Interfaces - REFUSED

[Buschmesser]

Anything that can be calculated should be.  No reason to make players select what they have to select anyway leaving room for errors.  The interface of every game should not allow moves that only a "king maker" or other move that no one would ever make (e.g. passing or declining to play when any legal move is beneficial).

[das.faultier]

What exactly is your point?

[Ulkomaalainen]

Hi Buschmesser,

I am afraid the desired changes will not happen (if I understand them correctly, I understand your post only vaguely).

(1) "calculate everything"

I think this refers to giving players information they already have but have to keep track of and/or calculate themselves from partial informations in order to use it. This has rarely been done (automatic adding possibilities of the dice in Can't Stop as an example) but is generally not done since it is considered part of the game to keep or get this information yourself and thus part of your playing strength. As an example: you know which cards have been played in any card game (since you saw them) but you need to keep track of it yourself in order to know how to play correctly. The same holds for acquired victory points in Puerto Rico: if you want to know whom you have to prevent from winning, you should keep them in mind. A third exapmle from Carcassonne: it is part of the play to have an overview what your opponent threatens to score and how much he would get.

(2) "King maker moves"

Firstly, every move in a game with three or more players which features interaction has a king making property. It could directly "attack" another player (placement of the robber and stealing in Settlers, attacking cities in Carcassonne, occupying regions in Imperial) or do the same in a circumvent way (playing roles in Puerto Rico so that the next player will profit from it as well as I do if he choses a certain path, others would be relatively put back). Sometimes I have good opportunities but in playing them other players will have a free ride (sailing off in Tongiaki), sometimes it could even be the case that I have two equally good moves, one will strengthen B and weaken C, the other will do the same just the other way round. This is just a part of such games. Also, to calculate what constitutes a "king maker only", we would effectively have to have AIs supervising moves which need to be stronger than any player so it does not screw "genius moves" up, which is way beyond the scope and the possibilities for this project.

(3) "Moves that no one would ever make"

They generally do not exist. First: mistakes do happen (more on that later). Second: sometimes the "move that no one would ever make" actually is better than any other moves. Overloading cups in BohnDuell or refusing to apply the bonus associated with a role in San Juan have been shown to - in special circumstances - be the best moves (albeit I think the latter is not possible, so here it has been done although it shouldn't). Similar arguments can probably be made for most if not all games.

(4) General observations

Mistakes must be allowed to be made, otherwise a game wouldn't be a "real" game. It would come down to either knowing how the starting position ends (in no luck games, e.g. Yinsh, Dvonn, Go, BohnDuell, Packeis after the initial position, although nobody knows the correct moves apart from BohnDuell) or to simple luck of the cards/dice, and it wouldn't be a battle of the players' wits anymore. I agree that misclicking sometimes makes incredibly stupid moves beyond the imagination af even the most unskilled player which can be an annoyance to all, especially in longer games. But where to draw the line? Depending on the game you might tell me that what I did in PR was something nobody in his or her right mind would ever do, but for me it's not as clear as I might just be a weaker player. So whose understanding should measure "stupid play"? Also stupidity in itself sometimes is quite ingenious (an example from chess: there are certain situations in which a player - call him A - loses automatically, e.g. he oversteps his allocated thinking time, but his opponent may not be decided the winner if A cannot win against "the most unskilled play" at all anymore. In practice, most unskilled play often means actually quite skilled play in knowing what's bad. For those wondering: yes, this means that in a tournament one player may draw and his opponent lose with no winner at all.).

(5) Despite all that

If you have any precise and palpable suggestion or problems with interfaces where it came to your attention that the interface is less than perfect, feel free to list them, so we can discuss and maybe change them on an individual basis. Also, about the "kingmaker" issue: if you feel that a player just plays kingmaker to support a certain player and not out of his own interest, you can report them - just enter /channel Fairness. I would think that the latter would be hard to prove so I cannot guarantee success, but patterns may be recognized sometimes nonetheless.

So, please feel free to elaborate on details, the "general approach" I have to refuse.

Have a lot of nice games
Ulkomaalainen