Separating Cards

I grabbed some decently-formatted NetRunner data so I can churn out a
half-decent NetRunner cardvault data file as quickly as I was able to hurn
out the Dredd stuff (regular expressions are your friends). But I'm
curious as to how I might go about setting up the system so I can divide
the cardset nicely, while keeping all the cards in the same system for
inventory purposes.

If you're not familiar with the game, it's your standard "cards either go
in one side or the other", very similar to the Star Wars CCG, with "light
side" and "dark side" cards (and unlike the new Star Wars TCG, which also
has neutral cards).

My first thought was to simply make two decks, like I did with Dredd; a
Runner deck and a Corporation deck. I might still do that, since in
general a player should construct one of each anyway. But the downside to
that is that you have to manually limit your card view to be one side or
the other, and it didn't seem like a "clean" solution.

Another option I thought of was to use the ruleset options to make one
ruleset "Corporation" and the other "Runner". This would be the best way,
I think, since I can apply different deck construction rules very easily,
and only the deck construction rules applicable to the deck being worked
on would show up...

But what I'm wondering is if there is a way to tie the view of the card
lists in to the ruleset chosen? So the user doesn't have to manually
filter out all the Runner cards when they're working on a Corporation
deck?

...Paul

** Have a question that reality just can't answer? **
** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Plan to Sell a Home?
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.l...fIAA/WuQolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

[rob]

Go with your original thought - i.e. two separate decks. Regardless of
whether a player is only building a Runner deck, a Corp deck, or both, the
model will work out nicely. There are NO plans for views tied to the
validation ruleset, since the situations where it makes sense are few at
best. HOWEVER, there ARE plans for different views and filters tied to each
deck. This makes much better sense, since it is applicable to a large
number of game systems and keep rulesets properly decoupled. No promises on
when this will be added, since nothing has been decided upon for V1.1 yet,
but it's definitely the way things are intended to evolve for Card Vault.

Thanks, Rob


At 04:09 PM 10/6/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>I grabbed some decently-formatted NetRunner data so I can churn out a
>half-decent NetRunner cardvault data file as quickly as I was able to hurn
>out the Dredd stuff (regular expressions are your friends). But I'm
>curious as to how I might go about setting up the system so I can divide
>the cardset nicely, while keeping all the cards in the same system for
>inventory purposes.
>
>If you're not familiar with the game, it's your standard "cards either go
>in one side or the other", very similar to the Star Wars CCG, with "light
>side" and "dark side" cards (and unlike the new Star Wars TCG, which also
>has neutral cards).
>
>My first thought was to simply make two decks, like I did with Dredd; a
>Runner deck and a Corporation deck. I might still do that, since in
>general a player should construct one of each anyway. But the downside to
>that is that you have to manually limit your card view to be one side or
>the other, and it didn't seem like a "clean" solution.
>
>Another option I thought of was to use the ruleset options to make one
>ruleset "Corporation" and the other "Runner". This would be the best way,
>I think, since I can apply different deck construction rules very easily,
>and only the deck construction rules applicable to the deck being worked
>on would show up...
>
>But what I'm wondering is if there is a way to tie the view of the card
>lists in to the ruleset chosen? So the user doesn't have to manually
>filter out all the Runner cards when they're working on a Corporation
>deck?
>
>...Paul


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (559) 658-6995
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXi...fIAA/WuQolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

--- Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com> wrote:
> There are NO plans for views tied to the
> validation ruleset, since the situations where it makes sense are few at
> best.

Too bad. That would be a great thing for LotR and L5R. In both cases, you can
choose different tournament formats, and it would be nice to automatically
filter the cards so that the user automatically is restricted only to valid
cards without having to do it manually themselves.

LotR has "Fellowship" and "Two Towers" games that use different sets of the
cards. L5R has "Gold", "Jade", and soon "Diamond" (and possibly "KYD") that all
only allow a subset of cards. Magic does the same with their tournament rules
("Type I" and "Type II"), and there is the biggest arguement for including it

All of them also have an "Open" format that allows most of the cards to be
used.

>From a user point of view, I think you might want to reconsider allowing the
rules set to determine some sort of "base" filtering.

BTW: For those games that worry about at what date a card is valid for
inclusion in a deck design, any though about providing a date symbol for use in
rules? Not really necessary, just an idea. If that were available, then
validation rules could be written to alert a user that a card he has chosen for
his deck is not yet valid for use in tournament play.

I would also like to lobby again for a "warning" level on validation rules... a
level that will generate a message, but not trigger a "This card does not
satisfy all validation rules do you want to print/save/etc. this deck?"
question. That was we can provide informational messages like "You have take a
card that can only be used on a 'Plaid' character but you have no 'Plaid'
characters" kind of message. It is not technically a validation issue in most
cases, since most game systems do not restrict you from taking cards you cannot
possibly play in your deck But it would be nice from a "user-friendly" point
of view.



=====
---

Kuni Tetsu
Clan War rules guy
Moderator of ClanWar-l

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Plan to Sell a Home?
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.l...fIAA/WuQolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

[rob]

Responses interspersed below. Sorry for the lag, but I've been buried...

At 07:57 AM 10/7/2002 -0700, you wrote:

>--- Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com> wrote:
> > There are NO plans for views tied to the
> > validation ruleset, since the situations where it makes sense are few at
> > best.
>
>Too bad. That would be a great thing for LotR and L5R. In both cases, you can
>choose different tournament formats, and it would be nice to automatically
>filter the cards so that the user automatically is restricted only to valid
>cards without having to do it manually themselves.
>
>LotR has "Fellowship" and "Two Towers" games that use different sets of the
>cards. L5R has "Gold", "Jade", and soon "Diamond" (and possibly "KYD")
>that all
>only allow a subset of cards. Magic does the same with their tournament rules
>("Type I" and "Type II"), and there is the biggest arguement for including it
>
>All of them also have an "Open" format that allows most of the cards to be
>used.

This comes back to a philosophical point where we seem to disagree
periodically. :-) There are two different camps in general. Some people
like an application to "be smart" and do things for them automatically.
Some people like to have that control themselves. The problem with the
former philosophy is that you often get solutions as presented by Microsoft
- specifically, the product does things the way IT thinks you SHOULD do
them and then makes life really difficult when you want to do things your
OWN way. As you may have guessed, I'm a staunch believer that this is the
WRONG way to do things. :-)

The CV engine already has built into it the ability to save named filters.
I need to add the ability for data file authors to pre-define them (it's on
the todo list already). Then the functionality needs to be percolated up to
the UI. Once this is done, the USER can CHOOSE whether impose a pre-defined
filter or not. In fact, it would then be possible to allow the data file
author to associate a pre-defined filter set to each rule set, and the user
could then decide whether to have CV automatically impose the new filter or
not via a setting. The net result is that the user is always in control,
since the user always knows what he really wants.

So my position on this is really NOT that an association of filter to rule
set is a bad idea. Instead, it's that imposing things on the user is a bad
idea. I hadn't thought of the optional association with the rule set
previously, so that has been added to the ridiculously long todo list. I'll
be looking to start prioritizing things for V1.1 in the next few weeks...

> >From a user point of view, I think you might want to reconsider allowing the
>rules set to determine some sort of "base" filtering.
>
>BTW: For those games that worry about at what date a card is valid for
>inclusion in a deck design, any though about providing a date symbol for
>use in
>rules? Not really necessary, just an idea. If that were available, then
>validation rules could be written to alert a user that a card he has
>chosen for
>his deck is not yet valid for use in tournament play.

This is an interesting idea, and it would definitely be possible. However,
since the window wherein a card is "premature" is typically only 30 days,
the utility of this feature would be limited. In addition, given the LONG
list of things on the todo list, the cost/benefit ratio is tiny compared to
all the other things on the list. I'll add it to the list, but it's going
to start out at a very low priority. :-)

>I would also like to lobby again for a "warning" level on validation
>rules... a
>level that will generate a message, but not trigger a "This card does not
>satisfy all validation rules do you want to print/save/etc. this deck?"
>question. That was we can provide informational messages like "You have take a
>card that can only be used on a 'Plaid' character but you have no 'Plaid'
>characters" kind of message. It is not technically a validation issue in most
>cases, since most game systems do not restrict you from taking cards you
>cannot
>possibly play in your deck But it would be nice from a "user-friendly"
>point
>of view.

This is definitely on the todo list from when you previously suggested it.
:-) I agree that it would be a nifty feature, but I'm not convinced yet
that it's more important than some of the other things on the todo list.
I'll be revisiting that issue in the not-too-distant future and you can
lobby further at that point. :-)

Thanks, Rob

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (559) 658-6995
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Home Selling? Try Us!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTm...fIAA/WuQolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

--- Rob Bowes <rob@wolflair.com> wrote:
> This comes back to a philosophical point where we seem to disagree
> periodically. :-)

Not as much as you might think.

> The CV engine already has built into it the ability to save named filters.
> I need to add the ability for data file authors to pre-define them (it's on
> the todo list already). Then the functionality needs to be percolated up to
> the UI. Once this is done, the USER can CHOOSE whether impose a pre-defined
> filter or not. In fact, it would then be possible to allow the data file
> author to associate a pre-defined filter set to each rule set, and the user
> could then decide whether to have CV automatically impose the new filter or
> not via a setting. The net result is that the user is always in control,
> since the user always knows what he really wants.

This was actually what I was envisioning as the final goal. As you pointed out,
the ability to define the filters does not yet exist, which was what I was
tyring to prod you to add I expected that you would leave it up to the user
to allow it, but you can only do that once the mechanism is in place to
actually perform the action :P

> I hadn't thought of the optional association with the rule set
> previously, so that has been added to the ridiculously long todo list. I'll
> be looking to start prioritizing things for V1.1 in the next few weeks...

Well... If we give you feedback, that gives you more information for
prioritizing decisions, doesn't it?

> > >From a user point of view, I think you might want to reconsider allowing
> the
> >rules set to determine some sort of "base" filtering.

Err... I really did state this badly, didn't I?

> >BTW: For those games that worry about at what date a card is valid for
> >inclusion in a deck design, any though about providing a date symbol for
> >use in
> >rules? Not really necessary, just an idea. If that were available, then
> >validation rules could be written to alert a user that a card he has
> >chosen for
> >his deck is not yet valid for use in tournament play.
>
> This is an interesting idea, and it would definitely be possible. However,
> since the window wherein a card is "premature" is typically only 30 days,
> the utility of this feature would be limited. In addition, given the LONG
> list of things on the todo list, the cost/benefit ratio is tiny compared to
> all the other things on the list. I'll add it to the list, but it's going
> to start out at a very low priority. :-)

Yah, I can definitely see that one. It was a good idea, but there are certainly
many things I (as a user) would rather have first.


=====
---

Kuni Tetsu
Clan War rules guy
Moderator of ClanWar-l

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Plan to Sell a Home?
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.l...fIAA/WuQolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

[rob]

At 07:04 AM 10/14/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>This was actually what I was envisioning as the final goal. As you pointed
>out,
>the ability to define the filters does not yet exist, which was what I was
>tyring to prod you to add

Ah! I guess I didn't interpret the message quite right. Not too surprising
given my rather harried state right now. :-)

If that was your objective, you've achieved it nicely! :-)

>I expected that you would leave it up to the user
>to allow it, but you can only do that once the mechanism is in place to
>actually perform the action :P

Fair enough.

>Well... If we give you feedback, that gives you more information for
>prioritizing decisions, doesn't it?

Absolutely. I wasn't trying to dismiss your suggestions in any way. If it
came across that way, please accept my apologies. I was just trying to give
you some sense of (a) how huge the todo list is and (b) when I'll be
starting to narrow down the list of features for the next update.

>Err... I really did state this badly, didn't I?

Yep. That's OK, though. I seem to be interpeting badly, so we're even. :->

>Yah, I can definitely see that one. It was a good idea, but there are
>certainly
>many things I (as a user) would rather have first.

I plan on running the feature list by the Beta team for a sanity check
before finalizing things. That way, you'll have a chance to lobby for
things you really think are critical and that aren't on the list (or vice
versa).

Thanks, Rob

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (559) 658-6995
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sell a Home for Top $
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTm...fIAA/WuQolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->