Messages

Hmmmm... good question.  Not sure if I'd ever noticed it working before.  I haven't tried to use the app on my tablet in a long time.  I keep trying and then finding the experience to be less than ideal, so I go for some months before trying again.  No idea how long it has been since last I tried on my tablet or how I got through the log in (might've been just using a terrible easily entered password at the time).

Next time, yes I'll probably try to manually enter and save it.  It's just frustrating when basic app functionality is disabled.  I (as a web dev) understand *why* the context-click event can be captured and used in app-dev, but I would argue that it should only be disabled for specific and necessary app-functionality.  If there's in-app use (I think I recall - that's for viewing the detail/zoom of a card), why is it universally disabled, and not just when used in the play table view?  Context-click should be available on other screens and the log/chat pane.

The inability to 'right click' or 'long press' on a touch device to bring up the context menu prevents me from being able to log in to the app on my tablet - as I have a real password that is too long to remember or type (I use a password manager - that also does not work with your site) and therefore cannot bring up the 'paste' menu item for something on my clipboard.

Why is this basic functionality disabled?  Can we get it back, please?

On game #15260318 on frankfurt I had this exact same issue occur.  This is still a bug 2 years later?

Der Quasi vs. webnesto:

1 - #7052390 - Der Quasi
2 - #7052737 - Der Quasi
3 - #7053090 - webnesto
4 - #7053407 - webnesto
5 - #7082199 - Der Quasi
6 - #7082439 - webnesto
7 - #7082850 - webnesto

Sign me up please

Putting in my vote for:
- important sounds implemented (turn, province/colony purchase, gold/platinum purchase)
- capacity to mute all sounds
- capacity to mute sounds other than important (see above)

You are not being used as a beta tester and it is not still in beta.

It is indeed no longer in beta, but I don't blame people for thinking it is. We have a long way to go - especially on some issues that have a large impact on the games look and feel (graphics, sounds).

I work in tech, I know that "beta" is a matter of opinion and doesn't necessarily refer to any technical definition.  However, a product that has *significantly* less functionality than the standard set by a previous release and is still full of many untested/unidentified bugs should not be considered a release candidate.  It's pretty much an open beta.  Semantics I know, but significant when dealing with customer satisfaction.

As a user, if this is an open beta, I think the product is in great shape.  If this is considered a release worthy (i.e. *sellable*) product, then it is woefully lacking in features, design, and customer liaison.

I loved playing the card game and the digital Dominion game.  While the game is sort of playable on an iPad with Chrome, I'd like the quick in and out I was used to on MF. 

HalapenyoHarry

I personally find Hearthstone to be quite enjoyable and it has great clients for every platform (other than Unix, I think... maybe not mobile Windows too... but I'm not sure).  It is certainly a much different game from Dominion, in that it has more of the CCG qualities (that I kinda despise) than the deck-building quality of Dominion.  That said, given that all of the content is available for free (if you're willing to grind), it doesn't require the expenditure of $ that a print CCG would.

Also - the Tavern Brawl (5 days of the week - game that changes every week with strange/interesting rule shifts), I find to (often) be extremely entertaining.

ymmv

I know there's an argument to be made that this *is* free to play, but if my subscription has a monetary value (it does) and the product is not one that I would be paying for yet (I wouldn't), then it seems I'm being forced to pay for an unfinished product.

Which seems kinda lame to me.

How are you being forced to pay if you get this year for free without paying one Dollar? Seems kinda strange to me. If you don't like the gift you got, don't use it. Have some other fun and come back in a month or so to see if it then suits your requirements.

Well the "gift of a year's subscription" seems like not much of a gift, if I'm being used as a beta tester.  It's more the appearance of such.  I do get that Shuffle iT doesn't have any real legal responsibility to have gifted us the subscriptions, but it did so for a valid economic reason: the volume of users they would have lost without some sort of concession would've seriously hurt the product.  No one will want to play if there is never anyone to match with.  So, it's not just out of the kindness of their hearts.

There are/were a myriad of ways that they could have better handled this.  In the welcome letter: note that the product is still in beta, give some sort of timeline of finished product release, for example.

Honestly I think this reflects more poorly on the license holder(s) than it does Shuffle iT.  They seem far too willing to (repeatedly) have their name attached to products released before being production ready.

I dunno... I was really looking forward to the change over... I thought some of the MF shortcomings would be improved upon... I'm finding myself soured on the product.  (For reference, I own all print expansions and had paid full price for all previous expansions in the MF version).

"If you don't like the gift you got, don't use it." seems rude.  I don't think I made hyperbolic or unfair criticisms of the product.

Are you an employee of Shuffle iT?  You seem to say things on the forum that makes me think you are.  If so, you're not representing your company very well.

I agree that expecting Shuffle iT to take the financial burden of Making Fun's mistakes, does not make sense from either a legal or ethical standpoint.

I do however take issue with the $ I'm being "credited" being applied to what appears to be little more than a beta release.  Given that there are cards not yet implemented (Inheritance, Stash), no continued ability to play with mobile users (my primary play partner used a phone), and the copious amounts of user experience and functional bugs in place - I would actually say it is absolutely a beta release.

I've seen Hearthstone mentioned in some threads as a comparison to this release: which seems silly to me - Hearthstone was being produced by a company that had all of the resources necessary to create such a game AND the profit margins to do so at a loss until the product was perfect.  Plus that had an astronomically larger user base to leverage (from WoW). 

That being said, this release seems much rougher than one would expect for a pay-to-play game.  I know there's an argument to be made that this *is* free to play, but if my subscription has a monetary value (it does) and the product is not one that I would be paying for yet (I wouldn't), then it seems I'm being forced to pay for an unfinished product.

Which seems kinda lame to me.