Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion Online at Shuffle iT => Dominion General Discussion => Dominion Isotropic => Topic started by: fp on July 21, 2011, 03:47:50 pm
-
1) Pass And Play
A friend mentioned this to me, so at the least, he would be interested in it. He is very interested in games where he can whip out his iPad and start a game. Currently, such an option is not available.
2) Option To Be Notified When a Player has more than Half of the Available Points (if possible)
It would simply be nice for the computer to remind all the players when one player has definitely won the game. A small portion of games seem to drag on and on, and the opponent does not realize his chance of winning is definitely 0. I play a lot of Dominion, but I would prefer to play more :-)
-
#2 is not a trivial problem. In addition to VP chips, consider cards like Saboteur and Masquerade. Trashers in general can violate assumptions about who has "definitely won" - consider Lookout.
-
Can you describe #1 in other words what you mean by Pass and Play?
Sry, no native speaker :-)
-
Can you describe #1 in other words what you mean by Pass and Play?
Sry, no native speaker :-)
My turn, I go to the computer, take my turn. My turn ends, I get up, you sit down, you take your turn. You turn ends, you get up. Repeat.
With an iPad, it would be more like:
My turn, I take the iPad, take my turn. My turn ends, I pass the iPad to you , you take your turn. You turn ends, you pass it to me. Repeat.
-
#2 is not a trivial problem. In addition to VP chips, consider cards like Saboteur and Masquerade. Trashers in general can violate assumptions about who has "definitely won" - consider Lookout.
Of course. But in a game with absolutely no trashers and no VP points, I would be worthwhile.
-
Okay, so you mean kind of Multiplayer on one PC/Iphone, they called it HotSeat in some PC games a decade ago (Heroes of Might and Magic ::)). Thx for expressing terms.
-
Of course. But in a game with absolutely no trashers and no VP points, I would be worthwhile.
I doubt you're going to interest Doug in coding a feature that will apply in a small percentage of the games played on the vanishingly small percentage of boards that have no VP-chip cards and no trashers :P
-
I doubt you're going to interest Doug in coding a feature that will apply in a small percentage of the games played on the vanishingly small percentage of boards that have no VP-chip cards and no trashers :P
I don't intend to argue for this because I don't think it has enough utility to justify implementing it. However, I don't really think any board with trashing would need to be excluded. Really just the 3 VP token cards, and Saboteur, Swindler, and Masquerade would need to be excluded, and a good percentage of boards would not have those 6 cards. (I guess Possession/Ambassador would have to be excluded too.) Any trashers that are controlled by the user just simply should not be used if you already have over half the available VPs. Technically this could be considered an unfair advantage since it warns the player that they really should not play their Lookout.
If this feature was implemented, I don't really think excluding those boards is even necessary. If player 1 had over half the VPs available on the board, and the game announces it, player 2 should be smart enough to know it doesn't mean he should resign if he has a Goons engine that is about to go off, or is King Courting Saboteur every turn.
-
If you want isotropic to sometimes announce the score at a random time when it may or may not matter, well, use the point tracker. This is silly.
-
If you want isotropic to sometimes announce the score at a random time when it may or may not matter, well, use the point tracker. This is silly.
Point for guided.
I'm just throwing out ideas, some are crap, but some are genius.
You found a crappy one. :D
-
I see people in the lobby all the time asking how to start a solitaire game
-
A player on auto-match and I noticed that both of us had veto mode set to "don't care," and it gave us a game with veto mode. That seems weird.
My actual stance is, "I don't want to play veto mode, but don't care enough to make an issue if another player wants veto mode." Is it possible to create a mode where unless someone actively says, "Yes, I want veto mode," we get no veto mode?
Should that be the default behavior of "don't care"? I kind of think it should be. Is it really the case that right now if everyone says, "don't care," we get veto mode some of the time? Or was my opponent mistaken about his settings?
-
I think if both players don't care about veto mode then it's 50-50 whether or not your match will be in veto mode. But hey, you don't care if it's veto mode so it's all good. If you care, say you don't want veto mode.
-
My actual stance is, "I don't want to play veto mode, but don't care enough to make an issue if another player wants veto mode." Is it possible to create a mode where unless someone actively says, "Yes, I want veto mode," we get no veto mode? Should that be the default behavior of "don't care"? I kind of think it should be.
I agree 100%.
-
A new mode is fine ("prefer veto" and "prefer no veto" in the dropdown), but IMO the semantically correct thing if both players truly "don't care" is to randomize it.
Note that you are entirely welcome to both choose the option to veto a random card, if both of you really didn't prefer to play veto mode.
-
I always just do random veto. If the other person didn't care then they'd also do random veto and it would be the same as if neither of us had done veto mode.
-
I'd like to see saving player-defined defaults for dropdown options ; when i log in i just want to push automatch and start a game, but there are some of the options that I regret not having clicked once in awhile (mostly 'registered only')
-
Isn't there a default for the point-tracker? If both players "don't care" about the point-tracker, there is no point-tracker. Why should veto mode be different? That said, I agree that vetoing a random card is a decent though imperfect solution.
-
If no player cares about the point tracker, it is always off because it is a variant not allowed by the actual rules; the default should obviously be to play Dominion, not Dominion-plus-public-scoring.
If no player cares about veto mode, it is sometimes enabled (randomly, 1 in 5 chance) because it is allowed by the rule book (which says "players can choose the 10 Kingdom cards using any method they agree on."); it's as legal a way to choose the Kingdom cards as any of the other mechanisms provided on the site.
-
I really don't want to have this debate again, but I don't agree that the point tracker is less consistent with the rules than veto mode. So I find that argument unpersuasive.
-
If no player cares about the point tracker, it is always off because it is a variant not allowed by the actual rules; the default should obviously be to play Dominion, not Dominion-plus-public-scoring.
If no player cares about veto mode, it is sometimes enabled (randomly, 1 in 5 chance) because it is allowed by the rule book (which says "players can choose the 10 Kingdom cards using any method they agree on."); it's as legal a way to choose the Kingdom cards as any of the other mechanisms provided on the site.
Doug, would you consider adding "prefer" and "prefer not" options to the automatch dropdowns? I think it's clear what should happen for any combination of options, except when at least one person says "prefer" and at least one other says "prefer not" and nobody says "require" or "prohibit" - in which case that could be handled like the current don't-care behaviors.
Lately I've been playing an alt experimenting with other game modes I don't normally play, and I'd particularly like a "prefer" option for the point tracker. i.e. I'd like to play with it, but I will play with somebody who has "prohibited" it if that's who's available.
-
Doug, would you consider adding "prefer" and "prefer not" options to the automatch dropdowns? I think it's clear what should happen for any combination of options, except when at least one person says "prefer" and at least one other says "prefer not" and nobody says "require" or "prohibit" - in which case that could be handled like the current don't-care behaviors.
Lately I've been playing an alt experimenting with other game modes I don't normally play, and I'd particularly like a "prefer" option for the point tracker. i.e. I'd like to play with it, but I will play with somebody who has "prohibited" it if that's who's available.
Seconded. I've been thinking for a while that a "prefer" and "prefer not" system would be nice, since I would also be in the boat of usually preferring point tracker, but would also like games without it.
-
Feature requests, from a total newb's perspective:
As the player list refreshes, anything you are typing into text boxes disappears. I often like to set up solitaire games with specific card sets, so it gets a bit frustrating trying to type in the box as it constantly refreshes. Being able to stop the auto-refresh, or a page specific to setting up solitaire games would be nice.
I'd like to restrict to certain sets, the "bias" is just that, just a bias, but I'd like actual restrictions. I am okay with these restrictions meaning the game doesn't count towards your rating. As a newb, I just would like to focus on the older expansions.
I'd like it if your veto only applied to 6 cards not 12 (each player seeing a different half of the proposed board). That way you do not see the whole board. Right now, I think people are vetoing with full knowledge of the board, so it really reduces the "oh, oh, didn't expect that combo" when the game starts, which I feel is an important part of the game's appeal. I like veto games, but feel the ability to veto on all 12 is a tad strong.
Chrome Extensions - Do they exist yet? A list of add-ons that compliment isotropic would be nice.
My apologies if my suggestions are neither feasible or useful to long term players.
-
As the player list refreshes, anything you are typing into text boxes disappears.
This issue drives me absolutely batshit (the text box can't be used for typing, period) and forces me to type solitaire testing requirements into a separate text window and then paste them in (reallyreallyfast because otherwise the box loses focus before I can execute the paste command). But I assume it's some browser or system specific thing that is hard to repro elsewhere.
-
Identical starting hands option for auto-match.
-
Ditto on both of the above. I see something similar to guided/chaosred: whenever the player list refreshes, the text box loses focus, and this makes it entirely impossible to actually type into it. Also sort of frustrating when trying to select restrictions from the dropdown menus. (Browser, OS: Firefox, Linux). Not insurmountable, but definitely quite difficult to use.
The identical starting hands for automatch would be great and I'd 100% use it, though I worry that it might not be a good idea to clutter the automatch with a zillion different options and we already have veto mode and point tracker and set biasing, so it's definitely a judgement call on where to stop putting more in.
-
I would also very much like an identical starting hands option for automatch.
-
I wouldn't use identical starting hands but agree it should be an option. Get rid of set biasing and auto-match setup will be perfect (apart from ¨everybody agrees before the kingdom is revealed mode).
-
Oh no! Sorry for the doublepost! I thought my first one didn't go through. My bad.
-
I think there's an echo in here.
-
Would it be hard for the veto cards to be sorted by price before veto selection? Maybe it's just a particular weakness I have, that I remember pretty well what the cards do, and if you asked me what a card costs I could probably tell you, but when I see them all thrown together for veto purposes it's hard for me to grasp what the price distribution of the kingdom will be. And I guess more than anything else, that is something I'm interested in balancing when I select for veto.
-
Request: After declining a game automatch with someone, wait at least, say, 5 seconds before matching up with them again. It's just kinda weird when you hit reject and get the same person immediately again. I've done it a few times when I figured the other person was just afk; I've had it done to me after I rejected a kingdom set (game auto-matched us again and the person hit reject twice within three seconds - I guess he was offended :P)
-
Yeah, I'd played 200 games before I understood someone might reject the game and not me.
-
Request: After declining a game automatch with someone, wait at least, say, 5 seconds before matching up with them again. It's just kinda weird when you hit reject and get the same person immediately again. I've done it a few times when I figured the other person was just afk; I've had it done to me after I rejected a kingdom set (game auto-matched us again and the person hit reject twice within three seconds - I guess he was offended :P)
If you reject an auto-match with me more than once, I typically reject all further auto-matches with you automatically (what, picking sets? Use the non auto-match option) and put you on my "do not accept matches with" list.
-
Auto-match should really not show the board beforehand. Veto-mode already does that.
-
I'd like a auto-match where I can select the usual options (2 player, +/- 10...) and then just be thrown into a game. No allowance for choosing the kingdom or player. Just game on! :-)
-
Identical starting hands option for auto-match.
Agreed, why is this not in yet?
-
Another thing, whenever I start typing card names in the require card(s) box, after a second or so it loses focus and I have to click it again to continue typing. This is really annoying.
Sure, I can type somewhere else and just copy-paste, but this is tedious.
Can you fix this?
-
I've found a good place to type them is in the chat box.
So require games are unranked. Are constraints? That should be a way to get colony, but requesting a $9 card.
-
So, does this thread have any use? Identical starting hands option for automatches was proposed several times, seems like a minor change that would make many people happy - if this is not realized, why bothering with any requests?
This shall not be understood as insulting the creator of isotropic which did and does some great job there, but as a question what all these requests are good for.
-
I'm pretty sure that with the impending removal of Isotropic from the public domain, DougZ isn't really interested in making any more minor tweaks and/or adjustments. Only he can confirm this though.
-
I hadn't heard that. :( Is it going subscription?
-
No. There is currently an unrelated commercial Dominion being developed. The release date of this commercial application has not been announced; I believe we know it is in development, but don't know about the progress.
The fate of Isotropic is for DougZ and DonaldX to decide, but I *believe* it's been announced that isotropic will be taken offline when the commercial version is released. I think you'll agree that it would be quite rude and unprofessional for Donald and a friend of his to keep up a free version when there are people who are paying for the license to publish a commercial version!
-
Sure, I just love playing with remote folks. I'll miss Doug's artwork :)