It would be great to have a checkbox when hosting a table for "Identical starting hands": all players begin the game with the same starting hand.
When my brother and I play, we always play that way so someone doesn't get that lucky 5/2 and buys a Cultist. Currently we do it manually, passing turn after turn until we both have, say, a 4/3 copper split. In one game today, Baths was a landmark, and the VPs ended up being dished out while we were getting compatible starting hands.
Shouldn't be too hard. Maybe tournaments and league would also like this option...?
Keep up the great work!
Kind regards,
HD
Like Duplicate Bridge. Interesting idea . . . hadn't thought of it, but it would certainly reduce the luck factor by a significant margin.
Your "passing turns" system is weird. You shouldn't get Bath points before the real game even begins.
When I've played this way IRL, we just both play with whatever starting hand the first player got.
Quote from: allanfieldhouse on 26 January 2017, 04:03:46 PM
Your "passing turns" system is weird. You shouldn't get Bath points before the real game even begins.
When I've played this way IRL, we just both play with whatever starting hand the first player got.
Exactly. Same for us IRL.
Since we don't have a baked-in option for identical starting hands online, the only options we have to get a game like that are (a) quit and start over repeatedly or (b) pass turns repeatedly. Passing turns is the easier of the two. (And doesn't affect player ratings... we were playing this way on Making Fun.) The only time passing turns did something weird was with Baths, and once we noticed that, I was inspired to write this feature request. :)
I am against this.
I believe, no really, that overall people would have less fun if this were implemented. You personally might have more fun, but well, I have to look at the big picture.
I don't mind whatever variants you play at home. I don't mind if you skip turns with your friend in order to get the same start. It would be a bad option though.
If getting identical starting hands is that important to you, you can just resign and start a new game.
Quote from: Donald X. on 27 January 2017, 05:53:10 AMI believe, no really, that overall people would have less fun if this were implemented. You personally might have more fun, but well, I have to look at the big picture.
I'm inclined to believe you if for no other reason than because you obviously have drastically more data on this than me, but I'm curious about what would make it less fun for people in general?
I understand for IRL games that this would be a larger impediment to starting the game (ie: How do you figure out what your starting hand is? How do you ensure they match? etc) but for a digital implementation where that would all be transparent to the user, I'm just curious as to why/how that would reduce fun overall.
I just don't buy the argument that identical starting hands makes the game more interesting. If my life depended on one single game of Dominion, then I would argue for it -- but then again, I would probably try anything to gain an advantage in that situation, assuming I wasn't paralyzed trying to figure out exactly how I got into a situation where my life depended on a game of Dominion.
In the cases where being on the wrong side of a 5/2 split is really disadvantageous, the game will probably be over quickly, and if it's not, then you can resign and play another one! Games are quick. And playing three games doesn't cost you appreciably more (in time or $) than playing one game. 13/18 times (on average) you'll end up with the same starting hand as your opponent. In the other games you'll have some interesting decisions to make. Sometimes you'll have an advantage, and that brings a certain amount of pressure to win; sometimes you'll be at a disadvantage and that brings an interesting challenge. Sometimes you'll complain about your shitty luck to your opponent and then quit a few turns later and let me tell you, that's not a good look.
I find it fascinating that the same user posted two feature requests in short succession: one arguing for blind buys to curtail mirror matches and another to force identical starting hands. Those two ideas seem incongruous!
Quote from: Icehawk78 on 27 January 2017, 05:45:04 PM
Quote from: Donald X. on 27 January 2017, 05:53:10 AMI believe, no really, that overall people would have less fun if this were implemented. You personally might have more fun, but well, I have to look at the big picture.
I'm inclined to believe you if for no other reason than because you obviously have drastically more data on this than me, but I'm curious about what would make it less fun for people in general?
I understand for IRL games that this would be a larger impediment to starting the game (ie: How do you figure out what your starting hand is? How do you ensure they match? etc) but for a digital implementation where that would all be transparent to the user, I'm just curious as to why/how that would reduce fun overall.
The Johnny in me likes coming back from a disadvantage at the start of the game and still winning. I feel this burden lifted off my shoulders when my opponent gets a lucky 5/2 where if I lose, I can just blame the opening and whine about it, but if I win I was David and I conquered Goliath.
Quote from: Icehawk78 on 27 January 2017, 05:45:04 PM
I'm inclined to believe you if for no other reason than because you obviously have drastically more data on this than me, but I'm curious about what would make it less fun for people in general?
I understand for IRL games that this would be a larger impediment to starting the game (ie: How do you figure out what your starting hand is? How do you ensure they match? etc) but for a digital implementation where that would all be transparent to the user, I'm just curious as to why/how that would reduce fun overall.
IRL you just have one player shuffle and go by their opening, unless you have cards that mess with the opening (e.g. Doctor) in which case it's trickier.
I think "identical starting hands" is something some people would play with because they felt like it was an advantage they shouldn't give up (why hurt your rating compared to people who never have to beat turn one Mountebank), or because their opponent wanted it. People who had no special interest in it would nevertheless end up playing with it.
And well the game could have just had identical starting hands. It intentionally does not, to increase variety in the opening turns. In fact the 7 Coppers was chosen with starting hands in mind. I think that the variety of openings contributes a lot, makes the game more fun.
Obv. the randomness does not stop on turn one. People sometimes want identical starting hands; no-one ever asks for identical turn 2 shuffles. That matters so much though; shuffle your starting buys to the bottom and it's an uphill battle. For me, it's not like the starting shuffle is magical, the perfect amount to be non-random before your randomness starts. It's a game of shuffled cards.
So it's like I haven't answered the question yet, just addressed how people who weren't interested in the option would end up using it. Why is the variety fun? Uh. I think it's just great across the board. It's more interesting when our strategies are different. It's fun to deal with the situation rather than just always doing the next step of the plan, and that applies even turn one, since that's where the randomness starts. There are special cases too, like the fighting-the-5/2 situation Adam describes. You never get the joy of beating turn one Mountebank unless some games your opponent gets the 5/2 and you don't.
People always focus on it being about 5/2, though obv. some games 3/4 is way better, and the 5/2 sometimes even turns into 4/0. There are certainly cards that give a big advantage to a 5/2 though. In later sets cards have sometimes been tested to try to make sure the 5/2 wasn't too good, when it looked like it might be. Not all cards got that testing though. I guess here I am just saying, yes there are a few cards like Mountebank where you are in trouble when your opponent gets to open them; there aren't a ton of those cards though, and there are cards that go the other way too, e.g. Remake.
I played in a tournament hosted on isotropic in 2012. The four of us in the match were supposed to have identical starting hands per the tournament rules, but whoever set up this particular game forgot to check that box. I got a 5/2 split, everyone else had 4/3, and it was put to a vote whether we would remake the game or play it as it was.
There wasn't a single $5-buy on the board.
I was outvoted 3–1 and did not win that game. It may well be that 75% of the players had more fun, but at what cost?
There's a difference between variety and inequality. On some boards, sure, there's a healthy tradeoff between 5/2 and 4/3. You get an early Laboratory, but you miss out on two Silvers. That's variety. On other boards, such as in my game above, the 5/2 split was a distinct disadvantage. Or put Mint and Fool's Gold in there, and all of a sudden 5/2 dominates. That's inequality.
I get that shuffle luck is inevitable. But can't we at least start each game on equal footing?
Quote from: Funhaver on 28 January 2017, 01:51:44 AM
I get that shuffle luck is inevitable. But can't we at least start each game on equal footing?
If that's how you want to think of it, then no. You can't. Except of course IRL, where you are free to play whatever variants you want, or by convincing your opponent to skip turns until you have the same draw.
It is 2017. The game was published in 2008. This is not the first time someone has cried "at what cost" because they felt they lost a game to their opening split. I was unmoved back in 2008. At this point I have so many happy games of Dominion backing me up. Equal starting hands is strictly bad, I remain completely against it despite your tragic loss, and man Shuffle iT have other things to work on.
Quote from: Donald X. on 28 January 2017, 05:54:33 AM
Equal starting hands is strictly bad
I wouldn't go that far. It might not be
quite as good, but it's still going to be a fun game of Dominion.
When there are two options of relatively similar fun level, we can argue all day about which is better. Or we can just play the game the way it was designed and not worry about it. Maybe someday there will be optional variants online, but that's super low priority.
Thanks everybody for the feedback.
This started as a simple feature request. By "simple" I'm talking about adding a checkbox and 3-5 lines of code. I'd be surprised if it takes SI more than 10 minutes. I did not expect SI to attend to it immediately and place it above their current priorities. It's something that would be nice for me and other like-minded Dominion fans. I posted it here so they could add it to their list. Isotropic had it.
I. It's unanimously agreed that in certain circumstances Different Starting Hands gives one player a significant advantage over the other
The first turns are often the most important ones and largely set the pace of the game (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16884.new#new) and the effect of opening moves is exponential on what happens later (http://forum.shuffleit.nl/index.php?topic=1399.msg4452#msg4452).
Often the player with $5 is better off, but as DonaldX and Funhaver pointed out, having $5 can also put you at a disadvantage. According to the Isotropic stats, some opening combinations in pre-Dark-Ages-Dominion had the effect of making you perform 8 levels higher than normal. (http://councilroom.com/openings)
II. It's a matter of opinion whether or not Identical Starting Hands is more fun
Randomness, Variety, and Inequality exist on a continuum. The game of Dominion could have less Randomness/Variety/Inequality with Identical Starting Hands or Stack-Your-Deck-On-Each-Shuffle or Ban-Swindler. The game could also have more R/V/I with a house rule that, say, randomly dishes out a couple Silvers/Golds into some players' starting decks.
It doesn't sound like the whole community sits in the same place on the R/V/I continuum.
For me, Dominion more than satisfies my need for variety in the random nature of the kingdoms. That's a form of variety that doesn't put any one player at a large advantage over the others. I've been playing Identical Starting Hands for years and never once thought "Gee, this game would have been way more fun if one of us had a $5/$2 and the other didn't." And, obviously, we started playing that way, because there were many post-game whines about how it was "impossible to catch" the guy who started with the advantage. Analogies to playing a game of chess starting a "rook down" were made... or running a footrace with cement blocks for shoes. That all resonates with me.
I understand that AdamH likes the David-defeating-Goliath dynamic, and I can relate to a certain extent. But, the position I really don't like is when I'm "Goliath"... because it feels like a no-win. Either (a) I get a tainted win (and my opponent usually reminds me of it), or (b) I lose and feel like I totally suck.
But again, R/V/I is a continuum, so we can pull this in the opposite direction. How would the community feel about the feature request: "let's have one random player add 2 curses to their starting deck"? That adds more variety, right? If you have the curses and win, man, that's like David besting ten Goliaths!
Point being that for me, going from Identical Starting Hands to Different Starting Hands feels like randomly giving someone a starting curse. Yeah, that game can still be enjoyed. (I mean, with the right crowd Cootie and Uno can be enjoyed... and obviously, in the "big picture" those games outsell Dominion by some ridiculous margin. Casinos testify that plenty of people enjoy the thrill of sheer luck.) But you can't wash away the stigma of a lopsided match when there are starting inequalities. Every single poster in this thread acknowledges that that stigma is there.
III. "People who had no special interest in [Identical Starting Hands] would nevertheless end up playing with it."
This objection is totally work-aroundable.
(a) Identical Starting Hands is not an option in auto-match
(b) Identical Starting Hands is only available as an option when you create your own (private? or password-protected?) table
(c) Identical Starting Hands is only available when you are playing with someone on your friends list
Those of us who desire Identical Starting Hands, can play it all day with one another without affecting anyone else. I have no idea how many people here prefer this. I just know that all my real-life playgroup does. Maybe it will only be used by me and my friends... but it doesn't cost anything or hurt anyone if implemented this way.
Kind regards,
HD
I'm with you. I've never tried this, am not sure if I would try it, but I simply cannot see how giving it as an "opt-in" option diminished the game in any way for the rest of us.
And, frankly, it seems like an interesting enough option to include in the game's coding. Obviously, I'm in the minority here.
Having the option would be better than not having the option, I don't dispute that.
The thing is, it's a variant. If you add in this variant, why not add in the next variant? You could spend all day doing this and the devs have better things to do. Maybe they could charge money for them but I certainly wouldn't pay for that.
I had suggested somewhere else that it could be done in a mod or some kind of extension. I think that's a great idea. But if I'm subscribing to this service, I'd rather the devs work on every possible tweak and optimization to the game as the designer intended rather than worry about which variants are going to get worked on.
I guess by this same logic VP counter shouldn't be implemented, and yeah I wish that were the case. Unfortunately, it was. I can't really defend that, but this rationale is why I don't think it's a good idea for this option to be part of the official product.
Game variants cannot be added while the lack of any kind of table sorting or filtering exists. VP counters is already enough of a travesty. The developers have a lot of more important things on their plate.
Quote from: Hertz Doughnut on 30 January 2017, 11:01:34 PM
But you can't wash away the stigma of a lopsided match when there are starting inequalities. Every single poster in this thread acknowledges that that stigma is there.
I don't know what you even mean by "stigma," and certainly don't acknowledge it. I recommend not constructing sentences like "Every single poster in this thread acknowledges..." Speak for yourself! We'll speak for ourselves.
The first shuffle inequalities are immediately followed by the second shuffle inequalities. It's a game with shuffling.
I remain 100% against identical starting hands. I also have a good, lucky feeling that I can kill this potential feature, being me. I do not recommend devoting a lot of time to trying to get it.
DXV: Best...Post...Ever!!! :) ;) :D ;D
Quote from: Donald X. on 31 January 2017, 12:01:37 PMI recommend not constructing sentences like "Every single poster in this thread acknowledges..." Speak for yourself! We'll speak for ourselves.
Love the anti-narcissism recommendation! Hope some people are paying attention.
Quote from: Donald X. on 31 January 2017, 12:01:37 PM
I also have a good, lucky feeling that I can kill this potential feature, being me.
Great. Now do you think you could kill my headache, being you? That would be awesome!
Quote from: Donald X. on 31 January 2017, 12:01:37 PM
I don't know what you even mean by "stigma," and certainly don't acknowledge it.
By "stigma" I meant a perceived mark of distinction, and that was probably a poor word choice on my part. People notice when their games start 5/2 vs 4/3. People feel that it's a starting inequality where one side has a disadvantage. Sometimes, they objectively do have a disadvantage.
You haven't used the word "stigma", but I'm pretty sure we agree that there is a distinction (or the perception of a distinction) of starting disadvantage in games of 5/2 vs 4/3.
I would appreciate it if we addressed the salient points of my last post. What's the harm in letting this be an option for private, friends-only tables?
Kind regards,
HD
Quote from: Hertz Doughnut on 31 January 2017, 06:41:02 PMYou haven't used the word "stigma", but I'm pretty sure we agree that there is a distinction (or the perception of a distinction) of starting disadvantage in games of 5/2 vs 4/3.
Sometimes you get an advantage from opening 5/2 or 4/3 or 3/4 or 2/5. This is immediately followed by, sometimes you get an advantage from shuffling your cards after turn 2 so that there's one in each hand when you want that, or both together on turn 3 when you want that, or by not shuffling yours to the bottom while your opponents do. There is an endless parade of advantages from shuffling; the first shuffle is not noteworthy here. It's not even the most significant shuffle.
Similarly I do not think it makes sense in King of Tokyo or Catan or Yahtzee to get to decide what your first roll is, and then roll randomly from that point on.
Quote from: Hertz Doughnut on 31 January 2017, 06:41:02 PMI would appreciate it if we addressed the salient points of my last post. What's the harm in letting this be an option for private, friends-only tables?
You can produce to-you-salient points endlessly; I only have so much time to talk to you about this feature I know I'm vetoing.
As always I encourage everyone to play whatever variants they want in real life. It is not possibly worth any effort to have this feature online now. If 3 years from now there's time to do such things, at that point I can devote more effort to considering if there's some limitation that does the trick for me.
Quote from: Donald X. on 01 February 2017, 12:12:44 AMIt's not even the most significant shuffle.
Has someone attempted this analysis over at f.ds? I've always felt that the second shuffle (usually between turns 2 and 3) was the most significant one, but that's just my intuition.
Quote from: Donald X. on 28 January 2017, 05:54:33 AM
Quote from: Funhaver on 28 January 2017, 01:51:44 AM
I get that shuffle luck is inevitable. But can't we at least start each game on equal footing?
If that's how you want to think of it, then no. You can't.
Haha thanks for your concern! :D The request is actually for the Shuffle iT developers (y'all are reading this thread, right?).
It's obviously a matter of opinion whether the game is more fun with Identical Starting Hands or Variable Starting Hands. Some prefer the fairness of ISH, whereas others prefer the variety of VSH.
Is there an objective way to determine what percentage of online Dominion players prefers one method over the other (or more likely, doesn't care at all)? I feel as if a poll in this thread would have too small a sample size to be informative.
Quote from: Funhaver on 01 February 2017, 01:30:04 AM
Haha thanks for your concern! :D The request is actually for the Shuffle iT developers (y'all are reading this thread, right?).
I'm there you for you, ha ha!
You may feel like you're just talking to Shuffle iT, and why would I even be involved, but I bet I can just shoot down this idea, because I made the game, and ultimately hold the rights. I won't need to threaten Shuffle iT with threatening RGG; everyone will want to get along and be friendly, and they will just not put in work on this feature that I don't want.
Quote from: Donald X. on 01 February 2017, 02:21:56 AM
Quote from: Funhaver on 01 February 2017, 01:30:04 AM
Haha thanks for your concern! :D The request is actually for the Shuffle iT developers (y'all are reading this thread, right?).
I'm there you for you, ha ha!
You may feel like you're just talking to Shuffle iT, and why would I even be involved, but I bet I can just shoot down this idea, because I made the game, and ultimately hold the rights. I won't need to threaten Shuffle iT with threatening RGG; everyone will want to get along and be friendly, and they will just not put in work on this feature that I don't want.
Yes, really fun game btw!!! I love the updates you made to the Base and Intrigue sets. I will miss Scout... but only in my heart, not in my deck.
It must get tiresome having people tell you how to improve something you created. You do all the design, all the playtesting, all the legal stuff involved with publishing... like you're the little red hen, and then the rest of us barnyard animals just quack about how players should have identical starting hands and ties should always go to the latter player. Just know that we wouldn't do it if we didn't love it!
Well,
I wouldn't. But I can only quack for myself. :)
Quote from: Donald X. on 01 February 2017, 02:21:56 AM
Quote from: Funhaver on 01 February 2017, 01:30:04 AM
Haha thanks for your concern! :D The request is actually for the Shuffle iT developers (y'all are reading this thread, right?).
I'm there you for you, ha ha!
You may feel like you're just talking to Shuffle iT, and why would I even be involved, but I bet I can just shoot down this idea, because I made the game, and ultimately hold the rights. I won't need to threaten Shuffle iT with threatening RGG; everyone will want to get along and be friendly, and they will just not put in work on this feature that I don't want.
I have to admit that I find your reaction puzzling. All you had was one guy say, "Hey, let's add an option to the game." You've been pretty polite in your responses, but--at the same time--dismissive of the concept of making changes that others want (and that you, personally, do not like).
To move from this specific case to an abstract hypothetical . . . if there was some option that 90% of the players wanted, but you thought was silly/unwise, would you adopt that option? What if 95% of the people wanted it? Or 99.x% wanted it?
You obviously are open to the idea of changing Dominion around the edges . . . after all, you have retired some cards and swapped in new cards. And now I'm putting on my marketing/PR hat: At some point, if you are unwilling to adopt changes that the vast vast majority of players want; then they will say, "Why pay 25-33%, each year!!, for what it costs to buy real-life versions of the entire expansion + base set? I'll just buy the games and play in real life with my friends."
(I am smiling, imagining the scene centuries ago, as the inventor of chess said, "
Wait. People want to add a piece that can hop over other pieces? And can move in one direction AND THEN in a second direction, on the same move?!?!??? That's crazy talk!")
Wisdom of the masses, and all that.
Getting back to this actual specific topic. I love the randomness of the shuffle and would hate for the rules to be changed to mandate identical first/second hands. But the OP's suggestion was--to my mind--an interesting idea to try out . . . I admit to being complete bemused as to why you are so doggedly against having it as an option on this site.
And of course, I recognize that my free advice is worth what you paid for it. :-)
[Post removed by author on 2/2/2017]
Quote from: Hertz Doughnut on 01 February 2017, 08:33:32 PM
Quote from: Donald X. on 01 February 2017, 02:21:56 AM
You may feel like you're just talking to Shuffle iT, and why would I even be involved, but I bet I can just shoot down this idea, because I made the game, and ultimately hold the rights. I won't need to threaten Shuffle iT with threatening RGG; everyone will want to get along and be friendly, and they will just not put in work on this feature that I don't want.
MOD EDIT: Quote removed as well.
Heh. Okay, that's a slightly more extreme way of restating what I said. But, it's also a lot funnier, so props for that.
Quote from: josh bornstein on 01 February 2017, 07:45:18 PM
You've been pretty polite in your responses, but--at the same time--dismissive of the concept of making changes that others want (and that you, personally, do not like).
I am not dismissive of making changes that others want that I don't. For example I didn't want the VP counter. I am dismissing this particular feature. Do not conflate that with everything ever!
Quote from: josh bornstein on 01 February 2017, 07:45:18 PMTo move from this specific case to an abstract hypothetical . . . if there was some option that 90% of the players wanted, but you thought was silly/unwise, would you adopt that option? What if 95% of the people wanted it? Or 99.x% wanted it?
Again enough people wanted the VP counter that there it is.
Quote from: josh bornstein on 01 February 2017, 07:45:18 PMAt some point, if you are unwilling to adopt changes that the vast vast majority of players want; then they will say, "Why pay 25-33%, each year!!, for what it costs to buy real-life versions of the entire expansion + base set? I'll just buy the games and play in real life with my friends."
Do not confuse "I veto identical starting hands" with anything else. It's not all things ever, it's one specific thing.
Quote from: josh bornstein on 01 February 2017, 07:45:18 PM
I admit to being complete bemused as to why you are so doggedly against having it as an option on this site.
I have been over how I believe this feature would make the game worse for the players not specifically interested in it.
Quote from: Hertz Doughnut on 01 February 2017, 08:33:32 PM
Quote from: Donald X. on 01 February 2017, 02:21:56 AM
You may feel like you're just talking to Shuffle iT, and why would I even be involved, but I bet I can just shoot down this idea, because I made the game, and ultimately hold the rights. I won't need to threaten Shuffle iT with threatening RGG; everyone will want to get along and be friendly, and they will just not put in work on this feature that I don't want.
Quote removed as well
- You say "the fans" as if everyone is clamoring for this thing you personally want.
- You say "insignificant amount of work" when it isn't possibly insignificant.
- I disagree on the % that will like the game more, and the % that will like it less.
- In fact I said flat out to you that I could consider the case of limiting it to friends or whatever, once there is actually time to do things like this.
So I mean, man, if you need to think of that as me giving everyone the finger, well there's no talking to you. I'm not going to reject your bad feature out of spite; I reject it though, and no amount of telling me how awful I am will change that, somehow.
Mods, please close the thread!
Sorry for my last post. It was posted in a moment of frustration. I'm not angry anymore and have removed it. Wish I hadn't posted it in the first place.
Thanks for the fun game.
Kind regards,
HD
All right, poll time. I'll edit this post as votes come in. Which way would you rather play? Vote for:
Alpha: Variable Starting Hands (variety)
or
Delta: Identical Starting Hands (equality)
Be sure to spell out your vote; I can't do a Ctrl-F for triangles.
I'll start.
Delta
Current totals:
Alpha: 0
Delta: 1
EDIT: See a better version of the poll here. (http://forum.shuffleit.nl/index.php?topic=1463.0)
Appreciate the effort, Funhaver, but DXV, the creator of Dominion, has both rejected this feature and asked that this thread be closed -- so is this the best place to start a poll?
Quote from: ffejselur on 03 February 2017, 05:14:57 AM
Appreciate the effort, Funhaver, but DXV, the creator of Dominion, has both rejected this feature and asked that this thread be closed -- so is this the best place to start a poll?
Thanks Jeff! A poll is the best way I can think of to gauge user interest, which is one of the big unknowns surrounding this proposed feature (the other being programming time). If you can think of another location where the poll will get a larger sample size, let me know; this just seemed like the place to start.
I'm in favor of almost all discussion about features, but some of those discussions are 100% theoretical.
These are discussions about the points where either Donald or Jay (RGG games) have already made a specific desire very clear to me. I don't even know what my personal opinion about identical starting hands is, I just know it's irrelevant what I think.
While I don't like closing threads, and thus you are free to continue this discussion, I would suggest you spend your energy on suggestions that actually might get implemented. There are plenty for sure.
I vote that we don't have a poll.
Current totals:
Poll: 1
No Poll: 1
I didn't vote: 1
Quote from: allanfieldhouse on 04 February 2017, 02:58:44 PM
I vote that we don't have a poll.
Current totals:
Poll: 1
No Poll: 2
Please don't mischaracterize what I said. I did not vote that there should be no poll - just questioned whether this was the place for it. I support anyone's right to start a poll if they want to.
Quote from: Funhaver on 03 February 2017, 06:20:32 AM
Quote from: ffejselur on 03 February 2017, 05:14:57 AM
Appreciate the effort, Funhaver, but DXV, the creator of Dominion, has both rejected this feature and asked that this thread be closed -- so is this the best place to start a poll?
Thanks Jeff! A poll is the best way I can think of to gauge user interest, which is one of the big unknowns surrounding this proposed feature (the other being programming time). If you can think of another location where the poll will get a larger sample size, let me know; this just seemed like the place to start.
Thanks Funhaver, your post was helpful to me -- it reminded me that I once saw a poll here somewhere so I went looking (normally I just click on "most recent posts" and keep up there) and saw it is very easy to create your own poll. Just go to Shuffle iT Forum >> Feature Requests and right next to New Topic is New Poll, where a poll can easily be built. If that will get more traffic than here is another question - although a poll where people can easily vote is likely to get more responses than one where they have to type in alpha or delta, I would think.
BTW, a "crazy" thought -- "identical" starting hands could easily be done now by agreement without needing any reshuffling if 4-2 openings are acceptable. If anyone gets 5 or 2 to start they just declare "4-2 opening", otherwise 4-3 proceeds.
Quote from: ffejselur on 04 February 2017, 04:16:40 PM
Thanks Funhaver, your post was helpful to me -- it reminded me that I once saw a poll here somewhere so I went looking (normally I just click on "most recent posts" and keep up there) and saw it is very easy to create your own poll. Just go to Shuffle iT Forum >> Feature Requests and right next to New Topic is New Poll, where a poll can easily be built. If that will get more traffic than here is another question - although a poll where people can easily vote is likely to get more responses than one where they have to type in alpha or delta, I would think.
Love it.
Done. (http://forum.shuffleit.nl/index.php?topic=1463.0)Quote from: ffejselur on 04 February 2017, 04:16:40 PM
BTW, a "crazy" thought -- "identical" starting hands could easily be done now by agreement without needing any reshuffling if 4-2 openings are acceptable. If anyone gets 5 or 2 to start they just declare "4-2 opening", otherwise 4-3 proceeds.
Now
that is thinking outside the box. Let me just say that I won't knock it till I've tried it. ;)
Quote from: Donald X. on 27 January 2017, 05:53:10 AM
I don't mind whatever variants you play at home.
I have this vision of myself playing crazy eights with my kids using Dominion cards, and Donald X. crying somewhere that his creation is not being properly appreciated.
Quote from: squirezucco on 17 February 2017, 04:27:17 PM
I have this vision of myself playing crazy eights with my kids using Dominion cards, and Donald X. crying somewhere that his creation is not being properly appreciated.
It's sad that Pina Pirata - my take on crazy 8's - isn't properly appreciated, but what can you do. It can be hard to get a lighter game to the audience for it.
Quote from: squirezucco on 17 February 2017, 04:27:17 PM
Quote from: Donald X. on 27 January 2017, 05:53:10 AM
I don't mind whatever variants you play at home.
I have this vision of myself playing crazy eights with my kids using Dominion cards, and Donald X. crying somewhere that his creation is not being properly appreciated.
Crazy Scouts? ;)
Quote from: Donald X. on 01 February 2017, 10:45:34 PM
Quote from: josh bornstein on 01 February 2017, 07:45:18 PM
You've been pretty polite in your responses, but--at the same time--dismissive of the concept of making changes that others want (and that you, personally, do not like).
I am not dismissive of making changes that others want that I don't. For example I didn't want the VP counter. I am dismissing this particular feature. Do not conflate that with everything ever!
Quote from: josh bornstein on 01 February 2017, 07:45:18 PMTo move from this specific case to an abstract hypothetical . . . if there was some option that 90% of the players wanted, but you thought was silly/unwise, would you adopt that option? What if 95% of the people wanted it? Or 99.x% wanted it?
Again enough people wanted the VP counter that there it is.
Quote from: josh bornstein on 01 February 2017, 07:45:18 PMAt some point, if you are unwilling to adopt changes that the vast vast majority of players want; then they will say, "Why pay 25-33%, each year!!, for what it costs to buy real-life versions of the entire expansion + base set? I'll just buy the games and play in real life with my friends."
Do not confuse "I veto identical starting hands" with anything else. It's not all things ever, it's one specific thing.
Quote from: josh bornstein on 01 February 2017, 07:45:18 PM
I admit to being complete bemused as to why you are so doggedly against having it as an option on this site.
I have been over how I believe this feature would make the game worse for the players not specifically interested in it.
\
Donald, grats on designing a very successful game. I certianly enjoy it most of the time.
I don't necessirly feel strongly about this feature, but i do feel very strongly about your reaction to VETO saiod feature only because you don't like it. it is a "variant" of the game, just as much as manually picking kingdom cards is a variant. You are making a VERY stupid and frankyl offensive decision to entirely veto this feature.
I say this because not only could this feature be easily implemented but could also be easily implemented on premade tables when you have unimanimous consent to play with the feature (Which would be the same things is if we all actually had the cards in hand and were playing at a physical table together).
if the feature was created with these restrictions, you have no logical reason to VETO the feature. You may still have the right as you can hard ball shuffleit by threatening not to renew their licensing, but it sends a really bad message to the community. It sends the message that even when all the players consent to play a particular way, YOU are the person standing between them saying no, you can't play that way, I wont allow it.
Quote from: Bmoan on 02 March 2017, 09:24:56 AMI don't necessirly feel strongly about this feature, but i do feel very strongly about your reaction to VETO saiod feature only because you don't like it. it is a "variant" of the game, just as much as manually picking kingdom cards is a variant. You are making a VERY stupid and frankyl offensive decision to entirely veto this feature.
I will continue to be stupid and offensive here! I veto it. I feel like I've gone over my reasoning plenty; I don't require you to read it or agree with it.
Quote from: Bmoan on 02 March 2017, 09:24:56 AM
it is a "variant" of the game, just as much as manually picking kingdom cards is a variant.
Not a variant.
From the rulebook:
"[T]he players also select 10 Kingdom
cards and place 10 of each in face-up piles
on the table....
[P]layers can choose the 10
Kingdom cards using any method they
agree on."
Totally against identical starting hands. Hands are typically always equal - each player has the opportunity to either draw $5 or not to. 5/2 is generally better than 3/4... but not always. If your opponent is the one with the $5 start, that just means you may have to work a little harder to get the win.
I'm OK with that.
I'm glad Donald X. stood up to that idea. Thanks!
Hello. I just tracked down this thread after recently posting a similar request and being forwarded Donald X's pithy response. I just want to state for the record that I completely agree with Hertz Doughnut's in-depth reply near the end of this thread. I'm among the people who always balances out the starting hands when playing IRL. And it's clear that there is at least a moderately significant population of Dominion players who share this preference and would appreciate the option for privately created tables.
Thanks Elliott! It's nice to know there are people who think like us. :) We are in the minority on this one, though.
I have played a lot of tournaments where this rule was implemented. If someone has 5/2 and can buy a witch in round one the other players have a definite disadvantage. So, I think this is a nice option to have and anyone is free to use it or not.
What has been fascinating to me, in this whole discussion, was the response of Donald X. To his credit; he has been really straightforward about this issue. "Nope. Not gonna happen. I veto it."
Fair enough. His game, his rules. I have no complaint with this.
But what was so interesting (I'm putting on my psychologist cap here) was the strength of his conviction. I had expected a response like, "Well, I think it's a dumb idea. But if you want to make the game less fun, then sure, it can be an opt-in option, for those who want it." But the unequivocal "no!" tells me that DX really sees this option as something extremely bad for the game. He seems to have a lot invested in this decision.
And I find that intriguing. It seems like a pretty anodyne option to me. (Not one that I would ever use, in my own games, by the way.) I do not think DX needs to give further explanation. But if he wanted to, I'd be very interested in hearing/reading his thought-process. I've already seen scores of examples where I thought one thing about Dominion, someone with more experience says, "But what about this [fill in the blank]?"... and that brings up a point I had not even thought about.
It's all quite interesting to me. But on a 1-to-10 scale of importance, it's not even a "one" for me. :)
Quote from: elliottjf on 05 June 2018, 04:33:19 AM
Hello. I just tracked down this thread after recently posting a similar request and being forwarded Donald X's pithy response. I just want to state for the record that I completely agree with Hertz Doughnut's in-depth reply near the end of this thread. I'm among the people who always balances out the starting hands when playing IRL. And it's clear that there is at least a moderately significant population of Dominion players who share this preference and would appreciate the option for privately created tables.
You say his response was pithy, but I think he does a fine job of explaining his reasoning here in detail (http://forum.shuffleit.nl/index.php?topic=1398.msg4485#msg4485).
There is nothing magical about the opening shuffle, any more than any other luck that's in the game. And I agree that the next shuffle is usually at least as important, and often more so. Shuffling your opening buys to the bottom is a huge disadvantage. Should we change the shuffling algorithm to avoid that next? Where does it end?
And if you always play with identical starting hands in your IRL games, well I feel like you haven't got much of a leg to stand on from an empirical evidence standpoint. How do you know it makes your games better if you do it every game?
Yeah Shuffle iT could implement this for privately created tables. There are a dozen other things that I hope they prioritize first.
Quote from: josh bornstein on 07 June 2018, 12:01:57 AMBut what was so interesting (I'm putting on my psychologist cap here) was the strength of his conviction. I had expected a response like, "Well, I think it's a dumb idea. But if you want to make the game less fun, then sure, it can be an opt-in option, for those who want it." But the unequivocal "no!" tells me that DX really sees this option as something extremely bad for the game. He seems to have a lot invested in this decision.
I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that he's had this same conversation a bunch of times in the past.
Look at this log : #17434547
Starting hand doesn't mind, but turn 3 and 4 done the game !
So what !
People who asked for identical starting hands doesn't understand this game !!!!
I love D.X.V