• Por favor, copia/pega el mensaje de error que ves en tu pantalla, si hay alguno.

There are scenarios where a player has no choice to make, but must still manually act.

An example of this when the player holds exactly one card of the lead suit, and is therefore forced to play it.

Similar to the last card of the round, it's possible for the game engine to automatically detect this and play the only choice. A private log message could be logged to the player letting them know this happened.

There are also examples where there are choices to make, however the choice wont affect the outcome of this hand

An example of this when the player holds either:
- A sequential run (and only this) of the lead suit, and therefore it's inconsequential which card is played (e.g. Having the 7,8,9 of Hearts when Hearts is lead -- Any card from an opponent will have the same outcome relative to all three 'choices')
---OR---
- ("COMPLEX SCENARIO") Multiple cards from the same suit where public information means that all cards between those cards are in play already -- e.g. Holding the 8 and Q of Diamonds; when the 9 is the displayed trump; and the 10 and J have already been played -- Much like the above scenario the choice here will not affect the outcome.

In the case of multiple cards (especially the second example), even though sometimes the card chosen may not matter for the outcome of this trick, you may want to pick one over the other as it may affect what other players perceive you're doing. This a relatively minor point though. This could be mitigated by allowing player agency on how this is selected, and allowing random selection.

It may also highlight to a player information they weren't thinking about when the second example happens -- e.g. If I get a message "You auto-played Q of diamonds because it wouldn't affect outcome" it might make me aware the 8 I hold is far more powerful than I anticipated! I think this is a good thing, this offsets the possible information leakage discussed below, providing a minor reward/benefit for players speeding up the game.

=== Information Leakage ===
Auto-play like this would have a downside of possibly exposing information in turn-based games especially if this was to happen automatically while a player was offline.

If only the most basic auto-play was implemented it'd be a lot of information; if the auto-play for both runs and the "complex scenario" was implemented then the impacts are reduced partially, it wouldn't be clear to opponents all the time if the auto-play occurred for one reason or the other.

One way to mitigate this would be a user-configurable options for:
1) Whether they'd like to auto-play at all (Set to be opt-in, so off by default);
2) How long to delay the move by (suggesting a maximum of one hour);
3) In the case of playing when multiple cards could be played, how to select the card to play

Even with a delay if an opponent could ascertain that the player was offline (by checking their profile) it still has information leakage -- mitigated, and requiring effort + not working 100% of the time though. (If the player comes online after an auto-move was made, but before an opponent checks there's no way for the opponent to tell it was automatic; however if they didn't come online then it can be determined it was automatic)


If the game could detect when the player was online and alter this behaviour this would be handy -- I don't know if the platform can do this though! I've asked here though boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21193#p88012

• Por favor, explica lo que querías hacer, lo que hiciste y lo que pasó

• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?

• Por favor, copia/pega el texto mostrado en inglés en lugar de en tu idioma. Si tienes una captura de pantalla de este error (buena práctica), puedes usar un servicio de hospedaje de imágenes a tu elección (snipboard.io, por ejemplo) para subirla y copiar/pegar el enlace aquí. ¿Está este texto disponible en el sistema de traducción? Si es así, ¿ha sido traducido hace más de 24 horas?

There are scenarios where a player has no choice to make, but must still manually act.

An example of this when the player holds exactly one card of the lead suit, and is therefore forced to play it.

Similar to the last card of the round, it's possible for the game engine to automatically detect this and play the only choice. A private log message could be logged to the player letting them know this happened.

There are also examples where there are choices to make, however the choice wont affect the outcome of this hand

An example of this when the player holds either:
- A sequential run (and only this) of the lead suit, and therefore it's inconsequential which card is played (e.g. Having the 7,8,9 of Hearts when Hearts is lead -- Any card from an opponent will have the same outcome relative to all three 'choices')
---OR---
- ("COMPLEX SCENARIO") Multiple cards from the same suit where public information means that all cards between those cards are in play already -- e.g. Holding the 8 and Q of Diamonds; when the 9 is the displayed trump; and the 10 and J have already been played -- Much like the above scenario the choice here will not affect the outcome.

In the case of multiple cards (especially the second example), even though sometimes the card chosen may not matter for the outcome of this trick, you may want to pick one over the other as it may affect what other players perceive you're doing. This a relatively minor point though. This could be mitigated by allowing player agency on how this is selected, and allowing random selection.

It may also highlight to a player information they weren't thinking about when the second example happens -- e.g. If I get a message "You auto-played Q of diamonds because it wouldn't affect outcome" it might make me aware the 8 I hold is far more powerful than I anticipated! I think this is a good thing, this offsets the possible information leakage discussed below, providing a minor reward/benefit for players speeding up the game.

=== Information Leakage ===
Auto-play like this would have a downside of possibly exposing information in turn-based games especially if this was to happen automatically while a player was offline.

If only the most basic auto-play was implemented it'd be a lot of information; if the auto-play for both runs and the "complex scenario" was implemented then the impacts are reduced partially, it wouldn't be clear to opponents all the time if the auto-play occurred for one reason or the other.

One way to mitigate this would be a user-configurable options for:
1) Whether they'd like to auto-play at all (Set to be opt-in, so off by default);
2) How long to delay the move by (suggesting a maximum of one hour);
3) In the case of playing when multiple cards could be played, how to select the card to play

Even with a delay if an opponent could ascertain that the player was offline (by checking their profile) it still has information leakage -- mitigated, and requiring effort + not working 100% of the time though. (If the player comes online after an auto-move was made, but before an opponent checks there's no way for the opponent to tell it was automatic; however if they didn't come online then it can be determined it was automatic)


If the game could detect when the player was online and alter this behaviour this would be handy -- I don't know if the platform can do this though! I've asked here though boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21193#p88012

• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?

• Por favor explica tu sugerencia de manera precisa y concisa para que sea lo más fácil posible entender lo que quieres decir.

There are scenarios where a player has no choice to make, but must still manually act.

An example of this when the player holds exactly one card of the lead suit, and is therefore forced to play it.

Similar to the last card of the round, it's possible for the game engine to automatically detect this and play the only choice. A private log message could be logged to the player letting them know this happened.

There are also examples where there are choices to make, however the choice wont affect the outcome of this hand

An example of this when the player holds either:
- A sequential run (and only this) of the lead suit, and therefore it's inconsequential which card is played (e.g. Having the 7,8,9 of Hearts when Hearts is lead -- Any card from an opponent will have the same outcome relative to all three 'choices')
---OR---
- ("COMPLEX SCENARIO") Multiple cards from the same suit where public information means that all cards between those cards are in play already -- e.g. Holding the 8 and Q of Diamonds; when the 9 is the displayed trump; and the 10 and J have already been played -- Much like the above scenario the choice here will not affect the outcome.

In the case of multiple cards (especially the second example), even though sometimes the card chosen may not matter for the outcome of this trick, you may want to pick one over the other as it may affect what other players perceive you're doing. This a relatively minor point though. This could be mitigated by allowing player agency on how this is selected, and allowing random selection.

It may also highlight to a player information they weren't thinking about when the second example happens -- e.g. If I get a message "You auto-played Q of diamonds because it wouldn't affect outcome" it might make me aware the 8 I hold is far more powerful than I anticipated! I think this is a good thing, this offsets the possible information leakage discussed below, providing a minor reward/benefit for players speeding up the game.

=== Information Leakage ===
Auto-play like this would have a downside of possibly exposing information in turn-based games especially if this was to happen automatically while a player was offline.

If only the most basic auto-play was implemented it'd be a lot of information; if the auto-play for both runs and the "complex scenario" was implemented then the impacts are reduced partially, it wouldn't be clear to opponents all the time if the auto-play occurred for one reason or the other.

One way to mitigate this would be a user-configurable options for:
1) Whether they'd like to auto-play at all (Set to be opt-in, so off by default);
2) How long to delay the move by (suggesting a maximum of one hour);
3) In the case of playing when multiple cards could be played, how to select the card to play

Even with a delay if an opponent could ascertain that the player was offline (by checking their profile) it still has information leakage -- mitigated, and requiring effort + not working 100% of the time though. (If the player comes online after an auto-move was made, but before an opponent checks there's no way for the opponent to tell it was automatic; however if they didn't come online then it can be determined it was automatic)


If the game could detect when the player was online and alter this behaviour this would be handy -- I don't know if the platform can do this though! I've asked here though boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21193#p88012

• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?

• ¿Qué había en la pantalla cuando se quedó bloqueado? (¿mensaje de error?, ¿pantalla en blanco?, ¿una parte de la interfaz del juego?)

There are scenarios where a player has no choice to make, but must still manually act.

An example of this when the player holds exactly one card of the lead suit, and is therefore forced to play it.

Similar to the last card of the round, it's possible for the game engine to automatically detect this and play the only choice. A private log message could be logged to the player letting them know this happened.

There are also examples where there are choices to make, however the choice wont affect the outcome of this hand

An example of this when the player holds either:
- A sequential run (and only this) of the lead suit, and therefore it's inconsequential which card is played (e.g. Having the 7,8,9 of Hearts when Hearts is lead -- Any card from an opponent will have the same outcome relative to all three 'choices')
---OR---
- ("COMPLEX SCENARIO") Multiple cards from the same suit where public information means that all cards between those cards are in play already -- e.g. Holding the 8 and Q of Diamonds; when the 9 is the displayed trump; and the 10 and J have already been played -- Much like the above scenario the choice here will not affect the outcome.

In the case of multiple cards (especially the second example), even though sometimes the card chosen may not matter for the outcome of this trick, you may want to pick one over the other as it may affect what other players perceive you're doing. This a relatively minor point though. This could be mitigated by allowing player agency on how this is selected, and allowing random selection.

It may also highlight to a player information they weren't thinking about when the second example happens -- e.g. If I get a message "You auto-played Q of diamonds because it wouldn't affect outcome" it might make me aware the 8 I hold is far more powerful than I anticipated! I think this is a good thing, this offsets the possible information leakage discussed below, providing a minor reward/benefit for players speeding up the game.

=== Information Leakage ===
Auto-play like this would have a downside of possibly exposing information in turn-based games especially if this was to happen automatically while a player was offline.

If only the most basic auto-play was implemented it'd be a lot of information; if the auto-play for both runs and the "complex scenario" was implemented then the impacts are reduced partially, it wouldn't be clear to opponents all the time if the auto-play occurred for one reason or the other.

One way to mitigate this would be a user-configurable options for:
1) Whether they'd like to auto-play at all (Set to be opt-in, so off by default);
2) How long to delay the move by (suggesting a maximum of one hour);
3) In the case of playing when multiple cards could be played, how to select the card to play

Even with a delay if an opponent could ascertain that the player was offline (by checking their profile) it still has information leakage -- mitigated, and requiring effort + not working 100% of the time though. (If the player comes online after an auto-move was made, but before an opponent checks there's no way for the opponent to tell it was automatic; however if they didn't come online then it can be determined it was automatic)


If the game could detect when the player was online and alter this behaviour this would be handy -- I don't know if the platform can do this though! I've asked here though boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21193#p88012

• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?

• ¿Qué parte de las reglas no se ha respetado en la adaptación de BGA?

There are scenarios where a player has no choice to make, but must still manually act.

An example of this when the player holds exactly one card of the lead suit, and is therefore forced to play it.

Similar to the last card of the round, it's possible for the game engine to automatically detect this and play the only choice. A private log message could be logged to the player letting them know this happened.

There are also examples where there are choices to make, however the choice wont affect the outcome of this hand

An example of this when the player holds either:
- A sequential run (and only this) of the lead suit, and therefore it's inconsequential which card is played (e.g. Having the 7,8,9 of Hearts when Hearts is lead -- Any card from an opponent will have the same outcome relative to all three 'choices')
---OR---
- ("COMPLEX SCENARIO") Multiple cards from the same suit where public information means that all cards between those cards are in play already -- e.g. Holding the 8 and Q of Diamonds; when the 9 is the displayed trump; and the 10 and J have already been played -- Much like the above scenario the choice here will not affect the outcome.

In the case of multiple cards (especially the second example), even though sometimes the card chosen may not matter for the outcome of this trick, you may want to pick one over the other as it may affect what other players perceive you're doing. This a relatively minor point though. This could be mitigated by allowing player agency on how this is selected, and allowing random selection.

It may also highlight to a player information they weren't thinking about when the second example happens -- e.g. If I get a message "You auto-played Q of diamonds because it wouldn't affect outcome" it might make me aware the 8 I hold is far more powerful than I anticipated! I think this is a good thing, this offsets the possible information leakage discussed below, providing a minor reward/benefit for players speeding up the game.

=== Information Leakage ===
Auto-play like this would have a downside of possibly exposing information in turn-based games especially if this was to happen automatically while a player was offline.

If only the most basic auto-play was implemented it'd be a lot of information; if the auto-play for both runs and the "complex scenario" was implemented then the impacts are reduced partially, it wouldn't be clear to opponents all the time if the auto-play occurred for one reason or the other.

One way to mitigate this would be a user-configurable options for:
1) Whether they'd like to auto-play at all (Set to be opt-in, so off by default);
2) How long to delay the move by (suggesting a maximum of one hour);
3) In the case of playing when multiple cards could be played, how to select the card to play

Even with a delay if an opponent could ascertain that the player was offline (by checking their profile) it still has information leakage -- mitigated, and requiring effort + not working 100% of the time though. (If the player comes online after an auto-move was made, but before an opponent checks there's no way for the opponent to tell it was automatic; however if they didn't come online then it can be determined it was automatic)


If the game could detect when the player was online and alter this behaviour this would be handy -- I don't know if the platform can do this though! I've asked here though boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21193#p88012

• ¿La infracción de las reglas es visible en la repetición de la partida? Si es así, ¿en qué jugada?

• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?

• ¿Qué acción de juego querías realizar?

There are scenarios where a player has no choice to make, but must still manually act.

An example of this when the player holds exactly one card of the lead suit, and is therefore forced to play it.

Similar to the last card of the round, it's possible for the game engine to automatically detect this and play the only choice. A private log message could be logged to the player letting them know this happened.

There are also examples where there are choices to make, however the choice wont affect the outcome of this hand

An example of this when the player holds either:
- A sequential run (and only this) of the lead suit, and therefore it's inconsequential which card is played (e.g. Having the 7,8,9 of Hearts when Hearts is lead -- Any card from an opponent will have the same outcome relative to all three 'choices')
---OR---
- ("COMPLEX SCENARIO") Multiple cards from the same suit where public information means that all cards between those cards are in play already -- e.g. Holding the 8 and Q of Diamonds; when the 9 is the displayed trump; and the 10 and J have already been played -- Much like the above scenario the choice here will not affect the outcome.

In the case of multiple cards (especially the second example), even though sometimes the card chosen may not matter for the outcome of this trick, you may want to pick one over the other as it may affect what other players perceive you're doing. This a relatively minor point though. This could be mitigated by allowing player agency on how this is selected, and allowing random selection.

It may also highlight to a player information they weren't thinking about when the second example happens -- e.g. If I get a message "You auto-played Q of diamonds because it wouldn't affect outcome" it might make me aware the 8 I hold is far more powerful than I anticipated! I think this is a good thing, this offsets the possible information leakage discussed below, providing a minor reward/benefit for players speeding up the game.

=== Information Leakage ===
Auto-play like this would have a downside of possibly exposing information in turn-based games especially if this was to happen automatically while a player was offline.

If only the most basic auto-play was implemented it'd be a lot of information; if the auto-play for both runs and the "complex scenario" was implemented then the impacts are reduced partially, it wouldn't be clear to opponents all the time if the auto-play occurred for one reason or the other.

One way to mitigate this would be a user-configurable options for:
1) Whether they'd like to auto-play at all (Set to be opt-in, so off by default);
2) How long to delay the move by (suggesting a maximum of one hour);
3) In the case of playing when multiple cards could be played, how to select the card to play

Even with a delay if an opponent could ascertain that the player was offline (by checking their profile) it still has information leakage -- mitigated, and requiring effort + not working 100% of the time though. (If the player comes online after an auto-move was made, but before an opponent checks there's no way for the opponent to tell it was automatic; however if they didn't come online then it can be determined it was automatic)


If the game could detect when the player was online and alter this behaviour this would be handy -- I don't know if the platform can do this though! I've asked here though boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21193#p88012

• ¿Qué es lo que trataste de hacer para activar esta acción del juego?

• ¿Qué sucedió cuando lo hiciste (el mensaje de error, mensaje en la barra de estado del juego, ...)?

• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?

• ¿En qué etapa de la partida ocurrió el problema? ¿Cuál era la instrucción actual del juego?

There are scenarios where a player has no choice to make, but must still manually act.

An example of this when the player holds exactly one card of the lead suit, and is therefore forced to play it.

Similar to the last card of the round, it's possible for the game engine to automatically detect this and play the only choice. A private log message could be logged to the player letting them know this happened.

There are also examples where there are choices to make, however the choice wont affect the outcome of this hand

An example of this when the player holds either:
- A sequential run (and only this) of the lead suit, and therefore it's inconsequential which card is played (e.g. Having the 7,8,9 of Hearts when Hearts is lead -- Any card from an opponent will have the same outcome relative to all three 'choices')
---OR---
- ("COMPLEX SCENARIO") Multiple cards from the same suit where public information means that all cards between those cards are in play already -- e.g. Holding the 8 and Q of Diamonds; when the 9 is the displayed trump; and the 10 and J have already been played -- Much like the above scenario the choice here will not affect the outcome.

In the case of multiple cards (especially the second example), even though sometimes the card chosen may not matter for the outcome of this trick, you may want to pick one over the other as it may affect what other players perceive you're doing. This a relatively minor point though. This could be mitigated by allowing player agency on how this is selected, and allowing random selection.

It may also highlight to a player information they weren't thinking about when the second example happens -- e.g. If I get a message "You auto-played Q of diamonds because it wouldn't affect outcome" it might make me aware the 8 I hold is far more powerful than I anticipated! I think this is a good thing, this offsets the possible information leakage discussed below, providing a minor reward/benefit for players speeding up the game.

=== Information Leakage ===
Auto-play like this would have a downside of possibly exposing information in turn-based games especially if this was to happen automatically while a player was offline.

If only the most basic auto-play was implemented it'd be a lot of information; if the auto-play for both runs and the "complex scenario" was implemented then the impacts are reduced partially, it wouldn't be clear to opponents all the time if the auto-play occurred for one reason or the other.

One way to mitigate this would be a user-configurable options for:
1) Whether they'd like to auto-play at all (Set to be opt-in, so off by default);
2) How long to delay the move by (suggesting a maximum of one hour);
3) In the case of playing when multiple cards could be played, how to select the card to play

Even with a delay if an opponent could ascertain that the player was offline (by checking their profile) it still has information leakage -- mitigated, and requiring effort + not working 100% of the time though. (If the player comes online after an auto-move was made, but before an opponent checks there's no way for the opponent to tell it was automatic; however if they didn't come online then it can be determined it was automatic)


If the game could detect when the player was online and alter this behaviour this would be handy -- I don't know if the platform can do this though! I've asked here though boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21193#p88012

• ¿Qué sucedió cuando trataste de hacer una acción de juego (mensaje de error, mensaje en la barra de estado del juego, ...)?

• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?

• Por favor, describe el problema de visualización. Si tienes una captura de pantalla de este error (buena práctica), puedes usar un servicio de hospedaje de imágenes a tu elección (snipboard.io, por ejemplo) para subirla y copiar/pegar el enlace aquí.

There are scenarios where a player has no choice to make, but must still manually act.

An example of this when the player holds exactly one card of the lead suit, and is therefore forced to play it.

Similar to the last card of the round, it's possible for the game engine to automatically detect this and play the only choice. A private log message could be logged to the player letting them know this happened.

There are also examples where there are choices to make, however the choice wont affect the outcome of this hand

An example of this when the player holds either:
- A sequential run (and only this) of the lead suit, and therefore it's inconsequential which card is played (e.g. Having the 7,8,9 of Hearts when Hearts is lead -- Any card from an opponent will have the same outcome relative to all three 'choices')
---OR---
- ("COMPLEX SCENARIO") Multiple cards from the same suit where public information means that all cards between those cards are in play already -- e.g. Holding the 8 and Q of Diamonds; when the 9 is the displayed trump; and the 10 and J have already been played -- Much like the above scenario the choice here will not affect the outcome.

In the case of multiple cards (especially the second example), even though sometimes the card chosen may not matter for the outcome of this trick, you may want to pick one over the other as it may affect what other players perceive you're doing. This a relatively minor point though. This could be mitigated by allowing player agency on how this is selected, and allowing random selection.

It may also highlight to a player information they weren't thinking about when the second example happens -- e.g. If I get a message "You auto-played Q of diamonds because it wouldn't affect outcome" it might make me aware the 8 I hold is far more powerful than I anticipated! I think this is a good thing, this offsets the possible information leakage discussed below, providing a minor reward/benefit for players speeding up the game.

=== Information Leakage ===
Auto-play like this would have a downside of possibly exposing information in turn-based games especially if this was to happen automatically while a player was offline.

If only the most basic auto-play was implemented it'd be a lot of information; if the auto-play for both runs and the "complex scenario" was implemented then the impacts are reduced partially, it wouldn't be clear to opponents all the time if the auto-play occurred for one reason or the other.

One way to mitigate this would be a user-configurable options for:
1) Whether they'd like to auto-play at all (Set to be opt-in, so off by default);
2) How long to delay the move by (suggesting a maximum of one hour);
3) In the case of playing when multiple cards could be played, how to select the card to play

Even with a delay if an opponent could ascertain that the player was offline (by checking their profile) it still has information leakage -- mitigated, and requiring effort + not working 100% of the time though. (If the player comes online after an auto-move was made, but before an opponent checks there's no way for the opponent to tell it was automatic; however if they didn't come online then it can be determined it was automatic)


If the game could detect when the player was online and alter this behaviour this would be handy -- I don't know if the platform can do this though! I've asked here though boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21193#p88012

• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?

• Por favor, copia/pega el texto mostrado en inglés en lugar de en tu idioma. Si tienes una captura de pantalla de este error (buena práctica), puedes usar un servicio de hospedaje de imágenes a tu elección (snipboard.io, por ejemplo) para subirla y copiar/pegar el enlace aquí. ¿Está este texto disponible en el sistema de traducción? Si es así, ¿ha sido traducido hace más de 24 horas?

There are scenarios where a player has no choice to make, but must still manually act.

An example of this when the player holds exactly one card of the lead suit, and is therefore forced to play it.

Similar to the last card of the round, it's possible for the game engine to automatically detect this and play the only choice. A private log message could be logged to the player letting them know this happened.

There are also examples where there are choices to make, however the choice wont affect the outcome of this hand

An example of this when the player holds either:
- A sequential run (and only this) of the lead suit, and therefore it's inconsequential which card is played (e.g. Having the 7,8,9 of Hearts when Hearts is lead -- Any card from an opponent will have the same outcome relative to all three 'choices')
---OR---
- ("COMPLEX SCENARIO") Multiple cards from the same suit where public information means that all cards between those cards are in play already -- e.g. Holding the 8 and Q of Diamonds; when the 9 is the displayed trump; and the 10 and J have already been played -- Much like the above scenario the choice here will not affect the outcome.

In the case of multiple cards (especially the second example), even though sometimes the card chosen may not matter for the outcome of this trick, you may want to pick one over the other as it may affect what other players perceive you're doing. This a relatively minor point though. This could be mitigated by allowing player agency on how this is selected, and allowing random selection.

It may also highlight to a player information they weren't thinking about when the second example happens -- e.g. If I get a message "You auto-played Q of diamonds because it wouldn't affect outcome" it might make me aware the 8 I hold is far more powerful than I anticipated! I think this is a good thing, this offsets the possible information leakage discussed below, providing a minor reward/benefit for players speeding up the game.

=== Information Leakage ===
Auto-play like this would have a downside of possibly exposing information in turn-based games especially if this was to happen automatically while a player was offline.

If only the most basic auto-play was implemented it'd be a lot of information; if the auto-play for both runs and the "complex scenario" was implemented then the impacts are reduced partially, it wouldn't be clear to opponents all the time if the auto-play occurred for one reason or the other.

One way to mitigate this would be a user-configurable options for:
1) Whether they'd like to auto-play at all (Set to be opt-in, so off by default);
2) How long to delay the move by (suggesting a maximum of one hour);
3) In the case of playing when multiple cards could be played, how to select the card to play

Even with a delay if an opponent could ascertain that the player was offline (by checking their profile) it still has information leakage -- mitigated, and requiring effort + not working 100% of the time though. (If the player comes online after an auto-move was made, but before an opponent checks there's no way for the opponent to tell it was automatic; however if they didn't come online then it can be determined it was automatic)


If the game could detect when the player was online and alter this behaviour this would be handy -- I don't know if the platform can do this though! I've asked here though boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21193#p88012

• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?

• Por favor explica tu sugerencia de manera precisa y concisa para que sea lo más fácil posible entender lo que quieres decir.

There are scenarios where a player has no choice to make, but must still manually act.

An example of this when the player holds exactly one card of the lead suit, and is therefore forced to play it.

Similar to the last card of the round, it's possible for the game engine to automatically detect this and play the only choice. A private log message could be logged to the player letting them know this happened.

There are also examples where there are choices to make, however the choice wont affect the outcome of this hand

An example of this when the player holds either:
- A sequential run (and only this) of the lead suit, and therefore it's inconsequential which card is played (e.g. Having the 7,8,9 of Hearts when Hearts is lead -- Any card from an opponent will have the same outcome relative to all three 'choices')
---OR---
- ("COMPLEX SCENARIO") Multiple cards from the same suit where public information means that all cards between those cards are in play already -- e.g. Holding the 8 and Q of Diamonds; when the 9 is the displayed trump; and the 10 and J have already been played -- Much like the above scenario the choice here will not affect the outcome.

In the case of multiple cards (especially the second example), even though sometimes the card chosen may not matter for the outcome of this trick, you may want to pick one over the other as it may affect what other players perceive you're doing. This a relatively minor point though. This could be mitigated by allowing player agency on how this is selected, and allowing random selection.

It may also highlight to a player information they weren't thinking about when the second example happens -- e.g. If I get a message "You auto-played Q of diamonds because it wouldn't affect outcome" it might make me aware the 8 I hold is far more powerful than I anticipated! I think this is a good thing, this offsets the possible information leakage discussed below, providing a minor reward/benefit for players speeding up the game.

=== Information Leakage ===
Auto-play like this would have a downside of possibly exposing information in turn-based games especially if this was to happen automatically while a player was offline.

If only the most basic auto-play was implemented it'd be a lot of information; if the auto-play for both runs and the "complex scenario" was implemented then the impacts are reduced partially, it wouldn't be clear to opponents all the time if the auto-play occurred for one reason or the other.

One way to mitigate this would be a user-configurable options for:
1) Whether they'd like to auto-play at all (Set to be opt-in, so off by default);
2) How long to delay the move by (suggesting a maximum of one hour);
3) In the case of playing when multiple cards could be played, how to select the card to play

Even with a delay if an opponent could ascertain that the player was offline (by checking their profile) it still has information leakage -- mitigated, and requiring effort + not working 100% of the time though. (If the player comes online after an auto-move was made, but before an opponent checks there's no way for the opponent to tell it was automatic; however if they didn't come online then it can be determined it was automatic)


If the game could detect when the player was online and alter this behaviour this would be handy -- I don't know if the platform can do this though! I've asked here though boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21193#p88012

• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?