Print

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

[Donald X.]

The VP counter options should be: only on, prefer on, prefer off, only off (or, prefer on/off, require preference/don't). I would default to prefer off. "Prefer off" would match you against absolutely anyone available - it's only a preference - but would pair you with an only-off or prefer-off when possible. A mix of prefers with no onlies would result in off.

I continue to prefer a giant red X over the card as the way to show what will be trashed (or Ambassador'd), rather than a border I'm not paying attention to.

[blueblimp]

The VP counter options should be: only on, prefer on, prefer off, only off (or, prefer on/off, require preference/don't). I would default to prefer off. "Prefer off" would match you against absolutely anyone available - it's only a preference - but would pair you with an only-off or prefer-off when possible. A mix of prefers with no onlies would result in off.

I expect what would happen is most people would be using the default. If that's "prefer off", then if you select "prefer on" then you're mostly going to be playing without the point counter just because your opponents will mostly be running default settings. That means if you actually want to play with the point counter, you'll need to select "only on". So "prefer on" would be semi-useless if "prefer off" is default.

[Schneau]

The VP counter options should be: only on, prefer on, prefer off, only off (or, prefer on/off, require preference/don't). I would default to prefer off. "Prefer off" would match you against absolutely anyone available - it's only a preference - but would pair you with an only-off or prefer-off when possible. A mix of prefers with no onlies would result in off.

I really like this. My only change would be that if a "prefer off" and a "prefer on" played, it would randomly choose whether it's on or off.

[ravi]

The VP counter options should be: only on, prefer on, prefer off, only off (or, prefer on/off, require preference/don't). I would default to prefer off. "Prefer off" would match you against absolutely anyone available - it's only a preference - but would pair you with an only-off or prefer-off when possible. A mix of prefers with no onlies would result in off.

I expect what would happen is most people would be using the default. If that's "prefer off", then if you select "prefer on" then you're mostly going to be playing without the point counter just because your opponents will mostly be running default settings. That means if you actually want to play with the point counter, you'll need to select "only on". So "prefer on" would be semi-useless if "prefer off" is default.

That's why I think the choices can more simply be on, off or no preference. A lot of people here think that no preference should be the default, but since most people use the default and may not even get a vp counter they may get confused as to why there is this green circle with the score sometimes and not others. Therefore, I still think off should be the default.

[Donald X.]

The VP counter options should be: only on, prefer on, prefer off, only off (or, prefer on/off, require preference/don't). I would default to prefer off. "Prefer off" would match you against absolutely anyone available - it's only a preference - but would pair you with an only-off or prefer-off when possible. A mix of prefers with no onlies would result in off.

I expect what would happen is most people would be using the default. If that's "prefer off", then if you select "prefer on" then you're mostly going to be playing without the point counter just because your opponents will mostly be running default settings. That means if you actually want to play with the point counter, you'll need to select "only on". So "prefer on" would be semi-useless if "prefer off" is default.

I don't think "prefer on" would be useless, but whatever; Dominion, the game Dominion, has no point counter. If people tend to have no point counter in online Dominion, that's good, that's the game as intended. The point counter is there to be friendly to people who want it. If you can force it on or off then everyone who cares is happy, and no-one is harmed by having a "prefer on" option available.

[popsofctown]

The VP counter options should be: only on, prefer on, prefer off, only off (or, prefer on/off, require preference/don't). I would default to prefer off. "Prefer off" would match you against absolutely anyone available - it's only a preference - but would pair you with an only-off or prefer-off when possible. A mix of prefers with no onlies would result in off.

I expect what would happen is most people would be using the default. If that's "prefer off", then if you select "prefer on" then you're mostly going to be playing without the point counter just because your opponents will mostly be running default settings. That means if you actually want to play with the point counter, you'll need to select "only on". So "prefer on" would be semi-useless if "prefer off" is default.

I really don't understand the point of your post, it sounds like your post suggests that all of these options be available except for "prefer on".  But after "prefer off", "only off", and "only on" are coded, it is trivial to code "prefer on", so there is no benefit to not providing it.

[-Stef-]

The VP counter options should be: only on, prefer on, prefer off, only off (or, prefer on/off, require preference/don't).

How about a slider?

what you would explain: utmost left = require off, middle = don't care, utmost right = require on.

what you would not explain: utmost left = -1.0, middle = 0.0, utmost right = 1.0
if the sum of the two preferences > 0, you play with the point counter on, if it's <=0 you play with it off.
increase likelihood of a match if the absolute difference is lower, and don't match if that difference is 2.0
exactly in the middle would be a fine default setting.


Edit: my preferred UI would be like this:

A sentence on the left, with a a slider next to it on the right.
The sentence starts with "Point counter: don't care" and the slider in the middle.
If you move the slider to the right, the sentence changes to "Point counter: prefer on, but off is ok" and than into "prefer on", and than "strongly prefer on" until ultimately it becomes "require on".

[popsofctown]

The VP counter options should be: only on, prefer on, prefer off, only off (or, prefer on/off, require preference/don't).

How about a slider?

what you would explain: utmost left = require off, middle = don't care, utmost right = require on.

what you would not explain: utmost left = -1.0, middle = 0.0, utmost right = 1.0
if the sum of the two preferences > 0, you play with the point counter on, if it's <=0 you play with it off.
increase likelihood of a match if the absolute difference is lower, and don't match if that difference is 2.0
exactly in the middle would be a fine default setting.


Edit: my preferred UI would be like this:

A sentence on the left, with a a slider next to it on the right.
The sentence starts with "Point counter: don't care" and the slider in the middle.
If you move the slider to the right, the sentence changes to "Point counter: prefer on, but off is ok" and than into "prefer on", and than "strongly prefer on" until ultimately it becomes "require on".

If we were working with a high calibur developer, I'd say, that's kinda cool, maybe a bit much, but I surely won't complain if that gets implemented.

With our current developer, I would say, please please do not ask for something like this and give the extra opportunities to bug the code in implementation.

Currently "require only -1000+" and "prefer -1000+" are not working, without a slider.

[SCSN]

I agree that the slider thing is much too sensible. I envision something like this:

We use the aforementioned 5 options, but instead of utilizing a slider or a series of checkboxes, each option will be represented by some colored symbol on an otherwise blank Dominion card. These cards will then be placed face-down, side-by-side in randomized order. The user can now pick any one card of his liking (select the card, press "Done", then answer "Yes" for confirmation), upon which his preference will be proudly revealed by a fancy animation.

If for whatever reason the user isn't entirely happy with his own choice, we offer him a second chance in the form of a "Reshuffle" button, which will reshuffle all cards and allow him to start the selection process anew, now with all animation lengths doubled as he's evidently enjoying them so much.

[gkrieg13]

I agree that the slider thing is much too sensible. I envision something like this:

We use the aforementioned 5 options, but instead of utilizing a slider or a series of checkboxes, each option will be represented by some colored symbol on an otherwise blank Dominion card. These cards will then be placed face-down, side-by-side in randomized order. The user can now pick any one card of his liking (select the card, press "Done", then answer "Yes" for confirmation), upon which his preference will be proudly revealed by a fancy animation.

If for whatever reason the user isn't entirely happy with his own choice, we offer him a second chance in the form of a "Reshuffle" button, which will reshuffle all cards and allow him to start the selection process anew, now with all animation lengths doubled as he's evidently enjoying them so much.

Obviously you should have to drag them one by one onto either your preference deck, or your "don't want" discard. Obviously those two should be so close that you might make a mistake. Then you can't undo your action if you miss.

[-Stef-]

The VP counter options should be: only on, prefer on, prefer off, only off (or, prefer on/off, require preference/don't).

How about a slider?

what you would explain: utmost left = require off, middle = don't care, utmost right = require on.

what you would not explain: utmost left = -1.0, middle = 0.0, utmost right = 1.0
if the sum of the two preferences > 0, you play with the point counter on, if it's <=0 you play with it off.
increase likelihood of a match if the absolute difference is lower, and don't match if that difference is 2.0
exactly in the middle would be a fine default setting.


Edit: my preferred UI would be like this:

A sentence on the left, with a a slider next to it on the right.
The sentence starts with "Point counter: don't care" and the slider in the middle.
If you move the slider to the right, the sentence changes to "Point counter: prefer on, but off is ok" and than into "prefer on", and than "strongly prefer on" until ultimately it becomes "require on".

If we were working with a high calibur developer, I'd say, that's kinda cool, maybe a bit much, but I surely won't complain if that gets implemented.

With our current developer, I would say, please please do not ask for something like this and give the extra opportunities to bug the code in implementation.

Currently "require only -1000+" and "prefer -1000+" are not working, without a slider.

While I fear you're right and they won't manage to implement this, the reality is.... that slider is a lot easier to code than the 5 checkboxes.
Instead of dealing with 25 possible scenarios you now have to sum two floats and see how the result compares to 0.

[werothegreat]

Don't make them checkboxes.  Make them radio buttons.  You either need it, prefer, don't prefer it, or need not it.  Or don't care.  5 options.  There should be no mixing.

[-Stef-]

Don't make them checkboxes.  Make them radio buttons.  You either need it, prefer, don't prefer it, or need not it.  Or don't care.  5 options.  There should be no mixing.

Sorry I should have written radio buttons indeed. Somehow I tend to mix up those words, while the concepts are quite different.
But the 25 was because you get those 5 buttons and so does your opponent.
With 5 checkboxes you alone would have 2^5 = 32 options.

(and 10 of those 25 are actually symmetrical)

[Awaclus]

Slider > drop-down menu > radio buttons

[popsofctown]

The VP counter options should be: only on, prefer on, prefer off, only off (or, prefer on/off, require preference/don't).

How about a slider?

what you would explain: utmost left = require off, middle = don't care, utmost right = require on.

what you would not explain: utmost left = -1.0, middle = 0.0, utmost right = 1.0
if the sum of the two preferences > 0, you play with the point counter on, if it's <=0 you play with it off.
increase likelihood of a match if the absolute difference is lower, and don't match if that difference is 2.0
exactly in the middle would be a fine default setting.


Edit: my preferred UI would be like this:

A sentence on the left, with a a slider next to it on the right.
The sentence starts with "Point counter: don't care" and the slider in the middle.
If you move the slider to the right, the sentence changes to "Point counter: prefer on, but off is ok" and than into "prefer on", and than "strongly prefer on" until ultimately it becomes "require on".

If we were working with a high calibur developer, I'd say, that's kinda cool, maybe a bit much, but I surely won't complain if that gets implemented.

With our current developer, I would say, please please do not ask for something like this and give the extra opportunities to bug the code in implementation.

Currently "require only -1000+" and "prefer -1000+" are not working, without a slider.

While I fear you're right and they won't manage to implement this, the reality is.... that slider is a lot easier to code than the 5 checkboxes.
Instead of dealing with 25 possible scenarios you now have to sum two floats and see how the result compares to 0.

There's no way the slider is easier.  You can assign integer values to the radio buttons (only on = 2, on = 1, no preference = 0 , -1 off, only off = -2) and get the same "add stuff and compare the result to 0", without having to deal with floats.

Although 25 possible scenarios is even simpler, conceptually, it's just tedious, and cavemannish, the kind of thing that's easy to trust someone with.

[LastFootnote]

Am I the only one who things a slider is going to be confusingly opaque to most users?

[popsofctown]

You're not, I was trying to allude to it a bit earlier.

[LastFootnote]

The VP counter options should be: only on, prefer on, prefer off, only off (or, prefer on/off, require preference/don't). I would default to prefer off. "Prefer off" would match you against absolutely anyone available - it's only a preference - but would pair you with an only-off or prefer-off when possible. A mix of prefers with no onlies would result in off.

I expect what would happen is most people would be using the default. If that's "prefer off", then if you select "prefer on" then you're mostly going to be playing without the point counter just because your opponents will mostly be running default settings. That means if you actually want to play with the point counter, you'll need to select "only on". So "prefer on" would be semi-useless if "prefer off" is default.

I don't think "prefer on" would be useless, but whatever; Dominion, the game Dominion, has no point counter. If people tend to have no point counter in online Dominion, that's good, that's the game as intended. The point counter is there to be friendly to people who want it. If you can force it on or off then everyone who cares is happy, and no-one is harmed by having a "prefer on" option available.

I tentatively agree with blueblimp. I think the "prefer on" setting is going to mostly do nothing. It would only matter when two "prefer on" players played against each other, and my hunch is that most VP-counter diehards will have their setting on "only on".

If I had my druthers, the options would be On/Off/Don't Care, with the default at Don't Care. Any players can be matched up. Remember that there can be more than 2 players.

If there are any "Off"s in the group, the counter is off.
Otherwise, if there are any "On"s in the group, the counter is on.
Otherwise, the counter is off.

In addition to having fewer checkboxes, this has the advantages of not segmenting the player base and not further complicating the matchmaking algorithms.

[-Stef-]

Am I the only one who things a slider is going to be confusingly opaque to most users?

To me in fact it sounds super intuitive, far more intuitive than anything with buttons.

There is a sentence on your screen that says "point counter: don't care".
There is a slider next to it. If you play with the slider, the sentence changes.
What is there not to get?

Sure, you may not get the formula behind the matchmaking and decisions on eventually putting the point counter on/off (although anyone should be able to grab 'sum') but who cares? You can tell the system what you want, and the system does what you want it to.

If I had my druthers, the options would be On/Off/Don't Care, with the default at Don't Care. Any players can be matched up. Remember that there can be more than 2 players.

Hmm, more than 2 players is a very good point, but probably only in favor of representing players' preferences with a float. You simply sum 3 floats in stead of 2.

[LastFootnote]

Hmm, more than 2 players is a very good point, but probably only in favor of representing players' preferences with a float. You simply sum 3 floats in stead of 2.

At that point, "Require On" and "Require Off" no longer do what they say. If I require on, two other players requiring off can overrule me. And vice versa, of course.

EDIT: Oh, I see. Don't match when the difference is 2.0. Well like I said, I'm not sure more complex matchmaking is a good idea, for multiple reasons.

[Donald X.]

If I had my druthers, the options would be On/Off/Don't Care, with the default at Don't Care. Any players can be matched up. Remember that there can be more than 2 players.

If there are any "Off"s in the group, the counter is off.
Otherwise, if there are any "On"s in the group, the counter is on.
Otherwise, the counter is off.

In addition to having fewer checkboxes, this has the advantages of not segmenting the player base and not further complicating the matchmaking algorithms.

You can match any mix of Require On and prefer whatevers, or Require Off and prefer whatevers, but cannot match Require On with Require Off. "I picked On but it isn't on" would be extremely unpopular among people who pick On; it is like taunting them with the option they want but not actually giving it to them. If the game or their stance is so unpopular that they can't be matched, they can always give up and change their choice to get a game in (or go find something else to do).

If the game is not unpopular then the matchmaking should not be hard.

[popsofctown]

In addition to having fewer checkboxes, this has the advantages of not segmenting the player base and not further complicating the matchmaking algorithms.

Not letting me force VP counter on?  When I and others quit Dominion, the player base will be "segmented" into those who have quit and those who enjoy Concentration.

[GendoIkari]

The VP counter options should be: only on, prefer on, prefer off, only off (or, prefer on/off, require preference/don't).

How about a slider?

what you would explain: utmost left = require off, middle = don't care, utmost right = require on.

what you would not explain: utmost left = -1.0, middle = 0.0, utmost right = 1.0
if the sum of the two preferences > 0, you play with the point counter on, if it's <=0 you play with it off.
increase likelihood of a match if the absolute difference is lower, and don't match if that difference is 2.0
exactly in the middle would be a fine default setting.


Edit: my preferred UI would be like this:

A sentence on the left, with a a slider next to it on the right.
The sentence starts with "Point counter: don't care" and the slider in the middle.
If you move the slider to the right, the sentence changes to "Point counter: prefer on, but off is ok" and than into "prefer on", and than "strongly prefer on" until ultimately it becomes "require on".

I want a slider with much more precision... as you move from left to right, the odds that your game will have a point counter increase incrementally. At least 100 possible stopping points along the slider, each corresponding to the percentage change that you'll get the point counter. Good luck coding it.

[-Stef-]

I want a slider with much more precision... as you move from left to right, the odds that your game will have a point counter increase incrementally. At least 100 possible stopping points along the slider, each corresponding to the percentage change that you'll get the point counter. Good luck coding it.

This is exactly what I am suggesting. You can have a million stopping points on the slider if you want. The all represent a float between -1 and +1.
They just don't all come up with a new sentence, probably 7 different sentences is plenty.

It's always nice when someone wishes you luck, but apparently you think this is hard to code. What step exactly would you consider hard?
1) creating a slider with a million positions, reading it's value as a float between -1 and +1.
2) computing the absolute difference between two floats, to feed to your already required fitness function for matchmaking
3) computing the sum of two floats and comparing it to zero, to decide if the point counter is on or off.

[faust]

Am I the only one who things a slider is going to be confusingly opaque to most users?

There should definitely be an option to turn the slider on and off. Maybe also "prefer on" and "prefer off". While we're at it, I have a great new suggestion...