The Last Homely House
Undying Lands => Valinor => Topic started by: Kenddrick on June 06, 2010, 06:22:59 AM
-
Well I was thinking about GCCG, and how it can be improved.
Do you guys think that GCCG has already reached it maximum capability, or is there still room for improvement?
And what improvements would you guys like to see in GCCG (be realistic)?
I for once would love to see the following:
-Foil Cards
-Limited Edition Cards (like the Happy Holidays Gandalf)
-An resolution selector for Fullscreen Mode
-Ability to collect other items like user tokens (for use on sites) and other accessories
-
I would never want to see foil cards on GCCG. I don't think there is any reason to add them in, and there is really know way to make them look good enough anyways.
-wtk
-
Multiplayer games.
A way for people to add DCs would be fun to playtest stuff like Thranduil's Light and Shadow set.
-
Multiplayer games.
That would be awesome. However, a problem of size comes up. Even 3 players would make it crowded and cards, along withe everything else should be smaller. I don't know if that would make it playable beyond 3 or maybe 4 players.
-
Multiplayer games.
That would be awesome. However, a problem of size comes up. Even 3 players would make it crowded and cards, along withe everything else should be smaller. I don't know if that would make it playable beyond 3 or maybe 4 players.
A few months ago, 4 players games were available and it was working OK but it was still very fun.
-
A few months ago, 4 players games were available and it was working OK but it was still very fun.
Really?!? Why is that no longer available?
-
A few months ago, 4 players games were available and it was working OK but it was still very fun.
Really?!? Why is that no longer available?
Someone decided to remove it and add another 2 players table because the 2 player tables were sometimes full and not a lot of people played on the 4-players table. I have no idea why the person who is responsable of GCCG doesn't put it back.
-
A way for people to add DCs would be fun to playtest stuff like Thranduil's Light and Shadow set.
this would be nice :)
-
Why not just add some tables? And, whenever i go on GCCG, 3 or 4 tables are free, mostly.
-
It does happen, although quite rarely that all tables are taken and there are still people who want to play, but I think it'd be better to have a table for 4 players and no one would wait.
I don't know how it is built and I'm not much of a programmer, but could someone who is or is directly involved in GCCG program, tell us if it's possible to make tables work for 2, 3 or 4 players, depending on the demand. The way I see it, it could be done, just add another option to make the game start when all players are ready (the way it is, first 2 players would only play). Of course, tables would need some modifications, but as I said, the way I see it, it can be done, but I'm no expert.
However, if people who are experts and have both will and power to do it, why not? I'd be happy to help in any way I can, even if it includes programming (I'm not a complete noob in that area, but still a noob).
-
Wlk is the man in charge of lotr gccg
-
Wlk is the man in charge of lotr gccg
I've PMed him a few months ago and I have never received an answer. Sadly, as long as he is away, there probably won't be any changes on GCCG. Although Kralik seems to be able to modify some stuff.
-
Wlk is the man in charge of lotr gccg
I've PMed him a few months ago and I have never received an answer. Sadly, as long as he is away, there probably won't be any changes on GCCG. Although Kralik seems to be able to modify some stuff.
I've PMed him just the other day, but I dunno how often he checks his messages or even how often he checks this forum. Judging by the number of his posts, not very often, but we need only 1 ;)
-
I can modify the LotR module code, and I did help program a fair number of the features. However, I have no way to change server settings, add new cards, or improve on the GCCG program as a whole. GCCG itself was not created by wlk, and has its own programmer. Remember, it's used for various card games besides LotR.
Anyway, I wouldn't want to step on wlk's toes but perhaps I could do some small LotR module changes (like the twilight bug fix).
I've thought about putting up a server so I can add more tables (a 3P table or two, a 4P table or two, another 1P and more 2P's), but I don't feel like having my IP address publicly visible... :P
Maybe I'll have time this summer to fix the weird 4P bugs.
-
Why can't new cards or accesories be added? :o
-
It's programmed server-side. I don't run the main server!
-
Hmm. So how else can we improve the GCCG experience? :D
-
Interface improvements. Menus, shortcuts, behavior, etc.
-
AI ?? ;)
-
AI would be fantastic. Absolutely great if we could have AI implemented!
-
It's a little thing, but you know how when you're opening real packs and "1 in 6" contains a foil? I'm not advocating using foils, but every now and then, whatever the proper probabilities dictate, could we get an extra rare or uncommon when we open a pack? Just curious...
-
AI ?? ;)
Beyond the scope of GCCG. IMO AI for LotR is not a feasible or worthwhile endeavor.
It's a little thing, but you know how when you're opening real packs and "1 in 6" contains a foil? I'm not advocating using foils, but every now and then, whatever the proper probabilities dictate, could we get an extra rare or uncommon when we open a pack? Just curious...
That would be a question for wlk.
-
AI ?? ;)
Beyond the scope of GCCG. IMO AI for LotR is not a feasible or worthwhile endeavor.
Hmm. Why not? :O
-
Beyond the scope of GCCG. IMO AI for LotR is not a feasible or worthwhile endeavor.
Hmm. Why not?
You don't think that, with all of the intricacies of the rules that humans don't understand, that you'd be able to program a computer to do that?
Beyond that, you have to consider file storage, decks that the 'AI' used, the regular maintenance needed, and any other costs.
Then again, after all of this, I cannot tell if you were joking when you said, "Why not?"
-wtk
-
Think of what it takes to program a game with relatively simple rules like chess so that it's worthy of a human opponent. Now imagine a game like LotR with over 3000 cards and lots of rules options and strategy... deckbuilding... bleh.
-
Think of what it takes to program a game with relatively simple rules like chess so that it's worthy of a human opponent. Now imagine a game like LotR with over 3000 cards and lots of rules options and strategy... deckbuilding... bleh.
I get it now! :D Wow maybe sometime in the future technology might be able to do that for us and then LOTR TCG would never ever go out!
-
In 2013 a supercomputer will exceed the capacity of the human brain ... at least this is what i have read. Perhaps there is hope for AI in the future ... but we might need a computer to program it for us (we just aren't smart enough).
-
Good thing the world ends in 2012 :roll:
-
One check is to see if the AI can initiate Fruit Loops on its own. :P
-
then we know it is rubbish, since Steadfast champion is banned :lol:
-
In 2013 a supercomputer will exceed the capacity of the human brain ... at least this is what i have read. Perhaps there is hope for AI in the future ... but we might need a computer to program it for us (we just aren't smart enough).
I disagree that we are not smart enough, however, such a project would require far too much resources and time than we can provide and I disagree with Gil-Estel, computer being dumb for all those rules. Rules in itself are pretty much unambiguous with few exceptions upon which agreement can be made. There is a clear order of how things work, it's just that people usually don't know it (myself included) and I think computer would do it better (follow the rules). Making a worthy opponent out of AI is probably the only difficult part of it (VERY DIFFICULT) and I don't think a computer will ever be built that no human can defeat.
If we can get governments of our countries to unite and try to fund the building of LoTR GCCG AI, that would've been great, but let's not fool ourselves, shall we? ;)
-
Not that it cannot be done, but it is an enormous undertaking, to say the least.
-
If we can get governments of our countries to unite and try to fund the building of LoTR GCCG AI, that would've been great, but let's not fool ourselves, shall we? ;)
Let's make a pact. Should we become presidents of our respective countries one day, let's have LotR GCCG AI at the top of our to-do list!
-
Just curious, if there isn't any AI, how can there be a one player table? I was trying it out the other day and well it never responded ;D. I guess I must have never really finished my turn, hmmmmm maybe one day I will get it.
-
It's a little thing, but you know how when you're opening real packs and "1 in 6" contains a foil? I'm not advocating using foils, but every now and then, whatever the proper probabilities dictate, could we get an extra rare or uncommon when we open a pack? Just curious...
That would be a question for wlk.
[/quote]
so, should i do something else, or count on wlk to check this?
-
1 player is to test your deck, practise draws etc etc
-
1 player is to test your deck, practise draws etc etc
lol man I feel dumb I sat there trying to figure out how come the computers cards would't show up after I tried to play a hand, over and over again! :o ;D
-
It's just the same as if you sit at a table BY YOURSELF in real life and mess with your deck. Also very useful for programming/debugging purposes by the developers.
-
I was always afraid of messing up my cards so I never really tried to build decks. Never had anyone to play against so I just keep buying them and sticking them in a box, thinking one day I may make millions off them lol!
-
That is why you use card sleeves, either soft or HARD depending on how paranoid you are about collector's value. Me? I bought the game to play, not collect. And spent a pretty penny doing so...
-
I guess for me I started out collecting them because I got a few of the cards in the DVD collectors box set. At the time I never really played any card games and somewhere it said that they would be collectors items. So I just started buying them a few at a time here and there. If I had someone to play against at the time I guess things might have turned out different.
In reality I never was a collector of comics are cards but these got me started. Now that I know of card protectors I have been messing around with them more, but wow its pretty complex. I guess another thing to is that I have epilepsy real bad so I keep waking up and not knowing I even have them sometimes for years. The last time I had looked at them before this last awakening was like 2004 or 2005. It opens up a Pandora's box for me. It starts to remind me of my past and my love of the movies. For me its almost like the movie ground hog day, I keep forgetting my past and have to relearn it periodically. Then forget it even happened, talk about a mind job.
-
If we had a LotR AI game, what would Sauron do? :ninja:
-
If we had a LotR AI game, what would Sauron do? :ninja:
Eat Yoda... or someone else, green half pint! ;)
-
It's a little thing, but you know how when you're opening real packs and "1 in 6" contains a foil? I'm not advocating using foils, but every now and then, whatever the proper probabilities dictate, could we get an extra rare or uncommon when we open a pack? Just curious...
Not planned.
-
Anyway, I wouldn't want to step on wlk's toes but perhaps I could do some small LotR module changes (like the twilight bug fix).
Go on.
I don't have much spare time nor lust for new changes.
-
wlk, what about bringing back a 4-players table?
-
wlk, what about bringing back a 4-players table?
Already discussed.
No more resources available on the main server, so bringing back a 4p table means removing a 2p one.
I don't think you want this.
The other solution is to find some spare server to run more table from your own.
-
How about removing a 1p table? I don't use it and I haven't seen it being used much. We could organize some sort of poll to see how many people would like a 4p table and which table to remove (1p or 2p) to make room for it. I for one, would really like to see a 4p table there. And it rarely happens that all 2p tables are taken and even rarer is the case when 1p table is taken.
That's just my observation, but I do spend a lot of time on GCCG.
-
How about removing a 1p table? I don't use it and I haven't seen it being used much.
The one player table is used for testing decks by players, but more importantly, it is used for testing scripts in the code of the game.
-wtk
-
+1 with ket's answer.
-
+1 with ket's answer.
Didn't mean to step on your toes, bud. But that question has been asked a thousand times.
Edit: It doesn't help that I get probably four to five PM's a month asking GCCG questions. #$&*@! you, lower-case "T" for looking so much like a lower-case "L!"
-wtk
-
Haha !
No problem, glad you spared me the answer :)
-
You can remove a 2P table.
-
And then you complain you need more 2p tables ? :P
-
I think I have a four player table solution that everyone will appreciate.
Why not set aside a certain time, say, six hours a week, where one of the two player tables becomes a four player table?
It would mean that people who wanted to play four-player games would have to coordinate, but it has the potential to raise site traffic here (having a four player itinerary board here) and traffic on GCCG will remain the same.
-wtk
-
I think I have a four player table solution that everyone will appreciate.
Why not set aside a certain time, say, six hours a week, where one of the two player tables becomes a four player table?
It would mean that people who wanted to play four-player games would have to coordinate, but it has the potential to raise site traffic here (having a four player itinerary board here) and traffic on GCCG will remain the same.
-wtk
Sounds like a good idea. But 6 hours seems like a short period of time. I'd like it to be there at least for a day or two during the week.
-
Well, I figure that they are not going to interrupt a game in the middle. So if you set aside six or so slots where the 4-player table can be used (with an hour to get everyone in there), that seems good to go.
Overall, I'm a fan of more 2-player tables. But I've played a 4-player game on GCCG and glitchy-ness aside, it was fun.
-wtk
-
I think I have a four player table solution that everyone will appreciate.
Why not set aside a certain time, say, six hours a week, where one of the two player tables becomes a four player table?
It would mean that people who wanted to play four-player games would have to coordinate, but it has the potential to raise site traffic here (having a four player itinerary board here) and traffic on GCCG will remain the same.
-wtk
Maybe a week out of every month would be better than six hours a week? At least that way wlk wouldn't have to be changing things so often and everyone should get a chance during that week to play a four player game if they want too..
I think the four player table being brought back somehow would be great though if possible, it gives deckbuilding another element and games are fun.
-
The 4 player table is fun, usually full of WTF moments.
-
Could you start a 3 player game on the 4 player table?
-
I go with MuadDib's implentation of ket's solution ;)
1 Week every month seems good to me, I could even say it seems little, but that's probably just my eagerness speaking. ;D
Could you start a 3 player game on the 4 player table?
Not if connecting to the table remains the same. It's like trying to start a 1p game at a 2p table. The game will start once first two players "ready up". So, unless a change is made in that department, you can't. There might also be some server issue if it was designed for 4 players, but I wouldn't know anything about it, just my guess.
-
Hmmm, well a 3 player game would be interesting.
-
Added a 4 players table.
Will see if another one need to be recycled.
-
Added a 4 players table.
Will see if another one need to be recycled.
Thank you very much!
Just a question, is the GCCG program supporting 3-players table.. 5-6-7-...-100 players table? What is the limit?
-
Well, currently the 4P table is a bit buggy, so trying to implement even more would be problematic.
Not to mention...
Player 2: /win
Player 2: woohoo!
Player 1: /ok
Player 5: /ok
Player 6: (zzzzzz...)
Player 9: (walked away from the computer when he lost at site 3)
Player 11: /ok
Player 17: (getting a beer...)
-
Well, currently the 4P table is a bit buggy, so trying to implement even more would be problematic.
Not to mention...
Player 2: /win
Player 2: woohoo!
Player 1: /ok
Player 5: /ok
Player 6: (zzzzzz...)
Player 9: (walked away from the computer when he lost at site 3)
Player 11: /ok
Player 17: (getting a beer...)
I am not saying that I want a 112 players table, I'm just curious to know.
-
Haha. Player 17 is me?
-wtk