Login  |  Register

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - AdamH

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
The known bugs list hasn't been updated in over a month, so who knows if the devs are recording what shows up here...

Interface Issues / Scavenger window stays up
« on: 27 May 2017, 04:51:54 pm »
I play a Scavenger, and after discarding my deck (or not), each card in my discard pile is the same. The decision for which card to topdeck is made for me, but the window displaying my discard pile is still left up until I click something.

It occurs to me that this is on purpose, since I may want some time to view my discard pile, but this interface is confusing and not good -- I can't see all of the stuff that the window is covering up, and when that window is in my face, it makes me think I have to do something with it (I have to do something with the window every other time the window is in my face, but in this case I should just continue playing).

Much better would be to either print the contents of my discard pile in the log (only visible to me and spectators, of course) or you could also just pop up a button that lets me view the contents of my discard pile if I want to -- something more passive that doesn't make me think there's a bug. Or maybe make the window go away if I click it. Or maybe make the window look different than other windows. Any or all of these would make the interface much better.

The best solution, though, is to not have this decision automatically made for me, or at least make me check an option that isn't the default in order to get this interface. Really, the software would be much, much better if the whole automatically making decisions for people when there's only one legal option thing was turned off altogether; but that's not going to happen. If there's a special case for this situation in the code that makes the window show up, then it should be easy enough to make people click on the card they want and then make the window go away in all cases, which is just a better interface in every situation.

General Discussion / Re: Your first $6. Artisan or Gold?
« on: 24 May 2017, 12:31:04 pm »
I'm not going to comment on what I think the quality of F.DS and its advice is. Suffice it to say that I want to talk about and improve my strategy and I do NOT want to be on that board.

...but regardless of whether or not F.DS exists, it seems people are going to talk about strategy here too. People talk about strategy other places on the internet as well (reddit, BGG, YouTube/Twitch, etc.) and the existence of F.DS doesn't mean that they shouldn't.

At the end of the day it's up to the people running this forum whether or not they want to allow strategy discussion here. It seems that they probably do, and if that's what they decide, then of course there should probably be a separate board for it.

As for Artisan vs. Gold, well that depends on so much that it's really hard to talk about. The broad strokes have been painted here and I feel like more detailed discussion isn't useful without a kingdom in front of us to talk about.

Card Bugs / Re: Tournament prize/duchy gain not mandatory
« on: 21 May 2017, 03:32:34 am »
I don't remember if the gain was mandatory when there was still a Prize in the pile and also a Duchy in the pile.

Card Bugs / Tournament prize/duchy gain not mandatory
« on: 20 May 2017, 11:24:43 pm »
I had the misfortune of playing a Tournament game today and I noticed that the prize/Duchy gain for Tournament is not mandatory. if I reveal a Province I should be required to gain something.

General Discussion / Re: Does Cancel & Resign affect rating?
« on: 15 May 2017, 11:02:28 pm »
I don't have a problem with this at all.  Isotropic showed you the cards before the game started and gave you an option to decline the game.  The way they did it made a lot of sense.  Please give us this back.

@mrfiat: The problem with this is that as soon as someone sees a card he doesn't like to play against in the Kingdom (like Possession, a curse giver, Goons, some engine,...) he can simply opt out of that game with no penalty.

I understand you would be fine with something like that and I would as well, if it is done from time to time and in moderation. But this is also the reason why ranked games will not take into account "familiar cards": The possibility that someone games the system by simply finding a Kingdom he is very good at and then only marks those cards as familiar (which results in him playing only that Kingdom for ranked games) is deemed to big.

This kind of thing is fine for casual games, but for the pro leaderboard, which is supposed to be taken seriously as a measure of player skill, this kind of thing won't fly. That's the distinction here.

Interface Issues / Re: Playing treasures with Storyteller
« on: 13 May 2017, 08:21:20 pm »
OK that seems reasonable, then I amend my suggestion to include an ability to detect the case where only basic treasures are involved. Aaaaand that's not ever going to happen. OK, redacted.

I'm at a table with a human opponent. I ready, and then they leave. I'm now the only person at the table, and my status is still ready. At this point, I believe my status should be automatically changed to not ready (whenever I'm the only person at a table, my status should always be not ready).

If I add bots to the table, they are Bot Ready -- I have to un-ready, then re-ready in order to play, which is confusing.

when I play a Storyteller, it prompts me to play treasures. When I click on them, they go into play one at a time. The interface would be nicer if it was similar to Chapel, where I click on them, decide what I want to do, then confirm; I also get the option to undo and I don't have to sit through animations for this.

General Discussion / Re: Sore losers
« on: 10 May 2017, 04:30:11 pm »
Instead of slowplaying, the trolls are now just going to hit the report button on anyone they feel like.

This usually isn't too much of an issue with reporting.  The people who get looked at will be those who get reported multiple times.  Trolls will get reported lots of times.  They may report lots of people because they are trolls, but their reports will be spread out across a large population which usually doesn't result in one person getting reported many times by trolls alone.  In short, ya you will get reported by trolls, but not enough to warrant looking into your activities.

You may be right, but that's not a reason to design a system that's open to abuse (what's to stop someone from making 55 accounts and reporting me on all of them whenever they want to?) A human being should look into it before a decision is made, which is even the case in your scenario.

General Discussion / Re: Sore losers
« on: 10 May 2017, 01:50:26 pm »
Sure, and a human being needs to look at that, plus chat logs, plus undo requests, plus anything else in the software that's open to abuse, and evaluate these things on a case-by-case basis, which includes whatever punishment is deemed appropriate.

Messing with their automatch doesn't seem appropriate, though.

General Discussion / Re: Sore losers
« on: 10 May 2017, 12:32:13 pm »
Great, now we are on track again.

Implement a pairing routine that keeps pairing known slowplayers to each other.

Heh.  If only that were something that could be easily implemented.

I guess it might not be extraordinarily difficult. Build a credit system, where people lose credit if they get reported too often and do not pair people with a credit difference of more than (lets say) 50%.

But I am not implying that it should be implemented quickly. There might be other tasks to tend to.

I don't think this is a good idea.

Aside from the discussion of how pairings need to be made in a way that maximizes the integrity of the leaderboard, this kind of thing is open to abuse.

Instead of slowplaying, the trolls are now just going to hit the report button on anyone they feel like. Decisions about players who deserve disciplinary action can be made with input from users, but they need to be up to the moderators and probably need to be evaluated on an individual basis.

If I'm going to pay money to use this service and the service is specifically trying to make my experience worse, there better be good reasons and evidence for this, otherwise the service has issues. Opening this kind of thing up to trolls who have any capability at all to abuse ths system is not a good enough reason.

General Discussion / Re: Sore losers
« on: 09 May 2017, 01:08:27 pm »
It seems pretty simple: if you want less people to slowplay, then don't make it good for them to slowplay.

Gain a reputation for having very little tolerance for slowplayers -- make it visible to them when they've been reported and keep them on an extremely short leash with harsh consequences. Put a very easy-to-access button on the screen when a player resigns that reports their opponent and more people will use it. Reset offenders on the leaderboard and make sure they are very aware that it's being done to them.

People will do what is easiest for them: if you want more people to be reported, make it easy to report people. If you want people to not slowplay, make it really hard and disadvantageous for them to slowplay and make sure they're very aware of it.

General Discussion / Re: Sore losers
« on: 08 May 2017, 05:30:24 pm »

Edit: posts like these that mention names really should be removed from these forums. There needs to be a way to easily report these people and it needs to be private.

General Discussion / Re: Rude player warning
« on: 05 May 2017, 11:39:30 pm »
This is an issue with game design and allowing too much time per turn.  5 minutes +5 seconds per action taken would drastically improve the slow-playing situation.

Relevant: http://forum.shuffleit.nl/index.php?topic=1616.0

I think the answer is the blacklist feature. Restricting the time people have to act in any way is pretty dangerous; a lot of thought should go into it before any change is made.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14