|
I made a thing like nanDECK. Now what I really need is real users, which will help me figure out what improvements I should focus on. Any feedback is welcome.
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 07:44 |
|
|
Xom posted:I made a thing like nanDECK. Now what I really need is real users, which will help me figure out what improvements I should focus on. Any feedback is welcome. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 09:56
|
|
|
Cardery's main advantage is that you write templates in HTML/JS/CSS instead of some obscure language. Cardery's main disadvantage is that, because it relies on your browser and OS to do the heavy lifting, what you write may not be portable between computers. For example, in writing the demo I was in the peculiar situation of needing it to look good everywhere, but not necessarily look the same everywhere. The demo specifies "font-family: sans-serif" and lets the browser choose the exact font. I did try specifying "font-family: Verdana", which is my default font in Chrome, but in Firefox the kerning became hideous when Cardery applied CSS scale() (thankfully the issue is font-specific, and it looks fine with my default font Open Sans). I will try Cardery in a Linux VM and see if the rendering looks reasonable. If so, then that becomes one answer to the portability issue. The other advantage of Cardery is, if you are literally my first user, then I will write the template if you supply the graphic design.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
The worst submarine posted:Diplomat for 3-6 players
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
The worst submarine posted:Thanks! Tip for playing the game IRL: if someone is down to just their Diplomat, they should leave it face-up in front of themself. Makes it easier for remaining players to see who's still in, and the loser gets some time to reflect.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Try to make it hard to accidentally cheat.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
Oh-Seven, the missing evolutionary link between Oh, Hell! and our own xopods's Insidious Sevens, is now available on BGA, implemented by yours truly. I'd like a second opinion on an unconventional phrasing choice I made in the end-of-game statistics that's baffling some translators. The conventional choice would be "Bid success rate", "Underbid rate", and "Overbid rate". But it makes me a little bit salty to read the word "underbid" or "overbid", because Oh-Seven puts you at the mercy of the shuffle in what you're allowed to bid each round. So I changed it to "Bid fill rate", "Overfill rate", and "Underfill rate". (These phrases always appear next to each other, otherwise "Overfill rate" and "Underfill rate" might have been too laconic without the context of "Bid fill rate".) Examining my feelings a little closer, it's because "fill" is an outcome that it feels like a proper term to describe an outcome statistic, whereas "bid" is more ambiguous. But on the other hand, even though this argument seems to me like it could be valid in older games, too, it remains that there's no such conventional term as "overfill" or "underfill", so why should I be the one to die on this
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
Oh, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about how many times you fulfilled your own bid, or went over or under.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2020 23:55
|
|
|
I really think it's between "overbid" vs. "underfill" (and "underbid" vs. "overfill"), for the pros and cons I described. IMHO, "underfill" et al. have all the merits except for being unconventional, which would be hard to improve upon by coming up with another phrase.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2020 00:17
|
|
|
This is the post I'm leaning toward making on BGA, though I'll probably ruminate another few days before doing so:quote:I noticed that translators were having trouble with the three "fill rate" statistic labels, and I discussed it with the designer, who suggested making it more colloquial. I mean, if I was in the middle of the game, I'd never say "I filled my bid!" or "I overfilled" or "I underfilled"; I might say "I made it!" or "I missed!" or "I overshot!" Unfortunately "I made it" is hard to turn into a noun, and "I missed" is ambiguous, but "overshoot" is good, and in the other cases I still tried to do my best in a similar spirit:
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2020 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 07:44 |
|
|
It reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_(puzzle). Reading just the rules and not the extended example, I find the wording unsatisfactory. Consider the following board: + 1 2, * 3, - 4 We resolve from left to right. The first Ace resolves its value as per the Within-an-Ace rules. (= 3) The second Ace depends on the resolved value of the Ace to its right, i.e. the third Ace. The third Ace depends on the resolved value of the equation before it. One interpretation would be that this creates a cyclical dependency, which is about as bad as dividing by zero. Another interpretation is that we should evaluate "+ 1 2, * 3" as a board. In this equation, the resolved value of the first Ace is 3, and the resolved value of the second Ace is 9. The intent of the rules seems to be that the 9 should be substituted as the resolved value of the two-Ace equation as a whole, but this is not explicitly stated. I continue under protest. The third Ace resolves, 9 - 4 = 5. The second Ace resolves, 3 * 5 = 15. The resolved values of the three Aces are 3, 15, 5. I'm sure this isn't what you meant, so I'll stop here. The extended example surely contradicts how I've read the rules, but even if I can figure out what the rules are meant to be, I'm unsatisfied with the current wording.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2023 22:29
|
|