Messages

Same as last time:

1) A game playable without the log
2) Ability to easily challenge online friends to a game
3) Better implementation of mats/durations

So is there any update here? You can see that users are literally assuming there is a bug in the program from this implementation. Donald X has even said that this is the wrong way to do this. Are you guys planning on switching back to MF (color up, gray down) or (even better) using the icon with the boot as up and the plain circle as down?

Thanks everyone for all the feedback. I will certainly ask again in a couple of weeks.

These are the things I expect to realize this month:

* sending in-game messages to players
   (mostly to get rid of the misery surrounding familiar cards)
* rated/unrated games (including a leaderboard and more feedback/options for matchmaking)
* smaller releases
* inheritance

Note that the list for 'hope' is a lot longer then 'expect', but I won't be satisfied if it isn't at least this by the end of the month. Also note that this is my personal wishlist, Philip probably has a couple of his own for the client.

About smaller releases... I know that the last release has been a while back now, but unfortunately that isn't because there will be huge improvements in the next. At least not improvements you will be able to notice. The irony is that this release has taken so long because we've been setting up automated deploy-on-commit on the testserver, mixed with some days off and sickness. In the meanwhile the German translation is as good as finished, and the Japanese are working on it.

Shouldn't you out this in its own thread under announcements rather than (or in addition to)  deep down here?

1) A game playable without the log
2) Ability to easily challenge online friends to a game
3) Better implementation of mats/durations

I would extend this to games with human opponents. Undo shouod always undo my last move. Why would I want to undo an opponent's move?

I think what this boils down to is the simple question: Which of the sides the of Journey token (colored, grey) is the face up side, and which is the face down side? I just checked the Adventures rule book online, and it actually never says! It only ever talks about it being face up/down, but never about colored/grey.

I always considered the colored side the face up side, and it seems that many players here agree.

The rulebook is written for the real life board game version. I am pretty sure that in that version there is a colored side and a blank side (no gray side). Clearly Colored is face-up and Gray is face-down. They are trying to change the meaning of the GUI token from giving you "face up/face down" info to "will do the good thing/won't do the good thing" info.

[you haven't learned the card yet]

... I can tell you that if there is any doubt in anyone's mind over what state your token is in, or what's going to happen when you play a card that uses the journey token, then the interface is not good enough.

I think this is taking it a bit too far. In MF's implementation (and the same could happen in an IRL game), there could definitely "be doubt as to what's going to happen when you play the card." This is because some people may not realize that the flip happens before resolving the card.

However, in MF's implementation, that means you may be mistaken because you haven't learned the card yet. In this implementation you will be mistaken because the interface is literally doing the opposite of what the card says to do. I think some set of new users will still be confused the first time they play a journey card, but this can happen just by learning a card. However, it should be clear that the interface does what the card says.

This has nothing to do with me "not giving it a chance" or "not getting used to it". I'm used to it after one game, that's not the point.

Both implementations can be confusing, however, here is how someone confused by the MF implementation would probably go about it:

"Hmmm, why didn't my Giant attack? Let me look at the card closer. Ohhh! I see it flips the token before resolving the action. Okay, I didn't get that, I guess that the bonus happens when the token is upside down before I play the card."

Here is what happens in your implementation:

"Huh? Why didn't my Giant attack? My token was gray and the card says it flips the token and then resolves. It should have flipped, making it colored and then it should have attacked. ???? I don't get it." Looks at log "what? okay so the token got flipped over and that made it colored? So colored means that it is upside down" - Looks through this forum - "Oh I see, they wanted to change it so that the colored token represents the card doing something 'good' and the gray token means it doesn't."

Again, I am taking the case of someone confused by the journey token, there will be some subset of people who get either implementation intuitively. Maybe there are more people who get yours at first than the MF, however that is not the only consideration. To someone who is confused by the MF implementation, they only need to study the card to understand why they are confused. If someone is confused by this implementation, they will probably first study the card, then get more confused. Then they might look at the log and figure it out, but be confused by the implementation. Then they have to look at this forum (I'm guessing a tiny fraction of your users use this forum) and then see that you did something to be "more intuitive".

I'm in general optimistic of dominion.games, but I really think you made a wrong move here. There have been other things that I disagree with (I think it is counter intuitive to find the tavern mat and other mats), but I can accept that. This is a decision which I really think is just wrong.

If there's sufficient interest we can add a user preference that lets you flip the journey token flip behaviour.

That's all well and good, but I really think you should default to what the card text says and have the current implementation be the "flip".

[ravi]

I get what they are trying to do with the journey token (Color = bonus, Gray = not bonus) but I think this is the opposite of what the card says. To me, colored is very clearly representing "token up" and gray "token down" so the current implementation is opposite to the card text. I get why they want to do it this way, but in my opinion that is trying to fix something with the game rather than implementing it online properly. Something just seems "wrong" about trying to do this fix. What they want is to change the way the journey token is implemented (have the flip happen after the card resolution rather than before). Here is a conversation I had with Phillip about it on Discord:

ravi - Today at 3:44 PM
why is the journey token reversed? won't that be super confusing?
Watno - Today at 3:46 PM
because it now matches what the cards say(edited)
you flip it while resolving a card
then you check what side it is on
ravi - Today at 3:48 PM
?
Giant says (for example), "it starts face up"
it now starts face down
Watno - Today at 3:50 PM
oh, i'm sorry
ravi - Today at 3:51 PM
I think MF did this properly, and Shuffle IT is doing it backwards
Philip - Today at 3:51 PM
it'll probably confuse people who were used to the MF version at first, but we think the new way is much more intuitive
colored token = you'll get the bonus
ravi - Today at 3:51 PM
I get what you are saying, but it is the opposite of what the card says
If you want to do that, then you should change the card text
to flipping the token after resolving the action
Philip - Today at 3:52 PM
the card says nothing about colors
ravi - Today at 3:52 PM
yes but "colored" is pretty clearly "face up" to me
and IRL you don't have colors at all, just face up and face down
Philip - Today at 3:53 PM
I say give it a chance
if lots of people complain about it we'll think about something different
ravi - Today at 3:54 PM
I understand it, but consider this at least one person complaining
:)
Philip - Today at 3:54 PM
please give it a chance first  :)

What do others think? What does Donald X think? I think if they keep it this way, they should change the card text so that the flip happens after the card resolution and that the cards say that the token starts face down, otherwise revert back to how MF did it.

Isn't it easier to ask your viewers to go spectate your table rather than this? They can listen along with the audio of your stream and then they can check cards, trash, etc. whenever they feel like it.

When trying to view a tavern mat with the trash out, they stack on top of each other.

Engaging in internet debates is a huge time sink that we can't afford, and I don't see any pertinent issues raised in this thread besides the reiteration of requests for things that are already firmly in our plans.

I think your "plans" that you link here are kind of an issue. This list is very vague and difficult to really interpret what it means. "Finish implementing cards" for example, could just mean getting Inheritance and Stash online. However, there are a number of cards that don't work completely yet (naming cards that aren't in the supply, or that are part of split piles but not the top of that split pile, for example) and fixing those cards does not seem to be part of your plans, unless that falls under the umbrella of "Finish implementing cards". Other issues like the fact that you can barely see cards when using Scheme or Harbinger are also really important but don't seem to exist in your plans.

Further you have an item called "Card animations: animating all card moves". Now, that is one aspect of a bigger project which I feel is super important: the ability to play the game without the log. Seeing all animations is one thing, but improvements to the mats and the trash are really important and according to your plans these are not a priority at all. This also includes things like better notice of duration attacks like enchantress, swamp hag and haunted woods.

I am guessing that the things I mention above actually are on your radar and are actual priorities but our only way to know what you are addressing is that list. I think this is what some people mean by transparency. It would be nice to see what your priorities are, and if they are simply what you have put in your list of missing features, then we may conclude that these things are less important than, say, autoplay features and a logsearch.

Most of your boards have a "known issues" section. However, the "Interface Issues" Board does not. I think a lot of things could be made more clear if you had a "Interface Improvements" sticky where you let us know the interface things you are working on. Especially since some of these issues are subjective with different ideas on how to solve them, this would be helpful. Like, it would be good to know if you are happy with the current Tavern Mat solution, or if it is a priority for you to make a better one. If you are happy with it, then that leaves room for users to complain about it, if you are planning to improve it and have it in that sticky then users need not continue to complain because they know it is something you are already convinced needs improving.

Personally, I have plenty of faith in you guys (overly optimistic) that you are improving these things. I am happy with how the client is going, and enjoy playing on it. It would just be a bit more reassuring to know which aspects of the interface (including things like the lobby, a proper user manual, etc. that I have not even mentioned yet) are in your priority list.

The tables are a bit of a mess. It is impossible to really find anything in there and I think there are some really easy ways to make this way better.

• Sort tables - You should be able to sort by any of the column headers. Sometimes I want to kill a few minutes and watch a game, I would love to sort by spectators and watch whichever game has the most spectators. Sometimes I want to look at games that are "New", so you should be able to sort there. Sometimes I want to look for 3 player games, so I should be able to sort there.
• Allow users to filter tables. Should be a way to only look at 3 player tables, only look at tables running. Only look at tables where your friends are in, etc.
• In a similar vein there should be a way to look for a player who isn't your friend or you aren't following. Maybe there is a league match or something and I don't really know anyone in the match but I want to watch, I should be able to quickly find that match and watch it.
• This one is my opinion, but I really think you should cut out ranges for number of players. Just make people choose the number of players. This will make it more clear for players to know if tables are looking for players and if starting a game will add bots or not. When you are in the table if all players are "ready" but there are still spaces left, there should be a button that says "fill the rest of the players with bots and start"
• There needs to be a way to see everyone at the table without entering it. Something maybe with hovering your mouse over the table to see the list of players and spectators

I had my Sauna out and the autoplay was quite weird. In game 436 on frankfurt-test.

I had 3 golds and a silver and it played gold-gold-silver. Either it should play the silver first (I think this always makes sense to give you the most choice in what to trash) or it should make you play silver last. But having it play in the middle is quite strange.

See screenshot.

Another note I have. I think it is too complicated to have tables for 2-6 players. I think most players are looking for a certain amount of players (2 if they are playing competitively and higher than that if they already have friends they want to play with, but the usecase for a range of player numbers is probably really rare).

I think it would be easier if players could just choose 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 rather than give a range. Then you could make a button that says "fill opponents with bots" if all players are ready but the table isn't full yet to avoid the confusion I had above.