Cockatrice: Cascade can't be performed.

[jthemphill]

Currently the acceptable way to cascade in Cockatrice is to drag cards from the top of the deck onto the table until you find a card that fits the requirements. The annoying part is dragging each and every card individually to fill the table up with stacks of three cards each, then separating the cards that were originally on the table from the cards that I just revealed while putting those back on the deck.

Here's the alternative I'm proposing:

• Replaces the "view top cards of library..." option and adds a "reveal top cards of library..." option
• Instead of taking you to a menu where you choose the number of cards, then spawning a zone with that number of cards revealed, the option now takes you directly to the zone.
• The zone contains a button and dropdown which allows you to reveal n more cards whenever the button is activated.

I'd be happy to implement if others think the design is sound.

[ZeldaZach]

Can you possibly make a crude example in paint or something? I don't think I understand

[MassCraziness]

If you get rid of the "view top cards of library", how am I going to Ponder or Sensei's Divining Top or Taigam's Scheming or Scry?

Please, no.

[ZeldaZach]

The way I've seen it done / how I do it is by dragging them onto the stack like this:

The cards change alignment on each new card added and they always list in stack order, so no matter where you drag the next card to on the stack, it will go on the very top of it.

[jthemphill]

@ZeldaZach - Thanks, the stack is a much better place to put cards than the table. It still gets pretty crowded, but it's better than what I was doing.

Here's an MSPaint relating to what I proposed. It's literally just the two steps of the "View cards" flow mashed together, in such a way that you can choose whether or not you want to reveal/view more cards based on the cards you've already seen. I don't think it's a very large change (and it definitely wouldn't break scry!), but I think it would make cascade much less painful to play.

[Daenyth]

The harder part of cascade is randomizing the cards at bottom. I'm not sure
it's exactly possible at this time

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015, 11:48 PM Jeff Hemphill [email protected]
wrote:

@ZeldaZach https://github.com/ZeldaZach - Thanks, the stack is a much
better place to put cards than the table. It still gets pretty crowded, but
it's better than what I was doing.

Here's an MSPaint relating to what I proposed. It's literally just the two
steps of the "View cards" flow mashed together, in such a way that you can
choose whether or not you want to reveal/view more cards based on the cards
you've already seen. I don't think it's a very large change (and it
definitely wouldn't break scry!), but I think it would make cascade much
less painful to play.

[image: zone]
https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/887446/6035267/04f7d6a6-abe5-11e4-8226-d9a5aabe38eb.png

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/Cockatrice/Cockatrice/issues/673#issuecomment-72790201
.

[LethalPigeon7]

This is purely adressing the convenience of a possible built in system for revealing them I believe, not the random order on bottom, I for one do not mind that not working at all, definitely not as much as the inconvenience of cascading exists, as it is my favourite keyword.

[MassCraziness]

The thing about looking at the top X cards before revealing to cascade is that.. Well, you could well end up looking at too many cards (if it is implemented that way).

[macraw83]

This issue has been open for 3 years, and Cascade is still impossible to use as written. All of the exiled cards must be randomized on the bottom of the library, and there's still no way to do that unless I'm missing something.

[Daenyth]

You've accurately assessed the situation

[macraw83]

Probably the best way to fix would be adding an option to randomize "bottom X" cards from the library, but someone smarter than me would have to implement it

[tooomm]

Zach tried something like that already in https://github.com/Cockatrice/Cockatrice/pull/2689, but I don't recall the problem there.