Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion Online at Shuffle iT => Dominion General Discussion => Dominion Isotropic => Topic started by: Jeebus on November 11, 2011, 09:19:28 am
-
A couple of minor bugs, or at least wrongly implemented actions.
Inn has the wrong card text on isotropic. It doesn't say to reveal the cards you want to shuffle in, only to look at them. Isotropic follows this, and doesn't reveal them. The actual card text tells you to reveal the cards.
Ok, I just discovered the following wasn't a bug, just very misleading in the user interface. Played a game where I played Lighthouse and Scheme in the same turn. Now you won't be able to top-deck a newly played duration with Scheme. Isotropic says: "optionally return an action card to your deck> Scheme, Lighthouse (new), none".
If I choose "Lighthouse (new)", nothing happens, which is actually correct. The card does say to choose an action card in play, so it's technically correct that you can choose a newly played duration. But I can't see any situation why you would, it would be the same as choosing "none". Also the isotropic instruction doesn't say "choose a card", but rather "return a card", so this seems very misleading to me. Even if you're aware of this "trick" you have to be careful to never click any duration with "(new)" next to it.
Btw, does anyone have the impression that bugs on isotropic get corrected as a result of these threads?
-
As for the lighthouse one, while it may be misleading, by the rules, it must be this way, and if it were any other way, then it WOULD be wrong.
-
As for the lighthouse one, while it may be misleading, by the rules, it must be this way, and if it were any other way, then it WOULD be wrong.
But it could say something else than "optionally return an action card to your deck", because you what you are choosing is not the card to return, but the card to reveal, which, under certain conditions, then might be returned.
The way it is phrased it sounds as if you could return all these cards to the deck. Which is wrong. You can reveal all these cards.
But I doubt that this will prevent any missclicks...
-
I would say the red "?!" would be a good thing for this situation, as well as perhaps more accurate wording.
However, as always, it is questionable whether something like this will be deemed worth spending time on when the impending end of Iso keeps being brought up.
-
I have found it very difficult to tidy up scheme and alchemists together. I suspect this is just very difficult to use through the interface, however I can't work out if it is correct since it's so difficult!
-
Somebody reported a legitimate isotropic bug with Alchemist/Treasury and Scheme a little while ago. Dunno if it's been fixed, but the bug was that the Schemed card would always go back on top of the deck after the Alchemists/Treasuries, even if you tried to clean it up first.
As far as your comment about Lighthouse, the way you describe the mechanics is 100% correct. You are allowed to choose a card that won't be cleaned up this turn, in which case nothing happens. I do agree though that a "?!" would be warranted in this situation.
-
Yup, as I said I'm aware that it's technically correct. However, even disregarding the misleading wording, why would anyone ever choose a card that won't be discarded? It's the same thing as choosing none. The only way it can ever matter that I can think of, would be if a when-choose reaction would be introduced, and I'm 99.999% sure that will never happen. So I don't understand why the choice is even there.
And I don't agree that it would be wrong to remove it. The reason the card technically allows you to choose any action card, is obviously just for phrasing reasons. It's not because there's a game mechanic that will happen when you choose a card even if you don't discard it.
-
And I don't agree that it would be wrong to remove it.
Scheme says you can choose an Action card in play. It would be wrong to forbid you from choosing one of your Action cards in play. End of story. The question of whether it's mechanically distinct (or will ever be mechanically distinct) from choosing nothing doesn't even enter into it.
-
The reason the card technically allows you to choose any action card, is obviously just for phrasing reasons.
"At the start of your clean-up phase, you may choose an Action card f rom you have in play and that you would discard this turn. Return it to your deck."
Does not sound so ugly in my ears.
-
Since there's two more expansions and they are already coded into isotropic where I hear they are play-tested, there may be a reason it is the way it is.
But then again,
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Yea, there's a situation when you would want to do it more than once, but it requires other cards. If Moat is the only reaction in hand there's no reason for isotropic to let you reveal it more than once.
-
Since there's two more expansions and they are already coded into isotropic where I hear they are play-tested, there may be a reason it is the way it is.
But then again,
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Yea, there's a situation when you would want to do it more than once, but it requires other cards. If Moat is the only reaction in hand there's no reason for isotropic to let you reveal it more than once.
This has already been addressed. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=368.0)
-
Yup, as I said I'm aware that it's technically correct. However, even disregarding the misleading wording, why would anyone ever choose a card that won't be discarded? It's the same thing as choosing none. The only way it can ever matter that I can think of, would be if a when-choose reaction would be introduced, and I'm 99.999% sure that will never happen. So I don't understand why the choice is even there.
And I don't agree that it would be wrong to remove it. The reason the card technically allows you to choose any action card, is obviously just for phrasing reasons. It's not because there's a game mechanic that will happen when you choose a card even if you don't discard it.
Mostly what guided said. Isotropic, if you've noticed, is designed very very carefully to always adhere to exactly the text of the rules. (Something you'll quickly notice is not true of the BSW implementation.) It goes no further, and no less, and this makes it easy to adapt to crazy future expansion cards, and to let you do the 0.000001% thing that you would never think of doing except maybe in this crazy hypothetical.
(Actually, this is not strictly true. Wishing Well and Contraband ought to allow you to name ANY card, not just cards in the supply, but that's the only example I can think of, and let's be honest, Contrabanding Black Lotus is only funny the first time.)
So this is a good example. You could play your Banks before your other Treasures, you can choose to Forge two Colonies into nothing, you can choose to Scheme cards that you can't actually Scheme. Isotropic won't stop you from any of that, because that's how the rules are written.
I agree that it should light up with the red ?!, but Isotropic's rigid adherence to the text is probably my favorite part about the server.
-
One thing that may be interesting to note: Donald and the other playtesters use isotropic as a platform for working on unreleased cards. Who knows what crazy ideas they might be experimenting with? Could be something in there that cares about Scheming a card that won't be cleaned up, or there might be cards you don't even know whether you'll be cleaning them up this turn until later in the cleanup phase.
-
(Actually, this is not strictly true. Wishing Well and Contraband ought to allow you to name ANY card, not just cards in the supply, but that's the only example I can think of, and let's be honest, Contrabanding Black Lotus is only funny the first time.)
Well it does let you name non-supply cards being used this game, e.g. prizes.
Scheme has the wording it does in order to behave understandably with one-shots / duration cards / throne rooms, and to be printable at all. Scheme also lets you use it on itself for exactly the same reason - the best phrasing happened to let you use it on itself.
It should be clear from the Trader fallout that a "would" phrasing would not have been preferable. And in general the possibility of a new way to misclick in isotropic due to its strict adherence to the rules is not going to get me to make a printed card's phrasing worse.
-
This is just simply not comparable to revealing the same Moat multiple times, or letting you trash cards that give no benefits, or letting you play cards in a stupid order etc. Most of these are judgment calls, and from a software viewpoint, would entail adding more functionality to check which options would be good or bad for you. Let's take Forging two Colonies as an example. There are absolutely instances when you want to Forge cards into nothing. We can't expect the software to judge when you shouldn't. And in any case Forging two Colonies does something. It makes a difference in the game.
The reasons for being able to react multiple times are known. In theory isotropic could check whether there could conceivably be any reasons to keep revealing the same reaction, and of not, not offer it. I would say that would actually make the interface better. But first of all, it would mean adding more functionality, which we have no reason to expect, and secondly, it would give the player hints when the option to react does show up. (I think that last part would be a small sacrifice to make in order to make the interface smoother, but I could certainly see other valid viewpoints.)
Choosing a card you can't top deck, on the other hand, does nothing -- not compared to clicking "none". As Donald has confirmed, the reason for the card text is clarity. Not that there might be a case where you would choose a card you can't top-deck. The isotropic software already knows which cards Scheme won't work on (it conveniently marks them "new"), so it shouldn't present them as options distinct from "none".
The very idea that some of you say it should light up with the read ?!, kind of says I'm right. I can't think of any other examples where I would want that introduced, including Forging two Colonies, or playing Banks before Coppers. I'm guessing you all agree on that.
But I concede that in the event there will be introduced cards which you don't know whether you'll discard until later in the clean-up face, this might be necessary. But judging from Donald's reply, this seems very unlikely. And in any event I'm betting that Dougz has had to go back and change the behavior of old cards before when other cards were introduced.
-
Choosing a card you can't top deck, on the other hand, does nothing -- not compared to clicking "none".
Immaterial. The card text explicitly says you can do it.
-
From a more practical standpoint, you're asking isotropic to change the nuts-and-bolts implementation of the cleanup phase to include an extra predictive step to figure out which cards will be cleaned up this turn, for the sole purpose of forbidding players from doing something a card specifically says they can do. Also hey, here are some equally useless things isotropic lets you do:
- Play Throne Room or King's Court even if you have no other action cards in hand and don't own a Diadem
- Play Chancellor instead of Woodcutter when your draw pile is empty
- Play basic Treasures in your buy phase even if you already have $11+ and only one buy, with no non-basic Treasures in your deck and no cards on the board with on-gain or on-buy effects
-
Also hey, here are some equally useless things isotropic lets you do:
- Play Throne Room or King's Court even if you have no other action cards in hand and don't own a Diadem
... Okay, I'll say it... Peddler.
I'm just nitpicking though, I agree with you on this.
-
Dammit! I just knew I was going to forget a caveat I needed to add to one of those examples ;) I even thought of the much-more-outlandish Diadem caveat (because I want to decrease my buying power for some reason???)
Point is, it's not isotropic's job to analyze every possible card combination and figure out whether something you're allowed to do could be useful. It's isotropic's job to faithfully implement the actual card texts (and FAQs, designer clarifications, etc) in the hope that any and all unanticipated combinations (possibly with future cards that haven't even been invented yet) work however the card texts imply they should work.
-
From a more practical standpoint, you're asking isotropic to change the nuts-and-bolts implementation of the cleanup phase to include an extra predictive step to figure out which cards will be cleaned up this turn, for the sole purpose of forbidding players from doing something a card specifically says they can do. Also hey, here are some equally useless things isotropic lets you do:
- Play Throne Room or King's Court even if you have no other action cards in hand and don't own a Diadem
- Play Chancellor instead of Woodcutter when your draw pile is empty
- Play basic Treasures in your buy phase even if you already have $11+ and only one buy, with no non-basic Treasures in your deck and no cards on the board with on-gain or on-buy effects
I don't agree; I think the OP has a very valid point here. The interface already knows some durations are old and some are new since it is noted. It makes no programming difference to just hide the new ones. So in terms of implementation this makes no difference at all. What you are saying are intrinsically different as you correctly point out that it requires additional judgement calls as well as additional implementations from the interface.
-
+1 Card; +1 Action
At the start of Clean-up this turn, you may choose an Action card you have in play. If you discard it from play this turn, put it on your deck.
"Choose an Action card you have in play". Is that Wharf you played this turn "an Action card you have in play"? Then you can choose it. If Isotropic didn't let you do so, it would be an incorrect implementation of the card. That's pretty much all there is to it.
-
The interface already knows some durations are old and some are new since it is noted. It makes no programming difference to just hide the new ones. So in terms of implementation this makes no difference at all.
Certainly you don't think isotropic already looks through the to-be-cleaned-up property of each action card in your play area to figure out which will be cleaned up before asking you what to Scheme?
The "judgment call" required here is not in some other category from the other judgment calls I've presented. To decide not to Scheme a card that won't be cleaned up, you have to judge whether the card will be cleaned up, and then think about how Scheme works and realize that when you had hoped that card would get top-decked, it won't actually happen. This is a simple judgment to make, but it's a reasoned analysis you have to make about a specific card combination. isotropic should not be in the business of analyzing card combinations for usefulness, especially not for the purpose of - I'm sounding like a broken record here - forbidding players from doing something the card explicitly allows. The only exception is when literally following the card text leads to the potential for abuse (like endlessly revealing the same Moat).
-
You are either anticipating something very complicated to happen in the following expansion, or just making things complicated. For all I know, the only cards that are not cleaned up are duration cards, and the TR or KC that directly played before them.
I don't know whether isotropic figures out the to-be-cleaned-up property before or after scheme; it probably does this on a card by card basis. In any case, since it distinguishes between a duration card played this turn and the turn before, it is trivial to hide it.
In your tone, it really sounds like you are proposing to have a text box provided, or at the very least a whole list of available cards, when you play contraband or wishing well. That is what you should do if you want to follow the rules strictly.
I am, as well as the OP, as far as I can tell, not asking isotropic to provide any judgement. Key difference between this case and the case you talked about, in case if you didn't notice:
(1) covered by TINAS
(2) this depends on the cards you have in hand.
(3) apparently depends on the hand and the board.
Compare to the case we are discussing:
independent of your hand, setup, deck, whatever. And there is no additional implementation required; whenever the interface decided to put a (new) next to a card, it instead just hide it. And for all I can tell there is no possibility of usefulness to choose a card you cannot top deck; you can always choose none if you want.
In my opinion, this is really in the realm of the Wishing Well and Contraband example. I don't see why you should put a much stronger tone one one issue rather than the other.
-
And there is no additional implementation required
But there is. You keep saying "just don't show it" as if that requires less implementation. It doesn't: now for each action card you have to make a decision, "do I show this or don't I?" instead of just showing every action card in accordance with the actual card text.
Contraband and Wishing Well should have a write-in option to strictly follow the card texts, or at least they should have a clickthrough to a list of every extant card. But this will not matter in practice, so I respect Doug's decision not to clutter up the interface with extra stuff. Note you do get a big text list of Black Market or Prize cards, for example. FWIW, I would argue that an option to select a dummy card that doesn't actually exist would be an improvement to the isotropic interface in certain rare circumstances.
You're still making a false distinction between this judgment and the other judgments I presented. "Your judgments are more complicated than mine" does not absolve your judgment from being a judgment. Further, you're proposing isotropic change its implementation to introduce a deliberate bug that has the possibility (however remote) of conflicting with future cards.
In short: isotropic implements the actual card text, and anybody who calls it a bug is just wrong. If you believe introducing a new bug would be an improvement to the isotropic interface, I suggest you take it up with Doug.
-
The key here is that Scheme could have said something like:
At the start of Clean-up this turn, you may choose an Action card you have in play that will be discarded this turn. When you do discard it, put it on your deck.
I think this is functionally equivalent (barring the fact that it doesn't let you choose newly played durations of course), and even if it isn't, it could be tweaked so that it is. This is just to make a point.
Donald has confirmed that the above text was the intention of the card. The reason for the wording was not to have you choose a card first and then check later if it would be discarded. The players know which cards will be discarded, and so does isotropic. It's all cards except the durations played this turn. That's the only exception to the rule. It's not a judgment call. If the card text is as above, there is no "card combination" to analyze. What I'm trying to say is that the card doesn't allow this choice for any reason other than the phrasing happened to allow it. The card text could just as easily have been as above. Then this wouldn't have been a discussion and still everyone would be happy. Isotropic would have to figure out for you which cards you could Scheme! :o
As for the other argument, that isotropic just has to follow the card text literally no matter what. ...Wait, is that an argument? Ok then, why?
Isotropic already does other things wrong. It routinely reveals cards when it shouldn't and doesn't when it should. This is so because doing it right would be inconvenient. Exactly.
-
My problem with the alchemist-scheme wasn't a failure of correctness. The isotropic instructions were (probably) word-for-word correct for someone who knew what they are doing. A good interface should also be clear for people who don't know exactly what they are doing. By the very nature of alchemist/scheme I had a load of cards and options presented in from of me every turn and it took two long games for me to sort of figure out what was going on, and I'm supposed to know this stuff. In the meantime my opponent's had to wait around for ages every turn and I ended up putting the cards back in the quickest possible time rather than in any desired order. That isn't a good sign.
For anyone who hasn't done this yet the interface works as follows, if I remember correctly
(a) End the buy phase
(b) Interface asks you which action cards you want to nominate for your schemes from actions played that turn - a long list
(c) You then get asked one by one which cards you want to clear up next, from exactly the same list as in (b)
If you select an alchemist you are presumably prompted to put it back on the deck or discard it
If you select a scheme it presumably puts one of the cards you selected in (b) back on the deck. I wonder what the order is if you selected multiple cards?
If you select a card you selected in (b) then it probably gets discarded, or am I wrong? I can't even be sure now.
(d) After you've cleaned up your schemes you are asked individually whether you want to put each alchemist back on your deck.
(e) I'm guessing that if you've cleared up all your alchemists the scheme is resolved automatically.
(f) Lets not think about herbalists. I always click a treasure when it asks me which card I want to clean up next, and that puts the treasure immediately into the discard.
Anyway, if you're picky in the order and choice of cards it can take a long time. I was playing alchemist/scheme with cartographer, tunnel, and margrave in one game and the order did sadly matter.
-
I agree that the instructions for the Scheme/Alchemist combo cleanup are confusing.... But they also do the wrong thing; if you had tried to put them back in your desired order it wouldn't have let you.
-
But there is. You keep saying "just don't show it" as if that requires less implementation. It doesn't: now for each action card you have to make a decision, "do I show this or don't I?" instead of just showing every action card in accordance with the actual card text.
You're still making a false distinction between this judgment and the other judgments I presented. "Your judgments are more complicated than mine" does not absolve your judgment from being a judgment. Further, you're proposing isotropic change its implementation to introduce a deliberate bug that has the possibility (however remote) of conflicting with future cards.
In short: isotropic implements the actual card text, and anybody who calls it a bug is just wrong. If you believe introducing a new bug would be an improvement to the isotropic interface, I suggest you take it up with Doug.
No it doesn't. Do you really think in the internal implementation the (new) and the (old) tag always follow with the name tag of a duration card? I am almost certain it is not the case. Therefore, whenever you decided to show its name with the (new) tag, you can instead choose just to skip this card. This is strictly zero overhead: you don't have to think about non-duration cards, and for a duration card the new work you do replaces the one you did.
And the distinction is certainly there. It is only false if you want to identify the distinction I mentioned with the problem you defined. I have no intention to argue the precise way I should be phrasing it: if a decision can be made independent of any other parameters, nor is there any case one would like to make one of the choices, then it is something that can be skipped without harm, whether you want to call this a judgement or not.
And don't take me wrong, I am entirely fine with the current implementation. I just don't like someone taking this issue as if there is a clearly right and wrong way, without taking the same attitude toward the already implemented feature.
-
Donald has confirmed that the above text was the intention of the card.
What? No. He certainly didn't.
Also the both of you keep saying that there's no judgment being made here, but that's because you're allowing your definition of the word "judgment" to drift from example to example to get the rhetorical result you want. If I have Chancellor and Woodcutter in hand and only 1 action left, I know with absolute certainty that Woodcutter will give me +Buy while Chancellor will give me nothing beyond the +$2. I don't have to make a judgment in that sense. I do have to use my powers of reasoning (or "judgment") to determine that one card dominates the other though, the same as I have to use my powers of reasoning at the time I play Scheme to know that such and such card won't be cleaned up later.
late edit: Removed some misstatements based on forgetting the precise mechanics of Treasury, Alchemist, etc. However, note that if Herbalist is in play there are potentially (non-Action) cards such that we don't know at the beginning of cleanup whether they will be discarded. It is not hard to imagine future cards that could create similar situations with Action cards, or even uncover new information during cleanup that could change my decision about what cards get discarded.
-
And don't take me wrong, I am entirely fine with the current implementation. I just don't like someone taking this issue as if there is a clearly right and wrong way, without taking the same attitude toward the already implemented feature.
I believe I did take the same attitude toward the other feature? I said it would be an improvement to allow me to name a nonexistent dummy card for Wishing Well or Contraband. If there were a write-in box I wouldn't complain, but I wouldn't go out of my way asking for one.
I could start writing pseudocode... but suffice it to say I :facepalmed: at "strictly zero overhead", and this argument about compactness of implementation just doesn't matter anyway. isotropic does what the card says, and hey, if you can convince Doug to change the implementation to introduce a new bug because you think it improves the interface, more power to you. Personally I would rather isotropic did not implement bugs that could potentially break future card interactions. Such interactions seem unlikely but not totally out of the question to me.
I agree that the instructions for the Scheme/Alchemist combo cleanup are confusing.... But they also do the wrong thing; if you had tried to put them back in your desired order it wouldn't have let you.
Yes, this is a real bug on isotropic. (Unless it's been fixed recently?)
-
Do note that there are plenty of other instances of cards not being discarded during cleanup, and indeed which cards will be discarded not being determined until later, e.g. Treasury, Alchemist, any Schemed card (if I play multiple Schemes), any treasure you might choose with Herbalist.
This just made me realize that the current implementation is NOT correct with the actual cards! If you play 2 Schemes and a Woodcutter, you should be able to choose that Woodcutter twice, once for each Scheme. But you can't!
-
You ninja'd my edit. On reviewing the card texts I note Schemed cards are actually discarded (then rerouted to the top of the deck). Ditto Treasury and Alchemist.
Interesting, though, I didn't know about that bug. Based on the other known Scheme bug (with Alchemist & Treasury) my guess is that the Schemed card is "set aside" in some way when you choose it, and then top-decked at the end of cleanup. I wonder whether there's a bug with Scheme + Herbalist?
edit: Oh, I see, there's just one Scheme dialog, with checkboxes that you can pick one of for each Scheme. I forgot that was how it worked with multiple Schemes... probably because I don't buy Scheme very often. Herbalist still works (in that it allows you to put back a Treasure even if you Scheme it), but it appears when you play multiple Schemes you get no control over the order the Schemed cards go back on your deck. For example, when I Schemed a Scheme and an Herbalist, then cleaned up the Herbalist first, the Scheme went on top of the deck before the Herbalist anyway.
-
But there is. You keep saying "just don't show it" as if that requires less implementation. It doesn't: now for each action card you have to make a decision, "do I show this or don't I?" instead of just showing every action card in accordance with the actual card text.
You're still making a false distinction between this judgment and the other judgments I presented. "Your judgments are more complicated than mine" does not absolve your judgment from being a judgment. Further, you're proposing isotropic change its implementation to introduce a deliberate bug that has the possibility (however remote) of conflicting with future cards.
In short: isotropic implements the actual card text, and anybody who calls it a bug is just wrong. If you believe introducing a new bug would be an improvement to the isotropic interface, I suggest you take it up with Doug.
No it doesn't. Do you really think in the internal implementation the (new) and the (old) tag always follow with the name tag of a duration card? I am almost certain it is not the case. Therefore, whenever you decided to show its name with the (new) tag, you can instead choose just to skip this card. This is strictly zero overhead: you don't have to think about non-duration cards, and for a duration card the new work you do replaces the one you did
Except that you probably already had the code that told you whether the thing was new or old. Here you would still have to have code to check each card and say "if whatever, don't show it". Okay, not a big deal probably, but it is something you need.
-
The players know which cards will be discarded, and so does isotropic. It's all cards except the durations played this turn. That's the only exception to the rule.
Incorrect! In fact there is no simpler way to describe the set of cards that are discarded than those words I just used to describe it in this sentence.
Here's a good way to think about this important issue.
Some guy made an online version of Dominion, in his free time, for fun.
He owes you zilch. Try not to piss him off, that's my advice.
-
To be clear: I'm not advocating trying to convince Doug to do anything. I'm sure he knows about most of the bugs already -- it seems there are a few of them with the new cards -- and are fixing them as he sees fit. And the things in this thread are, as I noted in my first post, minor. I just took issue with some of the posters' arguments for why Scheme couldn't have been implemented any other way anyway.
Except that you probably already had the code that told you whether the thing was new or old. Here you would still have to have code to check each card and say "if whatever, don't show it". Okay, not a big deal probably, but it is something you need.
The idea would be that if it was new (which you already know), then instead of putting the word "new" next to it, don't show it in the list. So probably not more overhead than there is now.
Incorrect! In fact there is no simpler way to describe the set of cards that are discarded than those words I just used to describe it in this sentence.
I now realize that Treasures can also not be discarded after playing Herbalist. I do think that when it comes to actions, there are only durations played this turn, as of now.
Going by the thought that there are only newly played durations that will be discarded, there is no judgment. The arguments that it's a judgment call that isotropic shouldn't make for you, are essentially saying that this has to be the way it is for the reason that the user should be tricked into clicking the wrong card. :) The cards are in the list just in case you screw up and click on them.
It also seems very weird to me that the ones who are saying isotropic should not behave differently on this, because it would add overhead and it's not isotropic's job to make that call for you, are all okay with adding the the "?!" warning..? This would also involve changing isotropic in a similar way, and most certainly add overhead. And then isotropic would pretty much make that judgment call for you anyway.
However, the Herbalist thing has made me realize that there are actually other cards that aren't discarded from play during clean-up, even though they aren't actions. But that means there could potentially be other such effects later. In short, I'm not so convinced anymore that this won't happen. (With two expansions left, and only one card so far doing this, Herbalist, I don't think the chances are that high though. But who knows?)
Even if there were cards in the future that let you do something with an action card in play in Clean-up, isotropic could still refrain from showing newly played durations. Isotropic already "helps" you in this way: it lets you play all treasures that won't cause any harm. It even reminds you not to play coppers if Grand Market is available. I'd say that's more of a judgment call made on your behalf.
Also, as I said, isotropic reveals cards when it shouldn't and doesn't when it should, for convenience. Are you guys against this too?
-
I think Doug is doing a fantastic with isotropic. That doesn't stop me getting confused when trying to sort out top of deck clean up through the text interface. I'm glad I don't have to code it to be honest.
-
I think the suggested change would not necessarily be a bug. It depends on how you look at it.
Scheme wants you to make a choice: either choose a card or don't. Then, if you choose to choose a card, you need to choose which card you want to choose. But do we define choosing as choosing or clicking? Is it wrong implementation to choose the Wharf that you played this turn, and then click on 'none' because that covers all possible choices that won't result in putting a card back on deck?
In fact, the Isotropic prompt is 'optionally return an action card to your deck'. It says nothing about choosing it. If I click on 'Wharf (new)', it doesn't return it to the deck, even though it says it will. Is not doing something that it says it will do a 'bug'? I'm not saying it is (you can choose to gain a Curse when the pile is empty), but it is misleading.
Anyway, I'm not saying it should be changed. It's just another one of those Moat-esque things that confuse the heck out of you the first time and you never notice again.
-
Except that you probably already had the code that told you whether the thing was new or old. Here you would still have to have code to check each card and say "if whatever, don't show it". Okay, not a big deal probably, but it is something you need.
The idea would be that if it was new (which you already know), then instead of putting the word "new" next to it, don't show it in the list. So probably not more overhead than there is now.
Except that there's no additional overhead for the way it is now, because that's the way it is now. This would be a change. Changes require work.
But the big reason is that this would be a change that would take something from following the rules exactly (as it does now) TO not following the rules exactly. And man, I just don't get why you'd do that without a really, really good reason.
-
Incorrect! In fact there is no simpler way to describe the set of cards that are discarded than those words I just used to describe it in this sentence.
I now realize that Treasures can also not be discarded after playing Herbalist. I do think that when it comes to actions, there are only durations played this turn, as of now.
In fact that is not the case. I will just tell you, Throne Room and King's Court stay in play with the duration cards they were used on. They are not duration cards. This has been brought up in this thread already but there you go. I could not consider a phrasing like "choose a non-duration card" for Scheme because it would have done bad and confusing things with Throne Rooms.
It also seems very weird to me that the ones who are saying isotropic should not behave differently on this, because it would add overhead and it's not isotropic's job to make that call for you, are all okay with adding the the "?!" warning..? This would also involve changing isotropic in a similar way, and most certainly add overhead. And then isotropic would pretty much make that judgment call for you anyway.
A ?! would be a way to help players not make a mistake. Not listing cards that Scheme irl actually lets you pick would be depriving you of an option the real game gives you. That is how those things are different. One follows the rules and one does not.
This is not the only pointless yet accurate option Isotropic gives you. For example, when you play Oracle and decide not to discard the cards, you pick what order to put them back. Then you draw them. There could conceivably be a card that made this matter of course.
-
For example, when you play Oracle and decide not to discard the cards, you pick what order to put them back. Then you draw them. There could conceivably be a card that made this matter of course.
Ooh...a Reaction from a future set, perhaps, something like "when you draw a card, you may reveal this. If you do, discard that card and draw 2 cards"?
Neat.
-
Since the top card of your discard pile is not visible and the interface waits automatically when you have a reaction in hand, Isotropic is already different from RL games.
-
How about the interaction of KC / TR Scheme + wharf.
When you get the the scheme EOT interface is it possible to tell which of your 3 KC can be returned to top and which are going to be stuck to durations.
Is the long list of cards in the order you played them?
-
Incorrect! In fact there is no simpler way to describe the set of cards that are discarded than those words I just used to describe it in this sentence.
I now realize that Treasures can also not be discarded after playing Herbalist. I do think that when it comes to actions, there are only durations played this turn, as of now.
In fact that is not the case. I will just tell you, Throne Room and King's Court stay in play with the duration cards they were used on. They are not duration cards. This has been brought up in this thread already but there you go. I could not consider a phrasing like "choose a non-duration card" for Scheme because it would have done bad and confusing things with Throne Rooms.
Also, you would get into philosophical discussions if a Tactician that did not discard any turns actually is a Duration or not. You could argue that it is, since there is "Action-Duration" printed on the card, but it does not act as a Duration, especially it gets discarded and thus can get schemed.
edit:
When you get the the scheme EOT interface is it possible to tell which of your 3 KC can be returned to top and which are going to be stuck to durations.
Is the long list of cards in the order you played them
Just tried, it does not say which KCs are the old ones, but it seems as the list is order in the order you played the cards, Durations first.
Also, you would get into philosophical discussions if a Tactician that did not discard any turns actually is a Duration or not. You could argue that it is, since there is "Action-Duration" printed on the card, but it does not act as a Duration, especially it gets discarded and thus can get schemed.
-
Except that there's no additional overhead for the way it is now, because that's the way it is now. This would be a change. Changes require work.
Of course. Man I don't think this was what people were arguing when they were talking about "added overhead". We're talking about why it could or couldn't have been different in the first place. Of course any change requires work. :P
In fact that is not the case. I will just tell you, Throne Room and King's Court stay in play with the duration cards they were used on. They are not duration cards. This has been brought up in this thread already but there you go. I could not consider a phrasing like "choose a non-duration card" for Scheme because it would have done bad and confusing things with Throne Rooms.
Oh, I didn't suggest that the card text should be different. This was purely about isotropic's implementation.
I'm aware of TR/KC, I just lumped those in with durations that won't discarded in order to not make my posts even longer. (Since nobody brought them up after that one time, I assumed everybody else did this too.) I just assumed those would be marked "new" and "old" as well.
It also seems very weird to me that the ones who are saying isotropic should not behave differently on this, because it would add overhead and it's not isotropic's job to make that call for you, are all okay with adding the the "?!" warning..? This would also involve changing isotropic in a similar way, and most certainly add overhead. And then isotropic would pretty much make that judgment call for you anyway.
A ?! would be a way to help players not make a mistake. Not listing cards that Scheme irl actually lets you pick would be depriving you of an option the real game gives you. That is how those things are different. One follows the rules and one does not.
Of course. But I was saying that some people were arguing about two things: added programming overhead, and isotropic making a judgment call it shouldn't make. I don't see why these same people would be for the warning. (Interestingly, you're kinda saying what I've been saying: Clicking the new durations would be a mistake. So we're talking about an option that should be there for the only practical purpose of maybe making the user make a mistake.)
As for the argument that it's strictly correct the way it is now, and that's why it has to be that way. Why? As I've said, isotropic already does several things that are wrong according to the rules, for the sake of convenience. I alluded to this several times, but an example: It doesn't let you choose a card to be visible on top of your discard deck.
-
I'm aware of TR/KC, I just lumped those in with durations that won't discarded in order to not make my posts even longer. (Since nobody brought them up after that one time, I assumed everybody else did this too.) I just assumed those would be marked "new" and "old" as well.
Well 1) perhaps you can understand why making an absolute statement, having it be corrected and saying no really you're right, and then saying "oh yeah I also meant something else too" is not the height of clear communication; and 2) in fact as has been pointed out in this thread already, you can also have a duration card that does not stick around (Tactician played with no cards to discard), and for those situations you easily might want to play and pick one of them (buying Peddler). Hooray for isotropic not doing something stupid like not letting you pick duration cards played this turn!
(Interestingly, you're kinda saying what I've been saying: Clicking the new durations would be a mistake. So we're talking about an option that should be there for the only practical purpose of maybe making the user make a mistake.)
A good first guess is that we two are not saying the same thing about anything! The ?! that stops you from making a mistake may also just irritate you on your way to doing something you really meant to do even though it's abnormal, like passing when you could have bought something because you don't actually want an Estate yet.
The point to letting you click on any action is and has always been the accurate implementation of the card.
As for the argument that it's strictly correct the way it is now, and that's why it has to be that way. Why?
Again, an excellent answer is, because that is the way Doug Z. did it, a man who pays for a server so that people can complain about his free implementation of Dominion.
You should switch to complaining about how the commercial version will work. I am betting it will let you pick an action that won't actually be discarded.
-
You should switch to complaining about how the commercial version will work. I am betting it will let you pick an action that won't actually be discarded.
More importantly, will it also irritate me on my way to doing something I really meant to do even though it's abnormal, like passing when I could have bought something because I don't actually want an Estate yet.
-
More importantly, will it also irritate me on my way to doing something I really meant to do even though it's abnormal, like passing when I could have bought something because I don't actually want an Estate yet.
That would certainly be ideal for me.
-
Well 1) perhaps you can understand why making an absolute statement, having it be corrected and saying no really you're right, and then saying "oh yeah I also meant something else too" is not the height of clear communication;
Sure. Since my posts tend to be long, as I mostly cover every contingency and aspect I can think of (which oftentimes people don't bother replying to anyway, as in this thread), sometimes I censor myself if I think that would actually be clearer. Clearly that was not a good call here. At the same time, perhaps you can see why saying that it isn't so, without explaining or giving any examples of what that means, thereby giving me no new information to go on, isn't the height of clear communication either.
and 2) in fact as has been pointed out in this thread already, you can also have a duration card that does not stick around (Tactician played with no cards to discard), and for those situations you easily might want to play and pick one of them (buying Peddler). Hooray for isotropic not doing something stupid like not letting you pick duration cards played this turn!
Okay, then I give in. I was wrong. I just didn't know about that Tactician behavior, and I managed to miss the reference to it in this thread. I read the post about a "philosophical discussion" but not carefully enough to get that it was about actual Tactician behavior. I've always thought that all duration cards stay until the next turn.
Again, an excellent answer is, because that is the way Doug Z. did it, a man who pays for a server so that people can complain about his free implementation of Dominion.
You should switch to complaining about how the commercial version will work. I am betting it will let you pick an action that won't actually be discarded.
Hmm, please don't accuse me of complaining about isotropic. I was merely pointing out bugs or things that are misleading. Lots of people have done the same thing in lots of threads. Are they all complaining and should shut up because isotropic is free? I'm guessing Doug has fixed some bugs because of those threads (or maybe just because people have emailed him directly?), but of course he isn't obligated to do so. But since this had already been done in this forum lots of times, I thought it was okay to do so.
As I've already said, I'm not writing all these posts in this thread because I'm trying hard to get Doug to do anything. I just didn't agree with the reasons given by people in this thread (not by Doug, who hasn't written in this thread) for why the Scheme behavior had to be that way in the first place. I wrote this the last time you accused me of this: "To be clear: I'm not advocating trying to convince Doug to do anything. I'm sure he knows about most of the bugs already -- it seems there are a few of them with the new cards -- and are fixing them as he sees fit. And the things in this thread are, as I noted in my first post, minor. I just took issue with some of the posters' arguments for why Scheme couldn't have been implemented any other way anyway." I meant that then and I mean it now!
Anyway, because of the Tactician behavior, I see that this is not so cut-and-dry, and I admit that it probably has to be the way it now. (Except of course that the on-screen instruction is misleading, and should ideally talk about choosing a card instead of returning a card.)
EDIT: Tried it now, and a Tactician that doesn't discard anything, is actually marked with "old" in the list of choices for Scheme, even though it's played this turn. Interesting. It seems the way isotropic handles this, it wouldn't actually present a problem as far as hiding any "new" durations, since that Tactician isn't included among them. Again: Not saying it's worth it to fix this! Not saying it should be fixed! Not saying it's even remotely important compared to actual bugs! Not saying Doug should fix any bugs if he doesn't want to! Not saying isotropic isn't a great resource for all fans of Dominion! Phew.