Automatic Scoring Option

[Aidan]

[ The following posts were taken from the old GrassGames' Cribbage forum ]

by Richard [ 05 December 2008 - 6:38 am ]
Any chance of making an automatic scoring option?

by Aidan [ 05 December 2008 - 7:03 am ]
I personally don't think its a good idea as counting is a major part of the game, but if others disagree please post here.

by Brad [ 07 December 2008 - 6:01 am ]
I too, would like to see an automatic scoring option.

by Jim Maney [ 07 December 2008 - 3:12 pm ]
I would like to see an option for automatic scoring. I'm not so good at catching everything. Maybe you could make a easy mode where the computer will do all the counting. Also, this game appears to be for Mac and PC. Wish the other games did the same.

by Keith [ 22 December 2008 - 7:37 am ]
Actually, one of the reasons I like this version of Cribbage over others is the manual scoring. For me having the computer score takes the fun out of it. Plus it provides scoring practice for when I play real people.

by Rylen [ 28 December 2008 - 5:15 am ]
I agree with John. I sole reason I bought this game is because it does not have automatic scoring! Please don't add. It totally ruins the game. It would be helpful to have an option to see what you might have missed in your scoring - but not essential. An "undo" might be nice too. But over all the game is aesthetically pleasing and is as close to really playing as I have seen out there. Thanks

by Richard [ 28 December 2008 - 1:55 pm ]
Most cribbage software has an option to turn on automatic scoring, you don't have to use it! Using it makes the games much quicker which is useful when practicing. Also if you've been playing cribbage for 40yrs the scoring really isn't an important part of the game and strategic decisions based on board position are far more important. It would also be useful to have detailed statistical data of the games played incorporated in the software. I agree that this is a very pleasing interface though.

by Getty [ 18 January 2009 - 1:30 pm ]
Please don't introduce auto scoring. The manual scoring is much more realistic and if you miss something, tough, that's all part of the game.

by Aidan [ 23 January 2009 - 1:39 pm ]
I'm not going to introduce automatic scoring. Though beneficial for some, if there is an option for it, I think most people will turn it on out of laziness, and end up missing out on an important part of the game. Not to mention that its more work for me also.

[tsiani]

scoring is part of the game. no automatic scoring

[tsiani]

if you are not going to have muggins then what is the point in counting. you should have automatic scoring.
but i would prefer muggins, it is a big part of the game.

you even have to randomly have the computer make a mistake.

[Aidan]

Muggins will be in the next version of the game as its an important missing feature at the moment. Can't give a time just yet for when it will be ready as I'm busy on other things, so I hope you will make do with what you have for the time being.

[Trantor]

Hi

Even though I will not be buying the game as it stands (because there is no autoscoring funtion), I have taken the time register to make some comments which I hope will be taken as constructive.

I simply cannot be bothered to have to click the cards and hit the type of score (pair etc) in order to score when what I want to concentrate on is the card play.

I understand autoscoring is not feasible for development effort reasons but won't autoscoring be an integral part of the muggins functionality you are implementing? I must say I find suprising is that you want to force users of the software not to be lazy and will not be introducing autoscoring as a matter of principal.

If autoscoring is not to be introduced (and assuming could be done readily as part of the muggins aspect or time was available to develop aotuscoring) it would make a great difference to me if the user could simply enter the claimed score and not have to do all the card clicking to get to the claimed score.

On the realism approach, which I think is very attractive, I have a couple of off -topic suggestions.

On the matter of the "nearest 31 for 1" point raised elsewhere it would go more a like a real game if the side that can't play announced "GO" ( maybe a "GO" button or hit "enter" without highlighting a card?) and the other side either played or not as able until it announced "For X" ie 1 or what else might also be scored (on pressing enter without hightlighting a card?) and the one is scored, or 31 is hai ans "For X" is announced

On scoring is it not usual for each side to use one half of the board to themselves - the players going up the two outsides and then down the two middle rows, ie each starts by going up on extreme opposite sides?

A minor point but it would be better in my view if the peg jumped to the score instead of counting it out. The whole point of scoring with 2 pegs is that the last score can be readily seen from the peg positions - counting it out one by one slows the game down a fair bit.

Trantor

[Aidan]

All good points Trantor.

When I talked about auto-scoring in the past, I meant (and assumed people meant) that the computer did the scoring for you. Entering your own score (via I think a nice row of number buttons) seems like a good idea for advanced users and I'll think I'll put an option in in a future version.

The "Nearest 31 for 1" has been removed and "GO" substituted in the latest version of the game.

The peg direction problem has been noted before and will be implemented soon. Same goes for the peg jumping option. (Muggins is also planned someday)

[Jill]

Hi Aidan,

I see this is an old topic but I just started playing Grass Games cribbage a little while ago to improve my counting against more seasoned players. I would love to see an option where the computer takes your points if you don't count correctly. For me, I would learn quickly to not make the same mistake if this happened.

I am also wondering if there would be a way to not have to go back to the main menu to start a new game - a keyboard shortcut or a new button?

Thanks!

Jill