Multiplayer playing card app

[tedwallner]

Hi,

We've just released a beta for our app that allows you to play any card game on your phone. Its meant to be a replacement for a physical deck of cards. So there are no set rules, or gameplay. Its meant to be played with your friends.

To play, you drag cards around the table, you can pass them to other players etc.

Theres still heaps to do, but it would be good to get your input. Also, let us know if you find any bugs, or other issues that make it hard to play certain games.

http://deckofcardsapp.com/

Thanks!

[Don Boyer]

Because your app is just that, an app and not a deck of cards, I moved the topic to the Conversation Parlor.

While you do have the convenience of not having to use play-and-pass, you do have the drawback of requiring Internet access.  Sure, most phones have it, but in major cities with underground subways, basements, enclosed shopping malls, etc., anywhere the cellular signal fails and WiFi isn't available, it's "game over."

Making it free is good and give it an edge over the purchase of a cheap pack of cards.  Does it have a chat feature?  Since play occurs over the Internet, you can have people playing literally from other countries against each other and they may want to use the app for remaining in touch.

How does it handle a lost connection?  In the US, there's two common cellphone protocols in use, GSM (popular in Europe) and CDMA (popular in parts of Asia and South America).  GSM is fine, you can have a data connection running at the same time as a phone call.  CDMA, however, is a different story, and two of the top four phone networks in the US use CDMA.  In CDMA networks, a phone call will disconnect a smartphone from the Internet for the duration of the phone call.  It's a hassle for me when I'm using my phone for navigation while I'm driving, then suddenly receive a call and have to either ignore it until I reach a known location I can "self-navigate" or I answer the call and don't know where I'm going.

There's also a few legal issues you'd want to clarify, at least for your customers if not for yourself.  In the US, some states are getting more and more restrictive about use of cellphones while driving.  In the state of New Jersey, for example, it's now illegal not only to text while driving but even to RECEIVE a text while driving.  How would NJ state law cover a request from one of your players trying to start a card game with someone in their state while that person was driving?  Would the receipt of the game request constitute a violation of state law for the recipient?  Would you need to include a disclaimer of some kind to prevent or at least warn your players about the risk of violating such laws?

[tedwallner]

Don Boyer,
Firstly, thanks for your questions and feedback. We did initially think about using bluetooth for phones to communicate with each other, but we had to rule it out because iOS does not play well with other devices. We're trying to get this app to work on as many phones as possible, so using the internet is our only option.

It does have a chat feature, but it does need some work. A few people have mentioned how difficult it can be chatting and playing at the same time. We're working on how to make this as frictionless as possible. The chat however, only lasts for the duration for the session. We think this is fine for now, seeing that we assume you are playing with your friends and not strangers on the internet. Which brings us to the next point - playing with random people on the internet.  Presently, there is no functionality to join random rooms, with other players on the internet. We will consider doing this if there is a lot requests to do so.

With regards to lost connections, we cant do much other than to wait until their connection is back. As soon as the connection is made to the server the app will update to the current game state.

With using cellphones while driving, we don't think this is an issue at the moment. The app does not send notifications when someone creates a game. The other player must join a room, which means that the user must be actively on their phone to play. I don't think any drivers would be that careless to do that while driving (lets hope not!).

[Don Boyer]

Don Boyer,
Firstly, thanks for your questions and feedback. We did initially think about using bluetooth for phones to communicate with each other, but we had to rule it out because iOS does not play well with other devices. We're trying to get this app to work on as many phones as possible, so using the internet is our only option.

It does have a chat feature, but it does need some work. A few people have mentioned how difficult it can be chatting and playing at the same time. We're working on how to make this as frictionless as possible. The chat however, only lasts for the duration for the session. We think this is fine for now, seeing that we assume you are playing with your friends and not strangers on the internet. Which brings us to the next point - playing with random people on the internet.  Presently, there is no functionality to join random rooms, with other players on the internet. We will consider doing this if there is a lot requests to do so.

With regards to lost connections, we cant do much other than to wait until their connection is back. As soon as the connection is made to the server the app will update to the current game state.

With using cellphones while driving, we don't think this is an issue at the moment. The app does not send notifications when someone creates a game. The other player must join a room, which means that the user must be actively on their phone to play. I don't think any drivers would be that careless to do that while driving (lets hope not!).

While Bluetooth would have been tempting, it would also have been limiting, forcing you to play only against players within Bluetooth range, which under ideal conditions is under five meters - fine for across the table, not as good for across the room, terrible for across the yard or across to the other side of the house.

I'd say go for it in regards to allowing people to play strangers online - while at the same time, allowing people to turn off chat, since they may want to play a stranger but not necessarily chat with one.  Additionally, you should use age vetting/restrictions - you definitely don't want kids freely chatting with adult strangers.  People will not always have an opponent available that they know personally and the whole point of your program is to allow free play against other humans.  The only issue you'd run into then would be agreement on game rules - in a free play environment, you need to insure all players know and are playing by the same rule set as there would be nothing to stop one from cheating, even if they would obviously be spotted at it by the other players.

A section for posting rule sets would be a good idea.  You can create a list of common games and their rules, while also allowing for user-defined variants.  This way, when people are playing strangers, there's a list of rules available and a name assigned to them that they can agree on before initiating play.  For example, I could open game table #345 and select to play "spades - variant 15" which would include whatever house rules I happen to enjoy playing under (I used to know players that used jokers and deuces as additional cards in the spade trump suit, making it a larger suit than the other three non-trump suits).  Maybe I wrote that variant, maybe I didn't, but it's the rule set I like either way, so that's what I choose.  Any strangers interested in playing at my table can look up spades variant #15, see if they like the changes and decide if that's what they want to play or not.  If not, they move to another table; if so, all the players are agreed on one set of rules and play proceeds reasonably harmoniously.

[tedwallner]

I didn't know bluetooth had such terrible range. Thanks for that, I'm glad we avoided going that direction.

Very interesting. I was thinking of allowing strangers to play together as something that we might do far into the future, but you're bringing up some very good suggestions; particularly allowing the user to define rules somewhere. I like the idea of having common games and their rules, and allowing users to define variants, but I also don't want to be restricting users to just these games. But on the other hand I can imagine how unorganised it could get if we don't. Will need to put more thought into that.

Free play will definitely be an issue, particular whose turn it is, being able to do certain actions (eg. pass). So we would need to rethink how all these can be used along with these rules.. For example, along with rules, you have options that can define new buttons, or have more that one deck etc. Similar to what we have now when you create a game (using checkboxes), but to tie it to the game type as well.

[Don Boyer]

I didn't know bluetooth had such terrible range. Thanks for that, I'm glad we avoided going that direction.

Very interesting. I was thinking of allowing strangers to play together as something that we might do far into the future, but you're bringing up some very good suggestions; particularly allowing the user to define rules somewhere. I like the idea of having common games and their rules, and allowing users to define variants, but I also don't want to be restricting users to just these games. But on the other hand I can imagine how unorganised it could get if we don't. Will need to put more thought into that.

Free play will definitely be an issue, particular whose turn it is, being able to do certain actions (eg. pass). So we would need to rethink how all these can be used along with these rules.. For example, along with rules, you have options that can define new buttons, or have more that one deck etc. Similar to what we have now when you create a game (using checkboxes), but to tie it to the game type as well.

In wireless, WiFi is "local area networking," while Bluetooth is "personal area networking" - it's meant to tie together your devices that are literally within arm's reach, not a great distance away.

I wouldn't sweat the rules thing too hard.  Allow uses to create rules definitions of their own, much like how a user might select a table at which to play.  The enforcement of the rules would be more up to the players, I'd think, if your program allows for free play and card manipulation.  To restrict card movements by any set of rules raises the complexity of the program a great deal - and for each new game/variant by which one can play, the program gets more and more complex, having to be able to work with all those different rules sets.

Think of it like how one plays with a real deck of cards.  There's no instructions, no limits built-in that restrict how I can place, move or otherwise manipulate the cards.  The only thing that stops me from doing so is the other players at the table, with whom I've agreed on a certain set of rules under which to play.  The other players can see if I'm trying to pick up too many cards, playing cards the wrong way, etc. - that's the only thing needed in terms of rules enforcement in the real world, so why should your program work any differently, as long as all the players can see all the actions of all the other players?

I'd say keep it simple.  At most, I'd allow players to flag their opponent's accounts if they're caught trying to cheat during free play.  Players with flagged accounts will be less likely to find people willing to play with them because they've essentially been called cheaters.  Beyond that, treat it no differently than if you dropped a pack of cards on the table and told everyone seated, "Here's your deck, decide what you want to play and what house rules you want and have at it!"

[tedwallner]

Great points, I guess I just want to make it flexible enough for users to play as many different types of games as possible while also making it easy to set up each type of game. I absolutely agree with you about keeping the game unrestrictive. I was thinking more in terms of facilitating certain functionalities. For example, some games requires multiple decks, or an action button like "pass" etc. But I can see how this can complicate things and simplicity is the key.

Flagging will definitely be implemented. We've already partially done this for iOS, as this is a requirement when you have any sort of chat or sharing between users. But its still on our (long) list of to do items for android.

BTW, love the artwork on this site!

[Don Boyer]

Great points, I guess I just want to make it flexible enough for users to play as many different types of games as possible while also making it easy to set up each type of game. I absolutely agree with you about keeping the game unrestrictive. I was thinking more in terms of facilitating certain functionalities. For example, some games requires multiple decks, or an action button like "pass" etc. But I can see how this can complicate things and simplicity is the key.

Flagging will definitely be implemented. We've already partially done this for iOS, as this is a requirement when you have any sort of chat or sharing between users. But its still on our (long) list of to do items for android.

BTW, love the artwork on this site!

You might want to look at a few of the artists here for card designs, although considering the size of a card on the screen of a phone, there are hard limits as to how much detail you can provide!

As long as all players can see what other players are doing in real time, you only need to insure that players can draw cards, discard cards, make piles of cards and hold cards that can't be seen by other players.  Oh, and provide for randomization/shuffling, both of entire decks and of individual piles and hands.  And some games have a mechanic whereby they can draw a random card from a player's hand - that has to be accounted for in some manner, preferably with a permission request made to the person holding the hand so players aren't just yanking away each other's cards willy-nilly.  All other aspects of game play can be handled by the players themselves, no different than if they were handling actual cards dealt face to face while seated at the same table.  In fact, "CardTable" might be a decent name for the next version of your app.

[tedwallner]

Oh definitely. We were thinking about allowing users to personalize their app by allowing them to choose from a selection of decks and backgrounds as an in app purchase. But that could be far into the future.

We allow most of those actions, except for the ability to make card piles, shuffling piles, and pulling random cards from another persons hand. Thanks for the suggestions, we should have some of these implemented within the next few releases (hopefully can do a release once every week or two).

As for the name CardTable, unfortunately its already taken. Its a similar app but only for iPhone/iPad, uses bluetooth and possibly wifi, but requires that you have an iPad (as the communal area). Thinking about it, it would probably have been better if we have a more unique name to make it easier to search, but I think we're a bit past that point now.

[sprouts1115]

I feel good about your conversation... 

[Don Boyer]

As for the name CardTable, unfortunately its already taken. Its a similar app but only for iPhone/iPad, uses bluetooth and possibly wifi, but requires that you have an iPad (as the communal area). Thinking about it, it would probably have been better if we have a more unique name to make it easier to search, but I think we're a bit past that point now.

How about DeckTable?