Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 14  All

Author Topic: "Features" threads  (Read 45744 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Seprix

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5590
  • Respect: +3609
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #150 on: June 19, 2016, 02:02:33 pm »
0

Two gameplay ideas that could be discussed:

1. The first thing came into my mind because Donald had suggested it a 2 years ago to MF. Maybe you have already covered it to be more consistent with the rules. It is considering discarding multiple cards from the hand at the same time. I think Donald gave the example for Militia. You would have a "choose cards" phase for selecting/ deselecting the cards to discard, then discard afterwards. Something like this could be done for playing Treasures as well. At the start of the Buy phase, all Treasures are highlighted by default, and you could click on them to remove the highlighting, so they don't get played by the "play all Treasures" button.

Have this be optional, please. I don't want to be slowed down when I know I'm not making a mistake.
Logged
3/4ths retired

market squire

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
  • Respect: +195
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #151 on: June 19, 2016, 02:14:45 pm »
+1

Okay, maybe it is not very helpful for Militia (Donald was adressing server stability issues), but I think it'd be a helpful implementation of the "Play Treasures" button that wouldn't slow you down.
Logged

Calamitas

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 407
  • Shuffle iT Username: Calamitas
  • Respect: +47
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #152 on: June 19, 2016, 07:39:49 pm »
+1

Two gameplay ideas that could be discussed:

1. The first thing came into my mind because Donald had suggested it a 2 years ago to MF. Maybe you have already covered it to be more consistent with the rules. It is considering discarding multiple cards from the hand at the same time. I think Donald gave the example for Militia. You would have a "choose cards" phase for selecting/ deselecting the cards to discard, then discard afterwards. Something like this could be done for playing Treasures as well. At the start of the Buy phase, all Treasures are highlighted by default, and you could click on them to remove the highlighting, so they don't get played by the "play all Treasures" button.

2. How about a possibility to turn on default settings that work on specific card effects? E.g. you could do the straightforward start-of-turn effects (Caravan, Wharf, Merchant Ship etc.) automatically at the very start of the turn (before doing crazier stuff like Dungeon). So the player could decide for every game if they want that, for example in games with Guide you might not want it... This decision could be an optional button ("auto-resolve this game" or something in these lines) that appears every game when you first have that specific effect. If you want, you can always go to settings to stop auto-resolve. Other things that could be auto-resolved besides start-of-turn are topdecking (Alchemist/ Treasury/ Walled Village), upgrading Travellers, revealing Reaction cards to Attacks, revealing Provinces to other player's Tournaments, for Torturer gain curse if the pile is empty. Maybe more?
Since 2 has been (or at least partially) implemented in SCSN's MMF mod, we can assume that it will make its way to their game :)
Logged
Oh, i just don't like mafia games.

Town (5/9): M85, RMM35, M87, NM9, M90RMM38, M92, M91, M102,
Scum (3/3): M84, M88, M100

MVPs (1): M84

Nflickner

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 124
  • Respect: +122
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #153 on: June 22, 2016, 02:26:27 am »
+4

The ability to test fan made cards would be nice.

I think that implementing a function within the client for fan made cards to be used would be very fun. 
Logged

Chris is me

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2703
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +3367
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #154 on: June 22, 2016, 09:00:23 am »
+2

MF just implemented a feature where the color of the number indicating the number of cards left in a pile changes from blue to red as the pile gets low. You should totally just copy that. Maybe with better choice in colors.
Logged
Twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisisme2791

bug me on discord

pm me if you wanna do stuff for the blog

they/them

Seprix

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5590
  • Respect: +3609
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #155 on: June 22, 2016, 11:36:01 am »
+2

The absolute worst thing about Making Fun's implementation is freaking Scheme when you have a zillion Action cards on screen. I cannot tell you how many times I misclicked what I wanted, picking the wrong card instead. In fact, the organization of cards in your hand is poor in general. Suppose I have 30 cards in my deck and I want to trash an Estate. I also have a Colony in my hand. How do I know which is which? In fact, this happened with vsiewnar a couple of days ago, and it was hilarious. Yes, you can see the card costs, but that is no excuse for poor interface.

I posted this elsewhere, but I really really really want this to not be an issue with the new client.
Logged
3/4ths retired

Beyond Awesome

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2939
  • Shuffle iT Username: Beyond Awesome
  • Respect: +2447
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #156 on: June 22, 2016, 09:34:15 pm »
+3

Scheme is a nightmare on MF.
Logged

Sciserr

  • Alchemist
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #157 on: June 23, 2016, 08:59:05 pm »
0

Ranking system suggestion: Rating decay/Play bonus. The objective being to deter ppl from "sitting" on a satisfactory rank. Doesn't have to be something major, perhaps just a steady increase in attainable points concordant to playing three matches a day or whatever. The points would be accumulatable, i. e binge-playing could compensate for a longer hiatus. Starcraft calls this concept their "Bonus pool", enforcing top level ranked matchmaking frequency. This is of course independent of the underlying match making rating (MMR). With this system, the player with the best MMR would still be incentivised to maintain rated play. This in turn increases sample size, reduces skill uncertainty (variance) and raises the general level of ladder gameplay. Should me great, methinks :)
Logged
Late to the dominion party - compensatory excessive drinking initiated!

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5394
  • Respect: +2772
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #158 on: June 24, 2016, 09:57:57 am »
+4

Rating decay has always been a pretty popular concept but it's never really made sense to me.  The point of a rating is to predict the winners of games as accurately as possible.  This benefits both lower ranked players and higher ranked players as a match that has a 50% chance of being won by either side is much more likely to be fun.

There is no reason to believe someone who took a hiatus from Dominion has gotten very much worse at it at all.  There actually might be some merit to that idea in SC, where some muscle memory might try to go AWOL or a popular opening strategy could fall out of favor during the hiatus.

Sure, you can deliberately set someone's rating at a value that you know does not represent their skill to create a negative incentive so they'll do what you want, and apparently you want them to play Dominion all the time and never take a week off to play Pac Man.  Which yeah, increases the accuracy of MMR when your sample size of games is even larger.

But the slight decrease in uncertainty for the 1 or 2 players that want to play less but enslave themselves from uncertainty don't make up for the players who take a break for a bit, come back to it, then roflstomp weaker players (or note that, out of the games they lose, a high proportion are high variance), then decide maybe the break was an even better idea than before, and quit for good, because you set up a system that gives them a "welcome back" experience that shoves the ruins pile up their orifices.  I think pushing those players out of the game entirely (it'd only be one or two, but about the same as the number that actually bother to care about the mmr manipulation) lowers the overall level of ladder gameplay.

Other games that need rating decay need it because they are taking the top X rated players and doing invitational tournaments
Logged
Also you probably are an expert if you buy two bureaucrats early.

SCSN

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2227
  • Respect: +7134
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #159 on: June 24, 2016, 11:06:29 am »
+4

If we implement a rating decay it will probably of the order of a few iso levels per year.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7084
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9835
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #160 on: June 24, 2016, 11:10:04 am »
+5

There's also just: If you haven't played for more than [a week/2 weeks/whatever], you're removed from the ladder. Next time you play a game, you get your ranking back (modified by that game).
Logged

Sciserr

  • Alchemist
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #161 on: June 24, 2016, 12:20:24 pm »
0

If we implement a rating decay it will probably of the order of a few iso levels per year.

Spoken as someone sitting comfortably at a high rank :P

The point of a rating is to predict the winners of games as accurately as possible. 

Correct, that's the point of the match making rating. The overt ranking points on the other hand, serve a primary play incentivising function. I am not suggesting MMR-decay for Dominion - although it's reasonable for SC, for the reasons you listed. Im suggesting an on-play ranking bonus, independent of MMR. If you pride yourself in having the highest MMR, perhaps generated through a small sample size with a disproportionately lucky upswing, you'll still be able to jerk off at that number. If you want the feature ranking to mirror this excellence however, you would have to average 3 rated matches a day - minimizing the long term risk of rating bias. And yeah; ppl play more rated Dominion. Thats should be a good thing as well :P
« Last Edit: June 24, 2016, 12:21:37 pm by Sciserr »
Logged
Late to the dominion party - compensatory excessive drinking initiated!

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7084
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9835
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #162 on: June 24, 2016, 12:40:13 pm »
+1

The point of a rating is to predict the winners of games as accurately as possible. 

Correct, that's the point of the match making rating.

Uh, what? I thought the point was to match players of close to equal skill, for those who care about such things.
Logged

Sciserr

  • Alchemist
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #163 on: June 24, 2016, 12:48:21 pm »
0

The point of a rating is to predict the winners of games as accurately as possible. 

Correct, that's the point of the match making rating.

Uh, what? I thought the point was to match players of close to equal skill, for those who care about such things.

Isn't the one intrisically linked to the other? If I have intel on the comparative skill level between two players, I should be able to 1) predict the winner and 2) decide whether or not its an even/fair matchup.
Logged
Late to the dominion party - compensatory excessive drinking initiated!

Watno

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2737
  • Shuffle iT Username: Watno
  • Respect: +2967
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #164 on: June 24, 2016, 12:51:43 pm »
+1

The point of a rating is to predict the winners of games as accurately as possible. 

Correct, that's the point of the match making rating.

Uh, what? I thought the point was to match players of close to equal skill, for those who care about such things.

Isn't the one intrisically linked to the other? If I have intel on the comparative skill level between two players, I should be able to 1) predict the winner and 2) decide whether or not its an even/fair matchup.
They're linked, but not the same. There's not much point in the mmr system being good at predicting wether someone has a 0.001% or a 20% chance of winning: As long as it knows the number is in that range, it knows it shouldn't make that match.
Logged

Sciserr

  • Alchemist
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #165 on: June 24, 2016, 12:59:39 pm »
0

No argument there, then :) The advantages of having both an underlying MMR and an overt points-based ranking system are irrespective of what role we attribute the prior though.
Logged
Late to the dominion party - compensatory excessive drinking initiated!

Watno

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2737
  • Shuffle iT Username: Watno
  • Respect: +2967
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #166 on: June 24, 2016, 01:05:37 pm »
+1

It seems pretty reasonable for a ranking system to have players ordered by what we estimate their probability of winning against others to be
Logged

Sciserr

  • Alchemist
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #167 on: June 24, 2016, 01:25:42 pm »
0

It seems pretty reasonable for a ranking system to have players ordered by what we estimate their probability of winning against others to be

Reasonable yes, incentivising no. Why not both? :)
Logged
Late to the dominion party - compensatory excessive drinking initiated!

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5394
  • Respect: +2772
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #168 on: June 24, 2016, 03:17:18 pm »
+4

I think you might massively overrate how many flying rips anyone cares about how their rating appears to other people.  Literally nobody is trying to get a high rank then stop playing a game they enjoy in order to gain "bragging rights" among the eleventeen online Dominion players.
Logged
Also you probably are an expert if you buy two bureaucrats early.

SCSN

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2227
  • Respect: +7134
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #169 on: June 24, 2016, 03:29:30 pm »
+9

If we implement a rating decay it will probably of the order of a few iso levels per year.

Spoken as someone sitting comfortably at a high rank :P

I won't be on the leaderboard.

And the exclusive aim of whatever rating decay we may introduce will be to model with a higher degree of accuracy the (d)evolution of skill as it occurs in the real world, e.g. to capture a dynamic such as players getting slightly worse relative to the field and possibly their former selves when they take a long break.

There will be no gimmicks to incentivize anything and no special bonus just for playing.
Logged

Sciserr

  • Alchemist
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #170 on: June 24, 2016, 05:04:03 pm »
+3

I think you might massively overrate how many flying rips anyone cares about how their rating appears to other people.  Literally nobody is trying to get a high rank then stop playing a game they enjoy in order to gain "bragging rights" among the eleventeen online Dominion players.

Hmm, this argument I dont particularily agree with, and I'll try to outline why:

1. "Eleventeen online Dominion player". Currently 4338 people have played at least one match of rated dominion online within the last month. The eleventeen-joke might be a foresight of a massive decline in subscriptions come the new model, but lets stay positive and assume growth :P Although your humour hits home, I get a foul taste in my mouth realizing that your argument implies that Dominion Online 2017 should be designed to cater to a select few; the eleventeen, if you will. Look to literally any other game; catering to the casual gamers (4338 minus eleventeen, in Dominion Online's case) is what reaps in the dough.

2. "Literally nobody is gonna sit on rank". More than half the league matches I see on twitch are played as unrated games across all skill levels, even though the tournament default is rated. Now, there are many contributing factors here; reluctance to switch for MF dance amongst others. It is hard, however, envisioning rank satisfaction not playing a part here. Look to other games for verification. Be it Hearthstone ladder heroes waiting out their top 10 spot on the legend ladder, or the countless number of people complaining about ladder anxiety in Starcraft. Gamers care about rank. Its rather human, in fact. Grand publishers like Blizzard, Riot or Valve acknowledge this basic psychological premise, and mask MMR with ranking systems granting an illusory impression of improvement, regardless of performance. 

3. Nick Yee (2006) conducted some interesting research on gamer motivation. He argues all gaming incentives to fit in one of three overarching categories; Social motives, immersive motives or achievement motives. Save the occassional "glhf" in chat, Dominion online ladder is a rather asocial experience. Far all you know, you might as well be playing Lord Bottington on his road to rank 1. And unless you're incredibly superstitious, facing a Ghost Ship shouldn't really give you the shivers. Immersion's off the table. This leaves achievement, the primary spectacle of skill differentiation. Achievement encompasses a lot more than just ranking, but the point still stands: Dominion Online players play to win - or more correctly - to get the impression that they're "winning".   

References:
Yee, N. (2006). Motivations for Play in Online Games. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 9(6), 772-775.


To SCSN:

I respect that decision, though without agreeing. I've made my arguments clear, and won't continue beating this apparantly dead horse.
Logged
Late to the dominion party - compensatory excessive drinking initiated!

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5494
  • Respect: +22136
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #171 on: June 24, 2016, 05:48:12 pm »
+1

3. Nick Yee (2006) conducted some interesting research on gamer motivation. He argues all gaming incentives to fit in one of three overarching categories; Social motives, immersive motives or achievement motives.
I do not find this list to be compelling. I am looking at it, he's just talking about MMORPG's. If you want to apply it broadly, then well which thing are Patience players motivated by?

Quote
Achievement component
Advancement—The desire to gain power, prog- ress rapidly, and accumulate in-game sym- bols of wealth or status
Mechanics—Having an interest in analyzing the underlying rules and system in order to optimize character performance
Competition—The desire to challenge and compete with others

Social component
Socializing—Having an interest in helping and chatting with other players
Relationship—The desire to form long-term meaningful relationships with others
Teamwork—Deriving satisfaction from being part of a group effort.

Immersion component
Discovery—Finding and knowing things that most other players don’t know about
Role-Playing—Creating a persona with a back- ground story and interacting with other players to create an improvised story
Customization—Having an interest in cus- tomizing the appearance of their character
Logged

SCSN

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2227
  • Respect: +7134
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #172 on: June 24, 2016, 06:05:43 pm »
+6

Be it Hearthstone ladder heroes waiting out their top 10 spot on the legend ladder, or the countless number of people complaining about ladder anxiety in Starcraft.

For the anxiety part: there'll likely be an option to opt out of the leaderboard (neither you nor anyone else can see your rank) and have your rating only be used by the system for match making purposes. Things like achievements could then deliver a sense of accomplishment to those who don't like the ranking.

Besides, I think Dominion itself offers enough opportunities to get your accomplishment fix: winning a game in an unexpected way, building a marvelously roaring engine, finally pulling off that elusive combo, you name it. Personally, I loved the game long before I got anywhere close to the top or even felt like I was moving forwards, and I would not have gotten there had I not loved it so much.
Logged

Sciserr

  • Alchemist
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #173 on: June 24, 2016, 06:57:48 pm »
+1

3. Nick Yee (2006) conducted some interesting research on gamer motivation. He argues all gaming incentives to fit in one of three overarching categories; Social motives, immersive motives or achievement motives.
I do not find this list to be compelling. I am looking at it, he's just talking about MMORPG's. If you want to apply it broadly, then well which thing are Patience players motivated by?


Thats an excellent question! I'll give it a go, applying Yee's framework++: *Boring Psych disclaimer*

1. "The Senior". First and foremost, Solitaire/Patience/Insert non immersive solo game, does not exist in a vacuum. Discussing strategy, exchanging tips, sharing bad luck induced frustration is all part of the socially derived Patience experience. Paradoxically, even this inherently unaccompanied game may be preceded by social motives.This motivational level applies to any game that you can share with someone else, naturally.

2. "The bragger". Given the opportunity to share his or her Patience experience, the player is also given the opportunity to boast. "My success rate is a solid x%, what's yours?". Achievement motives (competition) are not incompatible with the Patience experience.

3. "The Prisoner". Strict imprisonment (no expert here, this is US' domain :P) offers the perfect counterargument to points 1. and 2. Why do isolated individuals, almost completely deprived of human interaction, often turn to games of this nature? Here, we need to take a bit of a theoretical detour. Destination: Self-determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2011). King & Delfabbro (2009) investigate the relationship between gaming motivation and problematically excessive play, applying this theoretical framework. Irrespective of agenda; they discuss a very interesting concept; amotivated play. This is defined as "...playing without a sense of purpose about the activity...". Without delving too far into the original theory of basic psychological needs (tl;dr - all humans need to experience autonomy, competence, and relatedness in order to maintain intrinsic motivation), we can all relate to occassionally not being able to account for exactly why we're doing something. Games are no exception. "The prisoner" can be argued as an amotivated player. The psychoanalytic tradition would conceptualize this behaviour as a discomfort defence (repression of an insuffurable situation), but that is a theoretical quagmire best left at the gates of f.ds :P All in all, Yee's list does't appear "compelling" because it covers motives, not actual behaviour. Although motive A, B and C predict behaviour X, it is perfectly possible to exhibit X without any motivation (i. e amotivated). 

References:

King, D. & Delfabbro, P. (2009). Motivational Differences in Problem Video Game Play. Journal of Cyber Therapy & Rehabilitation, 2 (2), 139-149.

Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2011) Self-Determination Theory and the Role of Basic Psychological Needs in Personality and the Organization of Behavior. In John, Robins & Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (3. ed., pp. 654- 678). New York: Guilford Press.
Logged
Late to the dominion party - compensatory excessive drinking initiated!

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5494
  • Respect: +22136
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #174 on: June 24, 2016, 07:07:59 pm »
+1

1. "The Senior". First and foremost, Solitaire/Patience/Insert non immersive solo game, does not exist in a vacuum.
2. "The bragger". Given the opportunity to share his or her Patience experience, the player is also given the opportunity to
3. "The Prisoner". Strict imprisonment (no expert here, this is US' domain :P) offers the perfect counterargument to points 1.
I don't think these are it. The social interaction is teaching someone the game; that's it. People do not play Patience in order to brag about how good they are. And uh, The Prisoner, well I think there is actual motivation.

To me Patience is a "ritual game." For some activities, it can be fun just going through the motions. You also get to see what happens; I call this a "movie."

But the point of course was to show that Social/Immersive/Achievement was not sufficient to explain motivation in games; Patience is just an example.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 14  All
 

Page created in 0.132 seconds with 21 queries.