Magic Online Wide Beta Q&A (1/31 @ 3:00p)

37 posts / 0 new
Last post

Join Worth Wollpert (Executive Producer – Magic), Ryan Spain (Digital Game Designer – Magic Online), and Chris Kiritz (Business Manager - Magic Online) this Thursday afternoon from 3:00pm to 4:00pm PT as they give a public walkthrough of the Magic Online Wide Beta client. The Hangout will serve as both an introduction for new players as well as a demonstration for experienced MTGO fans showcasing recently added UI improvements.


The stream will also have a Q&A portion featuring questions gathered from the MTGO community, so submit your questions as soon as possible either here or over Twitter using the #mtghangout hashtag. Also make sure you follow @MagicOnline for status updates on the event, plus a link once the video stream goes live!

You can find the Google+ event details HERE

 

Sean Gibbons

Associate Community Manager

Official MTG Twitter: @Wizards_Magic Official MTGO Twitter: @MagicOnline

Nice!  Gotta say you guys are treating this much differently than the 3.0 release.  Even though I'm not super stoked about the beta it is coming along and improving much more rapidly.
PureMTGO.com
Cape Fear Games located in Wilmington, NC. Get 20% extra MTGO credit for your paper cards.

Join Worth Wollpert (Executive Producer – Magic), Ryan Spain (Digital Game Designer – Magic Online), and Chris Kiritz (Business Manager - Magic Online) this Thursday afternoon from 3:00pm to 4:00pm PT as they give a public walkthrough of the Magic Online Wide Beta client. The Hangout will serve as both an introduction for new players as well as a demonstration for experienced MTGO fans showcasing recently added UI improvements.


The stream will also have a Q&A portion featuring questions gathered from the MTGO community, so submit your questions as soon as possible either here or over Twitter using the #mtghangout hashtag. Also make sure you follow @MagicOnline for status updates on the event, plus a link once the video stream goes live!

You can find the Google+ event details HERE

 


Don't know if this fit into the Wide Beta Client category. Anyway, are there any plans to improve the trading system? For instance, an auction house, or some .01 tix as changes?
I won't be able to watch it, but I think this is a great idea.  Will it be recorded and archived somewhere?
The link to the google+ event just gives me an error.
I won't be able to watch it, but I think this is a great idea. Will it be recorded and archived somewhere?

It will be on YouTube. Here is the Gatecrash Google+ Hangout with R&D.
Sad puppy I can't make it.  Such is life with active kids .
Classic Quarter
(www.classicquarter.com)
Is the new client a definitely farewell to binder look like collection screen?

What kind of promotion are you planning for the release of the new client?

With the release date of new client can we still use the old client or v3 immediately becomes obsolete and current wide beta is the only transitional stage?
The link to the google+ event just gives me an error.



Yeah that's been happening for some people (but not everyone, which is weird). Try THIS link.



I won't be able to watch it, but I think this is a great idea.  Will it be recorded and archived somewhere?



Yes, it will be streamed live on YouTube through Google Hangouts, and when it's finished airing it will automatically be available as a video on Wizards' MTG channel.

Sean Gibbons

Associate Community Manager

Official MTG Twitter: @Wizards_Magic Official MTGO Twitter: @MagicOnline

Is the new client a definitely farewell to binder look like collection screen?



Answer this please. No collection binder is 98% of the reason I won't use the beta client. I love my collection binder and do not wish to part with it.
The link to the google+ event just gives me an error.

You can see the event on their Google+ Page.
Good questions so far, all. Keep them coming. The more the better!

 

Sean Gibbons

Associate Community Manager

Official MTG Twitter: @Wizards_Magic Official MTGO Twitter: @MagicOnline


Since the stripping of any loyalty program and the discontinuation of avatars having a function, What do you see as an improvement for the casual player over the next year?


How is the new client an improvement for anyone outside of limited play? 

Game filters, will we ever be able to create our own game filters and share them so we can create our own games?


How has merging the multiplayer room with the single player room affected number of games and customer satisfaction?


Will there be a time in the foreseeable future that we will be able to do anything about the giant spreadsheet and queue for games like most other MMOs (Mechwarrior Online, League of Legends, etc)? Will there be filters based off of skill level (via deck win ratio, customer set skill level, or other skill metric ala Call of Duty and others)?


Will there be any further shortening of the timeframe between paper and digital launches as we pay the same money and are supposed to be valued the same as paper players because of it?


I'm typing these, but I have 5 additional people over for game night and they are all lapsed players that have left after one fiasco or another and none of them see the game going in the right direction. 4 have downloaded the new beta and immediately asked me how is this any improvement. So these are all of our questions.                   
 

Will we have some sort of our personal newsletter built in the new client?
Real time updated if possible and improved with some viable suggestions from another thread community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Will we have some other non-personal information/statistics from the newsletter built in the new client? Like number of certain cards (e.g. FoWs) on accounts, most drafted cards.

Will players whose questions is answered get something extra (besides answer)? Like... I don't know... P9, promo FoW, ZEN block draft set, GTC Guild Mark or at least 10 Cube Tickets? ;) Just kidding ;)
Is there any reason that you remove the collection aka "binder" section in the new client. I hope it will come back with further updates. As it's my favorite section in the current (old) client. I love to spend time and go through the cards & sets in the binder for brainstorming for new deck ideas. Current collection in the new client or just deck builder section in current client makes it more mechanical. Thank you.
You can find the Google+ event details HERE


404
PureMTGO.com
Cape Fear Games located in Wilmington, NC. Get 20% extra MTGO credit for your paper cards.
plus.google.com/events/csd5vlu5tg33rrnqh...


Thanks, but I already found it. I was just hoping they'd fix the link if people kept pointing it out. 
First off, lets keep this simple.  Second, full disclosure, I work for Cardhoarder so I'm going to be talking about something that is extremely specific for us retailers regarding the use of these new binders.  If it doesn't affect you, ignore this.   Thank you.



I'm going to ask something specifically about the use of these new binders.  I think the concept of them is great for some of us but it's implimentation isn't complete.

I see parallels between the casual MTG player and MTGO's collection.  For paper players, we use binders for cards that are for trade.  Maybe you have your binders labeled, colored... whatever or however you do it.  Now, being a paper player you know or can easily find out what's in your binder by opening it and looking.  Say you only own 4 copies of Dark Confidant.  They're in your binder for trade, has been for a while.  You're about to go to a FNM where its Modern.  Your deck needs 3 Dark Confidant's.

What are you going to do?

A) Buy 3 Dark Confidant's so that the 4 that are in your binder will remain intact
B) Borrow 3 Dark Confidant's
C) Take 3 Dark Confidant's out of your binder and into your deck

Either B or C is going to be the more likely answers here.  Now, lets not get into symantec's of, but these are Japanese or Mint or whatever, keep it simple remember. 

Now, MTGO solves all of this with its global collection mentality.  You only need 4 Dark Confidant's, like, ever because in your decks you can use the same 4 Dark Confidant over and over with no troubles and no issues.

Now with the advent of these trade binders in the MTGO beta, at least myself, started to "perk up".     Being one of the larger online retailers for the MTGO community, these binders would be an amazing feature for us to aid in delivering orders faster to our customers.  The ability to create a binder and adding cards that are in my collection to that binder is AWESOME.  This means I'd be able to create order #1, #2, #3, so forth and put their cards into their respective binder.  When they come online, we would communicate, I'd ask for their order number (say #2 here), I'd go to the collection, binder, right click 2, set "Active Trade Binder" to YES, and trade.  When we're finished, delete the #2 binder and DONE.  Customers rejoice!

But here's the problem with its current implimentation.

Lets just stick with 4 Dark Confidant.  I have 4 Dark Confidant.  One customer orders 3 Dark Confidant.  They're not online.  I create the order number binder and from my collection which shows 4.  I put 3 into one binder and wait for them to come online.  Hours later another customer places an order for 4 Dark Confidant.

Problem #1: My collection still shows the 4 Dark Confidant.  They weren't "removed" to be put into my binder like I would expect (again, think like paper binders, its the exact same thing).

Problem #2: I can see where this could easily get confusing to many of the casual players but it's really a ticking time bomb.  If you have ANY deck that 4 Dark Confidant exists in and you trade them, you won't know until you're trying to play with them BECAUSE they were in your binder and there IS no notification to warning you of the sorts.

Yes, there's the notification if there isn't ENOUGH, that's great.  However in my humble opinion, the binders implimentation is a wonderful concept for an extremely small portion of the community but it is not thoroughly thought out completely.  I believe binders should be specifically treated more like its paper counterparts and cards separate quantities from your MTGO collection.

This will be a difficult topic to look at but it's one that I and a few others are very interested in.


--- Additional for Everyone Questions ---

1) Decks cannot be made active tradable.  If I want to be able to build a deck for someone, with my collection, and trade it to them I want to be able to do so.

2) If I'm trading to someone both cards and tickets, how are they to know?  Having everything on separate tabs is extremely cumbersome.

I have more but it'll be for another post.

Tweaker


 
It was mentioned that sound effects are going to be worked on in the future after v3-off because right now the gameplay experience is the focus. I'm happy to hear that sounds effects are on the radar, but for me they absolutely are a gameplay issue. They are audio cues as to what phase or step I'm in. I've skipped declare blockers many times on the beta client because I didn't realize what step of combat we were in.

Also, I don't really like the extra blockers row. In a previous article you brought up how jarring it was to have permanents move around and how much time it takes a player to regain an understanding of what's going on. You made the great change of stopping how permanents were shuffling around. And now you take a step backwards by doing the exact same thing again.

Also, if you're going to have the extra blockers row, you absolutely should not give the option of disabling it if there are no legal blocks. It must be either on or off. The reason for this is that if a player is able to set it to "only on if I have legal blocks" then the game may inadvertantly give the player a hint of "you can block" that they might otherwise not notice. An example would be a creature with Reach. The defending player might not realize that he can make a block. The game telling him that he has a creature that can block removes a level of skill of the player to know that he can block.

Please just make sure that you think about the options that you give us as players so as to not give players hints about the gamestate. It's a player skill to understand the state of the game. Don't let the client have the skill instead of the player.

[edit]
Associations: You gave us an idea about the coming update for associations and targeting indicators. What I feel like you're missing is that we want to see this information when a spell is cast or ability is activated so that we don't have to hover over the stack to see it immediately. The topmost object on the stack should automatically show this association without us having to look for it.
IMAGE(http://pwp.wizards.com/50738226/Scorecards/Landscape.png)
meh, heard the only thing I cared about. No binder view before the forced v3 shutoff. I'll probably be taking another long break from magic (skipped planar chaos thru conflux when they released v3). I love playing magic but they make it so painstakingly difficult for me to give them my money.

The deckbuilder is awful, in-game combat/targetting is a mess, and worst of all the cards look like complete rubbish. I can't even believe that last one. You'd think the one think you'd want to get right is the card images. They looked fine in v2. They look fine in v3. What the hell happened?

Yet I could suffer through all of that if I had a collection binder. 
meh, heard the only thing I cared about. No binder view before the forced v3 shutoff. I'll probably be taking another long break from magic (skipped planar chaos thru conflux when they released v3). I love playing magic but they make it so painstakingly difficult for me to give them my money.

The deckbuilder is awful, in-game combat/targetting is a mess, and worst of all the cards look like complete rubbish. I can't even believe that last one. You'd think the one think you'd want to get right is the card images. They looked fine in v2. They look fine in v3. What the hell happened?

Yet I could suffer through all of that if I had a collection binder.



I would be very interested in seeing images of what you are talking about.  When I look at cards in the Wide Beta, in most cases they look better than the v3 version (with the exception of foil cards, which we know are not there yet).


I am also interested to know what about the binder view would improve your play experience to the point that without it you would quit playing.  We are aware that we need to provide a better browsing experience, but our experience is that more time is spent in duel scene and deck building than collection browsing.    


  
Go down one whole thread to Lawnmower_Elf's thread and you will see what it looks like. Your client is static. It should be dynamic and have placement memory as well. You center everything instead of left aligning. You add a useless redzone which just confuses everything. You take away arrows that work fine and replace it with garbage and then (you can watch the youtube video as I don't have time to rewatch so paraphrasing) tell us that you understand that people want arrows, but what that tell us is that people want to be given more clues as to what to do. So, you understand what arrows do, then think you can come up with a better way than arrows and fail miserably.

NASA needed to have the ability to write in zero G. They spent millions and years developing a pen that works in zero G. You know what the Russians use? A pencil.


Start using Pencils and quit trying to fix things that work. Please.


    
With all the talk about cards looking bad in the beta, I wonder if people are talking about the general design of the card rendering, or if there's some bug that ruins the appearance of cards.

I think that cards generally look better in the beta (rendered much clearer in general), but there are definately some bugs. The bug I see most often is when zooming in on a card - parts of the card (most often the card name) appear pixelated and kind of torn. If I hold the zoom-in view while cards are moving around in the background, then I can see the program redrawing the zoomed-in card, sometimes making it clear, and sometimes just jittering it around a bit but it stays pixelated.
Go down one whole thread to Lawnmower_Elf's thread and you will see what it looks like. Your client is static. It should be dynamic and have placement memory as well. You center everything instead of left aligning. You add a useless redzone which just confuses everything. You take away arrows that work fine and replace it with garbage and then (you can watch the youtube video as I don't have time to rewatch so paraphrasing) tell us that you understand that people want arrows, but what that tell us is that people want to be given more clues as to what to do. So, you understand what arrows do, then think you can come up with a better way than arrows and fail miserably.

NASA needed to have the ability to write in zero G. They spent millions and years developing a pen that works in zero G. You know what the Russians use? A pencil.


Start using Pencils and quit trying to fix things that work. Please.


    



Sorry if there was confusion, but I was specifically asking what about card appearance that Niabock thinks is better in v3 (card size and foils notwithstanding).  

While we understand that not all players will like some of our changes (like the redzone), we not trying to make changes just for the sake of change.  Often those decsions are based on what players do in paper, or on trying to present specific information.  As we continue to iterate, your feedback is important, so please keep it coming.  

Thanks.     
Go down one whole thread to Lawnmower_Elf's thread and you will see what it looks like. Your client is static. It should be dynamic and have placement memory as well. You center everything instead of left aligning. You add a useless redzone which just confuses everything. You take away arrows that work fine and replace it with garbage and then (you can watch the youtube video as I don't have time to rewatch so paraphrasing) tell us that you understand that people want arrows, but what that tell us is that people want to be given more clues as to what to do. So, you understand what arrows do, then think you can come up with a better way than arrows and fail miserably.

NASA needed to have the ability to write in zero G. They spent millions and years developing a pen that works in zero G. You know what the Russians use? A pencil.


Start using Pencils and quit trying to fix things that work. Please.


    



Sorry if there was confusion, but I was specifically asking what about card appearance that Niabock thinks is better in v3 (card size and foils notwithstanding).  

While we understand that not all players will like some of our changes (like the redzone), we not trying to make changes just for the sake of change.  Often those decsions are based on what players do in paper, or on trying to present specific information.  As we continue to iterate, your feedback is important, so please keep it coming.  

Thanks.     



For what it's worth, my own two cents is: the card images are one of the positives of the beta experience. It may be that some of the interaction with them could use improvement (Zooming, how cards are viewed in game, positioning, etc) but the images look crisp and clear and I am on an old (from 2001) 17" multisync nec with a top end resolution of 1280x1024). Granted I haven't been on the beta in a month or two so my information may be out of date.

I think the reason some people are having difficulty with the images has to do with specific graphic set ups not anything to do with the client itself. That's my guess anyway. It might be good if there were multiple graphic settings options for those machines that render the images poorly. (As in most modern game installations.)

Winter.Wolf

Go down one whole thread to Lawnmower_Elf's thread and you will see what it looks like. Your client is static. It should be dynamic and have placement memory as well. You center everything instead of left aligning. You add a useless redzone which just confuses everything. You take away arrows that work fine and replace it with garbage and then (you can watch the youtube video as I don't have time to rewatch so paraphrasing) tell us that you understand that people want arrows, but what that tell us is that people want to be given more clues as to what to do. So, you understand what arrows do, then think you can come up with a better way than arrows and fail miserably.

NASA needed to have the ability to write in zero G. They spent millions and years developing a pen that works in zero G. You know what the Russians use? A pencil.


Start using Pencils and quit trying to fix things that work. Please.


    



Sorry if there was confusion, but I was specifically asking what about card appearance that Niabock thinks is better in v3 (card size and foils notwithstanding).  

While we understand that not all players will like some of our changes (like the redzone), we not trying to make changes just for the sake of change.  Often those decsions are based on what players do in paper, or on trying to present specific information.  As we continue to iterate, your feedback is important, so please keep it coming.  

Thanks.     




The problem is that you are changing things for the sake of changing them. You think that you can do better than what is in place and we're telling you that we don't want you to try to do better: we want what we already had.

The arrows work. The G+ hangout said 90% of the time. I'd be willing to put it over 99% of the time. And yes, I know that 78% of stats are made up on the spot. The fact remains that 90%, 99%, and anything in between,  the arrows work. You don't need to reinvent the wheel on this.

Card images I don't have a problem with. I'm willing to bet that it's individual system setups that are causing the differing experiences.

Also, just because we do some things in paper doesn't mean that we should do them in the digital world. Just because I may center my lands when I'm playing in paper (btw, I don't) that doesn't mean that I want the system to do it in the digital world, shifting things around in the process to rebalance the center. You (WotC) have already differentiated digital from paper in many respects because "just because it's that way in paper doesn't mean it has to be in digital" (ie: chess clocks, no intentional draws).

You tell us that you're not changing things for the sake of change, but from our point of view you are.

IMAGE(http://pwp.wizards.com/50738226/Scorecards/Landscape.png)
For me, the cards on the beta just look less real.  So, I did this quick comparison to try and figure out why.



It looks like v3 uses arial (or some sans-serif font), while the beta uses a serif font (times new roman?).  Cards in real life use the serif font....so IDK why the sans serif looks more real.

As you can see, the expansion symbol is better in the beta (not comically oversized)...but it's actually too small, so it looks funny.  I also think some of the colors in the mana symbols and whatnot are very very slightly off.  For some reason, the text and mana symbols seem to float above the card in the beta, but they blend in beter on v3.

Some of the beta card text is not bold enough (rules text), while other text is too bold ("sorcery").  The type line really really gets me, for some reason it just looks incredibly bad (even worse on my screen than in the above pic, somehow).

I suppose you could say that the beta handles smaller cards much better, but v3 handles large cards (i.e. zoomed ones) better.

Also, the color identity background is too large in the beta.  So, for Inaction injunction, I'm referring to the blue swirly color that is the very background for the whole card (but you only see it between the black border and the card boxes which contain the rules text and art.  You can see in the side by side that v3 nails this size (compared to gatherer), but in beta it is way too big.  However, beta does the size of the black border more accurately, whereas it is too small in v3.


So, yeah, it's kinda funny that the beta does a few things better, but then does others worse, heh.  It could be unfamiliarity, but the things the beta does worse just make the cards look faker to me (in all of this post, I'm always referring to everything but the art, v3 and the beta do the art exactly the same and it looks fantastic, as always).

My forever unfinished blog of the 2010 MTGO Community Cup: if you're ever bored...
Also, the color identity background is too large in the beta.  So, for Inaction injunction, I'm referring to the blue swirly color that is the very background for the whole card (but you only see it between the black border and the card boxes which contain the rules text and art.  You can see in the side by side that v3 nails this size (compared to gatherer), but in v3 it is way too big.  However, v3 does the size of the black border more accurately, whereas it is too small in v3.




I think you messed that para up, but I do see what you meant
I have a view on card fidelity. I prefer enhanced cards to fathfull rendition. I like the view with gatherer text and no flavour text. When I'm playing a deck with cards I know I only want to be able to recognise the card from the art. When I'm playing with cards I don't know, I want the information presented clearly, so no tiny text (e.g. chains of mephistopheles), in fact I'm happier with the hover-over popup for unfamiliar cards (I'd like to see that expanded with effective p/t, amount of damage, number of +1 tokens etc.). So I guess I don't want cards to look wrong, but I'm not so bothered if they're unlike paper cards.
I have a view on card fidelity. I prefer enhanced cards to fathfull rendition. I like the view with gatherer text and no flavour text. When I'm playing a deck with cards I know I only want to be able to recognise the card from the art. When I'm playing with cards I don't know, I want the information presented clearly, so no tiny text (e.g. chains of mephistopheles), in fact I'm happier with the hover-over popup for unfamiliar cards (I'd like to see that expanded with effective p/t, amount of damage, number of +1 tokens etc.). So I guess I don't want cards to look wrong, but I'm not so bothered if they're unlike paper cards.

Oh, just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that the best way to go was a faithful rendition.  I also like to be able to turn off the reminder text to cut down on clutter on the card.  So, my complaints weren't that it doesn't look exactly like the real version, just that it looks....wrong in some way.  So, it's good to have a comparison to the real cards, because I think it's a safe assumption to say that the IRL card is "right".  Not that there can't be some improvements (ala remove reminder text, etc), but most of the elements should be mimicked to make it look "right."

One funny thing is that v3 is using sans serif font, where the cards IRL use serif fonts....but the serif fonts in the beta make the cards look weird (to me), whereas the sans serif fonts in v3 look more "real".  It might be because the serif is a bit more pronounced in the beta than on IRL cards (because of scaling when zooming?).

Since they practically built the beta from the ground up, they probably tried to mimic the fonts on the real cards.  Looking back at some screenshots from when v3 was still in ITS beta...the fonts have always been sans serif...I kinda think they made a really good call with that one.

My forever unfinished blog of the 2010 MTGO Community Cup: if you're ever bored...
I am also interested to know what about the binder view would improve your play experience to the point that without it you would quit playing.  We are aware that we need to provide a better browsing experience, but our experience is that more time is spent in duel scene and deck building than collection browsing.



I do all of my deck building from the collection binder. I would sort it how I want, flip through pages, see a card I want to use, switch to the deck builder and search for that one specific card, add it and go right back to the collection binder. Displaying 24 cards at a time was a lot easier to process mentally and flipping through pages was very fast. Even the jumbled tabs were not a problem as I got good at clicking the ones I wanted.

Using the deckbuilder now requires several scroll bars and lots more clicking to switch between sets.
I either sort less and scroll more or I have to change sort options constantly (from menus with their own scroll bars).
 
And then theres the times I would just look thru my collection binder for the hell of it. Just browse looking at things. I never just browse through the deck editor. It is just not the same. The collection binder felt like I was looking at MY cards as they were arranged just how I would arrange my paper cards. The deckbuilder feels like a mass of images. It just doesn't have the same connection. 
   
I would be very interested in seeing images of what you are talking about.  When I look at cards in the Wide Beta, in most cases they look better than the v3 version (with the exception of foil cards, which we know are not there yet).
 



I will admit I was wrong here. It has been awhile since I had logged into beta. The last time I did, all the card images were blurry and text/symbols were wildly out of place. This has mostly been fixed and the card images look great now. Though there are still several things I don't like.
- The font on the cards is annoying. For some reason it just bothers me and seems harder to read.
- The colored border is now squared instead of rounded.
- The black border is larger. It could be the same width as v3 but v3's background was black so you really didn't see it. Either way this and the above points make the cards look cartoony. They look like digital cards which isn't something I felt in v2/v3.     
- Mana symbols seem slightly off. Now sure what it is but they look slightly out of place.
 
Thanks for the clarification.   Will be sure to share with the team.   


While we understand that not all players will like some of our changes (like the redzone), we not trying to make changes just for the sake of change.  Often those decsions are based on what players do in paper, or on trying to present specific information.  As we continue to iterate, your feedback is important, so please keep it coming.   



Then what was the reasoning behind center aligning all the cards? When in both previous clients, all the cards were left aligned and that worked well enough.  In the current client, the cards do not move at all in combat except for tapping and blockers are represented by translucent copy of the card and using arrows to clarify exactly which blocker.  This seemed to work well without a lot of confusion except perhaps when there were a lot of attackers/blockers.  You could have just fixed that issue by using your highlighting and greying out of other cards but kept it so cards didn't have to move and thus not needing a red zone or center aligning cards. By changing things so much you introduced other issues which you had to fix. Seems like change just for the sake of change to me.

Also, the added bonus of left aligned cards is that my eyes stay focused towards the left which is near where the life/card/graveyard totals are.  In the beta client, I have to shift my view from the center to look towards the left in order to see these.
I would be very interested in seeing images of what you are talking about.  When I look at cards in the Wide Beta, in most cases they look better than the v3 version (with the exception of foil cards, which we know are not there yet).
 


- The font on the cards is annoying. For some reason it just bothers me and seems harder to read.
- The colored border is now squared instead of rounded.
- The black border is larger. It could be the same width as v3 but v3's background was black so you really didn't see it. Either way this and the above points make the cards look cartoony. They look like digital cards which isn't something I felt in v2/v3.     
- Mana symbols seem slightly off. Now sure what it is but they look slightly out of place.
 


Yeah, this reiterates many of my above points.

I still find it funny that all of these are changes that make the cards more faithful to the paper version, but they somehow, in some combination, make the cards look weird.

My forever unfinished blog of the 2010 MTGO Community Cup: if you're ever bored...
I am also interested to know what about the binder view would improve your play experience to the point that without it you would quit playing.  We are aware that we need to provide a better browsing experience, but our experience is that more time is spent in duel scene and deck building than collection browsing.



I do all of my deck building from the collection binder. I would sort it how I want, flip through pages, see a card I want to use, switch to the deck builder and search for that one specific card, add it and go right back to the collection binder. Displaying 24 cards at a time was a lot easier to process mentally and flipping through pages was very fast. Even the jumbled tabs were not a problem as I got good at clicking the ones I wanted.

Using the deckbuilder now requires several scroll bars and lots more clicking to switch between sets.
I either sort less and scroll more or I have to change sort options constantly (from menus with their own scroll bars).
 
And then theres the times I would just look thru my collection binder for the hell of it. Just browse looking at things. I never just browse through the deck editor. It is just not the same. The collection binder felt like I was looking at MY cards as they were arranged just how I would arrange my paper cards. The deckbuilder feels like a mass of images. It just doesn't have the same connection. 
     

 



I have to agree with what Niabock says here about the binder. I like how v3 does it over the beta.
Some things dont need changing, but im sure there are reasons why wotc is changing them. 
Keep listening to feedback please, so far you have done well in listnening to it Wotc.   

Let Wotc know that Standard Pauper needs in game support! WoTc does listen! HERE

BETA BOARDS Moderator

Want to know about the next Magic Online Player Run Events? Then click the link and check it out!

Making MTGO a better place by BETA testing!

How to apply for beta

Community Cup Player 2011
 

I have a view on card fidelity. I prefer enhanced cards to fathfull rendition. I like the view with gatherer text and no flavour text. When I'm playing a deck with cards I know I only want to be able to recognise the card from the art. When I'm playing with cards I don't know, I want the information presented clearly, so no tiny text (e.g. chains of mephistopheles), in fact I'm happier with the hover-over popup for unfamiliar cards (I'd like to see that expanded with effective p/t, amount of damage, number of +1 tokens etc.). So I guess I don't want cards to look wrong, but I'm not so bothered if they're unlike paper cards.

Oh, just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that the best way to go was a faithful rendition.  I also like to be able to turn off the reminder text to cut down on clutter on the card.  So, my complaints weren't that it doesn't look exactly like the real version, just that it looks....wrong in some way.  So, it's good to have a comparison to the real cards, because I think it's a safe assumption to say that the IRL card is "right".  Not that there can't be some improvements (ala remove reminder text, etc), but most of the elements should be mimicked to make it look "right."

One funny thing is that v3 is using sans serif font, where the cards IRL use serif fonts....but the serif fonts in the beta make the cards look weird (to me), whereas the sans serif fonts in v3 look more "real".  It might be because the serif is a bit more pronounced in the beta than on IRL cards (because of scaling when zooming?).

Since they practically built the beta from the ground up, they probably tried to mimic the fonts on the real cards.  Looking back at some screenshots from when v3 was still in ITS beta...the fonts have always been sans serif...I kinda think they made a really good call with that one.



I did try to draw a Magic card once, and there are many fiddly bits you need to get just right. Font choice for the text box is obviously something that hasn't been properly considered yet. The title bar looks done properly, and it looks like the same font is used for the text box; which makes letter spacing all wrong. Also, the credit line is missing the brush symbol, and there is no copyright text. Which says to me that card rendering is still a work in progress; functional, but not yet all it could be.

Paper cards use (beautiful, Matrix family) serif fonts, but then, paper cards don't resize. Digital ones are sometimes shown at small sizes, and for small sizes, sans serif is much more readable. The v3 font is a good choice for the text box, probably better than trying the same one as on paper cards.

Go draft, young man, go draft!