All reports
saintpetersburg_displayed reports
#24803: "Log players decision on using the pub AFTER all players made their choice"
acknowledged: Developers agree that it is a good idea and intend to work on it
What is this report about?
What happened ? Please select from below
Suggestion: in my opinion, the following would greatly improve the game implementation
Detailed description
-
• Please explain your suggestion precisely and concisely so that it's as easy as possible to understand what you mean.
Currently, the log immediately shows whether players have used the pub to buy points and if so, how many. Especially in the last building phase before the end of the game it can have an impact on the other player's decision, so it is a disadvantage to buy points first. My suggestion is to wait with the logging of the points bought until all pub owners have decided on a number of points.
• What is your browser?
Safari v13.1
Report history
14. Sep 2020 13:33 • Tikhonov • This suggestion has not been analyzed by delopers yet:
In the given table number you can see the logging in move #120 and #121 for example.
16. Sep 2020 1:00 • Marcuda • Developers agree that it is a good idea and intend to work on it:
Interesting idea. I see you're point. I'll need to look into how to delay those messages.
17. Sep 2020 6:05 • Marcuda • Developers agree that it is a good idea and intend to work on it:
This requires a change to the database so it's going to take a little more time to do properly.
26. Sep 2020 15:32 • ShimokitaJer • Developers agree that it is a good idea and intend to work on it:
I'll agree this may be a good idea, but is it in accord with the original game? After all, if you were playing this in a physical space someone would need to express their intention first, wouldn't they?
28. Sep 2020 5:13 • Marcuda • Developers agree that it is a good idea and intend to work on it:
True, but the difference here is that there is no turn order for Pub. To be most authentic it should probably force turn order for that phase, but in most cases that doesn't matter and would only slow the game down. Also, I'm not sure the rules are explicit here. Perhaps it would be relevant in Arena, but I think this approach would be best of both worlds--faster play while not giving advantage to any player.
Regardless I haven't begun this one yet :)
Regardless I haven't begun this one yet :)
29. Sep 2020 3:28 • SamHellerman • Developers agree that it is a good idea and intend to work on it:
Rulebook is silent on this matter. In physical play, I think players just tend to choose simultaneously. One *might* wait to hear the other announce their move first before choosing, but it's a borderline cheat if they do, and of course a player who is concerned about this problem can simply refrain from announcing until both have paid.
For online, it *could* enforce a turn order, but I see nothing to support that idea in the rules at all. It could use the blue start player first, but being blue start player in the last round is (in a majority of games) probably a disadvantage to begin with. It could be the next player after the last player to "pass" (turn order just keeps going around as it was), but again, nothing in the rules to support that.
I think simultaneous selection is the way to go, and not sharing the information with other players until everyone is committed.
For online, it *could* enforce a turn order, but I see nothing to support that idea in the rules at all. It could use the blue start player first, but being blue start player in the last round is (in a majority of games) probably a disadvantage to begin with. It could be the next player after the last player to "pass" (turn order just keeps going around as it was), but again, nothing in the rules to support that.
I think simultaneous selection is the way to go, and not sharing the information with other players until everyone is committed.
7. Oct 2020 19:40 • Supergravity • Developers agree that it is a good idea and intend to work on it:
In our group, we make use of the pub an ordinary action (much like use of the observatory). This eliminates the turn-order ambiguity, but it does make the pub very slightly less valuable b/c sometimes you would need the blue-round income to fully use it.
8. Oct 2020 8:57 • SamHellerman • Developers agree that it is a good idea and intend to work on it:
That does make Pub less useful, and has some weird effects. You don't want to allow a "use then upgrade" loophole, so you'd have to gray out (IRL, flip) the Pub to make sure it isn't upgraded for a while. But then when does it become upgradeable again? To stay similar to the real rules, that would be as soon as aristocrats are dealt, but then your Pub and Observatory are unflipping at different times.
Main issue though, being able to funnel blue income straight into the Pub is useful and imho shouldn't be lost even as an option.
Main issue though, being able to funnel blue income straight into the Pub is useful and imho shouldn't be lost even as an option.
Add something to this report
Please add here anything that seems relevant to reproduce this bug or understand your suggestion:
- Another table ID / move ID
- Did F5 solve the problem?
- Did the problem appears several time? Everytime? Randomly?
- If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use Imgur.com to upload it and copy/paste the link here.
