Vassal does not work

[santamonica811]

My understanding of Vassal.
You get 2 coins.  Top card is examined (online, automatically by the software).  Next, it's automatically discarded.  But, if it happens to be an action card, we are supposed to have the option to play it.

But this is not working.  I played a 'bot game. (212414)  My first game with Vassal.  So, I bought Vassal just to try it out.  Played it.  Log showed, "Hunting Party discarded by [me]."  But no way--that I could see--for me to choose to play it.

This also happened later, with the game discarding my Hamlet...again, I saw no way to play the Hamlet.

In my opinion, the interface should be some pop-up message, "Vassal has uncovered Militia [or whatever action card].  Do you wish to play it? Yes/No"

[Stef]

My understanding of Vassal.
You get 2 coins.  Top card is examined (online, automatically by the software).  Next, it's automatically discarded.  But, if it happens to be an action card, we are supposed to have the option to play it.

But this is not working.  I played a 'bot game. (212414)  My first game with Vassal.  So, I bought Vassal just to try it out.  Played it.  Log showed, "Hunting Party discarded by [me]."  But no way--that I could see--for me to choose to play it.

This also happened later, with the game discarding my Hamlet...again, I saw no way to play the Hamlet.

In my opinion, the interface should be some pop-up message, "Vassal has uncovered Militia [or whatever action card].  Do you wish to play it? Yes/No"

There is a button "Play action" that you can click. It would be nice if that button actually mentioned the Militia/Hamlet/thing but it doesn't. You can also ignore the button and just go on with your turn.

While this optional-button is probably not a great idea for Vassal (you almost always want to play it, so having to explicitly decline when you don't should be ok), there isn't really a bug either.

(unless this button is really hidden on your screen, in that case a screenshot would really help)

[santamonica811]

I set up a board to test things out.  There still was no visible button, although the log did show a "you may play action" which I would swear was not there before.

So, I cleared out my cookies, closed out my browser (most recent Firefox, Windows 10 PC), and restarted my computer.  That worked, for whatever reason.  There is now a prominent set of 2 buttons in the playing area, so it's clear and easy to tell the game to play or discard the affected action card.

Very weird. 

Thanks for the help.  Unless it works for a self-created game but not for a 'bot game, the issue now seems to be resolved.

[AdamH]

While this optional-button is probably not a great idea for Vassal (you almost always want to play it, so having to explicitly decline when you don't should be ok), there isn't really a bug either.

After playing a couple hundred games and talking to several people, there's a piece of feedback I have related to this. It's kind of a slight reversal on a couple of things I've said, maybe. I'm not going to bother checking all of my posts here though.

There are some cards like Plaza or Mill that give you vanilla bonuses, then "you may do a thing". You can do the thing, or you can continue on with your turn. Some cards are like Plaza where you can just continue clicking on cards to go on with your turn. You have to opt-in to doing the thing. Other cards are like Mill where you have to click a button to continue with your turn. You have to opt-out of doing the thing.

In the case of Plaza and Mill, it makes slightly more sense to have it the other way around, since now there's this confusion with Mill: the next card I clicked was an Action -- what did the user intend to do: discard it or play it? With Plaza, if the next card clicked is an Action, the user probably wanted to play it. If he wanted to just play a Copper next without discarding, you would need the End Actions button for that anyways.

The point I'm trying to make here is that this kind of thing should be consistent across all cards. It shouldn't be the case that I have to opt-in to some cards and opt-out of others. It should always be the same, it's going to make for the best UI.

My preference would be to opt-in to everything, then have the client decide when it needs to stop me (for example I Throne-Roomed a Plaza, so yes I have to opt-out of that no matter what). But really the most important thing is that it's consistent for all cards. The design decision to make here is: what makes sense most of the time, across all cards and possible interactions? The UI should go with that and then figure out when it can't.

TBH this design decision should have been made a year ago and judging by the current state of the UI, it hasn't even been thought of until now. Better late than never, I guess...

[Cave-O-Sapien]

The point I'm trying to make here is that this kind of thing should be consistent across all cards. It shouldn't be the case that I have to opt-in to some cards and opt-out of others. It should always be the same, it's going to make for the best UI.

This!

This!

A thousand times this!

Some people may prefer the UI to be "cleverer" in certain situations, but I think that should be an optional setting. The default experience should aim for consistency!

[Ingix]

UI is hard, and it is probably made harder for this game by the fact that several options that are by the player perceived to be "at the same time" are in a strict sense sequential. I really like the fact that the game tries to hide that from the player and presents him with all the options that have accumulated in the past. That way he is asked about them only when he needs to make a decision, either because the game would otherwise do something that would give him new information, or because the game is waiting for the player to do something anyway.

I think that the physical card game can be mostly played by players who do not speak a common language (who recognise the cards by pictures alone) by observing what cards move from one place to another. If my opponent plays a Plaza and then moves a card from his hand to his discard pile, where it turns out to be a Copper, he has used the optional ability of Plaza and can take a coin token. If, in the same situation, he moves a card from his hand into play, where it turns out to be a Milita, he has not used the optional ability of Plaza, but played an Action, so he does not get a coin token.

In the online game, the destination of a card is not usually needed, because the game can normally determine that itself. In the Plaza example above, the game should make all the actions and treasures in the player's hand clickable. If it is a treasure, it gets discarded. If it is an action, it is played. If it is a Crown, the player gets asked if he wants to discard it or play it. I think trying to emulate that behaviour of 'letting the card movement speak for itself' is not trying to be 'clever', but trying to emulate the natural flow of the real life card game. I think it is consistent, but not with a strict 'opt-in' or 'opt-out' model.

The main problem with this approach is that it needs infrastructure in the game server and client. Both need to understand that at a given (real) time the game can be in 'many states at once'. In the Plaza example, there are just three options the player has: Discard a treasure, play an Action, End the Action phase. The last two happen at the same time, while the first happens slightly before. With Reserve cards in the mix (Royal Carriage, Coin of the Realm), that number of states can increase. I don't know if the game can handle this. Apparently it can to some extent, as witnessed by many interactions. It would be nice to know if thinking in that direction would be useful for the developer (I have a complete treatment for the discard-in-cleanup step that takes into account Scheming Herbalists and Alchemists that want to sell Capital investments to Hermits and Treasuries to Travellers, for example ;-)

++++

Generally, I personally think that the game UI is workable at the moment. It may not be optimal (but that would vary between people anyway) and a few cases with 4 or more buttons at the same time (Pawn) feel really bad. But it is workable and the exceptions it causes where somthing should be doable but isn't are on the very fringes mostly. I think the real work that needs to be done, when reading the current threads are in alphbetical order

AI that does not totally stupid things with some cards,
mobile clients,
player/game policing (game clock, blacklisting),
ranked play