Print

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

[guided]

When I say 'the right play' I do not mean 'the polite play', I mean 'the play most likely to make you win'. I'm not encouraging anyone to do it, I'm pointing out that the system encourages people to, thus rewarding jerks and punishing nice folks. And that's a bad thing!

It's not a practical problem, because isotropic is not (by and large) populated by sociopaths. The problem solved by truncating the log (people inconsiderately waste time by poring over it) was very real in practice.

I believe it is good policy to be as welcoming and kind to people who can't devote themselves 100% to online Dominion as those who can.

It is not good policy to cater to those who care more about winning than about respecting the reasonable expectations of others. When you sit down to play a game with someone, there is a reasonable expectation that both players will devote sufficient attention to the game for it to play smoothly at all times without significant non-game-related delays. If you are constantly beset by distractions that prevent you from devoting your attention to a game, either play it promptly and inattentively or don't play.

[Stoc]

When I'm playing at work, I only play with a select group of RL friends. This is because they understand that we're all playing at work, and may have to suddenly / inexplicably go afk for 10 minutes. However, if I can take my turn quickly, let them progress, and go back over the turns at a later time (hopefully during their turns), it's preferable to waiting until I have time to process what each of them did as well as take a turn.

I said that I wish it was a toggled option, same as the point counter; in effect, it's nothing more than a verbose point counter.

[Personman]

When you sit down to play a game with someone, there is a reasonable expectation that both players will devote sufficient attention to the game for it to play smoothly at all times without significant non-game-related delays.

I agree, in the context of a serious gaming group or tournament, but that's not what we're doing here. Instead, we're clicking on buttons on a website, while another human being about whom you no next to nothing, and who may have circumstances, expectations, and ideas about civility entirely alien to your own.

In fact, I expect that a lot of people who play games irl (maybe even you!) would find it really weird if their phone rang on their turn and then their opponent yelled at them and called them inconsiderate for answering it. They might even take their turn quickly and silently while talking, but then ask their opponent what happened two turns ago, since they were talking and not paying that much attention! Shocking!

When I'm playing at work, I only play with a select group of RL friends. This is because they understand that we're all playing at work, and may have to suddenly / inexplicably go afk for 10 minutes. However, if I can take my turn quickly, let them progress, and go back over the turns at a later time (hopefully during their turns), it's preferable to waiting until I have time to process what each of them did as well as take a turn.

I said that I wish it was a toggled option, same as the point counter; in effect, it's nothing more than a verbose point counter.

Yes, this. All of this. What if I'm playing with my friends, and we *all* want to be able to see the full log?

If having another binary option is seen as too much clutter, I think it would also be fine to have the full log and the point counter be tied to each other. It doesn't make a lot of sense to have one without the other.

[WanderingWinder]

The right play now is to come back once every three minutes and play a single Treasure card until the RL crisis passes, instead of quickly taking your turn and then taking < 1 minute later to read back over the log.

No, the right play is to resign, or to play quickly and not worry too much about the information you missed while you weren't paying attention to the game.

When I say 'the right play' I do not mean 'the polite play', I mean 'the play most likely to make you win'. I'm not encouraging anyone to do it, I'm pointing out that the system encourages people to, thus rewarding jerks and punishing nice folks. And that's a bad thing!

In this case, waiting 2:50 is always "the right play"... (assuming that your internet connection is fairly stable), but this is clearly rather pointless.

[guided]

I said that I wish it was a toggled option, same as the point counter; in effect, it's nothing more than a verbose point counter.

You could come up with a thousand toggles/options that at least a few people might want, but for any given idea you need to ask whether it makes the site better for the userbase as a whole. Now for every story about how you need verbose logging, because your coworkers are OK with waiting for 10 minutes but absolutely not OK with waiting for 10 minutes plus the 10 seconds it takes to see what they did on their turn, I can probably tell a pretty good story about how somebody needs a toggle that lies and says "Default card selection was used." even though they did specify card restrictions, to spice up the competition with their group of friends who like to live dangerously.

For my own part, I wouldn't ragequit from ever playing on isotropic again if they added a toggle, but I would categorically refuse to play with it checked. I see no legitimate purpose for it in my games that doesn't involve making me sit there while my opponent scrolls up and reads (or vice versa), and I don't want either of us to be able to do that. Put another way, if you asked me to vote on whether there ought to be a toggle on the screen, I'd say no. But I wouldn't go after the people who would vote yes with pitchforks and torches, or anything.

another human being about whom you no next to nothing, and who may have circumstances, expectations, and ideas about civility entirely alien to your own.

But to argue this way is to utterly reject any notion of people being considerate to each other online. "Oh, I am not allowed to have any expectations whatsoever about my opponent's sense of civility, so it's completely OK for him to insult my mother at length throughout the game." Either there are reasonable expectations I can have, or there aren't.

I think it would also be fine to have the full log and the point counter be tied to each other. It doesn't make a lot of sense to have one without the other.

Does it really not make sense to you that a time-saving feature would be separated from a time-spending feature?

[guided]

In summary: I would never play with a verbose logging toggle, and I think adding one to the site isn't a good idea even though there are some users who want it. Neither am I vociferously opposed to adding a toggle. I would encourage anybody who wants one to spend their rhetorical effort convincing Doug.

[Personman]

I've gotten caught up in a large variety of smaller details I disagree with you about, and I think the real reason why I prefer the full log to be available has gotten lost. It is this:

I want players to be able to make the best decision they are capable of making within the time limit. I want the game to facilitate this by presenting all public information to them as efficiently as possible.

I don't want it to ever be the case that I or my opponent loses the game because, despite knowing the correct play if the other guy's King's Court was already seen this shuffle and the correct play if it wasn't, they can't find out and have to guess. To me, that just sucks. I don't care at all how good at remembering the last five turns you are. I want to know how good you are at doing the right thing when that information is presented to you as efficiently as possible. If it takes you a few more seconds to decide what to do when this information is available, great! At least you've done your best, and if I win, it's not because you couldn't remember some public information, it's because I understand the system better and made better choices (or got luckier, but, you know).

Does it really not make sense to you that a time-saving feature would be separated from a time-spending feature?

I guess I think of them both as both fairness features and gameplay enhancement features. Making games faster or slower is not really a priority for me. So yes, I was very surprised when the log was removed so shortly after the point counter was added. It seemed like a big step forward followed immediately by a bigger step back.

But to argue this way is to utterly reject any notion of people being considerate to each other online. "Oh, I am not allowed to have any expectations whatsoever about my opponent's sense of civility, so it's completely OK for him to insult my mother at length throughout the game." Either there are reasonable expectations I can have, or there aren't.

Fine, fine, I was a little hyperbolic there. Of course you need to have baselines. I only meant that your assertion that everyone who plays on isotropic should be as totally focused on the game as you are seems a bit entitled. And I'm honestly curious how you deal with interruptions in irl board games, and whether you think the etiquette ought to be *more* stringent online for some reason.

[guided]

I only meant that your assertion that everyone who plays on isotropic should be as totally focused on the game as you are seems a bit entitled.

I don't ask for (nor necessarily exert) total focus. I only ask that you don't claim the prerogative to make your lack of focus my problem by wasting my time. You seem to take it for granted that everybody's first priority, to the total exclusion of all else, is to make the best play at every opportunity. But that is simply not how most people operate. If an unexpected distraction arises that requires most of my attention, I am content to play somewhat inattentively to avoid wasting my opponent's time, because my empathy for my opponent's well-being overrides my desire to play optimally. In the rare instance where a distraction requires all my attention for a brief moment, I'll apologize for the delay. If I would need to AFK for 10 minutes against a random opponent, I'll happily resign instead. And here's a critical point: if I'm in a situation where distractions are likely to routinely intervene and cause delays, out of respect for prospective opponents I won't play at all.

I don't believe the faceless nature of the internet gives me leave to treat people more shabbily online than I would treat them in real life. In rare instances, unexpected things come up during an in-person game that require someone's immediate attention, and I expect them to handle the situation in a way that minimally disrupts the group without causing them undue hardship. This should go without saying. But if you expect you'll need to be on the phone for 30 random minutes out of the next hour, I don't want to sit down to play something with you. Nor would I be happy if you told me in person, "I won't be paying much attention to this game, so is it OK if we take a moment before each turn to review the entire litany of game events so far?"


edit: Saw theory's post after my last edit. Sorry, I'll be done now.

[theory]

Stop it.  Both of you.  Keep it civil.

[Personman]

Okay.

But this brings up a kind of important point: we maybe should have some posting guidelines. Personally, I love this kind of exchange on fora, both as a participant and a lurker. But, of course, it's your place, and if you think we're over the line, we are. And you're probably right, from a community management perspective -- I know very well that my enjoyment of debate and verbosity would make me a pretty terrible forum mod :D

It would be helpful to know where your lines are though, as it's clear already (and will only get clearer) that not everyone does.

[Donald X.]

But this brings up a kind of important point: we maybe should have some posting guidelines.

There are in fact posting guidelines, you clicked on a thing that said you read it and everything. For example we don't get to be profane. So all you people who don't believe in Kali, keep it to yourselves.

I think a key point in any discussion of potential new/modified isotropic features is that isotropic is a lame duck program and Doug is keenly aware of this. If there are problems with the commercial program then who knows, maybe the next set will come out on isotropic, but you know, one day, the lights will go out, and any feature Doug programmed for you will be gone for good. And the closer that day seems, the less exciting it is to program features that people will just argue over anyway.

[Kirian]

I think a key point in any discussion of potential new/modified isotropic features is that isotropic is a lame duck program and Doug is keenly aware of this. If there are problems with the commercial program then who knows, maybe the next set will come out on isotropic, but you know, one day, the lights will go out, and any feature Doug programmed for you will be gone for good.

Hrm, now this... this I did not know.

[Reyk]

I think a key point in any discussion of potential new/modified isotropic features is that isotropic is a lame duck program and Doug is keenly aware of this. If there are problems with the commercial program then who knows, maybe the next set will come out on isotropic, but you know, one day, the lights will go out, and any feature Doug programmed for you will be gone for good. And the closer that day seems, the less exciting it is to program features that people will just argue over anyway.

I struggle to understand this, but I'm not a native speaker (what does lame duck exactly mean in this context - "discontinued model"?). What "commercial program" are you referring to? The physical cards that might be replaced by a commercial online version for future expansions? A commercial online version substituting isotropic like Puerto Rico not being available for some time at BSW? And how close this day is?
Maybe your post is intentionally a bit opaque?

I remember a BSW quote from you, Donald, that you don't know exactly, but think that isotropic more probably increases sells for RGG than decreases them?!

Sorry, if I totally misunderstood the whole post.

[DStu]

@Reyk: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame_Duck

I think you are right in your interpretation, so it seems like isotropic is still active but as far as I know there is (the idea of) a commercial Dominion computer game (don't know how far this project has come), and at least it is reasonable to assume that RGG (or especially their contractor that develops the computer game) might be not as happy with the isotropic server as they are know, as it would directly conflict with their game.

[guided]

Sounds like RGG is planning to put out a commercial online Dominion version at some point, they've already told Doug, and he's agreed to take down isotropic once it's released.

[DStu]

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/506758/dominion-pc-game/page/3

In Feb.2011, some Donald X. wrote:

Tamdrik wrote:
Since this thread appears to still be going, may I revisit the topic of when the officially-sanctioned electronic version of Dominion is planned for release?

Until recently, nothing at all happened on this project, for reasons I am not privy to. I would like to know but do not. As far as I knew things were happening. And obv. I would have liked a program to come out oh a couple years ago.

I do know that now things are actually happening (and, not with any people previously involved, if anyone was). I don't know if they will unravel or continue in the expected timely manner. My best guess it that if you asked me in two weeks I would say probably it will come out in September 2011. I didn't just say "if you asked me in two weeks" for nothing, obv. the more time passes the more confident I will be.

Furthermore my best guess would be that at that time, it would support multiple uh devices, and would have at least the base set and Intrigue but not everything that's published. I don't know how long the rest of the expansions will take but how hard are they really. But you know if you have the main set and Intrigue, why wait on putting it out. My best guess is that it will also have an AI, although why you would use that other than to replace a resigning player I couldn't tell you.

I don't have any more information or any more guesses.

[Reyk]

In Feb.2011, some Donald X. wrote:

Furthermore my best guess would be that at that time, it would support multiple uh devices, and would have at least the base set and Intrigue but not everything that's published.

Thx for the quote. Substituting isotropic by a commercial version that includes Base game/Intrigue would be sad news :-(

[theory]

But this brings up a kind of important point: we maybe should have some posting guidelines.

It would be helpful to know where your lines are though, as it's clear already (and will only get clearer) that not everyone does.

I stepped into this discussion preemptively rather than retributively, but your point is well noted. 

[Donald X.]

Sounds like RGG is planning to put out a commercial online Dominion version at some point, they've already told Doug, and he's agreed to take down isotropic once it's released.

Yes.

Obv. the commercial version will support all of the expansions as soon as it can. And it will be for multiple platforms.

[Nagetier]

In case RGG publishes an online Dominion: There shouldn't be any legal grounds to force isotropic down legally, are there? No copyright or patents are infringed, and a simple name change should protect against any trademarks.

[guided]

Doug is friendly with the Dominion devs. I don't see him going rogue and trying to fight a legal battle over it.

When there's an official version, play that one

[rspeer]

The fact that the Dominion developers are working closely with Doug makes me optimistic about the official version.

Hopefully "multiple platforms" in this day and age means "Web browser and mobile apps", not that you'll have to download a separate desktop application to play Dominion.

[Death to Sea Hags]

In case RGG publishes an online Dominion: There shouldn't be any legal grounds to force isotropic down legally, are there? No copyright or patents are infringed, and a simple name change should protect against any trademarks.

The whole game is copyrighted.  Card text, images, rules are all copyrighted.  Merely changing the names of the game or cards is not sufficient, especially since its obvious that the intent would be to infringe on the copyright.

[Kirian]

Sounds like RGG is planning to put out a commercial online Dominion version at some point, they've already told Doug, and he's agreed to take down isotropic once it's released.

Yes.

Obv. the commercial version will support all of the expansions as soon as it can. And it will be for multiple platforms.

(Emphasis mine)

So, let me preface that while I'm quoting Donald here, I know the decisions on this are going to end up getting made by Jay.  With that said:

RGG is planning to release it with only some of the cards?  Really?  The individual cards should be easier to program relative to the main software package.  This strikes me as a... shockingly bad move from a consumer's perspective.  RGG is basically saying:

"We've tacitly endorsed product A for some time, using it as our test-bed even.  Now we're releasing fully-endorsed product B, which is significantly inferior, and we're politely asking product A to disappear.  But we promise product B will be just as good, maybe even better!  Just, you know, not right now.  Eventually."

How many other features will be missing from the new program?  Game logs?  Ladder play?  It's not clear to me if DougZ is doing the programming for RGG or not; if he is, then I'm not quite as worried, but losing 80 cards from the selection will be... really sad.

WOTC did this with their D&D4E software package; the fallout was epic.  (I won't buy WOTC products again.)  Blizzard lost a ton of customers when they announced things they were removing from Starcraft II that were ridiculous to remove from the original Starcraft.  I don't want to see similar things happen to RGG here.

Now, I know the situation is different here; no one is paying to play on isotropic, RGG isn't making any money from it, and if they weren't friendly with DougZ they could easily have it C&D'd.  I guess what I'm saying is, I'd rather pay to play on the current software than play inferior software for free.  I certainly wouldn't purchase inferior software; I'll simply go back to playing F2F more often, and reconsider buying future expansions.  RGG would be much better off waiting a couple extra months to have their program fully-functional than to risk alienating fans buy releasing an inferior product.

[guided]

You seem to be operating under 2 big assumptions that (to my knowledge) nobody has actually announced:

1. The RGG version will be released incomplete.
2. isotropic will be shut down as soon as this presumed-incomplete version has been released.

I'd calm down for the moment rather than assuming these things and getting angry about it.