I am starting this thread to have a discussion about potential improvements on DoomtownDB.
Don’t forget you can open tasks/issues here but having some sort of discussion can be helpful to know what people think would be interesting (when creating an issue I just know that 1 person wants the feature, but I have no idea if it interests anyone else).
To jump start the discussion, the biggest improvement I plan for next update is to allow to sort (by value, for example) your decklist when you edit/modify your deck (at the moment you can only sort decks when viewing them (whether they are yours or others).
Please comment that or any improvment you’d like to see (and comment on what other people propose as it will give me a sense of prority on those).
When creating/editing a deck, sort cards by Value and show only Spades by default (let them start with the starting posse). As it it now, the full list of all cards sorted by name is really really hard to navigate.
Make the rules section on every individual card page (rulings from the FAQ and from the official rules forum)
When a “View” link is shared, allow other users to download the deck and copy it to their storage.
Display previewed/spoiled cards from future saddlebags in red in the deckbuilder.
Change Rank to Value
Add comments to Reviews, and the ability to edit/delete comments (and maybe flag duplicate ones)
Integrate a script that would calculate the probabilities of drawing different hand ranks (full house / 4-of-a-kind etc.) off 5-6-7 cards based on the deck structure (my presonal opinion: not counting jokers)
First of all, i have to say that you make a great great job with the DoomtownDB. And everyday are better! yesterday i spend a lot of time just looking all the cards listed by artists! greaaat!
I would like to se a kind of “counter” for the ranks of your deck, so you know in real time how many A of hearts you have, or how many Q of clubs… So the decks can have this numbers in the description (A’s, 8’s, Q’s - 12/14/14) as an example…
Given the dynamic nature of the game, this would only be even close to useful for your first lowball hand. After that your deck is already 10 random cards short for the maths involved.
There’s an amazingly well crafted maths thread on BGG that has loads of odds and probabilities, and while the effort into making it is commendable it serves no strategic or tactical purpose as the whole thing is skewed as soon as you draw your hand.
I wish we had a truly dynamic probability calculator, but the work to get one that worked properly would be crazy.
I totally disagree with you. I’m not asking for an app that would help me ‘count cards’ and make better decisions based on understanding the odds better (like Hearthstone add-on apps and stuff). I’m asking for a deckbuilding tool that would give me a general idea on how adding more off-value cards would affect my chances at winning lowball and shootouts.
Great idea. I’m always un-clicking all the boxes when I start to build a deck just so I don’t have every single card to scroll through. It would be preferable to start with none of the boxes selected so we could click the ones we wanted to turn on first.
Or as was suggested here, start with spades selected. And have the faction specific and neutral dudes turned on while the other factions are off.
I believe I am the person you mentioned in your opening post. Since my feature request might be not easy to find for others, I will shortly describe it here so people can comment on it.
What I would like to be added is a “starting hand generator”, say in view mode you press the generate x starting hands button (x is 5 or greater number, depending on visibility), then x starting hands would be generated, next to them there would be a side menu or buttons, where we could rate the hand ( good, average, bad; or from very good to very bad). After rating all of hands we could generate next x starting hands. After we would rate number of hands we wanted, we could display statistics: from simple ones like: you rated x starting hands as good, y as average, z as bad ( possibly in percentages as well) to more detailed ones like: 3-5 cards that were most often in your good or/and bad hand, also the type of the cards could be displayed: in your good hand you had on average e.g. 1,4 deeds, 0,7 dudes, 2,3 actions, 0,5 goods/spells, 0,1 joker. The same could be done for lowball, but the only thing we would need is rank of it and whether it was cheating/ non cheating hand.
I believe this kind of feature would help us to test new decks, without actually playing, also it would make it easier to improve a deck we already know but want to tweak.
I’d like something perhaps simpler than what Larik is asking. I’d like that dtdb automatically parses the deck draw structure and puts it in a subtitle or something.
So for example, if a deck exceeds 9x one value, it considers it part of the structure. A deck with 10x3, 12x9 and 16x10 would have “3+9+10” as the draw structure subtitle.
Any deck that has more than 25 of one suit would add “Flush of Suit” to the draw structure.
Any deck that has more than 8 of 5 consecutive values would be considered staight. So if I had at least 8 of each 5-9, I would add “5-9 Straight” to the draw structure.
A deck that 3-4 consecutive values in one suit would be considered a straight flush. It would be written as “5-9 Straight Flush of Clubs”
A deck that fulfills 2 or more draw structures can be combines with commas. E.g. “3+5, Flush of Diamonds” or “8, 6-10 Straight” etc
This is to allow us to quickly see the deck structure of a decklist without having to mentally calculate it every time.
Well the best solution would of course be to tie up sorting preferences to individual user accounts
But until we get that, I’d say starting with just Dudes (sorted by value) would be the best option. Preferrably all dudes, not just in-faction and neutral, because not always do you actually start with the starting posse, sometimes you choose it after you you fill all the main values.
Also, the default filter would be the same for creating new decks and editing existing ones, right? In the latter case, I don’t think i’ll start with the starting posse…
