Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 14  All

Author Topic: "Features" threads  (Read 90432 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Sciserr

  • Alchemist
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #175 on: June 24, 2016, 07:18:42 pm »
0

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.

The anti-anxiety option sounds promising, and ingame achievements are never a bad feature! :)

As for accomplishment; I very much aggree! Being a 5 month old Dominion orphan, I'm currently undergoing that very process myself :) Theoretically, I would argue the enjoyment stemming from these combos, roaring engines and what have you, as proxies for later comparative success - benchmarks of progression if you will. But that's semantic nitpicking, really. The feeling of "competence", experiencing personal efficacy in your activity, is the crux of the achievement motive cluster.
Logged
Late to the dominion party - compensatory excessive drinking initiated!

Sciserr

  • Alchemist
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #176 on: June 24, 2016, 07:35:53 pm »
0

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.


Motivational debates have been prevalent in the field of psychology throughout times, so your skepticism is in good fashion. I do, however, feel like I have a pretty strong case for games like Patience being predicted by a more pervasive social motivation. The discrepancy in our understandings, should stem from our fundamental differences in conceptualizing " gaming sociability". I cant count the number of times I've encountered some unlikely scenario whilst playing a solo game, immediately calling for my friends to come and partake in the extravagance. If you only include actual gameplay interaction when assessing social motives, then yes, Patience is completely asocial. If you consider its consequent widespread social implications however, it's easy to envision social motives preceding future gameplay.
Logged
Late to the dominion party - compensatory excessive drinking initiated!

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #177 on: June 24, 2016, 08:30:44 pm »
+1

Donald, I seem to remember you talking about the definition of "game" at one point. Does Patience even qualify?
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #178 on: June 24, 2016, 08:48:55 pm »
0

Motivational debates have been prevalent in the field of psychology throughout times, so your skepticism is in good fashion. I do, however, feel like I have a pretty strong case for games like Patience being predicted by a more pervasive social motivation. The discrepancy in our understandings, should stem from our fundamental differences in conceptualizing " gaming sociability". I cant count the number of times I've encountered some unlikely scenario whilst playing a solo game, immediately calling for my friends to come and partake in the extravagance. If you only include actual gameplay interaction when assessing social motives, then yes, Patience is completely asocial. If you consider its consequent widespread social implications however, it's easy to envision social motives preceding future gameplay.
I do not see any social motivation to Patience beyond the teaching of it. To me it's like you're saying, I eat chocolate for social reasons. We can try to push things into these categories - the chocolate keeps me alive so I can be social - but that doesn't make the categorization useful, doesn't mean it's anything but misleading.

It's fun thinking about these things, making these lists, trying to boil everything down to N things. It can be tricky working out how useful your categorization scheme is and well I do not agree with you about this stuff but time does not permit.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #179 on: June 24, 2016, 08:54:53 pm »
+2

Donald, I seem to remember you talking about the definition of "game" at one point. Does Patience even qualify?
Yes, it meets my technical definition (structured activity with 1+ players and a ranking mechanism).

Richard Garfield defined a subcategory of games, "orthogonal games," so that he could have a precise definition and make true statements about it, without having to deal with people having conflicting ideas as to what a "game" is. I don't remember his definition (it's in the luck speech, which I recommend if you haven't seen it), but you know, the point was to talk about These Games We Play rather than things falling under the dictionary definition of "game."
Logged

Accatitippi

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1153
  • Shuffle iT Username: Accatitippi
  • Silver is underraided
  • Respect: +1795
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #180 on: June 25, 2016, 06:05:31 am »
+1

You may argue that it falls within/between achievent and immersion, but one of the strongest pulls I feel towards gaming is experimenting. You give me a system, I'll try different stuff and see how the game reacts. Systems that still offer new discoveries keep my attention longer than systems where I feel I can predict too often how the game will play out.
Political games are good at that, and Dominion is in fact one of the few nonpolitical games that I truly love.
Despite liking some of them, I've never got grabbed by CCGs because experimenting is too slow/expensive, and I usually lose interest after a short while of always playing/optimizing the same deck because I can't afford a different one, and optimization doesn't really lead to exciting discoveries.

I'm the kind of person who in a pinch plays new games against themself, and well I don't see that explained by either achievement, immersion, or sociality. (and not rituality either)
« Last Edit: June 25, 2016, 06:07:24 am by Accatitippi »
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #181 on: June 28, 2016, 04:01:33 pm »
+1

I like to manufacture a contrived dictionary definition for "game" and find a way to exclude Concentration and Monopoly from that definition and then even go as far as to generate prejudices for those nongames that suggests the participants are nonhuman and propose a legally codified caste system that treats them as such.

BUT the important thing is that I am upfront and honest about that.
Logged

michaeljb

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1422
  • Shuffle iT Username: michaeljb
  • Respect: +2113
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #182 on: June 28, 2016, 05:05:43 pm »
+1

It'd be cool to rank/rate* the cards from a kingdom after playing it, or maybe after looking over the logs or watching the replays or something. Then a big ranking/rating list of all the cards--or smaller lists, divided up however you may want to divide them--could be generated based on how good the cards were in actual kingdoms, not just in theory. (I say "kingdom" instead of "game" because if you replay a kingdom you shouldn't be able to rank the cards differently each time)

*it might be difficult/impossible to rank cards 1-10 if you have an engine with 3 vital components, but you could rate each of those 3 cards 5 stars or whatever
Logged
🚂 Give 18xx games a chance 🚂

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #183 on: June 28, 2016, 05:25:09 pm »
+14

My number one wish for the new platform: (This is partly how Isotropic worked.)

When you have to trash or discard x cards from your hand, clicking a card selects it. If you're trashing, it gets a big X or something. If you're discarding, something else clearly distinguishable. If you try to select more than x cards, you get a message. You can deselect and select as much as you want. Then you have to click a button that says "TRASH" or "DISCARD".

If you have to select a certain number, it says so, and the button is grayed out until you have.

If trashing/discarding is optional, you also have a button saying "DON'T TRASH" or "DON'T DISCARD".

This works the same way even when you only have one card to trash/discard. Yes, it's one extra click, but I think that's totally worth not having to purposefully play slower and more carefully for fear of misclicking.

In addition to the misclicking issue, the other important thing this does is making the GUI work like the game actually works: You discard/trash all the cards at once.

Seprix

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5607
  • Respect: +3676
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #184 on: June 28, 2016, 05:41:55 pm »
0

I think what will happen will be like thus:

With Action cards that affect cards in your hand when played, it does not matter which individual one of them you trash; they are all the same card, really. With this in mind, having your hand convert into 'piles' of collections of cards that you can select en mass when trashing/affecting seems to be the best option.

When I want to target specific cards for Scheme/trashing (for example), at the end of the turn or during a turn (for trashing), it will show me each card played (for Scheme, trashing would simply show your hand or whatever is the appropriate target) and how many of them there are with a small number, similar to piles. When you select a card, it will move upwards to the top of the screen, away from the piles. If you clicked it again from the top, it would go back to where it was. The interface should also say how many Scheme/trashing choices you have left. After you're done selecting the options, you click on 'Trash' or 'Topdeck' or something of the sort. It is complicated to explain, but it is very intuitive. The only downside is that it is a bit slower, but it does prevent misclicks for sure.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2016, 05:43:36 pm by Seprix »
Logged
DM me for ideas on a new article, either here or on Discord (I check Discord way more often)

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #185 on: June 28, 2016, 05:44:10 pm »
0

It'd be cool to rank/rate* the cards from a kingdom after playing it, or maybe after looking over the logs or watching the replays or something. Then a big ranking/rating list of all the cards--or smaller lists, divided up however you may want to divide them--could be generated based on how good the cards were in actual kingdoms, not just in theory. (I say "kingdom" instead of "game" because if you replay a kingdom you shouldn't be able to rank the cards differently each time)

*it might be difficult/impossible to rank cards 1-10 if you have an engine with 3 vital components, but you could rate each of those 3 cards 5 stars or whatever
It'd be better to draw these conclusions by using a councilroom style log muncher that checks whether buying each card produces wins or produces losses.  The algorithm's inability to identify the difference between a Secret Chamber that was a crucial way of converting Scrying Pool into financial benefit and a Secret Chamber that was better than buying nothing with a 2$ hand is far outweighed by various human polling biases and smaller sample size
Logged

Seprix

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5607
  • Respect: +3676
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #186 on: June 28, 2016, 05:45:29 pm »
+2

Actually, even better idea. Why have a bunch of annoying images fly around? I wouldn't mind simply having a more text based decision, much like Isotropic. It should display the name and cost of the cards as well as how many there are in your hand/in play/whatever, but you can see what the card is from the Kingdom pile, so it shouldn't really be much of an issue to just make showing the cards more condensed.
Logged
DM me for ideas on a new article, either here or on Discord (I check Discord way more often)

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #187 on: June 29, 2016, 01:42:32 pm »
+2

Actually, even better idea. Why have a bunch of annoying images fly around? I wouldn't mind simply having a more text based decision, much like Isotropic. It should display the name and cost of the cards as well as how many there are in your hand/in play/whatever, but you can see what the card is from the Kingdom pile, so it shouldn't really be much of an issue to just make showing the cards more condensed.

I think it could be a great alternative setting. Each group of the same card should be a rectangle with the cost, name, and colors indicating type, plus the number of copies. For instance: "$0 Copper (4)", "$3 Silver (2)", "$5 Hunting Party (3)"... Then these rectangles could be stacked in columns. Several columns could fit on the screen. Hovering over a rectangle for a second could even show the full card.

Also, when the amount of different cards you have to choose from reaches a critical mass, the interface should just automatically switch to that view, instead of being this mass of cards to leaf through. This could be when you have a lot of cards on your hand, or a lot of cards in play for Scheme choosing.

Beyond Awesome

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2941
  • Shuffle iT Username: Beyond Awesome
  • Respect: +2466
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #188 on: June 29, 2016, 10:34:28 pm »
+2

Actually, even better idea. Why have a bunch of annoying images fly around? I wouldn't mind simply having a more text based decision, much like Isotropic. It should display the name and cost of the cards as well as how many there are in your hand/in play/whatever, but you can see what the card is from the Kingdom pile, so it shouldn't really be much of an issue to just make showing the cards more condensed.

I thought they said they had something like this planned
Logged

Seprix

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5607
  • Respect: +3676
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #189 on: June 29, 2016, 10:36:37 pm »
0

Fantastic! I spent a long time thinking about the best possible way to do the interface.
Logged
DM me for ideas on a new article, either here or on Discord (I check Discord way more often)

Emeric

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 275
  • Shuffle iT Username: Emeric
  • Respect: +212
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #190 on: July 03, 2016, 01:50:57 pm »
0

Very important feature for next version :
Close account without way to be refund of money of player who insult opponent as you can see in this thread http://forum.makingfun.com/showthread.php?10909-I-don-t-want-to-be-insulted-during-a-game&p=59176#post59176
Logged

Seprix

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5607
  • Respect: +3676
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #191 on: July 03, 2016, 01:53:27 pm »
0

Very important feature for next version :
Close account without way to be refund of money of player who insult opponent as you can see in this thread http://forum.makingfun.com/showthread.php?10909-I-don-t-want-to-be-insulted-during-a-game&p=59176#post59176

Evil should not be repaid with evil.
Logged
DM me for ideas on a new article, either here or on Discord (I check Discord way more often)

SCSN

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2227
  • Respect: +7140
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #192 on: July 03, 2016, 03:35:36 pm »
+10

Very important feature for next version :
Close account without way to be refund of money of player who insult opponent as you can see in this thread http://forum.makingfun.com/showthread.php?10909-I-don-t-want-to-be-insulted-during-a-game&p=59176#post59176

You'll be able to report stuff like this in-game and then we'll issue a warning and/or temporary or permanent chat ban (depending on the severity and persistence of the behavior). You'll also be able to blacklist him so that you never get to play him again.
Logged

Limetime

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1237
  • Shuffle iT Username: limetime
  • Respect: +1179
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #193 on: July 03, 2016, 04:35:54 pm »
+3

Very important feature for next version :
Close account without way to be refund of money of player who insult opponent as you can see in this thread http://forum.makingfun.com/showthread.php?10909-I-don-t-want-to-be-insulted-during-a-game&p=59176#post59176

Evil should not be repaid with evil.
I don't think reasonable punishments are evil but banning Someone forever is not a great punishment for chat abuse.
Logged

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #194 on: July 04, 2016, 05:14:06 pm »
0

Fantastic! I spent a long time thinking about the best possible way to do the interface.

I actually quite like the MF interface. Not too much crap, but also not too little.
Logged

funkdoc

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 472
  • Respect: +414
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #195 on: July 05, 2016, 09:56:17 am »
0

Fantastic! I spent a long time thinking about the best possible way to do the interface.

I actually quite like the MF interface. Not too much crap, but also not too little.

it's mainly visual stuff i (and seemingly others) have a problem with.  events not being distinct enough from cards, the animations, the new garish blue circles around the numbers...

Infthitbox

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 317
  • Respect: +440
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #196 on: July 05, 2016, 10:02:42 am »
+2

Fantastic! I spent a long time thinking about the best possible way to do the interface.

I actually quite like the MF interface. Not too much crap, but also not too little.

it's mainly visual stuff i (and seemingly others) have a problem with.  events not being distinct enough from cards, the animations, the new garish blue circles around the numbers...

That's interesting, out of everything the MF client does/has, I find the Event display to be perfectly fine. They're visually distinct enough for me.
Logged

Beyond Awesome

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2941
  • Shuffle iT Username: Beyond Awesome
  • Respect: +2466
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #197 on: July 06, 2016, 02:47:53 am »
0

Fantastic! I spent a long time thinking about the best possible way to do the interface.

I actually quite like the MF interface. Not too much crap, but also not too little.

it's mainly visual stuff i (and seemingly others) have a problem with.  events not being distinct enough from cards, the animations, the new garish blue circles around the numbers...

That's interesting, out of everything the MF client does/has, I find the Event display to be perfectly fine. They're visually distinct enough for me.

I was about to say the same thing. I actually like the way the Events are, and it's easy to find them and remember they are. IRL, playing with Events can be challenging because depending on where you place them, it can be easy to forget where they are.
Logged

AdrianHealey

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2244
  • Respect: +776
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #198 on: July 06, 2016, 10:27:11 am »
0

I am pretty sure I have animations turned off or something
Logged

jaybeez

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 335
  • Shuffle iT Username: jaybeez
  • Respect: +395
    • View Profile
Re: "Features" threads
« Reply #199 on: July 08, 2016, 05:21:22 pm »
+2

Just going to add a random thought to the pile.  Remember how Goko Salvager had a kingdom builder that supported a standard syntax so you could specify parameters, including controlling the likelihood of a card or cards being included in the kingdom?  Having something like that would be great.  Maybe something simple like, you have a general setting interface for all cards, where you can specify "more often" or "less often" for a given card, with "neutral" being the default.  Then, if all players "agree" on a card (i.e., have the same setting selected), then the parameter could be applied to the kingdom selection for that game.  I mean, I for one would love to be able to force Possession, Swindler, Governor, Rebuild, Cultist, etc. to appear in kingdoms less often if I'm matched up against a like-minded person.  Or vice-versa for cards that I find more fun/interesting.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 14  All
 

Page created in 0.1 seconds with 21 queries.