|
2 years ago ::
Apr 15, 2010 - 2:03PM
#61
|
Date Joined:
May 28, 2003
|
So not as many events were firing because people were playing in too many events?
Yeah, it seems inconceivable that two events played in parallel by overlapping groups could take more time than 2 played sequentially (or by not overlapping groups), but that did indeed appear to be the case back then.
As evidenced by what?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Apr 15, 2010 - 2:16PM
#62
|
|
|
The policy is clear and consistent (if not well-advertised): any individual card can only be involved in one event at a time. When you join an event, the cards you enter with are locked until that event completes or is deleted. On rare occasion, if something goes wrong with an event, cards are held in that locked state until manually cleared (which isn't always possible) or until a downtime occurs. If this happens to you, contacting Customer Service is your best way to go.
How can a policy be clear if it is defined nowhere, and you have to figure it out yourself in the face of the progam telling you that you don't have enough tickets?
I'm not buying that this is in any way intended.
1) If it was intended, than there would be an error message that told you why you couldn't enter, not that you didn't have enough tix.
2) It makes no sense from a policy perspective. People are not going to buy 8 of a card just so they can play in two events. That's simply not going to happen, aside from incredibly rare cases. Basically, it's just going to decrease the amount people play.
3) They obviously dont' care about multi-queuing (nor should they), because it is allowed. If I want to multi-queue standard I'll just run U/W in one, and Jund in the other.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Apr 15, 2010 - 2:41PM
#63
|
|
|
*shrug* You can choose to believe whatever you wish. As far as the validator is concerned, you don't own the cards that are locked, so it believes you don't own the necessary objects for entry (specifically, your deck, not your tix) which explains the misleading error message. I'll mention that to the team, but I'm almost positive they know about it. Like any bug, it has to be prioritized and evaluated, and fixing it hasn't occured yet for some reason or another.
In the meantime, ORCs are well-equipped to answer questions about why you are receiving any particular error message.
Magic: The Gathering Rules Manager
Wizards of the Coast
Follow me @TabakRules
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Apr 15, 2010 - 2:48PM
#64
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2007
|
In the meantime, ORCs are well-equipped to answer questions about why you are receiving any particular error message.
this is awkward
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Apr 15, 2010 - 3:09PM
#65
|
|
|
Yeah maybe he meant to say ill equipped
I heard we're supposed to post in green if we don't like the new forums.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Apr 15, 2010 - 5:32PM
#66
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2008
|
ooh or you have the person who double queues a block DE at 7pm into a sealed PE at 9 pm into a std DE at 11 pm and they are never the last person finished. I think that makes wotc more money than if I dont play in the sealed or the 2 cons DE's like I did last night.
Anecdotal>make-believe land
Admittedly loses out to WOTC's actual numbers that only they know, but seriously make-believe land is the nutlow for arguments sir.
PEs almost always take the full time so yes, double queuing those is far less relevant then double queuing 8 mans. DEs fall in the middle depending on how many people are in them. I think we can agree double queuing 2 mans would just be obnoxious. As far as you not being the last match ever, that isn't relevant. Double queuing is so common that someone else who is worse at it probably took longer then you. Calling theoretical thinking, as apposed to empirical evidence, "nutlow" just shows how uneducated you are. Both are valid ways of learning about a situation.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Apr 16, 2010 - 8:29AM
#67
|
Date Joined:
Mar 18, 2007
|
ooh or you have the person who double queues a block DE at 7pm into a sealed PE at 9 pm into a std DE at 11 pm and they are never the last person finished. I think that makes wotc more money than if I dont play in the sealed or the 2 cons DE's like I did last night.
Anecdotal>make-believe land
Admittedly loses out to WOTC's actual numbers that only they know, but seriously make-believe land is the nutlow for arguments sir.
PEs almost always take the full time so yes, double queuing those is far less relevant then double queuing 8 mans. DEs fall in the middle depending on how many people are in them. I think we can agree double queuing 2 mans would just be obnoxious.
As far as you not being the last match ever, that isn't relevant. Double queuing is so common that someone else who is worse at it probably took longer then you.
Calling theoretical thinking, as apposed to empirical evidence, "nutlow" just shows how uneducated you are. Both are valid ways of learning about a situation.
Except you went worst case scenario to prove your point. He used actual events to prove his. I also double table(sometimes triple if I am extremely bored). I almost never finish late, in fact I usually finish faster when two tabling, because when single tabling I get bored waiting on my opponents 2 minute turn to figure out the wrong play.
Owner of TheCardNexus chain on mtgo.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Apr 16, 2010 - 10:02AM
#68
|
|
|
*shrug* You can choose to believe whatever you wish. As far as the validator is concerned, you don't own the cards that are locked, so it believes you don't own the necessary objects for entry (specifically, your deck, not your tix) which explains the misleading error message. I'll mention that to the team, but I'm almost positive they know about it. Like any bug, it has to be prioritized and evaluated, and fixing it hasn't occured yet for some reason or another.
In the meantime, ORCs are well-equipped to answer questions about why you are receiving any particular error message.
I see no rational basis for the policy. There are so many bugs that Wizards can't fix that I don't see any reason to believe that this one is any different. The ORCs are not well equipped to answer questions about anything. Pretty much the only advice they ever give is to log in and out. About all they're good for is giving the compensation link, which due to ridiculous bugs, has to be used a lot.
Anyway, I don't think double queuing has anything to do with slow rounds. I think bad players have to do with slow rounds. I have double and triple queued a lot, and in 4 years of MODO the only time I have ever timed out (aside from a horrendously laggy client that was not my fault), is when I played a Time Spiral block constructed deck where the only win condition was 2 Gaea's Blessings.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Apr 16, 2010 - 10:24AM
#69
|
|
|
I'll make you a deal I'll easily stop double-queuing the day where X-2=forced drop since they can't t8. At that point it would actualy be bad for me to timewise. Until that day, I'm definitely going to doublequeue. How is it not relevant that I'm not the last match. If I'm not the last match than my doublequeuing can not be wasting any time for the events. You on the other hand used trollnomics combined with worst-case scenario against best-case scenario to get lopsided numbers. Either use averages which you do not have or use best vs best or worst vs worst. I admitted that an anecdote isn't a good way to go at his, but in comparison to that it might as well be right.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Apr 16, 2010 - 10:38AM
#70
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2007
|
Calling theoretical thinking, as apposed to empirical evidence, "nutlow" just shows how uneducated you are.
hmm yes, these plebs have clearly never learned the value of theoretical thinking,
|
|
|
