All reports
7 Wonders reports
#11068: "When buying to neighbours, no need to detail every possibility"
#11068: "When buying to neighbours, no need to detail every possibility"
implemented: This suggestion has been implemented
11068
166
What is this report about?
What happened? Please select from below
Suggestion: in my opinion, the following would greatly improve the game implementation
What happened? Please select from below
Suggestion: in my opinion, the following would greatly improve the game implementation
Please check if there is already a report on the same subject
If yes, please VOTE for this report. Reports with the most votes are given PRIORITY!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Detailed description
-
• Please copy/paste the error message you see on your screen, if applicable.
-
• Please explain what you wanted to do, what you did and what happened
• Which browser are you using?
Mozilla v5
-
• Please copy/paste the text displayed in English instead of your language. If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use Imgur.com to upload it and copy/paste the link here.
-
• Is this text available in the translation system? If yes, has it been translated for more than 24 hours?
• Which browser are you using?
Mozilla v5
-
• Please explain your suggestion precisely and concisely so that it's as easy as possible to understand what you mean.
• Which browser are you using?
Mozilla v5
-
• What was displayed on the screen when you were blocked (Blank screen? Part of the game interface? Error message?)
• Which browser are you using?
Mozilla v5
-
• Which part of the rules was not followed by the BGA adaptation?
-
• Is the rules violation visible on game replay? If yes, at which move number?
• Which browser are you using?
Mozilla v5
-
• What was the game action you wanted to do?
-
• What did you try to do to trigger this game action?
-
• What happened when you tried to do this (error message, game status bar message, ...)?
• Which browser are you using?
Mozilla v5
-
• At which step of the game did the problem occur? What was the current game instruction?
-
• What happened when you tried to do this game action (error message, game status bar message, ...)?
• Which browser are you using?
Mozilla v5
-
• Please describe the display issue. If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use Imgur.com to upload it and copy/paste the link here.
• Which browser are you using?
Mozilla v5
-
• Please copy/paste the text displayed in English instead of your language. If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use Imgur.com to upload it and copy/paste the link here.
-
• Is this text available in the translation system? If yes, has it been translated for more than 24 hours?
• Which browser are you using?
Mozilla v5
-
• Please explain your suggestion precisely and concisely so that it's as easy as possible to understand what you mean.
• Which browser are you using?
Mozilla v5
Report history
Sep 26th 2018 03:01 • ludique • Bug has not been reproduced by developers yet:
When I want to build a card requiring many resources, and I have for example the caravansery and the forum (yellow cards producing brown or grey resources), but still not enough resources, the game will propose to buy to my neighbours with every possibility.
This image will explain quickly what I mean:
i.imgur.com/7JR08SS.png (I was building the palace, one resource of each type is needed.)
In the picture there are actually only 3 choices: 2 coins for Hamjy, 1 coin for each neighbour, or 3 coins for Narmo. I don't need the list of every thing.
How to improve : always write the cheapest solutions first (happen with a specifically oriented Trading Post), then a separation with more expensive solutions, and summarise money given to who.
[Give 1 to Right Neighbour and 1 to Left Neighbour]
[Give 2 to Left Neighbour]
--- more expensive solutions ---
[Give 3 to Right Neighbour]
This image will explain quickly what I mean:
i.imgur.com/7JR08SS.png (I was building the palace, one resource of each type is needed.)
In the picture there are actually only 3 choices: 2 coins for Hamjy, 1 coin for each neighbour, or 3 coins for Narmo. I don't need the list of every thing.
How to improve : always write the cheapest solutions first (happen with a specifically oriented Trading Post), then a separation with more expensive solutions, and summarise money given to who.
[Give 1 to Right Neighbour and 1 to Left Neighbour]
[Give 2 to Left Neighbour]
--- more expensive solutions ---
[Give 3 to Right Neighbour]
May 14th 2019 00:23 • ZeliTheZealot • This suggestion has not been analyzed by the developers yet:
imgur.com/a/y6igHoU
I've only been playing for a handful of games and this case comes up...
the suggestion is nice and please try to implement it;DD
would increase game speed by a lot
I've only been playing for a handful of games and this case comes up...
the suggestion is nice and please try to implement it;DD
would increase game speed by a lot
May 15th 2019 00:30 • diamant • This suggestion has not been analyzed by the developers yet:
I agree to sort the different solutions by increasing price and group similar solutions. I don't agree to summarise money given to who, except if this would be an option.
May 16th 2019 02:43 • ZeliTheZealot • This suggestion has not been analyzed by the developers yet:
in reply to diamant
the only three things that matter in a trade are: (assuming you have neighbours A and B)
1. how much you lose
2. how much A gets
3. how much B gets
If these are displayed (once and once only for each possibility) then nothing else matters
Sometimes you might want to limit cash flow to a certain neighbour, maybe because it's late game and close, or because you'd want to starve them.
Currently the system makes it very hard to even find the cheapest option among dozens of options, let alone finding the most strategically sensical one.
Thanks devs. much love
the only three things that matter in a trade are: (assuming you have neighbours A and B)
1. how much you lose
2. how much A gets
3. how much B gets
If these are displayed (once and once only for each possibility) then nothing else matters
Sometimes you might want to limit cash flow to a certain neighbour, maybe because it's late game and close, or because you'd want to starve them.
Currently the system makes it very hard to even find the cheapest option among dozens of options, let alone finding the most strategically sensical one.
Thanks devs. much love
Mar 21st 2020 08:58 • Chookie • This suggestion has not been analyzed by the developers yet:
This is a much needed improvement to the game. Could someone look into implementing this please?
Thanks a lot :)
Thanks a lot :)
Apr 27th 2020 03:06 • Sweetpaq • This suggestion has not been analyzed by the developers yet:
Also French rules Book does not specify that you cant buy resources from a neighbour double brown primary resource card. It seems that the site is not allowing us to trade those resources. This unbalancing the value of yellow cards and increasing double resource card.
May 3rd 2020 12:17 • Xapa • This suggestion has not been analyzed by the developers yet:
Un aperçu d'une partie 7Wonders jouée hier soir...
Je voulais acheter des ressources à mes voisins, voici ce que BGA m'a affiché.
En terme de lisibilité, on fait difficilement... pire. Face à ce bordel, j'ai finalement joué autre chose.
Peut-être pourrions-nous effectivement améliorer cela (je rejoins les propositions précédentes :-))
Capture d'écran / Printscreen of yesterday's game on BGA:
imgur.com/Vhvtq6q
Merci beaucoup
Je voulais acheter des ressources à mes voisins, voici ce que BGA m'a affiché.
En terme de lisibilité, on fait difficilement... pire. Face à ce bordel, j'ai finalement joué autre chose.
Peut-être pourrions-nous effectivement améliorer cela (je rejoins les propositions précédentes :-))
Capture d'écran / Printscreen of yesterday's game on BGA:
imgur.com/Vhvtq6q
Merci beaucoup
May 7th 2020 02:15 • VIG Sparks • This suggestion has not been analyzed by the developers yet:
I built my wonder, giving me the ability to Copy a Guild Card from a neighbor. It did not give me the option or the points I would have gained
May 9th 2020 18:48 • bokanist • This suggestion has not been analyzed by the developers yet:
To simplify this display.
We don't care about what is bought, the only important thing is the amount of money given to each opponent.
For any amount of money given to player A, only the solution paying lowest amount for player B should be kept.
New players just care about the cheapest option, so we can underline or display it in green.
So in the end it's just a scale from left player to right player. Example we need 2 ressources and can buy them for 1 coin to right player. The list could be displayed like this each button is in bracket and contain [Money for left player - money for right player]:
Left player - Right player
[4] [2 - 1] [_0 - 2_]
So the simplification Could be made like this :
- One pass to compute the relevent information "paid to left player" (Called L) and "paid to right player" (called R) and total (called T)
- Sort by increasing R, for any equal values of R sort by decreasing L
- One pass on the array to filter pairs of neighbors (duplicates and too expensive) : if(L1==L2 and R1<=R2) then discard item 2, if(R1==R2 and L1>=L2) then discard item 1
- Find the least expensive total
- Display options left to right
We don't care about what is bought, the only important thing is the amount of money given to each opponent.
For any amount of money given to player A, only the solution paying lowest amount for player B should be kept.
New players just care about the cheapest option, so we can underline or display it in green.
So in the end it's just a scale from left player to right player. Example we need 2 ressources and can buy them for 1 coin to right player. The list could be displayed like this each button is in bracket and contain [Money for left player - money for right player]:
Left player - Right player
[4] [2 - 1] [_0 - 2_]
So the simplification Could be made like this :
- One pass to compute the relevent information "paid to left player" (Called L) and "paid to right player" (called R) and total (called T)
- Sort by increasing R, for any equal values of R sort by decreasing L
- One pass on the array to filter pairs of neighbors (duplicates and too expensive) : if(L1==L2 and R1<=R2) then discard item 2, if(R1==R2 and L1>=L2) then discard item 1
- Find the least expensive total
- Display options left to right
May 15th 2020 02:30 • twigthe1st • This suggestion has not been analyzed by the developers yet:
I would like to add that sometimes it is difficult to find the cheapest option. Making use of highlighting or some kind of intuitive ordering would help.
Jun 2nd 2020 02:26 • CaKtus • This suggestion has not been analyzed by the developers yet:
Fully agree. No need for details. A sorted display of what L and R will get.
Jun 4th 2020 12:46 • diamant • This suggestion has not been analyzed by the developers yet:
I completely disagree with the comments that ask to limit the information and options of the players when purchasing the resources necessary for the construction of a building.
My opinion is that the implementation should not constrain the players, compared to the real game, and that a good ergonomics must repeat the processes observed during a real game.
When a player buys resources from his neighbors in the real game, he decides to buy from such neighbor for each resource he needs (that is, if he needs 2 woods, he can buy them from 2 different neighbors).
This is exactly what the implementation must do: for each resource needed, in the order of the resources on the card of the building to be built, the player must be able to decide to whom he buys this resource by means of checkboxes. Neighbors are presented by decreasing purchase price, and in the reverse order of the turn in case of equal prices. The left most checkbox is checked by default.
At the end of the list of needed resources, an additional line takes balance of the previous lines, total paid by the player, total received by each neighbor in the reverse order of the turn and includes a single button to validate the choices of the previous lines.
My opinion is that the implementation should not constrain the players, compared to the real game, and that a good ergonomics must repeat the processes observed during a real game.
When a player buys resources from his neighbors in the real game, he decides to buy from such neighbor for each resource he needs (that is, if he needs 2 woods, he can buy them from 2 different neighbors).
This is exactly what the implementation must do: for each resource needed, in the order of the resources on the card of the building to be built, the player must be able to decide to whom he buys this resource by means of checkboxes. Neighbors are presented by decreasing purchase price, and in the reverse order of the turn in case of equal prices. The left most checkbox is checked by default.
At the end of the list of needed resources, an additional line takes balance of the previous lines, total paid by the player, total received by each neighbor in the reverse order of the turn and includes a single button to validate the choices of the previous lines.
Jun 4th 2020 12:49 • diamant • This suggestion has not been analyzed by the developers yet:
In my previous comment, please read "by increasing purchase price", not "by decreasing purchase price".
Jun 21st 2020 11:59 • Cullich • This suggestion has not been analyzed by the developers yet:
To the admins/developer: just totally agree. It's difficult to follow and unnecessary
@diamant - While I like making an online game as close to the real experience as possible, and generally dislike things that just allow players to be too darn lazy, in this case I have to disagree. When I play this in real life, it's a heck of a lot easier for me to figure out who I'm buying what from. The problem with the implementation is, while it might more duplicate the real experience, it's just dang hard to read and figure out!! I have to spend way too much time on it and it bugs out my eyes. In the end, I just want to know how much I'm spending and who's getting it.
@freddkham - Feel for ya. I've had some longer lists, but I would freak if I ever saw that one. (Going to post a screenshot of that to the people I play with.)
@diamant - While I like making an online game as close to the real experience as possible, and generally dislike things that just allow players to be too darn lazy, in this case I have to disagree. When I play this in real life, it's a heck of a lot easier for me to figure out who I'm buying what from. The problem with the implementation is, while it might more duplicate the real experience, it's just dang hard to read and figure out!! I have to spend way too much time on it and it bugs out my eyes. In the end, I just want to know how much I'm spending and who's getting it.
@freddkham - Feel for ya. I've had some longer lists, but I would freak if I ever saw that one. (Going to post a screenshot of that to the people I play with.)
Jul 27th 2020 09:33 • Valezius • This suggestion has not been analyzed by the developers yet:
I think this implementation is wrong. A better would be that BSW use(d).
Card has resource cost. You just should show this needed resources one by one, Green checkmark if I have it, nothing if I don't directly have it.
If have to "buy" I can choose to buy from left or right, or use one of my special cards to fill it (brown 2 different resource, yellow card, wonder resource possibility)
In real game if I want to build a card I check what is missing and check how much to buy it. I won't check all possibilities in this form just like the program do now.
Card has resource cost. You just should show this needed resources one by one, Green checkmark if I have it, nothing if I don't directly have it.
If have to "buy" I can choose to buy from left or right, or use one of my special cards to fill it (brown 2 different resource, yellow card, wonder resource possibility)
In real game if I want to build a card I check what is missing and check how much to buy it. I won't check all possibilities in this form just like the program do now.
Aug 12th 2020 05:02 • SLLeath • This suggestion has not been analyzed by the developers yet:
My internet was fine. Both games I got kicked out of the game.
Add to this report
Please add here anything that seems relevant in order to reproduce this bug or understand your suggestion:
- Another table ID / move ID
- Did F5 solve the problem?
- Did the problem appear several times? Every time? 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.
Change report status to:
bug?id=11068
