Messages

And also the reputation system won't be a good solution for the kind of discussion I described, because I would give a bad rating to a player who argues with me because I didn't grant their undo, but they would give me a bad rating for not granting it. And it happens every now and then. The core problem is the availabilty of the undo itself in those situations, because as I said, it fosters this.

Stef, if you and Philip are wise, you'll listen to jeebus, both here and in other threads. He knows what's what.

The clearest way to see that this implementation is wrong-minded is to remember there is no especially compelling reason DXV won't someday print a card whose main effect happens when the token is face down. If that happens, I don't see how anyone could ever consider the current implementation intuitive.

I agree that the current Shuffle iT implementation is bad. That being said, I really seriously doubt there will ever be more Journey token cards. And if there someday are (like 6 hypothetical expansions from now), they will almost certainly have their big effect when the token gets flipped face up.

I strongly agree with Adam.

When "familiar cards" was first announced, I thought it was a really cool idea. Introduce cards slowly so that new players aren't constantly handed games with 10 new cards to read. I had assumed that cards would automatically become "familiar" after playing a game or two with them. It's mind-boggling that this is not the case.

The quickest "good" fix would be an "Automatically make cards familiar" option that makes any card familiar after a user has played a game with that card. This should be set to TRUE for everybody by default. Expecting players to know about the "familiar cards" tab and to manually update it themselves is ridiculous.

A better fix would be to always make cards familiar after a game with them (no option) and then create an actual card veto list, instead of players using the "familiar cards" tab as a sort of pseudo-veto as they do now.

The situation now is awful. You need to prioritize this.

In a recent game, I used King's Court to play a Band of Misfits three times. I chose Gladiator, so it did the Gladiator ability three times. So far, so good. Then I bought a Fortune, and did not gain a Gold despite having a Band of Misfits acting as Gladiator in play.

Band of Misfits and Overlord need to count as the mimicked card in all respects until they leave play, even the card name.

I too would love an option that doesn't care about rating, but also doesn't constantly match me with base-set-only players.

You can mock and marginalize people all you want, Lotereo. It certainly won't help Shuffle iT succeed.

Well said, RosieGirl! I think you hit the nail right on the head.

[browsers]

The solution is not for Shuffle iT to "remember" your login credentials. That would be awful. The solution is to use a cookie so that Shuffle iT recognizes your session and can bypass the login screen altogether. If I'm in a game and hit refresh, I should not be sent back to the login page at all.

That's what everybody in this thread means.

No, they don't. In fact, Philip specifically mentions browsers storing your login credentials, but makes no mention of "this will all be moot since we'll soon be implementing sessions with cookies". So I'd say my comment was well warranted.

The solution is not for Shuffle iT to "remember" your login credentials. That would be awful. The solution is to use a cookie so that Shuffle iT recognizes your session and can bypass the login screen altogether. If I'm in a game and hit refresh, I should not be sent back to the login page at all.

That's a good point.  I can see how Blind-Reveal would be detrimental in your Sea Hag/Young Witch scenarios.  But taking into account all Dominion kingdoms, I still prefer Blind-Reveal.

I gave two examples. That doesn't mean those are the only two situations in which seeing what your opponent does matters. It frequently matters, and maybe you'd see that if you played games without Blind-Reveal.

And I don't care what you prefer. Maybe I prefer to play Dominion with infinite Actions. That doesn't mean I'm going to try to get Shuffle iT to implement it.

I'm just requesting an option, not forcing you to play with it.

Huh, that's what they said about the VP counter. And lo and behold, now I am forced to play with it.

Using the VP Counter is also a variant, and that's already supported.

"First 2 turns Blind-Reveal" is a minor variant compared to "VP Counter".  Making two purchases without knowing what your opponent(s) is doing doesn't affect the game that much.  It forces Player 2 to define their opening on their own, rather than aping Player 1.  That's it.

This is not a problem with Dominion. This is a problem with you and your brother, since you both apparently cannot help but copy each other's openings. Just stop doing it, man!

I fought against the VP counter for a long time. These days I don't mind it. But it looks like the slippery slope argument for not including the VP counter was valid after all. Here you are saying, "Well, if you have this, you should also have my terrible variant!" No, man. No. What's next, extending this "fog of war" to the entire game? You only find out a pile is empty when you try to buy it and there's nothing there.

Nobody has suggested yet that Blind-Reveal hurts the game of Dominion in any way.  I've yet to hear someone say that it makes the game worse or less fun.  My experience is that it improves the game, and I think it has a possibility of becoming an accepted standard for the serious-minded Dominion players, like VP Counter.

Blind-Reveal makes the game worse and less fun. It prevents me from taking into account what my opponent buys on the first two turns, not because I want to copy them, but because I want to respond to them. They buy Young Witch, so I buy the Bane even if I otherwise wouldn't have. They buy Sea Hag, so I pick up that Watchtower. Dominion has some first-player advantage, and one of the things that mitigates it a bit is Player 2's ability to see what Player 1 buys before deciding what they should buy. It's important, and I do it ALL. THE. TIME.

I like how your reason for wanting this is that your games are too often mirror matches without it. You know what else would reduce mirror matches? NOT INSISTING ON IDENTICAL STARTING HANDS.

Ugh.

I always got more mileage out of Spy by not automatically keeping bad cards, actually. If you're chaining several of them together, it's worth it to dig under that estate to dump the silvers and witches it was protecting. Even with only two spies, if it's a copper, I might dump it, because if I get another copper it's way more of a problem for my opponent. I pretty much only put junk back on the last spy.

Well not to make a habit of contradicting you, but I think you actually just feel like you got more mileage out of Spy that way, when in reality you were helping your opponent. Or at least not hurting them as much as if you'd stopped on the first Victory or Curse cards.

007Bistromath, three things.

First, nice Douglas Adams reference.

Second, Artisan is strong. The boards where I would buy Gold over Artisan on my first $6 hand are rare. It doesn't need an engine (or Throne Room) to be great.

Third, it's worth buying good $5 cards over Gold extremely often. If you're auto-buying Gold at $6 most of the time, well, that's an aspect of your game you could easily improve!