Messages

Sounds great, Stef!  Backend upgrades like you're talking about don't sound sexy and they're a pain, but they usually make things a lot better down the road.

Thanks for the update and sorry to hear about the illness.

Kind regards,
HD

[Turn 1]

Hi Adam,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.  I definitely agree that blacklisting will help with belligerent slow-players, and am all in favor of that.  But there also needs to be a mechanism that moves the game along even among well-intentioned players.  I have a brother who can take 10 minutes with each buy phase... and he's not trolling me by doing that, it's just his analysis paralysis.  Something has to keep the game moving along, it is disrespectful to your opponents' time to play that way.

And so I feel like any time constraint that exists should be as generous as possible to prevent the time constraint from affecting the game. In fact, I feel like the current implementation isn't generous enough! I wish there was a one-minute warning like MF had that told you that you need to do something or else the "make opponent resign?" window will appear for your opponent.

I am also a slower-than-average player for my skill group and empathize with this.  But no-timer (which sounds like your ideal) is open to all sorts of abuse.  I didn't log in to play a game of correspondence chess.  I mean for some people, it takes a long time for them to concretely determine which thing they want to do.  Some will obsessively review the log.  Some will keep track of cards in a spreadsheet for Keep/Palace/Orchard potential.  Some could run simulators to guide their gaining strategy.

We also have no way of knowing if our opponent is giving the game their full attention.  They could be watching TV, doing homework, cooking supper, driving a car, or who knows what else.  I once was playing from my tablet in bed and fell asleep.  A timer is necessary as a sort of contract that roughly defines how much time we strangers are going to spend together on this activity.

Maybe some day, far in the future, they can implement a timed variant of Dominion

We already have one.  It's 4-minutes-per-decision or your opponent can make you lose.  The question is whether we can create a better one.


You asked for specificity, so let me try to put this in pseudo-code-ey language.  The variables are in square brackets.

• Turn 1:
  
  • Set the active player's timer to [TurnOne] minutes

• Turn 2 and onward:
  
  • Set the active player's timer to [StartTurn] minutes
  • Every time the active player makes a decision on their turn, their timer is incremented by [ClickIncrement] seconds
  • The active player's timer has a cap of [MaxTime] minutes.  (If the increment increases above [MaxTime] the player instead gets [MaxTime].)

• Reactions (e.g. time to play a Moat, Beggars, Watchtower, Trader, etc. or discard from Goons, Militia, Vault or trash from Bishop and so on)
  
  • Set the opponent's timer to [ReactionTime] seconds

• If either player's timer runs out, a dialog box shows up on the opponent's screen asking them if they would like to force their opponent to "pass".  "Pass" is basically ending one's turn without any further actions or buys.  Same as now, a player can give grace to their opponent and not-click that option (just letting them continue their turn without interruption).

• In some situations, time could run out where a choice is mandatory.  Cases like: an opponent has to discard two cards to Militia, or the active player has to choose a gain for Hermit.  In those cases, when forced to "pass" the server chooses randomly.

• If a player has been forced to pass [StrikesAllowed] times, the opponent's dialog box now offers the options of "Force opponent to Pass" and "Force opponent to Resign".  Same as before, a player can give grace to their opponent and not-click those options (just letting them continue their turn without interruption).

• The player's clock would be visible at all times.  A bell rings when there's only 30 seconds left (and the clock turns red and flashy).

The current system could be represented as such:

[TurnOne]	4 minutes
[StartTurn]	4 minutes
[ClickIncrement]	4 minutes
[MaxTime]	4 minutes
[ReactionTime]	4 minutes
[StrikesAllowed]	0

But if we simply want to hedge slow-playing of coppers, we could use this:

[TurnOne]	4 minutes
[StartTurn]	4 minutes
[ClickIncrement]	10 seconds
[MaxTime]	4 minutes
[ReactionTime]	4 minutes
[StrikesAllowed]	0

That simple change would keep the system essentially as is... that players basically have 4 minutes to think on the tough decisions, but a troll can't drag out a 3-copper hand for 12 minutes.


Now, let's add in some more time for those complicated engine turns:

[TurnOne]	4 minutes
[StartTurn]	4 minutes
[ClickIncrement]	10 seconds
[MaxTime]	8 minutes
[ReactionTime]	4 minutes
[StrikesAllowed]	0

And I think it would be nice to give players a couple warnings, before forcing them to resign outright:

[TurnOne]	4 minutes
[StartTurn]	4 minutes
[ClickIncrement]	10 seconds
[MaxTime]	8 minutes
[ReactionTime]	4 minutes
[StrikesAllowed]	2

I don't think reactions need a full 4 minutes.  One should be sufficient.

[TurnOne]	4 minutes
[StartTurn]	4 minutes
[ClickIncrement]	10 seconds
[MaxTime]	8 minutes
[ReactionTime]	1 minute
[StrikesAllowed]	2

And finally, let's take an extra couple minutes at the beginning of the game to get acquainted with the kingdom.

[TurnOne]	6 minutes
[StartTurn]	4 minutes
[ClickIncrement]	10 seconds
[MaxTime]	8 minutes
[ReactionTime]	1 minute
[StrikesAllowed]	2

So here's the side-by-side comparison of the status quo VS the Hertz_Doughnut less-rushed and less-abused gentlemen's sport of kings.

-	Current	Hertz_Doughnut
[TurnOne]	4 minutes	6 minutes
[StartTurn]	4 minutes	4 minutes
[ClickIncrement]	4 minutes	10 seconds
[MaxTime]	4 minutes	8 minutes
[ReactionTime]	4 minutes	1 minute
[StrikesAllowed]	0	2

Point being that these are variables.  We start with something reasonable and gauge its impact.  What variables would you use in this schema?

Kind regards,
HD

Hi Adam,

I respect your opinion a lot, and am glad to hear your thoughts on this issue.  However, I was a bit confused by your post, can you help me understand the following points?

Absolute time per turn seems like a really bad idea. Absolute time per game also seems like a really bad idea.

Totally agree.  Dominion is not a good game for absolute time limits.  But, who is advocating either of those?  Only SkyHard mentioned that at all, and I think it's clear that that's secondary to "Of course the clock needs to be dynamic to allow long engines".

I don't think that's what you want -- ideally you'd want the thinking to happen whenever it's necessary so the total thinking time is minimized.

A perfect system for timing people should have no effect on the actual gameplay, it just encourages people to not take any longer than they have to to make decisions.

Totally agree.  However, I think my OP does this better than the status quo.  It's gentler to lose one's turn due to running over time than losing the whole game, no?  And in any case, it is still at the discretion of the opponent forcing the lost-turn upon you.  Just as now, players can not-click the button that pops up when they're over time.

Most systems that differ from the current one will favor rushy strategies that are easy to execute; and (IMHO) most people who like Dominion enough to play it online would prefer to play more intricate decks that involve more complex and difficult decisions.

Totally agree that the game clock should not affect intricate decks or one's inclination toward building them.  The thoughts I presented were intended to accommodate them in full.

preserving the integrity of the game should probably be more important. The tabletop game Dominion has no time limits so you don't want to mess with that if you can help it.

Definitely.  Again, I think you and I are in complete agreement the goals of a game clock.  I thought I constructed the OP with lots of attention to these issues.  Is there something there that you object to?

The current clock is already different from tabletop.  IRL, I would never sit down across the table from someone, watch him think about his Turn 28 buys for 4 minutes and 0 seconds, then instantly claim victory and leave his presence.  But I can do that at dominion.games.

I think my OP is better than the status quo because it:
- hedges slow-playing (e.g. no one can do a copper every 3 minutes and 55 seconds until their opponent resigns in frustration)
- scales dynamically to the complexity of the situation
- gives slower players a couple warnings before they lose the game for good
- shows players how much time they have left

Kind regards,
HD

Awesome.

Love this idea, with the exception of reactions, if the player does not make a choice, then he simply does not react.  In cases of ordering, it is done randomly.

That's fine, too.

Clock should flash or something when it is under say 15 seconds.

Absolutely!

From most-desired to least-desired...

For the PC:

• A sound when I need to make a decision (e.g. start my turn, discard to Militia, grant an undo, etc.)
• Markers to show when I'm being attacked by Swamp Hag, Haunted Woods, Enchantress... also when I have a -1 card (Relic), or -1 coin (Bridge Troll), or they have a Lighthouse/Champion in play.
• Improved game clock

For my tablet:

• Fixing the re-order bug
• Making chat less painful
• a way to view the text of a card without buying it half the time
• An icon telling my opponent that I'm on a tablet

I'd also like to see rapid releases.  It'd be awesome to see an update every day fixing a tiny nuisance and leave the big projects (like Inheritance) for the end.

Keep up the great work, SI!

Kind regards,
HD

Here are some thoughts on a game clock.

- In chess, when you run out of time, you lose.  However Dominion is not like chess in one a fundamental aspect: players MUST take a turn in chess for the game to progress.  One cannot simply "pass".  But in Dominion, a player can "pass"... they have the option of doing nothing (i.e. playing 0 actions, making 0 buys).  For this reason, let's think about creating a game clock around the concept that a player has X amount of time to take his turn, otherwise his turn abruptly ends... but he isn't forced to resign.  In essence, we're replacing the "Force Opponent To Resign" button with "Force Opponent To End Their Turn" button.

- The current timer is crude.  It just checks for a user response every 4 minutes.  This is easily abused.  I think a better system would be to start each user with, say, 1 minute per turn, but then to add, say, 10 seconds each time they make a decision.  (But build in a cap of, say, 4 minutes.)  This way, the more complicated turns accrue time to deal with their deck's complexity.

- Allow more time for the players' first turns, say, 5 minutes, so that they can get acquainted with the kingdom.

- The third time during a game that a player uses up all their time, the opponent now gets the "Force Opponent To Resign" button (in addition to the "Force Opponent To End Their Turn" button).

- Make the clock visible to all players and spectators.

- Timing for reactionary events (e.g. Playing Moat vs Witch or choosing which cards to discard vs Militia) would get, let's say, 30 seconds.  If time runs out, the prompt allows the opponent to make the decision for them.


Keep up the great work, SI!

Kind regards,
HD

The undo functionality is awesome, as is.  Just to make it a tad awesomer would be some kind of notice of what kind of "undo" your opponent is requesting.  A "big" undo is a request when new information has been revealed.  (e.g. "I want to undo my Sea Hag, because he played a Moat".)  A "small undo" is when no new information has been revealed.  (e.g. "I want to undo my Sea Hag, because I didn't notice that he had a Lighthouse/Champion in play.")

We definitely want to keep the functionality of big undos available.  It would just be nice to have the game automatically tell me if information was revealed or not (rather than trying to figure it out from the log).  I'm thinking that the dialog box that could turn red if your opponent is requesting a big undo.  Just doing that would probably create a cultural norm that we grant small slip-ups, but require you to justify yourself if new information was revealed.

Even better... it could become a game option to automatically grant smalls, and only require permission for bigs.  That's how I'd prefer to play.  I hate it when I hit Borrow before playing my treasures, and then hope to get permission to make my buys.  IRL, that situation would never happen.

Keep up the great work, SI!

Kind regards,
HD

lol!  Yes, if Jack was running around saying "I'm a goons, I'm cutting through your throat" Dad would quickly censor it!  Here in the American Midwest, "goons" is a cartoony-sounding word with a cartoony-looking picture.  Heck, Google's primary definition for the word is "a silly, foolish, or eccentric person"... secondary is "bully or thug".  It perplexes me that DXV chose such a silly name for such a powerful card... maybe I'll start calling it Halsabschneider to give it the respect it deserves.

But the relevant part is this: If Jack went to school and called another kid at school a "goon", I think the teacher would probably just laugh.  However, if he called his teacher a "witch"... we'd be getting a phone call. :)

Yeah, no.  He wasn't (and still isn't) playing with complicated cards.  He's 6 and a half now, and we played with Saboteur for the first time last night.  He didn't understand what it did until I used it on him, and we walked through the text instruction-by-instruction.  Then he thought it was awesome, especially when he hit one of my Provinces.

At age 4 the gist of his playing ability was that he learned how to count up his treasures, learned that you can't buy something for 5 when you only have 4, and memorized a small set of "good cards".  With every kingdom, if he saw a new card he didn't know, he would ask me if it was a good card.  Good cards became things that help buying Golds and Provinces... things like Laboratory, Council Room, Smithy, Bank, Cities, Library, and Goons.  Workshop and Gardens weren't "good cards", but I taught him how they can dominate if they're together.  Grandpa was impressed when Jack beat him for the first time that way.

I'd say that at that age his mind was essentially building a connection between the cards' pictures and their function... not really reading the text.  There's a pretty big difference for a 4-year-old between playing IRL and playing at Making Fun.  MF was a lot more fun for him, because he didn't have to execute the instructions on the card.  He just clicked it and it happened... and he could basically remember how that kind of card would work next time.

He wasn't able to really create/improvise strategy.  But he could remember and execute strategies I told him.  He remembered things like that when playing Library, he should skip action cards when he had 0 actions left.  He wouldn't buy Copper in general, but would if he had played a Goons.  He knew that if he got all the Cities, they "went bananas".

MF was also more fun because the two of us could play cooperatively against Serf Bot.  IRL, he had a real aversion to losing... made him not like the game.  So I got stuck in a catch-22 of sorts... if I played dumb so that he would win and thus continue to like the game, he would mimic my purchases (e.g. 8 thieves).  If I played well, he'd lose and not want to play again.  Co-op vs Serf Bot was the answer.

The first time we did that, Witch was in the kingdom.  I told him that Witch was a "good card" and we crushed it.  We both had a great time and kept playing all the way until bedtime.  However, the next day, the report from Mom was that Jack was running around the house all day saying "I'm a witch! I cursed you!" over and over.  That's where I had the idea to make a chrome extension that removed those cards.  Everybody happy.

Kind regards,
HD

I say: it IS absolutely required – we should never allow to see this as a normal behavior. I really want to encourage people to use the in-game-chat for saying hello, some nice words, asking for undo ... and of course, of course for resigns – otherwise one should prefer bots games.

We can't heal the world, and we all have to live with silent resigners or quitters (where is the difference by the way?) – but a stronger commitment by saying "quitters not welcome here" as an unmistakeable community rule could be a nice route to follow.

I definitely agree with your sentiment, C#, and as you know, we've had some very pleasurable chats in our games.  (I think it was the first time I've ever had a Chopin vs Beethoven discussion during any online contest...)

However, one thing to be aware of, is that when I play on my tablet, chat is painfully difficult.  When I bring up the keyboard, it takes a couple seconds, and covers the entire screen.  I can't see the letters I'm typing, until I first press "enter" and then press the "keyboard disappear" button.  Then (sometimes) the keyboard bugs and goes down, but then pops back up again.  Once the keyboard is finally down, I have to touch and scroll the chat box to the bottom to see what I've written... which sometimes opens up the keyboard again (and scrolls the chat box back to the top).  And then there's usually a bunch of typos, because tablet keyboards are like that.

When I try to type a "gg" after a game, my opponent has usually left the table by the time I hit enter.  When I try to type "gl hf" at the beginning of a game, it makes my opening turns much longer than necessary.  Altogether it just isn't worth it.  Asking for permission to resign is a bridge too far for that interface...

So I can imagine that anyone playing "Tablet Hertz Doughnut" thinks I'm an aloof misanthrope.  While anyone playing "PC Hertz Doughnut" (hopefully) thinks I'm a swell chap with impeccable sportsmanship.

Kind regards,
HD

Thanks for the reply!  That angle is totally new to me... I'm already finding it helpful to think of the game in terms of power/reliability.

As I've thought more about my request, I think what I'd prefer is a browser extension that turns "study mode" on or off.  With study mode on you'd get a live scoreboard of the following:
- a list of cards in each players' decks
- statistics about the deck (e.g. how many coins does it have? coin density? terminals? villages? buys?)
- the odds of the next 5 cards on top of each deck

Something like that would help me learn how to build engines more efficiently... and judge the situations where engine isn't as good as money.


Thanks, as always, for the great work.  I'm constantly impressed with the quality of this platform.

Kind regards,
HD

Agreed. It is functional and that's better than Chrome.

However after playing last evening on Firefox, I found that the animation is so slow and unresponsive on my tablet that it caused me to make several playing errors. I'd usually have to tap an action 3-5 times before it registers... And it takes about two seconds to see the animation that it did register. I'll try to video it sometime.

Is it the same for you?

Kind regards,
David

Just noticed a further detail that became obvious when I had 4 cards in the reorder dialog (e.g. Apothecary when no coppers/potions were revealed). The only reordering that is possible on Firefox mobile is moving a card to the bottom. More explicitly:

- the bottom card is stuck
- if you touch the 2nd-from-bottom card, it will go to the bottom (and nowhere else)
- if you touch the 3rd-from-bottom card, it will go to the bottom (and nowhere else)
- if you touch the 4th-from-bottom card (aka top card), it will go to the bottom (and nowhere else)

Kind regards,
HD

Thanks Yed!

Couple things I noticed. First, the reorder dialog box is considerably smaller on Firefox on my tablet. Second, the bottom card in the reorder dialog box is stuck (same as Chrome). Third, all the animation on Firefox is much clunkier. (It's bad on Chrome for my tablet, too, compared to Chrome on my PC... but Chrome tablet > Firefox tablet.)

Kind regards,
HD