|
Sickening posted:https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/3ewbcx/proper_way_to_propose_a_split_without_fear_of_a_dq/ctjfpw1 Whoa, well this guy should've gotten the memo out earlier, because literally every single GPT and PPTQ I've ever attended has has prize splitting before the final table.
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
My biggest complaint with MODO is the collection. It's ugly, it's hard to organize and see what you have, what's for trade, etc. The gameplay and battlefields are quite functional, if a little basic, and the rules are implemented extremely well that they work over 99% of the time. And in the rare instance they don't, they are very understanding about refunds and compensation. For adults with a spouse, kids and various obligations, MODO is the only way to play magic. I still go to my LGS once every few months to enjoy the social aspect of it and play a new set that hasn't made it to MODO yet, but most of my grinding is online.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Ramos posted:Eh, copy and paste, didn't get the last part of scry, intend to get that last bit later, forget about it, leave it to an intern. Come to think of it, it probably isn't copy paste. It isn't copy paste if you type out the code by hand. Sad part is, it sounds like something the Wizards Dev Department would actually do. I post every now and then, how sad it is. It's Hasbro, not a dinky indie company, there is no chance they can't afford to hire some good devs for it. But we've been through this, it's not a new issue. Every now and then I get the urge to get MODO and play some cube (and suck at it), just like now, I was watching some LSV drafts, but I just dread the entire thing, especially since actual money would be involved.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
scry_the_bones_magic_origins.txt
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Read the Bones will go great in my Fatespinner/Mindslaver/Blinding Beam deck.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
I'm curious: Who here thinks Read the Bones is a better card than Divination?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
AlternateNu posted:I'm curious: Who here thinks Read the Bones is a better card than Divination? It's "better" in that you can potentially dig 4 cards down as opposed to just 2. If life isn't relevant, it's definitely better. In other news, Jim Davis knocking it out of the park again. I mean, this isn't a reference to South Park and racist jokes, but come on. Count Bleck fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Jul 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
AlternateNu posted:I'm curious: Who here thinks Read the Bones is a better card than Divination? I think Read is a worse card at a baseline level, but the more you care about drawing a specific card, the better Read is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
AlternateNu posted:I'm curious: Who here thinks Read the Bones is a better card than Divination?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
There's also colour to consider - blue will generally have better card draw spells to be casting than Divination, while Read the Bones is probably the best option in black.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Death Bot posted:I keep considering getting into modo, but every time I forget about its past offenses, something pops up. Some horrible bug makes a popular deck unplayable. LSV takes a month off when pressing "No" is read as pressing "Yes." Event prices get changed around in a way that is generally worse for players but generally better for income. I went to go help my friend do a cube draft, and cube had gone offline after a week and a half. (The last one led to Dzyl going back to poker, and luckily Bahra_ didn't follow through on his threat to quit when the even changes ended up not being as awful as people were making them out to be) They list when Cube is up in advance and bugs are actually extremely infrequent in rules/card stuff. There are plenty of reasons to hate MODO, but the game not actually working correctly isn't really one of them. Its a non-issue. The memory usage garbage, etc. is a totally different story, but I don't personally find it effects gameplay when I'm used to it. Niton posted:I think Read is a worse card at a baseline level, but the more you care about drawing a specific card, the better Read is. Basically this. The more direct comparison is probably Sign in Blood.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Yes but Sign in Blood has the awesome corner case of letting you dome or draw out your opponent  If I'm running both Read and Divination for whatever reason, I think I'd rather see Read unless losing two life puts me in range of losing the game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Time to play some "The Price is Right" with Terese Nielsen art prints! http://www.originalmagicart.com/auction-guessing-game-akromas-by-terese-nielsen/ Get to guessing goons!
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
The main things I dislike about modo are a) card collection management / deckbuilding is a complete UI disaster b) the card trading system is a complete UI disaster and the market is reliant on an inconvenient system of third-party bots c) everything outside of the actual gameplay is slightly sluggish and poorly responsive for no good reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
C-Euro posted:Yes but Sign in Blood has the awesome corner case of letting you dome or draw out your opponent Read is a better card than Divination anyways. The scry-2 plus draw-2 (in a non-blue deck) is gonna be worth 2 life the majority of the time unless you have a very weak deck to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Entropic posted:The main things I dislike about modo are For C, I thought that was a stream issue where all your actions have a weird delay on it. Guess the client is just that janky  Also the stupid Duels game bugged out on me after I blocked with 8 creatures and the AI resolved 6 blockers, the timer on the bottom just keeps spinning and not do anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Thisuck posted:Also the stupid Duels game bugged out on me after I blocked with 8 creatures and the AI resolved 6 blockers, the timer on the bottom just keeps spinning and not do anything. I had an issue like that with Double Strike, try stopping and resuming the timer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Entropic posted:The main things I dislike about modo are I think the points you make in C are related. I don't think they spend more than a second on anything outside of the game working. What I heard (i.e. rumor) is that the development team has almost no actual time to fix anything in the game because MTG has such an aggressive release schedule that all of its time is spent implementing new cards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:I think the points you make in C are related. I don't think they spend more than a second on anything outside of the game working. What I heard (i.e. rumor) is that the development team has almost no actual time to fix anything in the game because MTG has such an aggressive release schedule that all of its time is spent implementing new cards. Everything I've heard from former devs is consistent with them just having way too small a team for the product. They should have a whole department that just works on UI / commerce stuff, but instead people who would be working on that get pulled in to help make release dates for the gameplay updates and instead of hiring more people they let UI improvements wait. Also possibly they have people who are good coders but not necessarily UI experts doing UI work in between mad crunches on rules implementation work. Basically they they need to pony up the cash to hire a dedicated UI team who knows what they're doing, but they won't, because the program chugs along making money at a steady pace and doesn't break down disasterously that often.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Entropic posted:Everything I've heard from former devs is consistent with them just having way too small a team for the product. They should have a whole department that just works on UI / commerce stuff, but instead people who would be working on that get pulled in to help make release dates for the gameplay updates and instead of hiring more people they let UI improvements wait. Also possibly they have people who are good coders but not necessarily UI experts doing UI work in between mad crunches on rules implementation work. And while the complaints about the product are completely 100% legitimate, I think WOTC also views its community as an inherently whiny group. Which is not incorrect, either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
I don't play Hearthstone, but I'm curious, what's Hearthstone's expansion release schedule like, and is it like Magic where almost every expansion introduces 3-4 new mechanics that need to be implemented programmatically?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
qbert posted:I don't play Hearthstone, but I'm curious, what's Hearthstone's expansion release schedule like, and is it like Magic where almost every expansion introduces 3-4 new mechanics that need to be implemented programmatically? If their release schedule is anything like their real cash cow World of Warcraft, they just don't release anything for a year plus after everyone is already bored with the last release.  MTG's release schedule being constant is legitimately one of the reasons I play MTG now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
They released an adventure last month, which was about 25-30 something new cards and a bunch of fun gimmicks, and next month there's a new set of cards coming out, which contains about 130 something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Hearthstone releases something every 5-6 months on average with maybe 1-2 new mechanics. I like it this way, similar to x wing, since it allows the format to really mature before getting to the new stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:I think the points you make in C are related. I don't think they spend more than a second on anything outside of the game working. What I heard (i.e. rumor) is that the development team has almost no actual time to fix anything in the game because MTG has such an aggressive release schedule that all of its time is spent implementing new cards. That ties into my own point about money/management. Wizards has fat gobs of cash, considering it's a very successful subsidiary of a huge toy company, and its main product is a very big player in a competitive market. Magic Online is a side-product in a market that's actually lacking in what Magic Online can offer, with other games (most notably Hearthstone) being pretty successful on their own. And yet, stuff like your post are common knowledge. Very often you hear people saying "Man I'd never stop playing Cube if it wasn't on MODO" or something, to the point where regardless of actual functionality MODO is regarded as a joke. I can't imagine it being an accident, it feels like a conscious decision to treat MTGO as a tertiary property, and I can't help but feel that they're losing money hand over fist. Hell they could even adopt a F2P-ish model. You get a free cube/other event a day and/or a free actual draft a day (with actual rewards, to entice people to play), pay money for more (obviously), don't sell individual cards (but sell boosters and allow boosters for drafts instead of plain in-game money), offer rewards for playing on sequential days (to keep people coming), facilitate streamers somehow, or even just making the game stream-friendly (I spent most of my afternoon watching LSV cube drafts, imagine having 3-4 people like that, live)... Yeah it'd be an up-front expensive cost, and overall costlier in the long run (more/better programmers aren't free), but they'd make that money back and more so I think. Hell, I play a lovely phone game that's got a lot of glitches just because it says Transformers on it and the sprites above the RNG are based on toys I'm vaguely familiar with. And I, a person who likes the game enough that I spent actual money to go to a hotel in the middle of nowhere in Serbia to hang out with a bunch of nerds for a weekend talking about Magic, still don't play Magic Online.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
qbert posted:I don't play Hearthstone, but I'm curious, what's Hearthstone's expansion release schedule like, and is it like Magic where almost every expansion introduces 3-4 new mechanics that need to be implemented programmatically? The release schedule is slower with much simpler mechanics. There's new mechanics but nothing that drastically alters the game like there is in Magic. They actually put in effort to make things aesthetically pleasing though, so there's animations, sound effects, and voice acting that needs to be done for each card.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
MTGO being awful and overpriced is an intentional design decision to make sure the experience is nowhere near as pleasant as playing in real life.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
little munchkin posted:MTGO being awful and overpriced is an intentional design decision to make sure the experience is nowhere near as pleasant as playing in real life. "pleasant" describing going to usually cramped rooms with people who smell funny
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:"pleasant" describing going to usually cramped rooms with people who smell funny And MTGO is more unpleasant than that. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:That ties into my own point about money/management. Wizards has fat gobs of cash, considering it's a very successful subsidiary of a huge toy company, and its main product is a very big player in a competitive market. Magic Online is a side-product in a market that's actually lacking in what Magic Online can offer, with other games (most notably Hearthstone) being pretty successful on their own. I don't assume WOTC doesn't put money into MTGO because they don't regard it as an actual product though. I imagine, as rational business actors, they don't put money into it because for two reasons: one, nothing they do is gonna change the fact that people who play MTG primarily do so in person and don't want to buy the cards twice; and second, they probably don't see a big problem so long as the game itself works. You cannot just make MTGO cheaper from a business standpoint without removing redemption entirely. Its sort of like a less agreed-upon version of the reserved list; most people actually like (or even demand the game has) redemption, so removing it to make the online experience better isn't something they can really do. Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Jul 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:I don't assume WOTC doesn't put money into MTGO because they don't regard it as an actual product though. I imagine, as rational business actors, they don't put money into it because for two reasons: one, nothing they do is gonna change the fact that people who play MTG primarily do so in person and don't want to buy the cards twice; and second, they probably don't see a big problem so long as the game itself works. I'd be happy for MTGO to not have redemption if packs are a dollar.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
qbert posted:I don't play Hearthstone, but I'm curious, what's Hearthstone's expansion release schedule like, and is it like Magic where almost every expansion introduces 3-4 new mechanics that need to be implemented programmatically?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
should i bother buying mana confluences? i want to play during this final superstandard of all time, but it seems like nearly every deck i'm interested in runs four of them, and they rotate soon. they're not massively expensive, but will they have any value once they've rotated out of standard?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Wizards painted themselves into a really nasty corner by designing MTGO like they did. Trading (especially Tickets / virtual currency) and redemption are things you'll never see from another big digital TCG because the government starts to treat you like you're either enabling money laundering or running a gambling platform. And they can't ever remove these features from MTGO because the heavily invested player base and bot networks will throw the biggest poo poo fit this community has ever seen. I wouldn't be surprised at all if some people inside WOTC see MTGO in its current state as more of a liability than an asset, no matter how much money it's making.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Paper Triangle posted:should i bother buying mana confluences? i want to play during this final superstandard of all time, but it seems like nearly every deck i'm interested in runs four of them, and they rotate soon. they're not massively expensive, but will they have any value once they've rotated out of standard? They'll keep some value until they're reprinted, but that's a very reprintable effect. City of Brass has a million printings and is like 2-3 bucks, so Mana Confluence won't go below that unless it gets reprinted repeatedly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
After buying FTV angels for well over MSRP because being able to get a foil iona, foil avacyn AND beautiful foil akromas from terese nielsen was too much to not preorder one, what do you think will be in the rest of FTV Angels and which ones will get the alt art? Personally I really want Jenara to be reprinted in new art as my new commander.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Samael posted:After buying FTV angels for well over MSRP because being able to get a foil iona, foil avacyn AND beautiful foil akromas from terese nielsen was too much to not preorder one, what do you think will be in the rest of FTV Angels and which ones will get the alt art? Personally I really want Jenara to be reprinted in new art as my new commander. Would love to see Selenia but sadly she's on the reserved list. Linvala would be pretty sweet, especially with new art.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Baneslayer and Platinum are both pretty iconic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:I don't assume WOTC doesn't put money into MTGO because they don't regard it as an actual product though. I imagine, as rational business actors, they don't put money into it because for two reasons: one, nothing they do is gonna change the fact that people who play MTG primarily do so in person and don't want to buy the cards twice; and second, they probably don't see a big problem so long as the game itself works. That's a fair point, redemption is big, but I think that Wizards has the thinking power to get through it. Like tgijsola said, MTGO is in a weird model right now and that's part of the issues with it. Maybe with Duels being free they'd start looking towards that? Maybe a Hearthstone-esque model where you buy cards in-game, but real money can still be spent? Samael posted:After buying FTV angels for well over MSRP because being able to get a foil iona, foil avacyn AND beautiful foil akromas from terese nielsen was too much to not preorder one, what do you think will be in the rest of FTV Angels and which ones will get the alt art? Personally I really want Jenara to be reprinted in new art as my new commander. I think that we'll see an artifact Angel. Copper-Leaf Angel is pretty poo poo, so it's between Filigree Angel and Platinum Angel. The former is neat, but kind of niche, and it was reprinted in C13, and while the latter has had more printings, it's a bigger, splashier effect that would fit into FTV with new art. Not that the Brom art is bad, but four printings with the same art... :eh:
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:You cannot just make MTGO cheaper from a business standpoint without removing redemption entirely. Its sort of like a less agreed-upon version of the reserved list; most people actually like (or even demand the game has) redemption, so removing it to make the online experience better isn't something they can really do. Hellsau posted:I'd be happy for MTGO to not have redemption if packs are a dollar. Yeah, my first thought was, is redemption actually the primary motivating principle here? I always viewed redemption as sort of a bandaid over the fact that they (for other reasons altogether) wanted to charge $4 for digital packs. For those too young in Magic to remember, there was a time back around 2001 when people legitimately anticipated that MTGO at release would be some sort of $15 a month subscription thing like Everquest, or at the very least have extremely cheap product. This was considered a reasonable enough assumption that there was a noticeable amount of community disbelief and backlash when the pricing scheme was finally announced. I don't think anybody would have seriously expected to be able to redeem cards one-for-one under an all-you-can-draft for $15/mo plan, yet that sort of plan was what people were eagerly anticipating. But I don't know, after a decade of paying top dollar for digital objects but with the figleaf of redemption tucked politely over it all, maybe people have just been conditioned to think differently.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2015 00:32
|
|