Re: aisleriot games need to be more consistent, also a question on Union Square

[Callum McKenzie <callum physics otago ac nz>]

On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 02:30 +0000, Vincent Povirk wrote:
> I've sort of contributed to this problem, but there are some
> "conventions" that aren't consistent across games. Here are the ones I
> can think of:
> -Where appropriate, double-clicking on cards should send them to the
> foundations.
Yes!
> -Where appropriate, double-clicking on foundations should autoplay the
> foundations (if this is a good idea for klondike, it's probably a good
> idea for all of the games).
Yes.
> -Where appropriate, the status bar should show the number of cards
> left on the stock, number of redeals (if limited), number of cards on
> reserve (if this isn't visible), and the base card (if it varies).
Definitely.
> -Hinting should be supported on all games (I'm not sure if there are
> any without hinting).
Yep.
> -Should scores be supported on all games, if a scoring system can be
> devised that makes sense?
I don't really think so. Patience is inherently about finishing the
game, not how far you got. In most games a score is just a crude
progress-report. I am more in favour of removing them entirely to be
honest.

> As it is, many of the games do not support some of these conventions,
> and only one of them does the double-clicking to foundation. So I
> think it would make sense to go through the games and bring them into
> line (maybe along-side adding the highlighting).
Patches are very, very, welcome. Despite my recent poor track record of
reviewing them :).

> In fact, going through the games, making sure they do all of this, and
> submitting patches where necessary would be my idea of a good time;
> I'd just sort of like to do it in a somewhat more official manner that
> allows other people to do the same thing and avoids unnecessary
> duplication of work.
The way this has been done in the past is to create a bug report with a
running-list of what games are currently missing a feature (or in this
case are unreviewed). For seventy odd games this may not scale
(especially if they are formatted as a single column). Linking to a
file in CVS like we have for the hilighting code makes the bug easier to
read, but gets slightly out of sync (or a lot out of sync as it has
recently - don't worry Richard should be dumping a whole lot of your
patches in CVS soon).

> The issue I have with Union Square is that it's not obvious while the
> game is being played which king you're on. That is, if a king is on
> the foundation, do we need to put a queen or a king on there next.
> Since cards cannot be moved from the foundation, you can't peek under
> it. Technically, this problem exists across all suits, but it's worst
> with the kings.
> 
> So it seems to me the thing to do is have a visual hint to somehow
> indicate where we are. Possibilities:
> -Create two foundation slots, one 1/3 to the left of the original but
> on top of it. The bottom (right) pile will hold the ace-king build and
> the top (left) pile will hold the king-ace build. So when you've
> played two kings, you will see two kings. Placing it on the left
> minimizes the dragging weirdness by making sure the closer pile with
> cards on it is the one we want to drag to (related suggestion: when
> we're looking for piles to drag to, we should still check the corners
> if the center is on an empty slot that we can't drag to).
We should be able to do something like this. It would be a nice visible
indication that something has changed. My only worry is that we will be
left with an empty slot for half the game that looks like it can be
played to.

> -Make the foundations extended slots. There aren't any other
> foundations that do this, and I don't like the idea.
The main argument against this is the length the foundation will get to.

> -Allow the player to "peek" under the king (let him drag it), but
> don't let him drop it anywhere. I don't like this: it might mislead
> players into thinking foundations are in play.
I agree about your disagreement.

> -Flip the first king when you play it to the foundation. The meaning
> isn't immediately obvious, but it works.
I don't understand what you are suggesting.

> -Leave it the way it is.
No. I've just tried playing it and I can't really.

We also have to deal with the fact that the tableau can be built both
ways. Having them as extended slots would be the obvious answer, but it
is likely to get bad if they are kept in a 4x4 arrangement (8x2 might
work better).

 - Callum