Messages

But, but... it does handle everything. Except for one thing, where you prompt the user instead.

You are not going to convince me here.

If you are willing to have special-cases that ignore the rules for one situation, then you will be willing to have those for multiple situations. If you have them for multiple situations then you will get weird bugs that you could have trivially avoided by not ever ignoring the rules.

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

Note that this is not the case with e.g. playing Counterfeit and having isotropic realize "oh you want it to be your Buy phase now." That goes, make it your Buy phase, then play Counterfeit. The Counterfeit is played full-on in your Buy phase.

When you have a game that only has 10 cards set in stone and is never getting any more, you have the freedom to write code that is very specific to how the cards work, that would mess up if they were different. We have a game with lots of cards and the ability of some cards to change what other cards do. Ignoring the rules, trying to spot the problem interactions that result and then special-casing them is awful. Having the philosophy that that's okay sets you up to have a bug-riddled program. I believe this strongly! Argument by authority, many years as a computer programmer.

I am sure that you are not surprised at the level of frustration/anger, but--even if expected--it's not a ton of fun for you to read.

Yes, and I have big plans to not read it all. There's nothing I can do, and if I could have done better at some point in the past, well it's not great to think about what an awful person I must be for not managing that.

But if this site asks for, say, $40-50 a year, then we are talking about paying ONE THIRD of the "forever" IRL price for just one year of use, and that would obviously be too much of a rip-off, and would not be something I'd be willing to do.  I'd much rather just go out and buy the physical sets (so, you'd still get my money  :D), and have them forever.

I don't know what a good price is for actually selling this service, and I don't know what a good price is for supporting the digital publisher. If the second number is higher then it just doesn't work? You can't go lower than the second number.

I always felt that it was their call; they were the ones who would be screwed if it didn't sell. The worst case for me and RGG is that we don't make money from this (and yes we still make money from the physical game); the worst case for them is that they lose money. They discussed pricing as part of negotiating and I'm not looking to see exactly how it went, but the rough way it played out is they got a price they wanted. I don't know if they will think a different number is reasonable in the future; not a question for me.

You can argue that maybe for some people a digital version substitutes for a physical one and so we lose money on those people if the digital version is too much cheaper (Wizards of the Coast felt so strongly about this at one point that Magic Online is exactly as expensive as Magic IRL). OTOH you can argue that the digital version promotes the physical version, and that some people buy both, or that some people were never buying one or the other regardless. I can't do any of that math.

But when it went to the now-current subscription system, we legacy users were (and continue to be) allowed to keep using our program, and will be allowed to do this forever.

We started out negotiations with exactly that plan, more specifically that we would pay for all existing users by giving up more than we'd ever gotten from them - turning our profits into losses. Then we found out that we hadn't actually gotten much of the money they'd paid, that what it would cost to pay for them was many many times what we'd gotten. If we had been stuck with that plan, there would simply be no online Dominion. Instead we negotiated lower pay for ourselves to get existing users a year of the new system - or offline versions that you can keep, for people who just want to play bots (and like the new version), and I know at least that that's a nonzero number of people, that everything works out fine for (once that version is available).

The situation with Adobe seems likely to be much different; for example, I bet that the money from those existing users actually went to Adobe.

Shuffle iT is an entity comprised of people who eat dinner every night and so on; if you don't give them the money for it and we don't then where are they getting it from? Other jobs that mean they aren't really working on online Dominion? So I mean, I personally do not mind if you want to try to talk Shuffle iT into giving existing users more (I don't have a contract with them and sure don't speak for RGG or anyone else here). I don't see how they can agree to it though. And I personally am not going to pay for more time on the service for you; again I am already giving up what is likely to be more than I've ever gotten (it's a % so I can't say for sure until the year is up), for that year that will be gone before we know it.

Otherwise you can just tell what the user wanted to do by looking at the next non-Crown card they click on with no issues. I struggle to see any argument that this isn't the best interface.

That sounds bad to me. Just, unlikely to handle everything.

I playtested a card for Adventures that was a duration attack that made other players discard down to 3 at the start of their buy phase. If the program figured out what phase it was after seeing what you Crowned, and it was your Buy phase, it would then need to make you pick the Crown and other card back up so you could discard.

If you try to play Crown in your main phase with no Actions in hand, there could be an "are you sure." And there has to be a way to jump to the Buy phase, like that Peddler example. I think though that we have to know what phase it is before arriving at the middle of resolving Crown.

It should have been make crystal clear at the beginning that purchases of expansions were temporary.

Of course? Even if no-one ever does that.

The BGG news post mentioning the new online Dominion (no not the second news post with a video, the first one that just had it as news) also mentioned that Solforge - an online CCG - was closing down at the end of January. So there's one you could check; had they really made it clear, in their kickstarter and purchasing screens, that it was all ultimately ephemeral.

I am not on board for paying for something I've already purchased.  This could have been done through Steam, Google Play or somebody else by creating a base platform, the option to purchase expansions that stay with you for life and it would have been simple.

I could have prevented all problems by simply not getting Dominion published. No good? I could have prevented all problems by refusing to allow Dominion to have digital versions, in the original contract. Mostly that doesn't matter, so maybe RGG would have said, okay.

If you're going to say, I should have insisted, in the original contract with RGG, that digital Dominion be on Steam, or whatever other thing works for you, well really. I don't know that I can ask for that in a contract for a new game today, let alone when I was some guy trying to get his first game published.

The contract lets RGG sub-license. RGG found some people to do an online version and signed them up. I never had a contract with them (and still don't - no contracts with Funsockets/Goko, MF, Shuffle iT). Goko had good reason to care some about my opinion - maybe I would threaten to dump RGG if RGG renewed their contract - but they did what they wanted. And there were things I tried to get and they did not just happen. I tried and tried to convince Ted that the campaigns shouldn't be awful (levels would give the computer e.g. 3 Provinces and a bunch of Silver to start; you were expected to pay for Zaps to lower that to something beatable). Man there's work I did in 2011 that has yet to be used in any version (it's achievements).

Anyway, what you're saying could have happened, it could not have happened. It would have required anticipating everything that followed when whatever contract was signed. We had not had the experiences already in order to have learned anything from them. You may note that what we have now does not have this problem of "the contract expires and it all vanishes." It's a subscription that doesn't go past that date.

Of course no-one wants to pay for something twice. With video games, there's so much you can play for free, it's something to even pay once. I understand you feeling cheated. And I know that people tend to inflate their opinions of themselves, so that a third party is a better judge of things; so you don't want to be asking me, what do I think about my role. I am the only one talking in this post though, and well I do not feel like I cheated anybody. I sucked it up and negotiated a worse deal for myself because of money people spent that someone else got.

Is this how things are going to be for Dominion year after year?  Switching to new provider after new provider and paying more money as we go?  If so, just tell me now so I'm braced for impact.

I can't predict the future. If you want to know how long Shuffle iT has the contract for, look at how far in the future they will sell you a subscription. For sure we would prefer that things go well with them. Of course if they do, then everyone (playing online) is paying more money as they go, since it's a subscription.

If things don't go well with Shuffle iT then I am not sure I am up for trying online Dominion again. Maybe I'm just that much of a sucker though; I can't predict the future.

My theory is that the online popularity of Dominion grew to a point where Rio Grande saw a bigger money making opportunity.  I bet they killed their relationship with Making Fun just to move to a new provider to give them an excuse to start charging an annual subscription so they could keep making money off of the players.

That isn't what happened, and I would know.

I was the one who wanted to switch from MF to someone else, whoever that turned out to be. I felt let down by them repeatedly. I decided to give them more of a chance and they kept letting me down. Finally I discussed it with Jay (RGG) and we agreed to switch when their contract ran out. This meant finding someone to take over and ideally getting them started in advance so they'd be ready Jan 1 2017.

The Goko and MF versions never made us much money. We just figured that it wasn't that popular; if a lot of people were playing well I guess those people were playing for free, since that was possible. That wasn't a motivating factor, but did contribute to it feeling like, whatever, we're not losing anything here.

When it came time to negotiate with Shuffle iT, our plan was simply to pay for every existing customer's service on the new system. This would mean we'd be out more money than we'd ever made from online Dominion, but it just wasn't that much money. However we found out that RGG had blown it on the contract back when; online Dominion had been making money, we just weren't seeing much of it. There was no possible way to pay for everyone. We negotiated to receive less money from Shuffle iT over the first year with them, in exchange for them giving old users the option of the offline version (to keep) or a year of subscription. It seems very likely that this will end up costing us more than we ever made from online Dominion (though it will be a year before I know). I don't mind and I'm not complaining; I'm just saying this to make it clear: that because other people seemed to make promises that couldn't be kept about my board game ("seemed to" because probably technically people just bought funny money, and I value accuracy so I am being accurate), I gave up some income on the off-chance that some people would be less mad. And so did RGG. From our perspective we were, not only not greedy, but generous.

We did not suggest a subscription-based system. Shuffle iT wanted that, and we decided to let them try it. Worst case, people don't buy it. That's very bad for Shuffle iT but it's the risk they wanted to take. For us, that worst case is just business as usual; I have a lot of experience with not making money from online Dominion, both from the years when people played free online versions, and from the Goko / MF years. It's not so bad.

It's a bummer that people felt they were buying Dominion forever, and weren't. I have tried to give those people something even though my technical involvement is just a contract with RGG that lets RGG sub-license for digital versions in exchange for a % of the take.

There was a point, not at the beginning but eventually, when MF wanted to try subscriptions. Jay and I didn't like the idea - we felt that people wouldn't want to buy a subscription. That proposal made it easier for us to agree to subscriptions when Shuffle iT also wanted them; and then MF asked again and we said sure and they had subscriptions for the last however many months. In retrospect of course it's sad we didn't let MF have subscriptions earlier, because fewer people would be unhappy today. I prefer the way old computer games worked, where you bought a disc and it was yours, to keep playing until your OS didn't support it anymore. A subscription however at least has the benefit (over the Goko system) of, when the company's contract is up, no-one feels owed anything.

So remove the bold, or no? It was like that in 1st edition.

Well I mean, the question then is, do you want to match the cards currently available in stores, or the cards as they will appear in future printings?

I've never understood why "discard two cards" is bolded on this card.  I realize it was bolded in the first edition, but why is it still bolded now?  It's not a basic "+1" thing.  It just looks weird.

I confirm that the intention for the future is not to bold "discard n cards."

1) The only way to "understand", what your opponent is doing (or has done) is reading the log file – all actions are happening within seconds - this is very technically. You get no graphical support like showing bought cards, trashed cards, you have no real chance to take care about other players decisions etc.
At the end this might be not important, because it is in the log file anyway, but the impression, that the opponent players are doing a real-time turn, it's not there.  In MF I always got a good feeling what even the bots are doing, without reading the log file.

For me this remains the most significant problem. The log should be completely nonessential; instead it is completely essential.

Me personally - and I know this has no chance and I've said it before, but I'm repeating it because I really would do this - I personally would remove the log completely, get the game functioning without it, then add it back in. That way you would for sure have a program that worked well with no log.

The rulebook also suggests using at least 3 potion cards if one is present, yet noone does that.

I do not recommend that myself; it's something Valerie wanted.

I do recommend no more than 2 total between Events and Landmarks. And wouldn't have them randomly appear when people haven't familiar'd any cards from those sets. Just, what I see now is, game one, here's your 10 base set cards and two Events.

Friends are people who you think you have a bond with that will eventually betray you. Try going outside sometime, then you'd understand the concept. By contrast, Followers is an attack card that draws 2 cards, reduces the opponent's handsize, gives you an Estate and them a Curse.

You left out Following! It's a movie Christopher Nolan made before Memento.

- 10 cards from base set are always familiar

For the default 10, I'd use the "first game" set of 10!

Cellar, Market, Merchant, Militia, Mine, Moat, Remodel, Smithy, Village, Workshop

Although I think I would go up to 12, add the other two pure vanilla main set cards - Laboratory, Festival. Just, slightly more variety for your 2nd game if you don't go click on that tab. Maybe even a couple more, I dunno.

I would not have Landmarks randomly show up until the player is "familiar" with at least one kingdom card from Empires. Ditto Events unless they are "familiar" with at least one card from Adventures or Empires. Just, these extra-weird things, let's keep them from appearing right away.

The top of Lord Rattington's discard pile covers up the n at the end of the name, plus his VP. There does not appear to be any way to see these things. You must know this.

Seems good to fix! Some people will have long names. In the meantime though, just make him Lord Rat, and the most common instance of this problem will vanish.

While Enchantress is active, you could replace the pictures on all of the actions in a player's hand with pictures of pigs.

Sounds sweet; could just be the pig on Enchantress, blown up. And obv. replace the text with +1 Card +1 Action.

I think right-click makes sense for "Get information," that seems more in line with how mouse buttons are used in general in the world of computers in 2016. Left is "do the thing," right gets information and options and things.

For example, here, at these forums, using Chrome, I will post this by clicking on Post. It's a left-click. Right-click brings up options.

The below-the-line text in the client ("If Duchess is in the Supply...") does not match the below-the-line text in the newly released updated rules for Hinterlands, which still says "In games using this...".

The wordings we have that Stef got from Donald's forum (he double checked yesterday and it wasn't changed) say this:

Duchess: Action, $2
+$2
Each player (including you) looks at the top card of their deck and may discard it.
----------
If Duchess is in the Supply, you may gain one when you gain a Duchy.

So my guess is that the document you're referring to either isn't from the 2nd edition Hinterlands or they missed the change.

wero has it right. We got worried that the new wording of Duchess wouldn't be clear enough, and the wording in the rulebook on RGG's site is the actual wording on new printed Duchesses.

From the physical card:

Duchess: Action, $2
+$2
Each player (including you) looks at the top card of their deck and may discard it.
----------
In games using this, when you gain a Duchy, you may gain a Duchess.

That post of wordings on my forum, that was for people to argue about what the wordings should be; it will not necessarily have any late changes.