Missing automation

[The Luggage]

Sometimes, a player is left with only one possible move. When this happens, there is absolutely no decision for the player to make. In turn-based mode especially, it's unnecessarily time-consuming for one player to have to wait for the other player to take their only possible move. Just as King of Tokyo has 'leave Tokyo' automation, Nidavellir has 'autopick last card' and many other examples, Reversi here is crying out for an 'automove if only possible move' option.

Please let me know if there's a better place to post this.

Thanks for reading,
Joel aka The Luggage

[RicardoRix]

Even if there is only 1 move, it's nice to know as player and have that experience, it's all part of playing the game.

[The Luggage]

If it's an option to select the player chooses whether to have it enabled or not

There could be a 3-second delay, so it doesn't impact the other player either, it's win-win and if I'm not mistaken, makes your point invalid.

[RicardoRix]

a 3-second delay is not going to help if it's a turn-based game.

You're welcome to join the BGA Studio and add the options.
https://studio.boardgamearena.com

[Jellby]

There's always (well, not always, but you get my point) another possible move: resignation.

[Yasten]

But does having only one move always mean you don't win? What if it was literally the last piece (1 square left) and you are winning? I know Trick of the Rails has options for last card too. What if you put an auto last move then XD

[RicardoRix]

You really need to soak up that humiliating feeling of being forced to play such a bad move, that's the way you'll learn not to get in this position again next game.

What if you're really short on time, and having the opponent making a turn gives you some extra thinking time.

If you're playing a board game, then you're playing a board game. Only moves are part of it.

[The Luggage]

It sounds like you guys don't play multiple turn-based games of Reversi at once.

Incorrect points:

"...it's nice to know as player and have that experience..." It's an option players can choose to enable, so won't affect anything.

"...a 3-second delay is not going to help if it's a turn-based game." It's a 2-player game. After you make a move, if you wish, you can wait x seconds and see the other player's only move made automatically, then it's your turn again, of course it will help. Your point is only valid in games with more than 2 players and even then, the advantage is deemed to far outweigh this disadvantage in games such as Nidavellir.

Opinions:

"...there's always (well, not always, but you get my point) another possible move: resignation." Ha, good point and technically, true, though of course advantages of automation far outweigh this disadvantage, even if it is one.

"But does having only one move always mean you don't win? What if it was literally the last piece (1 square left) and you are winning? I know Trick of the Rails has options for last card too. What if you put an auto last move then XD" In many games of Reversi it's possible for one player to have only one valid move, usually towards the end of games and usually losing players, but absolutely not exclusively so in either case.

"You really need to soak up that humiliating feeling of being forced to play such a bad move, that's the way you'll learn not to get in this position again next game." Disagree 100% and could even put players off from advancing. The main advantage of automations far outweigh this disadvantage even if it is one.

"What if you're really short on time, and having the opponent making a turn gives you some extra thinking time." This could be used in argument with Nidavellir, King of Tokyo and many more too. The unlikelihood of this happening in turn-based games makes this disadvantage miniscule in comparison to the advantage gained.

[kytbell]

While I can definitely understand Luggage's concern, I agree with Ricardo in that the other player needs to know what's going on. For people who are new to the game or not naturally gifted at it, seeing yourself forced down to only one move is educational. I would actually make the case for auto-full MORE with real time than with turn-based. With real-time, the other player could at least see the move occur; whereas, with turn-based, you go away, you come back, and there are one or more circles on the board in your color that you didn't place. Even the most expert player might have a moment of "what the hell happened." And new players (to the game, BGA, or both) are going to think there's a bug in the game.

To me, it always comes back to in-person play. Part of BGA's charm is that it's not a video game site. It's a board game site offering friends and soon-to-be-friends the opportunity to play board games online when they can't play in person. And if you were sitting down at a table with someone in person, playing Reversi, and only had one move to take and that person reached out and took it for you, wouldn't you be pissed? Nobody touches my coins or cards or dials or marker or meeples but me. It's one thing to know you're winning. But making someone else's move for them is rude. Luggage, I understand your frustration at slow play. I have a friend who sometimes takes two weeks to go. But it's their move. Let them make it.

[The Luggage]

I wouldn't confuse over-the-table etiquette with bga automation

In-person, of course the vast majority of players would find it unacceptable for one player to touch the other players' counters, tableaus etc.

On BGA, it happens frequently in almost every single game. Players don't shuffle cards, manually hand coins over etc.; bga automation handles lots & lots of things. The argument is whether to add one more piece of automation, not whether it should exist