Menu

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.

Show posts Menu

Messages - AdamH

#376
General Discussion / Re: Pro leaderboard with bugs
04 April 2017, 01:27:34 PM
Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on 04 April 2017, 01:10:10 PM
Quote from: AdamH on 02 April 2017, 08:48:28 PM
Silence, which is what I have gotten for pretty all of my other direct questions to the developers, is different than "no."
I'm not sure if you are criticizing the developers for no response, but if you are I think it's very unfair.

I'm not criticizing them for not responding to everything here. I don't think that's a good idea, given they have lots of people who will do that for them. I was only pointing out that there is a long precedent of them not responding, so it would have been a reasonable thing to do here. Much of the rest of your post is addressed by this.

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on 04 April 2017, 01:10:10 PM
Quote from: AdamH on 02 April 2017, 08:48:28 PM
"No" actively attempts to shut down more discussion on what could be helpful. It is different than "no engagement required."
I disagree. "No" does not shut down discussion, and I highly doubt Stef was trying to thwart any beneficial things that could come from a debate. I completely disagree with the bolded section, the only thing I think No shuts down is debate about whether the company will do it, and that won't be helpful. It's one thing to say they need more evidence, it's another to say they were trying to shut down helpful discussion. Seriously, just think about that phrase, and try to believe it.

Look at what happened to this thread. My previous post. The discussion here has been all over the place and it's been about everything except making this issue better. I've pushed as hard as I can, repeated myself about 55 times in this thread, trying to bring other ideas out that would make the situation better, but people are just going on about the idea in my OP...

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on 04 April 2017, 01:10:10 PM
From my point of view, your original post seemed almost like a joke, obviously flawed and kinda harsh and assuming. I can't imagine a vastly better answer than no.

Even if my post "seemed harsh" (I read it again, I'm not seeing it); even if my post was made on April Fool's Day; these would have nothing to do with the validity of my idea. It's ironic that you say you can't imagine a better answer to my OP when right after Stef's "response" you are the person who posted next -- with a vastly better answer!

Just saying no is an argument from authority. It means nothing to me, it's not going to change my opinion. If I didn't have that opinion I wouldn't have made the OP in the first place, regardless of what "holiday" it was. You gave reasons why my idea was bad, that's the kind of thing that will make me consider other options to improve it, which I did.

It's beyond me how anyone could think Stef's post was better than yours. His was really really bad and yours was really good.

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on 04 April 2017, 01:17:34 PM
I think there's a simple answer right under your nose: Don't play rated games.

If you are annoyed by bugs in the system and you think it's unfair the way they affect ratings, then play without ratings. I really can't think of a more efficient solution. It's perfect: You can ban the cards you want and not loose ranking due to stupid bugs, other people who don't care can enjoy having a sense of accomplishment even with slightly busted rankings.

This is what I'm going to do of course. This answer works for anyone who knows about all the bugs and chooses to do the same thing. On the other hand, anyone who sees the matching tab and sees a rated game, expects the game to work like the Dominion rulebook says, and then gets hosed by a bug and gets a bad score on the leaderboard, is going to have a really bad taste in their mouth. The leaderboard is out there now, so it should reflect what it represents as best it can so that this kind of thing doesn't happen. That's why I made this thread.
#377
General Discussion / Re: Pro leaderboard with bugs
04 April 2017, 01:12:10 PM
I'm not sure what is so unclear about what I said. I've re-read my posts in this thread and I honestly don't see what I said that was unclear, but people are still responding to things I said in my OP that I addressed in other posts in this thread. It's upsetting to think that even though I directly addressed drsteelhammer's and tufftaeh's concerns in a post in this thread, that common consensus is that I still am advocating for the solution of "have the leaderboard, then wipe it when all gameplay-related bugs are fixed" -- obviously that doesn't even mean anything since it's not feasible to tell when that would be.

I've edited my previous posts to try and make this more obvious. I will also quote the relevant parts here once again.

Quote from: AdamH on 02 April 2017, 04:02:06 PM
There are other solutions besides resetting the leaderboard as well. Cards or combinations of cards with known bugs could be on the banned list, even if it's just for Pro games. [...] Maybe showing that you're doing what you can to make the customers' experience as good as possible while the software gets to where it needs to be is a better approach.

I suppose it's really easy to see my OP, see Stef's response, and think "yes this is a bad idea" and not even read anything else that I said. This is exactly the problem with Stef's post. All of the discussion in this thread has been about the wrong thing because his post does nothing but attempt to shut down discussion about what would be best for his software.

That is no excuse, though. People should read the thread before responding to it and complaining about what I'm saying. When presented with opposing points of view, I'm capable of coming up with solutions that, while I don't think they are ideal, are better than my original idea. In spite of Stef's (and other posters') best efforts to squash that discussion, I'm still trying to have it. The two most recent posts in this thread have simply been off-topic and it's frustrating to see this happen.

I would like to address this:

Quote from: drsteelhammer on 04 April 2017, 06:33:37 AM
Additionally, it is now easier to play either with familiar cards or without them.

This is simply not true. It is now easier to play without familiar cards and much more difficult to play with them. Tables still do not remember a player's preferred settings, they will revert back to the default whenever the table is left. The default for respecting familiar cards was changed to off. Now, the only way to play respecting familiar cards is to make a table, go into advanced options, and select the option every time a table is created.

Don't get me wrong, this is better than it was before. Now, the default behavior is such that people aren't going to see the same 10 kingdom cards over and over again with only very small variations. This was a huge problem and I'm really glad something was done about it.

It's not the final solution, though. The client should remember each user's most recent table settings and apply them as the default each time that user creates a new table.
#378
Quote from: AdamH on 03 March 2017, 05:06:33 PM
1. Make it easier to understand what's happening during my opponent's turn. 99% of this can be done by making any card gained during my opponent's turn dance in front of me before going wherever else it goes. The other 1% can be done by printing the money and buys that each player has in the log at the start of each buy phase.

2. Put some time and thought into the "new player experience." I don't feel like typing everything out, but the philosophy of having to come to these forums (which are hard to find from the actual game page) and complain, just to have someone tell you a workaround for many of this, is not a sustainable thing. If you're not going to fix these things promptly, then at least make a tutorial or something to show people how to use this thing.
#379
General Discussion / Re: Pro leaderboard with bugs
03 April 2017, 07:26:10 PM
Please read my previous posts in this thread.
#380
General Discussion / Re: Pro leaderboard with bugs
02 April 2017, 08:48:28 PM
Silence, which is what I have gotten for pretty all of my other direct questions to the developers, is different than "no." "No" actively attempts to shut down more discussion on what could be helpful. It is different than "no engagement required." Just stating something with no justification is worse than nothing in every way I can possibly imagine. I'm just not buying that it was an appropriate response.

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on 02 April 2017, 06:54:36 PM
About your answer to "when is it dominion" I fall back on the fact that ShuffleIT will never be perfect.

I addressed this in my previous post. There are plenty of other things that would be a nice gesture. I'm not asking for them to know every possible bug all of the time, just to do something about the known issues while they are still known.

I certainly am not the only one that thinks Shuffleit should be making more nice gestures towards its community.
#381
General Discussion / Re: Pro leaderboard with bugs
02 April 2017, 05:30:29 PM
Quote from: markus on 02 April 2017, 04:47:10 PM
I thought that your question was an April fools.  ???

Ugh, I've always hated April Fools. I actually managed to forget that it was yesterday through most of the day.

Quote from: markus on 02 April 2017, 04:47:10 PM
I'd rather have the developers fix actual problems than discuss this particular question at lengths.

I'd rather have silence than what I got from the devs though.
#382
General Discussion / Re: Pro leaderboard with bugs
02 April 2017, 04:02:06 PM
You make some good points. It's a little bit alarming that you are able to give an actual response with actual reasons as opposed to the developer who came in here to give a flippant answer to a valid question. The fact that their priorities are such that this question even had to be asked in the first place (along with several other things) suggests that they're out of touch with their customer base, but I don't imagine it was extremely taxing to put together a thoughtful response with valid reasons like you have.

The developers have personal issues with me. Whatever, I think they're wrong but people are allowed to not like me. In spite of that, I've done everything I can to help their software succeed, even with their complete lack of cooperation. I am under no obligation to be professional here, but it seems like I am the one doing so and the developers, who are supposed to be acting in a professional capacity, are doing exactly the opposite.

There is one question you ask that I feel like I should answer, though.

Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on 02 April 2017, 02:31:45 PM
When will you set the point when you say the game "actually emulates Dominion"? I set the point now because I think it's close enough

I develop software for a living. Before doing anything else, we come up with requirements for our software. This is a part of the software engineering process that really can't be skipped, because then you end up with software like this, with no sort of direction whatsoever.

If I was writing requirements for Dominion software, the very first thing I would have put on that list would be to implement all of the cards correctly, with no bugs. Until that happens, I really don't see how anyone can view Shuffleit as a complete product. Until that happens, I really don't think they are justified in asking for money for their product. Yes, they are extremely close, and yes, there is some wiggle room here (MF never actually got Possession/Outpost working the way it's supposed to), but it seems pretty ridiculous to me that they've prioritized a nice-to-have feature (leaderboard) over the basic functionality of the product.

But whatever, not everyone has the same priorities as me. I'm willing to accept that.

There is a list of known issues with cards. It's not just the Enchantress/Champion bug. It's not just Stash. When you can't see your -$1 token without digging through the game log (which doesn't display all of the information needed to follow the game) then cards that use that token simply aren't playable. They are as good as Stash. There are things that have been on that list for quite a while. Yes, things will continue to pop up, but when we're at the point when everything on that list is minor and getting fixed quickly and the list is otherwise empty, that seems like a good place to start the leaderboard.

There are other solutions besides resetting the leaderboard as well. Cards or combinations of cards with known bugs could be on the banned list, even if it's just for Pro games. But giving one-word flippant responses instead of promoting a healthy discussion to come up with what's best for the software doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Maybe showing that you're doing what you can to make the customers' experience as good as possible while the software gets to where it needs to be is a better approach.
#383
General Discussion / Pro leaderboard with bugs
01 April 2017, 09:59:44 PM
I played a rated game against someone today. They got bit really hard by the Enchantress/Champion bug, I won the game. If I was in his position I would have been really upset if my position on the leaderboard was affected by a bug in the software.

I assume that once all known gameplay-related bugs are fixed (and Stash is implemented, and all tokens and effects are actually visible to the players -- basically when the software actually emulates the game of Dominion instead of what it is now) that the leaderboard will be wiped clean? I don't think it's appropriate to keep ratings around until that happens.

EDIT: since it seems to be unclear, while I still think it would be a good idea to not have a leaderboard until all gameplay-related issues are fixed, I no longer think that having the current leaderboard and then wiping it would be the best solution given the current situation.

Quote from: AdamH on 02 April 2017, 04:02:06 PM
There are other solutions besides resetting the leaderboard as well. Cards or combinations of cards with known bugs could be on the banned list, even if it's just for Pro games. [...] Maybe showing that you're doing what you can to make the customers' experience as good as possible while the software gets to where it needs to be is a better approach.
#384
Quote from: JW on 30 March 2017, 07:28:06 PM
On a related note, a toggle to turn off "Pretend to Think" would also be useful.

"Pretend to think" shouldn't be a thing. As it is right now, it's not consistently applied (opponent plays an attack, Moat is in the kingdom; there is no "pretend to think" if I don't have a Moat in hand) and stuff like this really needs to be consistent. But applying it consistently makes the game really unfun to play.

The fact that it's not done for every case where one needs to pretend to think means it should not be there at all. If there are clamors from the purists about it, then sure put it on the backlog, but I feel like the current interface for Gladiator should just be changed.

...and then of course, once they implement it, let's make the default setting to not draw out the game unnecessarily please?
#385
Does the game log itself include the game number? If the game number was in more places I'd be more likely to write it down.

I know in the chat it appears but is it in the game log as well? If I'm chatting with an opponent it can be difficult to find the game number, especially because incoming messages will cause the chat window to snap down to the bottom.
#386
Quote from: Stef on 29 March 2017, 02:21:36 PM
If the biggest issue you name is "the embarrassment of the journey token stuff" I would say the testers group is doing pretty well. Personally I preferred the journey token before the change, some other group of people preferred it this way, fine, we changed it.

The journey token stuff is a perfect example of something that isn't personal preference. It's something that was objectively a problem and should have been caught by anyone. The purpose of a QA/Test team is to catch things like this and come back to the devs with it so it doesn't make it to the public. If none of your testers mentioned that this was going to be an issue, I'd say you need more/different people on that team.


Quote from: Ingix on 29 March 2017, 02:31:56 PM
With the exception to the Journey token issue, all the rest seem to be issues that you do not like about the client, not things that are obvious problems.

If I was the only one who felt that way then I see your point. Nobody can expect every user to like every feature. But many people complained about the new sounds because there's no way to turn them off. There's no way to adjust the volume (and the endgame sounds are much louder than the other sounds the client makes). This is something that should have been caught by the test team -- any feature you add like this should have a way to configure it. It's just not good practice to push out an optional feature without a way to configure it or turn it off.

I'm pointing to the most recent update because it's recent of course, but also because stuff like this gives the user base the impression that the devs are out of touch with what their users want.


As for the server outages, I don't know what kind of access the test team has to diagnostics for stuff like this, but it would have been really great if someone from the test team could have made an announcement to communicate the problem while I assume it was night time where the devs were (I don't know, I just saw a bunch of threads complaining). That's a pretty different issue, and it's one I know next to nothing about.

People just complain to me about things and I'm trying to suggest things to make them better. If I didn't think my suggestions were good I would keep them to myself, but I think this stuff would help.
#387
Quote from: Ingix on 28 March 2017, 11:37:51 PM
I still think the best option for such effects is to make the actual card (in this case Arena) clickable at the correct time (beginning of buy phase), together with all your treasure cards.

Ooh, this is a really good idea that I hadn't thought of. Nice. +1
#388
Quote from: Stef on 29 March 2017, 12:23:47 AM
Adam, we have a test server and a group of people playing on it.

How long has it been there?

With all due respect, the journey token issue and the fact that the endgame sounds can't be turned off or made quieter (or the fact that it now dings when I put something in the chat when it used to not do that) should all have been caught, addressed, and fixed before the public ever saw them. I think you need more people on your test server who will actually give you the feedback you need.

Shuffleit's image isn't doing well right now. I think you should be doing everything you possibly can to prevent releases like the recent ones you've had from making things worse.
#389
Quote from: LastFootnote on 28 March 2017, 10:20:31 PM
Quote from: AdamH on 28 March 2017, 10:04:47 PM
I've noticed this with other releases in the past, though the problem is much more severe now of course. Maybe it will get some attention now that there's a big stink.

It seems that Shuffleit would benefit with some line of testing before their updates are released to the public. I know somewhere around here there was a mention of automated testing by one of the devs. That would be a step in the right direction but it's not the whole picture. I think having a group of testers to run through "internal" builds before they are released to the public would benefit everyone quite a bit.
I agree with you in general, Adam, but is it possible this wasn't caused by a new release? Seems like maybe people are being kicked to these rooms because the games are failing to start automatically, perhaps because servers are down.

I have no idea. But at least if it was an issue like you suggest and the test system was in place, Shuffleit would at least be able to say they did what they could. I have no doubts that a test system would prevent a lot of issues from making it to public releases, even if it doesn't catch all of them.

...and I feel like it would cost the devs next to nothing for free work. I just don't see much downside at all.
#390
I've noticed this with other releases in the past, though the problem is much more severe now of course. Maybe it will get some attention now that there's a big stink.

It seems that Shuffleit would benefit with some line of testing before their updates are released to the public. I know somewhere around here there was a mention of automated testing by one of the devs. That would be a step in the right direction but it's not the whole picture. I think having a group of testers to run through "internal" builds before they are released to the public would benefit everyone quite a bit.

This group of testers would just run through their normal games for a few days, making sure nothing is broken like we have now, and of course could report regressions or bugs introduced by the updates. But also they could give feedback about UI changes. We could have avoided the embarrassment of the journey token stuff if anyone other than the devs had looked at the changes they made before they were made public.

There is no shortage of people around here who would be willing to do this for free. I'd like to think there's an easy way to just give a small group of people access to a test build for this purpose. It would go a long way towards the success of your product.