 |
| allow first turn hearts option |
Over the last two years, I've had requests for several other options:
- Someone would like to see the Omnibus Hearts option, described at Pagat: it applies a bonus to the player who takes the Jack of Diamonds. That person gets 10 points deducted from their score, even if someone else shoots the moon or sun.
- Someone has a house rule that disallows passing the Queen of Spades. The idea is that by passing the Queen of Spades, two players know where it is, giving them an unfair advantage over the other two players. I haven't seen this variation before.
- Another user would like to see a shorter version of Hearts, in which the maximum score is perhaps 56. This would let people play a quick game when they don't have so much time.
- A player requests that when the Queen of Spades is played, Hearts should not be broken. Only when the first Heart card is played should Hearts be broken, allowing others to lead with Hearts.
- Someone is interested in seeing a redeal option which would work as follows: if a new player takes a seat that has a high score, then with the agreement of all players, the game would be reset. I'm inclined to oppose this option, because it seems to me that it's about the same as having everyone leave the table and start over.
If you have your own favorite option that you don't see here, post it in the comment section!
26 comments:
I have heard of and played the Jack of Diamonds bonus version … but none of the others. Good luck with this, and I approve of however you decide on all these versions.
Thanks for all you do … and do so well!
Love,
Kaycie
Thanks for the feedback Kaycie! Good to know that this option is at least familiar to some players :)
Hi Marya, and thanks for your work.
I don't like "allow hearts on first trick" but, as it is an option, it can't hurt.
Instead Omnibus option seems interesting.
I think that disallowing to pass THE Queen would take out a lot of tactics from the game.
About the maximum score, it would be nice to have, at will, a shorter game. But probably t
Then I totally agree with the rule that playing the Queen does not break the Hearts. It se
About option #5, "reset the game", I agree with you: complicated, unnecessary and a little
Thank you for your attention, have a nice day,
Doriano
Hi Doriano,
Thanks for you comments! It appears some of your text got cut off. If you want to post your full comment again, this time maybe you can "preview" it to make sure the entire comment shows?
FWIW I am getting the feeling that the Jack of Diamonds could be fun and is most popular at this point :)
Hi Marya, I try again, but I must say that sometimes comments vanish in nowhere (this is the third try!).
I don't like "allow hearts on first trick" but, as it is an option, it can't hurt; instead Omnibus option seems interesting.
I think that disallowing to pass THE Queen would take out a lot of tactics from the game.
About the maximum score, it would be nice to have, at will, a shorter game. But probably the players know that thing after having starting the game, not before.
Then I totally agree with the rule that playing the Queen does not break the Hearts. I believe this is the "standard", it is coherent and makes things interesting: it is too easy to shoot by waiting to get the queen, and then start to play hearts to get them all.
About option #5, "reset the game", I agree with you: complicated, unnecessary and perhaps a little prone to lot of debates. May be that the statistics for a user should not be updated if they enter a game when too many hands are passed, or the scores aree to far from zero.
I see a problem with options in general...: the player who opens the table can set them at will, but the others only can accept to play or decline. On the other hand, it is complicated to make those options more "democratic", things like "all the players agree...", "the majority of the players agree..." and so on. May be that an "anonymous" dialog during a game could work: if a player wants to set an options (reduced score yes/no, robots yes/no, reset game yes/no) he asks and, if all the players agree, the change gets introduced. This dialog could be anonymous to avoid flames and debates.
Thank you for your attention, have a nice day,
Doriano
Hi Doriano, Thank you for sharing this feedback. Your comment is entirely readable now, thanks for trying again!
One remark: changing the options on a game after it has started is technically difficult. Also, I suspect that most people would not cooperate, so it would not get used often. This is something I will not add in the near future, although it is an interesting idea.
I would like a new sound for when the door closes, I find it loud and abrupt, I need to play on mute. Would love to see Jack of Diamonds -11 option. Thank you.
I was introduced to the Jack of Diamonds thing back in college. It completely
changes a player's strategy with regard to passing cards and playing the hand.
I suggest, Marya, that you consider a new game here and let folks try it out for a month or two. If it doesn't catch on, you can kill it off.
Wharever
Hi Whatever, it takes too long to develop a game to make it worthwhile to just try it, and then kill it off if no one likes it. I don't see the point in killing off games anyway. Even the least popular games are enjoyed by some people, and it does no harm leaving such games on the site.
Couldn't you just turn down the sound instead of muting it?
I also like the Jack of Diamonds option.
Great job, I've been having much fun with your games!
I like the Jack of Diamonds rule!
Thanks for creating a great game, I've been enjoying it very much!
Glad to hear it, thanks!
Thanks very much for the feedback!
As Marya has said on various occasions, having too many options while still having a small amount of users, would mean that there would be less tables available that match.
I presume that for each option, there would be a choice of "Either". So for those that play that way, we would then need to visit the "Table info" each time that we start at a new table. On the occasions that we are joined to an in-progress game, we would need to "pause" the game while we familiarise. I see that the newer "3-5-8" game has a "Pause/Resume" facility.
I am okay with there being many options. I would set my favourites and then play with robots until someone later joined that liked those same options.
#1: It does radically change one's play and pass techniques.
#2: It was me who proposed this option. Yes we realise that there are various strategies. We made this a house rule to ensure equality: that all information is available to all players. We reckon that that creates better games.
If the robots are using a strategy when they pass the Queen then probably okay, but i wonder if they should not be allowed to generally pass it just to get rid of a potential problem card.
#3: The average game time seems to be about 20 minutes. Yes, i reckon that it would be useful to have the option for a shorter game.
#4: The default should be whatever is the most common rule. Yes, have an option for the opposite.
#5: I reckon that there is no need to abandon. Just play the remainder, and stay for the next game if you are having fun with the current set of players.
-David
Hi David,
Thanks for this feedback! Here are some specific responses to a few things that you bring up:
having too many options while still having a small amount of users, would mean that there would be less tables available that match.
Thank you for re-stating that. It is true.
we would then need to visit the "Table info" each time that we start at a new table.
Eventually I will add this to the info in the list of tables, so you can more readily see what you are getting into. Also, I may add an alert if there are non-default options when you sit at an active table. That way, you would not have to remember to check the table options.
I see that the newer "3-5-8" game has a "Pause/Resume" facility.
Actually, Pause/Resume is only available at private tables. Is it possible that you were seated at a private table when you saw this?
Regarding passing: Generally I do not pass the Queen, unless I have very little Spades "protection". For example, suppose my only Spade is the Queen. Then I'm in a bad position, and a rule which disallows passing it would be pretty unpleasant for me. If I have 2 or 3 other Spades cards, I keep the Queen and pass to try to create a void in another suit. Keeping the Queen gives me the power to try to drop her strategically on someone where it benefits me most.
Regarding robot strategy: I have reworked it once, and it can certainly stand to be reworked further! I haven't had the time.... so many things to do!
Thanks for the game, terrific job. I'd like an option of just standard hearts (I think it's the first one listed in Hoyle), which is what we play except there's never a -26 pts for shooting the moon; it's always +26 for the other 3 players. It gives players who have a lead a strategy to win through someone else's moon, makes a good game.
I applaud having 1 winner and 3 losers, instead of having some little reward for player in 2nd place. And I really love the animations - a lot - but don't like the slow, vaguely taunting "XXXX shot the Moon!" graphic.
Again thanks for your great work.
I'm glad you're enjoying the site! That's an interesting reaction to the "shot the moon!" graphic... haven't heard it before!
I guess I am a traditionalist but I like the game as is. I have never played the Jack of DIamonds option and it would be interesting to try. I believe one should be able to pass the queen. Although I prefer to have control of it so that I can try to target the low man, it is important to be able to get rid of it if it is a singleton (as Marya mentioned), but also passing the queen to the low man when one has a lot of spades and then smoking it out is another of targeting the low man. I like having hearts broken with the queen. I love the new option of muting some people's chats as there are individuals who can be distracting. Also I have had people "table talk" which I don't like. Thanks for all your efforts--I love playing hearts on your website!
Thanks for your input, leopold! And I'm glad to hear that you're having fun with Hearts at World of Card Games!
Jack of Diamonds for 10 points is a fun variation :)
The option to skip the no pass hand (Yahoo had this) would be nice.
- drd
ps and the option of allowing mooners to decide for themselves whether to add or subtract points
Another vote for -10 JD.
can someone suggest a hearts game that gives the Jack of diamonds option and that has large cards for easy viewing? Thanks.
Hi! I will be adding the Jack of Diamonds Option, eventually. First comes the new "Tournament Rules" Option, though. Regarding the deck, you may want to try different deck sizes (click the "Deck" link in the upper right corner, and select a new deck).
Post a Comment