Print

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

[werothegreat]

Now, while Dominion on iso is certainly a barrel of fun, I personally think that Innovation is much more suited to iso's aesthetic - Innovation is a fairly minimalist game in the first place, at least in terms of design, so really not much is altered in the transition to iso.  But there's such a large difference between IRL/Goko Dominion and iso Dominion, again, at least in terms of design.  I know a lot of people like the minimalism (which is why so many still are boycotting Goko), but I guess I prefer online interpretations of physical games to be as close to the original as possible.  Thoughts?

[ednever]

The built in counting on Iso makes it a lot easier to play than real life (faster I guess).

It's a bit like a point counter, but since everything is exposed anyway it's not really giving advantage, just ease and speed of play.

Ed

[Davio]

Online games shouldn't try to copy real life games. This leads to very awkward UIs. Online versions should embrace only the core elements and present it in a way which is best suited online.

Look at Goko: it should be possible to show all the cards in one screen, yet it often needs two. You can't easily track what your opponent did, it's really bad.

That's why I loved Iso. It was still at its core the same game, but optimized for online play.

If I want a real life experience, I play in real life.

[popsofctown]

Davio, I'm going to make a claim that there is at least one exception to your rule.  MTGO and MTG are identical, and there's a really good reason for that, there's lots of highly active players that use one to practice the other and like to play in real events, but often want to test out a new deck without burning some gas money.

Right now the only difference I know of between real Innovation and tabletop Innovation is the information leaks, like the instantaneously decided not to share Code of Laws, instantaneously selected Oars hits, and a couple straight up bugs like Currency showing the opponent what was being returned and scored for little apparent reason.  Dougz hasn't commented on what kind of behavior he wants for Oars and the like, but the Currency I'm sure will get fixed sooner or later.

[rrenaud]

In real life, sometimes you don't realize you've accomplished an achievement, and hence you don't claim it.  Iso doesn't implement that.

In real life, you fuck up the rules on occasion.  Iso doesn't implement that.

In real life, counting symbols is a pain in the ass.  Iso doesn't implement that.

In real life, you can't see which cards are below other on your opponent's decks.  Iso doesn't implement that.

I wouldn't be surprised if a 'good for the internet' implementation of magic came around, that it would smash the 'suffers from all problems of real life' magic implementation, all other things the same (official support, etc).

(OTOH, I might be kind of crazy.  I'd self identify more as 'rrenaud from the internet' than 'Rob from New York').

[Jimmmmm]

Online games shouldn't try to copy real life games. This leads to very awkward UIs. Online versions should embrace only the core elements and present it in a way which is best suited online.

Look at Goko: it should be possible to show all the cards in one screen, yet it often needs two. You can't easily track what your opponent did, it's really bad.

That's why I loved Iso. It was still at its core the same game, but optimized for online play.

If I want a real life experience, I play in real life.

This times 1000.

IRL Dominion offers me a really good social and fun experience. iso offers me a really good, quick no-fuss fun experience. Goko is a weird awkward mix of the two.

[popsofctown]

In real life, sometimes you don't realize you've accomplished an achievement, and hence you don't claim it.  Iso doesn't implement that.

In real life, you fuck up the rules on occasion.  Iso doesn't implement that.

In real life, counting symbols is a pain in the ass.  Iso doesn't implement that.

In real life, you can't see which cards are below other on your opponent's decks.  Iso doesn't implement that.

I wouldn't be surprised if a 'good for the internet' implementation of magic came around, that it would smash the 'suffers from all problems of real life' magic implementation, all other things the same (official support, etc).

(OTOH, I might be kind of crazy.  I'd self identify more as 'rrenaud from the internet' than 'Rob from New York').

I don't follow at all :/

[theory]

In real life, sometimes you don't realize you've accomplished an achievement, and hence you don't claim it.  Iso doesn't implement that.

In real life, you fuck up the rules on occasion.  Iso doesn't implement that.

In real life, counting symbols is a pain in the ass.  Iso doesn't implement that.

In real life, you can't see which cards are below other on your opponent's decks.  Iso doesn't implement that.

I wouldn't be surprised if a 'good for the internet' implementation of magic came around, that it would smash the 'suffers from all problems of real life' magic implementation, all other things the same (official support, etc).

(OTOH, I might be kind of crazy.  I'd self identify more as 'rrenaud from the internet' than 'Rob from New York').

I don't follow at all :/

I think his point is that Iso doesn't implement a lot of terrible things about real-life games, but that this is a virtue, not a flaw.  Striving for "faithfulness" is not as good as simply making a good game.

[theory]

There's a real good analogy here to the art of translation.  The goal of translation shouldn't be to faithful to the text, but to be faithful to the meaning.  For example, the phrase "speak of the devil!" translated literally into Chinese is both awkward and somewhat confusing.  Much better would be to translate it to "shuo dao Cao Cao, Cao Cao jiu dao", an idiom steeped in Chinese culture that evokes the same meaning, even though it is not a strictly faithful textual translation.

Likewise, if you're translating a board game into the online language, you should not be forced to implement the quirks and limitations of the real-world framework.  You should feel free to innovate and do things like count symbols automatically and see buried cards.  Such features better serve the overall goal of the game, even if they are not strictly faithful to the text of the rules.

[Kirian]

In real life, sometimes you don't realize you've accomplished an achievement, and hence you don't claim it.  Iso doesn't implement that.

In real life, you fuck up the rules on occasion.  Iso doesn't implement that.

In real life, counting symbols is a pain in the ass.  Iso doesn't implement that.

In real life, you can't see which cards are below other on your opponent's decks.  Iso doesn't implement that.

It seems to me that MTGO probably does those the same way Iso does.

[timchen]

Much better would be to translate it to "shuo dao Cao Cao, Cao Cao jiu dao", an idiom steeped in Chinese culture that evokes the same meaning, even though it is not a strictly faithful textual translation.

Is Cao Cao the one I think he should be? That's an interesting ping-in...

[theory]

Much better would be to translate it to "shuo dao Cao Cao, Cao Cao jiu dao", an idiom steeped in Chinese culture that evokes the same meaning, even though it is not a strictly faithful textual translation.

Is Cao Cao the one I think he should be? That's an interesting ping-in...

Cao Cao is correct pinyin.  Ts'ao Ts'ao is Wade-Giles.

[dondon151]

Is Cao Cao the one I think he should be? That's an interesting ping-in...

"Ping-in" is an interesting pinyin...

[eHalcyon]

Is everyone here Chinese?  I'm Chinese.

But I am illiterate.

[Ozle]

Is everyone here Chinese?  I'm Chinese.

But I am illiterate.

I used to be Chinese...but I got better

[werothegreat]

Is everyone here Chinese?  I'm Chinese.

But I am illiterate.

I used to be Chinese...but I got better

I eat a lot of Chinese take-out.

[Grujah]

Davio, I'm going to make a claim that there is at least one exception to your rule.  MTGO and MTG are identical, and there's a really good reason for that, there's lots of highly active players that use one to practice the other and like to play in real events, but often want to test out a new deck without burning some gas money.

Right now the only difference I know of between real Innovation and tabletop Innovation is the information leaks, like the instantaneously decided not to share Code of Laws, instantaneously selected Oars hits, and a couple straight up bugs like Currency showing the opponent what was being returned and scored for little apparent reason.  Dougz hasn't commented on what kind of behavior he wants for Oars and the like, but the Currency I'm sure will get fixed sooner or later.

No, it's not identical.

Passing priority plays differently, you cannot miss triggers (or do other infractions), you don't manually need track anything. That's UI side, what comes to mind.

Actually game-wise - you don't have masters editions, so you don't have, for example, Hymn to Tourach or Goblin Grenade at Common rarity, which changes Pauper a lot.

[Davio]

I don't play MTG nor MTGO so I have no clue about the implementation.

But Theory's example explains what I mean nicely. Too literal translations only lead to trouble, just look how much confusion ancient texts are still causing us today. Heck, for all we know "nailing someone to the cross" was an ancient metaphor for pulling a simple prank. Okay, it probably wasn't, but you know what I mean. Context is everything.

Online games have different context than their real world counterparts. Real world games are often played in a more relaxed social setting, barring tournaments, where time is not an issue and human interaction is the biggest fun factor. Online games are often played to test one's skills or to kill some limited time. I use the internet mainly as an "in-between" activity rather than a highlight activity so to speak.

So not only is it really awkward to try to translate real world mechanics to the internet, it's also awkward to assume that they're played in the same manner or with the same intent.

I've always been a big proponent of the point counter and even the much debated Point Counter Extension, because I realized that playing online is already a variant of the actual game. So while using the counter has been dubbed a variant, I believe that the term stretches even further to encompass all of online Dominion. In real life, you can monitor someone else to make sure that he's not using any tools. Online you simply can't do that, so why not make all public information known to everyone? You can't prevent people from using tools behind their screens anyway, so why not embrace this fact and provide these tools in the first place?

I don't think it takes anything away from the game to just list all public information. For one thing, it will likely lower the learning curve of new players and that shouldn't be a bad thing. Too often now I see new players committing suicide by buying the last Province in a close match. That can be helped if they can plainly see they would lose if they'd do that. And if they can check the deck contents of both players, they can learn from that too: "I bought too much Villages", "I bought too much Terminals", "I didn't buy enough Treasure", etc...

[popsofctown]

Davio, I'm going to make a claim that there is at least one exception to your rule.  MTGO and MTG are identical, and there's a really good reason for that, there's lots of highly active players that use one to practice the other and like to play in real events, but often want to test out a new deck without burning some gas money.

Right now the only difference I know of between real Innovation and tabletop Innovation is the information leaks, like the instantaneously decided not to share Code of Laws, instantaneously selected Oars hits, and a couple straight up bugs like Currency showing the opponent what was being returned and scored for little apparent reason.  Dougz hasn't commented on what kind of behavior he wants for Oars and the like, but the Currency I'm sure will get fixed sooner or later.

No, it's not identical.

Passing priority plays differently, you cannot miss triggers (or do other infractions), you don't manually need track anything. That's UI side, what comes to mind.

Actually game-wise - you don't have masters editions, so you don't have, for example, Hymn to Tourach or Goblin Grenade at Common rarity, which changes Pauper a lot.

Passing priority is fundamentally the same. 
Manually needing to track something is a chore, but the GAME is the same.  Like the state of the game, the rules of it.  The mathematical definition of the game state.  It's the same.
High level players don't miss triggers anyway. 

[popsofctown]

I don't play MTG nor MTGO so I have no clue about the implementation.

But Theory's example explains what I mean nicely. Too literal translations only lead to trouble, just look how much confusion ancient texts are still causing us today. Heck, for all we know "nailing someone to the cross" was an ancient metaphor for pulling a simple prank. Okay, it probably wasn't, but you know what I mean. Context is everything.

Online games have different context than their real world counterparts. Real world games are often played in a more relaxed social setting, barring tournaments, where time is not an issue and human interaction is the biggest fun factor. Online games are often played to test one's skills or to kill some limited time. I use the internet mainly as an "in-between" activity rather than a highlight activity so to speak.

So not only is it really awkward to try to translate real world mechanics to the internet, it's also awkward to assume that they're played in the same manner or with the same intent.

I've always been a big proponent of the point counter and even the much debated Point Counter Extension, because I realized that playing online is already a variant of the actual game. So while using the counter has been dubbed a variant, I believe that the term stretches even further to encompass all of online Dominion. In real life, you can monitor someone else to make sure that he's not using any tools. Online you simply can't do that, so why not make all public information known to everyone? You can't prevent people from using tools behind their screens anyway, so why not embrace this fact and provide these tools in the first place?

I don't think it takes anything away from the game to just list all public information. For one thing, it will likely lower the learning curve of new players and that shouldn't be a bad thing. Too often now I see new players committing suicide by buying the last Province in a close match. That can be helped if they can plainly see they would lose if they'd do that. And if they can check the deck contents of both players, they can learn from that too: "I bought too much Villages", "I bought too much Terminals", "I didn't buy enough Treasure", etc...

There's lots of public information in innovation that's still hidden.  It'd be nice to see all of it though. If a card is returned from someone's board, everyone can know exactly where in its age pile it is, but that isn't shown.


Then again, if there are 7 or 8 cards in an age pile, that public info isn't clearly shown either >_<.  I've though about trying to copy the image into photoshop to zoom in or something.