- Remove the "no-passing" round. There were 37 votes opposed to removing the no-pass round, 14 in favor of it.
- Remove "shooting the sun" penalty. There were 20 votes opposed to removing the penalty, 30 in favor of it.
- Remove forcing a person to play the Queen of Spades if hearts have not been broken and they only have hearts plus the Queen. There were 31 votes opposed to removing being forced to play the queen if hearts not broken, 10 in favor of it.
I am a little bit surprised at the results, but I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. It stands to reason that anyone who feels very strongly about these rules wouldn't be playing at the site for any length of time. Apparently the one rule that the majority would like changed is the shooting the sun penalty, and this is something that doesn't happen that often.
For anyone who feels very strongly about these rules, I'm sorry. You may have heard this before: I know I can't make everyone happy. While I'd like to make the site infinitely customizable with all possible Options, I can't. Given that a majority are opposed to (1) and (3), I cannot see implementing these as a default. I may implement them as an Option to the game in the future. If I do introduce them as an Option, I'd need to put some thought into how the rule is applied to ranked games. For example, should there be a whole new ranked leader board for Hearts when played with different Options? This seems more entertaining, but is also more labor-intensive.
I have mixed feelings on (2). The main reason that people dislike the shooting the sun penalty is - correct me if I'm wrong - that it ends the game too soon, and depends too heavily on luck. I'm actually surprised that so many people are opposed to this penalty, given that other card games often have a similar rule. For example, in Bridge, there's the "grand slam". Some people play Spades with a special award for winning all the tricks (the "Boston").
If I recall correctly, the one time that I shot the sun, it could have been prevented. What I recall is that I got hit with the Queen. I had exactly one hearts card, the King of Hearts. I played the King of Hearts, someone did not cover by taking it with the Ace, and I then proceeded to take the rest.
In some cases, such as this, the "shooting the sun" penalty seems deserved. I would argue that the "shooting the sun" penalty is so severe that it encourages people to "cover their passes", to pass a low hearts card, and in general play better, strategically.
Please argue with my points in the comments section. I freely admit that I am not a very good Hearts player, and it may be that my impressions about shooting the sun are false.
52 comments:
Hi Marya, I agree with all your comments above and I'm relieved that reason has prevailed in the vote.
Shooting the Sun takes a lot of luck but also some skill. Like life itself.
I'd appreciate it if you post with your username. I can understand why people don't (things can get hostile - I ask that people try to avoid personal attacks, and present their arguments in a rational way). Anyway, it's nice to know "who" is speaking.
I completely agree that shooting the sun (and shooting the moon) is sometimes a matter of luck. I just wonder how much of it is completely luck.
There is already a penalty for not covering, not passing a heart, etc. in the moon. If you are lucky enough, and it is exclusively luck, to be in a position to take the first trick does the sun figure in. Therefore the sun is not a penalty for poor play, it is a reward for pure luck no matter what happens after the first trick.
OK but how about the case that I described? In this case, someone decided not to cover my opportunity to moon, and I wound up getting a sun. Do you feel that the moon penalty is enough in this case?
I totally agree with the crowd. I agree that 1 and 3 should remain the same and shooting the sun to be removed. As for setting different table groups for people wanting this or that, the logic could be straight forward, but in so doing you would be offering many table groups. In your reply to Joe Carr, yes a moon is penalty enough, because you sometimes give a high scorer a moon intentionally. I wouldn't want a double penalty for being a "nice guy". This happened to me yesterday.
Hi Mayra,
Your example hand is the best argument for keeping an increased point total for a "sun". It is not, however, a strong argument in favor of assigning a sun 52 points. Others have pointed out that 39 might be closer to the optimal reward. The reward for a grand slam in bridge is not a certain win. 52 points in Hearts is nearly impossible to overcome.
Just as some moons are dealt and others are earned through good play, so too are suns dealt and earned. HOWEVER, a much greater percentage of suns are dealt. This is due to three issues: You can not hold the 2 of clubs. You are virtually required to hold the Ace of Clubs. Because a sun must contain so many winners that taking all of the tricks is even possible it is certain to require less creativity than a moon.
Card games involve overcoming the luck of the draw. There can be no valid complaint that one set of rules or another is more likely to result in "lucky" outcomes. Rather, the question is which rules best promote creative and/or inciteful play. Chasing a sun does not promote the silly play that chasing moons seems to bring out in some players. In fact, it seems much more frequently to be something that happens rather than something planned. Complexity requires strategy which, in turn makes a better game. But rewarding the additional complexity that suns add to hearts should not be rewarded to the point where the game is effectively finished. I'm more comfortable with 39 points and could be persuaded to accept less.
-jes
Please keep the shooing the sun rule in effectas it currently stands. I love this part of the game and consider it a personal challenge to attempt to take every trick when the opportunity presents itself, rare as it may be. It certaintly gives me a feeling of accomplishement, especially when I see that bright 'sun' light up on the screen asopposed to the moon. Thanks for considering my input. Defiant_1
Your decision keep the no-pass hand and to continue the forcing of the queen is very disappointing. It appears that you counted anonymous comments - that is , those who didn't Identify themselves after their comment. Why not count only those who identified themselves, even if they identified themselves as 3 or 4 players? Unfortunately this does not increase the emphasis of skill over luck at your site.
Constance
I'm AlexUK. You probably wouldn't remember me, we only played each other once, and that was 2 years ago. It was a game of spades, which my partner and I managed to win with more luck than skill :)
I have mentioned this to some people before, but probably many do not realize it. There are several reasons that I do not add many multiples of combinations of Options. 1) Adding more table Options requires the site to use more resources. This is a difficult technical issue which I cannot address at this time. 2) Adding more table Options fragments the game players into smaller groups of people, which leads to an overall longer wait time, which may actually make people discouraged with the site enough to quit it. 3) Adding Options costs me personal time, and since I'm currently unable to work on the site full-time (as I have to pay rent and eat food), I have to carefully weigh my priorities for the site - should use the spare time that I have for the site to add a new Hearts Option, or to add a new game that might bring more players to the site?
I realize that some people just don't care about these explanations; they want everything their way, and they want it now (or yesterday). However, for those who are more understanding, I assure you that I am not being obstinate or lazy, I'm just facing the reality of running a website that is modestly popular, but not hugely successful.
Thanks, that is an interesting perspective.
I confess that I'm partial to the sun, but mainly because I like the graphic :)
Constance, I also did a count where I ignored the "Anonymous" posts to the blog. The numbers were:
(1) 19 opposed, 8 in favor
(2) 8 opposed, 22 in favor
(3) 16 opposed, 9 in favor
Please keep in mind what I said: even though the majority seem to be opposed to a change in the default rule, I will still consider adding a new Option which makes it possible to play by these rules, for those who prefer to play that way.
Thank you for identifying yourself Alex! Nice to hear from you again :)
yep. The moon penalty is about right. The sun penalty is like a death sentence by comparison. Your case is one case, but when someone shoots the sun it's usually got way more to do with luck than the skill levels of the oppo's. So I'm with the majority on this one. Most hearts games don't have the rule.
Hi Marya, here is what I would say in favour of keeping the "Shoot The Sun" points just as they are...and that is, it is always such fun to congratulate the person who does it, and just laugh about it and have fun! It does not happen very often, so there is not really that much concern about ending games too quickly...but shooting the sun is just very special and fun to have a great conversation of congratulations.
Forget the extra tables with different rules, Keep 1 and 3, get rid of 2. And be done with it.
I realize exactly what you are saying and agree wholeheartedly. The complexity of the programming would be a daunting task. I didn't mean to say that the programming would be straight forward, just the stating of the options was.
Thanks for understanding, GruntNoNeck! Not that it's insanely complicated - but some people think I can whip out a change in 10 minutes. All but the simplest changes to the site take careful planning and time, and I just don't have as much of the latter as I used to.
The answer to your question is yes, I do feel that the moon is enough penalty. However, my position is that your premise is incorrect in that the sun is not a penalty for poor play, but a reward for luck. What skill did you employ to insure you could take the first trick? If the taking of the first trick requires the luck of the draw and/or the pass, then the sun is luck and you are being rewarded for that luck no matter what happens after that fist trick.
Since it happens that there are adults who play here, it is false to claim that ‘reason has prevailed’ (lol) in preventing rules changes that would have made the version of Hearts played here more sophisticated, more a game of skill than of luck. Certainly, these changes would not have been sufficient, in and of themselves, to elevate the level of play here to match that of former sites like Yahoo (you need, for one thing, an active lobby where strategy can be discussed, mostly for the benefit of novices), but they would have been a small step in the right direction.
I stopped playing Hearts here, for the most part, over a year ago. Now I will play only if I’m the last person to join the table and the other three players happen to be players whom I know play what I consider to be a good game, that they generally pass hearts when a moon pass is inappropriate, for example, and that they cooperate against low, not only with point cards, chiefly the queen of course, but also by passing moons when the situation calls for it (they are not low, and the moon will result in a subtraction). I have no objection to the game of Hearts being played in a simpler way. It’s just that I myself have no use for it (c’est la vie). It may be that I am in the minority here (but the blog ‘vote’ is not something I take seriously, if for no other reason that so few pariticipated), but it certainly is true that I am not alone, as the more thoughtful posts on this subject made clear, as does the fact that Yahoo Hearts, where the simpler version was only tolerated at the beginner’s tables, had easily ten times as many active players: it was rare that you could sign in there and not find at least 300, the average being over 500.
A good solution, in my opinion, would be to allow for both versions of the game here, but I’m not sure how that could be managed. At yahoo, anyone, no matter experienced, could play at the beginners’ tables; at the intermediate and advanced tables, you were expected to display an understanding of more complex strategy (since tables were hosted, those who did not, would find themselves immediately booted).
Tellingly, there was no debate in the lobby there about whether or not higher strategy made for a better game. That there was one here is not surprising, given the scarcity of good Hearts play here, but it is also not surprising that those opposed seemed unable to defend their position with any reasonable argument… only one actually made any real attempt: most offered only one-liners, and some of those were nonsensical (“the no pass hand requires more skill”).
It would not work here to have different areas for beginning and advanced players, of course, because there is disagreement about the nature of the game itself. We would need, in fact, two different games, and an agreement that beginning-level players, as I will call them, would not spoil, as they generally do, the games of those desiring more sophisticated play. Again, c’est la vie. But I’m not sure what you would call the two versions. Perhaps leave the name ‘Hearts’ for those in the majority here, children or not, who play as children do, and come up with something different for the more complex version (“Hearts+” or something, I don’t know).
None of this impacts me a great deal. I spend as much time playing games as I ever did, neither more nor less, but it would make THIS site more enjoyable for me. I normally only play Spades here now (a simpler game, but fun enough).
-drdammit
“Give me ambiguity or give me something else!”
By the way, the main problem with the lobby here is that it is effectively invisible. I doubt that most players, least of all guests (who, arguably, most need one), even know that it exists. Why not display a lobby, peculiar to the game, when a game is selected, to the right of the list of tables? This would be much more interesting, I believe, than the mere display of irrelevant icons that appear there now, don't you agree? Not only would it expose everyone to discussions of strategy (a good thing, especially for guests, even though I would not suggest allowing guests to post there), but could also be entertaining. Between and during games at yahoo, most players 'hung out' in the lobby, and a lot of interesting conversations took place (it's this 'blog' idea times 100). I myself had about as much fun with discussions in the lobby ("oh, gee, go figure!") as I did playing games.
Why not?
P.S. It would also be helpful, I think, if you could stop announcing, in the feed, the mere fact that someone has joined or left... this not only disrupts the flow of the conversation, but also causes it to scroll off the screen sooner than necessary.
- drdammit
Because it is so rare, I don't think it matters very much whether or not 'shooting the sun' is rewarded with more points than shooting the moon. But it is not true that it is always a matter of pure luck, even if that is normally the case. I have shot the sun more than once by choosing not to play my lowest club, for example, on the first trick, as one would normally do if they were intending to shoot the moon. Nor is the 52 penalty a 'death sentence' for the other players. It may even be the case that the shooter is high enough that the result will be a subtraction from his score, leaving another player still low, all the more so since, assuming good play, anyone who shoots the sun, or moon, will likely have been aided by other players. And even when it leaves all three opponents with a large gulf to bridge, again assuming good play, the task is far from impossible. I have seen players come back from larger deficits than 52 points... never say die.
- drdammit
To 'GruntNoNeck':
It does sometimes happen that helping someone moon results in their shooting the sun, but that's only because, almost always, the other players don't notice that the shooter has taken every trick until it's too late. This again demonstrates that there is at least some skill involved, even if what is demonstrated is a lack of skill on their part. Also, not to be putting too fine a point on things, helping someone moon is a matter of self-interest, not of being a 'nice guy'.
-drdammit
"You can't have everything. Where would you put it?"
suggestion for Marya:
Just an idea... display the lobby to the right of the list of tables, then put a banner ad at the bottom and use the revenue to hire programming help. I don't think ads are always or necessarily a bad idea. Personally, I wouldn't mind a little more if it would significantly improve things here.
- drdammit
The idea of 39 points for shooting the sun is a good one, I think, a chance for compromise here. And we could keep that dramatic graphic display. Still, I'm basically okay either position: again, I think this is the least consequential of the three proposed rules changes.
An option is a great idea, I think.
Yes, to get a sun you do have to have some luck in catching the first trick. But from then on you are not guaranteed to get the sun (I think hands where you are guaranteed a sun are very rare). In the example I posted, I would not have shot the sun if someone had taken the effort to cover my hearts lead by taking the trick with the ace of hearts. That was not luck on my part, but bad play on the part of someone else, in my opinion.
The Declai,
Regarding the lobby, you said "Why not display a lobby, peculiar to the game, when a game is selected, to the right of the list of tables?" You want a link to the chat lobby shown in the list of tables, is that correct? I could do this, although it does add to the length of that list of tables. Or did you mean something else?
I was hoping to add a new feature to the chat lobby: showing the list of tables for that game, plus a partner-picker type feature especially for team games. I consider these high priority items. With little time for the site currently, these things just won't get done for now.
Also you said "mere display of irrelevant icons that appear there now"... what are the irrelevant icons? I didn't understand what feature you're talking about.
Also: "stop announcing, in the feed, the mere fact that someone has joined or left". Yeah... maybe I should remove it. The reason I did this was that I thought people might arrange to meet in the chat lobby, but wind up missing each other. If I go to the chat lobby and see someone I was supposed to meet was there, but left 2 minutes ago, I'd realize that I missed them but they may still be hanging around the site. But, maybe it's not so useful.
The Delcai, Your response makes me think that you are in favor of the shooting the sun penalty. Is this true? I didn't notice an opinion from you on this matter in the comments on the previous blog post.
"put a banner ad at the bottom and use the revenue to hire programming help."
I think you have a mistaken idea about how much income the site makes, and how much it takes to hire a reasonably qualified programmer. I know exactly what the numbers are, and I know that I cannot make that work.
A banner ad at the bottom may be worth a try. I can feel people getting their pitchforks out at the suggestion, though.
I didn't see this before my earlier comment. Thanks for explaining your opinion on the sun.
Then our only disagreement would seem to be that if luck is absolutely required from step one, does that not mean that every step thereafter is not tainted by that luck. It would seem to me that if "Yes, to get a sun you do have to have some luck in catching the first trick." Then the extra and exorbitant "penalty" of the sun is a reward for being the beneficiary of said luck?
I think the general idea delcai expressed is that one joins tables directly from the lobby - it should not be a separate link. Clicking on the Spades home page would transport you directly to the Spades lobby where one can enter into discussions and/or join one of the active tables. And, Marya, I like your idea of having a way of choosing partners from the lobby. Minkie
My writing was a little careless there, but thanks for listening. The idea is that selecting Hearts, or any other game (I wonder what a "Go Fish" lobby would look like?), would have the same effect as does now selecting the list of tables, except that the large area to the right of the list would contain the lobby.
Joe, I guess what I'm thinking is this: suppose 1 out of 10 suns are awarded because the person's hand was a "lay-down" sun (i.e. there was no way for anyone else to catch the lead, it didn't matter what order the cards were played in except for the initial play of the 2 of clubs). Then the other 9/10 suns were awarded because other players did not try to stop the person, but could have, by taking the lead. So people were too busy ducking, and didn't work to take the lead when they could.
If this were true, then in 9/10 cases, a sun penalty of some sort is deserved because the opponents did nothing to stop it. It was not a matter of luck at all, in my view - the opponents let it happen. That is just my opinion :) And I really don't know if my example (9/10 due to ducking vs 1/10 inevitable) is remotely correct. Maybe most suns are inevitable. I suspect not though.
Minkie, Hm so the problem is that I am under the impression that some (many) people like the current format of: click Spades image -> go straight to game. They want into a game really fast. They don't want a 2-step process. They will come for me with pitchforks if I change that.
If the problem is that most people are truly unaware of the chat lobbies, then I think adding a lobby link to the list of tables could work to make people aware. I just have a feeling that people tried them, and didn't like them... they were empty most of the time. Maybe they'd get more use if you could see the list of tables from the chat lobby.
The Delcai,
A bunch of people want instant access to a game table, and do not want an intermediate step. I am extremely reluctant to change the way those game images work, since it would generate numerous tech support emails and probably quite a few complaints.
If you think that the chat lobbies are currently too invisible, then just adding a "chat lobby" link for each game to the existing list of tables would do the trick, I think.
Marya, I would bet that most players are clicking the 'list of tables' before going into a game. That is also a 2-step process. Having the list of tables and the chat lobby side by side on the same page gives the option of entering into discussion or joining a game. I'm not clear on why people would object strongly enough to 'get out pitchforks'. I see folks joining the lobby and leaving immediately because there is no one to chat with. The lobby gives everyone the opportunity to chat with others who are not just players at your table.
If folks have to be able to go immediately to a game in a 'one step process', allow that to continue. For those of us who select the 'list of tables', have that display the list of tables with the chat lobby next to them.
Thanks, minkie
Nope Marya, your impression about shooting the sun are correct in my opinion.
Whitewolf
Personally, I think that anyone who would be upset at the necessity of exactly one extra mouse click is probably someone who is going to object to any change whatsoever, and thus to be ignored (I think your site is great, by the way – I play cards online cards nowhere else, and I’ve tried them all – but I don’t think it’s perfect). The first click would be on the active area graphic for the game, the second on the empty seat at the table of their choice, this from the list of tables that will have appeared alongside (to the left of) the chat lobby. For those who simply do not wish to be bothered choosing their own table, you could put a “play now” button just above the list of tables. This is more or less how most sites function now (except that none bother with a ‘play now’ function).
If the lobby is not part of the screen from which one chooses a table, it will be relatively useless, just as it is now.
Having a useful, unhidden, chat lobby is fun. I saw this at Yahoo Hearts. Again, many players enjoyed the chat lobby nearly as much as they did playing games (I did, anyway), conversing there, or merely reading there, between games… I heard many complaints in Yahoo’s lobby, by the way, but cannot recall a single one that complained about the lobby itself, or the fact that it was not relegated to a different page.
Increasing our ability to socialize seems like an obvious plus, and those who disagree need not fret… participation is not compulsory. They will see the lobby, but they need not join the conversation, nor even read it. Its position next to list of tables will certainly be more useful than what appears there now, the active area graphics for “29”, “Euchre” and “Gin Rummy”, don’t you agree?
And it will provide a place for players to discuss strategy, something especially important for the game of Hearts, good Hearts strategy being far from obvious, especially to novices. Such discussion now mostly occurs during game play and usually taken as criticism, rightly so in most cases, and rarely accepted graciously however carefully phrased, common responses being “You play your way and I’ll play mine”, and more often something worse. Discussions of strategy (“it’s important to cover one’s pass… and this is how you do it”, etc.) need to take place somewhere other than tables and during play… and it needs to be somewhere that isn’t hidden, not merely accessible by a link to another page… right alongside the list of tables, for example.
If not that, then, yes, please put a list of tables in the lobby where it is now positioned. That not everyone would see it is a minus, but enough would, I am convinced, to make it worthwhile. If this is your preference, though, I think it would be a good idea to make the link to it more direct: Have a "lobby" button on the main screen, not just a "menu" button that leads to one.
- drdammit
Finally, there is actually a way to construct a table list/lobby page that I believe is more ideal than either of those two options, but it would require a lot more programming... and yes, I do understand that this is not an easy task, and that you likely cannot afford the time for it at this point. Again, I appreciate your work here very much, Marya. You've done a fine job here. I've tried every other site I could find, and I have no use for any of them.
- drdammit
This true, and would be much less work to just leave things the way they are. I love your site and thanks for it.
Jay K
YES!!!!
I have always lobbied (w/ other players) for a Lowman option in preferences. When I suggest this, during a game, I have always had positive response. In my experience on this site (2 years worth I think), the failure of certain players to work at hitting Lowman w/ the Queen is the biggest cause of disharmony (nastiness, quitting) between players. That and a table 'host' (in the Lowman games -- not the other ones) who can remove an offender. Yes, abuses can happen but it's easy enough to 'Not Like" someone who is a poor host, suffer through the game, and go on to greener pastures. The rules, to me, are secondary to the quality of the game (speaking as someone who enjoys the synergy of working with other players to get Lowman). By the way, I am Sahari.
Hi Marya! I just discovered this site a few days ago and really enjoy it. Concerning rule changes, for what my opinion is worth, I feel the rules should stay as close to the original game rules. I have played hearts at many websites over the years. I don't believe I have ever seen someone shoot the sun. A few times 12, but never all. Concerning lowman, I played a couple years at a clubhouse for a dime a point. (May not sound like much but 6 or 7 hours a week can really add up.) But those guys were some of the smartest players I have ever played cards with. It was ALWAYS 3 against lowman. There was never cheap dumping, trying for 2nd or 3rd. And if you did dump, you could plan on the favor being returned. I do not see the kind of play at most websites. Most get rid of the queen as soon as they can, no matter your score. But in the dumpers defense, there are many the lead you out of spades, even if you aren't low.
Much of the disharmony and nastiness comes from players who want everyone to play by what they consider to be an expected strategy. Hearts is a cutthroat (non-partnered) game. Players in a cutthroat game will often be in a situation where self interest overrules what some see as expected "team" play. That team play is just quasi-team play because interests only temporarily "appear" to be aligned. But each player has only his self interest at heart regarding score, even though any chat should always be friendly and cordial without instructions being given on how one player "expects" another to play. Just be aware of the tendencies of other players, take advantage of what you have learned, and please don't broadcast what you have learned to others who are actually your competitors. And whatever you do, please don't quit a game because others are not playing the way you expect them to play in a cutthroat game.
Much of the disharmony and nastiness comes from players who want everyone to play by what they consider to be an expected strategy. Hearts is a cutthroat (non-partnered) game. Players in a cutthroat game will often be in a situation where self interest overrules what some see as expected "team" play. That team play is just quasi-team play because interests only temporarily "appear" to be aligned. But each player has only his self interest at heart regarding score, even though any chat should always be friendly and cordial without instructions being given on how one player "expects" another to play. Just be aware of the tendencies of other players, take advantage of what you have learned, and please don't broadcast what you have learned to others who are actually your competitors. And whatever you do, please don't quit a game because others are not playing the way you expect them to play in a cutthroat game.
I apologize for appearing to give instructions here, but this is the place to do it rather than in an actual game. For those who prefer card games with partnerships, there are several good ones. My favorite has long been Contract Bridge. Hearts is my favorite cutthroat game.
Curt, you need not apologize for appearing to give instructions. Your comments are useful. I wish everyone would abide by the rule to be friendly and cordial in their remarks, or "if they can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."
Spades is a good partnership game, as well, fwiw. I realize that many are obliged to play "pick-up" games on a website (i.e. they may play with many different people, who have all sorts of strategies). If you find that you cannot stand to play with a particular person, just use the red/white X so that you can avoid them in the future. Use the yellow star to "like" a person that you like playing with, and you will more easily spot that person in the "list of tables." You can find all the posts about the list of tables here.
Hi Anon @ Dec 28, 2017 - The problem about sticking with the "original game rules" is that the game of Hearts has evolved quite a bit over time. If you believe wikipedia's Hearts page, the Queen of Spades penalty and also passing cards are all fairly recent additions to the game. According to wiki, "The basic game of Hearts does not include card passing, but the most common variants do".
There are plenty of good players at World of Card Games, but I've also been burned by those who dump the Queen at the earliest opportunity. I'm not super picky about who I play with, so it doesn't bother me as much as it might you. I do like to observe the better players and figure out how to improve my strategy, but it ain't easy.
Post a Comment