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 - josh bornstein

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
1
General Discussion / Re: Development Update Please
« on: 10 June 2018, 08:42:28 PM »
Stef,
1.  Hope all is going better for you.
2.  It would be a great habit to get into, to give an update like this ever month.  On, say, the first (or thereabouts) of each month.  Even if your July update is, "Nothing new to report.  Actual date of next round of upgrades has not been determined." ... that would mean that we paying customers are being kept in the loop.  That that means a lot--it's the silence that is not so great.

My two cents only.  :)

2
Agreed.  I really can't see how having opt-in options are a bad thing, and I should have made that more clear.  My only objection (concern, really) is in the coding.  I could see several things being relatively complicated to program.  But other things--like, "always do X" or "never do X" would be very easy to program.

I see having options as an almost universally positive thing.  (And I have posted, elsewhere on this forum, at my bemusement that Donald X has been adamant that certain options will *not* be offered.)

3
I think there are so many cards that would be exceptions (the ones you mentioned, plus Library, Jack of All Trades, Cursed Village...and probably others that are not coming directly to my mind), that it would make implementation less than ideal.

Having said that; I agree with you that, in games with Torturer, it can get annoying to have to repeatedly click on a button that is unnecessary in that particular game--once the curses have run out.

4
Feature Requests / Re: Table Checkbox - Identical starting hands
« on: 07 June 2018, 12:01:57 AM »
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.  :)

5
General Discussion / Re: Prince + Walled Village
« on: 06 June 2018, 01:35:03 AM »
. . . so  . . . still not sure why it did not work in my case.  :-(

6
General Discussion / Re: Prince + Walled Village
« on: 06 June 2018, 01:33:53 AM »
Thanks Mic,
Good suggestions.  But all the autoplays are and were turned off--a feature I had never used.


7
General Discussion / Prince + Walled Village
« on: 05 June 2018, 09:07:45 PM »
I just played a game against Lord Rat, and my strategy revolved around Princing the Walled Village.  Which I did.  But it did not work...and so the Prince was wasted, and I did not start off each turn with the extra actions I had planned for.  And that cost me the game.

Obviously, this must relate somehow to the WV's unique rule about being able to place it on top of the deck if sufficiently-few actions have been played that turn.  But I do not see how...since it is not *mandatory* that it be placed on top if, for example, it was the only action played that turn.  Since nothing mandatory happens with WV, there is no way for Prince to lose track of it, right? 

Is this a bug?  Or am I missing some subtlety in WV's wording that explains why it disappeared after my attempt to Prince it?

8
Feature Requests / Re: Automatch Should Skip Previous Opponent
« on: 01 June 2018, 11:21:13 PM »
Good suggestion

9
Feature Requests / Re: "Previous Games" option
« on: 31 May 2018, 06:10:28 PM »
Ingix,
Thanks so much.  The site forgot to program in a spinning clock (or whatever), to show that the "show me my results) feature was actual slowly being processed.  And the site forgot to, alternately, write "Hey, this may take 30-120 seconds to process."

So, the previous times I had tried (and given up), it probably would have worked, if I had known to just sit there for long enough.

I doubt I was the only person to give up after 15-30 seconds, so your information was very much appreciated, and was really helpful!

10
Feature Requests / Re: "Previous Games" option
« on: 30 May 2018, 08:54:40 PM »
Cave,
How does one get that linked site to work?  I have played many ranked games, but when I put in my username (santamonica811), I get no results.

What am I doing wrong?

11
Cave,
Is your point that you would like to see an extra minute added to the time (via the snooze button), or, that you would like to see, essentially, an "only one minute left b/f DQ" warning, and that--with this--you'd be fine leaving it at its current length of time?  I would not mind that second choice at all, with an auditory signal as well.

From my perspective, in 99% of cases; there is no reason to not move for more than 2 minutes AND also not write a 10 second note in chat, explaining the reason for the delay.  Well, actually, I can think of lots of reasons (kid suddenly throws up on the rug, cat knocks over a vase, wife/husband sets dinner on fire accidentally), but for all of those (ie, situations where you need to run away from the computer and not write a short note), my thought is that it's fine to accept a DQ...part of the trade-off for having a wife/kid/pet/vase in my life!  :-)

[The one glaring exception to all the above is when technical problems on the site or on your end make it impossible to make a move.  Not sure of a solution for that issue--other than lengthening the time to make a move, and I'd hate that.]

Hey, maybe that could be an option we could adjust?  There would be some minimum amount of time (say, 2 minutes, or whatever) that players would always have.  But in "Options/Settings," players who like to move through games quickly could pick settings that would only match them with similar "<2 minutes" players.  Others could pick a setting of 4 minutes, or 6 minutes, or even unlimited time, and there would be the option to filter potential opponents.

12
General Discussion / Re: Offensive Language in Chat
« on: 18 May 2018, 01:23:48 AM »
Jeebus,
I might cut the other guy some slack.  While I--of course--have no idea what actually happened in your game, isn't it possible that this was the 3rd game today where that guy had been (from his perspective) slow-played by other players?  And he could have said something in chat, but instead kept quiet (some would say: polite) and waited for the full time-period and only then did DQ you.  That seems pretty possible to me.  In other words, I would not impute bad motives to someone I do not know, unless some other factor(s) suggests this.

I'll point out that 4-5 minutes is an INCREDIBLY long time to think about a single move.  I could possibly see taking that long if you are playing a game with several cards that are new to you...but then we'd be taking a long time in the very beginning of the game (and presumably we would have sent a text like "Sorry--there are new cards for me.  I'll need a few minutes to read their text" to let the other person know why there's such a long delay.).

I know that just because I can't think of a kingdom where I would take more than a minute or two to make a move at the end of the game, that does not mean that no such kingdom exists.  But we can use your experience as a teachable moment...if we find ourselves taking more than a minute or two; we really should take 15 seconds out of our turn to send off a quick chat message: "Sorry about the delay, making a hard decision; will be just another minute."

Just a suggestion.  :-)

13
Feature Requests / Re: Can we get Lord Rat to buy Dominate?
« on: 15 May 2018, 09:31:28 AM »
Thanks for the thoughtful response.  I am not a programmer, but I do know many of them...and many of them play Dominion.  Right now, there is a function that says, "If you have more than 8 coins, then buy a Prov.  If you have between 5-7, then buy Dutchy."  If someone can program that instruction, it does not seem to be too difficult to add, "If you have 14+, buy Dominate and not Prov."

But maybe we're wrong.  Of course it's possible that adding this is actually much more complicated than it seems on the surface.

What would be really helpful, of course, is if the Powers That Be would give feedback, so that loyal players (ie, the ones who reliably put money back into this site) would at least know what is going on.
"We're aware of the issue, but it's way down on our list of priorities."
"We did not know of this; thanks for the heads-up; it'll be fixed by mid-June."
"We're aware of this, but it's such a small problem that we're not going to take up valuable time fixing it.

And so on.  There have been tons of posts on this issue (on being kept informed) in the past, so no need to belabor this point...when we players are kept in the loop, we feel respected and valued.  If we are not...well, then we don't feel respected and valued.  And each individual company will come to different conclusions regarding the importance of that factor.

14
Feature Requests / Can we get Lord Rat to buy Dominate?
« on: 14 May 2018, 07:12:46 AM »
(Not sure which forum this belongs in, since it's not, technically-speaking, an AI bug.)

Game 14494483, Oregon.  Lord Rat, turn 11.

He had 14 coins, but bought only the Prov, rather than getting the ton of extra points via Dominate.  And that was the difference in the game.  I do not want to win that way.

It should be a very easy programming fix to put in the command for Lord Rat, "Buy Dominate if you have 14+ coins."  There may be edge cases where one would not do that (eg, if you have extra buys, you might be aiming for Dukes/Dutchies).  But if you're gonna have a hard-and-fast rule, it should be the one that makes sense 99.82% of the time, and not the 0.18% of the time, yes??? 

I can't think of a single case where one would buy a Prov with your one buy, rather than getting that same Prov via Dominate, when you have enough money for either option.

Or, just take out Dominate in games with Lord Rat...it's just too big of an advantage if the computer programming has crippled LR's ability to make the best buy in that game.

15
Feature Requests / Re: Balanced opening splits
« on: 14 May 2018, 04:26:39 AM »
It's something that has been suggested several times.  I certainly would not mind it as an option...but based on the two sites' inaction to date, I think you are not gonna get it.  (At the best; I would guess that it is way down on the list of things to implement.)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14