald X. for some parts. (They are not described in text yet though, so will be surprising.)

For the Base Set the third act has the special rule that the first action you play each turn is played twice. That is on purpose, and a compensation for adversaries having better starting hands. Also you can't skip playing an Action if you don't want to! I understand that the simplest way to do the special rule might have been to play an implicit Throne Room at the beginning of your turn, and then playing an action with it isn't optional, but I wonder if that really was the intention.

[buggy]

I haven't posted this anywhere else, but it needs to be mentioned somewhere:  bug:  if you use Forge to gain an Ill-Gotten-Gains, your opponent will not gain a Curse.

[Awaclus]

I haven't posted this anywhere else, but it needs to be mentioned somewhere:  bug:  if you use Forge to gain an Ill-Gotten-Gains, your opponent will not gain a Curse.

+1 for appropriate username.

[LastFootnote]

Most changes are made regarding the Campaigns, with special rules designed by Donald X. for some parts. (They are not described in text yet though, so will be surprising.)

For the Base Set the third act has the special rule that the first action you play each turn is played twice. That is on purpose, and a compensation for adversaries having better starting hands. Also you can't skip playing an Action if you don't want to! I understand that the simplest way to do the special rule might have been to play an implicit Throne Room at the beginning of your turn, and then playing an action with it isn't optional, but I wonder if that really was the intention.

I complained about the mandatory Action play when I was testing it awhile back. If memory serves, it's intentional; or at the very least, there are no plans to remove it.

[MrFrog]

bug:  if you use Forge to gain an Ill-Gotten-Gains, your opponent will not gain a Curse.

Same with Altar.

[Awaclus]

bug:  if you use Forge to gain an Ill-Gotten-Gains, your opponent will not gain a Curse.

Same with Altar.

Well, normally your opponents don't gain a Curse when you use Forge to gain an Altar.

[Rubby]

bug:  if you use Forge to gain an Ill-Gotten-Gains, your opponent will not gain a Curse.

Same with Altar.

Well, normally your opponents don't gain a Curse when you use Forge to gain an Altar.

Dude, he obviously meant that when you use Forge to gain an Ill-Gotten Gains, your opponents don't gain an Altar.

[Seprix]

Not worth downloading, I'm going to wait until there's a decent implementation. I'm getting tired of waiting. It's been how many weeks now?

[Seprix]

bug:  if you use Forge to gain an Ill-Gotten-Gains, your opponent will not gain a Curse.

Same with Altar.

Well, normally your opponents don't gain a Curse when you use Forge to gain an Altar.

Dude, he obviously meant that when you use Forge to gain an Ill-Gotten Gains, your opponents don't gain an Altar.

Dude, he obviously was being sarcastic, and was not meant to be taken seriously, and your taking it seriously not only demonstrates Poe's Law, but also demonstrates how funny Awaclus truly is with his statement.

[Kirian]

bug:  if you use Forge to gain an Ill-Gotten-Gains, your opponent will not gain a Curse.

Same with Altar.

Well, normally your opponents don't gain a Curse when you use Forge to gain an Altar.

Dude, he obviously meant that when you use Forge to gain an Ill-Gotten Gains, your opponents don't gain an Altar.

So a few days ago, some idiot Darwinned himself by jumping into a body of water with a bunch of alligators.  This despite tbe huge sign that said:

NO SWIMMING
ALLIGATORS

This got passed around Facebook, and one person commented that he obviously thought the sign meant there were no swimming alligators.  To which someone else replied "Grammatical Imprecision kills."

This conversation reminded me of that.

[drsteelhammer]

bug:  if you use Forge to gain an Ill-Gotten-Gains, your opponent will not gain a Curse.

Same with Altar.

Well, normally your opponents don't gain a Curse when you use Forge to gain an Altar.

Dude, he obviously meant that when you use Forge to gain an Ill-Gotten Gains, your opponents don't gain an Altar.

Dude, he obviously was being sarcastic, and was not meant to be taken seriously, and your taking it seriously not only demonstrates Poe's Law, but also demonstrates how funny Awaclus truly is with his statement.

Unfortunately, you're the evidence for Poe's law here. (you normally don't gain an altar when the opponent buys IGG

[markusin]

Not worth downloading, I'm going to wait until there's a decent implementation. I'm getting tired of waiting. It's been how many weeks now?

I'm getting tired of having to download each new release. That alone makes me want to download every other version or download then in intervals of 3 releases.

I get weird connection issues when I try to download the game from my laptop okay.

[Chris is me]

I quite frankly don't understand why you guys consider fixing almost anything else a bigger priority than getting the number of cards in the deck right. Other than stability and security, I guess. It's just absurd that it's been months (if you count beta) and no progress has been made on this, which should be the easiest thing in the world to do?

[markusin]

I quite frankly don't understand why you guys consider fixing almost anything else a bigger priority than getting the number of cards in the deck right. Other than stability and security, I guess. It's just absurd that it's been months (if you count beta) and no progress has been made on this, which should be the easiest thing in the world to do?

Was is a bug in the closed Beta too? The way I see it, it's either a simple bug whose cause hasn't been spotted yet, or the result of an inappropriate kind of logic with the card tracking that would be a nightmare to correct because it would have to totally be redesigned. I'm hoping it's the former.

[LastFootnote]

I quite frankly don't understand why you guys consider fixing almost anything else a bigger priority than getting the number of cards in the deck right. Other than stability and security, I guess. It's just absurd that it's been months (if you count beta) and no progress has been made on this, which should be the easiest thing in the world to do?

Was is a bug in the closed Beta too? The way I see it, it's either a simple bug whose cause hasn't been spotted yet, or the result of an inappropriate kind of logic with the card tracking that would be a nightmare to correct because it would have to totally be redesigned. I'm hoping it's the former.

It's indicative of the client trying to keep track of the game state itself rather than receiving updates from the server. It's like if you and a friend played Dominion by correspondence, each with your own table of cards that you had to keep in sync. One screw-up and it quickly becomes difficult to figure out what should be where.

[markusin]

I quite frankly don't understand why you guys consider fixing almost anything else a bigger priority than getting the number of cards in the deck right. Other than stability and security, I guess. It's just absurd that it's been months (if you count beta) and no progress has been made on this, which should be the easiest thing in the world to do?

Was is a bug in the closed Beta too? The way I see it, it's either a simple bug whose cause hasn't been spotted yet, or the result of an inappropriate kind of logic with the card tracking that would be a nightmare to correct because it would have to totally be redesigned. I'm hoping it's the former.

It's indicative of the client trying to keep track of the game state itself rather than receiving updates from the server. It's like if you and a friend played Dominion by correspondence, each with your own table of cards that you had to keep in sync. One screw-up and it quickly becomes difficult to figure out what should be where.

This was mentioned before, but is this in fact what's going on or is it speculation? See, this is the kind of thing that would require significant coding effort to clean up.

[LastFootnote]

I quite frankly don't understand why you guys consider fixing almost anything else a bigger priority than getting the number of cards in the deck right. Other than stability and security, I guess. It's just absurd that it's been months (if you count beta) and no progress has been made on this, which should be the easiest thing in the world to do?

Was is a bug in the closed Beta too? The way I see it, it's either a simple bug whose cause hasn't been spotted yet, or the result of an inappropriate kind of logic with the card tracking that would be a nightmare to correct because it would have to totally be redesigned. I'm hoping it's the former.

It's indicative of the client trying to keep track of the game state itself rather than receiving updates from the server. It's like if you and a friend played Dominion by correspondence, each with your own table of cards that you had to keep in sync. One screw-up and it quickly becomes difficult to figure out what should be where.

This was mentioned before, but is this in fact what's going on or is it speculation? See, this is the kind of thing that would require significant coding effort to clean up.

It's speculation based on the fact that this was (and probably still is) happening with the VP counter.

[AdamH]

Wait a tick, I thought this worked in one version of the beta and then all of a sudden didn't work. Can't they just track the issue down by looking at what changed between those two versions?

[Seprix]

Wait a tick, I thought this worked in one version of the beta and then all of a sudden didn't work. Can't they just track the issue down by looking at what changed between those two versions?

I don't think it ever worked.

[werothegreat]

Wait a tick, I thought this worked in one version of the beta and then all of a sudden didn't work. Can't they just track the issue down by looking at what changed between those two versions?

I don't think it ever worked.

It worked fine right up until it was publicly released.  Which confused me.

[Drab Emordnilap]

Wait a tick, I thought this worked in one version of the beta and then all of a sudden didn't work. Can't they just track the issue down by looking at what changed between those two versions?

I don't think it ever worked.

It worked fine right up until it was publicly released.  Which confused me.

I have had the issue in every version I have used, starting with the Closed Beta and continuing to 2.0.33.

[DavidTheDavid]

Re: deck count issues, reproducing the issue has been a stumbling block. Why that's so, I can't say, especially as it's been reported quite a bit. I think the issue is probably responsible for cards not being drawn on plays like Market and the shuffling sound continuing when the deck is apparently empty. Credit to, I think, Jonah42 for connecting the dots about the card draw issue.

If you want to lend a hand, what would help the developers out are reports that included the end of game logs, any observations about when it happens (only in campaign, only vs AI, only vs human, all of the above), observations like what turn it might have started.

Feel free to post here, but using the contact support button in game sends an email to our CRM software that I can then forward to the developers and easily track replies with.

Sorry for the ongoing issue. I've let them know that it's one of the more vexing problems in regards to player sentiment.

[Chris is me]

Re: deck count issues, reproducing the issue has been a stumbling block. Why that's so, I can't say, especially as it's been reported quite a bit. I think the issue is probably responsible for cards not being drawn on plays like Market and the shuffling sound continuing when the deck is apparently empty. Credit to, I think, Jonah42 for connecting the dots about the card draw issue.

If you want to lend a hand, what would help the developers out are reports that included the end of game logs, any observations about when it happens (only in campaign, only vs AI, only vs human, all of the above), observations like what turn it might have started.

Feel free to post here, but using the contact support button in game sends an email to our CRM software that I can then forward to the developers and easily track replies with.

Sorry for the ongoing issue. I've let them know that it's one of the more vexing problems in regards to player sentiment.

The card deck count issue happens literally every game of Dominion that I play, before the end of the first shuffle it says I have 10 cards left in my deck when I have none, and then there's basically no correlation from then on between the state of my deck and the cards in the pile (i.e. it's not consistently X more cards than it should be). I'll get some game logs, and try and record the displayed deck count during every turn of a few CPU games, and get back to you guys.

Really, though, I don't see how this is a difficult issue to deal with - does the game not keep track of what cards are in the deck and what cards are not? Shouldn't that be able to tell you how many?

[Seprix]

Re: deck count issues, reproducing the issue has been a stumbling block. Why that's so, I can't say, especially as it's been reported quite a bit. I think the issue is probably responsible for cards not being drawn on plays like Market and the shuffling sound continuing when the deck is apparently empty. Credit to, I think, Jonah42 for connecting the dots about the card draw issue.

If you want to lend a hand, what would help the developers out are reports that included the end of game logs, any observations about when it happens (only in campaign, only vs AI, only vs human, all of the above), observations like what turn it might have started.

Feel free to post here, but using the contact support button in game sends an email to our CRM software that I can then forward to the developers and easily track replies with.

Sorry for the ongoing issue. I've let them know that it's one of the more vexing problems in regards to player sentiment.

The card deck count issue happens literally every game of Dominion that I play, before the end of the first shuffle it says I have 10 cards left in my deck when I have none, and then there's basically no correlation from then on between the state of my deck and the cards in the pile (i.e. it's not consistently X more cards than it should be). I'll get some game logs, and try and record the displayed deck count during every turn of a few CPU games, and get back to you guys.

Really, though, I don't see how this is a difficult issue to deal with - does the game not keep track of what cards are in the deck and what cards are not? Shouldn't that be able to tell you how many?

You think it's easy? You try coding. I can tell you that from the very little experience I have with coding on small scale, that one wrong word somewhere can screw up something somewhere else, and take forever to figure out where the problem is. Coding ain't easy, pal. The bigger the project, the harder it is to keep a lid on it.

[Chris is me]

You think it's easy? You try coding. I can tell you that from the very little experience I have with coding on small scale, that one wrong word somewhere can screw up something somewhere else, and take forever to figure out where the problem is. Coding ain't easy, pal. The bigger the project, the harder it is to keep a lid on it.

Counting elements in an array isn't hard. I've written code before.

[Seprix]

You think it's easy? You try coding. I can tell you that from the very little experience I have with coding on small scale, that one wrong word somewhere can screw up something somewhere else, and take forever to figure out where the problem is. Coding ain't easy, pal. The bigger the project, the harder it is to keep a lid on it.

Counting elements in an array isn't hard. I've written code before.

If it were just that, the devs would have fixed it by now. I don't think they're being optimal, but I don't think they're screwing around either.

[werothegreat]

I think this might be the image a lot of us have when thinking of MF:



But it's probably closer to this:

[Drab Emordnilap]

Re: deck count issues, reproducing the issue has been a stumbling block. Why that's so, I can't say, especially as it's been reported quite a bit. I think the issue is probably responsible for cards not being drawn on plays like Market and the shuffling sound continuing when the deck is apparently empty. Credit to, I think, Jonah42 for connecting the dots about the card draw issue.

If you want to lend a hand, what would help the developers out are reports that included the end of game logs, any observations about when it happens (only in campaign, only vs AI, only vs human, all of the above), observations like what turn it might have started.

Feel free to post here, but using the contact support button in game sends an email to our CRM software that I can then forward to the developers and easily track replies with.

Sorry for the ongoing issue. I've let them know that it's one of the more vexing problems in regards to player sentiment.

I've been posting kingdoms it's happening in for me here:

http://forum.makingfun.com/showthread.php?6979-Advisor-or-Deck-size-bug

What information am I not including to make this issue reproducible?

[werothegreat]

I do find it rather weird that I see this bug in ~70% of my games and the devs haven't yet played a game where it happens.

[Seprix]

I think this might be the image a lot of us have when thinking of MF:



But it's probably closer to this:

...This is really accurate...

[DavidTheDavid]

Re: deck count issues, reproducing the issue has been a stumbling block. Why that's so, I can't say, especially as it's been reported quite a bit. I think the issue is probably responsible for cards not being drawn on plays like Market and the shuffling sound continuing when the deck is apparently empty. Credit to, I think, Jonah42 for connecting the dots about the card draw issue.

If you want to lend a hand, what would help the developers out are reports that included the end of game logs, any observations about when it happens (only in campaign, only vs AI, only vs human, all of the above), observations like what turn it might have started.

Feel free to post here, but using the contact support button in game sends an email to our CRM software that I can then forward to the developers and easily track replies with.

Sorry for the ongoing issue. I've let them know that it's one of the more vexing problems in regards to player sentiment.

I've been posting kingdoms it's happening in for me here:

http://forum.makingfun.com/showthread.php?6979-Advisor-or-Deck-size-bug

What information am I not including to make this issue reproducible?

I failed to add that to the ticket on the issue. I've done so now. Thanks. *hangface*

[Kirian]

You think it's easy? You try coding. I can tell you that from the very little experience I have with coding on small scale, that one wrong word somewhere can screw up something somewhere else, and take forever to figure out where the problem is. Coding ain't easy, pal. The bigger the project, the harder it is to keep a lid on it.

Counting elements in an array isn't hard. I've written code before.

If it were just that, the devs would have fixed it by now. I don't think they're being optimal, but I don't think they're screwing around either.

The question then becomes, what structure other than an array could you use to keep track of the cards in a deck?  Or perhaps, what structure simpler than an array could be used?  Or what reasons are there to use a more complex structure?

I can't think of anything simpler than an array for this, and why would the devs intentionally use something more complex?

I think this might be the image a lot of us have when thinking of MF:
[troglodyte.jpg]

But it's probably closer to this:
[frustrated.jpg]

I'd really love to give them the benefit of the doubt, but they're apparently not storing your deck status in an easily-countable array.  Add the password thing and the animations problems, and we're dealing with this guy:

[DG]

I can't think of anything simpler than an array for this, and why would the devs intentionally use something more complex?

You could use other structures for performance, even something like a binary tree. Any well coded structure should manage its own size correctly though. You could still run into problems with an item being destroyed before it is removed from the structure (by bad coding) and then the structure will fail to manage the missing items and consequently give size errors.

[LastFootnote]

The question then becomes, what structure other than an array could you use to keep track of the cards in a deck?  Or perhaps, what structure simpler than an array could be used?  Or what reasons are there to use a more complex structure?

I can't think of anything simpler than an array for this, and why would the devs intentionally use something more complex?

I'm guessing that the structure they're using is an integer. The server doubtless uses some sort of array-backed object to track the deck, but the client (rightly) doesn't have access to that array. It only needs to know the length of the array. HOWEVER, Making Fun is trying to minimize the amount of data sent between the server and the client, so instead of having the server reporting the length of the array each time the game state changes, the client is trying to track that number itself based on movements of cards throughout the game. That's my best guess.

[Cave-o-sapien]

I haven't seen the deck count bug, but it's very possible I just haven't paid close enough attention.

Is it a display problem only or does it affect the game state? For example, does the game reshuffle when it shouldn't?

[Awaclus]

I haven't seen the deck count bug, but it's very possible I just haven't paid close enough attention.

Is it a display problem only or does it affect the game state? For example, does the game reshuffle when it shouldn't?

A display problem.

[Cave-o-sapien]

I haven't seen the deck count bug, but it's very possible I just haven't paid close enough attention.

Is it a display problem only or does it affect the game state? For example, does the game reshuffle when it shouldn't?

A display problem.

Ok, thanks.

In that case it seems irrelevant to discuss what structure the game engine is using to track the deck size.

[Kirian]

The question then becomes, what structure other than an array could you use to keep track of the cards in a deck?  Or perhaps, what structure simpler than an array could be used?  Or what reasons are there to use a more complex structure?

I can't think of anything simpler than an array for this, and why would the devs intentionally use something more complex?

I'm guessing that the structure they're using is an integer. The server doubtless uses some sort of array-backed object to track the deck, but the client (rightly) doesn't have access to that array. It only needs to know the length of the array. HOWEVER, Making Fun is trying to minimize the amount of data sent between the server and the client, so instead of having the server reporting the length of the array each time the game state changes, the client is trying to track that number itself based on movements of cards throughout the game. That's my best guess.

I suppose that's a possibility, though deck size totals are 1 byte.  That's not a lot of data to send compared with other things being sent.

[sc0UT]

I suppose that's a possibility, though deck size totals are 1 byte.  That's not a lot of data to send compared with other things being sent.

Like sending image data of each card every freakin' time it's played or checking which sets you own every time you open the create/edit game table. Goko does that for no reason.

The example that has stayed with me as to how bad the Goko version is, is, when you do something with a card, it sends the card image from the server. Play a Silver - it sends the image. Over and over.

Goko looks up which sets you own every time you open the Create/Edit Table dialog. For reasons that I cannot fathom, that check can take anywhere from 1-15 seconds.

[Titandrake]

The question then becomes, what structure other than an array could you use to keep track of the cards in a deck?  Or perhaps, what structure simpler than an array could be used?  Or what reasons are there to use a more complex structure?

I can't think of anything simpler than an array for this, and why would the devs intentionally use something more complex?

I'm guessing that the structure they're using is an integer. The server doubtless uses some sort of array-backed object to track the deck, but the client (rightly) doesn't have access to that array. It only needs to know the length of the array. HOWEVER, Making Fun is trying to minimize the amount of data sent between the server and the client, so instead of having the server reporting the length of the array each time the game state changes, the client is trying to track that number itself based on movements of cards throughout the game. That's my best guess.

I suppose that's a possibility, though deck size totals are 1 byte.  That's not a lot of data to send compared with other things being sent.

For my Goko replay system, I represented the deck/discard/other zones by using a dictionary, mapping card name to # of that card. It's still a little buggy because there are a lot of edge cases for card movement, and sometimes the log is actually missing information, and so on and so forth, but the important part is that I'm not using an array to represent the deck.

That being said, I'm still confused how the bug could be happening. It doesn't sound like it even saves you many bits over the wire when you're still asking the server if your current game state is consistent or not.

PPE: checking which sets you own whenever you try to create a new game is entirely reasonable. If someone buys a new set, you need to check for it immediately, and you don't want to rely on the client to figure out what cards people own. The only weird part is how long it takes to load/send that data. Plus that post is almost 2 years old, I wouldn't hold that over their heads.

The image thing is less reasonable, but I can see doing that as a first pass solution when you want a working product now, and it shouldn't be as big an issue with the standalone app (they can make sure every user has the image data on their computer, so they never need to send image data from the server to the client at all. In the web version you'd have to do that at least once.)

[blueblimp]

The question then becomes, what structure other than an array could you use to keep track of the cards in a deck?  Or perhaps, what structure simpler than an array could be used?  Or what reasons are there to use a more complex structure?

I can't think of anything simpler than an array for this, and why would the devs intentionally use something more complex?

I'm guessing that the structure they're using is an integer. The server doubtless uses some sort of array-backed object to track the deck, but the client (rightly) doesn't have access to that array. It only needs to know the length of the array.

Goko's implementation has the client store your whole draw deck as an array, but the identity of each card is hidden until the server says what it is. I think it's a reasonable implementation actually, since a card might have some non-hidden data attached to it that the client needs to know about. For example, Stash has a special card back, so the client does somehow need to know whether a Stash is on top of the deck.

HOWEVER, Making Fun is trying to minimize the amount of data sent between the server and the client, so instead of having the server reporting the length of the array each time the game state changes, the client is trying to track that number itself based on movements of cards throughout the game. That's my best guess.

Which, if they're doing that, would be crazy. Premature optimization at its dumbest.

For what it's worth, from what I remember, isotropic used a mix of incremental and full updates. For small things like deck size, it'd send the number every time you asked for it (which was only in the info dialog, I think), and for relatively big things like the supply, it would just send an update for the particular pile that changed.

[Chris is me]

I'd really love to give them the benefit of the doubt, but they're apparently not storing your deck status in an easily-countable array.  Add the password thing and the animations problems, and we're dealing with this guy:

The thing that gets me is that it's not even a matter of them needing to have made some "number of cards in deck" variable that they aren't updating or whatever. It's that for the game to work correctly, they need to keep track of the cards in your deck (duh), and the cards in your deck that haven't been drawn yet. That you can't get the count of cards from that is what's confusing to me.

I've heard the speculation that they are trying to keep track of deck card count client side so that the server doesn't need to send the size of the deck every turn. I'm sure there is some technical reason that they haven't abandoned this idea, but I don't think that's ever going to work perfectly. Even if they get it mostly right, there will be some edge cases that mess it up. And I don't understand why the number of cards remaining in your deck isn't considered essential enough to warrant sending data from the server to the client. but again, that's speculation.

I don't think Making Fun is a bunch of stupid people and that its fair to characterize them as idiots, but I do think the team isn't really aware of how important the size of the deck is to gameplay.

I haven't had time to play the beta with a pad and paper but I'll record deck counts through the game when I do.

[Beyond Awesome]

All I have to say is "seriously."

[Lotoreo]

Hm, several times, my deck counter changed when the opponent shuffled his deck. Is that the only deck counter bug, or does it also change on other occasions?