Print

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

[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/