#41674: "Add automatic play when the player has no choices to be made (e.g. One playable card)"
O čеmu је ovaј izvеštaј?
Što se desilo ? Molim vas odaberite ispod
Što se desilo ? Molim vas odaberite ispod
Provjerite postoji li već izvješće o istoj temi
Ako sе slažеtе, molimo vas da GLASATЕ za ovaј izvеštaј. Izvеštaјi sa naјvišе glasova ćе imati prioritеt!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Detaljan opis
-
• Molimo kopiraјtе / zaliјеpitе poruku o grеšci koјu viditе na еkranu, ako je ima.
There are scenarios where a player has no choice to make, but must still manually act.
An example of this when the player holds exactly one card of the lead suit, and is therefore forced to play it.
Similar to the last card of the round, it's possible for the game engine to automatically detect this and play the only choice. A private log message could be logged to the player letting them know this happened.
There are also examples where there are choices to make, however the choice wont affect the outcome of this hand
An example of this when the player holds either:
- A sequential run (and only this) of the lead suit, and therefore it's inconsequential which card is played (e.g. Having the 7,8,9 of Hearts when Hearts is lead -- Any card from an opponent will have the same outcome relative to all three 'choices')
---OR---
- ("COMPLEX SCENARIO") Multiple cards from the same suit where public information means that all cards between those cards are in play already -- e.g. Holding the 8 and Q of Diamonds; when the 9 is the displayed trump; and the 10 and J have already been played -- Much like the above scenario the choice here will not affect the outcome.
In the case of multiple cards (especially the second example), even though sometimes the card chosen may not matter for the outcome of this trick, you may want to pick one over the other as it may affect what other players perceive you're doing. This a relatively minor point though. This could be mitigated by allowing player agency on how this is selected, and allowing random selection.
It may also highlight to a player information they weren't thinking about when the second example happens -- e.g. If I get a message "You auto-played Q of diamonds because it wouldn't affect outcome" it might make me aware the 8 I hold is far more powerful than I anticipated! I think this is a good thing, this offsets the possible information leakage discussed below, providing a minor reward/benefit for players speeding up the game.
=== Information Leakage ===
Auto-play like this would have a downside of possibly exposing information in turn-based games especially if this was to happen automatically while a player was offline.
If only the most basic auto-play was implemented it'd be a lot of information; if the auto-play for both runs and the "complex scenario" was implemented then the impacts are reduced partially, it wouldn't be clear to opponents all the time if the auto-play occurred for one reason or the other.
One way to mitigate this would be a user-configurable options for:
1) Whether they'd like to auto-play at all (Set to be opt-in, so off by default);
2) How long to delay the move by (suggesting a maximum of one hour);
3) In the case of playing when multiple cards could be played, how to select the card to play
Even with a delay if an opponent could ascertain that the player was offline (by checking their profile) it still has information leakage -- mitigated, and requiring effort + not working 100% of the time though. (If the player comes online after an auto-move was made, but before an opponent checks there's no way for the opponent to tell it was automatic; however if they didn't come online then it can be determined it was automatic)
If the game could detect when the player was online and alter this behaviour this would be handy -- I don't know if the platform can do this though! I've asked here though boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21193#p88012
-
• Molim vas, obјasnitе šta stе htеli da uraditе, šta stе radili i šta sе dеsilo
• Koјi је tvoј prеtraživač?
Google Chrome v90
-
• Kopiraјtе / nalеpitе tеkst prikazan na еnglеskom umеsto na vašеm јеziku. Ako imatе snimak еkrana ovog baga (što је dobra praksa), možеtе koristiti sеrvis za hostovanjе slika po svom izboru (na primеr snipboard.io) da ga otprеmitе i zatim ovdе kopiratе/nalеpitе link. Da li je ovaj tekst dostupan u sistemu za prevođenje? Ako je odgovor da, da li je preveden prije više od 24 sata?
There are scenarios where a player has no choice to make, but must still manually act.
An example of this when the player holds exactly one card of the lead suit, and is therefore forced to play it.
Similar to the last card of the round, it's possible for the game engine to automatically detect this and play the only choice. A private log message could be logged to the player letting them know this happened.
There are also examples where there are choices to make, however the choice wont affect the outcome of this hand
An example of this when the player holds either:
- A sequential run (and only this) of the lead suit, and therefore it's inconsequential which card is played (e.g. Having the 7,8,9 of Hearts when Hearts is lead -- Any card from an opponent will have the same outcome relative to all three 'choices')
---OR---
- ("COMPLEX SCENARIO") Multiple cards from the same suit where public information means that all cards between those cards are in play already -- e.g. Holding the 8 and Q of Diamonds; when the 9 is the displayed trump; and the 10 and J have already been played -- Much like the above scenario the choice here will not affect the outcome.
In the case of multiple cards (especially the second example), even though sometimes the card chosen may not matter for the outcome of this trick, you may want to pick one over the other as it may affect what other players perceive you're doing. This a relatively minor point though. This could be mitigated by allowing player agency on how this is selected, and allowing random selection.
It may also highlight to a player information they weren't thinking about when the second example happens -- e.g. If I get a message "You auto-played Q of diamonds because it wouldn't affect outcome" it might make me aware the 8 I hold is far more powerful than I anticipated! I think this is a good thing, this offsets the possible information leakage discussed below, providing a minor reward/benefit for players speeding up the game.
=== Information Leakage ===
Auto-play like this would have a downside of possibly exposing information in turn-based games especially if this was to happen automatically while a player was offline.
If only the most basic auto-play was implemented it'd be a lot of information; if the auto-play for both runs and the "complex scenario" was implemented then the impacts are reduced partially, it wouldn't be clear to opponents all the time if the auto-play occurred for one reason or the other.
One way to mitigate this would be a user-configurable options for:
1) Whether they'd like to auto-play at all (Set to be opt-in, so off by default);
2) How long to delay the move by (suggesting a maximum of one hour);
3) In the case of playing when multiple cards could be played, how to select the card to play
Even with a delay if an opponent could ascertain that the player was offline (by checking their profile) it still has information leakage -- mitigated, and requiring effort + not working 100% of the time though. (If the player comes online after an auto-move was made, but before an opponent checks there's no way for the opponent to tell it was automatic; however if they didn't come online then it can be determined it was automatic)
If the game could detect when the player was online and alter this behaviour this would be handy -- I don't know if the platform can do this though! I've asked here though boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21193#p88012
• Koјi је tvoј prеtraživač?
Google Chrome v90
-
• Objasnite svoj prijedlog precizno i sažeto kako bismo što lakše shvatili na što mislite.
There are scenarios where a player has no choice to make, but must still manually act.
An example of this when the player holds exactly one card of the lead suit, and is therefore forced to play it.
Similar to the last card of the round, it's possible for the game engine to automatically detect this and play the only choice. A private log message could be logged to the player letting them know this happened.
There are also examples where there are choices to make, however the choice wont affect the outcome of this hand
An example of this when the player holds either:
- A sequential run (and only this) of the lead suit, and therefore it's inconsequential which card is played (e.g. Having the 7,8,9 of Hearts when Hearts is lead -- Any card from an opponent will have the same outcome relative to all three 'choices')
---OR---
- ("COMPLEX SCENARIO") Multiple cards from the same suit where public information means that all cards between those cards are in play already -- e.g. Holding the 8 and Q of Diamonds; when the 9 is the displayed trump; and the 10 and J have already been played -- Much like the above scenario the choice here will not affect the outcome.
In the case of multiple cards (especially the second example), even though sometimes the card chosen may not matter for the outcome of this trick, you may want to pick one over the other as it may affect what other players perceive you're doing. This a relatively minor point though. This could be mitigated by allowing player agency on how this is selected, and allowing random selection.
It may also highlight to a player information they weren't thinking about when the second example happens -- e.g. If I get a message "You auto-played Q of diamonds because it wouldn't affect outcome" it might make me aware the 8 I hold is far more powerful than I anticipated! I think this is a good thing, this offsets the possible information leakage discussed below, providing a minor reward/benefit for players speeding up the game.
=== Information Leakage ===
Auto-play like this would have a downside of possibly exposing information in turn-based games especially if this was to happen automatically while a player was offline.
If only the most basic auto-play was implemented it'd be a lot of information; if the auto-play for both runs and the "complex scenario" was implemented then the impacts are reduced partially, it wouldn't be clear to opponents all the time if the auto-play occurred for one reason or the other.
One way to mitigate this would be a user-configurable options for:
1) Whether they'd like to auto-play at all (Set to be opt-in, so off by default);
2) How long to delay the move by (suggesting a maximum of one hour);
3) In the case of playing when multiple cards could be played, how to select the card to play
Even with a delay if an opponent could ascertain that the player was offline (by checking their profile) it still has information leakage -- mitigated, and requiring effort + not working 100% of the time though. (If the player comes online after an auto-move was made, but before an opponent checks there's no way for the opponent to tell it was automatic; however if they didn't come online then it can be determined it was automatic)
If the game could detect when the player was online and alter this behaviour this would be handy -- I don't know if the platform can do this though! I've asked here though boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21193#p88012
• Koјi је tvoј prеtraživač?
Google Chrome v90
-
• Šta је prikazano na еkranu kada stе bili blokirani (Prazan еkran? Dio intеrfејsa igrе? Poruka o grеšci?)
There are scenarios where a player has no choice to make, but must still manually act.
An example of this when the player holds exactly one card of the lead suit, and is therefore forced to play it.
Similar to the last card of the round, it's possible for the game engine to automatically detect this and play the only choice. A private log message could be logged to the player letting them know this happened.
There are also examples where there are choices to make, however the choice wont affect the outcome of this hand
An example of this when the player holds either:
- A sequential run (and only this) of the lead suit, and therefore it's inconsequential which card is played (e.g. Having the 7,8,9 of Hearts when Hearts is lead -- Any card from an opponent will have the same outcome relative to all three 'choices')
---OR---
- ("COMPLEX SCENARIO") Multiple cards from the same suit where public information means that all cards between those cards are in play already -- e.g. Holding the 8 and Q of Diamonds; when the 9 is the displayed trump; and the 10 and J have already been played -- Much like the above scenario the choice here will not affect the outcome.
In the case of multiple cards (especially the second example), even though sometimes the card chosen may not matter for the outcome of this trick, you may want to pick one over the other as it may affect what other players perceive you're doing. This a relatively minor point though. This could be mitigated by allowing player agency on how this is selected, and allowing random selection.
It may also highlight to a player information they weren't thinking about when the second example happens -- e.g. If I get a message "You auto-played Q of diamonds because it wouldn't affect outcome" it might make me aware the 8 I hold is far more powerful than I anticipated! I think this is a good thing, this offsets the possible information leakage discussed below, providing a minor reward/benefit for players speeding up the game.
=== Information Leakage ===
Auto-play like this would have a downside of possibly exposing information in turn-based games especially if this was to happen automatically while a player was offline.
If only the most basic auto-play was implemented it'd be a lot of information; if the auto-play for both runs and the "complex scenario" was implemented then the impacts are reduced partially, it wouldn't be clear to opponents all the time if the auto-play occurred for one reason or the other.
One way to mitigate this would be a user-configurable options for:
1) Whether they'd like to auto-play at all (Set to be opt-in, so off by default);
2) How long to delay the move by (suggesting a maximum of one hour);
3) In the case of playing when multiple cards could be played, how to select the card to play
Even with a delay if an opponent could ascertain that the player was offline (by checking their profile) it still has information leakage -- mitigated, and requiring effort + not working 100% of the time though. (If the player comes online after an auto-move was made, but before an opponent checks there's no way for the opponent to tell it was automatic; however if they didn't come online then it can be determined it was automatic)
If the game could detect when the player was online and alter this behaviour this would be handy -- I don't know if the platform can do this though! I've asked here though boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21193#p88012
• Koјi је tvoј prеtraživač?
Google Chrome v90
-
• Koji dio pravila nije primijenjen u BGA prilagodbi
There are scenarios where a player has no choice to make, but must still manually act.
An example of this when the player holds exactly one card of the lead suit, and is therefore forced to play it.
Similar to the last card of the round, it's possible for the game engine to automatically detect this and play the only choice. A private log message could be logged to the player letting them know this happened.
There are also examples where there are choices to make, however the choice wont affect the outcome of this hand
An example of this when the player holds either:
- A sequential run (and only this) of the lead suit, and therefore it's inconsequential which card is played (e.g. Having the 7,8,9 of Hearts when Hearts is lead -- Any card from an opponent will have the same outcome relative to all three 'choices')
---OR---
- ("COMPLEX SCENARIO") Multiple cards from the same suit where public information means that all cards between those cards are in play already -- e.g. Holding the 8 and Q of Diamonds; when the 9 is the displayed trump; and the 10 and J have already been played -- Much like the above scenario the choice here will not affect the outcome.
In the case of multiple cards (especially the second example), even though sometimes the card chosen may not matter for the outcome of this trick, you may want to pick one over the other as it may affect what other players perceive you're doing. This a relatively minor point though. This could be mitigated by allowing player agency on how this is selected, and allowing random selection.
It may also highlight to a player information they weren't thinking about when the second example happens -- e.g. If I get a message "You auto-played Q of diamonds because it wouldn't affect outcome" it might make me aware the 8 I hold is far more powerful than I anticipated! I think this is a good thing, this offsets the possible information leakage discussed below, providing a minor reward/benefit for players speeding up the game.
=== Information Leakage ===
Auto-play like this would have a downside of possibly exposing information in turn-based games especially if this was to happen automatically while a player was offline.
If only the most basic auto-play was implemented it'd be a lot of information; if the auto-play for both runs and the "complex scenario" was implemented then the impacts are reduced partially, it wouldn't be clear to opponents all the time if the auto-play occurred for one reason or the other.
One way to mitigate this would be a user-configurable options for:
1) Whether they'd like to auto-play at all (Set to be opt-in, so off by default);
2) How long to delay the move by (suggesting a maximum of one hour);
3) In the case of playing when multiple cards could be played, how to select the card to play
Even with a delay if an opponent could ascertain that the player was offline (by checking their profile) it still has information leakage -- mitigated, and requiring effort + not working 100% of the time though. (If the player comes online after an auto-move was made, but before an opponent checks there's no way for the opponent to tell it was automatic; however if they didn't come online then it can be determined it was automatic)
If the game could detect when the player was online and alter this behaviour this would be handy -- I don't know if the platform can do this though! I've asked here though boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21193#p88012
-
• Da li je kršenje pravila vidljivo na ponovljenom snimku igre? Ako je odgovor da, na kom broju poteza?
• Koјi је tvoј prеtraživač?
Google Chrome v90
-
• Koji ste potez htjeli učiniti?
There are scenarios where a player has no choice to make, but must still manually act.
An example of this when the player holds exactly one card of the lead suit, and is therefore forced to play it.
Similar to the last card of the round, it's possible for the game engine to automatically detect this and play the only choice. A private log message could be logged to the player letting them know this happened.
There are also examples where there are choices to make, however the choice wont affect the outcome of this hand
An example of this when the player holds either:
- A sequential run (and only this) of the lead suit, and therefore it's inconsequential which card is played (e.g. Having the 7,8,9 of Hearts when Hearts is lead -- Any card from an opponent will have the same outcome relative to all three 'choices')
---OR---
- ("COMPLEX SCENARIO") Multiple cards from the same suit where public information means that all cards between those cards are in play already -- e.g. Holding the 8 and Q of Diamonds; when the 9 is the displayed trump; and the 10 and J have already been played -- Much like the above scenario the choice here will not affect the outcome.
In the case of multiple cards (especially the second example), even though sometimes the card chosen may not matter for the outcome of this trick, you may want to pick one over the other as it may affect what other players perceive you're doing. This a relatively minor point though. This could be mitigated by allowing player agency on how this is selected, and allowing random selection.
It may also highlight to a player information they weren't thinking about when the second example happens -- e.g. If I get a message "You auto-played Q of diamonds because it wouldn't affect outcome" it might make me aware the 8 I hold is far more powerful than I anticipated! I think this is a good thing, this offsets the possible information leakage discussed below, providing a minor reward/benefit for players speeding up the game.
=== Information Leakage ===
Auto-play like this would have a downside of possibly exposing information in turn-based games especially if this was to happen automatically while a player was offline.
If only the most basic auto-play was implemented it'd be a lot of information; if the auto-play for both runs and the "complex scenario" was implemented then the impacts are reduced partially, it wouldn't be clear to opponents all the time if the auto-play occurred for one reason or the other.
One way to mitigate this would be a user-configurable options for:
1) Whether they'd like to auto-play at all (Set to be opt-in, so off by default);
2) How long to delay the move by (suggesting a maximum of one hour);
3) In the case of playing when multiple cards could be played, how to select the card to play
Even with a delay if an opponent could ascertain that the player was offline (by checking their profile) it still has information leakage -- mitigated, and requiring effort + not working 100% of the time though. (If the player comes online after an auto-move was made, but before an opponent checks there's no way for the opponent to tell it was automatic; however if they didn't come online then it can be determined it was automatic)
If the game could detect when the player was online and alter this behaviour this would be handy -- I don't know if the platform can do this though! I've asked here though boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21193#p88012
-
• Što ste pokušali učiniti kad ste pokrenuli ovu akciju u igri?
-
• Šta sе dogodilo kada stе to pokušali (poruka o grеški, poruka statusnе trakе igrе, ...)?
• Koјi је tvoј prеtraživač?
Google Chrome v90
-
• U kojem trenutku tokom igre se problem pojavio (što si iduće trebao učiniti)?
There are scenarios where a player has no choice to make, but must still manually act.
An example of this when the player holds exactly one card of the lead suit, and is therefore forced to play it.
Similar to the last card of the round, it's possible for the game engine to automatically detect this and play the only choice. A private log message could be logged to the player letting them know this happened.
There are also examples where there are choices to make, however the choice wont affect the outcome of this hand
An example of this when the player holds either:
- A sequential run (and only this) of the lead suit, and therefore it's inconsequential which card is played (e.g. Having the 7,8,9 of Hearts when Hearts is lead -- Any card from an opponent will have the same outcome relative to all three 'choices')
---OR---
- ("COMPLEX SCENARIO") Multiple cards from the same suit where public information means that all cards between those cards are in play already -- e.g. Holding the 8 and Q of Diamonds; when the 9 is the displayed trump; and the 10 and J have already been played -- Much like the above scenario the choice here will not affect the outcome.
In the case of multiple cards (especially the second example), even though sometimes the card chosen may not matter for the outcome of this trick, you may want to pick one over the other as it may affect what other players perceive you're doing. This a relatively minor point though. This could be mitigated by allowing player agency on how this is selected, and allowing random selection.
It may also highlight to a player information they weren't thinking about when the second example happens -- e.g. If I get a message "You auto-played Q of diamonds because it wouldn't affect outcome" it might make me aware the 8 I hold is far more powerful than I anticipated! I think this is a good thing, this offsets the possible information leakage discussed below, providing a minor reward/benefit for players speeding up the game.
=== Information Leakage ===
Auto-play like this would have a downside of possibly exposing information in turn-based games especially if this was to happen automatically while a player was offline.
If only the most basic auto-play was implemented it'd be a lot of information; if the auto-play for both runs and the "complex scenario" was implemented then the impacts are reduced partially, it wouldn't be clear to opponents all the time if the auto-play occurred for one reason or the other.
One way to mitigate this would be a user-configurable options for:
1) Whether they'd like to auto-play at all (Set to be opt-in, so off by default);
2) How long to delay the move by (suggesting a maximum of one hour);
3) In the case of playing when multiple cards could be played, how to select the card to play
Even with a delay if an opponent could ascertain that the player was offline (by checking their profile) it still has information leakage -- mitigated, and requiring effort + not working 100% of the time though. (If the player comes online after an auto-move was made, but before an opponent checks there's no way for the opponent to tell it was automatic; however if they didn't come online then it can be determined it was automatic)
If the game could detect when the player was online and alter this behaviour this would be handy -- I don't know if the platform can do this though! I've asked here though boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21193#p88012
-
• Šta sе dogodilo kada stе pokušali izvršiti akciјu igrе (poruka o grеški, poruka statusnе trakе igrе, ...)?
• Koјi је tvoј prеtraživač?
Google Chrome v90
-
• Molimo da opišеtе problеm prikaza. Ako imatе snimak еkrana ovog baga (što је dobra praksa), možеtе koristiti sеrvis za hostovanjе slika po svom izboru (na primеr snipboard.io) da ga otprеmitе i zatim ovdе kopiratе/nalеpitе link.
There are scenarios where a player has no choice to make, but must still manually act.
An example of this when the player holds exactly one card of the lead suit, and is therefore forced to play it.
Similar to the last card of the round, it's possible for the game engine to automatically detect this and play the only choice. A private log message could be logged to the player letting them know this happened.
There are also examples where there are choices to make, however the choice wont affect the outcome of this hand
An example of this when the player holds either:
- A sequential run (and only this) of the lead suit, and therefore it's inconsequential which card is played (e.g. Having the 7,8,9 of Hearts when Hearts is lead -- Any card from an opponent will have the same outcome relative to all three 'choices')
---OR---
- ("COMPLEX SCENARIO") Multiple cards from the same suit where public information means that all cards between those cards are in play already -- e.g. Holding the 8 and Q of Diamonds; when the 9 is the displayed trump; and the 10 and J have already been played -- Much like the above scenario the choice here will not affect the outcome.
In the case of multiple cards (especially the second example), even though sometimes the card chosen may not matter for the outcome of this trick, you may want to pick one over the other as it may affect what other players perceive you're doing. This a relatively minor point though. This could be mitigated by allowing player agency on how this is selected, and allowing random selection.
It may also highlight to a player information they weren't thinking about when the second example happens -- e.g. If I get a message "You auto-played Q of diamonds because it wouldn't affect outcome" it might make me aware the 8 I hold is far more powerful than I anticipated! I think this is a good thing, this offsets the possible information leakage discussed below, providing a minor reward/benefit for players speeding up the game.
=== Information Leakage ===
Auto-play like this would have a downside of possibly exposing information in turn-based games especially if this was to happen automatically while a player was offline.
If only the most basic auto-play was implemented it'd be a lot of information; if the auto-play for both runs and the "complex scenario" was implemented then the impacts are reduced partially, it wouldn't be clear to opponents all the time if the auto-play occurred for one reason or the other.
One way to mitigate this would be a user-configurable options for:
1) Whether they'd like to auto-play at all (Set to be opt-in, so off by default);
2) How long to delay the move by (suggesting a maximum of one hour);
3) In the case of playing when multiple cards could be played, how to select the card to play
Even with a delay if an opponent could ascertain that the player was offline (by checking their profile) it still has information leakage -- mitigated, and requiring effort + not working 100% of the time though. (If the player comes online after an auto-move was made, but before an opponent checks there's no way for the opponent to tell it was automatic; however if they didn't come online then it can be determined it was automatic)
If the game could detect when the player was online and alter this behaviour this would be handy -- I don't know if the platform can do this though! I've asked here though boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21193#p88012
• Koјi је tvoј prеtraživač?
Google Chrome v90
-
• Kopiraјtе / nalеpitе tеkst prikazan na еnglеskom umеsto na vašеm јеziku. Ako imatе snimak еkrana ovog baga (što је dobra praksa), možеtе koristiti sеrvis za hostovanjе slika po svom izboru (na primеr snipboard.io) da ga otprеmitе i zatim ovdе kopiratе/nalеpitе link. Da li je ovaj tekst dostupan u sistemu za prevođenje? Ako je odgovor da, da li je preveden prije više od 24 sata?
There are scenarios where a player has no choice to make, but must still manually act.
An example of this when the player holds exactly one card of the lead suit, and is therefore forced to play it.
Similar to the last card of the round, it's possible for the game engine to automatically detect this and play the only choice. A private log message could be logged to the player letting them know this happened.
There are also examples where there are choices to make, however the choice wont affect the outcome of this hand
An example of this when the player holds either:
- A sequential run (and only this) of the lead suit, and therefore it's inconsequential which card is played (e.g. Having the 7,8,9 of Hearts when Hearts is lead -- Any card from an opponent will have the same outcome relative to all three 'choices')
---OR---
- ("COMPLEX SCENARIO") Multiple cards from the same suit where public information means that all cards between those cards are in play already -- e.g. Holding the 8 and Q of Diamonds; when the 9 is the displayed trump; and the 10 and J have already been played -- Much like the above scenario the choice here will not affect the outcome.
In the case of multiple cards (especially the second example), even though sometimes the card chosen may not matter for the outcome of this trick, you may want to pick one over the other as it may affect what other players perceive you're doing. This a relatively minor point though. This could be mitigated by allowing player agency on how this is selected, and allowing random selection.
It may also highlight to a player information they weren't thinking about when the second example happens -- e.g. If I get a message "You auto-played Q of diamonds because it wouldn't affect outcome" it might make me aware the 8 I hold is far more powerful than I anticipated! I think this is a good thing, this offsets the possible information leakage discussed below, providing a minor reward/benefit for players speeding up the game.
=== Information Leakage ===
Auto-play like this would have a downside of possibly exposing information in turn-based games especially if this was to happen automatically while a player was offline.
If only the most basic auto-play was implemented it'd be a lot of information; if the auto-play for both runs and the "complex scenario" was implemented then the impacts are reduced partially, it wouldn't be clear to opponents all the time if the auto-play occurred for one reason or the other.
One way to mitigate this would be a user-configurable options for:
1) Whether they'd like to auto-play at all (Set to be opt-in, so off by default);
2) How long to delay the move by (suggesting a maximum of one hour);
3) In the case of playing when multiple cards could be played, how to select the card to play
Even with a delay if an opponent could ascertain that the player was offline (by checking their profile) it still has information leakage -- mitigated, and requiring effort + not working 100% of the time though. (If the player comes online after an auto-move was made, but before an opponent checks there's no way for the opponent to tell it was automatic; however if they didn't come online then it can be determined it was automatic)
If the game could detect when the player was online and alter this behaviour this would be handy -- I don't know if the platform can do this though! I've asked here though boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21193#p88012
• Koјi је tvoј prеtraživač?
Google Chrome v90
-
• Objasnite svoj prijedlog precizno i sažeto kako bismo što lakše shvatili na što mislite.
There are scenarios where a player has no choice to make, but must still manually act.
An example of this when the player holds exactly one card of the lead suit, and is therefore forced to play it.
Similar to the last card of the round, it's possible for the game engine to automatically detect this and play the only choice. A private log message could be logged to the player letting them know this happened.
There are also examples where there are choices to make, however the choice wont affect the outcome of this hand
An example of this when the player holds either:
- A sequential run (and only this) of the lead suit, and therefore it's inconsequential which card is played (e.g. Having the 7,8,9 of Hearts when Hearts is lead -- Any card from an opponent will have the same outcome relative to all three 'choices')
---OR---
- ("COMPLEX SCENARIO") Multiple cards from the same suit where public information means that all cards between those cards are in play already -- e.g. Holding the 8 and Q of Diamonds; when the 9 is the displayed trump; and the 10 and J have already been played -- Much like the above scenario the choice here will not affect the outcome.
In the case of multiple cards (especially the second example), even though sometimes the card chosen may not matter for the outcome of this trick, you may want to pick one over the other as it may affect what other players perceive you're doing. This a relatively minor point though. This could be mitigated by allowing player agency on how this is selected, and allowing random selection.
It may also highlight to a player information they weren't thinking about when the second example happens -- e.g. If I get a message "You auto-played Q of diamonds because it wouldn't affect outcome" it might make me aware the 8 I hold is far more powerful than I anticipated! I think this is a good thing, this offsets the possible information leakage discussed below, providing a minor reward/benefit for players speeding up the game.
=== Information Leakage ===
Auto-play like this would have a downside of possibly exposing information in turn-based games especially if this was to happen automatically while a player was offline.
If only the most basic auto-play was implemented it'd be a lot of information; if the auto-play for both runs and the "complex scenario" was implemented then the impacts are reduced partially, it wouldn't be clear to opponents all the time if the auto-play occurred for one reason or the other.
One way to mitigate this would be a user-configurable options for:
1) Whether they'd like to auto-play at all (Set to be opt-in, so off by default);
2) How long to delay the move by (suggesting a maximum of one hour);
3) In the case of playing when multiple cards could be played, how to select the card to play
Even with a delay if an opponent could ascertain that the player was offline (by checking their profile) it still has information leakage -- mitigated, and requiring effort + not working 100% of the time though. (If the player comes online after an auto-move was made, but before an opponent checks there's no way for the opponent to tell it was automatic; however if they didn't come online then it can be determined it was automatic)
If the game could detect when the player was online and alter this behaviour this would be handy -- I don't know if the platform can do this though! I've asked here though boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21193#p88012
• Koјi је tvoј prеtraživač?
Google Chrome v90
Prijavite povijest
==Auto-Play Enabled?==
Do not auto-play
Auto-Play when there's one valid card to play
Auto-Play whenever possible (Whenever trick outcome not affected)
==Auto-Play delay (Turn based only)==
Random delay each time (default)
X minutes
Y minutes
Z Minutes
(... probably 10 choices, ranging from 2-60 minutes))
==Auto-Play card selection==
Pick randomly (default)
Always pick lowest
Always pick highest
Thus what can be implemented (and what I plan to eventually get around to) is this:
- A single yes/no preference that says "Play automatically when no meaningful choice";
- When this is on, and the player must choose from a single sequential run of cards (most commonly: a single card), play the first valid card automatically;
- This all happens client-side (i.e. in the player's browser) and therefore has no effect if you're offline.
I do realize that this means you have to keep turn-based games open in a tab overnight to benefit from this, but that's the only way to prevent it exposing private information.
I also intend to only do this after having implemented the "Preselect" suggestion so that it becomes hard to tell an autoplayed card from a preselected card even if something is played unreasonably quickly.
I daresay I am a little confused about the start of you comment though LaszloK -- Clashing with site-wide standards , and "It is not allowed to give away private information in any way - even if a player consents" -- Perhaps I explained something badly, as all of the suggestion was 100% in service of protecting private information, and not exposing or even leaking so much as hints about the contents of any hands! :)
Addressing what's probably the source of confusion: In the case I mentioned where the player held and 8 and Q; and I suggested they may receive a log message from auto-play, to be clear that was (re)using the example above it, where all cards between those two were already exposed as not being in anyone else's hands. The thing I was highlighting there is the player may not have been attentive to the fact that the 8 and Q didn't have a meaningful choice attached to it -- giving the auto-playing player a private log message could've been a piece of info they could know, but may not have worked out.
Dodaj nešto ovom izvješću
- Drugi stol / potez
- Je li problem rješen pritiskom na F5?
- Da li se problem pojavio više puta? Uvijek? Nasumično?
- Ako imatе snimak еkrana ovog baga (što је dobra praksa), možеtе koristiti sеrvis za hostovanjе slika po svom izboru (na primеr snipboard.io) da ga otprеmitе i zatim ovdе kopiratе/nalеpitе link.
