Print

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

[catsclaw]

Mine just happened, and it's bitten me three times in this game.  If you play a Throne Room, it asks you what card to play, unless you only have one type of action card in your hand.  Which is all well and good, unless you only have two Ambassadors in your hand.

In that case, when 95% of the time it asks you what card to play, it's instead asking what card to Ambassador.  And you end up giving your opponent your Ambassador.

Horrible, horrible interface design.

[GendoIkari]

Auto-play all money with Grand Market plays Copper even when you have Quarries. But I hate to complain about anything, really, since it's an awesome, free thing that I'm grateful for.

[ARTjoMS]

Scheme -> treasury ... (new) or (old) wharfs !?

Basically when software asks which card you want to clear first - beware.

[greatexpectations]

man, it is a huge stretch to call anything on isotropic a horrible interface design.  the whole thing is very well written, especially for something that is basically one guy's hobby.  and as gendoikari said, its free so we can't complain anyway. 

if ambassador was your only action then you had coin or green in your hand.  it would make no sense to throne those, so that should have stood out in your example. though i have to wonder at what sort of strategy you are playing where you drew throne room/ambassador/ambassador/coin/coin 3 times in one game.

the whole grand market thing i find to be a nonissue, personally.  if the all money button wasn't there people would have been complaining for it because they had to click so much.  for the few cards/situations where the difference actually matters, it isn't hard to click the individual coins. i think that situation is just like when theory said he lost the game to WanderingWinder because he was in autoplay mode and played a tactician when he didn't have to.   you can't fault the software just because you are in autoplay mode. 

and a lot of the scheme/treasury/alchemist interactions are tricky to figure out IRL too.  that isn't a problem limited to isotropic.

[Davio]

Code: [Select]

You buy a Curse.
... You reveal a Trader to gain a Silver instead of a Curse.
... You gain a Silver.

about to gain a Silver> reveal a Trader

Yes, I would very much like a Silver instead of a Silver. Man, I hate Silvers, love Silvers though.

[jsh357]

Not auto-playing Fool's Gold.  It's messed me up several times.

[catsclaw]

though i have to wonder at what sort of strategy you are playing where you drew throne room/ambassador/ambassador/coin/coin 3 times in one game.

Here's the game: http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201204/19/game-20120419-064043-4eef8c0f.html

I was using Hunting Parties and the Bazaar to draw my entire hand, leaving me with the two Ambassadors and the Throne Room, along with an assortment of victory cards and coins.  Enough to buy Colonies most times.  You'll note at the end of the game my opponent ends up with 5 Ambassadors.

[RisingJaguar]

Trying to type cards you want to play with.

Not that I ever use it so who cares! (I think it only affects Mozilla if I'm correct?)

[barsooma]

man, it is a huge stretch to call anything on isotropic a horrible interface design.

false.

  the whole thing is very well written, especially for something that is basically one guy's hobby.

true.

and as gendoikari said, its free so we can't complain anyway. 

false.

you can't fault the software just because you are in autoplay mode. 

false.

[DStu]

man, it is a huge stretch to call anything on isotropic a horrible interface design.

false.

I don't see the problem. It already has the now ground-breaking Google+ whitespace-design since years. And I thought dougz was working on android...

[WanderingWinder]

man, it is a huge stretch to call anything on isotropic a horrible interface design.

false.

  the whole thing is very well written, especially for something that is basically one guy's hobby.

true.

and as gendoikari said, its free so we can't complain anyway. 

false.

you can't fault the software just because you are in autoplay mode. 

false.

Just because you CAN complain doesn't mean you should...

[greatexpectations]

right. i believe there are alternate options for playing dominion online available, you can always go to one of those.  dougz mentioned in his AMA that he would like to make some improvements but it really is not worth his time because isotropic is theoretically going down soon.

and i still find it hard to blame the software for autoplay mistakes.  at some point we need to take responsibility for our own actions. you either have a ton of extra clicking or you have a couple of conditions where you have to pay extra attention. you can't have it both ways. 

[barsooma]

right. i believe there are alternate options for playing dominion online available, you can always go to one of those.  dougz mentioned in his AMA that he would like to make some improvements but it really is not worth his time because isotropic is theoretically going down soon.

and i still find it hard to blame the software for autoplay mistakes.  at some point we need to take responsibility for our own actions. you either have a ton of extra clicking or you have a couple of conditions where you have to pay extra attention. you can't have it both ways.

Great design will continue to be overlooked until people demand it.
And btw I find your username ironic.

[barsooma]

Just because you CAN complain doesn't mean you should...

I've said this many times before, but I'll say it again: isotropic is awesome and has greatly increased my enjoyment of dominion.
If it was for sale/subscription I'd be happy to pay for it, and I am fairly certain the commercial version will pale in comparison.

However, this doesn't mean we should pretend it's perfect, and it does definitely have some rough edges (moat anyone? autoscrolling on iOS? cut&pasting constraints in a busy lobby?)

[WanderingWinder]

Point is, could isotropic be better? Yes. Of course. I don't think anyone would deny this. Is it worth the effort to make it better? Well, if you really think so, then do it yourself.

[theory]

As a BSW refugee, maybe I just have lowered expectations, but I'm so blissfully happy with Isotropic it's just mentally difficult for me to find fault with it.

[barsooma]

Point is, could isotropic be better? Yes. Of course. I don't think anyone would deny this. Is it worth the effort to make it better? Well, if you really think so, then do it yourself.

Unfortunately it's not open-source, so the question really is "Is it worth the effort to completely reimplement in order to make it 5% better?"

[DG]

Putting cards back onto the deck in the clear up stage is confusing and not particularly intuitive. Complicated process, hard to model with limited interface, but it would be nice if it was easier to use.

[WanderingWinder]

Point is, could isotropic be better? Yes. Of course. I don't think anyone would deny this. Is it worth the effort to make it better? Well, if you really think so, then do it yourself.

Unfortunately it's not open-source, so the question really is "Is it worth the effort to completely reimplement in order to make it 5% better?"

Yeah, well, he went through all the work to put this together in the first place. Keep that in mind when you're complaining - he's done a heckuva lot more than you have.

[blueblimp]

Point is, could isotropic be better? Yes. Of course. I don't think anyone would deny this. Is it worth the effort to make it better? Well, if you really think so, then do it yourself.

Unfortunately it's not open-source, so the question really is "Is it worth the effort to completely reimplement in order to make it 5% better?"

Actually, some of the issues raised in this thread could be addressed by a Chrome extension (or Greasemonkey script), like drheld's point counter.

[greatexpectations]

Unfortunately it's not open-source, so the question really is "Is it worth the effort to completely reimplement in order to make it 5% better?"

he actually posted some of his code in his AMA. it is not open source, but it is a jumping off point.

and ironically, dougz has made the same case you just did.  it just isn't worth his time to go back and change things when it is something that is only 5% better and will only be around for a few more days/weeks/months.

i don't think anyone out there is saying isotropic is perfect, but i think it is safe to say that we have been spoiled with what we have.  no ads, quick play, dedicated user names and accounts, scrapable logs, a variety of gameplay customizations, two lobbies, the blessing of the game's creator, and a competitive ranking system. all for free.

[barsooma]

Point is, could isotropic be better? Yes. Of course. I don't think anyone would deny this. Is it worth the effort to make it better? Well, if you really think so, then do it yourself.

Unfortunately it's not open-source, so the question really is "Is it worth the effort to completely reimplement in order to make it 5% better?"

Yeah, well, he went through all the work to put this together in the first place. Keep that in mind when you're complaining - he's done a heckuva lot more than you have.

Blah blah blah ... and the circle is complete. Goto my 2nd post again.

[barsooma]

Unfortunately it's not open-source, so the question really is "Is it worth the effort to completely reimplement in order to make it 5% better?"

he actually posted some of his code in his AMA. it is not open source, but it is a jumping off point.

and ironically, dougz has made the same case you just did.  it just isn't worth his time to go back and change things when it is something that is only 5% better and will only be around for a few more days/weeks/months.

i don't think anyone out there is saying isotropic is perfect, but i think it is safe to say that we have been spoiled with what we have.  no ads, quick play, dedicated user names and accounts, scrapable logs, a variety of gameplay customizations, two lobbies, the blessing of the game's creator, and a competitive ranking system. all for free.

That is cool, will have to check that out.

I totally get that he doesn't want to spend more time on it.. once you get a project 90% of the way there it's no fun doing the final polishing, and once you let code of this size sit for a few months it's almost as much work to remember how it all fits together as it was to build it.

However, as devil's advocate the few more days/weeks/months thing has been out there for at least 6 months by now, with no real deadline in sight.

[WanderingWinder]

Point is, could isotropic be better? Yes. Of course. I don't think anyone would deny this. Is it worth the effort to make it better? Well, if you really think so, then do it yourself.

Unfortunately it's not open-source, so the question really is "Is it worth the effort to completely reimplement in order to make it 5% better?"

Yeah, well, he went through all the work to put this together in the first place. Keep that in mind when you're complaining - he's done a heckuva lot more than you have.

Blah blah blah ... and the circle is complete. Goto my 2nd post again.

Call me back when you turn 15. dougz is giving you a product for free. Even if it was an absolute piece of garbage, you've got no reason to complain, no right to expect anything more out of him. You haven't given him anything. Heck, he isn't even making money off of ads. Why in the world should he have to give you something? I read your post, and my response still stands: of course it isn't perfect, and nobody's arguing that it is. The point is that he doesn't need to do anything. It can be better, but he doesn't need to make it better. So you can go ahead and think that the world revolves around you, and everyone else's effort is worthless if it doesn't meet with your total satisfaction, but let me tell you, it won't get you very far.

[olneyce]

man, it is a huge stretch to call anything on isotropic a horrible interface design.

false.

  the whole thing is very well written, especially for something that is basically one guy's hobby.

true.

and as gendoikari said, its free so we can't complain anyway. 

false.

you can't fault the software just because you are in autoplay mode. 

false.

What a helpful contribution to this thread! 

[barsooma]

man, it is a huge stretch to call anything on isotropic a horrible interface design.

false.

  the whole thing is very well written, especially for something that is basically one guy's hobby.

true.

and as gendoikari said, its free so we can't complain anyway. 

false.

you can't fault the software just because you are in autoplay mode. 

false.

What a helpful contribution to this thread!

right back atcha, champ!

[barsooma]

Call me back when you turn 15. dougz is giving you a product for free. Even if it was an absolute piece of garbage, you've got no reason to complain, no right to expect anything more out of him. You haven't given him anything. Heck, he isn't even making money off of ads. Why in the world should he have to give you something? I read your post, and my response still stands: of course it isn't perfect, and nobody's arguing that it is. The point is that he doesn't need to do anything. It can be better, but he doesn't need to make it better. So you can go ahead and think that the world revolves around you, and everyone else's effort is worthless if it doesn't meet with your total satisfaction, but let me tell you, it won't get you very far.

Ok so your attachements are obviously making you a little slow, so maybe you should go back and read the thread from the start.

There is nothing wrong with calling out bad design decisions where they exist. Perhaps dougz will find a few minutes here and there to make some fixes, and if nothing else this thread might be useful to the commercial designers, or someone reimplementing iso in the future.

If you can admit that it's not perfect, why are you arguing so hard against people pointing out its flaws?

[WanderingWinder]

Call me back when you turn 15. dougz is giving you a product for free. Even if it was an absolute piece of garbage, you've got no reason to complain, no right to expect anything more out of him. You haven't given him anything. Heck, he isn't even making money off of ads. Why in the world should he have to give you something? I read your post, and my response still stands: of course it isn't perfect, and nobody's arguing that it is. The point is that he doesn't need to do anything. It can be better, but he doesn't need to make it better. So you can go ahead and think that the world revolves around you, and everyone else's effort is worthless if it doesn't meet with your total satisfaction, but let me tell you, it won't get you very far.

Ok so your attachements are obviously making you a little slow, so maybe you should go back and read the thread from the start.

There is nothing wrong with calling out bad design decisions where they exist. Perhaps dougz will find a few minutes here and there to make some fixes, and if nothing else this thread might be useful to the commercial designers, or someone reimplementing iso in the future.

If you can admit that it's not perfect, why are you arguing so hard against people pointing out its flaws?

I've read the thread, and I don't have any problem with it - except for your extremely ungrateful posts.



(Don't feed trolls. Don't feed trolls. Don't feed trolls.)

[barsooma]

Call me back when you turn 15. dougz is giving you a product for free. Even if it was an absolute piece of garbage, you've got no reason to complain, no right to expect anything more out of him. You haven't given him anything. Heck, he isn't even making money off of ads. Why in the world should he have to give you something? I read your post, and my response still stands: of course it isn't perfect, and nobody's arguing that it is. The point is that he doesn't need to do anything. It can be better, but he doesn't need to make it better. So you can go ahead and think that the world revolves around you, and everyone else's effort is worthless if it doesn't meet with your total satisfaction, but let me tell you, it won't get you very far.

Ok so your attachements are obviously making you a little slow, so maybe you should go back and read the thread from the start.

There is nothing wrong with calling out bad design decisions where they exist. Perhaps dougz will find a few minutes here and there to make some fixes, and if nothing else this thread might be useful to the commercial designers, or someone reimplementing iso in the future.

If you can admit that it's not perfect, why are you arguing so hard against people pointing out its flaws?

I've read the thread, and I don't have any problem with it - except for your extremely ungrateful posts.



(Don't feed trolls. Don't feed trolls. Don't feed trolls.)

Ok, so you think I'm an ungrateful troll, and I think you're a sycophantic toady. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[dondon151]

I'm getting a "if you don't like the movie, why don't you make a better one?" vibe from this thread.

Which is a mentality that I completely disagree with. It's not wrong to criticize something, even if you're getting it for free, and even if you can't do one better. From just a basic engineering standpoint, DougZ is designing a product for a group of consumers. He should care about its quality even if he's getting nothing back in the way of tangible benefits.

Now, it just so happens that most people are plenty satisfied with Isotropic having a few very minor bugs here and there - and that's perfectly fine - but the attitude that complaints should be stifled really rubs me the wrong way.

[Eevee]

back to the actual topic:

#1 for me would be autoplaying all my treasure in the endgame with farmland on board (its bad enough to make me often veto farmland just to avoid this).

[Papa Luigi]

Love Isotropic. There are only a few things about it that bother me:

- Like someone else said, not auto-playing Fool's Gold, although that's pretty minor. There are no disadvantages to playing FG along with all your other treasure.

- I kinda wish the card popups would come up instantly, no pause at all. Don't know how easy or hard it would be to do this. A few websites have instant mouseovers but most mouseover actions happen after a short pause.

- The autoscrolling can be slightly annoying.

PS I'm not complaining and there's a difference between constructive criticism and complaining. Also it's good for us to share our issues with Isotropic in case someone has a workaround they can share. I don't see how this thread could be interpreted as mean-spirited; what's wrong with providing feedback?

[blueblimp]

I'm getting a "if you don't like the movie, why don't you make a better one?" vibe from this thread.

Which is a mentality that I completely disagree with. It's not wrong to criticize something, even if you're getting it for free, and even if you can't do one better. From just a basic engineering standpoint, DougZ is designing a product for a group of consumers. He should care about its quality even if he's getting nothing back in the way of tangible benefits.

Now, it just so happens that most people are plenty satisfied with Isotropic having a few very minor bugs here and there - and that's perfectly fine - but the attitude that complaints should be stifled really rubs me the wrong way.

While I agree with you (as there's nothing wrong with some constructive criticism), barsooma is just ridiculous.

[barsooma]

I'm getting a "if you don't like the movie, why don't you make a better one?" vibe from this thread.

Which is a mentality that I completely disagree with. It's not wrong to criticize something, even if you're getting it for free, and even if you can't do one better. From just a basic engineering standpoint, DougZ is designing a product for a group of consumers. He should care about its quality even if he's getting nothing back in the way of tangible benefits.

Now, it just so happens that most people are plenty satisfied with Isotropic having a few very minor bugs here and there - and that's perfectly fine - but the attitude that complaints should be stifled really rubs me the wrong way.

While I agree with you (as there's nothing wrong with some constructive criticism), barsooma is just ridiculous.

I'll eat up all your crackers and your licorice.

[dondon151]

While I agree with you (as there's nothing wrong with some constructive criticism), barsooma is just ridiculous.

But he really isn't, at least on the level of complaining about Isotropic. His posts toward certain users are rather caustic, but that's not particularly relevant. Posts like these were mostly unprovoked and clearly demonstrate the converse of what I'm saying:

Just because you CAN complain doesn't mean you should...

(Really? How did this manage to get to +5? Are there so many like-minded people on this board?)

right. i believe there are alternate options for playing dominion online available, you can always go to one of those.

dougz is giving you a product for free. Even if it was an absolute piece of garbage, you've got no reason to complain, no right to expect anything more out of him. You haven't given him anything. Heck, he isn't even making money off of ads. Why in the world should he have to give you something?

[Fabian]

ITT people still pay attention to barsooma for some reason?

[greatexpectations]

man, i don't think that my comment was offensive to anyone. in response to your post that mine and some other comments were unprovoked, i will point you to the original post of the thread.

"Horrible, horrible interface design."

to me, constructive criticism and what each of us dream isotropic could be is one thing.  but many of these posts (and threads similar to this have been done before, so im probably influenced by those as well) reek of a sense of entitlement which i find a bit frustrating. 

[WanderingWinder]

While I agree with you (as there's nothing wrong with some constructive criticism), barsooma is just ridiculous.

But he really isn't, at least on the level of complaining about Isotropic. His posts toward certain users are rather caustic, but that's not particularly relevant. Posts like these were mostly unprovoked and clearly demonstrate the converse of what I'm saying:

Just because you CAN complain doesn't mean you should...

(Really? How did this manage to get to +5? Are there so many like-minded people on this board?)

right. i believe there are alternate options for playing dominion online available, you can always go to one of those.

dougz is giving you a product for free. Even if it was an absolute piece of garbage, you've got no reason to complain, no right to expect anything more out of him. You haven't given him anything. Heck, he isn't even making money off of ads. Why in the world should he have to give you something?

Not sure what you're saying about the last two things here. But I'll tell you how that comment got to +5. The thing is, you can complain about anything. The whole point of my comment isn't that the interface should be fireproof, it's that I don't think there are any problems with it where barsooma is saying there are some. So in my view, he's really nit-picking when there's no reason to. Now, it's fine with you to disagree. But his 'false' comments... well, they're technically true, because man, it's not absolutely totally 100% perfect. You aren't going to get absolutely totally 100% perfect. Ain't gonna happen. So like, here's the deal: somebody can walk up to you on the street and hand you a box of frozen ice-cream-cone drumstick treats, and man, he gave you chocolate, and you like chocolate, but you really prefer chocolate with nuts. So you CAN complain, but let me tell you, you really shouldn't.

[barsooma]

man, i don't think that my comment was offensive to anyone. in response to your post that mine and some other comments were unprovoked, i will point you to the original post of the thread.

"Horrible, horrible interface design."

to me, constructive criticism and what each of us dream isotropic could be is one thing.  but many of these posts (and threads similar to this have been done before, so im probably influenced by those as well) reek of a sense of entitlement which i find a bit frustrating.

For the record greatexpectations, I don't find your original comment offensive.
But I do disagree with parts of it, for similar reasons to those eloquently given by dondon upthread.

While the original post "Horrible, horrible interface design." (NOT by me for those just joining us) puts it kinda strongly, I don't think anyone can dispute that there are some issues with the isotropic interface. A few examples:

- Autoscrolling makes it almost unplayable on iphone, ipad
- Lobby refresh behavior makes entering constraints frustrating
- Moat is so confusing that it requires a FAQ entry

The thing is, calling out bad design does not have to be interpreted as a personal attack on dougz, like WW and maybe you seem to want to do.
For people interested in design, it's just an exercise in critiquing, and a possible opportunity for things to be improved.

[philosophyguy]

To add to what WW said: the problem with these kinds of threads is that the tone can move very quickly from "it would be nice if isotropic did this too" to "isotropic sucks because it doesn't do X". And, that shift is not entirely in the control of the poster—it's really easy for someone who has put a lot of time into a project to take criticism personally, even if it's not meant that way.

The bottom line is that putting together something like isotropic is hard. And unlike Dondon, I don't think DougZ necessarily has to be interested in what the consumers think. He can say: "I did this for fun; if it's not fun for you, go make your own." The assumption that DougZ should be acting under a producer/consumer relationship is already an imposition on his good will. There's no reason to presume that DougZ wants your feedback, quite frankly. If he did, he knows exactly where to go to ask fo it. As a community that benefits from DougZ's work, it's our responsibility to recognize that the work is largely unrewarded and can be really exhausting/frustrating at times. So I get really nervous when I see a thread critiquing this project, because a lot of people can innocently point out valid issues but what DougZ ends up hearing is "People don't appreciate what I do." And that can be what he hears, even if every individual poster is grateful, simply because of the volume of comments and errors in tone.

[ftl]

While I agree with you (as there's nothing wrong with some constructive criticism), barsooma is just ridiculous.

But he really isn't, at least on the level of complaining about Isotropic. His posts toward certain users are rather caustic, but that's not particularly relevant.

It IS relevant, for the reason philosophyguy posted:

To add to what WW said: the problem with these kinds of threads is that the tone can move very quickly from "it would be nice if isotropic did this too" to "isotropic sucks because it doesn't do X".

In a thread like this, it's very easy to cross that line. Caustic and rude posts make the thread crash and burn onto the wrong side of it.

Yeah, I'd have fun talking about possible things that iso COULD do better. Or talk about a wishlist for the commercial version, or something. But not in a thread like this.

[rrenaud]

TL:dr; screw politeness.

I am skeptical that any comment about isotropic, no matter how harsh, is really going to upset Doug.

Just because it's free and awesome doesn't mean you should sugar coat criticism.  It the criticism is valid, it's valid.

Sure, barsooma has trolled before (wtf was that Donald X says about the rules is irrelevant because he changed his mind on some trivial detail?), but I think everything he has said in this thread has been reasonable.

[WanderingWinder]

TL:dr; screw politeness.

I am skeptical that any comment about isotropic, no matter how harsh, is really going to upset Doug.

Just because it's free and awesome doesn't mean you should sugar coat criticism.  It the criticism is valid, it's valid.

Sure, barsooma has trolled before (wtf was that Donald X says about the rules is irrelevant because he changed his mind on some trivial detail?), but I think everything he has said in this thread has been reasonable.

Really?

man, it is a huge stretch to call anything on isotropic a horrible interface design.

false.

  the whole thing is very well written, especially for something that is basically one guy's hobby.

true.

and as gendoikari said, its free so we can't complain anyway. 

false.

you can't fault the software just because you are in autoplay mode. 

false.

Now, his first two points here are ok. I tend to think that it is a huge stretch on the first one to call it horrible, but you know it could be improved, so no big deal. But the last two things here. You CAN complain about a FREE service? I mean, you can, but you don't really have a leg to stand on. Notice there's a big differences between complaining and criticizing. And You can fault the software for being in autoplay mode? What? I mean you can, but you're just wrong. The code does what it always does, and you aren't paying attention, you make your own mistake. Dude, that's on you.

[greatexpectations]

just tossing this out there...a quote from the thread that created the forum the current topic is posted in:

Yeah, a forum here for feedback might be useful.  Though I don't promise to make any particular changes, no matter how many people here might agree they want them...   

[barsooma]

And You can fault the software for being in autoplay mode? What? I mean you can, but you're just wrong. The code does what it always does, and you aren't paying attention, you make your own mistake. Dude, that's on you.

I'll admit that this one is pretty weak, but still.
The mark of a great user interface is that it makes it easy to do what you want, and hard to do what you don't want to do.

Suppose you had a table saw with no blade guard or anti-kickback features. One day you're not as careful as you could be, slip up and cut off 4 of your fingers.
Yes it's your fault for being on autopilot, but the design still could be improved, and hence you could assign it some blame for your accident.

EDIT: and it's not like there's been no efforts to avoid this problem, for example the non-autoplay of copper with GM.

[WanderingWinder]

And You can fault the software for being in autoplay mode? What? I mean you can, but you're just wrong. The code does what it always does, and you aren't paying attention, you make your own mistake. Dude, that's on you.

I'll admit that this one is pretty weak, but still.
The mark of a great user interface is that it makes it easy to do what you want, and hard to do what you don't want to do.

Suppose you had a table saw with no blade guard or anti-kickback features. One day you're not as careful as you could be, slip up and cut off 4 of your fingers.
Yes it's your fault for being on autopilot, but the design still could be improved, and hence you could assign it some blame for your accident.

EDIT: and it's not like there's been no efforts to avoid this problem, for example the non-autoplay of copper with GM.

Sure, and you can say that 'improve X, Y, and Z.' Like you did in your post before this one. That's great! Now, I don't actually agree with you that those are major problems, but I encourage you to post them if you think they are. We have a difference of opinion there that I'm totally okay with. But what you did at the beginning of the thread is say that it's not the guys fault for cutting his own fingers off. And hey, there ought to be safety guards there, but it IS the guy's fault. Dude shouldn't be going up to the designer of the table saw and complaining a him that 'because of you, I don't have fingers any more." But I don't have problems with the guy going up to the company or the designer and being like 'hey, you should put these things like safety guards in'. And they should definitely do that. Here, it's not as big a deal as cutting fingers off, so there's less imperative to fix it. And there's further less imperative because you're using HIS property out of his kindness. You don't have to use it. He's not charging you to use it.
/rant

[RisingJaguar]

back to the actual topic:

#1 for me would be autoplaying all my treasure in the endgame with farmland on board (its bad enough to make me often veto farmland just to avoid this).

It wouldn't be productive to remove the auto-play treasure button, as you can already click individual treasures... seems like it would be your fault if you avoid that and auto-play...

Have like some sort of "play all but gold/silver/copper/each treasure" buttons? Seems a little much to have for EVERY turn in a game with farmlands...

[blueblimp]

And You can fault the software for being in autoplay mode? What? I mean you can, but you're just wrong. The code does what it always does, and you aren't paying attention, you make your own mistake. Dude, that's on you.

OK, I have to disagree here. Humans are going to make mistakes. It's valid to ask people to make fewer mistakes, but people will still make mistakes. Part of good UI design is minimizing the impact of human error.

I think isotropic does this pretty well already, for the most part. The "?!" feature is really good, since it prevents a lot of common errors and rarely pops up when you don't want it. In principle it's unnecessary if people were just to make fewer errors, but it still saves me from gaffes even after playing thousands of games on isotropic.

[Deadlock39]

It wouldn't be productive to remove the auto-play treasure button, as you can already click individual treasures... seems like it would be your fault if you avoid that and auto-play...

Have like some sort of "play all but gold/silver/copper/each treasure" buttons? Seems a little much to have for EVERY turn in a game with farmlands...

It might just be nice to have the red ?! If you have more than $6 in hand (can play $6 without playing all your treasure) and Farmland is on the board I guess.  I've never really had problems with Farmland though.  Quarry/Grand Market bit me once or twice I think.

[WanderingWinder]

And You can fault the software for being in autoplay mode? What? I mean you can, but you're just wrong. The code does what it always does, and you aren't paying attention, you make your own mistake. Dude, that's on you.

OK, I have to disagree here. Humans are going to make mistakes. It's valid to ask people to make fewer mistakes, but people will still make mistakes. Part of good UI design is minimizing the impact of human error.

I think isotropic does this pretty well already, for the most part. The "?!" feature is really good, since it prevents a lot of common errors and rarely pops up when you don't want it. In principle it's unnecessary if people were just to make fewer errors, but it still saves me from gaffes even after playing thousands of games on isotropic.

I don't disagree with anything you say. However, none of that makes it the code's fault. It's still the person's fault, even if the code/UI could be better designed.
Unless the code doesn't do something that it says it does.

[RisingJaguar]

Also what is the problem with moat's reaction? Or does this apply to ALL reactions in that you would prefer moat to be like a young witch bane (click once as opposed to click once and then click none)?  I suppose it makes new comers take a few extra seconds of confused pause but is there a problem I'm missing?

[WanderingWinder]

It wouldn't be productive to remove the auto-play treasure button, as you can already click individual treasures... seems like it would be your fault if you avoid that and auto-play...

Have like some sort of "play all but gold/silver/copper/each treasure" buttons? Seems a little much to have for EVERY turn in a game with farmlands...

It might just be nice to have the red ?! If you have more than $6 in hand (can play $6 without playing all your treasure) and Farmland is on the board I guess.

For the record, I would HATE this. It would slow these games down SO MUCH. Yeah, we get used to auto-clicking, but there's really not a great way of handling this particular problem that doesn't make a bigger problem elsewhere, as far as I can see. Unless the thing can read your mind.

[Kirian]

Putting cards back onto the deck in the clear up stage is confusing and not particularly intuitive. Complicated process, hard to model with limited interface, but it would be nice if it was easier to use.

Just as a quick note here, if you were using Scheme, Treasury, some Duration cards, and, say, Herbalist, all in one game in real life, I bet it would be just as confusing and counter-intuitive, to the point where someone would get accused of cheating and you'd have to sit there and explain your top-decking every time.

[Ozle]

Is this thread free? And if so can i complain about it?

[WanderingWinder]

Also what is the problem with moat's reaction? Or does this apply to ALL reactions in that you would prefer moat to be like a young witch bane (click once as opposed to click once and then click none)?  I suppose it makes new comers take a few extra seconds of confused pause but is there a problem I'm missing?

The reason I don't have a problem with moat's reaction is because to have it some other way would be against the rules of the game. Yeah, I can see arguments on the other side, but I like dougz's extreme fidelity to the rules.
This is another big issue with demanding (rather than suggesting) changes - different people want different things, and you can't please everyone.

[Deadlock39]

Also what is the problem with moat's reaction? Or does this apply to ALL reactions in that you would prefer moat to be like a young witch bane (click once as opposed to click once and then click none)?  I suppose it makes new comers take a few extra seconds of confused pause but is there a problem I'm missing?

Moat is strange... it doesn't really bother me, but I chuckle a bit (almost) every time one of my opponents reveals it against me.  It looks like there is a 4 reveal max now because I see:

XXX reveals a Moat.
XXX reveals a Moat.
XXX reveals a Moat.
XXX reveals a Moat.

About 90% of the time.

[greatexpectations]

a friend of mine says (and i think i agree) it is easier to quickly click the moat button a few times than it is to move and hit done.

[BaruMonkey]

To those saying that one shouldn't complain about free things: Have you never complained about Facebook? Or Google? Or <insert 100 other free services here>?

[RisingJaguar]

To those saying that one shouldn't complain about free things: Have you never complained about Facebook? Or Google? Or <insert 100 other free services here>?

Ads

[blueblimp]

And You can fault the software for being in autoplay mode? What? I mean you can, but you're just wrong. The code does what it always does, and you aren't paying attention, you make your own mistake. Dude, that's on you.

OK, I have to disagree here. Humans are going to make mistakes. It's valid to ask people to make fewer mistakes, but people will still make mistakes. Part of good UI design is minimizing the impact of human error.

I think isotropic does this pretty well already, for the most part. The "?!" feature is really good, since it prevents a lot of common errors and rarely pops up when you don't want it. In principle it's unnecessary if people were just to make fewer errors, but it still saves me from gaffes even after playing thousands of games on isotropic.

I don't disagree with anything you say. However, none of that makes it the code's fault. It's still the person's fault, even if the code/UI could be better designed.
Unless the code doesn't do something that it says it does.

I disagree with assigning "fault" to anybody (person or code) here, because it doesn't help much with resolving the problem. I think it's more useful to just consider what each party could have done differently to avoid the error.

For example, in the case of Grand Market, I think it's a problem that's easier to resolve in code than with a person. The rule-of-play for a person is pretty complicated: "when planning to buy grand market, it's okay to use +$, except when having special treasures". Pretty easy to get this wrong. I'd propose a fix of just removing the grand market "?!" special case entirely. Then the person play rule becomes: "when planning to buy grand market, don't use +$". Pretty simple.

As an example where a person's play needs to change, take revealing moat. To follow the rules correctly, isotropic's current behaviour is the simplest and most predictable. Also, it's very easy to train yourself to just reveal each moat once, since the behaviour is the same every time. So in this case, I think it's better for players to adjust their behaviour. (Edit: Actually the best place to resolve this would be for the official Dominion rules to print somewhere that "revealing Moat more than once for the same attack has no additional effect", and then isotropic could legitimately allow it to be revealed only once per attack.)

[Galzria]

To those saying that one shouldn't complain about free things: Have you never complained about Facebook? Or Google? Or <insert 100 other free services here>?

Those aren't profit based products? I'll let then know.

[BaruMonkey]

To those saying that one shouldn't complain about free things: Have you never complained about Facebook? Or Google? Or <insert 100 other free services here>?

Ads

Just for clarification: if Iso had ads, you'd be okay with complaints, but not without?

[WanderingWinder]

And You can fault the software for being in autoplay mode? What? I mean you can, but you're just wrong. The code does what it always does, and you aren't paying attention, you make your own mistake. Dude, that's on you.

OK, I have to disagree here. Humans are going to make mistakes. It's valid to ask people to make fewer mistakes, but people will still make mistakes. Part of good UI design is minimizing the impact of human error.

I think isotropic does this pretty well already, for the most part. The "?!" feature is really good, since it prevents a lot of common errors and rarely pops up when you don't want it. In principle it's unnecessary if people were just to make fewer errors, but it still saves me from gaffes even after playing thousands of games on isotropic.

I don't disagree with anything you say. However, none of that makes it the code's fault. It's still the person's fault, even if the code/UI could be better designed.
Unless the code doesn't do something that it says it does.

I disagree with assigning "fault" to anybody (person or code) here, because it doesn't help much with resolving the problem. I think it's more useful to just consider what each party could have done differently to avoid the error.

For example, in the case of Grand Market, I think it's a problem that's easier to resolve in code than with a person. The rule-of-play for a person is pretty complicated: "when planning to buy grand market, it's okay to use +$, except when having special treasures". Pretty easy to get this wrong. I'd propose a fix of just removing the grand market "?!" special case entirely. Then the person play rule becomes: "when planning to buy grand market, don't use +$". Pretty simple.

As an example where a person's play needs to change, take revealing moat. To follow the rules correctly, isotropic's current behaviour is the simplest and most predictable. Also, it's very easy to train yourself to just reveal each moat once, since the behaviour is the same every time. So in this case, I think it's better for players to adjust their behaviour.

See, but the current behaviour is actually a reaction to complaining about the way it was - which is the way you suggest!

[Galzria]

Also, I'm not sure what the complaint about Grand Market is? If I have 8 coins in hand (Gold, Silver, Silver, Copper), and GM is on the table, my button reads +$7 - granted, Ive almost missed buying a Province because I didn't double check my hand for that copper, but how should the system know I want to green now? It protects me in case I DON'T, so I can play quickly without costing myself a valuable card. I can play that copper anytime. I can't unplay it.

[Ozle]

To those saying that one shouldn't complain about free things: Have you never complained about Facebook? Or Google? Or <insert 100 other free services here>?

Ads

Just for clarification: if Iso had ads, you'd be okay with complaints, but not without?

You're onto a loser here with this line of argument I'm afraid...
because there is also a difference between ads to cover costs and ads to make money...

And I think if Isotropic made money from ads then it was a commercial entitity and then everyone would probably agree that asking for a better service is ok.

[blueblimp]

And You can fault the software for being in autoplay mode? What? I mean you can, but you're just wrong. The code does what it always does, and you aren't paying attention, you make your own mistake. Dude, that's on you.

OK, I have to disagree here. Humans are going to make mistakes. It's valid to ask people to make fewer mistakes, but people will still make mistakes. Part of good UI design is minimizing the impact of human error.

I think isotropic does this pretty well already, for the most part. The "?!" feature is really good, since it prevents a lot of common errors and rarely pops up when you don't want it. In principle it's unnecessary if people were just to make fewer errors, but it still saves me from gaffes even after playing thousands of games on isotropic.

I don't disagree with anything you say. However, none of that makes it the code's fault. It's still the person's fault, even if the code/UI could be better designed.
Unless the code doesn't do something that it says it does.

I disagree with assigning "fault" to anybody (person or code) here, because it doesn't help much with resolving the problem. I think it's more useful to just consider what each party could have done differently to avoid the error.

For example, in the case of Grand Market, I think it's a problem that's easier to resolve in code than with a person. The rule-of-play for a person is pretty complicated: "when planning to buy grand market, it's okay to use +$, except when having special treasures". Pretty easy to get this wrong. I'd propose a fix of just removing the grand market "?!" special case entirely. Then the person play rule becomes: "when planning to buy grand market, don't use +$". Pretty simple.

As an example where a person's play needs to change, take revealing moat. To follow the rules correctly, isotropic's current behaviour is the simplest and most predictable. Also, it's very easy to train yourself to just reveal each moat once, since the behaviour is the same every time. So in this case, I think it's better for players to adjust their behaviour.

See, but the current behaviour is actually a reaction to complaining about the way it was - which is the way you suggest!

I'm not sure what your point is here? Sometimes feature requests can be bad ideas. Also, my proposed fix might be bad. Obviously hindsight helps.

[WanderingWinder]

To those saying that one shouldn't complain about free things: Have you never complained about Facebook? Or Google? Or <insert 100 other free services here>?

Only if they're collecting my personal information without my consent. Other than this, I complain about their popularity, I might say that I would think it would be better if the design were this way, I might say that I think a certain part of their site is poorly written. But I don't get upset with them for anything other than the personal information. Because, well, I don't have to use their sites. And so if it bugs me enough, I don't.

[BaruMonkey]

To those saying that one shouldn't complain about free things: Have you never complained about Facebook? Or Google? Or <insert 100 other free services here>?

Ads

Just for clarification: if Iso had ads, you'd be okay with complaints, but not without?

You're onto a loser here with this line of argument I'm afraid...
because there is also a difference between ads to cover costs and ads to make money...

And I think if Isotropic made money from ads then it was a commercial entitity and then everyone would probably agree that asking for a better service is ok.

I did try to make it clear that I was only asking for clarification, not making an argument.

Thank you for clarifying. I am still curious whether or not others agree with where you draw the line.

[WanderingWinder]

And You can fault the software for being in autoplay mode? What? I mean you can, but you're just wrong. The code does what it always does, and you aren't paying attention, you make your own mistake. Dude, that's on you.

OK, I have to disagree here. Humans are going to make mistakes. It's valid to ask people to make fewer mistakes, but people will still make mistakes. Part of good UI design is minimizing the impact of human error.

I think isotropic does this pretty well already, for the most part. The "?!" feature is really good, since it prevents a lot of common errors and rarely pops up when you don't want it. In principle it's unnecessary if people were just to make fewer errors, but it still saves me from gaffes even after playing thousands of games on isotropic.

I don't disagree with anything you say. However, none of that makes it the code's fault. It's still the person's fault, even if the code/UI could be better designed.
Unless the code doesn't do something that it says it does.

I disagree with assigning "fault" to anybody (person or code) here, because it doesn't help much with resolving the problem. I think it's more useful to just consider what each party could have done differently to avoid the error.

For example, in the case of Grand Market, I think it's a problem that's easier to resolve in code than with a person. The rule-of-play for a person is pretty complicated: "when planning to buy grand market, it's okay to use +$, except when having special treasures". Pretty easy to get this wrong. I'd propose a fix of just removing the grand market "?!" special case entirely. Then the person play rule becomes: "when planning to buy grand market, don't use +$". Pretty simple.

As an example where a person's play needs to change, take revealing moat. To follow the rules correctly, isotropic's current behaviour is the simplest and most predictable. Also, it's very easy to train yourself to just reveal each moat once, since the behaviour is the same every time. So in this case, I think it's better for players to adjust their behaviour.

See, but the current behaviour is actually a reaction to complaining about the way it was - which is the way you suggest!

I'm not sure what your point is here? Sometimes feature requests can be bad ideas. Also, my proposed fix might be bad. Obviously hindsight helps.

I wasn't sure what your point was either. Because we were having a discussion about fault, and then in the middle of that discussion, you're like 'eh, don't want to discuss that'. So I switched to what you wanted to talk about.
If you want, I can go back to fault?

I guess my point is, it's not easier to do in the code in the majority of cases. Even your cherry-picked example, it isn't. Because it requires predictive behaviour on the part of the code, and man, let me tell you, that is NOT easy. Naturally, we try to have other people solve the problems, and think it's easier for them to do than for us. Point is, dougz is the one who's actually been on both sides here. Which isn't to say that he's 100% right on everything. Clearly he isn't. I don't even think he thinks he is. But... my overall point remains that he shouldn't have to (i.e. have any obligation to) change how things run on isotropic.

[blueblimp]

Also, I'm not sure what the complaint about Grand Market is? If I have 8 coins in hand (Gold, Silver, Silver, Copper), and GM is on the table, my button reads +$7 - granted, Ive almost missed buying a Province because I didn't double check my hand for that copper, but how should the system know I want to green now? It protects me in case I DON'T, so I can play quickly without costing myself a valuable card. I can play that copper anytime. I can't unplay it.

The issue is that figuring out whether your hand is capable of buying grand market is actually impossible. Trickiest case: if you have a Venture in hand, nobody knows what it will turn up when you play it, so in many situations you don't know whether you will have $6 after playing your treasures.

Unfortunately, in cases where special treasures are involved, +$ will play your coppers. The most annoying special treasure for this is probably Quarry.

The main reason this is a problem is that in grand market games, players become accustomed to using +$ even on turns where they want a grand market. Since GM+special treasure games are decently rare, it's easy to forget that in these games, you can't reliably use +$ to buy grand markets.

[RisingJaguar]

To those saying that one shouldn't complain about free things: Have you never complained about Facebook? Or Google? Or <insert 100 other free services here>?

Ads

Just for clarification: if Iso had ads, you'd be okay with complaints, but not without?

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/dont-look-a-gift-horse-in-the-mouth.html
Similar to WW, I agree that there are minor problems.  I just don't get as agitated about free products and more grateful. 
Also I thought your original question was what was the difference. 

[BaruMonkey]

But... my overall point remains that he shouldn't have to (i.e. have any obligation to) change how things run on isotropic.

Seriously not trying to be confrontational here, but has anyone in this thread said that he did have that obligation? If not, I fully accept your point as perfectly correct, just that it's not a counterargument.

[Galzria]

I think the simplest difference here is how to improve something.

I coach baseball. I ALWAYS use positive reinforcement. "Shrug it off, try this, get it next time" works a WHOLE lot better than "You messed up. Fix it and get it right". Discuss what would be cool, not in terms of what is WRONG, but in terms of could be better.

"X would be cool, discuss"
"Hey, I noticed the system doesn't do Y, any thoughts?"
"Do you think the system would be better if it did Z?"

If you try and improve (especially a free service offered by it's designer because he enjoyed creating or) through constructive, positive posts, you'll get a lot further than tearing down or complaining about it's current set up. And DougZ might feel more inclined to implement new things.

[blueblimp]

And You can fault the software for being in autoplay mode? What? I mean you can, but you're just wrong. The code does what it always does, and you aren't paying attention, you make your own mistake. Dude, that's on you.

OK, I have to disagree here. Humans are going to make mistakes. It's valid to ask people to make fewer mistakes, but people will still make mistakes. Part of good UI design is minimizing the impact of human error.

I think isotropic does this pretty well already, for the most part. The "?!" feature is really good, since it prevents a lot of common errors and rarely pops up when you don't want it. In principle it's unnecessary if people were just to make fewer errors, but it still saves me from gaffes even after playing thousands of games on isotropic.

I don't disagree with anything you say. However, none of that makes it the code's fault. It's still the person's fault, even if the code/UI could be better designed.
Unless the code doesn't do something that it says it does.

I disagree with assigning "fault" to anybody (person or code) here, because it doesn't help much with resolving the problem. I think it's more useful to just consider what each party could have done differently to avoid the error.

For example, in the case of Grand Market, I think it's a problem that's easier to resolve in code than with a person. The rule-of-play for a person is pretty complicated: "when planning to buy grand market, it's okay to use +$, except when having special treasures". Pretty easy to get this wrong. I'd propose a fix of just removing the grand market "?!" special case entirely. Then the person play rule becomes: "when planning to buy grand market, don't use +$". Pretty simple.

As an example where a person's play needs to change, take revealing moat. To follow the rules correctly, isotropic's current behaviour is the simplest and most predictable. Also, it's very easy to train yourself to just reveal each moat once, since the behaviour is the same every time. So in this case, I think it's better for players to adjust their behaviour.

See, but the current behaviour is actually a reaction to complaining about the way it was - which is the way you suggest!

I'm not sure what your point is here? Sometimes feature requests can be bad ideas. Also, my proposed fix might be bad. Obviously hindsight helps.

I wasn't sure what your point was either. Because we were having a discussion about fault, and then in the middle of that discussion, you're like 'eh, don't want to discuss that'. So I switched to what you wanted to talk about.
If you want, I can go back to fault?

I guess my point is, it's not easier to do in the code in the majority of cases. Even your cherry-picked example, it isn't. Because it requires predictive behaviour on the part of the code, and man, let me tell you, that is NOT easy. Naturally, we try to have other people solve the problems, and think it's easier for them to do than for us. Point is, dougz is the one who's actually been on both sides here. Which isn't to say that he's 100% right on everything. Clearly he isn't. I don't even think he thinks he is. But... my overall point remains that he shouldn't have to (i.e. have any obligation to) change how things run on isotropic.

Originally the discussion had nothing to do with fault and was about how the isotropic interface could be improved. Saying "it's the player's fault if they make a mistake", whether true or not, ignores the fact that UIs can help avoid errors no matter who's at fault for the error. That's why I'm not interested in discussing fault.

I program decently often and I know certain things are difficult to code and some things sound easier to code than they really are. Predictive behaviour is indeed hard to code. That's why I'm suggesting it would be better to just remove the predictive behaviour instead of having predictive behaviour that is often wrong.

I agree with you that dougz certainly doesn't have any obligation towards anyone who uses isotropic. Also, if I make a criticism of the isotropic interface, then it's in a sense of "here's something that I think falls below the general high quality of the interface and could be improved".

[BaruMonkey]

To those saying that one shouldn't complain about free things: Have you never complained about Facebook? Or Google? Or <insert 100 other free services here>?

Ads

Just for clarification: if Iso had ads, you'd be okay with complaints, but not without?

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/dont-look-a-gift-horse-in-the-mouth.html
Similar to WW, I agree that there are minor problems.  I just don't get as agitated about free products and more grateful. 
Also I thought your original question was what was the difference.

Hey, look at me not making any complaints about Iso in this entire thread. No need to get http://lmgtfy.com/?q=passive+aggressive

My original question was, indeed, "What's the difference?". That question was answered, and then I asked for a slightly more detailed answer.

EDIT: Apologies if there's a negative tone in this. There might be; I was going for humor; I'm not sure I can tell at this point. I will attempt to walk away from this thread now, as I think it has a bit too much of https://xkcd.com/386/

[Galzria]

Also, I'm not sure what the complaint about Grand Market is? If I have 8 coins in hand (Gold, Silver, Silver, Copper), and GM is on the table, my button reads +$7 - granted, Ive almost missed buying a Province because I didn't double check my hand for that copper, but how should the system know I want to green now? It protects me in case I DON'T, so I can play quickly without costing myself a valuable card. I can play that copper anytime. I can't unplay it.

The issue is that figuring out whether your hand is capable of buying grand market is actually impossible. Trickiest case: if you have a Venture in hand, nobody knows what it will turn up when you play it, so in many situations you don't know whether you will have $6 after playing your treasures.

Unfortunately, in cases where special treasures are involved, +$ will play your coppers. The most annoying special treasure for this is probably Quarry.

The main reason this is a problem is that in grand market games, players become accustomed to using +$ even on turns where they want a grand market. Since GM+special treasure games are decently rare, it's easy to forget that in these games, you can't reliably use +$ to buy grand markets.

Thank you. I guess it's just never effected me because I always play my special treasures manually (at least, Quarry, FG, and even IGG) anyway.
[/quote]

[Ozle]

I think the simplest difference here is how to improve something.

I coach baseball. I ALWAYS use positive reinforcement. "Shrug it off, try this, get it next time" works a WHOLE lot better than "You messed up. Fix it and get it right". Discuss what would be cool, not in terms of what is WRONG, but in terms of could be better.

"X would be cool, discuss"
"Hey, I noticed the system doesn't do Y, any thoughts?"
"Do you think the system would be better if it did Z?"

If you try and improve (especially a free service offered by it's designer because he enjoyed creating or) through constructive, positive posts, you'll get a lot further than tearing down or complaining about it's current set up. And DougZ might feel more inclined to implement new things.

As a baseball coach your positive reinforcement should be 'Hey, at least its not Cricket'

[RisingJaguar]

To those saying that one shouldn't complain about free things: Have you never complained about Facebook? Or Google? Or <insert 100 other free services here>?

Ads

Just for clarification: if Iso had ads, you'd be okay with complaints, but not without?

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/dont-look-a-gift-horse-in-the-mouth.html
Similar to WW, I agree that there are minor problems.  I just don't get as agitated about free products and more grateful. 
Also I thought your original question was what was the difference.

Hey, look at me not making any complaints about Iso in this entire thread. No need to get http://lmgtfy.com/?q=passive+aggressive

My original question was, indeed, "What's the difference?". That question was answered, and then I asked for a slightly more detailed answer.

I'm confused, I thought I answered both questions as is... If I get something free, then I don't complain nearly as much.  I don't complain about isotropic compared to facebook/google things that require me to look at ads or monitor my activity.  Sorry if it didn't come across properly.

[BaruMonkey]

To those saying that one shouldn't complain about free things: Have you never complained about Facebook? Or Google? Or <insert 100 other free services here>?

Ads

Just for clarification: if Iso had ads, you'd be okay with complaints, but not without?

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/dont-look-a-gift-horse-in-the-mouth.html
Similar to WW, I agree that there are minor problems.  I just don't get as agitated about free products and more grateful. 
Also I thought your original question was what was the difference.

Hey, look at me not making any complaints about Iso in this entire thread. No need to get http://lmgtfy.com/?q=passive+aggressive

My original question was, indeed, "What's the difference?". That question was answered, and then I asked for a slightly more detailed answer.

I'm confused, I thought I answered both questions as is... If I get something free, then I don't complain nearly as much.  I don't complain about isotropic compared to facebook/google things that require me to look at ads or monitor my activity.  Sorry if it didn't come across properly.

Posting here because the edit back there may not get read:

Apologies if there was a negative tone in my last post. There might have been; I was going for humor; I'm not sure I can tell at this point. I will attempt to walk away from this thread now, as I think it has a bit too much of https://xkcd.com/386/

[jotheonah]

What bugs me (to ignore 90% of the thread and respond to the OP) are games where my opponent has a bunch of Envoys and one Bishop. And it's like.

What card should so and so discard?
Gold
What card should so and so discard?
Gold
What card should so and so discard?
Gold
Optionally trash a card?
Gold
oh wait 

Ok, so that's only happened maybe twice, but man, annoying.

[dondon151]

Not sure what you're saying about the last two things here. But I'll tell you how that comment got to +5. The thing is, you can complain about anything. The whole point of my comment isn't that the interface should be fireproof, it's that I don't think there are any problems with it where barsooma is saying there are some. So in my view, he's really nit-picking when there's no reason to. Now, it's fine with you to disagree. But his 'false' comments... well, they're technically true, because man, it's not absolutely totally 100% perfect. You aren't going to get absolutely totally 100% perfect. Ain't gonna happen. So like, here's the deal: somebody can walk up to you on the street and hand you a box of frozen ice-cream-cone drumstick treats, and man, he gave you chocolate, and you like chocolate, but you really prefer chocolate with nuts. So you CAN complain, but let me tell you, you really shouldn't.

Apologies if this brings the topic away from its current direction, but I was away and thought that this deserved a response:

There is a huge difference between giving away objects and giving away products and services for free. Complaining about a physical gift is perceived as being greedy, and it is indeed selfish on the part of the recipient to do so, because to demand a better gift necessarily equates to demanding something of higher monetary value. But in the case of a product or a service, it is OK to complain because the giver has a personal stake in his gift - it is a manifestation of his hard work; something that he had put effort into and should thus be proud of. If he's making a mistake somewhere, he should know about it. Sure, it is a douche move to reject the gift completely, but no one is doing that in this topic.

Let me ask you a few questions: if someone decided to do you a favor, would you be alright with it if he did it in a half-assed manner? If a friend built a bicycle for you that always breaks, do you keep your mouth shut? What if that box of ice-cream cone drumstick treats that that stranger handed to you was defective because it had been exposed to rat feces in the production process, and you weren't told about it?

[mDuo13]

I love Isotropic, but (to get back on track of this topic) there are little quirks that annoy me. Throne Room / Ambassador is definitely one that has hurt me the most before, but there are a couple others I didn't see mentioned yet:

In my experience, the money autoplay is really safe about only playing as much as you definitely want to play... unless Farmland is on the board. Then it's a really tough question what treasures you actually want to play. Still, I'd appreciate having a "click again to confirm" behavior (like for when playing your money when you can still play action cards) when you can reach at least $6 with cards remaining in hand and Farmland on the board.

And I really wish the "info" board state stuff was shown without needing to click for a popup.

I can only hope that whatever online client Rio Grande comes up with takes some lessons from Isotropic.

[ftl]

With the Grand Market - the behavior, as it is currently, is a little confusing at times.

It seems like the behavior of +$ is "If you have enough to buy a Grand Market, play everything except coppers; otherwise, play everything." Or, at least, that's how it behaves in 90% of cases. However, in reality, that's not what's happening; what happens is that if you have enough to buy GM from just Gold and Silver, then play just the Golds and Silvers; otherwise, play Golds, Silvers, Coppers.

The corner case is when you would or might have enough to buy GM from Gold, Silver, and Kingdom Treasures, but not from Gold and Silver alone. That's the case that's confusing and where people get tripped up.


There are a bunch of possible solutions to this. One is to just leave it be and have people get confused and then eventually unconfused; as with most of these, they're not that big of a deal.

A second possible solution is to just have a better algorithm for whether or not to play the coppers - calculate whether, with kingdom treasures, it's POSSIBLE to get to $6, and if it's possible, don't autoplay coppers. This is the most convenient, but potentially takes nontrivial code, since it requires calculating possible values for Kingdom treasures, which have complex rules on them.

A third possible solution is to never autoplay coppers when the player has some special treasures in-hand. This will cause fewer accidental failures to buy Grand Market, at the expense of more clicks at other times. Whether this is an improvement or not is probably debatable. 

A third possible solution is more buttons; to have, at the appropriate times, buttons for 'play everything' or 'play everything but coppers'. This one would be a terrible fit for isotropic, because the current design isn't really conducive to adding more buttons. It's a pretty tough UI design challenge to put in more buttons without things becoming cluttered and annoying; maybe for the official version.

 (I'm actually really curious to see what the official version's UI ends up looking like. A lot of the things that are mentioned here CAN be addressed by more UI detail - for example, having "discard to Envoy" and "trash to Bishop" LOOK different, rather than just having different text - but that wouldn't fit at all with Isotropic's UI. I bet that a professional could design an interface that's as simple to use as Isotropic AND sophisticated enough to make those distinctions, but I certainly couldn't, and would have no constructive suggestions for how to do so.)

[theory]

Seems like a lot of this could also be resolved by an "Undo" button.  Provided, of course, that you can only "Undo" after any plays that don't affect the game state (e.g., playing Venture).

[jotheonah]

For the record, I don't mean to suggest that my Bishop-Envoy problem is anyone's fault but mine.

[RisingJaguar]

Seems like a lot of this could also be resolved by an "Undo" button.  Provided, of course, that you can only "Undo" after any plays that don't affect the game state (e.g., playing Venture).

I agree that this would solve a lot of problems! Allow you to select and unselect your treasures as you need them until you purchase your first card.  Actions would just be far to complicated and on a per action basis it is probably not worth trying though. 

[Eevee]

It wouldn't be productive to remove the auto-play treasure button, as you can already click individual treasures... seems like it would be your fault if you avoid that and auto-play...

Have like some sort of "play all but gold/silver/copper/each treasure" buttons? Seems a little much to have for EVERY turn in a game with farmlands...

It might just be nice to have the red ?! If you have more than $6 in hand (can play $6 without playing all your treasure) and Farmland is on the board I guess.

For the record, I would HATE this. It would slow these games down SO MUCH. Yeah, we get used to auto-clicking, but there's really not a great way of handling this particular problem that doesn't make a bigger problem elsewhere, as far as I can see. Unless the thing can read your mind.

I guess some kind of a warning like grand market has (?!?, red color) would work pretty well? You'd have to click twice every time you have 6+ with farmland on board, wouldnt slow it down all that much?

Undo button would be even better, it would also help with accidentally playing something when you are looking to buy a mint or a grand market.

[WanderingWinder]

It wouldn't be productive to remove the auto-play treasure button, as you can already click individual treasures... seems like it would be your fault if you avoid that and auto-play...

Have like some sort of "play all but gold/silver/copper/each treasure" buttons? Seems a little much to have for EVERY turn in a game with farmlands...

It might just be nice to have the red ?! If you have more than $6 in hand (can play $6 without playing all your treasure) and Farmland is on the board I guess.

For the record, I would HATE this. It would slow these games down SO MUCH. Yeah, we get used to auto-clicking, but there's really not a great way of handling this particular problem that doesn't make a bigger problem elsewhere, as far as I can see. Unless the thing can read your mind.

I guess some kind of a warning like grand market has (?!?, red color) would work pretty well? You'd have to click twice every time you have 6+ with farmland on board, wouldnt slow it down all that much?

Undo button would be even better, it would also help with accidentally playing something when you are looking to buy a mint or a grand market.

That's what I thought he meant. And yeah, that would be THAT much. But I mean, I've played more games than anybody else on (public) isotropic, and I tend to play really fast, so this double click thing may be much more of a headache for me than anyone else. And maybe for reasons of benefiting the most people at the most time, it should be done. But I personally would hate it.

[TheMathProf]

On the primary topic, I have the darnedest time rearranging the cards when I want to put them back on top of the deck using cards like Cartographer or Apothecary.  The Ghost Ship mechanism is cool and easier to work with, but I'm not sure how easy it would be to to do that when the number of cards being added back isn't necessarily fixed.

(Alternatively, if anybody has an easier time with rearranging the cards to put them back on top with those cards, I'd love to hear it.)

[WanderingWinder]

Not sure what you're saying about the last two things here. But I'll tell you how that comment got to +5. The thing is, you can complain about anything. The whole point of my comment isn't that the interface should be fireproof, it's that I don't think there are any problems with it where barsooma is saying there are some. So in my view, he's really nit-picking when there's no reason to. Now, it's fine with you to disagree. But his 'false' comments... well, they're technically true, because man, it's not absolutely totally 100% perfect. You aren't going to get absolutely totally 100% perfect. Ain't gonna happen. So like, here's the deal: somebody can walk up to you on the street and hand you a box of frozen ice-cream-cone drumstick treats, and man, he gave you chocolate, and you like chocolate, but you really prefer chocolate with nuts. So you CAN complain, but let me tell you, you really shouldn't.

Apologies if this brings the topic away from its current direction, but I was away and thought that this deserved a response:

There is a huge difference between giving away objects and giving away products and services for free. Complaining about a physical gift is perceived as being greedy, and it is indeed selfish on the part of the recipient to do so, because to demand a better gift necessarily equates to demanding something of higher monetary value. But in the case of a product or a service, it is OK to complain because the giver has a personal stake in his gift - it is a manifestation of his hard work; something that he had put effort into and should thus be proud of. If he's making a mistake somewhere, he should know about it. Sure, it is a douche move to reject the gift completely, but no one is doing that in this topic.

Let me ask you a few questions: if someone decided to do you a favor, would you be alright with it if he did it in a half-assed manner? If a friend built a bicycle for you that always breaks, do you keep your mouth shut? What if that box of ice-cream cone drumstick treats that that stranger handed to you was defective because it had been exposed to rat feces in the production process, and you weren't told about it?

I don't think it's okay to complain about a product or service. Offer constructive criticism, sure. But not complain.
By the way, what's the distinction between an object and a product anyway? Also, why are you viewing isotropic this way rather than a gift? I'm not seeing a meaningful distinction there.
If someone agrees to do me a favour, then I want him to do it to the (reasonable) best of his abilities, based on his or her agreement. This is the important thing. The agreement. By it, he or she is now harming me by not holding up their agreement, basically by lying. Now, if there's extenuating circumstances on why they can't do it, then they just totally get a pass. Case two, bike that always breaks. I might tell them, because they're going to want to know that they did something wrong. But you  know, I'm going to try to figure out why it's failing first. If it turns out to be a me problem, then I won't tell them anything. If it's a fluke defective part, I won't either. Only if it's their mistake. And then it's more in a 'by-the-way-you-need-to-check-this-out, it's not working like you thought you did' kind of thing than a 'dude you suck at building bikes' thing. Which I realize, you guys aren't saying isotropic sucks. But you do not to be aware that your tone comes off that way sometimes. And I might not even tell them. Moreover a more analogous situation is that they build you a bike that isn't sturdy enough for the kind of mountain work that you normally do. Or whatever else. My friend makes me a nice cheesy casserole. I'm not going to tell them that I hate cheese incessantly, even though I do. Heck, if they're there, I'll even eat the thing, though it's terribly terribly disgusting to me. And in this case, I'm not going to tell them that, unless they ask. 'cause it just seems rude and ungrateful. Or I guess if it was like someone really really really close to me, I might tell them then, because I know they can take it, and they're close enough to me yadda yadda. But we're talking like family here.
Third situation, the rat faeces. Well, I'm going to assume that they didn't know, so I won't complain to them, but rather the manufacturer. If somehow I can ascertain that they KNEW it was exposed, then you bet I'm going to be upset, and probably tell them. But this case is different because accepting the gift/product/service is causing me harm, ad you have a reasonable expectation that someone won't cause you harm. Isotropic doesn't cause anyone any harm short of some minor frustrations that you get inherently risking by playing a game.

[rod-]

My friend makes me a nice cheesy casserole. I'm not going to tell them that I hate cheese incessantly, even though I do. Heck, if they're there, I'll even eat the thing, though it's terribly terribly disgusting to me. And in this case, I'm not going to tell them that, unless they ask. 'cause it just seems rude and ungrateful. Or I guess if it was like someone really really really close to me, I might tell them then, because I know they can take it, and they're close enough to me yadda yadda. But we're talking like family here.

This is the part of the social contract that I hate.  If you don't like my cheese casserole, let me know (preferably by saying "yeah i just dont like cheese, not my thing" of course - a little tact never hurt...) and it'll help both of us out.  I'm not going to be that put out to try to do something to remedy the situation, and you won't have to eat shit you don't like.  At very least, in the future, i'll actually know better. 

[ftl]

By the way, what's the distinction between an object and a product anyway? Also, why are you viewing isotropic this way rather than a gift? I'm not seeing a meaningful distinction there.

Internet products and services blur the distinction between products/services and gifts all the time. 

Like, from a user perspective, using isotropic (entirely free, a 'gift') is no different than using gmail or facebook or any one of the millions of things out there that are 'free' but still try to monetize you somehow, probably via ads. You sign up, you use it for free, maybe someone makes money off of you, maybe not. Or ones that don't even try to monetize you yet! (I don't even know, does Twitter even have ads? How do they make money? I know that for a while, they didn't - was it a gift back then?) Or ones that give away a product for free for promotional purposes. Reminds me of the Night Circus. An online game that was free to play, entirely. There were no ads, I think - other than the fact that the whole game was an ad for a book, because it was set in the book's fictional universe. From a user perspective, it was entirely equivalent to Isotropic's experience - free to play, but tied in to a particular physical product.

Internet is a weird place, man.

[Deadlock39]

I don't think it's okay to complain about a product or service. Offer constructive criticism, sure. But not complain.

I'm not sure why I am interjecting my opinion here, but I guess I feel like it an it is the internet, so... what the heck.

My opinion on this whole thread and the arguing that is going back and forth is that it comes down to WW's statement right here.  However... my opinion is that, the only real difference between complaining and constructive criticism is tone, and wording things nicely.  Now, complaints might not actually contain anything actually constructive, but for the most part, including the types of things in this thread, the target of the criticism is going to be better at figuring out solutions anyway. (Users seriously have the shittiest ideas.)  Since tone does not translate over text too well, we are just left with being nice.  So... we are left with, "the guys who are complaining should be nicer" which I totally agree with, but don't really think trying to tell people on the internet to be nicer is a terribly productive thing to do.  (not that you shouldn't do it if you are so compelled)

For anyone who is reading complaints on the internet (Doug Z in this case) it is always going to be better for sanity to always interpret them as constructive criticism because man, there are a lot of ass holes on the internet (but a few of them have legitimate complaints).

[kn1tt3r]

Also what is the problem with moat's reaction? Or does this apply to ALL reactions in that you would prefer moat to be like a young witch bane (click once as opposed to click once and then click none)?  I suppose it makes new comers take a few extra seconds of confused pause but is there a problem I'm missing?

The reason I don't have a problem with moat's reaction is because to have it some other way would be against the rules of the game. Yeah, I can see arguments on the other side, but I like dougz's extreme fidelity to the rules.
This is another big issue with demanding (rather than suggesting) changes - different people want different things, and you can't please everyone.

I think the Moat thing could actually be fixed by just adding some checkbox ("reveal Moat in case of played attack cards?" or sth like that) you can click once you got your cards for next turn. This would also eliminate this timing tell you usually have.

But at the end of the day, who are we to complain? I mean we're not even customers, we're users who benefit from the hard work of some other guy. Actually I feel somewhat indebted to Doug rather than eager to complain about whatever uncomfortable little details.

[WanderingWinder]

Also what is the problem with moat's reaction? Or does this apply to ALL reactions in that you would prefer moat to be like a young witch bane (click once as opposed to click once and then click none)?  I suppose it makes new comers take a few extra seconds of confused pause but is there a problem I'm missing?

The reason I don't have a problem with moat's reaction is because to have it some other way would be against the rules of the game. Yeah, I can see arguments on the other side, but I like dougz's extreme fidelity to the rules.
This is another big issue with demanding (rather than suggesting) changes - different people want different things, and you can't please everyone.

I think the Moat thing could actually be fixed by just adding some checkbox ("reveal Moat in case of played attack cards?" or sth like that) you can click once you got your cards for next turn. This would also eliminate this timing tell you usually have.

But at the end of the day, who are we to complain? I mean we're not even customers, we're users who benefit from the hard work of some other guy. Actually I feel somewhat indebted to Doug rather than eager to complain about whatever uncomfortable little details.

The probelm with doing moat that way is that I might want to use the reaction on some attacks, but not others.

[kn1tt3r]

I think the Moat thing could actually be fixed by just adding some checkbox ("reveal Moat in case of played attack cards?" or sth like that) you can click once you got your cards for next turn. This would also eliminate this timing tell you usually have.

The probelm with doing moat that way is that I might want to use the reaction on some attacks, but not others.

Well, then don't click the checkbox, and everything works as it works now.

[blueblimp]

(I'm actually really curious to see what the official version's UI ends up looking like. A lot of the things that are mentioned here CAN be addressed by more UI detail - for example, having "discard to Envoy" and "trash to Bishop" LOOK different, rather than just having different text - but that wouldn't fit at all with Isotropic's UI. I bet that a professional could design an interface that's as simple to use as Isotropic AND sophisticated enough to make those distinctions, but I certainly couldn't, and would have no constructive suggestions for how to do so.)

One way of going about this would be to show the art of the asking card whenever there is a choice. Obviously this isn't going to prevent every mistake, but it's reasonably simple and might fit in the isotropic interface.

[Papa Luigi]

(I'm actually really curious to see what the official version's UI ends up looking like. A lot of the things that are mentioned here CAN be addressed by more UI detail - for example, having "discard to Envoy" and "trash to Bishop" LOOK different, rather than just having different text - but that wouldn't fit at all with Isotropic's UI. I bet that a professional could design an interface that's as simple to use as Isotropic AND sophisticated enough to make those distinctions, but I certainly couldn't, and would have no constructive suggestions for how to do so.)

One way of going about this would be to show the art of the asking card whenever there is a choice. Obviously this isn't going to prevent every mistake, but it's reasonably simple and might fit in the isotropic interface.

Probably the one thing I'd change about Isotropic, if I could change anything, would be a way of displaying card effects more prominently while playing. Right now there's the text interface and the image interface - I'm thinking of something like a "card" interface where you see all the stacks, all the cards in your hand, etc. Sort of like when you play Black Market and click the "view available cards" button. Great if you have the screen space for it.

It's just somewhat slow having to mouseover every card if I want to see it, and sometimes the auto scrolling causes the mouseover image to disappear so you have to bring it up again. Being able to see every card at once would be a huge help for newbies who haven't played much and may not be familiar with some of the expansions.

[Kuildeous]

Seems like a lot of this could also be resolved by an "Undo" button.  Provided, of course, that you can only "Undo" after any plays that don't affect the game state (e.g., playing Venture).

I've gotten a little spoiled. I've been playing Thunderstone on Facebook, and there is an Undo button. It's got a pretty decent chain that it follows back to. In most cases, you can undo all the way to the beginning of your turn.

It is not available, of course, when you do something that gives you knowledge about something that should be random. In Dominion terms, it's like what you mention with Venture. Contraband, Tribute, and Envoy would all be similar cases. Some attacks could be Undone, but some combinations obviously shouldn't work (like playing Ghost Ship followed by Noble Brigand).

It's a nice feature, though I shudder to think what kind of code that would entail, especially when defining when you have to empty the Undo stack due to those special cases where it's not fair to allow Undos.

But Thunderstone handles it pretty well. I suspect that it was coded with Undo from the very beginning. Adding it to Isotropic would probably be troublesome. I hope the Dominion app has it, though.

[Papa Luigi]

I don't know, you'd basically have to exclude any situation that involves either player drawing or looking at any cards from their deck, or anything that could potentially cause someone to reveal anything from their hand. That's a whole lot of situations.

So no undo for any cards that involve drawing. No undo for any deck-inspection attacks. No undo for anything that could potentially have a reaction played against it - think about it. If you play a Witch and your opponent has a Moat in hand, then it will say "waiting for reactions" before letting you continue, but if your opponent doesn't have a Moat, then it automatically plays the attack. So merely playing an attack card reveals something about your opponent's hand - either that they have a reaction card in it, or that they don't. Doesn't have to be a Moat either, you could have Secret Chamber, or even cards that react to things other than attacks like Tunnel, Fool's Gold, or Trader.

In fact, anything that causes your opponent to do anything would make an undo function unfair. Even something like playing Governor - what if you play it using the Remodel function and your opponent gains a card you don't want him to gain? Can you just undo and choose the +cards or gain Gold option instead?

It seems as though there would be more situations where undo would be unbalanced than ones where it would be balanced. Basically things like Merchant Ship, Bridge, basic treasure cards, and some special treasure cards like Cache, Hoard, and Harem. Another situation would be any action card that, when you play it, it gives you a choice of HOW to play it first before doing anything else. For instance, Steward - you play it, and before anything else happens, it gives you the choice of +$2, +2 cards, or trash 2 cards. Adding a little "cancel" button to cards like Steward and Pawn would be fair.

[WanderingWinder]

That you can see the set of 10 cards before you accept/reject. By far the worst quirk IMO.

[Davio]

That you can see the set of 10 cards before you accept/reject. By far the worst quirk IMO.

I disagree. There may be a lot of beginning players not wanting to play an attack-heavy board.
Veto-mode serves a good purpose here, I feel, although one could make an argument for a "pure random mode" checkbox.
But would you need to account for the Alchemy rule as well? (Play with up to X Alchemy card when playing with Alchemy).

[DStu]

(Play with up to X Alchemy card when playing with Alchemy).

That's not a rule, that's more actual a guideline...

[Eevee]

Is it just me or do we have an undo button?

Man isotropic is awesome.

[Geronimoo]

That's a bad sign for the official app if isotropic is still being modified.

[theory]

From the FAQ:

Why is there sometimes an undo button?

If the last thing you did was to play one or more simple Treasure cards (either individually, or with the auto-play button), you now have the option to undo that play. An undo button will appear when this is the case. This should help in cases where you played (especially with auto-play) more treasure than you meant to, eg. if you want to buy a Grand Market or remodel some treasure buying Farmland. Undo is not available in any other circumstances.

Note that as part of adding the undo feature, the cards Royal Seal and Diadem were changed so they are not played by the auto-play button; they are not considered "simple" and cannot be undone once played.

Thank you Doug!

[Brando Commando]

Since apparently this is the board where wishes are granted... DougZ, if you're listening, could you make isotropic do my taxes? And maybe find me a date?

[AJD]

From the FAQ:

Note that as part of adding the undo feature, the cards Royal Seal and Diadem were changed so they are not played by the auto-play button; they are not considered "simple" and cannot be undone once played.

Thank you Doug!

Indeed! I think I don't understand why Royal Seal and Diadem are excluded, though.

[WanderingWinder]

That you can see the set of 10 cards before you accept/reject. By far the worst quirk IMO.

I disagree. There may be a lot of beginning players not wanting to play an attack-heavy board.
Veto-mode serves a good purpose here, I feel, although one could make an argument for a "pure random mode" checkbox.
But would you need to account for the Alchemy rule as well? (Play with up to X Alchemy card when playing with Alchemy).

These players should play with the 0 to ... however many they're okay with attack cards in the set option.

[BaruMonkey]

That you can see the set of 10 cards before you accept/reject. By far the worst quirk IMO.

I disagree. There may be a lot of beginning players not wanting to play an attack-heavy board.
Veto-mode serves a good purpose here, I feel, although one could make an argument for a "pure random mode" checkbox.
But would you need to account for the Alchemy rule as well? (Play with up to X Alchemy card when playing with Alchemy).

These players should play with the 0 to ... however many they're okay with attack cards in the set option.

Whoa, I never saw that set of restriction abilities! Cool! *runs off to play*

EDIT: Gave up attempting to play with it due to lobby activity closing the dropdown list within a second of my opening it 50 times in a row

[blueblimp]

Notes on the undo feature:

• Quarry still autoplays and can't be undone. (This is okay! Just something to be aware of.) Once you've played the Quarry, you can only undo Coppers, not Silver/Gold (also Harem). If you click manually to play the Quarry before the basic treasures, you can still undo them.
• Once you buy something, you can't undo anymore (reasonably enough).
• Hoard still autoplays and can't be undone. Once you've played the Hoard, you can only undo Copper/Silver (also Harem), not Gold. If you click manually to play the Hoard before Gold, you can still undo the Gold.
• Coppers played with Coppersmith can be undone.

[olneyce]

Thanks Doug Z!  Isotropic only grows more amazing.

[Papa Luigi]

Notes on the undo feature:

• Quarry still autoplays and can't be undone. (This is okay! Just something to be aware of.) Once you've played the Quarry, you can only undo Coppers, not Silver/Gold (also Harem). If you click manually to play the Quarry before the basic treasures, you can still undo them.
• Once you buy something, you can't undo anymore (reasonably enough).
• Hoard still autoplays and can't be undone. Once you've played the Hoard, you can only undo Copper/Silver (also Harem), not Gold. If you click manually to play the Hoard before Gold, you can still undo the Gold.
• Coppers played with Coppersmith can be undone.

Just played a solo game to try out a few things. I noticed that you can play a basic treasure, then a special treasure, and then another basic treasure, but you can only undo basic treasures played since the last special treasure. So if, for instance, you play Copper-Fool's Gold-Copper-Copper, you can only undo those last two Coppers.

Quarry, Talisman, and Hoard all autoplay and can't be undone. I guess just be careful when you have special treasures.

Harem, Cache, and Stash all autoplay and CAN be undone, just like normal treasure.

If you click the button to play all your treasure, and you have special treasures that autoplay like Quarry or Talisman, they will sometimes be played near the beginning and sometimes not. I can't tell what order they're in. All I know is, sometimes there's an undo button and you can undo some of the autoplayed treasure, sometimes you can undo all of it (except the specials), and sometimes you can't undo any of it. For instance, I played a Silver, a Talisman, and a Stash, and I couldn't undo. But then I played a Silver, a Quarry, a Potion, and a Stash, and I was able to click undo exactly once to unplay the potion. Couldn't undo any further, meaning the Silver and the Stash were played before the Quarry.

[Kirian]

That's a bad sign for the official app if isotropic is still being modified.

Presumably Doug saw a very simple update to be made and went for it.  I suspect he has just as much knowledge of what's happening with the official app as the rest of us do, i.e., no clue.

[Axxle]

Is it just me or do we have an undo button?

Man isotropic is awesome.

Insane!  Thanks DougZ! 

[Captain_Frisk]

That's a bad sign for the official app if isotropic is still being modified.

Presumably Doug saw a very simple update to be made and went for it.  I suspect he has just as much knowledge of what's happening with the official app as the rest of us do, i.e., no clue.

From his AMA on reddit, I think he said he if friends with one of the developers, and had contact with them (probably on rules questions).  I think it's safe to say that his knowledge of what's going on is most likely better than those without such a personal connection.  Of course, he's probably not going to tell us anything. 

Commercial software is hard, and Mr. Zonker has set a high bar.  They probably don't want to alienate their future fanbase (us) by releasing something inferior.

[ftl]

Great update. As far as I can tell, it entirely solves the issue of accidentally playing coppers via the +$ button when you want to buy a GM; anytime where the software autoplay treasures has a possibility of screwing you over, it gives you an undo.

[dougz]

Quarry, Talisman, and Hoard all autoplay and can't be undone.

This is a bug; I thought I'd gone through and checked all the treasures but obviously I missed some.  The intent is that autoplay == undoable, so it's always "safe" to press the autoplay button.  I'll probably fix it tonight.

[Thisisnotasmile]

While you're at it, can you make Fools Gold autoplay?

[jonts26]

I just played a game where Royal seal did not autoplay. Which is especially funny when it was the only treasure in my hand. Though not really a huge deal. I like having the undo button more.

[blueblimp]

That's a bad sign for the official app if isotropic is still being modified.

Presumably Doug saw a very simple update to be made and went for it.  I suspect he has just as much knowledge of what's happening with the official app as the rest of us do, i.e., no clue.

Possibly he might have seen the post declaring undo to be difficult and taken it as a challenge. That'd be my reaction in his position, anyway. 

[Axxle]

From the FAQ:

Why is there sometimes an undo button?

If the last thing you did was to play one or more simple Treasure cards (either individually, or with the auto-play button), you now have the option to undo that play. An undo button will appear when this is the case. This should help in cases where you played (especially with auto-play) more treasure than you meant to, eg. if you want to buy a Grand Market or remodel some treasure buying Farmland. Undo is not available in any other circumstances.

Note that as part of adding the undo feature, the cards Royal Seal and Diadem were changed so they are not played by the auto-play button; they are not considered "simple" and cannot be undone once played.

Thank you Doug!

I just played a game where Royal seal did not autoplay. Which is especially funny when it was the only treasure in my hand. Though not really a huge deal. I like having the undo button more.

Apparently dougz intends this. Not sure why since it doesn't influence game state. Probably because it's much easier to code.

[DStu]

... and I thought on page 2 I should never look into this thread again ...

[rrenaud]

When I said everything barsooma said was reasonable, I was wrong.  I guess I skipped over what I thought was just bickering.

I didn't see the ad hominem stuff.  That's obviously stupid and trolling.

[barsooma]

When I said everything barsooma said was reasonable, I was wrong.  I guess I skipped over what I thought was just bickering.

I didn't see the ad hominem stuff.  That's obviously stupid and trolling.

Care to give an example?
Everything I said that was at all insulting was in direct response to someone saying something at least as rude to me first.
And to all those who said that this thread was a waste of time because nothing would change: how do those words taste now?

[jonts26]

When I said everything barsooma said was reasonable, I was wrong.  I guess I skipped over what I thought was just bickering.

I didn't see the ad hominem stuff.  That's obviously stupid and trolling.

Care to give an example?
Everything I said that was at all insulting was in direct response to someone saying something at least as rude to me first.
And to all those who said that this thread was a waste of time because nothing would change: how do those words taste now?

How about this?
*Not exactly ad hominem but in the same spirit.

And to all those who said that this thread was a waste of time because nothing would change: how do those words taste now?

[barsooma]

When I said everything barsooma said was reasonable, I was wrong.  I guess I skipped over what I thought was just bickering.

I didn't see the ad hominem stuff.  That's obviously stupid and trolling.

Care to give an example?
Everything I said that was at all insulting was in direct response to someone saying something at least as rude to me first.
And to all those who said that this thread was a waste of time because nothing would change: how do those words taste now?

How about this?
*Not exactly ad hominem but in the same spirit.

And to all those who said that this thread was a waste of time because nothing would change: how do those words taste now?

Har har.
You're right, that's not ad hominem. Maybe this will help you figure it out: http://teapotatheism.blogspot.com/2010/06/difference-between-ad-hominem-and.html
The real problem here is people who think their (poorly thought out, unsupported) opinions deserve respect simply because they are very good at playing a card game.

[jonts26]

When I said everything barsooma said was reasonable, I was wrong.  I guess I skipped over what I thought was just bickering.

I didn't see the ad hominem stuff.  That's obviously stupid and trolling.

Care to give an example?
Everything I said that was at all insulting was in direct response to someone saying something at least as rude to me first.
And to all those who said that this thread was a waste of time because nothing would change: how do those words taste now?

How about this?
*Not exactly ad hominem but in the same spirit.

And to all those who said that this thread was a waste of time because nothing would change: how do those words taste now?

Har har.
You're right, that's not ad hominem. Maybe this will help you figure it out: http://teapotatheism.blogspot.com/2010/06/difference-between-ad-hominem-and.html
The real problem here is people who think their (poorly thought out, unsupported) opinions deserve respect simply because they are very good at playing a card game.

Hey I can passive aggressively link websites too!  http://www.bordeglobal.com/foruminv/index.php?showtopic=19899

[DStu]

... and I thought 5 6 posts ago I should look into this thread again ...

[BaruMonkey]

When I said everything barsooma said was reasonable, I was wrong.  I guess I skipped over what I thought was just bickering.

I didn't see the ad hominem stuff.  That's obviously stupid and trolling.

Care to give an example?
Everything I said that was at all insulting was in direct response to someone saying something at least as rude to me first.
And to all those who said that this thread was a waste of time because nothing would change: how do those words taste now?

How about this?
*Not exactly ad hominem but in the same spirit.

And to all those who said that this thread was a waste of time because nothing would change: how do those words taste now?

Har har.
You're right, that's not ad hominem. Maybe this will help you figure it out: http://teapotatheism.blogspot.com/2010/06/difference-between-ad-hominem-and.html
The real problem here is people who think their (poorly thought out, unsupported) opinions deserve respect simply because they are very good at playing a card game.

Hey I can passive aggressively link websites too!  http://www.bordeglobal.com/foruminv/index.php?showtopic=19899

Barsooma's point is valid, even if he's being a dick about it. Rrenaud was (as I'm reading it) trying to distinguish between "just bickering" (which might be reasonable) and ad hominem (which is not). An example of ad hominem has not yet been produced as requested.

[ftl]

... and I thought 5 6 posts ago I should look into this thread again ...

Yep

[jonts26]

I clearly stated that my example was NOT an example of ad hominem. Barsooma responded by acknowledging that I stated that and then proceeding to link that article after implying that I don't know the difference. In reality I was just making a joke, with perhaps a slightly insulting undertone myself.

As for actual ad hominem, I never stated that he made any, and really don't care to look over the entirety of the arguing from earlier in the thread to find out.

[rrenaud]

When I said everything barsooma said was reasonable, I was wrong.  I guess I skipped over what I thought was just bickering.

I didn't see the ad hominem stuff.  That's obviously stupid and trolling.

Care to give an example?
Everything I said that was at all insulting was in direct response to someone saying something at least as rude to me first.
And to all those who said that this thread was a waste of time because nothing would change: how do those words taste now?

You are right.  You didn't insult him until he called you a troll. 

From my point of view, you didn't actually start trolling until being called a troll.  That is epic.  You have won.

[Fabian]

ITT people still pay attention to barsooma for some reason?

Good post man, +1

[O]

I propose we keep the forum bickering and cancer where it belongs.

The decline of civility on isotropic thread!

(Just kidding.. actually no, I'm not kidding).

[WanderingWinder]

Also, the constraints problem, where you basically couldn't put in constraints, seems to be fixed now.

[Axxle]

Also, the constraints problem, where you basically couldn't put in constraints, seems to be fixed now.

Where does DougZ live? I need to buy him a few drinks.

[Thisisnotasmile]

Also, the constraints problem, where you basically couldn't put in constraints, seems to be fixed now.

Where does DougZ live? I need to buy him a few drinks.

Palo Alto, CA

[Kuildeous]

No matter how many times I enter Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, I can never start off with more than 5 Copper.

[rrenaud]

The correct incantation is <redacted>

[dougz]

The correct incantations don't work on the public server, unless you're logged in as me.  :-)

[Ozle]

I seem to have forgotten your password Doug, what was it again?

[theory]

dougz rises to the top of the leaderboard with his patented Platinum/Platinum opening.

(Link may actually have nothing to do with doug, but it is the most bizarre Isotropic log I've ever seen.)

[BaruMonkey]

No matter how many times I enter Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, I can never start off with more than 5 Copper.

Not exactly what you meant (I now realize you said 5, not 7), but allow me to refer you to this tread: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1587.0

[Axxle]

No matter how many times I enter Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, I can never start off with more than 5 Copper.

Not exactly what you meant (I now realize you said 5, not 7), but allow me to refer you to this tread: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1587.0

I'm sure he meant "In Hand"

[BaruMonkey]

I'm sure he meant "In Hand"

As am I.

[Axxle]

I'm sure he meant "In Hand"

As am I.

Ah, misread that as "not exactly sure what you meant"

[Kirian]

dougz rises to the top of the leaderboard with his patented Platinum/Platinum opening.

(Link may actually have nothing to do with doug, but it is the most bizarre Isotropic log I've ever seen.)

How the hell did that even happen?

[Morgrim7]

dougz rises to the top of the leaderboard with his patented Platinum/Platinum opening.

(Link may actually have nothing to do with doug, but it is the most bizarre Isotropic log I've ever seen.)

Looking at the board...KC...Mountebank...Wharf...meh,I'll open Platnium/Platnium.

[dougz]

How the hell did that even happen?

Yeah, so, um, embarrassing.

After theory posted that log, I was curious if there was a bug or exploit or something (it's a year old, but I didn't remember fixing anything along those lines), so I wrote to the player and asked him, and while I waited for him to reply I went reading through that section of the code.

Turns out that (until last night) the server didn't actually check to see if you had enough money to buy the card you asked to buy.  Normally it's not a problem because the interface only makes cards clickable if you can afford them, but if you hack the javascript, or insert a proxy that modifies the request on the way to the server (as bdhcompany did) it would happily sell you any card in the supply whether you had the money for it or not.  Whoops!

Anyway, bdhcompany was cool about it, that game was apparently a joke he was playing on his co-workers.  And it's fixed now, so this shouldn't be possible any longer.

No, I'm not going to do anything about past games.  If anyone was using it regularly, I guess we'll see a precipitous fall on the leaderboard soon...

[theory]

At last, WanderingWinder's secret is exposed!!

[Davio]

Gotta try this for the official app. 

[WanderingWinder]

At last, WanderingWinder's secret is exposed!!

Shhhhh!!!! Don't let them onto that!

[timchen]

Curious, in this case isn't a wood cutter strictly better than a platinum, or for a board without +buy, you may as well open colony/colony?

[BaruMonkey]

Curious, in this case isn't a wood cutter strictly better than a platinum, or for a board without +buy, you may as well open colony/colony?

But then the trolling might be slightly less hilarious 

[GendoIkari]

How the hell did that even happen?

Yeah, so, um, embarrassing.

After theory posted that log, I was curious if there was a bug or exploit or something (it's a year old, but I didn't remember fixing anything along those lines), so I wrote to the player and asked him, and while I waited for him to reply I went reading through that section of the code.

Turns out that (until last night) the server didn't actually check to see if you had enough money to buy the card you asked to buy.  Normally it's not a problem because the interface only makes cards clickable if you can afford them, but if you hack the javascript, or insert a proxy that modifies the request on the way to the server (as bdhcompany did) it would happily sell you any card in the supply whether you had the money for it or not.  Whoops!

Anyway, bdhcompany was cool about it, that game was apparently a joke he was playing on his co-workers.  And it's fixed now, so this shouldn't be possible any longer.

No, I'm not going to do anything about past games.  If anyone was using it regularly, I guess we'll see a precipitous fall on the leaderboard soon...

Man, I'm really annoyed at myself now for having never tried to hack the Javascript!

[jonts26]

Did anyone else notice the "repeat last game" option added to isotropic next to the card constraints? Now that's a feature I can get behind.

[WanderingWinder]

Did anyone else notice the "repeat last game" option added to isotropic next to the card constraints? Now that's a feature I can get behind.

That's been there for quite a while.

[jonts26]

And no one bothered to tell me? I can't be expected to notice these things on my own.

[jotheonah]

Whoops wrong thread.

[def]

So the worst Isotropic quirk definitely is that there are improvements and we aren't told about them!

[timchen]

Dunno if mentioned in the thread, one thing that bothers me is that when auto-matching, it is quite likely that the system will pair you up with someone that repeatly rejects you.

Or when someone is afk, you have to wait until timeout, as otherwise you are quite likely to be paired up with the same guy again.

[Schneau]

Something that has been bothering me recently is that the "info" and "+$n" buttons move around depending on whether it is your turn or not. Multiple times recently I have gone to click "info" during my opponent's turn, and had it turn into "+$n" just as I click it. It would be better if "info" never moved.

Speaking of moving things, it is a pain in the butt to have the constraint selection moving up and down when you're trying to use it. Why not put this above the players list so that it's much easier to use? I feel like I have to be speedy quick to ever get constraints set up.

[SwitchedFromStarcraft]

dougz rises to the top of the leaderboard with his patented Platinum/Platinum opening.

(Link may actually have nothing to do with doug, but it is the most bizarre Isotropic log I've ever seen.)

With so many oddities in that log to choose from, I thought the most bizarre was that despite the "purchasing power", the game lasted 36 turns and ended on Provinces.

Edited: To add punctuation.

[jonts26]

Ok, so not really a big deal at all, but something that's always kind of bugged me.

The iso game logs, when listing the kingdom cards, have the last card listed after the word 'and'. I can't simply copy/paste that info into the card constraints. I have to take all sorts of time hitting backspace a few times.

[blueblimp]

Minor thing: in the Great Hall, there are almost always enough people on that the chat area is below the bottom of my screen.

[Davio]

Ok, so not really a big deal at all, but something that's always kind of bugged me.

The iso game logs, when listing the kingdom cards, have the last card listed after the word 'and'. I can't simply copy/paste that info into the card constraints. I have to take all sorts of time hitting backspace a few times.

Still, it's better than 10 comboboxes with 150 options each. 

[BaruMonkey]

Worst isotropic quirk: Its vulnerability to local neighborhood utility work! 

[Galzria]

Worst isotropic quirk: Its vulnerability to local neighborhood utility work! 

I live relatively nearby, but don't have any power outages (scheduled or not)... Maybe there is something to this theory about the official app... "Rabbit Holes!"

[BaruMonkey]

Worst isotropic quirk: Its vulnerability to local neighborhood utility work! 

I live relatively nearby, but don't have any power outages (scheduled or not)... Maybe there is something to this theory about the official app... "Rabbit Holes!"

http://youtu.be/a1Y73sPHKxw!

[GendoIkari]

Worst isotropic quirk: Its vulnerability to local neighborhood utility work! 

I live relatively nearby, but don't have any power outages (scheduled or not)... Maybe there is something to this theory about the official app... "Rabbit Holes!"