[SNEAK PEEK] Feedback — Collection, Deckbuilding and Viewing Cards

113 posts / 0 new
Last post
Please use this thread for feedback on most functions of the collection and deckbuilding screen, including viewing your collection and making decks. Feedback on trade binders and marking things tradable should go in the trading thread.

Please DO NOT POST BUGS in this thread. Use the designated bug thread AND report them so they can be fixed.

Please DO NOT use these threads to make non-GUI requests/comments such as Leagues, automated trading, fractional tickets etc.

Feedback thread index
Home, Help, Settings and Miscellany (including login and install)
Finding or Starting a Game/Event
Game Play (Duels & Multiplayer)
Tournaments (Standings, Draft)
Collection, Deckbuilding and Viewing Cards
Store
Trading
Chatting, Clans and Buddies
Bugs

Magic and Magic Online Volunteer Community Lead.

I'm trying to make my official VCL posts in purple.

You posted saying my thread was moved/locked but nothing happened.


Show
Unfortunately, VCLs do not currently have the tools necessary to take moderation actions directly. VCLs submit their actions to ORCs, who then actually perform the action. This processing can take between a few minutes and several hours, depending on how busy/attentive the ORCs are.

If you see something that needs VCL attention, please use this thread to make a request and a VCL will look at it as soon as possible. CoC violations should be reported to Customer Service using the "report post" button. Please do not disrupt the thread by making requests of either kind in-thread.

General MTGO FAQ

Yes, the Shuffler is Random!
The definitive thread on the Magic Online shuffler.

Magic Math Made Easy
Draw probabilities, Swiss results, Elo ratings and booster EV

Event EV Calculator
Calculate the EV for any event with a fixed number of rounds and prizes based on record

Dual means two. A duel is a battle between two people. Lands that make two colors of mana are dual lands. A normal Magic battle is a duel.
Thanks to PhoenixLAU for the [thread=1097559]awesome avatar[/thread]!
Quotables

Show
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, each lolcat actually produces a negative wordcount." -Ith "I think "Highly Informed Sarcasm" should be our Magic Online General motto." -Ith "Sorry, but this thread seems just like spam. TT is for off-topic discussion, not no-topic discussion." -WizO_Kwai_Chang "Stop that! If you're not careful, rational thinking may catch on!" -Sax "... the only word i see that fits is incompitant." -Mr44 (sic) "You know a thread is gonna be locked when it gets to the hexadecimal stage." -Gathion "It's a good gig" - Gleemax "I tell people often, if you guys want to rant, you've certainly got the right to (provided you obey CoC/ToS stuff), and I don't even really blame you. But if you see something you think needs changing a well thought-out, constructive post does more to make that happen." - Worth Wollpert

Instead of the icons and drop-down menus of the current client, there is an extensive checkbox system that allows you to drill deeper and more specifically into your collection, whether you are building a deck or just checking out your cards.
—Ryan Spain, Meet the New Magic Online, 12 July 2012[1]




I like the icons and drop-down menus of the current client over the checkbox system of the new client. I actually thought the checkbox system in the new client was only temporary while an actual UI was designed, and I’m disappointed to hear that it is in fact being described as a feature of the new client. Now don’t get me wrong, the new client does allow more advanced filtering options then the current client, but I feel that this is being done at the expense of the current client’s ease of use and intuitiveness.


I am going to give some concrete examples in my little rant. Obviously, I have no actual data to back up any of my clams and I am simply working on intuition. If someone has concrete data to refute any of my clams, then I am more them happy to retract the relevant parts of my criticism. I would hope that like Microsoft, Wizards collects data on the most frequently used commands in MTGO and can either confirm or refute my criticisms.


I also don’t know when exactly we Bata testers are allowed to post screenshots of the new client. If I am a little (or a lot) too early and the screenshots get deleted I have no intention of reposting them. You will just have to do without.


I am also interested in hearing what other users of the two MTGOs have to say and I welcome your opinions on my feedback on my criticism. So in no particular order:


Common options are not floated to the top of the UI

Some filtering options are going to be more important and/or common than others. Filtering by color I imagine, is more useful than filtering by toughness. Yet, they are both buried under categories in the new UI that have to be clicked on to open and are given equal prominence.


Solution: Common filter options should be one click away. So filtering by a particular color should take only one click, while filtering by toughness = -1 might take two to three clicks.


Check boxes take up more space than icons

In the current client, the icons are approx. 25 × 25 pixels. So all the color options for example, are shown in approx. 150 × 25 pixels. The new client however requires 180 × 175 pixels to show the same options. That is a 740% increase in the amount of space required to show the same options in both clients.



Color options in the current client (left) and the new client (right).


I realize that there is a tradeoff between icons and labels[2]. Icons are harder to understand then labels are, while labels take up more space then icons alone. But for Magic players I think that the color icons should already be memorized, and card type icons shouldn’t be too hard to memorize or figure out also (especially with tool tips). For these two categories I think the space savings of icons alone vs. labels or labels with icons are worth it.


Maybe WotC has hard data that shows I’m wrong? If so I would love to see it.


Solution: Most Magic players already know the symbols for the different colors. Even if they are so new that they don’t, the color of the symbol should be a clue. The symbols for the different card types are intuitive enough that they stand on their own without explicit labels. The very new players can take advantage of the pop-up text. The space savings for these categories are too great to use labels all the time. Labels for color and card type should only be displayed if/when space is abundant.


The search box

Search is a filter, but it’s shown outside the filters box. It also takes up to approx. 30 pixels of vertical space all to itself, even though it does not use the space.



The red rectangle marks all the space the search box takes for itself, but does not actually use.


Solution: Search should be added as just another filter in the filters box. It does not need to take up all that red space shown in the screenshot to itself. As for any concerns about surfacing search to the top of the UI vs. burying it under a “filter category”, I deal with that concern separately in my other criticisms.


The new client requires more clicks

Because nothing in the new client is surfaced to the top of the UI and is instead hidden behind what I am calling “filter categories”, every search in the new client requires at least one more click then the current client (the click to open the category).


Solution: Figure out what the most common filters are and put them one click away, then bury the less frequent filters under the “filter categories” or some other sort of advanced search option.


Scaling is handled by multiple scroll bars

This is extremely disappointing. I’ve complained about multiple scroll bars on the beta boards before and I quoted Jensen Harris (the designer of the ribbon used in office 2007 onwards) to support me. Here was the quote I gave, talking about the design of the ribbion (emphasis mine):



There are two reasons we didn't end up doing the ribbon on the side and we did it on the top.
 [...]
The second thing was my belief that if we had done the UI on the side it would have devolved into a scrollable list. That it's so easy to solve scaling on the side via like your folder list in Outlook. Here’s commands, and a scrollbar that goes up and down. And I felt really clearly that that was going to be a bad thing. That we wouldn’t be forced to solve it. Whereas a horizontal thing at the top, there’s no clear way to scale that and so we would have to work on the design of it more and end up with something that didn't make you scroll all the time.


— Jensen Harris, MIX 08, The Story of the Ribbon





The new client has scroll bars everywhere! Compare to MS Office. As space becomes smaller, the ribbon starts to go into “pop-up” mode, starting with the most infrequently used chunks (based on actual usage data rather than the intuition I am forced to use). You can still access all the commands; it just takes an extra mouse clicks to do so. As the ribbon becomes even smaller, it just completely gives up and goes away altogether, giving all the available space (what little there is of it) to the content.


 


Left: Two scroll bars visible. The toughness scroll bar is unusable due to the limited amount of space it is given. The entire filters box is 190 × 300 pixels.
Right: The MS-Word ribbon at approx. 300 × 90 pixels. (Almost half the size of the filter options in the new client shown on the left.) Even at this small size the entire home tab is still accessible through a “pop-up” mode. Any smaller and the ribbon will give up altogether and give all its space to the content of the document.


Even if the scroll bars were made usable, it’s still two scroll bars. This is bad design. Even at this size you still have approx. 190 ×300 pixels available (5700 pixels). You should be putting that space to better use.


Solution: As less space becomes available, show only the most frequently used filter options. Allow access to the other options via some sort of a pop-up window. As space becomes even more restricted, at some point you have to concede that you can’t show any useful options at all. Give what little of the space remains to the content, i.e. the card collection itself.


It’s not optimized for common searches

Searching for “Elves” is probably far more common than searching for “Zuberas”, yet they are given equal treatment in the new Ui’s subtype list. Even worse is that Equipment is in the middle of that list. Now I know that equipment is a subtype of Artifact, but it, and Auras, play in the game as if they were their own type of card. As far as I know, Aura and Equipment as the only subtypes outside of the basic land types to have their own rules. Maybe they should be made into an actual card type so that subtypes never have unique rules? Anyway, that is beyond the scope of this discussion. The point is, these searches would be far more common than “Zubera”, they should be given top billing in the new UI.


Another problem; I can imagine that searching for all cards with a converted mana cost of six or less to be more common then searching for card with a converted mana cost of three or six. But guess which one the new client makes easier to do?














Converted mana cost three or six requires three clicks:



Converted mana cost of six or less requires eight clicks:



  1. CMC

  2. 3

  3. 6


  1. CMC


  2. 1

  3. 2

  4. 3

  5. 4

  6. 5

  7. 6


And yes, I am aware that the current client doesn’t allow this kind of filtering at all, so don’t bother pointing that out.


Solution: WotC should know/work out what the most common searches are and optimize for them. Leave the more uncommon searches buried under menu items and advanced options as needed. For example, under format, Standard, Modern, Legacy and the current block might be at the top of the list. Older block formats might be buried under a pop-up menu. What goes where would be based on actual usage data.


No feedback on the current filters selected

All the filter options for the current client are displayed in approx. 700 × 50 pixels. If you want to know what the current filters are you need only consult this 35,000 pixels of screen space.



All the filter options on the current client.


The new client is unable to do even this. The best it can do is tell you how many of each “filter category” has been set. This takes 66,500 pixels, an 85% increase.



The new client can tell you how many “filter categories” have been set, but not what they are.


Solution: This is related to the “Common options are not floated to the top of the UI” problem. I understand that as more advanced filter options are set it becomes harder to present them at the top of the UI. However, even if only basic filters are set (format and color for example), the new UI can still only show how many of the “filter categories” were set and not what they were.


Filters are unresponsive while the search is done

If I set a filter, I have to wait until the client displays all the relevant cards before I can select another filter.


Solution: The search should be done on a different thread so that the main UI remains responsive while the client figures out the last search.


Auto save

I don’t like this feature. I haven’t tested it extensively (it’s 4 AM here in Ireland — sue me) so maybe I have some of these points wrong. If I do, then please correct me.



  • Sometimes I might want to make some changes to a deck, decide the changes are bad and not save them.

  • I might want to make a new deck, based on an existing deck, while keeping the original deck intact.

  • There’s also poor feedback that the deck is bring auto saved. Yes I know that the “five color mana wheel thing” appears, but there is nothing in the new UI to tell you that this means “auto-saving”.


Solution: Auto save is a good feature, so I don’t lose all the work I’ve been doing to a deck because of some crash or unexpected disconnection, but it should not be overwriting decks I have already made. Auto saved decks should be separate to my other decks and accessible through some kind of recovery feature. Decks I have saved should be over written with a new version only if I explicitly say so (via a save or save as button).


Decks are tagged with formats in addition to names

I think this is mostly upside. I wanted something that was 100% better in the new client vs. the current client so I wouldn’t be a negative Nancy[3]. This might be it.


Conclusion

It’s 4 a.m. Word says I have 7 pages. Someone else can take over, I’m done.


Show


Instead of the icons and drop-down menus of the current client, there is an extensive checkbox system that allows you to drill deeper and more specifically into your collection, whether you are building a deck or just checking out your cards.
—Ryan Spain, Meet the New Magic Online, 12 July 2012[1]




I like the icons and drop-down menus of the current client over the checkbox system of the new client. I actually thought the checkbox system in the new client was only temporary while an actual UI was designed, and I’m disappointed to hear that it is in fact being described as a feature of the new client. Now don’t get me wrong, the new client does allow more advanced filtering options then the current client, but I feel that this is being done at the expense of the current client’s ease of use and intuitiveness.


I am going to give some concrete examples in my little rant. Obviously, I have no actual data to back up any of my clams and I am simply working on intuition. If someone has concrete data to refute any of my clams, then I am more them happy to retract the relevant parts of my criticism. I would hope that like Microsoft, Wizards collects data on the most frequently used commands in MTGO and can either confirm or refute my criticisms.


I also don’t know when exactly we Bata testers are allowed to post screenshots of the new client. If I am a little (or a lot) too early and the screenshots get deleted I have no intention of reposting them. You will just have to do without.


I am also interested in hearing what other users of the two MTGOs have to say and I welcome your opinions on my feedback on my criticism. So in no particular order:


Common options are not floated to the top of the UI

Some filtering options are going to be more important and/or common than others. Filtering by color I imagine, is more useful than filtering by toughness. Yet, they are both buried under categories in the new UI that have to be clicked on to open and are given equal prominence.


Solution: Common filter options should be one click away. So filtering by a particular color should take only one click, while filtering by toughness = -1 might take two to three clicks.


Check boxes take up more space than icons

In the current client, the icons are approx. 25 × 25 pixels. So all the color options for example, are shown in approx. 150 × 25 pixels. The new client however requires 180 × 175 pixels to show the same options. That is a 740% increase in the amount of space required to show the same options in both clients.



Color options in the current client (left) and the new client (right).


I realize that there is a tradeoff between icons and labels[2]. Icons are harder to understand then labels are, while labels take up more space then icons alone. But for Magic players I think that the color icons should already be memorized, and card type icons shouldn’t be too hard to memorize or figure out also (especially with tool tips). For these two categories I think the space savings of icons alone vs. labels or labels with icons are worth it.


Maybe WotC has hard data that shows I’m wrong? If so I would love to see it.


Solution: Most Magic players already know the symbols for the different colors. Even if they are so new that they don’t, the color of the symbol should be a clue. The symbols for the different card types are intuitive enough that they stand on their own without explicit labels. The very new players can take advantage of the pop-up text. The space savings for these categories are too great to use labels all the time. Labels for color and card type should only be displayed if/when space is abundant.


The search box

Search is a filter, but it’s shown outside the filters box. It also takes up to approx. 30 pixels of vertical space all to itself, even though it does not use the space.



The red rectangle marks all the space the search box takes for itself, but does not actually use.


Solution: Search should be added as just another filter in the filters box. It does not need to take up all that red space shown in the screenshot to itself. As for any concerns about surfacing search to the top of the UI vs. burying it under a “filter category”, I deal with that concern separately in my other criticisms.


The new client requires more clicks

Because nothing in the new client is surfaced to the top of the UI and is instead hidden behind what I am calling “filter categories”, every search in the new client requires at least one more click then the current client (the click to open the category).


Solution: Figure out what the most common filters are and put them one click away, then bury the less frequent filters under the “filter categories” or some other sort of advanced search option.


Scaling is handled by multiple scroll bars

This is extremely disappointing. I’ve complained about multiple scroll bars on the beta boards before and I quoted Jensen Harris (the designer of the ribbon used in office 2007 onwards) to support me. Here was the quote I gave, talking about the design of the ribbion (emphasis mine):



There are two reasons we didn't end up doing the ribbon on the side and we did it on the top.
 [...]
The second thing was my belief that if we had done the UI on the side it would have devolved into a scrollable list. That it's so easy to solve scaling on the side via like your folder list in Outlook. Here’s commands, and a scrollbar that goes up and down. And I felt really clearly that that was going to be a bad thing. That we wouldn’t be forced to solve it. Whereas a horizontal thing at the top, there’s no clear way to scale that and so we would have to work on the design of it more and end up with something that didn't make you scroll all the time.


— Jensen Harris, MIX 08, The Story of the Ribbon





The new client has scroll bars everywhere! Compare to MS Office. As space becomes smaller, the ribbon starts to go into “pop-up” mode, starting with the most infrequently used chunks (based on actual usage data rather than the intuition I am forced to use). You can still access all the commands; it just takes an extra mouse clicks to do so. As the ribbon becomes even smaller, it just completely gives up and goes away altogether, giving all the available space (what little there is of it) to the content.


 


Left: Two scroll bars visible. The toughness scroll bar is unusable due to the limited amount of space it is given. The entire filters box is 190 × 300 pixels.
Right: The MS-Word ribbon at approx. 300 × 90 pixels. (Almost half the size of the filter options in the new client shown on the left.) Even at this small size the entire home tab is still accessible through a “pop-up” mode. Any smaller and the ribbon will give up altogether and give all its space to the content of the document.


Even if the scroll bars were made usable, it’s still two scroll bars. This is bad design. Even at this size you still have approx. 190 ×300 pixels available (5700 pixels). You should be putting that space to better use.


Solution: As less space becomes available, show only the most frequently used filter options. Allow access to the other options via some sort of a pop-up window. As space becomes even more restricted, at some point you have to concede that you can’t show any useful options at all. Give what little of the space remains to the content, i.e. the card collection itself.


It’s not optimized for common searches

Searching for “Elves” is probably far more common than searching for “Zuberas”, yet they are given equal treatment in the new Ui’s subtype list. Even worse is that Equipment is in the middle of that list. Now I know that equipment is a subtype of Artifact, but it, and Auras, play in the game as if they were their own type of card. As far as I know, Aura and Equipment as the only subtypes outside of the basic land types to have their own rules. Maybe they should be made into an actual card type so that subtypes never have unique rules? Anyway, that is beyond the scope of this discussion. The point is, these searches would be far more common than “Zubera”, they should be given top billing in the new UI.


Another problem; I can imagine that searching for all cards with a converted mana cost of six or less to be more common then searching for card with a converted mana cost of three or six. But guess which one the new client makes easier to do?














Converted mana cost three or six requires three clicks:



Converted mana cost of six or less requires eight clicks:



  1. CMC

  2. 3

  3. 6


  1. CMC


  2. 1

  3. 2

  4. 3

  5. 4

  6. 5

  7. 6


And yes, I am aware that the current client doesn’t allow this kind of filtering at all, so don’t bother pointing that out.


Solution: WotC should know/work out what the most common searches are and optimize for them. Leave the more uncommon searches buried under menu items and advanced options as needed. For example, under format, Standard, Modern, Legacy and the current block might be at the top of the list. Older block formats might be buried under a pop-up menu. What goes where would be based on actual usage data.


No feedback on the current filters selected

All the filter options for the current client are displayed in approx. 700 × 50 pixels. If you want to know what the current filters are you need only consult this 35,000 pixels of screen space.



All the filter options on the current client.


The new client is unable to do even this. The best it can do is tell you how many of each “filter category” has been set. This takes 66,500 pixels, an 85% increase.



The new client can tell you how many “filter categories” have been set, but not what they are.


Solution: This is related to the “Common options are not floated to the top of the UI” problem. I understand that as more advanced filter options are set it becomes harder to present them at the top of the UI. However, even if only basic filters are set (format and color for example), the new UI can still only show how many of the “filter categories” were set and not what they were.


Filters are unresponsive while the search is done

If I set a filter, I have to wait until the client displays all the relevant cards before I can select another filter.


Solution: The search should be done on a different thread so that the main UI remains responsive while the client figures out the last search.


Auto save

I don’t like this feature. I haven’t tested it extensively (it’s 4 AM here in Ireland — sue me) so maybe I have some of these points wrong. If I do, then please correct me.



  • Sometimes I might want to make some changes to a deck, decide the changes are bad and not save them.

  • I might want to make a new deck, based on an existing deck, while keeping the original deck intact.

  • There’s also poor feedback that the deck is bring auto saved. Yes I know that the “five color mana wheel thing” appears, but there is nothing in the new UI to tell you that this means “auto-saving”.


Solution: Auto save is a good feature, so I don’t lose all the work I’ve been doing to a deck because of some crash or unexpected disconnection, but it should not be overwriting decks I have already made. Auto saved decks should be separate to my other decks and accessible through some kind of recovery feature. Decks I have saved should be over written with a new version only if I explicitly say so (via a save or save as button).


Decks are tagged with formats in addition to names

I think this is mostly upside. I wanted something that was 100% better in the new client vs. the current client so I wouldn’t be a negative Nancy[3]. This might be it.


Conclusion

It’s 4 a.m. Word says I have 7 pages. Someone else can take over, I’m done.







Uh, what he said. Basically all of what he said. The client has come a long way, but a lot of the new design feels like it's going backwards, or at least laterally, instead of forwards.

IMAGE(http://pwp.wizards.com/50738226/Scorecards/Landscape.png)
In some ways, this setup is a big step forward, but gmcfoley makes a lot of good points about how it's clunkier than it needs to be, and even just the addition of boolean "not" and "or" options would make it TONS more powerful.  If gatherer.wizards.com can do it, why not MTGO?
Mountain bikes are for slow people, and geckos are far better pets than cats & dogs! :D Officially licensed user of the term "GrammarChaos" (Thanks Tempesteye!) MPDC Season 3 Champion
+1 for bringing back filtering buttons IN ADDITION TO the new checkbox system.  There is plenty of room along the top to the right of 'show all variations.'  Or even better, the optimal implementation might be that some form of the traditional filtering buttons appears where the checkboxes/dropdowns are now, but now with an 'Advanced Filtering' button that replaces the whole section with the new checkbox system when you want to use it. (the choice should then be saved so that each user sees the same view the next time they load the view)

 
gmcfoley: I agree with pretty much everything you said.

I would like to also request that you bring back the all-encompassing binder. This has probably been the only detail about the new client I really dislike. There is no reason to remove it, since it makes for an easy, setup-free way of looking through your cards (much better than doing so alphabetically).
ricklongo and RicardoLongo on MTGO. Check out my articles at PureMTGO
I agreed with gmcfoley as well.
Particularly the auto save feature. I like to alter decks a lot and then compare back to the original which I won't be able to do if it gets saved over all the time.

In addition I miss the list view. I know it says coming soon but please make sure it actually does. I don't need to see the pictures when deck building, I just need to see the text to know if the card does what I want. I'm having to do a lot of scrolling to see what cards I've got and then compare to what the search is showing me.

Also the deck legality display needs working on. There does not seem to be a list of what is banned or what sets are legal in the deck building area. I used to find that useful occasionally. I know the filters will only show what is legal but I sometimes like to up date an old decks to newer formats and I need to know what needs removing. Then if you just change the decks format it will show the illegal cards. But only in pile view and even then it is not obvious what the display is meant to be showing. Although it is fairly easy to guess.

Finally a plus point. I do like the sample hand feature. but I think it, and the other analysis features need a labelled button not just a cog symbol. Every other button in the client is labelled except what is probably one of the most useful.

I've bought the cards and made a deck Now how do I win at this?


I would like to also request that you bring back the all-encompassing binder. This has probably been the only detail about the new client I really dislike. There is no reason to remove it, since it makes for an easy, setup-free way of looking through your cards (much better than doing so alphabetically).



This is my biggest issue with the new UI and something I put on every single beta survey I've filled out.

If they don't want to make a whole new tab, how about just giving us the option of 'binder view' in the deck editor in addition to list and pile. Make it display the cards just like the v2/v3 collection binder.
An additional issue. I can no longer see collection stats. And relatedly the only filter you don't seem to have is number owned. This means it is nearly impossible to set all my excess stuff tradeable without going through my whole collection card by card which I don't want to do. The set greater than 4 tradeable function only seems to work on a card by card basis.

I've bought the cards and made a deck Now how do I win at this?

Adding cards to an open binder is tricky at best.

You either have to do them one per click which when you have a collection as large as mine (17000) could take a long long time even if you only want a small fraction in the binder.

Or you have to use shift to select groups and hope the UI doesn't grab unwanted versions.

For example:

I created a binder I called Foils. Oh right must open the binder sub option in the lower left hand corner as it isn't defaulted to open already...

Then I sorted my collection by foils.

I started grabbing portions by shift clicking and dragging. This worked fine except for two things:

a) it grabbed non foils and b) didn't grab all of the foils selected.

The only way to undo this quickly was to just dump everything back and start over and sigh...

I am not sure what the fix here is but it does seem irksome.

I admit this was one area I didn't much bother with in the beta because it seemed like it was unfinished. One thing that would help immensely would be to add in the list view. That along with the filter for viewing all the different variations would allow for more precise selections.

- An additional problem with adding to collection binders is that Planeswalker set cards are included. This should not be. As it is to avoid including them you have to first OPEN the filter for formats and select Classic (so that it excludes illegal sets like Planeswalker.) This is not just unintuitive. It is actively wrong.

- Currently when you add a card from the collection to a binder it shows the number of cards of the particular type selected and if you click more times than you have cards it adds them to the open binder and shows a negative number. The expected behavior is that you click more times and it adds until it reaches your limit then stops. The exception being adding to a wishlist which is apparently a separate entity.

-Also the correct number owned is not auto updated but waits for some odd moment to show the correct number so if you overclick and add more than you own wont necessarily know immediately.

Winter.Wolf

gmcfoley does an excellent job of explaining things I have been saying for a while now, specially the part about having the icons/buttons for most common filters 1 click away. I will just add a couple of things:

Autosaving.
I think its a good feature going forward, but to work it needs certain elements to surround it, most importantly: persistent UNDO (and a good UI to navigate through changes and versions). If you have an efficient UNDO system that lets you go back to changes beyond when you started up the program, this means that you can go back to anything you had and you get the best of both worlds. Having a "duplicate" button is a new paradign that people using autosave have to get used to though.. it just means you dod the "Saving" action before you make the changes rather than afterwards.

Adding to a binder or deck.
I think we definitely need to have separate windows for the deck/sideboard/binder panels. Unless you have a nice large desktop screen, building a deck is a nasty experience when everything is crammed in a single window.
For a great source of information on the Pauper format check out Pauper's Cage!
The "Binder" concept seems like it could have some advantages - for example I could have a commons binder that I could use to make low-value trades with people, and a larger binder for selling to traders.  However there are some serious problems.

Most people will just want a binary system - they want a card to be tradeable, or not tradeable.  At present, this is the way this works:

 - Open an active binder
 - The bottom window now shows the contents of this binder.  The top window shows my entire collection.  There are numerals over each card on the top window that indicate how many cards I have left that I could add to the binder, i.e. make tradeable.

However, most users will want much of their collection to be tradeable at any given time.  If they acquire a few new cards (e.g. from a draft) or want to release some cards that they aren't using any more, it becomes very hard to do this.  On v3, one could filter by 'amount tradeable'.  On the new client the equivalent would be to hide all the cards in the top window that have "0" on them.

Except I can't do that.  If I want to browse through for some more cards to add to the binder to try and get the bots to bite, I have to look through all ~20k cards, most of which are tradeable already.

Secondly, a feature request.  When I make a new deck, I usually want to make the cards in it untradeable so that I don't accidentally sell part of it.  Therefore under "Options" for a deck I would like to see "Lock untradeable".  As long as this checkbox were selected, all the cards needed to make the deck would automatically be removed from all binders and not be able to be traded. 
Wouldn't it be nice if we could use existing binders and decks as filter options?
For a great source of information on the Pauper format check out Pauper's Cage!
All in all I like the new Collection view, but there are some small things that bug me:

-sideboard view has a maximum width set that is really small - it's a bit over 2 columns wide with default card size. I have a 27 inch 2560 pixel wide display, and with six columns in main deck view it is still nearly half empty. It would be nice to be able to make the sideboard view wider.
-when I sort the cards by Converted mana cost the back sides of double-faced cards are shown as having a CC of 0. Even though it's technically right, it's useless. I'd rather not see them at all.
-I can't find any way of viewing the back side of a double-faced cards when looking at the front side. If it's there, it's hard to find.
-a question of optimization - when I move a card from the deck to the collection is it really necessary to refresh the whole collection? It doesn't refresh when you move a card from the collection to the deck.
The "Binder" concept seems like it could have some advantages - for example I could have a commons binder that I could use to make low-value trades with people, and a larger binder for selling to traders.  However there are some serious problems.

Most people will just want a binary system - they want a card to be tradeable, or not tradeable.  At present, this is the way this works:

 - Open an active binder
 - The bottom window now shows the contents of this binder.  The top window shows my entire collection.  There are numerals over each card on the top window that indicate how many cards I have left that I could add to the binder, i.e. make tradeable.

However, most users will want much of their collection to be tradeable at any given time.  If they acquire a few new cards (e.g. from a draft) or want to release some cards that they aren't using any more, it becomes very hard to do this.  On v3, one could filter by 'amount tradeable'.  On the new client the equivalent would be to hide all the cards in the top window that have "0" on them.

Except I can't do that.  If I want to browse through for some more cards to add to the binder to try and get the bots to bite, I have to look through all ~20k cards, most of which are tradeable already.


Without any additional trade binders, it essentially remains a binary system. You make a very good point about filtering by # tradeable though.

Magic and Magic Online Volunteer Community Lead.

I'm trying to make my official VCL posts in purple.

You posted saying my thread was moved/locked but nothing happened.


Show
Unfortunately, VCLs do not currently have the tools necessary to take moderation actions directly. VCLs submit their actions to ORCs, who then actually perform the action. This processing can take between a few minutes and several hours, depending on how busy/attentive the ORCs are.

If you see something that needs VCL attention, please use this thread to make a request and a VCL will look at it as soon as possible. CoC violations should be reported to Customer Service using the "report post" button. Please do not disrupt the thread by making requests of either kind in-thread.

General MTGO FAQ

Yes, the Shuffler is Random!
The definitive thread on the Magic Online shuffler.

Magic Math Made Easy
Draw probabilities, Swiss results, Elo ratings and booster EV

Event EV Calculator
Calculate the EV for any event with a fixed number of rounds and prizes based on record

Dual means two. A duel is a battle between two people. Lands that make two colors of mana are dual lands. A normal Magic battle is a duel.
Thanks to PhoenixLAU for the [thread=1097559]awesome avatar[/thread]!
Quotables

Show
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, each lolcat actually produces a negative wordcount." -Ith "I think "Highly Informed Sarcasm" should be our Magic Online General motto." -Ith "Sorry, but this thread seems just like spam. TT is for off-topic discussion, not no-topic discussion." -WizO_Kwai_Chang "Stop that! If you're not careful, rational thinking may catch on!" -Sax "... the only word i see that fits is incompitant." -Mr44 (sic) "You know a thread is gonna be locked when it gets to the hexadecimal stage." -Gathion "It's a good gig" - Gleemax "I tell people often, if you guys want to rant, you've certainly got the right to (provided you obey CoC/ToS stuff), and I don't even really blame you. But if you see something you think needs changing a well thought-out, constructive post does more to make that happen." - Worth Wollpert
+1 gmcfoley's post - the checkbox system as implemented now is possibly my biggest gripe with the new client.

I could see it working as "advanced search" in addition to the old client's filters in some kind of overlay over the whole screen, like a big panel with knobs and sliders.
JudgeBot MTGO bots run by Magic Judges We keep it fun and fair.
I would like to sort my collection by Collection number while still being separated by sets.

I'm missing an option to filter non promo AND nonfoil cards.

I'm definitely missing a filter to set number of owned cards (having the option to choose needed is nice but I would like to define the number of needed cards (Commander players like it set at 1, others would probably like it at 4, collectiors even at a higher number etc.).
I'm not sure if this is the right place for this feed back. In the old client u could click on a keyword on a card and it would come up with text explaining that keyword, Now Magic has alot of keywords and for a new-ish player like myself it's hard to get to grips with them all at once so this feature was used alot by me and I'm a annoyed you can't do it in the new client. People play cards all the time that I've never seen b4 and not being able to use this feature to understand the keyword on the card they just played is very frustrating. Other than this I think the new clients alot better than the old version.
I also agree with gmcfoley 100%. 

Also, I never look at my collection unless it's in List View, not having that is really annoying and makes deckbuilding a lot harder. 
I'm not sure if this is the right place for this feed back. In the old client u could click on a keyword on a card and it would come up with text explaining that keyword, Now Magic has alot of keywords and for a new-ish player like myself it's hard to get to grips with them all at once so this feature was used alot by me and I'm a annoyed you can't do it in the new client. People play cards all the time that I've never seen b4 and not being able to use this feature to understand the keyword on the card they just played is very frustrating. Other than this I think the new clients alot better than the old version.



I'm not sure if this is exactly what you are looking for, but in account settings you can check the box for 'show reminder text' and it then shows details on keywords on mouseover, just like v3.  This should probably be on by default but it currently isnt.  
 
I'm not sure if this is exactly what you are looking for, but in account settings you can check the box for 'show reminder text' and it then shows details on keywords on mouseover, just like v3.  This should probably be on by default but it currently isnt.  
 

I'd still like the ability to pull up reminder text even if this option is turned off, similar to the way it is in v3 (with the clickable grey highlighting of keywords). I want cards uncluttered with text for haste or hexproof or whatever, but if I find myself in a Cube draft or some old-set retro draft and encounter an obscure keyword I'm not familiar with I'd like to be able to get an explanation of what it does without having to turn to out-of-game resources.

A quick post to thank folks for all the feedback. Particularly gmcfoley's post and all the effort and thought that went into it. Several of those observations are spot on and are already scheduled to be updated (such as the relocation of the text search box in with the other filters).


The beta client design presents all the properties of the game to users as they are filtering. While the V3 collection filtering design is space efficient and has some elegance for users that are familiar with both that UI and with the properties of the game, it didn't do well in usability studies with users that were new to Magic or even just new to MtGO. We are using some more space for these controls to be sure. 


There will likely be an advanced search UI for experienced users that do not need to be educated about the properties of the game if we can't get everything we and the users want out of one design.

I am not going to be able to add to Foley's huge post.

I will say, however, that I find it odd the choice for in-focus card font:

You use a sans serif font (of the Arial variety) as your distance/out of focus font on cards/text. But you use a serif (Roman type) font for focus text. This text is still small, set against a colored background in most cases, and is less legible than the Arial-type. While a serif font makes text more compact and thus use less ink for the same space than a sans serif font would, the sans serif font is more legible at distance and requires less focus to make out words and structures. I suggest simply using a larger font, with thicker lines, to denote "focus".

Edit:

Context menus ... can we get them back to V3 form? These are indicated as RED text on BLACK background. When you highlight it, it is a bright GREEN bar with BLACK text. Black on Green is fine (Golgari do it all the time, there's nothing wrong with that) but the original Black with dark text? There is a reason people are warned away from using black as a field color for text, it's HORRIBLE.
"Possibilities abound, too numerous to count." "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)
:facepalm
The static foil overlay looks nice... except... of course the older foils once again missing the trademark that originally enticed some of us to buy them.   Really?

:shakeshead
If that wasn't bad enough ½ the oldschool duals look well...okay...then the other half are looking like someone just dropped an urborg, tomb of yawgmoth


:bewilderment
Wow you actually managed to make it seem clunkier and more time consuming to do everything...I can't believe I'm about to say this but...


V3 I will miss you...I think.


I'm going to shut this thing off now while I go back under my rock and cry tears of sadness for the continual massacre that is online MTG.



   

             
"They were civilized they even drank their blood from a cup"→James Silke/Frank Frazzeta "When the Cryptkeeper sticks 'em they tend to stay stuck"→Cryptkeeper "Do not blame the current developers if there is something you don't like about Magic Online. Chances are no one asked the developers for their opinion."→elf "They just look at me like I'm stupid and then I just say something like well you know WOTC does some dumb things sometimes."→wilmheath "Like just about everything I've experienced with MTGO and the Magic WotC website, I'm finding it difficult to..."→0rbit "the more general question is: at what point does an easily fixable interface issue become a defect?"→silentbobus "Imagine, only four years later and I almost have as much functionality as I used to."→Algona "WotC, you make an awesome game, why do you have to suck so bad at letting people have a fun time?"→MTGKaioshin "If you are all about playing as many games as possible as fast as possible and you KNOW you have me beat, then concede and move on"→Johnh2005 "Wow. You're a real pleasure to help. Good luck figuring it out by yourself."→tempesteye "2hg brokest of the broke"→Me, Myself & I "It's you against the shuffler."→jwark "this look like freeware that some kid down the street crafted up"→ProtossX "ask them if the world came to an economic end tomorrow, whether they think little printed pieces of paper could be traded for actual goods or services"→dangerlinto "You still have time before the buggy, non user friendly beta is shoved down your throat"→theminer575 Server status→ http://www.wizards.com/magic/magiconlineserverstatus.asp Love or hate me I was brought to you courtesy of V3!
It looks like we lost the ability to see the quantity of "cards" in our collection. The number shown appears to just be the number of unique cards displayed.
Where can I find and import my old decks from the last version?

These are the following problems with the wishlist (arranged by expansion) I have encountered.
 
First, you can't drag several cards to a (non-)active wishlist. Sometimes it works, but mostly it doesn't.

Second, if you right-click "select all" and then click "add 1 to open binder", not all the selected cards are added and cards from other expansions are added as well.

The whole concept of decks being "integrated" into the client is terrible, and doesn't scale well with lots of decks.

In v3, a deck is nothing more than a file in the file system. I have many, many hundreds of decks files, organised in my own set of folders according to format. When standard format rotates, all I have to do is archive my old standard folder into another folder, and start afresh in an empty folder for the new standard format. If I want to tweak an old standard deck to keep it legal after rotation, I can simply copy the file into my fresh folder and make changes as required. As decks are simply files, I am free to do all this in a quick and simple operation using the explorer window of my operating system.

However, the new deckbuilding system is trying to be too smart. It tries to hide the underlying storage of decks from the user. This breaks down after you have a few dozen decks - if you have hundreds of decks like me, you don't want to have to scroll through one gigantic flat list of radio buttons every time you choose a deck to play - that's why I have my own hierarchical system of folders in the first place.

I noticed that you can "export" a deck as a text file from the deckbuilder/collection screen. I have no idea what this is actually doing. Is it making a copy of my deck, a snapshot at that moment in time? Does this file remain updated when I make changes in the editor? What if I start moving these files around?

PLEASE get rid of the step of "importing" a deck file into that awful awful scrolling radio button thingy, and let us simply choose a deck file to play. PLEASE get rid of the idea that decks just "exist in the client" and don't correspond to files that we are free to organise, move and copy as we see fit.

I had a play with the "add deck category" functionality. I don't think it solves these problems - in fact I accidently made a category that I don't want, and there's not even any way of deleting it.
I agree with every single thing gmcfoley said.  Thanks for making such a great post.  


Filtering for elves is so much nicer with a subtype filter than searching for "elf" and getting all of the cards that say "itself" included in my search.  I love the more powerful filtering capacity.  Add some AND and NOT functionality - that would increase the search power significantly.  

I hate making extra clicks when I know that the interface could be designed in a way that prevents the need for it.  Take gmcfoley's recommendations.  

Even though I'm not a huge collector guy, I still would like to see the collection binder come back.  I think this would be conceptually easy to do - make it one of the view options.  Card view, list view, and binder view.  

When viewing a deck, I wish I could sort by color/cost by right clicking in the open space and selecting a sort option from the right click menu.  

I like having the card counts displayed above each stack of cards, especially when sorting by converted mana cost.

One thing that I do a lot is sort my piles in a non-obvious way and then wish I could get that view back after I reload the deck or sort by color or cost.  For example, if might sort my cards into mana sources, control cards, threats, and card manipulation.  It takes a whole bunch of clicks to get that view setup, and I find it really helpful when I'm analyzing or explaining a deck.  I wish I could get it back quickly after I create it.  How about saving the way the cards are arranged along with the card list itself?  

I really like the idea of decks that go along with the account.  Seems like a great upgrade.  The autosave thing is a serious issue, though.  I see what you're trying to do, but it really sucks not having a good way to take an existing deck and make a new variant without screwing up the original deck list.  

The beta client design presents all the properties of the game to users as they are filtering. While the V3 collection filtering design is space efficient and has some elegance for users that are familiar with both that UI and with the properties of the game, it didn't do well in usability studies with users that were new to Magic or even just new to MtGO. We are using some more space for these controls to be sure. 

There will likely be an advanced search UI for experienced users that do not need to be educated about the properties of the game if we can't get everything we and the users want out of one design.



An advanced filter UI for experienced users should be considered an essential feature.  Remember that you don't just want to acquire new MTGO users - you want to keep the existing users around.  Don't deprioritize the experience of the intermediate and advanced users.  They are important to your business.  
I actually like the foil animations this time around.

However, I have a big problem with how foils look with the animation turned off. The foil-effect is so opaque that I can't read my cards easily. Also, for some reason, foil versions of the Mirrodin artifact lands (and possibly some others?) have a dark brown-gray text box when foil animation is turned off. This makes the text on them really difficult to read.

This should be a reasonably easy fix - possibly as simple as decreasing the opacity of the overlaid "foil" effect.

Personally, I'd like it if it were possible to turn foil off entirely and have foils appear as any other card does (at least while playing; I can see why some indication of foiliness would be necessary in trading to make sure you don't accidentally trade them away as if they were regular versions if you care about it.)

Perhaps three options while playing: animated, non-animated, and "looks like the non-foil card", and two while trading or browsing one's collection and deckbuilding: animated and non?

I also have noticed that when I have foil animation on, the text on the card is less sharp and more blurry.

Also, has anyone else noticed a peculiar visual bug where the text on the top of the card will vary in size even if the cards are identical? I can't post a screenshot now, but this happened:

One card's name read "Sign in Blood" in tiny text. Another copy of the same card had the name in larger text and read "Sign in..." I checked and they were the same version (and even if they weren't, I don't see why it should matter.) Mycosynth Lattice did the same thing for me, so I'm guessing it's a widespread glitch.
Sorting by color is putting multcolor cards in seperate piles for each color combination. Makes it very hard to browse your cards and now I have to scroll vertically and horizontally. Also, I don't see any options to filter the cards that are actually in the trade binder. How am I supposed to manage this when I have 50k cards in my collection? Scroll through and look for the one I want? Even if I would try to do that, the screen doesnt' refresh until I let the scroll bar go. I'm supposed to keep guessing where the card I want lies?

Edit: A related problem is if I have my binder window minimized and I'm looking through my collection, clicking on a card puts it in my trade binder. If I did this by mistake, it takes upwards of a minute to expand the binder window, scroll through the cards, and click it back to the collection. At the least there should be a right-click option to "return all from current (all) trade binders." 

If I made this mistake on v3, all I had to do was click the down arrow on the trade quantity.

Edit2: Unless I am viewing the same card in both windows, there is no easy way to tell the ratio of cards owned to cards tradeable. It does me almost no good to know that I have 3x cards in my trade binder if I don't know if those are 3 "extra" cards or 3 cards that should be in my deck. It should say something like 3/7.
Oh my goodness, the new collection system is making me want to tear my hair out.  I need options that improve speed and performance above all else.

So, here's my experience.  I click on the collection tab, and wait for Magic Online to respond.  I make myself breakfast, get dressed, eat breakfast, and 10 minutes later my collection has still not loaded.  Finally, my collection loaded.  Then I need to make a few cards tradeable so I can sell them to a bot so I have some more tickets to trade with.  I click on the checkbox for rarity and wait for another 10 minutes before the system finally responds.  After about ten minutes I've finally checked Mythic Rares and can finally see a part of my collection.  I add Elesh Norn to my current trade binder and find a bot to buy my card.  When I do so, the bot is buying Elesh Norn for much less than I want to sell it for, so I go back to my collection tab, wait another 10 minutes.  Then I wade through a visual representation of all of the cards that I currently have tradeable to find the elesh norn in my trade binder and remove it.  This takes another 5 minutes.  It would have taken longer but I found that there is a way to sort your trade binder by rarity.

Then I go back to the older interface to do the rest of my trading, which takes me a fraction of the time it took me to even see my collection in the new interface.

For people with large collections, the collection screen is largely unusable due to card loading lag.  You've tried to make the trading experience online mimic the physical version of trading, while ignoring the fact that it's much easier to organize and handle data online than offline. 

I don't want to see my entire collection in one box at one time.  That takes way to long, and yet it is the default view. 

I don't want to physically pull cards in and out of a trade bin, the old collection binder worked much better for this purpose.

The collection user interface is so much slower than the old one, please make some performance related decisions when working on it.
I really liked the (old) binder interface where I could page through my collection by sets. With filters, it made it easy to see which cards I needed on a per-set basis.

However, my collection loads quickly in the sneak peek client. I didn't see any card lag. I have a largish collection (>100k).
However, my collection loads quickly in the sneak peek client. I didn't see any card lag. I have a largish collection (>100k).



Mine took forever, and I only have about 5k.
However, my collection loads quickly in the sneak peek client. I didn't see any card lag. I have a largish collection (>100k).



Mine took forever, and I only have about 5k.



Not to say that they can't find ways to improve this, but speed might be related to the PC in use, not the size of the collection.  I have around 18k cards and collection loads within a second or two max.  
I believe it's more about internet connection than PC hardware. I have more than capable computer but a rather slow internet conection and I have to wait some time to load all cards (more then 10s per page).

 
With a day's experience with the new client, here's what I think.

I like the direction the client is taking, although there is still a lot of room for improvement. And the #1 target for improvement efforts should really be making the collection browsing less laggy and more responsive. This isn't even restricted to the collection, since I've experienced a lot of click lag during gameplay.

If the client were more responsive, I'd actually be okay with having it replace of V3 as of right now.
ricklongo and RicardoLongo on MTGO. Check out my articles at PureMTGO
I believe it's more about internet connection than PC hardware. I have more than capable computer but a rather slow internet conection and I have to wait some time to load all cards (more then 10s per page).

 



Quite possible; I have a very good connection.  

Either way, it does seem to make some sense to make the default collection view anything other than 'all cards'.  Perhaps list view will help, once enabled, if it has anything to do with loading the art anyways.
When list view is added, please make the following easy improvement: add the right+left click zoom option so I can view cards the same way from a text list that I'd view zoomed versions in any other area of the client.  That would be a really nice improvement over list view in V3.  
However, my collection loads quickly in the sneak peek client. I didn't see any card lag. I have a largish collection (>100k).

Mine took forever, and I only have about 5k.

Not to say that they can't find ways to improve this, but speed might be related to the PC in use, not the size of the collection.  I have around 18k cards and collection loads within a second or two max.  

My PC "sucks", I use WindowsXP on a Parallels VirtualMachine configured with 1.5GB RAM running on a very old Mac Pro.

The only time I had serious lag was when I changed my skin. I ended up closing the client and restarting to "resolve" the issue of windows being blank.
I believe it's more about internet connection than PC hardware. I have more than capable computer but a rather slow internet conection and I have to wait some time to load all cards (more then 10s per page).


This. The card art is downloaded on the fly, so connection is going to be the big factor.

Seems like client responsiveness is varying greatly. Some players report a very snappy client (mine is), while others report a lag whenever they change tabs (Kibler's was slow during his stream last night, and I'm sure his rig doesn't suck). I don't know if all of the issues can be attributed to connection speed (I would hope that only matters until the art is cached). Keep providing feedback, and be sure to report connection speed along with the usual RAM and video information, and whether it improves on later use.

Magic and Magic Online Volunteer Community Lead.

I'm trying to make my official VCL posts in purple.

You posted saying my thread was moved/locked but nothing happened.


Show
Unfortunately, VCLs do not currently have the tools necessary to take moderation actions directly. VCLs submit their actions to ORCs, who then actually perform the action. This processing can take between a few minutes and several hours, depending on how busy/attentive the ORCs are.

If you see something that needs VCL attention, please use this thread to make a request and a VCL will look at it as soon as possible. CoC violations should be reported to Customer Service using the "report post" button. Please do not disrupt the thread by making requests of either kind in-thread.

General MTGO FAQ

Yes, the Shuffler is Random!
The definitive thread on the Magic Online shuffler.

Magic Math Made Easy
Draw probabilities, Swiss results, Elo ratings and booster EV

Event EV Calculator
Calculate the EV for any event with a fixed number of rounds and prizes based on record

Dual means two. A duel is a battle between two people. Lands that make two colors of mana are dual lands. A normal Magic battle is a duel.
Thanks to PhoenixLAU for the [thread=1097559]awesome avatar[/thread]!
Quotables

Show
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, each lolcat actually produces a negative wordcount." -Ith "I think "Highly Informed Sarcasm" should be our Magic Online General motto." -Ith "Sorry, but this thread seems just like spam. TT is for off-topic discussion, not no-topic discussion." -WizO_Kwai_Chang "Stop that! If you're not careful, rational thinking may catch on!" -Sax "... the only word i see that fits is incompitant." -Mr44 (sic) "You know a thread is gonna be locked when it gets to the hexadecimal stage." -Gathion "It's a good gig" - Gleemax "I tell people often, if you guys want to rant, you've certainly got the right to (provided you obey CoC/ToS stuff), and I don't even really blame you. But if you see something you think needs changing a well thought-out, constructive post does more to make that happen." - Worth Wollpert