Messages

please don't ban it. It's fun.

Fun for you, not for me.  Also, debates over fun-ness do not address the fundamental problem that it is an attack which does not have the attack type, and is thus broken mechanically.

It's not an attack, you can't mess up your opponent's deck or hand by playing it.

Actually, you can.  You can spend their coins (from Guilds), play their teacher to put tokens in useless places, etc.  It used to be that your argument was essentially correct, but the game has changed to where that is no longer the case.

please don't ban it. It's fun.

Fun for you, not for me.  Also, debates over fun-ness do not address the fundamental problem that it is an attack which does not have the attack type, and is thus broken mechanically.

This thread discusses the problems with Possession.

http://forum.shuffleit.nl/index.php?topic=2005.msg7761#msg7761

Basically, it is an attack in all but name, that does not allow the defenses that cards with the attack type allow.

Why just the tournament?  It should be banned period.

Overpay is another area where there could be misclicks with autobuy.

My most frequent mistake is that I will buy a debt card without having played my treasures first then cannot pay off the debt.  This is because I play with auto buy on, which automatically plays the treasures I need to buy the card I click.  In my mind, I need all my treasures to pay debt after I click the debt card I want to buy, forgetting the that computer cannot read my mind, and there are legitimate reasons to have unpaid debt so it doesn't play my treasures.  In a FTF game, this would not happen.

The distinction is:  "Computer correctly updates game state" vs "player can easily understand what is going on."  The point those who know programming are making is that getting to "Computer correctly updates game state" is comparatively easy and quick, so it makes sense to do that, which benefits everyone who can live with the current interface and still enjoy games.  Delaying Nocturne until everyone is satisfied with the interface is a loosing game, since that likely means a long haul on interface then Nocturne vs Nocturne quick then a long haul on the interface.

Not everyone who knows programming is making that point, since that also includes me. Again: Implementing Nocturne includes implementing the interface for Nocturne, so separating them is pretty meaningless. Maybe you're trying to say that fixing the basic missing interface features - like visible tokens, a marked place to click to see cards in play/set-aside, and a record of past game logs (just storing the actual text from the end-screen game log and creating an interface to access those) - is more work than implementing all of Nocturne. If so, I think you're wrong.

Like Donald said, Nocturne will not make the unhappy people happy, but no Nocturne will make the happy people unhappy.  So there is no question that getting Nocturne released on time in necessary, even if it causes a slight delay in interface improvements.

There's a huge disconnect here between what the vocal minority is saying here and reality. Delaying Nocturne and instead fixing basic functionality and bugs will make certain people unhappier, and others happier. The ones who will be happier are mostly a subset of the majority of people not posting here, and the people who try playing and give up and go away without posting, who instead will stay. I don't know how many new users sign up anymore, but there will be more when Nocturne is released.

Another thing that several people forget: Each expansion is less popular than the last. Dominion is a hugely popular game, but most people - by far - who play it don't have the latest expansion and is not planning to get it. This is very different from the vocal minority here.

Ok, so your right that the opinions of the vocal minority and those of the total population using ShuffleIt are not the same.  However, there is also a distinction between the playing population and the paying population.  I have no evidence for this, and would not presume to speak for anybody but myself, but Id' guess that the paying population would have a significant percentage who will want the new cards asap, and will be unhappy if they are not available at release.  Keeping the paying population happy seems like a significant priority for Stef, which again argues for Nocturne being a priority.  In any case, this argument is really academic, since whatever Stef (or the forum community) thinks is the highest priority, Stef is contractually OBLIGATED to have Nocturne online at the release date.  We can argue back and forth what we think Stef should be doing with is time until the heat death of the universe, but that doesn't change what he MUST do to comply with his contract.

So, my point is that as long as the system correctly records the effects of the cards played, they are fully implemented AS CARDS.  If it is hard to look at the screen and figure out what is going on, the problem in an interface problem.

That's a completely made up distinction. The fact of the matter is that both the mechanics of the cards and the interface of the cards need to be implemented. To put it another way, Stef is going to add the full card image to all the new cards; he's not keep them blank with just the card name and then focus on undo features until that's complete.

(Btw, Isotropic had the card text when you hovered over the card. Shuffle IT is the same; you right-click to view it. I don't read the card text without right-clicking it. Type and cost was shown in Isotropic without hovering.)

The distinction is:  "Computer correctly updates game state" vs "player can easily understand what is going on."  The point those who know programming are making is that getting to "Computer correctly updates game state" is comparatively easy and quick, so it makes sense to do that, which benefits everyone who can live with the current interface and still enjoy games.  Delaying Nocturne until everyone is satisfied with the interface is a loosing game, since that likely means a long haul on interface then Nocturne vs Nocturne quick then a long haul on the interface. 

Like Donald said, Nocturne will not make the unhappy people happy, but no Nocturne will make the happy people unhappy.  So there is no question that getting Nocturne released on time in necessary, even if it causes a slight delay in interface improvements.

Regarding Split piles and tokens, I think you are confusing interface issues with card issues.  To me, a card is fully implemented if it is programmed in and basically works almost all of the time.  I cannot think of any situations in my play where I encountered a card bug, so to me, all cards (except Stash) are basically fully implemented.  The interface problems remain, but that is because we are looking for an improved interface, not because the cards are not programmed correctly.

Let's say Nocturne has a new kind of card that can be placed sideways or not, giving you different effects, and another card performs differently depending on the number of sideways cards. If this is implemented such that the interface still shows no cards sideways, would you say that the cards are fully implemented?

Ok, first the sideways card idea is a manufactured example that is not worth considering for the purposes of what I'm trying to say.  Unless we see this in the set, it doesn's need to be discussed.

What about cards that just show the name of the card, no card text, cost, type or image? Are those fully implemented?

So, according to you, Isotropic was not fully implemented?  Since what you describe is basically Isotropic except that you could click to get more information.

I mean, the interface could just tell you which cards you draw and which gets played and bought/gained, and you could look up all the cards elsewhere and track on paper how many are left in supply etc., but I wouldn't call that fully implemented Dominion.

But you are not describing what actually exists on ShuffleIt, rather some theoretical implementation that no one would actually release for pay.

Mechanically, the cards are implemented in the sense that when you play them, the code correctly applies the effects and updates the game state in memory.  The main problem is that the interface doesn't do a good job of showing the results.  That is an interface issue, not an implementation issue.

So, my point is that as long as the system correctly records the effects of the cards played, they are fully implemented AS CARDS.  If it is hard to look at the screen and figure out what is going on, the problem in an interface problem.  I think the point is that doing the mechanical implementation is easy.  The hard part is the visual aspect, and that would be true regardless of whether the new cards are programmed or not.

I have a different view on the triviality of programming new cards. To me there are quite a few existing ones that are not yet fully implemented. As an example, when you can't see the contents of a split pile, I wouldn't call that card pile implemented. The same goes for tokens that are not shown. Then you can start getting into the card bugs, which show that they were not properly implemented.

Regarding Split piles and tokens, I think you are confusing interface issues with card issues.  To me, a card is fully implemented if it is programmed in and basically works almost all of the time.  I cannot think of any situations in my play where I encountered a card bug, so to me, all cards (except Stash) are basically fully implemented.  The interface problems remain, but that is because we are looking for an improved interface, not because the cards are not programmed correctly.

Click the New Table tab.  There is an option Load Old Game, click this and enter the game # in the text box.

For tournament games, I believe players ought to start off with an identical starting hand (3 coppers and 2 estates for their first 5 card draw). In certain games, starting off with 5 coppers in Turn 1 or Turn 2 is too strong. I won't bore you with examples. I'm sure other users can do that, if they so desire.

Is there any way to do this? Could the coding be changed for rated games?

Donald X has spoken out decisively against this proposal.  Sure in some boards this is a decisive advantage.  In others, it is actually a disadvantage.  Those are the breaks.  This is also why you play 6 games.  That way one bad starting split doesn't knock you out.

I'm slowly learning to routinely mouse over my opponent's name to look at duration's in play.  Not the ideal solution, but if you can train yourself, it helps some.

We can argue whether Possession is effectively an Attack or not, but if it were an Attack, I think it would violate the design rule that Attacks must affect all other players (as permitted by supply limitation, hand size etc.).

This hits the nail on the head.  When the card was released, it did not (in theory) act as an attack.  (Combo-ing with Masquerade was an exception.)  It was designed to leave the possessed player with the same deck as before, just in a different order.  With Guilds and Adventures, Possession became a way to damage opponents (spend their coin tokens, move their Adventures tokens, etc.)  Thus it MUST be an attack since it acts as one, but it CANNOT be an attack since it violates the affect every other player requirement for an attack. 

If Dominion only a two player games by the rules, then you just add the attack type to Possession and the problem goes away.  But, Dominion is a 2-6 player game, so Possession is a contradiction that can be resolved only by banning the card. 

For IRL games, this is not an issue, since you can simply chose not to play with Possession, and if you do, that's your choice.  For Online, I feel strongly that Possession should be removed from the game since I cannot simply chose to ban it in rated games. 

I would allow it to be played in user created kingdoms, but never in random kingdoms.

Notwithstanding programming complexity (which I cannot speak to) the main difficulty I see is readability.  For Smithy, not a problem.  For Possession, potentially difficult to do meaningfully.