Messages

Are you suggesting that it's standard practice to release code with bugs in it? Like, yeah I understand it's really hard to do that, but the point is to test it so that it doesn't have bugs in it.

When you have interacting rules on cards, you cannot possibly test everything. The way they can avoid releasing code with bugged interactions is to implement everything very accurately.

2. Designing software that is what the customer wants is not a mistake. I feel like what you've said here is below the belt. "Whatever noble reason" is actually a reason and I don't understand why you're trying to convince me that designing software that is what your customers want isn't important.

The customers don't want a buggy program! That is also a thing they don't want. Would you believe.

You continually frame things a different way than I put them; the way that makes it sound good to you I guess, so that it's clear to you that I must be wrong. It sure sucks. I don't feel like I'm doing that to you but I mean I'm only human so what are the odds.

And no-one is convincing anyone, and it's not affecting what happens in the program. So, good luck on there being no more of this. If I were a mod I would lock the thread.

The best interface that's possible to implement should be implemented, even if it makes the code harder to maintain.

You mean, even if it causes bugs that mean the program is doing the wrong thing for a while, until they're both reported and found? "If it makes the code harder to maintain" is simply not part of this at all.

As part of my successful programming career, I had to interview people for programming jobs. Someone who pursues the path of more bugs would be someone I was trying to weed out.

Again it's moot, and it's not because you aren't pals with Stef. It's that Stef isn't the kind of programmer to make this mistake. You don't get all the cards to hang together correctly if you're willing to cheat on functionality for some of them, for whatever noble reason.

You never play Crown 'as action' or 'as treasure', so that would be extremely confusing.  Perhaps 'Play an Action' or 'Play a Treasure'.  I think Donald's idea is fine: prompt a kind of 'are you sure?' thing.

"Play in Action phase" / "Play in Buy phase." Potentially faster than having to move the mouse over to the "end Action phase" button and then back.

Edit: To make a more explicit analogy, when I draw Copper, Copper, Copper, Estate, Estate in the electronic version of Dominion, I can't click on Silver and gain a Silver!  Why not?  It's obvious I intended to play my Coppers.

I thought they had programmed this exact feature. Maybe you have it turned off. It is certainly fine to let you click Silver there and figure, you must mean to play enough basic treasures to buy that (if you have enough treasures that don't do anything special when played in hand to afford the card). There were too many cases where it led to misplays (e.g. debt), so I turned it off; maybe they will figure it out yet.

I do not think it's a problem to get a click on a card from the player and figure out that they mean to jump to the Buy phase. The problem is retroactively changing what phase a card was played in, based on further inputs during resolution of it.

People are allowed to not like it, but nobody has shown that this in invalid in any way. I feel like that's important to point out. There are some that say this is beginning to resolve the card without knowing what phase it is. By some interpretations of those words, maybe they are right but like, it doesn't matter.

Incorrect. It is invalid at the most basic of levels. It sets the program up to be buggy and is bad programming.

In case anyone thought that I'd chosen this moment to change my mind!

So how do you think it should function?

Well I haven't thought it through - I just know it shouldn't partially resolve without knowing what phase it is.

Let's see. My first thought is what isotropic did for "maybe this is a mistake" situations. Not for Crown, isotropic never had Crown functioning. Doug Z. said it would require a lot of changes to his code, and then stopped updating isotropic; I imagine it was less fun of a project when only a few people were using it.

Anyway, you know, on isotropic, you would click say on a Copper in your hand despite having actions you could play, and instead of playing the treasure it would add a question mark after it. And if you clicked on it again then okay it would jump to your Buy phase and play it.

If a giant question mark shows up on a card in your hand, maybe that's just baffling. It could be "Sure?" If you click the card again, okay it does it (and if you click something else, the "Sure?" goes away). A general solution to these situations, which there are probably more of. For Crown in particular, it happens if you try to play it in your Action phase with no Action cards in hand. And there's a button to skip to the Buy phase.

I made the mistake of coming back to read this after I said I wouldn't. Now I'm going to make another mistake by replying. Woooo!

The important thing is the happy memories we're making.

People actually seem to think that the current interface is the best?

I don't imagine it is. For sure it should not be possible to click on Crown in your Action phase and find out you blew it and were supposed to click to end the phase first.

"The code is harder to maintain and harder to write" is not a good enough reason.

That is not the reason! Bad code is easier to write, not harder!

Donald X.'s number one rule of programming, for all of you eager to learn it, is, "say what you mean." When you don't, you get bugs. These people who need to be protected from a scary "are you sure" button, they also need to be protected from bugs. The ability to fix bugs does not sufficiently compensate for having them in the first place.

Anyways, it's definitely possible to write it the way I've suggested, though it's a pretty low priority.

I think it's great that so many people, including you, are suggesting fixes to the UI that they would like, including for Crown. This particular fix you want, I would not get too attached to it.

I have no problem with Shuffle iT implementing the 1st edition cards, with the limitation that they only be used in pre-created tables (not automatch) where the person making the table specifically selects those cards for use. But implementing those cards has got to be a bottom priority. Features that make games better are much more important than a bunch of cards that (usually) make games worse.

Agreed.

The 1E cards that were replaced, were replaced because it would make the game better. Adding them back in makes the game worse. It is great that they are not in the online version.

I can understand some players missing whatever pet cards though. I don't mind if they're someday added. But it would be a super-low priority and thus not happen for oh a year or two. And it would be important to not have the cards randomly show up in games - because they would be showing up in place of better cards.

So I think our disagreement here is in the definition of "resolving a card" -- and that there is no disagreement other than that.

When I click on Crown the first time, before I've decided which card I'm going to Crown, I have not started resolving the card yet (unless there's a +1 Card token on Crown). It doesn't start resolving until the second card the user clicks on.

It is the resolution of Crown that causes you to pick a card to play twice with it. So you do not pick that card until you start resolving Crown. I get to pick that definition and I mean that's all behind us.

This is unlike in Magic, where you pick targets on announcement.

I'm referring to this:

The idea of starting to resolve a card without knowing what phase it is is Bad.

It has always been the case in Dominion that you know what phase it is when resolving a card. That is not some rule I just made up.

That would be really nice, but then we get this interface that's just terrible to actually use so nobody would want to use it.

For sure Crown forcing you to deal with its quirks is not going to bring the rest of the game's interface down with it. If you can't stand it, un-familiar it and you'll see it less often.

I don't remember...have the developers specifically commented on this? I'm with Donald X on this issue: the log should be completely optional. (classic "appeal to authority" argument, but still)

I like your choice of authority!

You are not going to convince me here, either.

Well I am happy to stop trying!

I have spent several years as a computer programmer as well.

I am pretty sure I've lapped you.

I am not suggesting that they break this rule you just made up for every single card where they can.

I do not see a rule I "just made up."

If you are willing to skimp on correct functionality in favor of interface here, you will be willing to do it elsewhere too, and it will add up to bugs. The move is to never do it, even if one case is especially tempting.

Again it's a game of interacting rules on cards, and some of the cards even change what cards do. You are never catching everything by looking at the card list. And if everything has correct functionality, you don't have to.

This might be too busy if not done properly.

I think they would be way too busy. I like the very simple basic X, and would keep other symbols in that vein.

I wouldn't have a "to anywhere in deck" symbol; a checkmark could cover all random stuff like that. The main important thing to distinguish is trash vs. discard.

Personally I dislike the x for everything.  A big x for trashing I understand, but an x to choose a card from the discard pile to put in your hand or an x to choose a card to top deck feels just wrong.  X implies something bad  or destructive (at least culturally for me it does).  In cases where I'm doing something positive or constructive it would be more appropriate (in my culture at least) for it to be a check mark... but that's a different issue....

I agree on this different issue though. I think a big symbol over the card is great. For trashing, X is fine. For discarding, a down arrow? For top-decking, an up arrow? A checkmark for miscellaneous.

Some games there are a mix of these effects, e.g. opponents are playing both Bishop and Militia. Having different symbols would be great.